America's Gun Violence

PJ_Soul · May 2016

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Godfather. said:

PJ_Soul said:

eddiec said:

Godfather. said:
there are more deaths from legal and illegal drugs every year, a gun kills with a loud bang and drugs kill for the most part silently, something to think about while people are protesting guns while they're high on who knows what.

Godfather.
Nobody fears walking into a movie theater and having some guy start tossing cocaine into the air.

That's funny, but is a very good point.
I know that I wouldn't really have any issue with guns if people only used them to kill themselves by choice.
the number of suicides by gun I believe actually does out-number violent gun deaths, I was just reading some stuff on the interweb that had some pretty interesting facts.

Godfather.

I'm sure it does. It's not a statistic that I care about (in this specific context I mean). If someone wants to kill themselves, there are all kinds of ways for them to do it. If they didn't have a gun they'd most likely do something else. Or not. The main point is, as sad as suicide is, and as much as support is needed for the mentally ill, my issues ALL have to do with how guns are used by someone against others, so gun suicides just aren't something I feel the need to consider with this issue.
I agree to some extent. I think it's important to note that number though. I believe more than half of gun deaths are suicide. And if you exclude gang on gang violence, or perps killed during a violent crime (because honestly, if I break into a house to rob someone and get shot, that should be a point for the gun owners, not a point against them) the number of gun deaths is a fraction of what anti-gun lobbyist quote.
The anti-gun lobbyists are pretty transparent with their stats. Gun suicides are not rolled into gun murder stats. The suicide rate does not impact those numbers.
I'm sure many are. But I've also seen statements that put gun deaths in the 30,000-40,000 range. When gun homicides are in the ballpark of around 6-7 thousand I believe. Which includes gang on gang violence. That number is actually small compared to many forms of death that are rarely discussed.

Well gun deaths and gun homicides are two very different things. Sounds like maybe you just need to pay closer attention to what the stat is actually referring to.
BTW, gang on gang violence probably shouldn't be excluded anyway. I'm curious to know why you think it should be.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · May 2016

mcgruff10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mcgruff10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mcgruff10 said:

josevolution said:
Don't worry people once Trump is in WH all good to go with gun parties everywhere please just shoot them into ground not in the air !!! No more worries about anyone taking your weapons from you like Obama has been doing right , you'll be able to walk in the streets with your guns on just about any American town !!
Obama doesn't have the luxury of having a democratic congress. If he did I can't even imagine what the second amendment would look like after two terms (probably like New Jersey!).
yeah it would still be there and you would still have your toys

background checks would be stronger and gun show purchases would be restricted...how awful
I live in new jersey, the land of multiple back ground checks and a place were gun shows are illegal.
so even if Obama had his way you would not be affected in any way
we are still allowed to own the "scary" guns. so it would effect us.

I think you forgot to add 'to shoot shit with' right after 'scary 'guns'.

It should have read: scary guns to shoot shit with.

It was a flip of the coin, Scruffy. Pacific won over the Atlantic.

mace1229 · May 2016

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Godfather. said:

PJ_Soul said:

eddiec said:

Godfather. said:
there are more deaths from legal and illegal drugs every year, a gun kills with a loud bang and drugs kill for the most part silently, something to think about while people are protesting guns while they're high on who knows what.

Godfather.
Nobody fears walking into a movie theater and having some guy start tossing cocaine into the air.

That's funny, but is a very good point.
I know that I wouldn't really have any issue with guns if people only used them to kill themselves by choice.
the number of suicides by gun I believe actually does out-number violent gun deaths, I was just reading some stuff on the interweb that had some pretty interesting facts.

Godfather.

I'm sure it does. It's not a statistic that I care about (in this specific context I mean). If someone wants to kill themselves, there are all kinds of ways for them to do it. If they didn't have a gun they'd most likely do something else. Or not. The main point is, as sad as suicide is, and as much as support is needed for the mentally ill, my issues ALL have to do with how guns are used by someone against others, so gun suicides just aren't something I feel the need to consider with this issue.
I agree to some extent. I think it's important to note that number though. I believe more than half of gun deaths are suicide. And if you exclude gang on gang violence, or perps killed during a violent crime (because honestly, if I break into a house to rob someone and get shot, that should be a point for the gun owners, not a point against them) the number of gun deaths is a fraction of what anti-gun lobbyist quote.
The anti-gun lobbyists are pretty transparent with their stats. Gun suicides are not rolled into gun murder stats. The suicide rate does not impact those numbers.
I'm sure many are. But I've also seen statements that put gun deaths in the 30,000-40,000 range. When gun homicides are in the ballpark of around 6-7 thousand I believe. Which includes gang on gang violence. That number is actually small compared to many forms of death that are rarely discussed.
Well gun deaths and gun homicides are two very different things. Sounds like maybe you just need to pay closer attention to what the stat is actually referring to.
BTW, gang on gang violence probably shouldn't be excluded anyway. I'm curious to know why you think it should be.

