"There are 20,000 gun suicides in the U.S. every year, more than 50 every single day. That’s more than half of all suicides and two-thirds of all gun deaths. Research shows a gun in the home makes a suicide three times more likely.The firearm suicide rate has increased more than 13 percent between 2007 and 2013 Suicide is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 10 to 24 years 85 to 91 percent of firearm suicide attempts are fatal" bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-suicide-guns
If I remember correctly, gun ownership (by household) has gone down in that time period. That could be the cause of less suicides by firearm.....but that is pure speculation on my part.
Evidently they want "sources" around here, lol. I just hate the more=more and less=less argument. It disregards all of the other factors that may be effecting the stats. As my Sociology professor drilled into our brains time after time, "Corrolation does not mean causation". There are so many factors socially and economically that effect suicide/homicide rates besides "people have guns".
So it doesn't make sense to you?
You're trying to deflect here. Of course there are causal or motivational factors, but the correlation is- as I said earlier- irrefutable. Especially when you compare the US to other countries with many of the same problems, yet nowhere near as armed and nowhere near as many gun homicides.
Those other countries don't have Chicago.
Lol, Chicago accounts for about 2% of it. How do you account for the other 98%?
Pretty sure around 75% of gun deaths in this country are gang related. So it s probably time to step it up and make these types of gang activities illegal.
That number is WAY off apparently, according to this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html This sites that gang related gun deaths only account for 29% of gun deaths overall. Nonetheless, just end prohibition and a large portion of that gang/gun problem would probably go away (and no, it's not a hypocritical statement, lol, since I think the US's gun problem is its gun culture, not regulations... not that more rigorous background checks aren't needed too).
my bad, not the country but in chicago. on a serious note, nearly 32,000 americans are killed by guns. but, (this is something we've hashed out lots) 60% of those deaths are deaths by suicide. so of course which grabs your attention more, 32,000 or approx 11,000.
Yes, sorry, I was going with the homicide numbers (300 in Chicago is about 2% of 11,000). not just deaths in general. I don't consider suicide a relevant stat to be honest. I support people's right to kill themselves (not that I don't also support better mental health care too!). I don't really care if they use a gun, a bridge, pills, a rope, whatever. I have read that some think people would not kill themselves if they didn't have access to a gun specifically... I dunno. I don't really buy that.
Many of the suicides by gun are very spur of the moment, like suicide attempts in general. The problem is that it is a very lethal method, like jumping, meaning that a far higher percentage of people attempting suicide by gun will end up dead and not have the opportunity to get treatment. However, te majority of people who attempt suicide and do not succeed, and then get appropriate treatment, regret their suicide attempt and are relieved that they didn't die. For these simple reasons, the easy availability of guns tends to increase the number of suicides.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
what are canadian drug laws like? is weed legal? is heroin that bad up there?
We're supposed to be working on legalizing marijuana.
Out populations are very similar though, Scruffy. We're more alike than unalike. I would assume we have our share of heroin usage. I know meth was problematic for many a few years back, but we don't see much evidence of it lately.
"There are 20,000 gun suicides in the U.S. every year, more than 50 every single day. That’s more than half of all suicides and two-thirds of all gun deaths. Research shows a gun in the home makes a suicide three times more likely.The firearm suicide rate has increased more than 13 percent between 2007 and 2013 Suicide is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 10 to 24 years 85 to 91 percent of firearm suicide attempts are fatal" bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-suicide-guns
If I remember correctly, gun ownership (by household) has gone down in that time period. That could be the cause of less suicides by firearm.....but that is pure speculation on my part.
Evidently they want "sources" around here, lol. I just hate the more=more and less=less argument. It disregards all of the other factors that may be effecting the stats. As my Sociology professor drilled into our brains time after time, "Corrolation does not mean causation". There are so many factors socially and economically that effect suicide/homicide rates besides "people have guns".
So it doesn't make sense to you?
You're trying to deflect here. Of course there are causal or motivational factors, but the correlation is- as I said earlier- irrefutable. Especially when you compare the US to other countries with many of the same problems, yet nowhere near as armed and nowhere near as many gun homicides.
