It not about a "gun culture," but a "death culture."

[elohiym]

In 2014, .0000043% of the U.S population was murdered. The death toll was 13,853. According to one accounting, 69% of those murders were committed with guns and 12% were committed with knives. If we searched the histories of the .000003011% of the U.S. population murdered with guns that year we would likely find a significant percentage of them were criminals and gang members, and we would also likely find a significant percentage of the guns used to murder them were acquired illegally.

Why would that *low number of victims merit any infringement on the right of millions to bear arms? There is presently a misplaced focus by some on the law abiding "gun culture," when they should be focused on the "death culture" that creates murderers who will kill with a knife if they can't get a gun.

* Relative to the U.S. population of 318,900,000 in 2014. For an interesting comparison, a 2013 study estimated premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was at more than 400,000 per year, and serious harm 10-20 fold more. In other words, doctors killed far more people negligently in 2014 than were murdered with guns.

 

[Quetzal]

You are representing the data in a skewed way to match your argument. Let me ask you a question. Assuming your 13,000 number is correct. If legislation was introduced to mandate background checks and cool down periods, and the following year the number dropped to 8,500. Would that be worth it to you?

 

[Lon]

Bumper sticker: "If guns kill people: then pencils make mistakes, cars drive off the road, and spoons make fat people, and we should abolish them!"

 

[Nick M]

You are representing the data in a skewed way to match your...

What is it like being on the wrong side of right and wrong all the time? What will you do in hell when you face God's wrath? Do you think about these things?

 

[Quetzal]

What is it like being on the wrong side of right and wrong all the time? What will you do in hell when you face God's wrath? Do you think about these things?

Not really.

 

[Lon]

You are representing the data in a skewed way to match your argument. Let me ask you a question. Assuming your 13,000 number is correct. If legislation was introduced to mandate background checks and cool down periods, and the following year the number dropped to 8,500. Would that be worth it to you?

Well, in light of the bumper sticker, if anyone is killed by a sharp kitchen knife, would it be worth it to restrict kitchen knives to chefs only? I was talking to the neighbor and he said we should require a test every time we have to re-up for our license (or more often according to him). It was suggested that we also require driver's education as mandatory for all vehicle operation, because there are incredibly more people killed by cars.
I think he has a point, even though there is little 'homicide' there is certainly criminal negligence and manslaughter, which is almost worse, because these are supposed to be 'sane' people who just don't take things seriously.

 

[Quetzal]

Well, in light of the bumper sticker, if anyone is killed by a sharp kitchen knife, would it be worth it to restrict kitchen knives to chefs only? I was talking to the neighbor and he said we should require a test every time we have to re-up for our license (or more often according to him). It was suggested that we also require driver's education as mandatory for all vehicle operation, because there are incredibly more people killed by cars.
I think he has a point, even though there is little 'homicide' there is certainly criminal negligence and manslaughter, which is almost worse, because these are supposed to be 'sane' people who just don't take things seriously.

Six posts deep and lon pulls the faulty comparison fallacy. Beat our previous record by a good 5-6 pages.

 

[PureX]

Bumper sticker: "If guns kill people: then pencils make mistakes, cars drive off the road, and spoons make fat people, and we should abolish them!"

But these bumper stickers only show up on cars owned by idiots. Because no one but an idiot thinks that "abolishing guns" is the issue.

 

[meshak]

That's a long read, elo.

 

[Lon]

Six posts deep and lon pulls the faulty comparison fallacy. Beat our previous record by a good 5-6 pages.

I want to say "prove" it, but that'd kind of be an oxymoron.

Do you 'need' a knife?

 

[ok doser]

Because no one but an idiot thinks that "abolishing guns" is the issue.

tell that to the idiots in australiia, England, Canada, new York state....

 

[brinny]

It not about a "gun culture," but a "death culture."

In 2014, .0000043% of the U.S population was murdered. The death toll was 13,853. According to one accounting, 69% of those murders were committed with guns and 12% were committed with knives. If we searched the histories of the .000003011% of the U.S. population murdered with guns that year we would likely find a significant percentage of them were criminals and gang members, and we would also likely find a significant percentage of the guns used to murder them were acquired illegally.

Why would that *low number of victims merit any infringement on the right of millions to bear arms? There is presently a misplaced focus by some on the law abiding "gun culture," when they should be focused on the "death culture" that creates murderers who will kill with a knife if they can't get a gun.

* Relative to the U.S. population of 318,900,000 in 2014. For an interesting comparison, a 2013 study estimated premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was at more than 400,000 per year, and serious harm 10-20 fold more. In other words, doctors killed far more people negligently in 2014 than were murdered with guns.

Exactly.

