|
|
Post by Let It🩸 on Mar 24, 2018 12:06:53 GMT -5
The last school shooting in the U.K. was 1996. Gun control was put in place and there have been 0 since. Not really sensationalising anything or fear mongering but ok  Not comparable. For one, the UK doesn’t have the equivalent to the Second Amendement. And secondly, there are 300,000,000 guns in circulation in the US - in per capita terms that is 1 gun for every US citizen (adult and child), how do you eliminate those guns? Criminals don’t abide by laws. The War on Drugs is a failure because it’s impossible to take drugs out of circulation and because those who want to do drugs will regardless of the legality. Same exact problem with guns. The cat is already out of the bag. Laws would have to be strict; mandatory prison time if caught with certain banned weapons, not probation. Hell, I think I'm still on probation, probation's for pussies... Don't worry, though, nothing's probably gonna change and you still might get shot. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by crisppacket on Mar 24, 2018 12:13:12 GMT -5
The last school shooting in the U.K. was 1996. Gun control was put in place and there have been 0 since. Not really sensationalising anything or fear mongering but ok Not comparable. For one, the UK doesn’t have the equivalent to the Second Amendement. And secondly, there are 300,000,000 guns in circulation in the US - in per capita terms that is 1 gun for every US citizen (adult and child), how do you eliminate those guns? Criminals don’t abide by laws. The War on Drugs is a failure because it’s impossible to take drugs out of circulation and because those who want to do drugs will regardless of the legality. Same exact problem with guns. The cat is already out of the bag. Idk man, I just think it's a shame kids are getting shot in schools and there doesn't seem to be any real action to prevent it. Other than arming teachers of course, that should help. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by playthehitsgetoff on Mar 24, 2018 13:11:29 GMT -5
What amazes me is that in the US, Kinder Chocolate Suprise eggs are banned but you can walk in a store and buy a friggin gun...
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2018 13:56:54 GMT -5
What amazes me is that in the US, Kinder Chocolate Suprise eggs are banned but you can walk in a store and buy a friggin gun... Oh stop it. Kinder is banned because the small toys are choking hazards. |
|
|
|
Post by playthehitsgetoff on Mar 24, 2018 14:02:59 GMT -5
What amazes me is that in the US, Kinder Chocolate Suprise eggs are banned but you can walk in a store and buy a friggin gun... Oh stop it. Kinder is banned because the small toys are choking hazards. If they banned guns in the US and replaced em with chocolate eggs..I know what option i'd be happier with... And you stop or gerrof.lol |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2018 14:41:01 GMT -5
And they do. That’s like saying: Citizens should be able to live their life without being victims of a terrorist attack. People should be able to go swimming without the fear of drowning. No matter how many trillions of dollars you put into homeland security, a terrorist attack will still occur. No matter how many lifeguards you have at a swimming pool, drownings will still happen. And no matter how many gun control measures you put in place, school shootings will still happen. But they happen so rarely that it is drastically insignificant. Stop sensationalizing such events - stop fucking fear mongering. The last school shooting in the U.K. was 1996. Gun control was put in place and there have been 0 since. Not really sensationalising anything or fear mongering but ok Every place where guns have been banned, homicide rates have gone up, this includes the UK. A ban on guns does not reduce the desire to take another persons life, it merely changes the methods employed. For example, last year, Leah Libresco at the Washington Post — hardly an organ of the NRA — concluded that gun control measures are of extremely limited value: “…my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence... I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths... By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.” What Libresco did conclude, was that a host of societal issues are driving much of what we hear about in terms of so-called gun violence. Mental illness, suicide, gang violence, and domestic violence are all important factors that drive gun violence. The problem, Libresco admits, is that simply prohibiting certain types of guns doesn't really address these issues. mises.org/wire/there-are-fewer-school-shootings-now-during-1990scrimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2018 14:50:25 GMT -5
Get off the bandwagon, put down the handbook.
