There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
But even the researcher there admitted that it could just be a “blip”. Far more concerning was the rate of drug overdoses in that same time period. It rose at almost 4 times the rate that of firearm deaths, wonder if there is any overlap/correlation there? As for gun deaths, any rise is concerning, but not always substantial when looking at even the past 50 years. Was the US the only country that showed a small increase over the past two years. It does not seem to correlate with the rate of gun ownership over the past 10 years.
why would opioid use have anything to do with guns?
It was pointed out in the article is the only reason I mentioned it. It could very well be a correlation, though, as drug abuse is a factor in many crimes that are committed.
I've lost quite a few friends over the years to overdose... so it's not an issue I take lightly...
BUT... when you overdose I dont die, and neither does anyone else but you.... when you shoot me, I die
Right, but I’m willing to bet that the rise in overdoses goes hand in hand with more people buying and selling the drugs, a market that does promote violence of various forms due to various reasons. How many gun deaths in Chicago would you contribute to the manufacturing and distribution of hard drugs?
Many, very many.
But fewer than I would attribute to guns lol Batting a thousand, as they say.
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
But even the researcher there admitted that it could just be a “blip”. Far more concerning was the rate of drug overdoses in that same time period. It rose at almost 4 times the rate that of firearm deaths, wonder if there is any overlap/correlation there? As for gun deaths, any rise is concerning, but not always substantial when looking at even the past 50 years. Was the US the only country that showed a small increase over the past two years. It does not seem to correlate with the rate of gun ownership over the past 10 years.
why would opioid use have anything to do with guns?
It was pointed out in the article is the only reason I mentioned it. It could very well be a correlation, though, as drug abuse is a factor in many crimes that are committed.
I've lost quite a few friends over the years to overdose... so it's not an issue I take lightly...
BUT... when you overdose I dont die, and neither does anyone else but you.... when you shoot me, I die
Right, but I’m willing to bet that the rise in overdoses goes hand in hand with more people buying and selling the drugs, a market that does promote violence of various forms due to various reasons. How many gun deaths in Chicago would you contribute to the manufacturing and distribution of hard drugs?
Sory to keep asking you but just wanna know do you personally think there are too many guns in circulation that might have a bearing on the amount of deaths ?
let me answer it another way, since we are on the topic....
it would seem that more opiates introduced to the American public sure did have an adverse affect on addiction and overdoses... imagine that
but guns? no, there are too many doors and godless fucks like me running around
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
But even the researcher there admitted that it could just be a “blip”. Far more concerning was the rate of drug overdoses in that same time period. It rose at almost 4 times the rate that of firearm deaths, wonder if there is any overlap/correlation there? As for gun deaths, any rise is concerning, but not always substantial when looking at even the past 50 years. Was the US the only country that showed a small increase over the past two years. It does not seem to correlate with the rate of gun ownership over the past 10 years.
why would opioid use have anything to do with guns?
It was pointed out in the article is the only reason I mentioned it. It could very well be a correlation, though, as drug abuse is a factor in many crimes that are committed.
I've lost quite a few friends over the years to overdose... so it's not an issue I take lightly...
BUT... when you overdose I dont die, and neither does anyone else but you.... when you shoot me, I die
Right, but I’m willing to bet that the rise in overdoses goes hand in hand with more people buying and selling the drugs, a market that does promote violence of various forms due to various reasons. How many gun deaths in Chicago would you contribute to the manufacturing and distribution of hard drugs?
Sory to keep asking you but just wanna know do you personally think there are too many guns in circulation that might have a bearing on the amount of deaths ?
let me answer it another way, since we are on the topic....
it would seem that more opiates introduced to the American public sure did have an adverse affect on addiction and overdoses... imagine that
but guns? no, there are too many doors and godless fucks like me running around
yep, i'm on the Godless train myself so what do i know i guess i need God ....
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
But even the researcher there admitted that it could just be a “blip”. Far more concerning was the rate of drug overdoses in that same time period. It rose at almost 4 times the rate that of firearm deaths, wonder if there is any overlap/correlation there? As for gun deaths, any rise is concerning, but not always substantial when looking at even the past 50 years. Was the US the only country that showed a small increase over the past two years. It does not seem to correlate with the rate of gun ownership over the past 10 years.
why would opioid use have anything to do with guns?
It was pointed out in the article is the only reason I mentioned it. It could very well be a correlation, though, as drug abuse is a factor in many crimes that are committed.
I've lost quite a few friends over the years to overdose... so it's not an issue I take lightly...
BUT... when you overdose I dont die, and neither does anyone else but you.... when you shoot me, I die
Right, but I’m willing to bet that the rise in overdoses goes hand in hand with more people buying and selling the drugs, a market that does promote violence of various forms due to various reasons. How many gun deaths in Chicago would you contribute to the manufacturing and distribution of hard drugs?
Sory to keep asking you but just wanna know do you personally think there are too many guns in circulation that might have a bearing on the amount of deaths ?
I’m not sure it is a “number in circulation” kind of problem. A person that wants one would get one if the number in circulation were cut in half. If one person has 30 and keeps them in a well protected safe, they are most likely not going to be an issue. If person B owns one and leaves it out on the kitchen table all of the time, then it could very well become an issue. An argument could be made that if there were fewer in circulation, then maybe they would cost too much for certain people, but I can see holes in that as well...Do I believe that focusing on the number in circulation is the best strategy? No, I do not. My reasoning behind that is when it comes to “how”? How are the number in circulation going to get cut down? If you cannot prevent an earthquake, what measures can you take to minimize the loss of life?
