Falls involving bed, chair or other furniture, Odds of dying: 1 in 4,238. Yes, this is speaking about falling indoors those are your chances of dying. I only put this in here because I wanted to add some perspective on how much more of a chance someone has of dying from just being in their own home.
The odds of being murdered using a firearm in the US in a given year are about 30,000 to 1. If you aren't engaged in some sort of criminal enterprise, and don't live in a violent domestic situation, your odds are much, much lower, around 150,000 to one.
One would also need to separate out lawful defensive gun uses where someone legally killed someone in self defense, when that is taken out the number of 30,000 to 1 and 150,000 to 1 goes way higher. Then half of gun deaths are suicides, so one would need to remove those stats as well, because the context we are mainly talking about is innocent people being killed by guns.
Certainly mentally ill people should not be allowed to have guns, I agree with you there.
It is actually illegal to have a poll tax or a poll test, they used to do that for poor looking people and mostly African Americans. Had to pass a test in order to vote or they turn you away, or how about they can't turn you away from voting because you don't have ID either(a central argument in why voter ID shouldn't be required is because it costs money/time to go and get an ID). So having these things placed on guns is illegal.
The Bill Clinton administration's study showed that guns were used defensively 1.5million times per year legally, and 200,000 of those times it was a woman protecting herself from sexual abuse(per year). In general, women make less money than men, so requiring extra taxes on guns/taking classes/all this other stuff you mention above would lead to an increase in rape/sexual abuse on women.
I encourage you to do extensive research on this topic. Maybe you didn't know some of these stats, but guns are used 70x to 80x the rate for good then they are for bad.
If you wanted to peruse some posts I recently made, that's where I am drawing those figures from.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Those statistics are misleading. They almost certainly don't include police shootings. But, also, poverty...if you live in poverty, in a poor neighborhood in the city, you're far more likely to be the victim of armed robbery or to be hit by a stray bullet. Criminals can easily acquire guns because there are no registration requirements. And a small tax on firearms sales isn't going to prohibit people from buying guns any more than the gas tax has caused Americans to stop driving cars.
The operation of a firearm is not analogous to voting. A poll tax prohibited voting, but a sales tax doesn't prohibit purchasing. Suppose that a person buys a $250 hand gun. The tax would only be $15. If a person could not afford such a tax, then it would also be the case that they could not have afforded the gun without the tax: the market would have prohibited them from getting the gun in the first place. The tax would only create a disincentive to stockpiling weapons, as the tax rate would increase after the purchase of so many guns. The poll tax is different, because a person has a right to vote regardless of whether or not they have money. You don't have an inherent right to own a gun. You have a right to self-defense, and a right to property, and a right to use your property for self-defense; and the right to bear arms extends from that. If you cannot afford a gun and cannot convince someone to give you one for free, then you have no right to gun-ownership abstracted from ability to acquire a gun on the market.
The statistics I gave are your overall chances of dying from being shot by a gun, I said you need to take out a lot of things to get to the actual number. And by the way, justified police shootings in self defense are the super majority percentage wise, it is the minority that isn't. You get what you pay for, police officers don't make that much and its like a 6 month training course to be one. It should be more trianing than that and it should pay more as to attract more tempermental/calm/reasonable/good under pressure people to the job.
You are arguing against something else though. Right to own firearms is the same thing as the practical cost of owning them. Most people don't have any money in their savings account, as you noted above poor people have a higher chance of needing a gun to defend themselves, therefore it is extremely illogical to put a tax on it as poor people represent the largest group in America it would be a net negative on the macro scale. Which is why Imentioned the poll tax and how they made it illegal, because poor people literally couldn't pay the 5 or 10 bucks to vote, that is how poor they are. I went to a public high school and elementary school and there were many people soo poor they had to come in for free breakfast in the morning, free lunch, and they didn't have anything to eat for dinner when they went home. They don't have 10 dollars for a gun, they don't have 1 dollar to ride the bus to school to get the free food so they get free bus passes, they don't have 1 dollar to live in an apartment so they live in ghettos the govt pays for, they don't have 1 dollar to buy food from the grocery store so they need the govt to give them Food Stamps/WIC/Snap, they don't have 1 dollar for electricity so they get free electricy by govt paying their bills. They don't have anything and those are the most infested crime ridden neighborhoods. I am straight up telling you as someone who has seen it all around me + multiple friends who were in that situation.