Those other countries don't have Chicago.
Lol, Chicago accounts for about 2% of it. How do you account for the other 98%?
Pretty sure around 75% of gun deaths in this country are gang related. So it s probably time to step it up and make these types of gang activities illegal.
Or make drugs legal- a no brainer really.
Weed sure. The rest, no way. It s crazy how many heroin deaths are around here.
In the small number of jurisdictions where drugs have been legalized or decriminalized (there are only a few in the world), the health improvements have been impressive. Deaths by overdose go down, transmission of infectious diseases go down, and people reducing or ceasing drug use goes up. Why? Mostly because people are no longer doing everything they can to avoid detection and criminal prosecution, so they are far more likely to be open to accessing health resources.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
"There are 20,000 gun suicides in the U.S. every year, more than 50 every single day. That’s more than half of all suicides and two-thirds of all gun deaths. Research shows a gun in the home makes a suicide three times more likely.The firearm suicide rate has increased more than 13 percent between 2007 and 2013 Suicide is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 10 to 24 years 85 to 91 percent of firearm suicide attempts are fatal" bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-suicide-guns
If I remember correctly, gun ownership (by household) has gone down in that time period. That could be the cause of less suicides by firearm.....but that is pure speculation on my part.
Evidently they want "sources" around here, lol. I just hate the more=more and less=less argument. It disregards all of the other factors that may be effecting the stats. As my Sociology professor drilled into our brains time after time, "Corrolation does not mean causation". There are so many factors socially and economically that effect suicide/homicide rates besides "people have guns".
So it doesn't make sense to you?
You're trying to deflect here. Of course there are causal or motivational factors, but the correlation is- as I said earlier- irrefutable. Especially when you compare the US to other countries with many of the same problems, yet nowhere near as armed and nowhere near as many gun homicides.
Those other countries don't have Chicago.
Lol, Chicago accounts for about 2% of it. How do you account for the other 98%?
Pretty sure around 75% of gun deaths in this country are gang related. So it s probably time to step it up and make these types of gang activities illegal.
That number is WAY off apparently, according to this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html This sites that gang related gun deaths only account for 29% of gun deaths overall. Nonetheless, just end prohibition and a large portion of that gang/gun problem would probably go away (and no, it's not a hypocritical statement, lol, since I think the US's gun problem is its gun culture, not regulations... not that more rigorous background checks aren't needed too).
my bad, not the country but in chicago. on a serious note, nearly 32,000 americans are killed by guns. but, (this is something we've hashed out lots) 60% of those deaths are deaths by suicide. so of course which grabs your attention more, 32,000 or approx 11,000.
Yes, sorry, I was going with the homicide numbers (300 in Chicago is about 2% of 11,000). not just deaths in general. I don't consider suicide a relevant stat to be honest. I support people's right to kill themselves (not that I don't also support better mental health care too!). I don't really care if they use a gun, a bridge, pills, a rope, whatever. I have read that some think people would not kill themselves if they didn't have access to a gun specifically... I dunno. I don't really buy that.
Many of the suicides by gun are very spur of the moment, like suicide attempts in general. The problem is that it is a very lethal method, like jumping, meaning that a far higher percentage of people attempting suicide by gun will end up dead and not have the opportunity to get treatment. However, te majority of people who attempt suicide and do not succeed, and then get appropriate treatment, regret their suicide attempt and are relieved that they didn't die. For these simple reasons, the easy availability of guns tends to increase the number of suicides.
Many of the murders are of the emotional response type as well- guns offering the means to act on such irrational thought with no regard for consequences.
"There are 20,000 gun suicides in the U.S. every year, more than 50 every single day. That’s more than half of all suicides and two-thirds of all gun deaths. Research shows a gun in the home makes a suicide three times more likely.The firearm suicide rate has increased more than 13 percent between 2007 and 2013 Suicide is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 10 to 24 years 85 to 91 percent of firearm suicide attempts are fatal" bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-suicide-guns
If I remember correctly, gun ownership (by household) has gone down in that time period. That could be the cause of less suicides by firearm.....but that is pure speculation on my part.
