| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2015 01:25:12 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you're really interested in saving lives, guns are a poor place to focus. |
I love when you get involved in these discussions and I hope the thread doesn't get closed because of ranting. but I honestly don't understand this point. If I have a gun (not you, or anybody else, just me personally) and I get rid of it. Isn't the world a safer place? if only by a tiny, tiny amount? Unless I'm a soldier or a law enforcement agent or a gangster, it must be the case that there is a tiny percentage amount negative change in the potential of gun death? |
It's simple, since you can't seem to think beyond the latest sensational event, I'll explain. As a percentage of preventable deaths, gun homicides represent a miniscule percentage of that overall number. If you're really interested in reducing such deaths, the place to focus is NOT on guns but on things like automobiles, obesity, smoking. You're clearly not interested in that, but rather in carrying on about guns, so babble on, please. |
Exactly! Other than the fact that improving the safety of automobiles, reducing obesity rates and eliminating smoking are the focus of numerous private and public organizations, including the government, and also receive massive daily press. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 01:25:33 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you're really interested in saving lives, guns are a poor place to focus. |
OK... Obama care it is then right? That should be a great preventive mechanism to reduce preventable and possibly fatal diseases. :O)
Ray |
I'm all for the ACA. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 01:25:36 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Mike:
well i guess you could use it as a hammer or hang it on the wall, i'm pretty damned sure if i ever fire a gun (besides practice), its going to kill someone or something. |
How do you feel about bows and arrows? Ever fire one of those? I like to shoot bullets at little paper targets. Same with arrows. When I lived on a horse ranch we always had a few guns around where they could be found when they were needed, they were another tool that any rancher needs. They are intended to injure or kill, sometimes groundhogs, sometimes dogs, sometimes horses. Never did feel the need to point one at a person.
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you're really interested in reducing such deaths, the place to focus is NOT on guns but on things like automobiles, obesity, smoking. |
Those are ongoing and real concerns.
Automobiles are federally tested, everyone who operates one must be licensed and in many states must be insured. There are many police who do nothing but enforce traffic laws. If you have an idea to make driving an automobile safer, you will not face an organization that will go to the supreme court to stop you from implementing it.
Obesity and smoking are also being attacked by federal effort. We have halved the number of smokers since government got involved in the 1960s.
But the biggest flaw of your comparison is that people, given knowledge, accept the risks of smoking, over eating, and driving. My smoking increases my risk of death, but does not effect those around me. If I choose to shoot a gun at people, that risk pool is pretty wide. The dangerous end of a cigarette points at the user. The dangerous end of a gun points away from the user.
If guns were allowed to be regulated somewhere between cigarettes and automobiles, I think it would be very good for out gun death rates which are now 68% of murders, about 3 people an hour die from gun deaths. We have 25 times the gun deaths of other first world countries, and we don't have 25 times more guns or crazy people, they just figured out how to keep those two groups from overlapping so much. It really isn't an issue we ought to set aside until we finish off all the other issues and make the world safe and then think about ways to keep firearms harder to get hold of for crazy people.
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 13:40:19. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 01:26:43 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you're really interested in reducing such deaths, the place to focus is NOT on guns but on things like automobiles, obesity, smoking. |
Those are ongoing and real concerns.
Automobiles are federally tested, everyone who operates one must be licensed and in many states must be insured. There are many police who do nothing but enforce traffic laws. If you have an idea to make driving an automobile safer, you will not face an organization that will go to the supreme court to stop you from implementing it.
Obesity and smoking are also being attacked by federal effort. We have halved the number of smokers since government got involved in the 1960s.
But the biggest flaw of your comparison is that people, given knowledge, accept the risks of smoking, over eating, and driving. They do not risk the chance of some stranger walking down the street suddenly making them obese.