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
But even the researcher there admitted that it could just be a “blip”. Far more concerning was the rate of drug overdoses in that same time period. It rose at almost 4 times the rate that of firearm deaths, wonder if there is any overlap/correlation there? As for gun deaths, any rise is concerning, but not always substantial when looking at even the past 50 years. Was the US the only country that showed a small increase over the past two years. It does not seem to correlate with the rate of gun ownership over the past 10 years.
why would opioid use have anything to do with guns?
It was pointed out in the article is the only reason I mentioned it. It could very well be a correlation, though, as drug abuse is a factor in many crimes that are committed.
I've lost quite a few friends over the years to overdose... so it's not an issue I take lightly...
BUT... when you overdose I dont die, and neither does anyone else but you.... when you shoot me, I die
Right, but I’m willing to bet that the rise in overdoses goes hand in hand with more people buying and selling the drugs, a market that does promote violence of various forms due to various reasons. How many gun deaths in Chicago would you contribute to the manufacturing and distribution of hard drugs?
Sory to keep asking you but just wanna know do you personally think there are too many guns in circulation that might have a bearing on the amount of deaths ?
I don't know how to answer that question. My first thought is no, as long as there are appropriate measures to make sure the wrong people don't get them and those who do have them store them properly. What difference does it make if a responsible gun owner (and I believe most gun owners are actually responsible, not just "responsible" until they aren't) has 2 or 20 guns? If they are law-abiding and properly stored. But more guns out there does means inevitably more guns in the hands of the wrong people. But instead of preventing more guns from being manufactured, I think more strict laws on who gets them and storage requirements would be more effective. 10 guns in the wrong hands will be more deadly than 1000 guns in the right hands.
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
But even the researcher there admitted that it could just be a “blip”. Far more concerning was the rate of drug overdoses in that same time period. It rose at almost 4 times the rate that of firearm deaths, wonder if there is any overlap/correlation there? As for gun deaths, any rise is concerning, but not always substantial when looking at even the past 50 years. Was the US the only country that showed a small increase over the past two years. It does not seem to correlate with the rate of gun ownership over the past 10 years.
why would opioid use have anything to do with guns?
It was pointed out in the article is the only reason I mentioned it. It could very well be a correlation, though, as drug abuse is a factor in many crimes that are committed.
I've lost quite a few friends over the years to overdose... so it's not an issue I take lightly...
BUT... when you overdose I dont die, and neither does anyone else but you.... when you shoot me, I die
Right, but I’m willing to bet that the rise in overdoses goes hand in hand with more people buying and selling the drugs, a market that does promote violence of various forms due to various reasons. How many gun deaths in Chicago would you contribute to the manufacturing and distribution of hard drugs?
Sory to keep asking you but just wanna know do you personally think there are too many guns in circulation that might have a bearing on the amount of deaths ?
I’m not sure it is a “number in circulation” kind of problem. A person that wants one would get one if the number in circulation were cut in half. If one person has 30 and keeps them in a well protected safe, they are most likely not going to be an issue. If person B owns one and leaves it out on the kitchen table all of the time, then it could very well become an issue. An argument could be made that if there were fewer in circulation, then maybe they would cost too much for certain people, but I can see holes in that as well...Do I believe that focusing on the number in circulation is the best strategy? No, I do not. My reasoning behind that is when it comes to “how”? How are the number in circulation going to get cut down? If you cannot prevent an earthquake, what measures can you take to minimize the loss of life?
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The Hopkins researchers surveyed 1,444 gun owners in the United States about their storage practices and found that 54 percent didn’t put them in a safe place when not in use. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock.
If that holds true to the current US population that owns guns, that's approximately 48 million "responsible" gun owners. But its not a propblem.
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
But even the researcher there admitted that it could just be a “blip”. Far more concerning was the rate of drug overdoses in that same time period. It rose at almost 4 times the rate that of firearm deaths, wonder if there is any overlap/correlation there? As for gun deaths, any rise is concerning, but not always substantial when looking at even the past 50 years. Was the US the only country that showed a small increase over the past two years. It does not seem to correlate with the rate of gun ownership over the past 10 years.
why would opioid use have anything to do with guns?
It was pointed out in the article is the only reason I mentioned it. It could very well be a correlation, though, as drug abuse is a factor in many crimes that are committed.
I've lost quite a few friends over the years to overdose... so it's not an issue I take lightly...
BUT... when you overdose I dont die, and neither does anyone else but you.... when you shoot me, I die
Right, but I’m willing to bet that the rise in overdoses goes hand in hand with more people buying and selling the drugs, a market that does promote violence of various forms due to various reasons. How many gun deaths in Chicago would you contribute to the manufacturing and distribution of hard drugs?
Sory to keep asking you but just wanna know do you personally think there are too many guns in circulation that might have a bearing on the amount of deaths ?
I’m not sure it is a “number in circulation” kind of problem. A person that wants one would get one if the number in circulation were cut in half. If one person has 30 and keeps them in a well protected safe, they are most likely not going to be an issue. If person B owns one and leaves it out on the kitchen table all of the time, then it could very well become an issue. An argument could be made that if there were fewer in circulation, then maybe they would cost too much for certain people, but I can see holes in that as well...Do I believe that focusing on the number in circulation is the best strategy? No, I do not. My reasoning behind that is when it comes to “how”? How are the number in circulation going to get cut down? If you cannot prevent an earthquake, what measures can you take to minimize the loss of life?
by making them so hard to get that eventually the ones that people own break down and they can't afford to replace them. a long haul, yes, but still a haul.
