Journalist and interviewee shot on live television

[WTSooner]

33,000 accidents is different than 33,000 intentional eliminations of life. One is a tool to drive around town and accidents happen, the other is an act of intentional violence.

Come on man, you're better than that.

But all you want to do is "protect life", correct? If that is true, it's not really fair to differentiate between intentional and accidental deaths.

Like suicides are going to go away without guns. Come on.

 

[Max Power]

33,000 accidents is different than 33,000 intentional eliminations of life. One is a tool to drive around town and accidents happen, the other is an act of intentional violence.

Come on man, you're better than that.

Life is life, and how many gun related deaths were accidents? How many car "accidents" involved DUI?

 

[thebigabd]

But all you want to do is "protect life", correct? If that is true, it's not really fair to differentiate between intentional and accidental deaths.

No. The modern world obviously doesn't function without cars. There are 260 million cars on the road every single day in the United States.

I work 11 miles from my house, which isn't very far in today's world. It would take me hours to walk to work every day, plus you have bad weather conditions. Heat, cold, snow, rain, etc.

This is such an absurd argument that I am nearly in disbelief that you are trying to make it.

Life is life, and how many gun related deaths were accidents? How many car "accidents" involved DUI?

505 deaths were due to accidents in 2013 via gun....

Even a DUI does not = intent to kill. It's still an accident. They got drunk, tried to drive to Whataburger, and ran into someone. That is an accident.

So 505 gun deaths out of the 33,000 were accidents.... all 33,000 car fatalities were accidents.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Not true at all... the gun has introduced a "power of one" concept. One person can do a ton of damage now. I can have an AR, backup pistols, etc

If I walk into a school with a knife, I can hurt people but can be subdued. Plus, I have to come within arms reach of someone to hurt them.

If I walk into a school with an AR-15, I can kill a lot of people, at range, and nobody will subdue me because they worry about being shot.

If I don't have a gun my options are very limited... I can attack people with blunt objects or knives/swords. Those are melee weapons, and are ineffective against large groups of people. If a group of people wanted to subdue me, chances are one of them would get hurt and potentially killed but that would be it. Chances of mass damage are very limited.

bombs, traps,etc. If guns hadn't been invented, another weapon would be available for mass murder

 

[SoonerBounce13]

No. The modern world obviously doesn't function without cars. There are 260 million cars on the road every single day in the United States.

I work 11 miles from my house, which isn't very far in today's world. It would take me hours to walk to work every day, plus you have bad weather conditions. Heat, cold, snow, rain, etc.

This is such an absurd argument that I am nearly in disbelief that you are trying to make it.



505 deaths were due to accidents in 2013 via gun....

Even a DUI does not = intent to kill. It's still an accident. They got drunk, tried to drive to Whataburger, and ran into someone. That is an accident.

So 505 gun deaths out of the 33,000 were accidents.... all 33,000 car fatalities were accidents.

how many guns are in the us? What are the odds of death by a gun vs death by a vehicle?

 

[thebigabd]

bombs, traps,etc. If guns hadn't been invented, another weapon would be available for mass murder

How are mass killings being done in the UK? 60 people were killed with a gun in a year in the UK. Have the British criminals/population invented poisons, traps, bombs, etc? Or are less people being killed?

 

[bocabull]

I also sided with the black guy shot in SC.

The white cop in South Carolina made the exact same self defense claims as Zimmerman and Wilson in his police report and was cleared by his department .... then a citizen had the guts to release a cell phone video that showed the white trash cop was lying. Just like Zimmerman and Wilson are lying.

You want to see me in a room with Striker. I'd like to see me in a room with you. :ez-roll:

LOL LOL Internet tough guys. HA HA HA WT WT WT

 

[bocabull]

ABD seriously are you going to waste time debating the lethal effects of guns in relation to automobiles and knives and booby traps?

Leave that nonsense to the kids who play with matches. lol

 

[WTSooner]

The white cop in South Carolina made the exact same self defense claims as Zimmerman and Wilson in his police report and was cleared by his department .... then a citizen had the guts to release a cell phone video that showed the white trash cop was lying. Just like Zimmerman and Wilson are lying.



LOL LOL Internet tough guys. HA HA HA WT WT WT

I don't give two craps about the police reports. What I care about is the evidence that was later presented. I followed it. Paid attention to it. And I saw ZERO evidence to convict either Zimmerman or Wilson. Especially Wilson. Talk about a case unraveling before your very eyes. LMAO. Big Mike's bff should be glad he isn't in prison for a few years for blatantly lying to the police and basically setting off all that crap that happened in Ferguson. As for Zimmerman, he didn't beat himself up. lol. Again, gotta follow the evidence.

I'm not the one that brought up two people in a room. If you are afraid, that is cool, but don't try to have a college kid do your dirty work. Pathetic.