If guns were allowed to be regulated somewhere between cigarettes and automobiles, I think it would be very good for out gun death rates which are now 68% of murders, about 3 people an hour die from gun deaths. |
They're far more regulated than either. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 01:34:21 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you're really interested in saving lives, guns are a poor place to focus. |
I love when you get involved in these discussions and I hope the thread doesn't get closed because of ranting. but I honestly don't understand this point. If I have a gun (not you, or anybody else, just me personally) and I get rid of it. Isn't the world a safer place? if only by a tiny, tiny amount? Unless I'm a soldier or a law enforcement agent or a gangster, it must be the case that there is a tiny percentage amount negative change in the potential of gun death? |
It's simple, since you can't seem to think beyond the latest sensational event, I'll explain. As a percentage of preventable deaths, gun homicides represent a miniscule percentage of that overall number. If you're really interested in reducing such deaths, the place to focus is NOT on guns but on things like automobiles, obesity, smoking. You're clearly not interested in that, but rather in carrying on about guns, so babble on, please. |
Exactly! Other than the fact that improving the safety of automobiles, reducing obesity rates and eliminating smoking are the focus of numerous private and public organizations, including the government, and also receive massive daily press. |
Really? When was the fact that 600,000+ people each year die from preventable heart disease spread across the headlines and sensationalized like any shooting? Where's the DPC thread ranting about how the causes should be outlawed.
Ban the Donuts! |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 01:42:17 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
When was the fact that 600,000+ people each year die from preventable heart disease spread across the headlines and sensationalized like any shooting? Where's the DPC thread ranting about how the causes should be outlawed.
Ban the Donuts! |
Agreed. That's a very serious issue. You should start a thread on it. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 01:42:57 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
They're far more regulated than either. |
That is just simply not true in any way shape or form. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 01:47:16 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Mike:
... like why people wish to kill others ... |
In this case it's pretty clear the motivation was racial hatred. |
I would love to see a discussion on possible ways to improve race relations. Discussions usually involve white guilt, but attitudes and actions for the past 50+ years have not gotten us very far. How can we move forward while remembering the past? |
I seem to recall something to the effect that "If we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it"
Ray |
But there will never be growth if we are only looking backwards. |
Read it again... I never said we should ONLY look backwards, nor does the saying even remotely suggest this. What it does say is "If we forget"... there is a significant difference between that and what you are saying.
Ray |
And if you read what I originally posted, I included remembering the past.
As to the post about "not in my neighborhood," that was referring to drive by shootings. I am concerned about them, and mourn the senseless loss of innocent lives. However, the problems there are larger than access to guns. (Yes, I know, if they did not have guns they would not have drive by shootings. They would find a way to fight and kill each other, but it would not spread out into the innocent.) |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 01:48:22 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
To put it in perspective, in the US, there were less than 9000 gun homicides (that's ALL instances where a person was killed with a gun, including those that were justified as in self defense or by law enforcement). In contrast, the top 10 causes of accidental death killed a total of just over 1.9 million people (Homicide didn't make the top 10). It's simple math to see how insignificant gun homicides are in the overall picture. Again, if you're really concerned about reducing accidental deaths, focusing on guns is like going after a handful of pennies buried under a pile of $100 bills. Instead, you're focused on the sensational spectacle of these deaths. |
ok so we shouldn't do anything if the numbers arent high enough. that seems fair.
the point is we do everything we can to prevent accident and death in most all other areas, but when it comes to gun murders, we arent allowed to do anything.
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 13:49:46. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 01:49:08 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
They're far more regulated than either. |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh, that was a good one. Now excuse me while I go buy my 12 year old a car with no registration or safety training and then tell him to light up a cigarette in a movie theater or restaurant. Because freedom or something.
