Guns,guns, and more Guns

[D_W]

No that is untrue.

what I am saying is there is a black and white starting point to the gun debate:

If America had no guns, there wouldn't be 15,000 gun deaths a year

Unless that fact can be accepted as the starting position, there can be no honest debate.

What would there be - 3000?

Game control would then occur by what means? Wasting diseases for wildlife?

There would be about 40-60k fewer deaths a year if alcohol were illegal. I'm still waiting for proof that alcohol is needed rather than preferred to be available.

I don't agree with the fascination that one unintended death is more important than another unintended death across the board. It's fanatical and stupid.

 

[D_W]

No that is untrue.

what I am saying is there is a black and white starting point to the gun debate:

If America had no guns, there wouldn't be 15,000 gun deaths a year

Unless that fact can be accepted as the starting position, there can be no honest debate.

I have a question for you - I don't think you're interested in honest debate. I think you're more interested in persuasive speech to try to get parity of opinion. I'm not really big on that, not because I don't think parity of opinion is OK (it's perfectly fine when it actually occurs). I think badgering someone to get them to have the same opinion as you do even when the facts are known is kind of obnoxious.

I don't really know why you have such a big fascination about something that occurs less near you than it does literally less than 10 miles from me. But you're welcome to your opinion, and you're certainly welcome to your opinion about what the US should do. You're not welcome to dictate what my opinion or choice is, nor will I receive it particularly warmly if your real aim is to paint anyone who doesn't slide to your opinion as a "bad person", but you can even do that - you can assert it in all capital letters if you'd like. It doesn't change what is. I'm far more interested in people being honest and following legal process, and those who don't like the result of legal process following legal process after that.

The hyper cynicism about single issues or decrying that the rules of legal process are unfair and aren't working - solve it with a legal process. Really. I don't have to come to this forum to get this kind of stuff (by that, I mean if I really wanted someone who spends all of their time lobbying other people to get them to change opinions, I can find it in my own neighborhood. I can even find people who won't talk to you if you don't share their opinion. I'm not interested in it, most people aren't, but they're too polite to tell you that they'd prefer you find another fascination. I'd prefer ...well, I don't even care if you find another one. I'd prefer being less subjected to it, though. I'd much rather talk about steel, tools, things that improve the quality of life for the bulk of the population (like productive efficiency, or an initiative for everyone to checklist one positive thing they've done for someone every day without obligation. If you really think you want to make a positive difference, go do something about it - don't lobby the people who aren't interested in being lobbied (and who have no real authority) after they let you know they've had enough of it.

 

[D_W]

In my opinion, I would be well open to the moderators closing this thread here and putting it in the political forum. I am, after all, a fence sitter - not much interested in pushing people one way or another, but just seeing what is from the middle. Fence sitters don't seem to please many people with proposals that aren't face or heel (in wrestling terms).

I guess if that were popular, we'd have had wishy washy professional wrestling characters or "I'm not really sure, but here's what we know so far" news services.

 

[MikeK]

In my opinion, I would be well open to the moderators closing this thread here and putting it in the political forum. I am, after all, a fence sitter - not much interested in pushing people one way or another, but just seeing what is from the middle. Fence sitters don't seem to please many people with proposals that aren't face or heel (in wrestling terms).

I guess if that were popular, we'd have had wishy washy professional wrestling characters or "I'm not really sure, but here's what we know so far" news services.

There's no need to close this thread, and moving it would not be fair to those who participated and don't have or want access to the new location.

Please feel free to start another thread behind the curtain.

 

[TRITON]

Agreed TN but there is a slight difference, with a gun you can kill from distance and multiple times, with a knife you have to get up close and personal and are far less likely to kill in numbers.. A person can run away from a knife and probably dodge it even if thrown, run from a gunman and it's more than likely you'll get shot in the back

Look at the las vegas massacre. One man, legally held guns(ok he might have had one or two illegal but that doesnt change the overall effect) and a bump stock. I wonder if the makers of said bump stock are happy their product worked exactly as they designed it to work. Said item has no place in hunting, its sole purpose is to turn a semi automatic into a fully automatic or such akin.
Why. What is the end goal of such an item ?. Far as i can see it is facilitate mass shooting of people.
Why would such a thing needed to be invented ? Far as i can see to allow people access to illegal firearms, ie machine guns.
What drives people to want such an item ? Not for sport shooting, not for hunting and not for target shooting where practice and skill are required to hit a distant target such as a bullseye. That little bit of kit was designed to kill people and people alone.

Yeah the whole bump stock thing is the real truth teller about why people want guns, in order to make themselves feel powerful and able to kill as many people as they like, should they want to.

In my opinion, I would be well open to the moderators closing this thread here and putting it in the political forum.

Sweep it under the carpet ?
Sorry I directed this at yourself. The intention was to get an Americans view of it, and not to demonize an individual. You dont make the laws.

 

[D_W]

There's no need to close this thread, and moving it would not be fair to those who participated and don't have or want access to the new location.