|
|
|
|
Post by crisppacket on Mar 24, 2018 15:09:25 GMT -5
The last school shooting in the U.K. was 1996. Gun control was put in place and there have been 0 since. Not really sensationalising anything or fear mongering but ok Every place where guns have been banned, homicide rates have gone up, this includes the UK. A ban on guns does not reduce the desire to take another persons life, it merely changes the methods employed. For example, last year, Leah Libresco at the Washington Post — hardly an organ of the NRA — concluded that gun control measures are of extremely limited value: “…my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence... I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths... By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.” What Libresco did conclude, was that a host of societal issues are driving much of what we hear about in terms of so-called gun violence. Mental illness, suicide, gang violence, and domestic violence are all important factors that drive gun violence. The problem, Libresco admits, is that simply prohibiting certain types of guns doesn't really address these issues. mises.org/wire/there-are-fewer-school-shootings-now-during-1990scrimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/I am aware that banning guns won't make murder disappear, but thanks. I'm just glad that when I was at school, the worst thing that could've happened was that I failed an exam tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2018 15:13:01 GMT -5
Also, the students aren't leaders but rather indoctrinated children being used as props to support the liberal agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by Let It🩸 on Mar 24, 2018 15:26:23 GMT -5
Also, the students aren't leaders but rather indoctrinated children being used as props to support the liberal agenda  |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2018 15:28:59 GMT -5
When George W. Bush intervened in Iraq, the left held massive protests, but did nothing when Obama intervened in Syria and Libya.
When a school shooting happened under Trump, the left held massive protests but did nothing when Sandy Hook happened under Obama.
Sounds about right. The left sure do love a good protest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Let It🩸 on Mar 24, 2018 16:11:35 GMT -5
When George W. Bush intervened in Iraq, the left held massive protests, but did nothing when Obama intervened in Syria and Libya. When a school shooting happened under Trump, the left held massive protests but did nothing when Sandy Hook happened under Obama. Sounds about right. The left sure do love a good protest. You're never gonna get laid with your current ideology, unless you're looking for some one like Tomí Lahren, who is in fact smoking hot but also a complete idiot.... Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on Mar 24, 2018 16:33:28 GMT -5
Let's put the school shootings(or any other kind of mass shooting) aside for a second, and let me instead present the following scenario: A mentally unstable man purchases a gun, and keeps it at his house. He doesn't intend to kill anyone with it. But one night he gets into a fight with his wife(not the first time), on top of that he's drunk(also not the first time), and in an act of rage he goes to get his gun, maybe just to intimidate her, but whatever his intention was she ends up getting shot in the head. Perhaps because of his drunkenness, perhaps because of his mental instability.
Do you think gun control still wouldn't have made a difference in this case?
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2018 17:42:54 GMT -5
Let's put the school shootings(or any other kind of mass shooting) aside for a second, and let me instead present the following scenario: A mentally unstable man purchases a gun, and keeps it at his house. He doesn't intend to kill anyone with it. But one night he gets into a fight with his wife(not the first time), on top of that he's drunk(also not the first time), and in an act of rage he goes to get his gun, maybe just to intimidate her, but whatever his intention was she ends up getting shot in the head. Perhaps because of his drunkenness, perhaps because of his mental instability. Do you think gun control still wouldn't have made a difference in this case? Gun deaths There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death: • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws. • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified. • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence. • 3% are accidental discharge deaths. So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation. • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years) So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths. Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals. But what about other deaths each year? • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT! • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths. • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide). Now it gets good: • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital! • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple: Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed." |
|
|
|
Post by Let It🩸 on Mar 24, 2018 18:22:40 GMT -5
Let's put the school shootings(or any other kind of mass shooting) aside for a second, and let me instead present the following scenario: A mentally unstable man purchases a gun, and keeps it at his house. He doesn't intend to kill anyone with it. But one night he gets into a fight with his wife(not the first time), on top of that he's drunk(also not the first time), and in an act of rage he goes to get his gun, maybe just to intimidate her, but whatever his intention was she ends up getting shot in the head. Perhaps because of his drunkenness, perhaps because of his mental instability. Do you think gun control still wouldn't have made a difference in this case? Gun deaths There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.0000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death: • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws. • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified. • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence. • 3% are accidental discharge deaths. So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation. • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years) So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths. Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals. But what about other deaths each year? • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT! • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths. • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide). Now it gets good: • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital! • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple: Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."It's crazy to think that you're British and are all in on the Republican ideology... I'd also be willing to bet that you don't even own a gun, nor have any intention to. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2018 18:24:28 GMT -5
But it was worse when we turned to the kids on the left and got let down again by some poor excuse for protest. Yeah by idiot fucking hippies in 50 different factions who are locked inside some kind of 60's battle re-enactment. And I hung up my banner in disgust and I head for the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 24, 2018 18:39:39 GMT -5
If sensible gun law only reduced gun related deaths by 10% that'd save around 3600 people a year.