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 13:52:35. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 01:57:01 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
They're far more regulated than either. |
That is just simply not true in any way shape or form. |
Sure it is. I don't need a background check to buy either a car or cigarettes. I can carry my cigarettes anywhere I like, anytime I like. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 01:59:14 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh, that was a good one. Now excuse me while I go buy my 12 year old a car with no registration or safety training and then tell him to light up a cigarette in a movie theater or restaurant. Because freedom or something. |
It was fun the other day, grousing to myself because my town has banned smoking on the street in the pedestrian corridor (second hand smoke is more of a risk than all those cars belching exhaust after all) to see Starbucks filled with guys open carrying their guns. "Because freedom or something". |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 02:01:41 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spork99:
They're far more regulated than either. |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh, that was a good one. Now excuse me while I go buy my 12 year old a car with no registration or safety training and then tell him to light up a cigarette in a movie theater or restaurant. Because freedom or something. |
You can buy them a car, they can even drive it without any training or registration. You can't do it legally on public roads though. Just like you can't buy them a handgun and let them carry it legally in public.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2015 02:07:32 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Spork99:
To put it in perspective, in the US, there were less than 9000 gun homicides (that's ALL instances where a person was killed with a gun, including those that were justified as in self defense or by law enforcement). In contrast, the top 10 causes of accidental death killed a total of just over 1.9 million people (Homicide didn't make the top 10). It's simple math to see how insignificant gun homicides are in the overall picture. Again, if you're really concerned about reducing accidental deaths, focusing on guns is like going after a handful of pennies buried under a pile of $100 bills. Instead, you're focused on the sensational spectacle of these deaths. |
ok so we shouldn't do anything if the numbers arent high enough. that seems fair.
the point is we do everything we can to prevent accident and death in most all other areas, but when it comes to gun murders, we arent allowed to do anything. |
Silly me, I prefer to focus on where the most difference is to be made. If you could cut the number of deaths caused by heart disease by 2%, you'd save more lives than if 100% of gun homicides were eliminated. But this thread isn't really about saving lives, it's about picking up pennies buried under a pile of $100 bills because these kinds of deaths are sensational. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 02:08:20 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
They're far more regulated than either. |
That is just simply not true in any way shape or form. |
Sure it is. I don't need a background check to buy either a car or cigarettes. I can carry my cigarettes anywhere I like, anytime I like. |
Actually in NJ you do. You must have a license & insurance in order to register a vehicle in NJ. You must show 12 points worth of identification and pass an eye test, driving test and written test to get that licence in the first place. NJ also has public smoking bans. Places you cannot smoke even outside, and are currently working on banning smoking in your own car. So yeah, you can carry your cigarettes anywhere you like, but you can't smoke them.
eta: Oh, and unless you look old, you better have ID to buy those cigs in the first place.
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 14:10:02. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 02:13:26 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
They're far more regulated than either. |
That is just simply not true in any way shape or form. |
Sure it is. I don't need a background check to buy either a car or cigarettes. I can carry my cigarettes anywhere I like, anytime I like. |
Actually in NJ you do. You must have a license & insurance in order to register a vehicle in NJ. You must show 12 points worth of identification and pass an eye test, driving test and written test to get that licence in the first place. NJ also has public smoking bans. Places you cannot smoke even outside, and are currently working on banning smoking in your own car. So yeah, you can carry your cigarettes anywhere you like, but you can't smoke them. |
That's to register...not to own, not to drive on private property. There are lots of race car drivers that are under 16 that can't drive on the public roads, but can and do drive vehicles.
And the circumstances under which you can smoke (use) your cigarettes are much less stringent than those under which you can fire or even draw (use) your firearm.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2015 02:18:26 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
But this thread isn't really about saving lives, it's about picking up pennies buried under a pile of $100 bills because these kinds of deaths are sensational. |
Yes they are sensational. If my daughter decides to eat too much and get fat, she is to blame for the health issues that will result. If some crazy gets a gun and kills her, we are to blame because she sure as ...did nothing to deserve being shot to death.
Each of us has the right to take risks with our own health, but not with the health of others.
I'll go back to the cigarette comparison, the dangerous end points at the user.
Regulations:If I want to buy a long gun in Michigan I have some questions......
Permit to purchase required?