The Hopkins researchers surveyed 1,444 gun owners in the United States about their storage practices and found that 54 percent didn’t put them in a safe place when not in use. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock.
If that holds true to the current US population that owns guns, that's approximately 48 million "responsible" gun owners. But its not a propblem.
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
But even the researcher there admitted that it could just be a “blip”. Far more concerning was the rate of drug overdoses in that same time period. It rose at almost 4 times the rate that of firearm deaths, wonder if there is any overlap/correlation there? As for gun deaths, any rise is concerning, but not always substantial when looking at even the past 50 years. Was the US the only country that showed a small increase over the past two years. It does not seem to correlate with the rate of gun ownership over the past 10 years.
why would opioid use have anything to do with guns?
It was pointed out in the article is the only reason I mentioned it. It could very well be a correlation, though, as drug abuse is a factor in many crimes that are committed.
I've lost quite a few friends over the years to overdose... so it's not an issue I take lightly...
BUT... when you overdose I dont die, and neither does anyone else but you.... when you shoot me, I die
Right, but I’m willing to bet that the rise in overdoses goes hand in hand with more people buying and selling the drugs, a market that does promote violence of various forms due to various reasons. How many gun deaths in Chicago would you contribute to the manufacturing and distribution of hard drugs?
Sory to keep asking you but just wanna know do you personally think there are too many guns in circulation that might have a bearing on the amount of deaths ?
I’m not sure it is a “number in circulation” kind of problem. A person that wants one would get one if the number in circulation were cut in half. If one person has 30 and keeps them in a well protected safe, they are most likely not going to be an issue. If person B owns one and leaves it out on the kitchen table all of the time, then it could very well become an issue. An argument could be made that if there were fewer in circulation, then maybe they would cost too much for certain people, but I can see holes in that as well...Do I believe that focusing on the number in circulation is the best strategy? No, I do not. My reasoning behind that is when it comes to “how”? How are the number in circulation going to get cut down? If you cannot prevent an earthquake, what measures can you take to minimize the loss of life?
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
You completely missed the point of that sentence, but thanks for playing. My concern is the rules that would have to go into place to limit production being a capitalist society and all. But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
You completely missed the point of that sentence, but thanks for playing. My concern is the rules that would have to go into place to limit production being a capitalist society and all. But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
No, I'm fully aware of your point, which is to deflect attention away from what's obvious and confabulate a whole host of other potential reasons why the US might be such an outlier in gun deaths.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The Hopkins researchers surveyed 1,444 gun owners in the United States about their storage practices and found that 54 percent didn’t put them in a safe place when not in use. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock.
If that holds true to the current US population that owns guns, that's approximately 48 million "responsible" gun owners. But its not a propblem.
What number is "most?"
Why did your article not mention this:
“This new research finds that gun owners who reported a gun safety training course influenced their gun storage practices were twice as likely to practice safe storage for all their guns, and gun owners who cited discussions with family members as influencing their decisions were 39 percent more likely to practice safe storage.
"It's encouraging to see the positive associations between safety training and reporting safe storage practices," said study co-author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "Requiring gun purchasers to take safety training classes, as a handful of states already do, might lead to more gun owners storing their guns safely."”
I, and others, have stated that a gun safety course would help to increase safe storage practices...This research supports that, it would seem. Seems like this little detail was pretty important not to have been mentioned by the Baltimore Sun...
The Hopkins researchers surveyed 1,444 gun owners in the United States about their storage practices and found that 54 percent didn’t put them in a safe place when not in use. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock.
If that holds true to the current US population that owns guns, that's approximately 48 million "responsible" gun owners. But its not a propblem.
What number is "most?"
Why did your article not mention this:
“This new research finds that gun owners who reported a gun safety training course influenced their gun storage practices were twice as likely to practice safe storage for all their guns, and gun owners who cited discussions with family members as influencing their decisions were 39 percent more likely to practice safe storage.
"It's encouraging to see the positive associations between safety training and reporting safe storage practices," said study co-author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "Requiring gun purchasers to take safety training classes, as a handful of states already do, might lead to more gun owners storing their guns safely."”
I, and others, have stated that a gun safety course would help to increase safe storage practices...This research supports that, it would seem. Seems like this little detail was pretty important not to have been mention by the Baltimore Sun.
I’m sure you’ll be petitioning your elected representatives in your state and federal government to make that a federal requirement to purchase a fire arm as well as call the NRA and let them know. The other 61% who don’t and should something happen with their firearm, do 5-10 years in prison.
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
You completely missed the point of that sentence, but thanks for playing. My concern is the rules that would have to go into place to limit production being a capitalist society and all. But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
No, I'm fully aware of your point, which is to deflect attention away from what's obvious and confabulate a whole host of other potential reasons why the US might be such an outlier in gun deaths.
Sorry that I am not more close minded like yourself. I believe it is important to evaluate all possible contributing factors before drawing conclusions...you know...like researchers do.
The Hopkins researchers surveyed 1,444 gun owners in the United States about their storage practices and found that 54 percent didn’t put them in a safe place when not in use. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock.
If that holds true to the current US population that owns guns, that's approximately 48 million "responsible" gun owners. But its not a propblem.
What number is "most?"
Why did your article not mention this:
“This new research finds that gun owners who reported a gun safety training course influenced their gun storage practices were twice as likely to practice safe storage for all their guns, and gun owners who cited discussions with family members as influencing their decisions were 39 percent more likely to practice safe storage.