Of course they are two different things, and I pointed that out as well. Its very common for people to represent stats in a way that favors them. I'm doing it now by only stating the stats that I think are relevant, others did it on this forum before me. Its very common for someone who is anti gun to say something like "40,000 people are killed by guns every year." Many gun deaths are stated in a "look how many innocent people die" sort of way without really explaining the data and just throwing out a large number. Its common, they do that with a lot of things. If you're a smoker and die of brain cancer, some (not all) stats will chalk that up to smoking and throw that number on a billboard to scare kids without explaining where that number comes from. Its been said that way on this forum multiple times with guns.
So if you're talking about innocent lives, referring to the amount of people minding their own business in a movie theater, or school or at home and are victims of a homicide with a gun, I think that stat should exclude suicides and acts where the victims where involved in criminal activity (gang on gang). Not that all gang members deserve to be shot, but they are hardly innocent bystanders in gun violence.
I would relate that to an argument against more strict drug control. I can say 38,000 people die from an overdose every year and strict drug laws will save lives. You can argue that the majority are people who chose the drug and should be their free will to do so, and only a small fraction of that 38,000 were innocent kids who found the drugs at home or parents just couldn't follow the directions when administering medication. I've heard that exact debate before about legalizing drugs, and seems very similar to me with gun control.
Homicides with guns is about 7-8000 per year. The majority of that is gang on gang or where the victim was involved in violent criminal activity. So the number of "innocent" people minding their own business is probably in the 2000 range (just a guess) and this would include all ages That is far down the list on what kills kids or anyone else.
All that being said, if a reasonable gun law could reduce it by 100, I would likely be for it. Reasonable gun laws I think are background checks, large capacity magazines, armor piercing ammo, fully auto. Stupid gun control laws are something like banning a barrel shroud, designed to keep the you from burning your hand-yeah, lets ban a safety feature.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · May 2016

Bottom line: more guns equals more deaths by guns.

The US has the most guns per capita by far... and correspondingly... more gun deaths by far.

Per capita of course (on edit).

i_lov_it · May 2016

And is it the Guns fault that someone got Murdered or the Murderer's fault?

Thirty Bills Unpaid · May 2016

i_lov_it said:
And is it the Guns fault that someone got Murdered or the Murderer's fault?

The murderer's fault 100%.

But because we know people suck... let's try and limit the amount of sucking. Don't ya think?

Have we seen the last mass murder where some shitbagger uses an ar15 to rapidly shoot a ton of people? You know... the gun who's very designer has said it was designed for military use? Every time one occurs... the same lame arguments will get trotted out and once again... the whole world will sit there saying to themselves, "Wow. How f**king stupid can you be?"

In the event you're feeling homicidal... I actually saw them in sale at a Big 5 Sporting Goods in Washington. No shit. 20% off (likely due to a manufacturer's incentive- come on retailers... sell our tools of death).

Yee Haw!

tempo_n_groove · May 2016

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

i_lov_it said:
And is it the Guns fault that someone got Murdered or the Murderer's fault?
The murderer's fault 100%.

But because we know people suck... let's try and limit the amount of sucking. Don't ya think?

Have we seen the last mass murder where some shitbagger uses an ar15 to rapidly shoot a ton of people? You know... the gun who's very designer has said it was designed for military use? Every time one occurs... the same lame arguments will get trotted out and once again... the whole world will sit there saying to themselves, "Wow. How f**king stupid can you be?"

In the event you're feeling homicidal... I actually saw them in sale at a Big 5 Sporting Goods in Washington. No shit. 20% off (likely due to a manufacturer's incentive- come on retailers... sell our tools of death).

Yee Haw!

Gun rights are like abortion rights, either you are for it or against it..