Please feel free to start another thread behind the curtain.

That's a great idea - I'll do that - what I don't want to see is the thread getting locked without an alternative, but I guess I didn't think that the alternative is definitely there in the other forum no matter what.

Triton - no sweeping anything under the rug. The data here in the states and the news is plain to see. It's sensationalized to the point that most here would probably misrank gun homicides if you asked them to list causes of death. My opinion is in the middle, I guess. I don't see a problem with background checks for all, red flag laws or more robust reporting and restriction of people who are threats. Such people often leave a data trail. I guess the majority doesn't agree here. There are folks who want nothing short of full confiscation here, and those who claim that we shouldn't have *any* restrictions at all, not even on artillery. The latter is absolutely bonkers.

The former is a little bonkers to me given our constitutional rights, but if such things occurred legally, I wouldn't really have a problem with it (as in, if you amend the amendment and then do it by legal process, by all means - that's how society works. If the legal processes break down, then nothing good usually results collectively).

 

[D_W]

i re-read the hunting law - it's actually legal of the occupant of the structure says you're OK to be within 150 yards. Well, I went a decade hunting without knowing that, but on land we owned at the time, there wasn't anything close! That's an antiquated rule, but it doesn't seem to have been much of a problem here. Never listened for shots here in the suburbs, but the acceptable distance for archery is much less (50?), and there's no woods in my back yard, but some friends allow archers in theirs in a really densely populated area otherwise. I wish there were more archers here as the deer population is starting to look mangy - if we don't depopulate them, nature will with viruses, though.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

As someone who doesn't really care - I don't live in the USA, and all my neighbours seem to manage to not shoot each other despite being armed to the teeth - I still find this discussion interesting. Apparently 75% of gun deaths interesting the USA are suicides. Would not having access to a gun guarantee that none of these suicides would ever happen? I'm not convinced. Perhaps a addressing such a high suicide rate may have more effect than wholesale removal of guns?

Then we have the stats I posted earlier which suggest that other than gang / drugs killings, the USA has comparable murder rates to other first world countries . If you took away the guns, would you take away the drugs and gangs? Probably not.

Finally, if you managed, somehow, to disarm the American public without causing a civil war, all you would have done was disarm the law - abiding portion of the population, again leaving gangs with guns.

I think a more believable way of reducing deaths would be for all citizens to wear a straightjacket from the age of 5. Problem solved, and no nasty government enforcing over-reaching draconian gun laws.

@TRITON re the Las Vegas shooting - there was a lot of very weird stuff going on that may mean the "official" story is a complete fabrication. Not my thing, but quite a lot of oddities involving Saudi Crown Princes, helicopters, private security details etc.

 

[artie]

I've simply pointed out that lots of people are killed every year in America because of guns.
If the guns weren't available, there wouldn't be lots of deaths

But you must see that is not true.

People are not killed because of guns.

If there were no guns then there would be no gun deaths

But there would still be plenty of deaths. If someone wants to kill someone else there are many ways.

 

[TRITON]

But there would still be plenty of deaths. If someone wants to kill someone else there are many ways.

No denying that, but I fear your logic is a bit messed up.
The nutter in Las Vegas killed 60 people and injured 867, 411 were from gunfire. How else could an individual nutjob obtain such a high kill and injure rate ?
With a knife ?, obviously not
With a car ? Obviously not
With a bomb ?. Possibly, but then again it would have to be a very big bomb and without the ease of getting explosives, which are restricted he would probably be uncovered before getting it built. Obviously we cant say that for sure, but the options would be limited.
Anything else ?.
No, the easiest way to kill a great number of people is with a gun designed to fire multiple rounds as a rapid fire. The semi auto with this bump stock idea enabled this action.

re the Las Vegas shooting - there was a lot of very weird stuff going on that may mean the "official" story is a complete fabrication. Not my thing, but quite a lot of oddities involving Saudi Crown Princes, helicopters, private security details etc.

I think you should stop using social media or following sites that talk utter nonsense. Saudi princes, helicopters and private security ?. What a load of dung.

 

[D_W]

But you must see that is not true.

People are not killed because of guns.

If there were no guns then there would be no gun deaths

But there would still be plenty of deaths. If someone wants to kill someone else there are many ways.

He did say gun deaths earlier. He's inconsistent, which drives me bonkers. Let's say non-suicide gun deaths are 15k a year. when i looked earlier today, 1k are police shooting perps across the US (often in domestic violence situations where people are fired up - and pointing a gun at officers, or traffic situations where a fleeing felon is fleeing or shooting but brandishing a gun). With no guns, would those be less? I think so. How much less, who knows.

I'm going to guess that suicides would be lower, too - it would be harder (but while there are 46k suicides in 2019 CDC's report, probably 25k of those are by gun.