Firearm registration?
Owner license required?
Carry permits issued?
Open carry permitted?
Assault weapon law?
Magazine Capacity Restriction?
The answer to all those questions are, no. No need, no restrictions.
Title and tag ate each point of sale?
User training required by law?
Written test?
Practical test?
Health requirements?
Liabilility insurance on each Vehicle/Gun?
Renewals and inspections at intervals?
To each of those, for cars, the answer is yes.
To each of those, for guns, the answer in most states is no.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2015 02:25:37 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
And the circumstances under which you can smoke (use) your cigarettes are much less stringent than those under which you can fire or even draw (use) your firearm. |
It almost sounds like you are shocked that the law views drawing your weapon or shooting someone is viewed as being more of a threat to the public good than smoking a cigarette. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 02:37:01 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you're really interested in reducing such deaths, the place to focus is NOT on guns but on things like automobiles, obesity, smoking. You're clearly not interested in that, but rather in carrying on about guns, so babble on, please. |
Who says "we're" not interested in those? But, those things have been addressed for years -- seat-belt and helmet laws, mandatory airbags, banning trans-fats, the Surgeon General's last 40 years of reports (smoking is down something like 50% since the first) -- you get the idea. And why should we discuss obesity in a thread about a shooting rampage? Surely you're not suggesting the shooter had a mortal antipathy to fat people ...
We (as a country) have "done something" about those other health hazards, while the only one we are legally prevented from even studying is guns ... what is the NRA afraid of finding out? |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 02:38:52 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
But this thread isn't really about saving lives, it's about picking up pennies buried under a pile of $100 bills because these kinds of deaths are sensational. |
Yes they are sensational. If my daughter decides to eat too much and get fat, she is to blame for the health issues that will result. If some crazy gets a gun and kills her, we are to blame because she sure as ...did nothing to deserve being shot to death.
Each of us has the right to take risks with our own health, but not with the health of others.
I'll go back to the cigarette comparison, the dangerous end points at the user.
Regulations:If I want to buy a long gun in Michigan I have some questions......
Permit to purchase required?
Firearm registration?
Owner license required?
Carry permits issued?
Open carry permitted?
Assault weapon law?
Magazine Capacity Restriction?
The answer to all those questions are, no. No need, no restrictions.
Title and tag ate each point of sale?
User training required by law?
Written test?
Practical test?
Health requirements?
Liabilility insurance on each Vehicle/Gun?
Renewals and inspections at intervals?
To each of those, for cars, the answer is yes.
To each of those, for guns, the answer in most states is no. |
For long guns?...and how many were killed in SC using a long gun? - 0
For handguns, by far the weapon used in the majority of gun murders, the answers are very different.
You're comparing apples to oranges then to bananas and declaring "Pokemon!".
|
|
|
|
06/19/2015 02:42:29 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you're really interested in reducing such deaths, the place to focus is NOT on guns but on things like automobiles, obesity, smoking. You're clearly not interested in that, but rather in carrying on about guns, so babble on, please. |
Who says "we're" not interested in those? But, those things have been addressed for years -- seat-belt and helmet laws, mandatory airbags, banning trans-fats, the Surgeon General's last 40 years of reports (smoking is down something like 50% since the first) -- you get the idea. And why should we discuss obesity in a thread about a shooting rampage? Surely you're not suggesting the shooter had a mortal antipathy to fat people ...
We (as a country) have "done something" about those other health hazards, while the only one we are legally prevented from even studying is guns ... what is the NRA afraid of finding out? |
You SAY people are concerned, but they're not. Where are the sensational headlines tallying the death toll of those other causes? Where's the heart disease thread on DPC? The fact is that you're all interested because of the gruesome spectacle, not because of the number of deaths. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 02:59:00 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you're really interested in reducing such deaths, the place to focus is NOT on guns but on things like automobiles, obesity, smoking. You're clearly not interested in that, but rather in carrying on about guns, so babble on, please. |
Who says "we're" not interested in those? But, those things have been addressed for years -- seat-belt and helmet laws, mandatory airbags, banning trans-fats, the Surgeon General's last 40 years of reports (smoking is down something like 50% since the first) -- you get the idea. And why should we discuss obesity in a thread about a shooting rampage? Surely you're not suggesting the shooter had a mortal antipathy to fat people ...