There are a lot of factors you are not taking into account that need to be, and that is ok that maybe you didn't live through an exepreince like that.
I get 40% more likes than you for my comments and therefore I write better. Also, the fact that I'm a better writer makes me 23% a better lover because there is definitely causality between the two.
A friend of mine has attended a school in West Virginia and he isn't as great of a writer as I am, so his school teachers and himself are worse lovers than I am.
In conclusion, it is I who should take the blame for being a greater writer and lover and I am by no means the product of the society which educated me.
Since I am not sure what exactly you are saying, I won't respond to it. Sarcasm and humour does not translate well over the internet.
The reason I wrote my comments is because I am using data/context/facts/logic to talk about the real world.
In a vacuum doing the things the poster said makes sense, in reality it doesn't.
The facts are 310,000+ sexual abuses happen to men and women each year, and each year 200,000 women prevent that from happening, while only 1/3 of all americans own guns(about 70million). Guns are used for good/legally 70x to 80x the rate(47x going by Bill Clinton Administration's study) than for bad/illegal purposes.
Poll tax is illegal because people don't have money to pay to vote and it discriminates against poor people, while more minorities are generally poor. Therefore, by putting more taxes on guns, you are directly making it harder for poor people to defend themselves. As we have already established that guns are in the super majority used for good, and that poor people shouldn't be penalized to pay a poll tax(or extra gun tax as the poster implies).
If the facts were the reverse, and showd that guns are used 70x to 80x for bad more than good, I would be aligned with banning guns.
I am aligned to the truth only, doesn't matter what party or who advocates it. The truth is the truth.
You're not concerned about the truth. You have a conservative agenda and are citing statistics that support your position, while ignoring the research and statistics that contradict your position.
“The US makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters.”
“The US also has by far the highest number of privately owned guns in the world. Estimated in 2007, the number of civilian-owned firearms in the US was 88.8 guns per 100 people, meaning there was almost one privately owned gun per American and more than one per American adult.”
“In 1996, a 28-year-old man walked into a cafe in Port Arthur, Australia, ate lunch, pulled a semiautomatic rifle out of his bag, and opened fire on the crowd, killing 35 people and wounding 23 more. It was the worst mass shooting in Australia’s history.
Australian lawmakers responded with legislation that, among other provisions, banned certain types of firearms, such as automatic and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The Australian government confiscated 650,000 of these guns through a gun buyback program, in which it purchased firearms from gun owners. It established a registry of all guns owned in the country and required a permit for all new firearm purchases. (This is much further than bills typically proposed in the US, which almost never make a serious attempt to immediately reduce the number of guns in the country.)
Australia’s firearm homicide rate dropped by about 42 percent in the seven years after the law passed, and its firearm suicide rate fell by 57 percent…”
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the [Australia gun control law], resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”
“One study of the program, by Australian researchers, found that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides and a 74 percent drop in gun suicides.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/2/21/17028930/gun-violence-us-statistics-charts
“The US makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters.”
That is convenient wording that allows you to ignore per-capita statistics of mass shooting showing the USA is not #1 in mass shootings by far.
By comparing global population to US population rather than a statistically accurate per-capita analysis compared by country you create an illusion of extremes while ignoring genuine statistical analysis.
The fact you think this is an argument shows you don't give statistics too much credence yourself.
OK, lay out your counter-argument and cite your statistics with sources. Otherwise, your opinion is just hearsay.
I stated my counter argument. As far as sources, I refer to basic math. My statements are factual, not opinion. Why don't you try actually supporting your original assertion rather than just sprinkling your words with pedantic language to attempt to appear knowledgeable.
In the USA there were roughly 185 million firearms in 1993, with the homicide rate being 7 out of every 100,000.
In 2013 the number was 357 million firearms and the homicide rate dropped to 3.6 out of every 100,000.
We all need to learn what the truth is in this world for us to get along. The corporate elites and leftists and rightists don't want the average every day person to reach across the aisle and be friendly.
I don't have a label.