"It's encouraging to see the positive associations between safety training and reporting safe storage practices," said study co-author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "Requiring gun purchasers to take safety training classes, as a handful of states already do, might lead to more gun owners storing their guns safely."”
I, and others, have stated that a gun safety course would help to increase safe storage practices...This research supports that, it would seem. Seems like this little detail was pretty important not to have been mention by the Baltimore Sun.
I’m sure you’ll be petitioning your elected representatives in your state and federal government to make that a federal requirement to purchase a fire arm as well as call the NRA and let them know. The other 61% who don’t and should something happen with their firearm, do 5-10 years in prison.
I have actually written the Texas representatives encouraging more safety training. As for the NRA, I am not a member, so I probably do not hold much weight. The NRA, however, is one of the only organizations that provide gun safety courses...so there is that. And, sounds good, 5-10 years in prison if you do not store your firearm safely and someone uses it in a murder.
The Hopkins researchers surveyed 1,444 gun owners in the United States about their storage practices and found that 54 percent didn’t put them in a safe place when not in use. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock.
If that holds true to the current US population that owns guns, that's approximately 48 million "responsible" gun owners. But its not a propblem.
What number is "most?"
Why did your article not mention this:
“This new research finds that gun owners who reported a gun safety training course influenced their gun storage practices were twice as likely to practice safe storage for all their guns, and gun owners who cited discussions with family members as influencing their decisions were 39 percent more likely to practice safe storage.
"It's encouraging to see the positive associations between safety training and reporting safe storage practices," said study co-author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "Requiring gun purchasers to take safety training classes, as a handful of states already do, might lead to more gun owners storing their guns safely."”
I, and others, have stated that a gun safety course would help to increase safe storage practices...This research supports that, it would seem. Seems like this little detail was pretty important not to have been mention by the Baltimore Sun.
I’m sure you’ll be petitioning your elected representatives in your state and federal government to make that a federal requirement to purchase a fire arm as well as call the NRA and let them know. The other 61% who don’t and should something happen with their firearm, do 5-10 years in prison.
I have actually written the Texas representatives encouraging more safety training. As for the NRA, I am not a member, so I probably do not hold much weight. The NRA, however, is one of the only organizations that provide gun safety courses...so there is that. And, sounds good, 5-10 years in prison if you do not store your firearm safely and someone uses it in a murder.
How about if someone is just "responsible" with it? You know, like a tragedy? The six year old shoots the four year old?
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
You completely missed the point of that sentence, but thanks for playing. My concern is the rules that would have to go into place to limit production being a capitalist society and all. But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
No, I'm fully aware of your point, which is to deflect attention away from what's obvious and confabulate a whole host of other potential reasons why the US might be such an outlier in gun deaths.
Sorry that I am not more close minded like yourself. I believe it is important to evaluate all possible contributing factors before drawing conclusions...you know...like researchers do.
and research has clearly shown a direct correlation that more guns in an area equals more gun related deaths.... its been presented in this thread several times.... just like research has shown that introducing a gun into a home means the members of that home are more likely to be harmed by a gun.... its pretty simple really
The Hopkins researchers surveyed 1,444 gun owners in the United States about their storage practices and found that 54 percent didn’t put them in a safe place when not in use. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock.
If that holds true to the current US population that owns guns, that's approximately 48 million "responsible" gun owners. But its not a propblem.
What number is "most?"
Why did your article not mention this:
“This new research finds that gun owners who reported a gun safety training course influenced their gun storage practices were twice as likely to practice safe storage for all their guns, and gun owners who cited discussions with family members as influencing their decisions were 39 percent more likely to practice safe storage.
"It's encouraging to see the positive associations between safety training and reporting safe storage practices," said study co-author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "Requiring gun purchasers to take safety training classes, as a handful of states already do, might lead to more gun owners storing their guns safely."”
I, and others, have stated that a gun safety course would help to increase safe storage practices...This research supports that, it would seem. Seems like this little detail was pretty important not to have been mention by the Baltimore Sun.
I’m sure you’ll be petitioning your elected representatives in your state and federal government to make that a federal requirement to purchase a fire arm as well as call the NRA and let them know. The other 61% who don’t and should something happen with their firearm, do 5-10 years in prison.
I have actually written the Texas representatives encouraging more safety training. As for the NRA, I am not a member, so I probably do not hold much weight. The NRA, however, is one of the only organizations that provide gun safety courses...so there is that. And, sounds good, 5-10 years in prison if you do not store your firearm safely and someone uses it in a murder.
How about if someone is just "responsible" with it? You know, like a tragedy? The six year old shoots the four year old?
Then charge them, if a 4 year old gets their hand on it, then someone is definitely not being responsible. Do the same thing with rat poison,tide pods and bathroom cleaners. If a child eats one, then the parent was being neglectful/irresponsible.
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
You completely missed the point of that sentence, but thanks for playing. My concern is the rules that would have to go into place to limit production being a capitalist society and all. But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
No, I'm fully aware of your point, which is to deflect attention away from what's obvious and confabulate a whole host of other potential reasons why the US might be such an outlier in gun deaths.
Sorry that I am not more close minded like yourself. I believe it is important to evaluate all possible contributing factors before drawing conclusions...you know...like researchers do.
another question , For how many yrs should research be done at what price i mean we've been experiencing these massacres for a while now ! when & what would it take for you to say enough is enough i know it's hypothetical but still we could be researching for the next 10 yrs and how many more deaths and still be on step 1 ....At some point something has got to give and it seems like the one thing that has happened is that the public has become used to these events ....