Evidently they want "sources" around here, lol. I just hate the more=more and less=less argument. It disregards all of the other factors that may be effecting the stats. As my Sociology professor drilled into our brains time after time, "Corrolation does not mean causation". There are so many factors socially and economically that effect suicide/homicide rates besides "people have guns".
So it doesn't make sense to you?
You're trying to deflect here. Of course there are causal or motivational factors, but the correlation is- as I said earlier- irrefutable. Especially when you compare the US to other countries with many of the same problems, yet nowhere near as armed and nowhere near as many gun homicides.
Those other countries don't have Chicago.
Lol, Chicago accounts for about 2% of it. How do you account for the other 98%?
Pretty sure around 75% of gun deaths in this country are gang related. So it s probably time to step it up and make these types of gang activities illegal.
That number is WAY off apparently, according to this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html This sites that gang related gun deaths only account for 29% of gun deaths overall. Nonetheless, just end prohibition and a large portion of that gang/gun problem would probably go away (and no, it's not a hypocritical statement, lol, since I think the US's gun problem is its gun culture, not regulations... not that more rigorous background checks aren't needed too).
my bad, not the country but in chicago. on a serious note, nearly 32,000 americans are killed by guns. but, (this is something we've hashed out lots) 60% of those deaths are deaths by suicide. so of course which grabs your attention more, 32,000 or approx 11,000.
Yes, sorry, I was going with the homicide numbers (300 in Chicago is about 2% of 11,000). not just deaths in general. I don't consider suicide a relevant stat to be honest. I support people's right to kill themselves (not that I don't also support better mental health care too!). I don't really care if they use a gun, a bridge, pills, a rope, whatever. I have read that some think people would not kill themselves if they didn't have access to a gun specifically... I dunno. I don't really buy that.
Many of the suicides by gun are very spur of the moment, like suicide attempts in general. The problem is that it is a very lethal method, like jumping, meaning that a far higher percentage of people attempting suicide by gun will end up dead and not have the opportunity to get treatment. However, te majority of people who attempt suicide and do not succeed, and then get appropriate treatment, regret their suicide attempt and are relieved that they didn't die. For these simple reasons, the easy availability of guns tends to increase the number of suicides.
Many of the murders are of the emotional response type as well- guns offering the means to act on such irrational thought with no regard for consequences.
Yes, good point, Thirty.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
"There are 20,000 gun suicides in the U.S. every year, more than 50 every single day. That’s more than half of all suicides and two-thirds of all gun deaths. Research shows a gun in the home makes a suicide three times more likely.The firearm suicide rate has increased more than 13 percent between 2007 and 2013 Suicide is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 10 to 24 years 85 to 91 percent of firearm suicide attempts are fatal" bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-suicide-guns
If I remember correctly, gun ownership (by household) has gone down in that time period. That could be the cause of less suicides by firearm.....but that is pure speculation on my part.
Evidently they want "sources" around here, lol. I just hate the more=more and less=less argument. It disregards all of the other factors that may be effecting the stats. As my Sociology professor drilled into our brains time after time, "Corrolation does not mean causation". There are so many factors socially and economically that effect suicide/homicide rates besides "people have guns".
So it doesn't make sense to you?
You're trying to deflect here. Of course there are causal or motivational factors, but the correlation is- as I said earlier- irrefutable. Especially when you compare the US to other countries with many of the same problems, yet nowhere near as armed and nowhere near as many gun homicides.
Those other countries don't have Chicago.
Lol, Chicago accounts for about 2% of it. How do you account for the other 98%?
Pretty sure around 75% of gun deaths in this country are gang related. So it s probably time to step it up and make these types of gang activities illegal.
Or make drugs legal- a no brainer really.
no, no way it will attract more users and drugs come at a cost
more users = more aggravated theft not to mention more of the mentally unstable on drugs not fitting in society = MORE SHOOTINGS
"There are 20,000 gun suicides in the U.S. every year, more than 50 every single day. That’s more than half of all suicides and two-thirds of all gun deaths. Research shows a gun in the home makes a suicide three times more likely.The firearm suicide rate has increased more than 13 percent between 2007 and 2013 Suicide is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 10 to 24 years 85 to 91 percent of firearm suicide attempts are fatal" bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-suicide-guns
If I remember correctly, gun ownership (by household) has gone down in that time period. That could be the cause of less suicides by firearm.....but that is pure speculation on my part.