That brings us back to the 15k, and ignore police. What's a predictable murder rate? I don't know. Is it a 6th, a 4th? What of that 15k are non-criminal people other wise ("crimes of passion" and bystanders). I couldn't quickly find the data, but am guessing half (it's probably fewer than half, as half of the gun deaths are attributable to males mid teens to mid 20s - translation, gun or drug or other criminal activity - maybe even just pride defense). So, could we cut the 15k to 3500? maybe.

What's the lead time before the guns are out of the places where they're used illegally. I don't know. From a practical standpoint, I don't think it works as well unless the goal is a quarter century from now or something. I think community outreach and other such things have more initial benefit, but using the term and actually doing it and changing culture are drastically different things. Why do people who are having turf wars in the donut here settling disputes that way, and if they are, why is it mostly people in their mid to late 20s and younger. Are there no older people in the business of this stuff or are they less impulsive?

you read a story like this
https://nypost.com/2021/04/19/6-wounded-in-shooting-at-childs-birthday-party-in-louisiana/
and "nobody saw anything". Kids, so you can't even know any details about who did this.

 

[D_W]

one last thing:
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-...-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
what's not said here is that the rate is higher in 1993 than in prior years by a lot, but it's still lower now than it was in the 70s for all age groups except males 18-24 (those rates have remained unchanged).

I have no clue what caused the spike in the 1990s, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long to find.

 

[RobinBHM]

But you must see that is not true.

People are not killed because of guns.

If there were no guns then there would be no gun deaths

But there would still be plenty of deaths. If someone wants to kill someone else there are many ways.

But it is true

America has about the highest guns/ capita in the world.
America has one of the highest murder rates in the world.

UK and Australia have amongst the toughest gun control laws in the world and pretty low murder rates.

There is a clear causation between guns and murder rates.


I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion guns don't kill people....the figures speak for themselves.

 

[D_W]

I think he's having fun with you part of the way.

Gun ownership up now vs. 1993, murder rate way down.

I'm having fun there, too. There's obviously some kind of link, but it's not always formulaic and proportional. We have a cultural crisis with young men, but what is it and how do we solve it? Given that it's been going on for at least 30 years, I'm sure much is written on it, but what, I don't know, because before this discussion, I'd not looked at the parsing of who was actually doing the shooting.

 

[RobinBHM]

Apparently 75% of gun deaths interesting the USA are suicides

Not really

2018
Wilful, malicious, accidental 14,800
Suicide 24,400

 

[RobinBHM]

I have a question for you - I don't think you're interested in honest debate

With the greatest respect, I am not the one engaging in whataboutery, by bringing in alcohol and other issues.

All I am saying is America has a gun violence crisis, by pretty much any comparison with any other country it has a serious problem.

But you don't seem to want to accept that as a fact.


I understand that there are hundreds of millions of guns in America and guns are deeply embedded as part of the culture, so yes solutions are very very hard.

I appreciate the point you make that tackling the crisis is best done by starting in the districts where the highest level of gun use occurs.

But trying to argue that guns are necessary for bears or for defence or for protection is simply repeating the NRA arguments.

 

[D_W]

you could end up with that conclusion if you thought all suicides (44k) were gun deaths. It looks like just over half are.

 

[artie]

America has about the highest guns/ capita in the world.
America has one of the highest murder rates in the world.

Both your statements are , I believe true. It doesn't mean they are related in any way.

How do you account for the fact that the states with least gun control also have the lowest gun crime?

You could say

America has more cars per capita than any other country.

and

The rate of adult obesity in America is higher tan any other country.

Both, I believe true, but can you say one causes the other.?

 

[D_W]

With the greatest respect, I am not the one engaging in whataboutery, by bringing in alcohol and other issues.

All I am saying is America has a gun violence crisis, by pretty much any comparison with any other country it has a serious problem.

But you don't seem to want to accept that as a fact.


I understand that there are hundreds of millions of guns in America and guns are deeply embedded as part of the culture, so yes solutions are very very hard.

I appreciate the point you make that tackling the crisis is best done by starting in the districts where the highest level of gun use occurs.

But trying to argue that guns are necessary for bears or for defence or for protection is simply repeating the NRA arguments.

you're labeling things. It's a crisis to you because you're absolutely obsessed with relatives. You've stooped to labeling my comments as NRA arguments - absurd.

I made the point about alcohol because you can't make any rational argument that it's needed in society, the unintended deaths are higher, but you don't count it as a crisis because it doesn't feed your irrational reactions. You're on your own from here on out. The facts are plain - the only real nonsense that I wanted to shut down was the notion that nowhere in the US was safe from being shot at. It's stupidity and you're bathing yourself in it at will.

 

[Spectric]

How big a part do drugs play in all of this? Over hear drugs are a real problem and responsible for a lot of crime so they can pay for them, thank god they cannot at that level easily access guns otherwise who knows what a drug fueled junkie would do to get money for drugs. I believe they play a larger part in the supply chain and gangs along with knifes but they don't seem to directly impact the general public, more to each other. So if guns were more freely available then is the drug aspect just another area of gun crime.