Because we're smarter now? Because we need just this one more thing? Because we are working our way up to "no guns for anybody but soldiers and cops"? Because we never learned that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results??????????????
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Washington Should suicides be included in gun-death statistics?
- Thread Starter Burnhaven
- Start date
-
- Tags
- washington
Because we're smarter now? Because we need just this one more thing? Because we are working our way up to "no guns for anybody but soldiers and cops"? Because we never learned that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results??????????????
- Messages
- 23,293
- Reactions
- 111,609
Que Sam Kinison ....from "Back to School"
Good answer , I like the way you think....I'm gonna be watching you...
Andy
- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
As a liberal on a gun forum, you have to develop a thick skin. After that, it's all good and you can discuss whatever. I know from personal experience.
Secondly, we gun totin' libtards exist and wish heartily that being anti-gun wasn't just a plank, but a reinforced concrete pier for many candidates. It limits our voting options. For me personally, it has been a long line of 3d party candidates (for which I get crap from the left and right
).Thirdly, gun violence is largely a function of poverty and prohibitions. Wake me when Democrats make it a priority that our economy serve all people, and not just wall street through job exporting trade deals. And while I'm completely aware that Democrats have abandoned Charlie Rose, his interview with Sir James Goldsmith in 1994 laid out exactly what has happened in the last 30 years. In Goldsmith's view (and for you lot on the right, he was a gazillionaire vulture capitalist
) "the economy is there to serve the fundamental needs of society which are prosperity, stability, and which are contentment." He's really worth hearing.
Last Edited:
Que Sam Kinison ....from "Back to School"
Good answer , I like the way you think....I'll gonna be watching you...
Andy
Good teacher. He really seems to care. About what I have no idea.
Que Sam Kinison ....from "Back to School"
Good answer , I like the way you think....I'll gonna be watching you...
Andy
Very same sentiments as were stated in the Federalist Papers.
I think I'd like this Goldsmith dude, ah Gentleman. However, the Charlie Rose monster I just can't take!!!!
Good teacher. He really seems to care. About what I have no idea.
I gotta watch that movie again!!
Never saw it... I'm usually not a fan of comedy.
You? Not a fan of comedy? I had no idea.
Should suicides be included in gun-death statistics?
Yes, if it's a suicide by gun
The real question is Should they be included in "Gun Violence" deaths and my answer is an emphatic NO!
Gun violence is the use of a gun by one person to injure or kill another. Suicide is a personal choice.
Yes, if it's a suicide by gun
The real question is Should they be included in "Gun Violence" deaths and my answer is an emphatic NO!
Gun violence is the use of a gun by one person to injure or kill another. Suicide is a personal choice.
The way you use the word "compromise" suggests gun owners should meekly go to gun controllers with bowed head, hat in hand, pleading that we will give in to their demands while getting nothing we want in return, in the hope they will go easier on us and leave us with at least some of what we already have now.
That's not really "compromise". That's not "the best possible result". "More regulation that wouldn't have happened otherwise". Seriously? That approach has never gotten us anything. It just resulted in a short reprieve until they circle around to come at us again after the next tragedy.
Let's review the definition of compromise:
So....what concessions have the gun controllers EVER made in order to get something they want? Gun controllers are not interested in making ANY concessions in order to get something they want. They wait until they have enough political power in a state to push through what they want, and then they take take take, and then take some more. Just look at California, and what is starting to happen in Washington and Oregon if you doubt it. In California they have gone way way past "common sense" gun control and they keep piling on more and more. While not conceding even one inch.
Gun controllers - and you apparently - want gun owners to "compromise" - which to them means the NRA and gun owners surrendering and submitting to their demands, or maybe a reduced list of demands - while the gun owners gain absolutely nothing in return. Reducing a list of demands while giving the other side nothing that they want is not "compromising". Giving in to the other side's demands while gaining nothing in return is not compromising, it's surrendering.
Listen, and understand. Gun controllers are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until our gun rights are dead.
We've compromised enough already (see below) and have gotten NOTHING from them. No more one-sided "compromising".
(click pictures to enlarge)
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 824
- Reactions
- 2,104
It's a lazy copy/paste...but I'm feeling a little tired from the day. I might've worded it a little differently, but my personal sentiment is much the same.