Evidently they want "sources" around here, lol. I just hate the more=more and less=less argument. It disregards all of the other factors that may be effecting the stats. As my Sociology professor drilled into our brains time after time, "Corrolation does not mean causation". There are so many factors socially and economically that effect suicide/homicide rates besides "people have guns".
So it doesn't make sense to you?
You're trying to deflect here. Of course there are causal or motivational factors, but the correlation is- as I said earlier- irrefutable. Especially when you compare the US to other countries with many of the same problems, yet nowhere near as armed and nowhere near as many gun homicides.
Those other countries don't have Chicago.
Lol, Chicago accounts for about 2% of it. How do you account for the other 98%?
Pretty sure around 75% of gun deaths in this country are gang related. So it s probably time to step it up and make these types of gang activities illegal.
Or make drugs legal- a no brainer really.
no, no way it will attract more users and drugs come at a cost
more users = more aggravated theft not to mention more of the mentally unstable on drugs not fitting in society = MORE SHOOTINGS
No, where drugs have been legalized use tends to go down, not up.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
"There are 20,000 gun suicides in the U.S. every year, more than 50 every single day. That’s more than half of all suicides and two-thirds of all gun deaths. Research shows a gun in the home makes a suicide three times more likely.The firearm suicide rate has increased more than 13 percent between 2007 and 2013 Suicide is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 10 to 24 years 85 to 91 percent of firearm suicide attempts are fatal" bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-suicide-guns
If I remember correctly, gun ownership (by household) has gone down in that time period. That could be the cause of less suicides by firearm.....but that is pure speculation on my part.
Evidently they want "sources" around here, lol. I just hate the more=more and less=less argument. It disregards all of the other factors that may be effecting the stats. As my Sociology professor drilled into our brains time after time, "Corrolation does not mean causation". There are so many factors socially and economically that effect suicide/homicide rates besides "people have guns".
So it doesn't make sense to you?
You're trying to deflect here. Of course there are causal or motivational factors, but the correlation is- as I said earlier- irrefutable. Especially when you compare the US to other countries with many of the same problems, yet nowhere near as armed and nowhere near as many gun homicides.
Those other countries don't have Chicago.
Lol, Chicago accounts for about 2% of it. How do you account for the other 98%?
Pretty sure around 75% of gun deaths in this country are gang related. So it s probably time to step it up and make these types of gang activities illegal.
Or make drugs legal- a no brainer really.
no, no way it will attract more users and drugs come at a cost
more users = more aggravated theft not to mention more of the mentally unstable on drugs not fitting in society = MORE SHOOTINGS
No, where drugs have been legalized use tends to go down, not up.
"There are 20,000 gun suicides in the U.S. every year, more than 50 every single day. That’s more than half of all suicides and two-thirds of all gun deaths. Research shows a gun in the home makes a suicide three times more likely.The firearm suicide rate has increased more than 13 percent between 2007 and 2013 Suicide is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 10 to 24 years 85 to 91 percent of firearm suicide attempts are fatal" bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-suicide-guns
If I remember correctly, gun ownership (by household) has gone down in that time period. That could be the cause of less suicides by firearm.....but that is pure speculation on my part.
Evidently they want "sources" around here, lol. I just hate the more=more and less=less argument. It disregards all of the other factors that may be effecting the stats. As my Sociology professor drilled into our brains time after time, "Corrolation does not mean causation". There are so many factors socially and economically that effect suicide/homicide rates besides "people have guns".
So it doesn't make sense to you?
You're trying to deflect here. Of course there are causal or motivational factors, but the correlation is- as I said earlier- irrefutable. Especially when you compare the US to other countries with many of the same problems, yet nowhere near as armed and nowhere near as many gun homicides.