No one has ever given a decent defense of why that can't be the case.
Additionally, anyone attacking children for protesting has something fucked in their head. Like, seriously.
Mind you, remember when college students protesting the Vietnam war were vilified by Vietnam supporters as THOUSANDS of children who were only indoctrinated by a radical left, as paid actors?
Yep. Sounded dumb then, still sounds dumb now.
Maybe the proper course of action, instead of vilifying children, is actually questioning (as adults) our role in causing children who typically aren't remotely politically active, to feel a need to protest gun laws?
But no. That wouldn't happen. Then we'd have to admit some moral obligation instead of pushing the blame on ideology. Then we'd actually have to change something. Then we'd have to admit that an amendment written when there were single fire muskets may not encompass our everyday lives today. Then we'd have to be aware that people aren't asking to take away ALL guns, but to at least have a debate about what "sensible" gun laws could look like.
But no, that won't happen. Because blaming kids and narratives is easier than admitting that YOU and WE might have to make hard decisions about what we do with our toys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2018 18:54:12 GMT -5
If sensible gun law only reduced gun related deaths by 10% that'd save around 3600 people a year. No one has ever given a decent defense of why that can't be the case. Additionally, anyone attacking children for protesting has something fucked in their head. Like, seriously. Mind you, remember when college students protesting the Vietnam war were vilified by Vietnam supporters as THOUSANDS of children who were only indoctrinated by a radical left, as paid actors? Yep. Sounded dumb then, still sounds dumb now. Maybe the proper course of action, instead of vilifying children, is actually questioning (as adults) our role in causing children who typically aren't remotely politically active, to feel a need to protest gun laws? But no. That wouldn't happen. Then we'd have to admit some moral obligation instead of pushing the blame on ideology. Then we'd actually have to change something. Then we'd have to admit that an amendment written when there were single fire muskets may not encompass our everyday lives today. Then we'd have to be aware that people aren't asking to take away ALL guns, but to at least have a debate about what "sensible" gun laws could look like. But no, that won't happen. Because blaming kids and narratives is easier than admitting that YOU and WE might have to make hard decisions about what we do with our toys. Children cannot enact policies. There is a reason why the voting age is at 18. Majority of those children are not educated on the issues and are acting out of emotion and/or out of being told what to do by their superiors (teachers, parents). The whole 'event' was politicized. It's sad how used and exploited these children are. I didn't see the same outrage from the same sect when Sandy Hook happened under Obama. Pathetic. Several hundred thousand held a futile protest today. I wonder how many of them understand the Constitution and how the government of the United States works. More importantly, I wonder how many attendees consumed Tide Pods over the last week. Snowflakes melt. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 24, 2018 18:56:18 GMT -5
If sensible gun law only reduced gun related deaths by 10% that'd save around 3600 people a year. No one has ever given a decent defense of why that can't be the case. Additionally, anyone attacking children for protesting has something fucked in their head. Like, seriously. Mind you, remember when college students protesting the Vietnam war were vilified by Vietnam supporters as THOUSANDS of children who were only indoctrinated by a radical left, as paid actors? Yep. Sounded dumb then, still sounds dumb now. Maybe the proper course of action, instead of vilifying children, is actually questioning (as adults) our role in causing children who typically aren't remotely politically active, to feel a need to protest gun laws? But no. That wouldn't happen. Then we'd have to admit some moral obligation instead of pushing the blame on ideology. Then we'd actually have to change something. Then we'd have to admit that an amendment written when there were single fire muskets may not encompass our everyday lives today. Then we'd have to be aware that people aren't asking to take away ALL guns, but to at least have a debate about what "sensible" gun laws could look like. But no, that won't happen. Because blaming kids and narratives is easier than admitting that YOU and WE might have to make hard decisions about what we do with our toys. Children cannot enact policies. There is a reason why the voting age is at 18. Majority of those children are not educated on the issues and are acting out of emotion and/or out of being told what to do by their superiors (teachers, parents). Several hundred thousand held a futile protest today. I wonder how many of them understand the Constitution and how the government of the United States works. More importantly, I wonder how many attendees consumed Tide Pods over the last week. Snowflakes melt. Hahahaha, lmao. Remember when people said the exact same thing during the Vietnam War? Yea, fun times. But of course, go ahead and ignore that. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 24, 2018 18:58:58 GMT -5
It amazes me that the same people who complain about having their political voice deligimatized are the same people doing it to others.