Here's the #s if the OP is interested in #s...
There are (roughly) 40,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms and this number is not disputed.
The U.S. population is 329,072,188 as of June 29, 2019. Do the math: 0.00012155 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 40,000 deaths…
To put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
26,000 (65%) of those deaths are suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
6,000 (15%) are by law enforcement in the line of duty or justified citizen self defense shootings.
6,800 (17%) are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons- aka "gun violence"
1,200 (3%) are accidental discharge deaths.
So, technically "gun violence" is not 40,000 annually but rather 6,800.
Still too many? Now let's look how those deaths spanned across the nation.
555 homicides (8.2%) were in Chicago.
309 homicides (4.6%) were in Baltimore.
303 homicides (4.5%) were in Detroit.
205 homicides (3.0%) were in St. Louis.
160 homicides (2.4%) were in Washington D.C.
So almost 25% of all gun crime happens in just 5 cities. All 5 of those Democratic strong hold cities have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, so it's not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 5,256 homicides for the entire rest of the nation or about 105 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 3,184 total firearm related deaths (also very strict gun laws….seeing a trend here?). If California is removed, we are down to just 41 deaths per state….
All death is sad and especially when it happens during a violent crime, however, let me ask, is 5,000 gun deaths per year horrific enough that we should abandon our God given rights, acknowledged in our Constitution? Let's compare "gun deaths" to other deaths, seeing as firearms fail to enter the top 10 causes of death on any list you want to look at…
70,000 + die from drug overdoses each year.
80,000+ people die per year from the flu.
37,133 people die in traffic accidents.
250,000 + people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors…you are actually a lot safer in the worst neighborhood in Chicago than a hospital, statistically.
610,000 people die per year from heart disease.
So what's 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 lost to all gun deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).
A 10% reduction in medical errors would save 4 times the number of criminal homicide victims.
So one has to ask oneself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?
It's pretty simple: taking away guns gives control to the government. The founders of this Nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule, just as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It's 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 protected at all costs. So the next time someone tries to to you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these word from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed"
Anytime gun control has been enacted, the result has always ended with something terrible in our history books. I get so tired of the question "why do you need a modern sporting rifle" (Or a standard so-called "high capacity" magazine)?
#1, the 2nd amendment was to keep us (civilians) on par with the military. Yes they had automatic weapons (like the puckle gun during the time period when the legislation was drafted...they also had private citizens that had ships and weapons more capable than the federal Navy and our government hired them to go after British ships). So in this sense, we have already limited ourselves tremendously on what we are entitled to.
#2, Home invasion often have several people (4-6 according the the FBI) involved. That is only 5 shots per person with a standard 30 round magazine...a 223/556 round is basically a fast moving 22 long rifle round, people don't just explode into pixie dust when shot and unless you are a ultra high speed operator, that uses a weapon for a living, that high stress environment may cause you to miss a few times....just youtube AR-15 saves lives, it's a pretty common story.
#3, according the the FBI, in a country of 324 million people, from 2011-2016 we never have topped 400 deaths per year with ANY KIND OF RIFLE!!!! This is such a small, statistically insignificant number. You are blind if you look at the numbers and then the current news and don't see something wrong with this picture.
Here's the #s if the OP is interested in #s...
There are (roughly) 40,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms and this number is not disputed.
The U.S. population is 329,072,188 as of June 29, 2019. Do the math: 0.00012155 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 40,000 deaths…
To put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
26,000 (65%) of those deaths are suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
6,000 (15%) are by law enforcement in the line of duty or justified citizen self defense shootings.
6,800 (17%) are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons- aka "gun violence"
1,200 (3%) are accidental discharge deaths.
So, technically "gun violence" is not 40,000 annually but rather 6,800.
Still too many? Now let's look how those deaths spanned across the nation.
555 homicides (8.2%) were in Chicago.
309 homicides (4.6%) were in Baltimore.
303 homicides (4.5%) were in Detroit.
205 homicides (3.0%) were in St. Louis.
160 homicides (2.4%) were in Washington D.C.
So almost 25% of all gun crime happens in just 5 cities. All 5 of those Democratic strong hold cities have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, so it's not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 5,256 homicides for the entire rest of the nation or about 105 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 3,184 total firearm related deaths (also very strict gun laws….seeing a trend here?). If California is removed, we are down to just 41 deaths per state….