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
You completely missed the point of that sentence, but thanks for playing. My concern is the rules that would have to go into place to limit production being a capitalist society and all. But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
No, I'm fully aware of your point, which is to deflect attention away from what's obvious and confabulate a whole host of other potential reasons why the US might be such an outlier in gun deaths.
Sorry that I am not more close minded like yourself. I believe it is important to evaluate all possible contributing factors before drawing conclusions...you know...like researchers do.
and research has clearly shown a direct correlation that more guns in an area equals more gun related deaths.... its been presented in this thread several times.... just like research has shown that introducing a gun into a home means the members of that home are more likely to be harmed by a gun.... its pretty simple really
So since that is obviously a difficult factor to control at the moment, maybe it is a good idea to consider the others where change may not be as difficult?
At the end of the day, if you think at this point that "more research" needs to be done before taking any type of action, that more guns in peoples' hands are the answer, and that AR15's are not a slam dunk at this point to be illegal to own (because of some weak excuse that another type of gun can be used), then please just do us all a favor and say that mass shootings are not a concern to you. This thread is about 397 pages too long at this point.
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
You completely missed the point of that sentence, but thanks for playing. My concern is the rules that would have to go into place to limit production being a capitalist society and all. But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
No, I'm fully aware of your point, which is to deflect attention away from what's obvious and confabulate a whole host of other potential reasons why the US might be such an outlier in gun deaths.
Sorry that I am not more close minded like yourself. I believe it is important to evaluate all possible contributing factors before drawing conclusions...you know...like researchers do.
and research has clearly shown a direct correlation that more guns in an area equals more gun related deaths.... its been presented in this thread several times.... just like research has shown that introducing a gun into a home means the members of that home are more likely to be harmed by a gun.... its pretty simple really
So since that is obviously a difficult factor to control at the moment, maybe it is a good idea to consider the others where change may not be as difficult?
or maybe we stop taking such a short-sighted approach and step up to the plate for future generations?
Wright Brothers flew 10 feet off the ground at 6 MPH in 1903...... 1969 we were walking on the moon.... 1986 to present we have been living in space on a space station....
stop being dismissive of ideas and proposed changes just because it wont solve the problem overnight
At the end of the day, if you think at this point that "more research" needs to be done before taking any type of action, that more guns in peoples' hands are the answer, and that AR15's are not a slam dunk at this point to be illegal to own (because of some weak excuse that another type of gun can be used), then please just do us all a favor and say that mass shootings are not a concern to you. This thread is about 397 pages too long at this point.
That's what i was thinking when & how much more research needs to be done to acknowledge that we have a really big problem with mass shootings in this country ...
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
You completely missed the point of that sentence, but thanks for playing. My concern is the rules that would have to go into place to limit production being a capitalist society and all. But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
No, I'm fully aware of your point, which is to deflect attention away from what's obvious and confabulate a whole host of other potential reasons why the US might be such an outlier in gun deaths.
Sorry that I am not more close minded like yourself. I believe it is important to evaluate all possible contributing factors before drawing conclusions...you know...like researchers do.
and research has clearly shown a direct correlation that more guns in an area equals more gun related deaths.... its been presented in this thread several times.... just like research has shown that introducing a gun into a home means the members of that home are more likely to be harmed by a gun.... its pretty simple really
So since that is obviously a difficult factor to control at the moment, maybe it is a good idea to consider the others where change may not be as difficult?
or maybe we stop taking such a short-sighted approach and step up to the plate for future generations?
Wright Brothers flew 10 feet off the ground at 6 MPH in 1903...... 1969 we were walking on the moon.... 1986 to present we have been living in space on a space station....
stop being dismissive of ideas and proposed changes just because it wont solve the problem overnight
I have not been dismissive of all changes, just critical of the ones that I do not think will have much impact or are impossible to implement. Anyways, I’m going to take a healthy break from the forums for the remainder of the day as I can see that they are turning hostile once again. Have a great rest of the day!!
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
You completely missed the point of that sentence, but thanks for playing. My concern is the rules that would have to go into place to limit production being a capitalist society and all. But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
I have not been dismissive of all changes, just critical of the ones that I do not think will have much impact or are impossible to implement. Anyways, I’m going to take a healthy break from the forums for the remainder of the day as I can see that they are turning hostile once again. Have a great rest of the day!!
Odd that you would complain about hostility immediately after resorting to name calling......
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
There aren't many things that can move me to tears out of sheer disappointment... but the first time I saw that clip, it was one of those moments. Our children are growing up expecting to get shot in school.
I don't know how anyone can watch that and not admit we have a problem in this country. And with the advent of the modern internet, the whole world is sitting there watching us do NOTHING to protect our kids, our citizens.
Here's more truth that's tough to digest: we are, Dyer... we are watching you do nothing to protect your kids. It's a gross case of negligence.
We've been watching you guys do nothing for many years now. It really speaks to the soul of America: all the flags at half mast and all the thoughts and prayers are hollow and meaningless.
We have collectively decided that guns are like cars. We value them to an extent that we accept that some people will be killed. In both cases, we've chosen inadequate levels of preventing lax behavior that leads to danger. In both cases, it's a culture that, while some have other ideas, the majority wouldn't give up under any circumstances and, therefore, accepts that some of us are going to parish. The biggest difference is that we are desensitized to automobile deaths. But we are getting there with gun-related deaths.