PJPOWER · May 2016

mcgruff10 said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:
enough evidence for what? To ban the AR-15 or ban all guns?
enough evidence to support that civilians shouldn't be able to buy AR-15s.

It's being sold as a "sporting" weapon...it's not. It's an assault weapon built for war.
So I built an AR-15 specifically for hunting wild hogs...not for war...unless you are talking about waging war on those damn 4-legged menaces. I chose that platform as it is lighter weight and easier to carry through the thick brush where I hunt and sometimes those bastards require quick follow up shots (if you've ever been charged by one, you would understand).
I'm pretty sure the rifles the military uses are fully automatic and not semi-auto only (like the AR-15).
There are many many semi-auto rifles out there in different platforms that fire at the exact same rate as AR-15s and have been used for hunting for years. Oh, I forgot, AR-15s "look scary".
I would rather ban the toy replicas that encourage improper safe handling.
get a shotgun. In my world you wouldn't have an AR-15
Lol, shotgun just pisses them off. Even buck shot will sometimes bounce off them. I load my own ammo specifically for the game I'm hunting... Just like I would not use a rifle for quail, I don't use a shotgun for wild pigs.
I d love to go hog hunting again. Is texas really over run by then?

Yeah, they are everywhere. I saw a recent wildlife study showing their impact on the ecosystem and it said they have been identified in every county except like 2. They have even been spotted in towns! My freezer stays pretty regularly stocked, lol.

Bentleyspop · May 2016

rssesq said:
We want your guns cuz we want to save you from YOURSELVES. LMAO

https://illuminutti.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/jacob-rothschild1.jpg
https://hatoffoil.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/gates-rothschild.jpg

Once again you're a disappointment counselor. 2 references to the Rothschilds and yet nothing about Dershowitz, the Federal Reserve Board, or the 4 of 9.

You c

i_lov_it said:
And is it the Guns fault that someone got Murdered or the Murderer's fault?

Guns don't kill people

Gun owners do

PJPOWER · May 2016

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Bottom line: more guns equals more deaths by guns.

The US has the most guns per capita by far... and correspondingly... more gun deaths by far.

Per capita of course (on edit).

That is interesting. The fact that there are millions of guns in TX means that every city should have a higher rate of gun deaths than Chicago, Detroit, other places where gun rights are restricted...right? Gun shows should be bloodbaths because there are a ton of guns there, right?
Wonder what the correlation is to the rise in violent media access and acceptance? Seems like desensitization may have a more direct correlation. How has the graphically violent media changed over the past few decades?
I know there have been plenty of studies done showing how there is a correlation with children entering puberty faster due to the easy access of explicit material. It would make sense that access to graphic violenct imagery is changing the brain of this generation as well.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · May 2016

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Bottom line: more guns equals more deaths by guns.

The US has the most guns per capita by far... and correspondingly... more gun deaths by far.

Per capita of course (on edit).
That is interesting. The fact that there are millions of guns in TX means that every city should have a higher rate of gun deaths than Chicago, Detroit, other places where gun rights are restricted...right? Gun shows should be bloodbaths because there are a ton of guns there, right?
Wonder what the correlation is to the rise in violent media access and acceptance? Seems like desensitization may have a more direct correlation. How has the graphically violent media changed over the past few decades?
I know there have been plenty of studies done showing how there is a correlation with children entering puberty faster due to the easy access of explicit material. It would make sense that access to graphic violenct imagery is changing the brain of this generation as well.

If your last statement is true... then it would be true in other countries as well; however, other countries- outside of impoverished, relatively lawless, war shows- don't even come remotely close to the US for the deaths by firearms.

You've got a gun problem. Are you denying this?

Gern Blansten · May 2016

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2016/may/08/michael-oneill/how-many-lives-would-be-saved-gun-free-zone/

Interesting

Degeneratefk · May 2016

Bentleyspop said:

rssesq said:
We want your guns cuz we want to save you from YOURSELVES. LMAO

https://illuminutti.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/jacob-rothschild1.jpg
https://hatoffoil.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/gates-rothschild.jpg
Once again you're a disappointment counselor. 2 references to the Rothschilds and yet nothing about Dershowitz, the Federal Reserve Board, or the 4 of 9.