Those other countries don't have Chicago.
Lol, Chicago accounts for about 2% of it. How do you account for the other 98%?
Pretty sure around 75% of gun deaths in this country are gang related. So it s probably time to step it up and make these types of gang activities illegal.
Or make drugs legal- a no brainer really.
no, no way it will attract more users and drugs come at a cost
more users = more aggravated theft not to mention more of the mentally unstable on drugs not fitting in society = MORE SHOOTINGS
No, where drugs have been legalized use tends to go down, not up.
Except that this is an opinion piece based on no evidence, and jurisdictions that have legalized/decriminalized in reality have seen reductions in use. So, not that great a read.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Sorry I explained myself wrong My point is that pot is less liability drug so therefore more common and easy to get hold of without risk So use and availability is increased
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
gun's will never leave the American landscape (thank goodness) if that ever happened we would be come a country of outlaws......then watch what happens, what's good for you may not be good for me but I'll be awfully angry if my rights to bare arms are taken away by some limp wristed political sissy, we should take a look at how many unregistered gun are estimated to be in America and how many registered guns are here as well, taking them away will never happen.
Godfather.
The inmates run the asylum.
Nobody wants to take your guns GF. Well... except for your machine guns or handguns.
I was on this site at lunch last week and a colleague looked over my shoulder and saw the armed protestor at Landers' house. He was flabbergasted saying, "Where is that? Can they actually legally carry a gun like that? Can they actually legally own a gun like that? Wtf?"
I answered his questions. I told him they could buy a gun like that at the local sporting goods store. He just shook his head saying, "I knew they were a little f**ked, but not that f**ked. Holy shit."
That's just one man's opinion though.
Nobody wants to take your guns GF. Well... except for your machine guns or handguns.......then yes they do.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Sorry I explained myself wrong My point is that pot is less liability drug so therefore more common and easy to get hold of without risk So use and availability is increased
From your initial argument, you're trying to make the point that legalizing drugs will make them more available and thus increase use. In fact, your example makes a completely different point - that even where drugs are illegal they are generally very easy to obtain. Where I live, meth is dirt cheap. It's hard to imagine it getting even cheaper if it were legalized.
The main thing that keeping drugs illegal does is increase the number of people involved in the criminal justice system, thus clogging up the courts and jails, and making it difficult for people thereafter to get jobs because of their criminal records.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
There's a lot of nutty people out there.
Don't compare a celebrity's legitimate need for protection from them with the average Joe's paranoid need for an AR15 to protect themselves from the boogeyman.
They have no more right to their self defense than what I do. I can't afford a bodyguard, and I'll also determine my own self defense needs thanksverymuch.
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.
C'mon man.
* And hey... I forgot about the impending alien invasion (not the one Trump blathers on about... but the one from infinity and beyond). Guy should be allowed to own some land mines for this... no? I should be able to determine my own self defence yah?
Goofy.
Bullshit, there are plenty of situations that an "average joe" may find themselves in that put them in just as or more significant or realistic threat as "celebrities". Otherwise, restraining orders would not exist. You said it yourself, there are nuts out there that come up with all kinds of reasons to harm others; divorces, child custody battles, money, drugs do not always bring out the best in people. "alien invasion"... Seriously?
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.
So are the elderly, the disabled, the poor...it's all relative. Does that mean a celebrity has more of a right to life than someone else? That's what this conversation is dwindling down to...
no it's not. it all comes down to what someone can afford. I have zero issue with anyone having armed security if they can afford it. if firearms are part of your job, then have at er. to me that is totally different than an average person concealing and carrying.
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
There's a lot of nutty people out there.
Don't compare a celebrity's legitimate need for protection from them with the average Joe's paranoid need for an AR15 to protect themselves from the boogeyman.
They have no more right to their self defense than what I do. I can't afford a bodyguard, and I'll also determine my own self defense needs thanksverymuch.
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.
C'mon man.
* And hey... I forgot about the impending alien invasion (not the one Trump blathers on about... but the one from infinity and beyond). Guy should be allowed to own some land mines for this... no? I should be able to determine my own self defence yah?