No, actually, things would be a whole lot better if the US decided that guns were like cars, because the rate of deaths from cars has gone down sharply over the decades, while the rate of gun-related deaths has increased. Why? Because a whole lot of attention is paid to making automobiles safer, given that a certain percentage of their drivers will be insufficiently trained or attentive. Engineers pour over methods to improve automobile safety, roads are redesigned to minimize crash risks, we require training and licensing, and there are stiff penalties if you misuse your automobile, including the risk of being suspended or completely barred from driving. The USA does virtually none of that for guns.
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
You completely missed the point of that sentence, but thanks for playing. My concern is the rules that would have to go into place to limit production being a capitalist society and all. But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
No, I'm fully aware of your point, which is to deflect attention away from what's obvious and confabulate a whole host of other potential reasons why the US might be such an outlier in gun deaths.
Sorry that I am not more close minded like yourself. I believe it is important to evaluate all possible contributing factors before drawing conclusions...you know...like researchers do.
and research has clearly shown a direct correlation that more guns in an area equals more gun related deaths.... its been presented in this thread several times.... just like research has shown that introducing a gun into a home means the members of that home are more likely to be harmed by a gun.... its pretty simple really
So since that is obviously a difficult factor to control at the moment, maybe it is a good idea to consider the others where change may not be as difficult?
or maybe we stop taking such a short-sighted approach and step up to the plate for future generations?
Wright Brothers flew 10 feet off the ground at 6 MPH in 1903...... 1969 we were walking on the moon.... 1986 to present we have been living in space on a space station....
stop being dismissive of ideas and proposed changes just because it wont solve the problem overnight
I think the human mind is capable of making these huge leaps easily, but the human will is fat and lazy.
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
You completely missed the point of that sentence, but thanks for playing. My concern is the rules that would have to go into place to limit production being a capitalist society and all. But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
No, I'm fully aware of your point, which is to deflect attention away from what's obvious and confabulate a whole host of other potential reasons why the US might be such an outlier in gun deaths.
Sorry that I am not more close minded like yourself. I believe it is important to evaluate all possible contributing factors before drawing conclusions...you know...like researchers do.
and research has clearly shown a direct correlation that more guns in an area equals more gun related deaths.... its been presented in this thread several times.... just like research has shown that introducing a gun into a home means the members of that home are more likely to be harmed by a gun.... its pretty simple really
So since that is obviously a difficult factor to control at the moment, maybe it is a good idea to consider the others where change may not be as difficult?
Actually, I think the answer is that any efforts are futile, and not worth pursuing.
If your population growth rate exceeds your gun distribution rate, then you are controlling guns. Since a sudden wave of population expansion is unlikely, then you have only gun purchase rate to control.
To control your gun distribution rate, you can reduce supply until it’s a bottleneck, or you can reduce demand.
Since I don’t expect ethical behaviour from businesses or the government (I don’t expect it from people either, as evidenced by apathy such as yours), reducing supply is unrealistic, which leaves reducing demand.
To reduce demand for guns, there are two ways - teach why you shouldn’t need one, and teach why you shouldn’t want one.
In order to teach why people shouldn’t need guns, logic is the only answer. Since more guns distributed in a nation are proven time and time again to lead to more gun fatalities (and I don’t care if you’re talking someone who shoved a gun up their ass and accidentally pulled the trigger or painting the floors of high school gymnasiums red with the blood of children), logic would suggest that the need is actually to have fewer guns - not more. The only reasonable-ish counter-claim is that this will leave a surplus of guns in the hands of criminals, leaving a vulnerable citizenry. I legitimately don’t know how to overcome this objection.
In order to teach why people shouldn’t want one, people would have to have greater opposing values than favoring them. Having been to Cambodia and assumed to be American, asked whether I wanted to go shoot an AK-47 after visiting the mass graves in the Killing Fields. Shocked, I said definitely not. While this attitude is not uniquely American, as evidenced by our 398 pages including references to ten-year-olds exposed to guns in ‘safe environments’ with the response “that was cool”, the circle jerks over favourite models, a prevalence of bloody and violent video games and movies, I can’t help but believe that amidst a large percentage of the American population, guns are seen as, at least, benign, and at most, “fun as hell”. Since gamification drives engagement, and youth are exposed to guns when they understand fun but have yet to understand cost, there seems to be an intentional push to show guns as no different than soccer balls or go-karts, potential ramifications be damned.
Since the want is there, when promoting guns in society to the moderately intelligent, there has to be a sales pitch as to whether the impact from owning or using a gun is positive or neutral, and that it’s not negative. To show positive impact, the argument is for security. To show neutral impact, the argument aimed at the stupid is “don’t worry, it’s safe and it’s fun”. That takes care of the negative impact.
To the unintelligent, the sales pitch of the impact of a gun doesn’t even make the conversation.
After all this, I don’t know how one could argue that an expanding population where newly-created criminals are the only ones able to access lethal weapons will yield a safer nation, but I think that’s the question that must be answered. Regrettably, the median intelligence and ability to think critically in America is too low, so once answered, painting guns in a positive light without an explanation will become the de facto way to push guns, and that will satisfy enough to keep the risk.
Then, the irony - that the most selfish nation to date, who not only created a wealth inequality previously unknown but also an even more dramatic intelligence inequality, holds all the cards. Which is why I feel that any efforts are futile, and in all seriousness, regardless of our impact on the climate, regardless of nuclear warheads, regardless of how quickly we get to Mars, we are doomed, because we as a civilization are seriously fundamentally flawed, and do not deserve life. We are the greatest plague that has ever existed. The worst is yet to come.