All death is sad and especially when it happens during a violent crime, however, let me ask, is 5,000 gun deaths per year horrific enough that we should abandon our God given rights, acknowledged in our Constitution? Let's compare "gun deaths" to other deaths, seeing as firearms fail to enter the top 10 causes of death on any list you want to look at…
70,000 + die from drug overdoses each year.
80,000+ people die per year from the flu.
37,133 people die in traffic accidents.
250,000 + people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors…you are actually a lot safer in the worst neighborhood in Chicago than a hospital, statistically.
610,000 people die per year from heart disease.
So what's 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 lost to all gun deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).
A 10% reduction in medical errors would save 4 times the number of criminal homicide victims.
So one has to ask oneself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?
It's pretty simple: taking away guns gives control to the government. The founders of this Nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule, just as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It's 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 protected at all costs. So the next time someone tries to to you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these word from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed"
Anytime gun control has been enacted, the result has always ended with something terrible in our history books. I get so tired of the question "why do you need a modern sporting rifle" (Or a standard so-called "high capacity" magazine)?
#1, the 2nd amendment was to keep us (civilians) on par with the military. Yes they had automatic weapons (like the puckle gun during the time period when the legislation was drafted...they also had private citizens that had ships and weapons more capable than the federal Navy and our government hired them to go after British ships). So in this sense, we have already limited ourselves tremendously on what we are entitled to.
#2, Home invasion often have several people (4-6 according the the FBI) involved. That is only 5 shots per person with a standard 30 round magazine...a 223/556 round is basically a fast moving 22 long rifle round, people don't just explode into pixie dust when shot and unless you are a ultra high speed operator, that uses a weapon for a living, that high stress environment may cause you to miss a few times....just youtube AR-15 saves lives, it's a pretty common story.
#3, according the the FBI, in a country of 324 million people, from 2011-2016 we never have topped 400 deaths per year with ANY KIND OF RIFLE!!!! This is such a small, statistically insignificant number. You are blind if you look at the numbers and then the current news and don't see something wrong with this picture.
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reactions
- 2,783
My favorite question to ask those who do not think we need standard capacity magazines is...
'Describe the type of person that you feel would be dangerous with an AK with 30 rounds, would you hand him a pump shotgun and a box of ammo?'
'Describe the type of person that you feel would be dangerous with an AK with 30 rounds, would you hand him a pump shotgun and a box of ammo?'
- Messages
- 8,346
- Reactions
- 20,954
LOL I always laugh at the "people are dying" statistics.
Eh.....people ALWAYS die.
People wouldn't die in death-free zones. Unicorns and rainbows also make everything more awesome, too. We should protect unicorn habitat and make dying a capital crime.
- Messages
- 8,346
- Reactions
- 20,954
While suicide is generally a legal activity on the federal level, attempting suicide may still be illegal in some states. Thus, having a larger capacity magazine can save you from becoming a criminal while attempting to commit the much more legally-acceptable suicide. I think going all Rasputin and poisoning oneself, stabbing oneself, shooting oneself, all while jumping from a bridge is just as effective, but I digress...
If the gun grabbers actually cared about presenting facts they'd have left SB978 alone as a standalone bill to fund data collection... instead they tried to sneak a bunch of crap in there the last minute and without testimony, anyone with honor would see that as scandalous.
- Thread Starter
- #80
Great, well-documented, post there Red Rover.
On the specific point quoted, I would just add that to focus on heart disease ( assuming we mean some sort of government action ) it takes two to tango, and Mr McConnell isn't letting much of that happen.
You make good points about having already compromised. The gun-owning community is going to have to figure out how to deal with the demographic changes coming to the U.S., the possible elimination or neutering of the electoral college ( National Popular Vote )
and even the possible change from two guaranteed U.S. Senators per state regardless of population.
There, I just poked the hornet's nest
As far as the constitution, I do wonder how seriously it's taken ( given that it was designed by our "beloved" Founding Fathers ) and included clauses that specify the courts as the interpreters of what's constitutional ( as opposed to individuals )
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
120 rounds 30-06 Springfield Remington & Hornady whitetail
- Started by annikhtyr
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-