How can we regulate guns ... ?

Also, increasing the number of gun laws will increase the number of gun crimes.
e.g.
If you made frisbees illegal, the number of frizbee crimes would increase dramatically.

quote:

---

Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled...

---

...to 2.

Thank you for your support for gun legislation.

Do you oppose an increase in gun legislation?
Do you support a decrease in gun legislation? 7% of premature deaths in the US are caused by guns.
30,000 deaths and 75,000 injuries per year caused by guns - over one hundred thousand people hurt by guns each year.But if you do not consider guns to be a problem, then so be it.

Why reply if you have nothing to say?

You should have said it, then.

No you didn't.

If you read the original article, it is not quite how Faux News portray it.But that should not be a surprise to anyone.

Let's compare guns to knives then:
Gunshot wounds result in a higher mortality rate than knife wounds.
Gunshot wounds can be made at a faster rate than knife wounds.
Gunshot wounds can be made at a larger range of distances than knife wounds.Therefore guns are more efficient at killing people than knives.Do you know of a weapon more efficient than guns?
(Obviously weapons like nuclear bombs are more efficient than guns, but I don't see anyone in this thread advocating their use.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Are guns unable to be reloaded? Sure - here are the characteristics and their ratios:
Gunshot wounds result in a higher mortality rate than knife wounds.
Gunshot wounds can be made at a faster rate than knife wounds.
Gunshot wounds can be made at a larger range of distances than knife wounds.
{abe} We are comparing guns to knives, so I am taking your request for me to "distinguish two firearms" as a typo.Try this:
Efficiency - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Efficiency in general describes the extent to which time, effort or cost is well used for the intended task or purpose. It is often used with the specific purpose of relaying the capability of a specific application of effort to produce a specific outcome effectively with a minimum amount or quantity of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.

---

The capability of killing people is greater with guns than knives.
Guns are more efficient than knives at killing people.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

No.
Are guns unable to be reloaded? Yes they are.
One is greater than the other. Well....that is what the discussion was about.Straggler listed different weapons:
"Well if I wanted to walk into a school and massacre a large number of people and I had the following choice of weapons which of the following would I be best served arming myself with in order to achieve my stated aim"
You asked for clarification on how those weapons are judged more (or less) efficient:
"I asked you to define your term "kill efficiency." ... I'm just wondering what the terms of your ratio are."
I selected 2 weapons to compare and listed how their efficiency was judged:
"Let's compare guns to knives then"
And you addressed that comparison:
"Guns can only be fired a limited number of times before becoming completely ineffective; a knife can do harm indefinitely."I am unsure how you got lost in such a short number of messages. Ok...The capability of killing people per a minimum amount of unnecessary effort is greater with guns than knives. What he said was synonymous to "more dangerous than a knife".Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Yes it is:
Ratio - definition of ratio by The Free Dictionary

quote:

---

1. Relation in degree or number between two similar things.

---

And that is you ducking out of a losing position. That is ok by me.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation...

---

Does everyone here agree that the gun show loop hole should be 'closed'?
And should that 'closure' extend to all private sales of guns?
(This has been done is several states, but for it to be effective it would need to be done nationally.)Perhaps a system could be set up where a prospective gun purchaser could request a 'licence' (from the government) showing that they have passed a background check?
(This would be like the NICS but the 'burden of proof' is shifted from the vendor to the purchaser.)
This would remove the '3 day wait' which the current system requires (which makes buying a gun at a gun show impractical.Continuing on from the ATF analysis:

quote:

---

...Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations.

---

Should straw purchasing guns also be made illegal?
(Again, this has already been done is several states.)I see nothing in my suggestions that prevents the legal ownership of guns by legally permitted citizens - but maybe I have missed something.

But what is their reasoning?The only reasons I could find on the web were:
a) It is traditional - which is a fallacious argument.
b) It interferes with business - which is why I suggested allowing people to apply for their own background check.

So, if they had a licence (which entailed a background check) to purchase guns then their requirements would be met?
They could just wander to any gun seller, show their licence, and buy a gun.As RAZD pointed out: "You need a valid drivers license to rent a vehicle" - but people have no trouble renting cars on demand.

I am not understanding how putting the responsibility of performing a background check on the buyer is a breach of their constitutional rights.
I am not even suggesting (as RAZD is above) that training is required to get this certificate ( - although it does sound like a good idea).Currently, gun sellers are required to 'background check' gun buyers before they sell the guns (with the exception of gun shows and private sales) - but this doesn't appear to be in breach of any constitutional rights.And certain members of society (e.g. criminals/the mentally ill) are not permitted to own guns - and that is not considered a breach of their constitution rights either.Or are you saying that the reason that the government can insist on background checks in certain instances is because there are alternative options which don't require background checks?
Then is there any point to a background check if all criminals have to do is go to a gun show to circumvent the system?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.