There are, of course additional statistics on deaths that would further define this culture as a pronounced "culture of death".

http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks/abortion/

 

[PureX]

If the chances of being shot by a gunman are so 'acceptably' low, then the need to own a gun for self-defense is also 'acceptably' miniscule. And if we are weighing the acceptability of the one against the acceptability of the other, shouldn't the sacrifice of gun ownership be preferable to the sacrifice of human lives? Especially since what is being proposed is not a total sacrifice of gun ownership, but is a sacrifice to the imposition of effective regulation, which will only deny the right to own guns to some people.

And if we are so selfish that we don't care that other people are being killed because we want to own guns, anyway, then why should anyone else care that we want to own guns at all?

 

[elohiym]

You are representing the data in a skewed way to match your argument.

How so?

Let me ask you a question. Assuming your 13,000 number is correct.

I'm using the statistics, and link, you provided on the other thread.

If legislation was introduced to mandate background checks and cool down periods, and the following year the number dropped to 8,500. Would that be worth it to you?

You couldn't prove the new legislation caused the drop, so how could I determine the value? People were still murdered with guns the year I purchased a gun after a mandatory background check. And many people were stabbed that year, too.

 

[Alate_One]

Why would that *low number of victims merit any infringement on the right of millions to bear arms? There is presently a misplaced focus by some on the law abiding "gun culture," when they should be focused on the "death culture" that creates murderers who will kill with a knife if they can't get a gun.

Cause you know, a low number of abortions is acceptable to you right?
Why would a low number of abortion victims merit any infringement on a woman's right to privacy?

Would you be okay with abortion if there were only about 20,000 per year in the USA?

 

[elohiym]

That's a long read, elo.

Three short paragraphs is a long read? I was aiming for brevity. Guess I missed the mark for some.

 

[rocketman]

You are representing the data in a skewed way to match your argument. Let me ask you a question. Assuming your 13,000 number is correct. If legislation was introduced to mandate background checks and cool down periods, and the following year the number dropped to 8,500. Would that be worth it to you?

And if it does nothing? Then what, more laws? more infringement on the rights of people who actually follow the law? Make no mistake the majority of people that are committing gun violence are criminals with illegally obtained weapons so, more background checks & longer cool downs will glean nothing when it comes down to curbing murders involving firearms. Curious though....given that there are more deaths from motor vehicles than guns do you feel that mandatory background checks & cool down periods for vehicle sales will slow down vehicle deaths as well?

 

[elohiym]

If the chances of being shot by a gunman are so 'acceptably' low, then the need to own a gun for self-defense is also 'acceptably' miniscule.

Not necessarily. Guns are owned for self-defense but also for national defense (think "Red Dawn"). A well armed populace is an impedance to any invading army, and there are still countries who have nuclear missiles aimed at us and have the means to invade our country. Also, as part of its practical and necessary use in agriculture, a gun can be used for self-defense against dangerous animals.

I don't claim the murders are acceptably low, just that there is a misplaced focus that the low numbers don't justify.

And if we are weighing the acceptability of the one against the acceptability of the other, shouldn't the sacrifice of gun ownership be preferable to the sacrifice of human lives? Especially since what is being proposed is not a total sacrifice of gun ownership, but is a sacrifice to the imposition of effective regulation, which will only deny the right to own guns to some people.

An argument can be made that eliminating gun ownership would sacrifice human lives.

And if we are so selfish that we don't care that other people are being killed because we want to own guns, anyway, then why should anyone else care that we want to own guns at all?

I care that other people are being murdered, in case you are wondering. The solution is in changing the death culture not in more gun regulation.

 

[musterion]

Why do you leftists want law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves with force equal to that employed by criminals?

 

[PureX]

Not necessarily. Guns are owned for self-defense but also for national defense (think "Red Dawn").

We have the biggest and most powerful army on Earth for national-defense. Making the need for a citizen militia virtually zip.

Also, as part of its practical and necessary use in agriculture, a gun can be used for self-defense against dangerous animals.

That is true, but almost none of us work in agriculture. So there again, the need for people to have guns is still miniscule. And anyway, no one is proposing eliminating all public ownership of guns. Only effectively regulating it.

I don't claim the murders are acceptably low, just that there is a misplaced focus that the low numbers don't justify.

I very much doubt that the families of those killed by those unregulated citizens with their guns would agree with you.

An argument can be made that eliminating gun ownership would sacrifice human lives.

Even if it could, no one is suggesting the elimination of gun ownership.

care that other people are being murdered, in case you are wondering. The solution is in changing the death culture not in more gun regulation.

Inventing silly labels like "death culture" and trying to blame everything on the poor and on ethnic minorities will not only do nothing to minimize gun deaths, but would very likely intensify the problem of gun deaths in the U.S. by it's refusal to even address the problem reasonably and realistically. Not to mention that it's a proposition based on bigotry and a contempt of people rather then on reason and a desire to actually save lives.