 

[stormspencer]

Logic:

• Guns are dangerous
• Humans are dangerous
• Humans with guns are dangerous

If you release millions of guns to millions of people, you will end up with what we have today. 33,000 people were killed by a gun in the United States in 2013... That number is broken up by homicides, accidental discharge, suicides, etc.

Humans, regardless of our beautiful words or intentions, are dangerous. No other species on this planet kills each other like humans do, and we always have. We have been killing, murdering, invading, etc since the beginning of time. We are a dangerous species, and we destroy each other, we destroy animals and any other form of life around us, and we destroy the environment that we live in.... Fact of life, and no point in denying it.

Roughly 7,000 troops died during the entire duration of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars... More people are killed by gun homicide every year in the United States.

You're right....maybe we need much more strict guns laws. Chicago has much stricter gun laws than Dallas. So far this year, 294 gun deaths in Chicago vs 83 in Dallas.....oh wait....nevermind.

BTW, this might make Boca happy. Another officer was shot and killed today north of Chicago. According to his worldview, that will show those cops they shouldn't pursue suspicious persons....just leave them alone.:facepalm

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/01/us/illinois-police-officer-shot/

 

[stormspencer]

Logic:

• Guns are dangerous
• Humans are dangerous
• Humans with guns are dangerous

If you release millions of guns to millions of people, you will end up with what we have today. 33,000 people were killed by a gun in the United States in 2013... That number is broken up by homicides, accidental discharge, suicides, etc.

Humans, regardless of our beautiful words or intentions, are dangerous. No other species on this planet kills each other like humans do, and we always have. We have been killing, murdering, invading, etc since the beginning of time. We are a dangerous species, and we destroy each other, we destroy animals and any other form of life around us, and we destroy the environment that we live in.... Fact of life, and no point in denying it.

Roughly 7,000 troops died during the entire duration of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars... More people are killed by gun homicide every year in the United States.

But what is the solution?....I would hope it isn't banning firearms. I'm not saying that this is your solution, but let's look at history within this country over the past century regarding prohibition and "the war on drugs"....when we attempted to ban an element of society we deemed evil and destructive.

The ban on alcohol in 1920 resulted on a drastic reduction in alcohol...well, sort of. Of course, it spawned a huge criminal element dedicated to bypassing the ban....and much violence ensued.

And the ban on drugs resulted in a drastic reduction in drug...well, not really at all. And, it too spawned a huge criminal element dedicated to bypassing the ban...and much violence ensued.

And guns are banned in many places in the U.S. (gun free zones, government/public venues, etc.), yet there is still gun violence in those places where it is supposedly banned. Even if you made the ban nationwide, guns are still made all over the world. And those guns would then become a valued commodity here. And you could certainly infer that this would spawn a new criminal element dedicated to selling guns....and the violence would ensue.

I'll agree that, in this scenario, much fewer people would own guns though. Most of us are law abiding citizens and would not have guns if they were illegal. Just like many people gave up alcohol during prohibition and others do not smoke pot because it's illegal. So you would achieve the goal of taking guns from non-criminals, but then making criminals out of folks that didn't want to give up their guns and then creating a new criminal element making tons of money and causing lots of violence.

 

[sybarite]

You're right....maybe we need much more strict guns laws. Chicago has much stricter gun laws than Dallas. So far this year, 294 gun deaths in Chicago vs 83 in Dallas.....oh wait....nevermind.

BTW, this might make Boca happy. Another officer was shot and killed today north of Chicago. According to his worldview, that will show those cops they shouldn't pursue suspicious persons....just leave them alone.:facepalm

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/01/us/illinois-police-officer-shot/

I've seen Chicago used as an example in such a claim before. Isn't it a bit misleading? If you examine NYC which has much stricter gun control laws, the murder rates per 100,000 are about a fourth what they are in Dallas or Houston. New Orleans is higher than any of these. Rather than picking one city completely out of context since other cities with strict laws have minimal gun violence in comparison to Dallas or Houston, why not look at the states since so many laws are state.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

The higher death rates by gun occur largely in southern states. Indiana is the highest rated midwestern state at #21. The states with the fewest murders by gun per 100,000 tend to be the New England states.

It is also interesting to look at murder rate per 100,000 in an international setting. I don't think any country in Europe is even comparable to the US. Even middle eastern countries are better. We tend to be rated among the unstable countries with internal feuds.

 

[stormspencer]

I've seen Chicago used as an example in such a claim before. Isn't it a bit misleading? If you examine NYC which has much stricter gun control laws, the murder rates per 100,000 are about a fourth what they are in Dallas or Houston. New Orleans is higher than any of these. Rather than picking one city completely out of context since other cities with strict laws have minimal gun violence in comparison to Dallas or Houston, why not look at the states since so many laws are state.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

The higher death rates by gun occur largely in southern states. Indiana is the highest rated midwestern state at #21. The states with the fewest murders by gun per 100,000 tend to be the New England states.