Goofy.
Bullshit, there are plenty of situations that an "average joe" may find themselves in that put them in just as or more significant or realistic threat as "celebrities". Otherwise, restraining orders would not exist. You said it yourself, there are nuts out there that come up with all kinds of reasons to harm others; divorces, child custody battles, money, drugs do not always bring out the best in people. "alien invasion"... Seriously?
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.
So are the elderly, the disabled, the poor...it's all relative. Does that mean a celebrity has more of a right to life than someone else? That's what this conversation is dwindling down to...
no it's not. it all comes down to what someone can afford. I have zero issue with anyone having armed security if they can afford it. if firearms are part of your job, then have at er. to me that is totally different than an average person concealing and carrying.
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
Yup.
I'm pretty sure people were saying that some people live with a more heightened risk than others and hence, need proactive measures to manage their reality.
Do people actually think Grandma is just as likely to be a target of some psychopath as Donald Trump? Sheesh.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
There's a lot of nutty people out there.
Don't compare a celebrity's legitimate need for protection from them with the average Joe's paranoid need for an AR15 to protect themselves from the boogeyman.
They have no more right to their self defense than what I do. I can't afford a bodyguard, and I'll also determine my own self defense needs thanksverymuch.
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.
C'mon man.
* And hey... I forgot about the impending alien invasion (not the one Trump blathers on about... but the one from infinity and beyond). Guy should be allowed to own some land mines for this... no? I should be able to determine my own self defence yah?
Goofy.
Bullshit, there are plenty of situations that an "average joe" may find themselves in that put them in just as or more significant or realistic threat as "celebrities". Otherwise, restraining orders would not exist. You said it yourself, there are nuts out there that come up with all kinds of reasons to harm others; divorces, child custody battles, money, drugs do not always bring out the best in people. "alien invasion"... Seriously?
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.
So are the elderly, the disabled, the poor...it's all relative. Does that mean a celebrity has more of a right to life than someone else? That's what this conversation is dwindling down to...
no it's not. it all comes down to what someone can afford. I have zero issue with anyone having armed security if they can afford it. if firearms are part of your job, then have at er. to me that is totally different than an average person concealing and carrying.
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
So you are cool with rich people having armed security, but not rich people or anyone else being armed to protect themselves if their armed security is not around got it. Agreed, ridiculous.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
There's a lot of nutty people out there.
Don't compare a celebrity's legitimate need for protection from them with the average Joe's paranoid need for an AR15 to protect themselves from the boogeyman.
They have no more right to their self defense than what I do. I can't afford a bodyguard, and I'll also determine my own self defense needs thanksverymuch.
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.
C'mon man.
* And hey... I forgot about the impending alien invasion (not the one Trump blathers on about... but the one from infinity and beyond). Guy should be allowed to own some land mines for this... no? I should be able to determine my own self defence yah?
Goofy.
Bullshit, there are plenty of situations that an "average joe" may find themselves in that put them in just as or more significant or realistic threat as "celebrities". Otherwise, restraining orders would not exist. You said it yourself, there are nuts out there that come up with all kinds of reasons to harm others; divorces, child custody battles, money, drugs do not always bring out the best in people. "alien invasion"... Seriously?
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.
So are the elderly, the disabled, the poor...it's all relative. Does that mean a celebrity has more of a right to life than someone else? That's what this conversation is dwindling down to...
no it's not. it all comes down to what someone can afford. I have zero issue with anyone having armed security if they can afford it. if firearms are part of your job, then have at er. to me that is totally different than an average person concealing and carrying.
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
So you are cool with rich people having armed security, but not rich people or anyone else being armed to protect themselves if their armed security is not around got it. Agreed, ridiculous.
I am cool with armed security yes. it is assumed that if you have a job where you require a firearm, you are properly trained and not a psycho. you cannot assume that about the general populace.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
There's a lot of nutty people out there.
Don't compare a celebrity's legitimate need for protection from them with the average Joe's paranoid need for an AR15 to protect themselves from the boogeyman.
They have no more right to their self defense than what I do. I can't afford a bodyguard, and I'll also determine my own self defense needs thanksverymuch.
