What I'm getting at is these types of stats look only at gun use in the crime. But there is much more nuance, the area, income, demographics, drug use, other violent crime in the area not related to a gun. When everything is combined I think guns have far less of a responsibility in the crime stats. For example, there are places in Britain that have higher violent crime rates than parts of America despite much stricter gun laws. When looking at the gun piece of it, it is an interesting data point, but I think by itself it is mostly irrelevant. But as I've said, I think we both agree that having a lot of guns and relative ease of access to them does make it easier to kill or have accidents, and very likely does add to the death totals. But as I've spent more time than I really want to, I've explained why I think it doesn't matter when compared to other rights and freedoms that do far more harm and are less restricted and not a political hot button item if even discussed at all.
This is more to the crux of the debate, right? Of course the risk is multifactorial, there are few truly unidimensional aspects to life. This is where it comes down to societal risk vs societal benefit. These discussions constantly devolve into granular stats and arguments over the numbers generally with regard to risk (injuries, death, etc.); but what about a thorough discussion of the societal benefit? Is the societal benefit greater than the societal risk at the current point in time of gun ubiquity and level of regulation? Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the context of life for an American now is dramatically different than that of an American when the second amendment was ratified. Is that not, alone, enough to spark significant re-evaluation? Is "because I can own one" a societal benefit? If so, how much of one? How much should it matter, if it should? A rationale argument would be to decide what the appropriate risk/benefit ratio is, then decide how we get there (whether by reducing risk or increasing benefit). Obviously that's a fantasy, right? My argument is that, on the level of "America" our R/B ratio is off, and far too risk heavy. I think the data supports that argument. Because of my wanting what's best for our society, I am willing to give up some of my personal freedom for societal benefit by way of re-evaluating the second amendment.
You tell me, you dismissed skateboard / bicycle deaths. They were seemingly not significant enough for you.
To be fair, you brought it up, so I'm not sure why I should defend the point? Again, this is getting lost in granularity. It is inappropriate to compare deaths from guns to death from skateboards. A better comparison is risk/benefit from guns to risk/benefit from skateboards. At least then you're having a more informed discussion and better comparing apples to apples.
And the biggest school massacre in our history (Bath School Massacre) was done with mostly explosives when guns were even less restricted than today. People who want to do evil will do evil.
Is it reasonable to compare 1927 America with 2017 America? Is firearm technology the same, is culture the same, is the prevalence of firearms the same, etc. etc.? It's a bit of an odd comparison to make ... Although I do certainly agree with your last point there, they certainly will, and I'd like to curtail their ability to do so in degree.
No, I won't "get off this train" and feel it is well based. I look at things in a rights vs. cost to society measure, I feel that is logical and fair.
I think "right" vs "cost" is a bit of an odd comparison, but okay. Well, tobacco isn't a right, so can we stop there? It's a completely different discussion based on your initial premise. Comparing firearms to tobacco just doesn't make sense. A firearm is designed to be a weapon, a cigarette is not (despite how much damage it does). There is also a total discrepancy in degree when comparing the two in this type of discussion; I can talk about firearm ownership from single shot black powder muskets to fully automatic assault rifles - there is absolutely no analogous range to "tobacco use." So talking about curtailing one vs the other has entirely different application.
But I just cannot agree with further restricting this right when I compare guns to other freedoms that harm us more than guns and are less restricted.
Do you consider taxes restriction? Would a state gun tax be acceptable? Not that I'm suggesting it, or arguing validity, just curious.
Ok, easy. No one cares about tobacco and no one is really doing anything on or near the scale that they are attacking guns, and tobacco kills well over a magnitude more in absolute numbers, and kills far more innocent victims. I can find lots of quotes about guns from the past election, how many anti-tobacco platforms can you find for me? How many voters were really stirred from a politician's stance on restricting tobacco? How about their stance on the 2A? To try and compare the two as even in the same ball park as far as their relevance in the election or the effort put into restricting them respectively is laughable.
We've already been over this. Did you read the 400 some odd pages? There has been historically, and continues to be currently, a massive assault on tobacco use. It is ALREADY HAPPENING, so it does not need to be yelled from the pulpit (or YouTube). We as a society already agreed that tobacco is bad, and are taking steps to curtail it. We in the process of having that argument about firearms so of course they aren't happening concurrently. Your point would make some sense if we ignore everything in the Surgeon General's report.