You c
i_lov_it said:
And is it the Guns fault that someone got Murdered or the Murderer's fault?
Guns don't kill people

Gun owners do

Everyone is a responsible gun owners, until they're not.

mace1229 · May 2016

I don't understand why assault rifles and specifically the AR-15 keeps being targeted. All assault rifles make up a very small portion of gun violence, less than 1% I believe (or very close to it anyway). They are the most publicized deaths because they are used in the mass shootings more often-which I guess answer my question above, but still only make up a small percentage,
So if all these restrictions and bans work perfectly, and even ban assault rifles completely. And even if the crazy loon who would decide to shoot up a school or theater changes his life because of said ban and decides to be a peaceful member of society since he can't get his hands on an AR-15 he instead volunteers at the children's hospital and the ban has a greater impact than ever imagined with no more deaths occur due to an assault rife, you've only solved less than 1% of the problem.
So all of these bans on guns that have the capability to hold a grenade launcher (where do you even buy a grenade launcher anyway, let alone the grenades?), pistol grips and other non-lethal aspects of an assault rife have done virtually nothing in terms of reducing gun violence . And yes, I consider the capability of a rife to attach a grenade launcher to it non-lethal because the grenade launcher themselves are illegal and I have yet to hear of a shooting involving a grenade launcher-but instead a gun collector who wants a WWI or WWII relic can't in many states because that rife used a grenade launcher attachment).
Weather intended to or not, many current gun restrictions target lawful gun owners. Lets maybe build up task forces to target gangs and create harsher penalties of illegal gun owners and get guns away from street thugs to solve the 99% of the problem before we worry about the remaining 1%.

Gern Blansten · May 2016

mace1229 said:
I don't understand why assault rifles and specifically the AR-15 keeps being targeted. All assault rifles make up a very small portion of gun violence, less than 1% I believe (or very close to it anyway). They are the most publicized deaths because they are used in the mass shootings more often-which I guess answer my question above, but still only make up a small percentage,
So if all these restrictions and bans work perfectly, and even ban assault rifles completely. And even if the crazy loon who would decide to shoot up a school or theater changes his life because of said ban and decides to be a peaceful member of society since he can't get his hands on an AR-15 he instead volunteers at the children's hospital and the ban has a greater impact than ever imagined with no more deaths occur due to an assault rife, you've only solved less than 1% of the problem.
So all of these bans on guns that have the capability to hold a grenade launcher (where do you even buy a grenade launcher anyway, let alone the grenades?), pistol grips and other non-lethal aspects of an assault rife have done virtually nothing in terms of reducing gun violence . And yes, I consider the capability of a rife to attach a grenade launcher to it non-lethal because the grenade launcher themselves are illegal and I have yet to hear of a shooting involving a grenade launcher-but instead a gun collector who wants a WWI or WWII relic can't in many states because that rife used a grenade launcher attachment).
Weather intended to or not, many current gun restrictions target lawful gun owners. Lets maybe build up task forces to target gangs and create harsher penalties of illegal gun owners and get guns away from street thugs to solve the 99% of the problem before we worry about the remaining 1%.

You seem to answer your own argument.

Assault weapons are made to do massive damage. They also carry very high magazine capacity. Both of those characteristics are brutal when someone decides to snap.

I don't know the specifics but it seems like several shooters have been taken out when they are reloading. More reloading = less death.

mace1229 · May 2016

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:
I don't understand why assault rifles and specifically the AR-15 keeps being targeted. All assault rifles make up a very small portion of gun violence, less than 1% I believe (or very close to it anyway). They are the most publicized deaths because they are used in the mass shootings more often-which I guess answer my question above, but still only make up a small percentage,
So if all these restrictions and bans work perfectly, and even ban assault rifles completely. And even if the crazy loon who would decide to shoot up a school or theater changes his life because of said ban and decides to be a peaceful member of society since he can't get his hands on an AR-15 he instead volunteers at the children's hospital and the ban has a greater impact than ever imagined with no more deaths occur due to an assault rife, you've only solved less than 1% of the problem.
So all of these bans on guns that have the capability to hold a grenade launcher (where do you even buy a grenade launcher anyway, let alone the grenades?), pistol grips and other non-lethal aspects of an assault rife have done virtually nothing in terms of reducing gun violence . And yes, I consider the capability of a rife to attach a grenade launcher to it non-lethal because the grenade launcher themselves are illegal and I have yet to hear of a shooting involving a grenade launcher-but instead a gun collector who wants a WWI or WWII relic can't in many states because that rife used a grenade launcher attachment).
Weather intended to or not, many current gun restrictions target lawful gun owners. Lets maybe build up task forces to target gangs and create harsher penalties of illegal gun owners and get guns away from street thugs to solve the 99% of the problem before we worry about the remaining 1%.
You seem to answer your own argument.