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.
C'mon man.
* And hey... I forgot about the impending alien invasion (not the one Trump blathers on about... but the one from infinity and beyond). Guy should be allowed to own some land mines for this... no? I should be able to determine my own self defence yah?
Goofy.
Bullshit, there are plenty of situations that an "average joe" may find themselves in that put them in just as or more significant or realistic threat as "celebrities". Otherwise, restraining orders would not exist. You said it yourself, there are nuts out there that come up with all kinds of reasons to harm others; divorces, child custody battles, money, drugs do not always bring out the best in people. "alien invasion"... Seriously?
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.
So are the elderly, the disabled, the poor...it's all relative. Does that mean a celebrity has more of a right to life than someone else? That's what this conversation is dwindling down to...
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
There's a lot of nutty people out there.
Don't compare a celebrity's legitimate need for protection from them with the average Joe's paranoid need for an AR15 to protect themselves from the boogeyman.
They have no more right to their self defense than what I do. I can't afford a bodyguard, and I'll also determine my own self defense needs thanksverymuch.
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.
C'mon man.
* And hey... I forgot about the impending alien invasion (not the one Trump blathers on about... but the one from infinity and beyond). Guy should be allowed to own some land mines for this... no? I should be able to determine my own self defence yah?
Goofy.
Bullshit, there are plenty of situations that an "average joe" may find themselves in that put them in just as or more significant or realistic threat as "celebrities". Otherwise, restraining orders would not exist. You said it yourself, there are nuts out there that come up with all kinds of reasons to harm others; divorces, child custody battles, money, drugs do not always bring out the best in people. "alien invasion"... Seriously?
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.
So are the elderly, the disabled, the poor...it's all relative. Does that mean a celebrity has more of a right to life than someone else? That's what this conversation is dwindling down to...
no it's not. it all comes down to what someone can afford. I have zero issue with anyone having armed security if they can afford it. if firearms are part of your job, then have at er. to me that is totally different than an average person concealing and carrying.
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
So you are cool with rich people having armed security, but not rich people or anyone else being armed to protect themselves if their armed security is not around got it. Agreed, ridiculous.
I am cool with armed security yes. it is assumed that if you have a job where you require a firearm, you are properly trained and not a psycho. you cannot assume that about the general populace.
While I still disagree with you, at least I know what you are saying. This thread was starting to sound like some were implying that rich celebrities had more of a right to arm themselves than the general public, which is fucking elitist and crazy. You just believe that no one except law enforcement or security should be armed, which I still think is crazy, just a different type. Don't think we are going to see eye to eye on that. Thanks for clarifying though
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
There's a lot of nutty people out there.
Don't compare a celebrity's legitimate need for protection from them with the average Joe's paranoid need for an AR15 to protect themselves from the boogeyman.
They have no more right to their self defense than what I do. I can't afford a bodyguard, and I'll also determine my own self defense needs thanksverymuch.
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.
C'mon man.
* And hey... I forgot about the impending alien invasion (not the one Trump blathers on about... but the one from infinity and beyond). Guy should be allowed to own some land mines for this... no? I should be able to determine my own self defence yah?
Goofy.
Bullshit, there are plenty of situations that an "average joe" may find themselves in that put them in just as or more significant or realistic threat as "celebrities". Otherwise, restraining orders would not exist. You said it yourself, there are nuts out there that come up with all kinds of reasons to harm others; divorces, child custody battles, money, drugs do not always bring out the best in people. "alien invasion"... Seriously?
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.
So are the elderly, the disabled, the poor...it's all relative. Does that mean a celebrity has more of a right to life than someone else? That's what this conversation is dwindling down to...
no it's not. it all comes down to what someone can afford. I have zero issue with anyone having armed security if they can afford it. if firearms are part of your job, then have at er. to me that is totally different than an average person concealing and carrying.
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
So you are cool with rich people having armed security, but not rich people or anyone else being armed to protect themselves if their armed security is not around got it. Agreed, ridiculous.