Not surprised.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 24, 2018 19:01:04 GMT -5
Hey, remember the Civil Right movement?
That was made up of a bunch of kids too right?
Yea, they were too young to understand the Constitution didn't give them the same freedoms as everyone else. Am I right?
They were solely driven by emotion too, right? You know, after the Church bombing? They didn't understand that the government didnt give a about them. Did they?
But you know, racism wasn't the problem. Mental health was, right?
It's amazing how many facile arguments fall apart when blunted by the truth of history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2018 19:04:53 GMT -5
Hey, remember the Civil Right movement? That was made up of a bunch of kids too right? Yea, they were too young to understand the Constitution didn't give them the same freedoms as everyone else. Am I right? They were solely drive by emotion too, right? As Frank Turner said: But it was worse when we turned to the kids on the left and got let down again by some poor excuse for protest. Yeah by idiot fucking hippies in 50 different factions who are locked inside some kind of 60's battle re-enactment. And I hung up my banner in disgust and I head for the door.The Iraq War protests under George W. Bush. But the left went silent when Obama continued Bush's PATRIOT ACT policies and got involved in Libya and Syria. The Occupy Wall Street 'movement' against the 1%. LOL pathetic entitled kids. The "Rally to Restore Sanity" of 2010. What a fucking bunch of jokers! (pun semi-intended) Last years “Woman’s March”, it’s just ridiculous after awhile Where were all these people after Sandy Hook occurred under Obama? What happened to not politicizing school shootings? Today was one giant liberal orgy. The left loves a good protest. Always have. Always will. Imagine if the right held a massive protest to this extent about anti-abortion. Or, god forbid, the NRA sponsoring a pro-second amendment rally. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2018 19:29:28 GMT -5
I got talking about politics yesterday with one of the therapists here.
She did not believe that people should be able to think or convey their personal belief that the Holocaust did not happen.
As atrocious, misguided, wrong, and offensive Holocaust deniers are, I told her, they still have the right to have that opinion. That is what makes the United States great. I continued to inform her that in the UK and the rest of Europe you don't have such freedoms - it is not uncommon in England to be prosecuted due to a politically-incorrect Twitter post. She couldn't wrap her head around why I believe people have the right to their own beliefs, no matter how twisted they may be. She encapsulates everything that is wrong with liberals and the snowflake, safe-space generation.
There's a very fine line between censoring the public on certain issues and turning it into a police state reminiscent of China, Russia, and other oppressive regimes in history. I'd rather not be anywhere near that proverbial line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 25, 2018 3:30:58 GMT -5
If a civil war breaks out over the second amendment what weapons does the anti-gun brigade fight with?
Salient question.
|
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on Mar 25, 2018 3:56:37 GMT -5
Let's put the school shootings(or any other kind of mass shooting) aside for a second, and let me instead present the following scenario: A mentally unstable man purchases a gun, and keeps it at his house. He doesn't intend to kill anyone with it. But one night he gets into a fight with his wife(not the first time), on top of that he's drunk(also not the first time), and in an act of rage he goes to get his gun, maybe just to intimidate her, but whatever his intention was she ends up getting shot in the head. Perhaps because of his drunkenness, perhaps because of his mental instability. Do you think gun control still wouldn't have made a difference in this case? Gun deaths There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.0000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death: • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws. • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified. • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence. • 3% are accidental discharge deaths. So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation. • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years) So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths. Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals. But what about other deaths each year? • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT! • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths. • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide). Now it gets good: • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital! • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple: Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."But do you really not think the number of domestic shootings would go down with increased gun control? And no matter how small that number is(percentage wise), don't they still deserve to be protected? Btw, I actually didn't think you liked guns that much. Your argument against gun control was that there are too many guns around, and that because of that, gun control wouldn't change anything since the shooters would get their guns illegally instead. And when you said that, I sensed that you thought it was a shame that there were so many guns around in the first place, but that it was something that couldn't be reversed. Now I understand that you have no problems with the fact that there are so many guns round. But as long as you don't get shot, right? |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5