See you guys in a few months when another high school gets painted and gun owners pretend to give a shit.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Guns are a man made phenomenon and can absolutely be limited in production and distribution. To liken them to earthquakes is to buy in to the “nothing can be done” argument. Guns are not a force of nature.
No, I'm fully aware of your point, which is to deflect attention away from what's obvious and confabulate a whole host of other potential reasons why the US might be such an outlier in gun deaths.
Sorry that I am not more close minded like yourself. I believe it is important to evaluate all possible contributing factors before drawing conclusions...you know...like researchers do.
and research has clearly shown a direct correlation that more guns in an area equals more gun related deaths.... its been presented in this thread several times.... just like research has shown that introducing a gun into a home means the members of that home are more likely to be harmed by a gun.... its pretty simple really
So since that is obviously a difficult factor to control at the moment, maybe it is a good idea to consider the others where change may not be as difficult?
Actually, I think the answer is that any efforts are futile, and not worth pursuing.
If your population growth rate exceeds your gun distribution rate, then you are controlling guns. Since a sudden wave of population expansion is unlikely, then you have only gun purchase rate to control.
To control your gun distribution rate, you can reduce supply until it’s a bottleneck, or you can reduce demand.
Since I don’t expect ethical behaviour from businesses or the government (I don’t expect it from people either, as evidenced by apathy such as yours), reducing supply is unrealistic, which leaves reducing demand.
To reduce demand for guns, there are two ways - teach why you shouldn’t need one, and teach why you shouldn’t want one.
In order to teach why people shouldn’t need guns, logic is the only answer. Since more guns distributed in a nation are proven time and time again to lead to more gun fatalities (and I don’t care if you’re talking someone who shoved a gun up their ass and accidentally pulled the trigger or painting the floors of high school gymnasiums red with the blood of children), logic would suggest that the need is actually to have fewer guns - not more. The only reasonable-ish counter-claim is that this will leave a surplus of guns in the hands of criminals, leaving a vulnerable citizenry. I legitimately don’t know how to overcome this objection.
In order to teach why people shouldn’t want one, people would have to have greater opposing values than favoring them. Having been to Cambodia and assumed to be American, asked whether I wanted to go shoot an AK-47 after visiting the mass graves in the Killing Fields. Shocked, I said definitely not. While this attitude is not uniquely American, as evidenced by our 398 pages including references to ten-year-olds exposed to guns in ‘safe environments’ with the response “that was cool”, the circle jerks over favourite models, a prevalence of bloody and violent video games and movies, I can’t help but believe that amidst a large percentage of the American population, guns are seen as, at least, benign, and at most, “fun as hell”. Since gamification drives engagement, and youth are exposed to guns when they understand fun but have yet to understand cost, there seems to be an intentional push to show guns as no different than soccer balls or go-karts, potential ramifications be damned.
Since the want is there, when promoting guns in society to the moderately intelligent, there has to be a sales pitch as to whether the impact from owning or using a gun is positive or neutral, and that it’s not negative. To show positive impact, the argument is for security. To show neutral impact, the argument aimed at the stupid is “don’t worry, it’s safe and it’s fun”. That takes care of the negative impact.
To the unintelligent, the sales pitch of the impact of a gun doesn’t even make the conversation.
After all this, I don’t know how one could argue that an expanding population where newly-created criminals are the only ones able to access lethal weapons will yield a safer nation, but I think that’s the question that must be answered. Regrettably, the median intelligence and ability to think critically in America is too low, so once answered, painting guns in a positive light without an explanation will become the de facto way to push guns, and that will satisfy enough to keep the risk.
Then, the irony - that the most selfish nation to date, who not only created a wealth inequality previously unknown but also an even more dramatic intelligence inequality, holds all the cards. Which is why I feel that any efforts are futile, and in all seriousness, regardless of our impact on the climate, regardless of nuclear warheads, regardless of how quickly we get to Mars, we are doomed, because we as a civilization are seriously fundamentally flawed, and do not deserve life. We are the greatest plague that has ever existed. The worst is yet to come.
See you guys in a few months when another high school gets painted and gun owners pretend to give a shit.
This is one way to put it lol.
There's a lot of truth in here that is tough to take ownership of.
Comments
But fewer than I would attribute to guns lol
Batting a thousand, as they say.
let me answer it another way, since we are on the topic....
it would seem that more opiates introduced to the American public sure did have an adverse affect on addiction and overdoses... imagine that
but guns? no, there are too many doors and godless fucks like me running around
My first thought is no, as long as there are appropriate measures to make sure the wrong people don't get them and those who do have them store them properly. What difference does it make if a responsible gun owner (and I believe most gun owners are actually responsible, not just "responsible" until they aren't) has 2 or 20 guns? If they are law-abiding and properly stored.
But more guns out there does means inevitably more guns in the hands of the wrong people.
But instead of preventing more guns from being manufactured, I think more strict laws on who gets them and storage requirements would be more effective.
10 guns in the wrong hands will be more deadly than 1000 guns in the right hands.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-safe-gun-storage-20180221-story.html
The Hopkins researchers surveyed 1,444 gun owners in the United States about their storage practices and found that 54 percent didn’t put them in a safe place when not in use. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock.
If that holds true to the current US population that owns guns, that's approximately 48 million "responsible" gun owners. But its not a propblem.
What number is "most?"
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
But the earthquake analogy was more in reference to situations where crazy people get the guns (regardless of laws) and try to shoot up a school. There will most likely be more of those before any kind of real/effective “solutions” are implemented, so preparations for these scenarios are a key component to reducing mass casualties.