We (as a country) have "done something" about those other health hazards, while the only one we are legally prevented from even studying is guns ... what is the NRA afraid of finding out? |
You SAY people are concerned, but they're not. Where are the sensational headlines tallying the death toll of those other causes? Where's the heart disease thread on DPC? The fact is that you're all interested because of the gruesome spectacle, not because of the number of deaths. |
I guess I'll suggest it again. Go start a thread. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 03:01:50 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
You SAY people are concerned, but they're not. Where are the sensational headlines tallying the death toll of those other causes? Where's the heart disease thread on DPC? The fact is that you're all interested because of the gruesome spectacle, not because of the number of deaths. |
And you are ignoring the basic fact that my gun puts others at risk, and my smoking puts me at risk. That is a fundamental difference. The fact is that there has been a 40 year drive to reduce smoking by half has occurred at the same time that there has been a 40 year drive to hobble effective limitations on gun violence.
I recognize that because of the fanatic views of a tiny minority we Americans will continue to suffer these sort of occasional slaughters and a 25 times higher risk of being killed by guns than we have to, because that small minority has fanatical fear of what the sort of regulation that has been enacted in every other first world country would do here.
This comic is old, but you know it was another slaughter where children were killed by a madman with a gun and these threads were rehashed, and of course nothiing was done to stop the next one, because, you know "freedom and stuff". |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 03:13:08 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you're really interested in reducing such deaths, the place to focus is NOT on guns but on things like automobiles, obesity, smoking. You're clearly not interested in that, but rather in carrying on about guns, so babble on, please. |
Who says "we're" not interested in those? But, those things have been addressed for years -- seat-belt and helmet laws, mandatory airbags, banning trans-fats, the Surgeon General's last 40 years of reports (smoking is down something like 50% since the first) -- you get the idea. And why should we discuss obesity in a thread about a shooting rampage? Surely you're not suggesting the shooter had a mortal antipathy to fat people ...
We (as a country) have "done something" about those other health hazards, while the only one we are legally prevented from even studying is guns ... what is the NRA afraid of finding out? |
You SAY people are concerned, but they're not. Where are the sensational headlines tallying the death toll of those other causes? Where's the heart disease thread on DPC? The fact is that you're all interested because of the gruesome spectacle, not because of the number of deaths. |
I guess I'll suggest it again. Go start a thread. |
I'll wait for the sensationalist headlines. Where's CNN, Faux News, USAToday...? |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 03:19:38 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
You SAY people are concerned, but they're not. Where are the sensational headlines tallying the death toll of those other causes? Where's the heart disease thread on DPC? The fact is that you're all interested because of the gruesome spectacle, not because of the number of deaths. |
And you are ignoring the basic fact that my gun puts others at risk, and my smoking puts me at risk. That is a fundamental difference. The fact is that there has been a 40 year drive to reduce smoking by half has occurred at the same time that there has been a 40 year drive to hobble effective limitations on gun violence.
I recognize that because of the fanatic views of a tiny minority we Americans will continue to suffer these sort of occasional slaughters and a 25 times higher risk of being killed by guns than we have to, because that small minority has fanatical fear of what the sort of regulation that has been enacted in every other first world country would do here.
This comic is old, but you know it was another slaughter where children were killed by a madman with a gun and these threads were rehashed, and of course nothiing was done to stop the next one, because, you know "freedom and stuff". |
Your smoking does put others at risk. A person having a gun does nothing to your risk unless that person acts in a way that puts you at risk.
A police officer has a gun, does their presence put you at risk? |
|