Assault weapons are made to do massive damage. They also carry very high magazine capacity. Both of those characteristics are brutal when someone decides to snap.

I don't know the specifics but it seems like several shooters have been taken out when they are reloading. More reloading = less death.

I've said previously I support limitations on magazines, certain types of ammo, things like that, etc. And yes, even though mass shootings usually include an assault rifle, it still is only 1% or so. I don't think that answers my question, unless everyone only cares about solving the publicized violence-which I doubt is the case. Why are assault rifles the target so much of the time (yes, they CAN cause more damage, but in reality they are far less used in shootings).
You wouldn't suggest building up a wall around Maine to solve immigration.

Gern Blansten · May 2016

To me getting assault weapons removed from the public is step one. Step two would be stronger background checks. Step three would be registration.

People have to register their vehicles/motorcycles/snowmobiles, etc. Registering guns is not a violation of the 2nd amendment since it clearing states "well regulated."

PJPOWER · May 2016

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Bottom line: more guns equals more deaths by guns.

The US has the most guns per capita by far... and correspondingly... more gun deaths by far.

Per capita of course (on edit).
That is interesting. The fact that there are millions of guns in TX means that every city should have a higher rate of gun deaths than Chicago, Detroit, other places where gun rights are restricted...right? Gun shows should be bloodbaths because there are a ton of guns there, right?
Wonder what the correlation is to the rise in violent media access and acceptance? Seems like desensitization may have a more direct correlation. How has the graphically violent media changed over the past few decades?
I know there have been plenty of studies done showing how there is a correlation with children entering puberty faster due to the easy access of explicit material. It would make sense that access to graphic violenct imagery is changing the brain of this generation as well.
If your last statement is true... then it would be true in other countries as well; however, other countries- outside of impoverished, relatively lawless, war shows- don't even come remotely close to the US for the deaths by firearms.

You've got a gun problem. Are you denying this?

How do their systems of education and media compare? Serious question as I truly have not traveled abroad much. Sounds like impoverishment and lawlessness may be contributing factors. I would add that depression, anxiety, violent media, gang culture, poor parenting skills have more effect on murder rates and suicides than simply owning a firearm. Maybe other countries are doing something right in those categories?
I'll agree that the gun industry has gone crazy over the past few years and feel that our "leader's" approach to the issue is somewhat to blame. All that has been accomplished by the notion of tighter regulations is more gun sales. Less stigma associated with mental health issues, more crack down of gangs, proper parenting and discipline, better education systems would all assist in curbing violence.
Are deaths by firearms in situations of self/home defense factored into your statistics of "firearm deaths" or are you just talking about mass shootings? I welcome higher rates of gun deaths if it means more people are protecting themselves from burglars/rapists and the like. These "statistics" that are always thrown out are nearly always scewed one way or another...

mickeyrat · May 2016

Gern Blansten said:
To me getting assault weapons removed from the public is step one. Step two would be stronger background checks. Step three would be registration.

People have to register their vehicles/motorcycles/snowmobiles, etc. Registering guns is not a violation of the 2nd amendment since it clearing states "well regulated."

define "well regulated" in 1780.

i_lov_it · May 2016

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

i_lov_it said:
And is it the Guns fault that someone got Murdered or the Murderer's fault?
The murderer's fault 100%.

But because we know people suck... let's try and limit the amount of sucking. Don't ya think?

Have we seen the last mass murder where some shitbagger uses an ar15 to rapidly shoot a ton of people? You know... the gun who's very designer has said it was designed for military use? Every time one occurs... the same lame arguments will get trotted out and once again... the whole world will sit there saying to themselves, "Wow. How f**king stupid can you be?"

In the event you're feeling homicidal... I actually saw them in sale at a Big 5 Sporting Goods in Washington. No shit. 20% off (likely due to a manufacturer's incentive- come on retailers... sell our tools of death).

Yee Haw!

Don't get me wrong I have a problem with Guns...and yeah some People suck but Guns or not they're going to suck right?...and also I'm sure if someone is feeling Homicidal it's not going to make a difference whether there's a Gun around or not.

America's Gun Violence

Comments

Categories