No, I'm fully aware of your point, which is to deflect attention away from what's obvious and confabulate a whole host of other potential reasons why the US might be such an outlier in gun deaths.
“This new research finds that gun owners who reported a gun safety training course influenced their gun storage practices were twice as likely to practice safe storage for all their guns, and gun owners who cited discussions with family members as influencing their decisions were 39 percent more likely to practice safe storage.
"It's encouraging to see the positive associations between safety training and reporting safe storage practices," said study co-author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "Requiring gun purchasers to take safety training classes, as a handful of states already do, might lead to more gun owners storing their guns safely."”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180225184123.htm
I, and others, have stated that a gun safety course would help to increase safe storage practices...This research supports that, it would seem. Seems like this little detail was pretty important not to have been mentioned by the Baltimore Sun...
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The NRA, however, is one of the only organizations that provide gun safety courses...so there is that.
And, sounds good, 5-10 years in prison if you do not store your firearm safely and someone uses it in a murder.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
and research has clearly shown a direct correlation that more guns in an area equals more gun related deaths.... its been presented in this thread several times.... just like research has shown that introducing a gun into a home means the members of that home are more likely to be harmed by a gun.... its pretty simple really
(paging @Benjis)
At the end of the day, if you think at this point that "more research" needs to be done before taking any type of action, that more guns in peoples' hands are the answer, and that AR15's are not a slam dunk at this point to be illegal to own (because of some weak excuse that another type of gun can be used), then please just do us all a favor and say that mass shootings are not a concern to you. This thread is about 397 pages too long at this point.
or maybe we stop taking such a short-sighted approach and step up to the plate for future generations?
Wright Brothers flew 10 feet off the ground at 6 MPH in 1903...... 1969 we were walking on the moon.... 1986 to present we have been living in space on a space station....
stop being dismissive of ideas and proposed changes just because it wont solve the problem overnight
Anyways, I’m going to take a healthy break from the forums for the remainder of the day as I can see that they are turning hostile once again. Have a great rest of the day!!
my post was hostile? The Wright Brothers were too much? lol
Straight outta The Onion.
Odd that you would complain about hostility immediately after resorting to name calling......
Actually, I think the answer is that any efforts are futile, and not worth pursuing.
If your population growth rate exceeds your gun distribution rate, then you are controlling guns. Since a sudden wave of population expansion is unlikely, then you have only gun purchase rate to control.
To control your gun distribution rate, you can reduce supply until it’s a bottleneck, or you can reduce demand.
Since I don’t expect ethical behaviour from businesses or the government (I don’t expect it from people either, as evidenced by apathy such as yours), reducing supply is unrealistic, which leaves reducing demand.
To reduce demand for guns, there are two ways - teach why you shouldn’t need one, and teach why you shouldn’t want one.
In order to teach why people shouldn’t need guns, logic is the only answer. Since more guns distributed in a nation are proven time and time again to lead to more gun fatalities (and I don’t care if you’re talking someone who shoved a gun up their ass and accidentally pulled the trigger or painting the floors of high school gymnasiums red with the blood of children), logic would suggest that the need is actually to have fewer guns - not more. The only reasonable-ish counter-claim is that this will leave a surplus of guns in the hands of criminals, leaving a vulnerable citizenry. I legitimately don’t know how to overcome this objection.
In order to teach why people shouldn’t want one, people would have to have greater opposing values than favoring them. Having been to Cambodia and assumed to be American, asked whether I wanted to go shoot an AK-47 after visiting the mass graves in the Killing Fields. Shocked, I said definitely not. While this attitude is not uniquely American, as evidenced by our 398 pages including references to ten-year-olds exposed to guns in ‘safe environments’ with the response “that was cool”, the circle jerks over favourite models, a prevalence of bloody and violent video games and movies, I can’t help but believe that amidst a large percentage of the American population, guns are seen as, at least, benign, and at most, “fun as hell”. Since gamification drives engagement, and youth are exposed to guns when they understand fun but have yet to understand cost, there seems to be an intentional push to show guns as no different than soccer balls or go-karts, potential ramifications be damned.
Since the want is there, when promoting guns in society to the moderately intelligent, there has to be a sales pitch as to whether the impact from owning or using a gun is positive or neutral, and that it’s not negative. To show positive impact, the argument is for security. To show neutral impact, the argument aimed at the stupid is “don’t worry, it’s safe and it’s fun”. That takes care of the negative impact.
To the unintelligent, the sales pitch of the impact of a gun doesn’t even make the conversation.
After all this, I don’t know how one could argue that an expanding population where newly-created criminals are the only ones able to access lethal weapons will yield a safer nation, but I think that’s the question that must be answered. Regrettably, the median intelligence and ability to think critically in America is too low, so once answered, painting guns in a positive light without an explanation will become the de facto way to push guns, and that will satisfy enough to keep the risk.
Then, the irony - that the most selfish nation to date, who not only created a wealth inequality previously unknown but also an even more dramatic intelligence inequality, holds all the cards. Which is why I feel that any efforts are futile, and in all seriousness, regardless of our impact on the climate, regardless of nuclear warheads, regardless of how quickly we get to Mars, we are doomed, because we as a civilization are seriously fundamentally flawed, and do not deserve life. We are the greatest plague that has ever existed. The worst is yet to come.
See you guys in a few months when another high school gets painted and gun owners pretend to give a shit.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
This is one way to put it lol.
There's a lot of truth in here that is tough to take ownership of.