Let’s talk reasonable

Reasonable– the Free Dictionary defines it as:

1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

So, let’s again look at what is reasonable in gun control laws.Keep in mind, gun control advocates/banners don’t want people thinking about the fact that most of the activities involved are already a crime.

Want you to think about that for a moment – The pro-ignorance, anti-freedom crowd wants something done about murders committed with firearms, aggravated assaulted committed with firearms, robberies committed with firearms – when those very actions are already criminal offenses.

Second, most violent crimes (murder excepted) do not involve a firearm. In Aggravated Assaults (which makes up the 60.4%of violent crimes  834,885 out of 1,382,012) firearms are used in only 21.4% of those crimes.

Out of 834,885 aggravated assaults; firearms wereused in 178,665.
The FBI reports the population as 263,379,547 for 2008.

Even if we assume every aggravated assault is done by a different person only 0.0678% of the adult population used a firearm to commit that crime.

Is it reasonable to impose new, greater, more restrictive laws on the nation for the actions of 0.0678% of the people?

Firearms were used in 161,283 robberies in 2008 – same assumption means that firearms were used by 0.0612% of the adult population.

Is it reasonable to impose new, greater, more restrictive laws on the nation for the actions of 0.0612% of the people?

Even where firearms are used the most, murders, how reasonable is it to impose ever restrictive rights because 14,180 people used firearms to commit murder?  That is 0.0053% of the adults in America.

Is it reasonable to impose new, greater, more restrictive laws on the nation for the actions of 0.0053% of the people?

So once again, I’ll ask gun control advocates — why is it reasonable to impose the laws you propose for the actions of less then 0.1% of the population?

Even if you add up all the firearm related violent crime – it is still less then 0.2% of the population.

Please, please gun control advocates – join the discussion. Every one else, feel free to chime in also – some of us want to talk about the facts and the issue.

4 Responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Weer'd Beard on 23.12.09 at 04:15

    “Please, please gun control advocates – join the discussion.”

    That breathing sound is me not holding my breath.

    Also: “The pro-ignorance, anti-freedom crowd wants something done about murders committed with firearms, aggravated assaulted committed with firearms, robberies committed with firearms”

    I gotta call false! If this is what they truly cared about why do they do all they can to stifle people protecting themselves from such violent acts? Why do they do what they can do to “Hide the Decline” of violent crime, while lawful sales of firearms skyrocket?

    Why do they all they can do to denigrate people who are 100% lawful…but happen to own guns?

    Nope, they hate guns and personal freedom. The idea that they want violence to be stopped is just a carrot at the end of a stick, much like Lenin’s call for a “Worker’s Paradise”…but created a government where the common man lived in the 3rd world, and the governing bodies lived like kings.

    They care NOTHING about violence, as a matter of fact they PREFER it, as violence is how they push their agenda.

  2. Posted by Bob S. on 23.12.09 at 04:15

    Weer’d,

    I’ll stand by my statement. The antis want something done – just what they want done doesn’t address the crimes of murder, robbery or assault, just the tool.

    The antis want something done — just nothing that will effectively reduce the crime rate – just firearm ownership rate.

    They care NOTHING about violence, as a matter of fact they PREFER it, as violence is how they push their agenda.

    I agree, notice how I said they wanted something done about XXXX done with a firearm?

    You are right, they are doing all they can to stifle people from protecting themselves from criminals.

  3. Posted by Sarah on 23.12.09 at 04:15

    Hey, guys, it’s extremely reasonable to affect 99+ percent of the population when the extreme minority do rotten things.

    Let’s see…we have arsonists, so my Bic lighters should be much more difficult to buy. I’d go for a waiting period, which wouldn’t tick me off in the least if my only Bic died and I tried to stop at a gas station in order to get a new one so that I could smoke. Nope – that wouldn’t enrage me in the least because I understand that this is for the children!

    Oh, and hackers use computers. Oh, sure, the majority of computer users can barely figure out that the optical drive’s tray is NOT, in fact, a cup holder, but those few hackers are really scary. I’m all for a three-day waiting period and background check, along with registration requirements, whenever I buy a new computer. And no more building my own, because only bad people who don’t want to be caught would ever dream of doing such a thing.

    Let’s see…oh, yeah, books are pretty darned dangerous. Didn’t Hitler write a book? (First in the comments with Godwin’s Law! I win!) Oh, man, that’s terrible. We should think of the children and come up with ways to make literature safer.

    I’d get into all the restrictions on driving and vehicle ownership that I’d support, but I doubt that there’s room for the entire comment if I do that.

    /sarcasm

  4. Posted by Thomas on 23.12.09 at 04:15

    Didja see the Fark “headline” the other day, re: a Sacremento Costco?

    “Boy gets trapped in gun safe at Costco. Parents required to undergo background checks, licensing, and wait 7 days before retrieving him.”