I am cool with armed security yes. it is assumed that if you have a job where you require a firearm, you are properly trained and not a psycho. you cannot assume that about the general populace.
While I still disagree with you, at least I know what you are saying. This thread was starting to sound like some were implying that rich celebrities had more of a right to arm themselves than the general public, which is fucking elitist and crazy. You just believe that no one except law enforcement or security should be armed, which I still think is crazy, just a different type. Don't think we are going to see eye to eye on that. Thanks for clarifying though
open carry in canada is walking down the street with a hockey stick.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
There's a lot of nutty people out there.
Don't compare a celebrity's legitimate need for protection from them with the average Joe's paranoid need for an AR15 to protect themselves from the boogeyman.
They have no more right to their self defense than what I do. I can't afford a bodyguard, and I'll also determine my own self defense needs thanksverymuch.
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.
C'mon man.
* And hey... I forgot about the impending alien invasion (not the one Trump blathers on about... but the one from infinity and beyond). Guy should be allowed to own some land mines for this... no? I should be able to determine my own self defence yah?
Goofy.
Bullshit, there are plenty of situations that an "average joe" may find themselves in that put them in just as or more significant or realistic threat as "celebrities". Otherwise, restraining orders would not exist. You said it yourself, there are nuts out there that come up with all kinds of reasons to harm others; divorces, child custody battles, money, drugs do not always bring out the best in people. "alien invasion"... Seriously?
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.
So are the elderly, the disabled, the poor...it's all relative. Does that mean a celebrity has more of a right to life than someone else? That's what this conversation is dwindling down to...
no it's not. it all comes down to what someone can afford. I have zero issue with anyone having armed security if they can afford it. if firearms are part of your job, then have at er. to me that is totally different than an average person concealing and carrying.
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
So you are cool with rich people having armed security, but not rich people or anyone else being armed to protect themselves if their armed security is not around got it. Agreed, ridiculous.
I am cool with armed security yes. it is assumed that if you have a job where you require a firearm, you are properly trained and not a psycho. you cannot assume that about the general populace.
While I still disagree with you, at least I know what you are saying. This thread was starting to sound like some were implying that rich celebrities had more of a right to arm themselves than the general public, which is fucking elitist and crazy. You just believe that no one except law enforcement or security should be armed, which I still think is crazy, just a different type. Don't think we are going to see eye to eye on that. Thanks for clarifying though
Not a single person implied that. That was your own thought.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Out populations are very similar though, Scruffy. We're more alike than unalike. I would assume we have our share of heroin usage. I know meth was problematic for many a few years back, but we don't see much evidence of it lately.
Again, all unfounded assumptions.
more users = more aggravated theft
not to mention more of the mentally unstable on drugs not fitting in society = MORE SHOOTINGS
https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Resources/essays/legal-drugs-No.html
just like pot was readily available when we were kids
My point is that pot is less liability drug so therefore more common and easy to get hold of without risk
So use and availability is increased
we will find a way, we will find our place
Godfather.
Godfather.
You're wrong here.
The main thing that keeping drugs illegal does is increase the number of people involved in the criminal justice system, thus clogging up the courts and jails, and making it difficult for people thereafter to get jobs because of their criminal records.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/surge-in-melbourne-gun-crimes-compels-crackdown-20160912-greg1j.html
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Bottom line: enjoy your guns.
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
www.headstonesband.com
I'm pretty sure people were saying that some people live with a more heightened risk than others and hence, need proactive measures to manage their reality.
Do people actually think Grandma is just as likely to be a target of some psychopath as Donald Trump? Sheesh.
Agreed, ridiculous.
www.headstonesband.com
Wyoming nursing home resident, 77, kills one, wounds two others
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/wyoming-nursing-home-resident-77-kills-wounds-article-1.2792771
While I still disagree with you, at least I know what you are saying. This thread was starting to sound like some were implying that rich celebrities had more of a right to arm themselves than the general public, which is fucking elitist and crazy.
You just believe that no one except law enforcement or security should be armed, which I still think is crazy, just a different type. Don't think we are going to see eye to eye on that. Thanks for clarifying though
www.headstonesband.com