It is also interesting to look at murder rate per 100,000 in an international setting. I don't think any country in Europe is even comparable to the US. Even middle eastern countries are better. We tend to be rated among the unstable countries with internal feuds.

Your article is looking at states, which I think is a bit broad. But I look more specifically at cities like Milwaukee, Baltimore, D.C. or Chicago where stricter gun control laws are not working. I'm sure you are able to provide cities/area where it seems to be working, but I can counter almost every one of those. For instance, New Hampshire has very lax gun laws, but is way down the list as far as firearm deaths. I don't think gun law restrictions/gun control is the magic pill that some think it is.

It's certainly a complicated and perplexing problem. One theory is that because of the backlash stemming from isolated police brutality, police are now less aggressive about stopping potential violent confrontations(i.e. domestic disputes) before they escalate. I also think social media does shoulder some of the blame. Now, for whatever reason, people like to put their personal beefs with each other on display in front of every single person they know. That's a serious escalation, and it ups the percentage of people that would kill over it.

Also, you're article states firearm "deaths" per 100,000, but we all know that the majority of firearm deaths are suicides, not violent crime.

And for the record, I support an ID requirement, registration, and a 72-hour waiting period at time of purchase.

 

[sybarite]

While, indeed, there are cities with strict gun control laws that have high murder rates, the overall percentage does conform to a general rule that more guns mean more murders. There are, indeed, statistics that bear on this.

Most obvious is that Europe has very few murders by gun, as does Australia, and both have very strict gun laws. i have seen no evidence to support the idea that there may be as many accidental deaths in the US with firearms as there are total deaths by firearms deaths in some countries. When you constantly see stories about fathers accidentally shooting their kids showing them the new gun just outside the gun store, or hear that once again, a five-year old has shot his little brother, it should reveal that gun laws are much too lenient. The guy whose gun is used by his minor children to shoot someone accidentally has no business with a gun.

There is room for discussion on this issue, but anyone who subscribes to the NRA position is not a legitimate candidate for serious discussion. It is a problem.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

How are mass killings being done in the UK? 60 people were killed with a gun in a year in the UK. Have the British criminals/population invented poisons, traps, bombs, etc? Or are less people being killed?

I believe the UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US....

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I've seen Chicago used as an example in such a claim before. Isn't it a bit misleading? If you examine NYC which has much stricter gun control laws, the murder rates per 100,000 are about a fourth what they are in Dallas or Houston. New Orleans is higher than any of these. Rather than picking one city completely out of context since other cities with strict laws have minimal gun violence in comparison to Dallas or Houston, why not look at the states since so many laws are state.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

The higher death rates by gun occur largely in southern states. Indiana is the highest rated midwestern state at #21. The states with the fewest murders by gun per 100,000 tend to be the New England states.

It is also interesting to look at murder rate per 100,000 in an international setting. I don't think any country in Europe is even comparable to the US. Even middle eastern countries are better. We tend to be rated among the unstable countries with internal feuds.

or how about compare apples to apples. go look at the gun violence before, during, and after the gun ban in chicago...

 

[SoonerBounce13]

but anyone who subscribes to the NRA position is not a legitimate candidate for serious discussion. It is a problem.

and what would that be?

being a proponent of the 2nd amendment>?

 

[WTSooner]

People always act like anybody can get a gun. There are restrictions, there is gun control in place. Could it be improved? Perhaps. But show me one person that acquired a gun and committed a mass murder that wouldn't be able to have gotten that gun under your recommended gun control. There probably aren't many.

 

[thebigabd]

People always act like anybody can get a gun. There are restrictions, there is gun control in place. Could it be improved? Perhaps. But show me one person that acquired a gun and committed a mass murder that wouldn't be able to have gotten that gun under your recommended gun control. There probably aren't many.

The current system can't be fixed... we have two options. There are a million details in these two options, but in general we have two.

1.) Just live with the fact that the system and culture (we are a violent culture) is violent and gun murders/crimes are going to happen. You aren't going to have a world with millions of guns and billions of bullets and nobody gets shot. It just isnt going to happen. You are naive to think it will.

2.) Blow the system up and ban all handguns and assault rifles for non-military use. Get them off store shelves, stop producing ammunition for them, disallow the repair/maintenance on them, and wait for it to run it's course. It may take 20 years for everyone to run out of 9mm, .38, .45, 5.56, .223, etc ammo, but it will happen if you ban it and shut the factories/business down. Pay money to anyone who turns in these guns, bullets, etc.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

2.) Blow the system up and ban all handguns and assault rifles for non-military use. Get them off store shelves, stop producing ammunition for them, disallow the repair/maintenance on them, and wait for it to run it's course. It may take 20 years for everyone to run out of 9mm, .38, .45, 5.56, .223, etc ammo, but it will happen if you ban it and shut the factories/business down. Pay money to anyone who turns in these guns, bullets, etc.

so in others words disregard the constitution?