What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[ChiGoose]

Just now, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Around 400 per year in the United States. Nearly the same number of people killed by all rifles (450) which include bolt action, AR platforms, AK platforms, etc. 

 

To answer your last question... about 400. 

 

So about 1% of the people who die by guns in the US each year?

[ArdmoreRyno]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Or a chair! 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

 

You asked dude. 

 

Guns will be the most widely used murder weapon. Usually that way in every country in the world. But my point, people want to kill they usually find a way. More fists kill people than AR-15's each year. A lot more. 

Just now, ChiGoose said:

 

So about 1% of the people who die by guns in the US each year?

 

That wasn't the point of why I posted. Just FYI. 

 

 

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

You asked dude. 

 

Guns will be the most widely used murder weapon. Usually that way in every country in the world. But my point, people want to kill they usually find a way. More fists kill people than AR-15's each year. A lot more. 

 

That wasn't the point of why I posted. Just FYI. 

 

 

Nope, its guns https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

[ArdmoreRyno]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Nope, its guns https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

 

I didn't argue against that. 

 

I'm explaining: More hands, fists, feet have killed than AR-15's. Nearly the same number of hammers/clubs have killed as all rifles. 

 

Right or wrong?

[ChiGoose]

10 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I didn't argue against that. 

 

I'm explaining: More hands, fists, feet have killed than AR-15's. Nearly the same number of hammers/clubs have killed as all rifles. 

 

Right or wrong?

 

I find it interesting that your comparing specifically to AR-15s and rifles instead of guns in general. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

 

Personally, I think ~45,000 people dying from guns in the US every year to be bad and would like us to do something about it. Since other countries don't have the same rate of firearm deaths, it should be possible to reduce the deaths here.

[All_Pro_Bills]

34 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So you put words in people's mouths? Lame

So what are you saying?  This is what you said and I quote "as if there is some excuse besides easy access to murder weapons".  What I'm hearing from that is nothing in particular about the disposition of the killer or their mental state, or life experiences are of any importance.  Did I get it wrong?  And if so can you explain your intent? 

 

My problem with that theory is that almost everyone has "easy access to murder weapons".  You and I and probably everyone else on this board has easy access to weapons.  But I expect nobody here is disposed to act in that manner.  So while access to weapons is certainly one factor, the root cause is something other than access to weapons.  And it sits between the ears of these maladjusted young men.   

[BillStime]

If only there was something we could do about this…

 

 

 

[ArdmoreRyno]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I find it interesting that your comparing specifically to AR-15s and rifles instead of guns in general. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

 

Personally, I think ~45,000 people dying from guns in the US every year to be bad and would like us to do something about it. Since other countries don't have the same rate of firearm deaths, it should be possible to reduce the deaths here.

 

Because the media and left want to go after the AR platform. That's why. I've sad MANY times, handguns run the kingdom in the United States. If that's home protection or death. It's not even close to AR's. 

 

BTW: a huge percent of those deaths are suicides 

 

[Tiberius]

11 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

So what are you saying?  This is what you said and I quote "as if there is some excuse besides easy access to murder weapons".  What I'm hearing from that is nothing in particular about the disposition of the killer or their mental state, or life experiences are of any importance.  Did I get it wrong?  And if so can you explain your intent? 

 

My problem with that theory is that almost everyone has "easy access to murder weapons".  You and I and probably everyone else on this board has easy access to weapons.  But I expect nobody here is disposed to act in that manner.  So while access to weapons is certainly one factor, the root cause is something other than access to weapons.  And it sits between the ears of these maladjusted young men.   

Guns are the most lethal 

10 minutes ago, BillStime said:

If only there was something we could do about this…

 

 

 

Angry man with easy access to murder weapon 

[ChiGoose]

12 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Because the media and left want to go after the AR platform. That's why. I've sad MANY times, handguns run the kingdom in the United States. If that's home protection or death. It's not even close to AR's. 

 

BTW: a huge percent of those deaths are suicides 

 

 

The NRA used to actually propose gun control legislation because as the experts on guns, they knew what laws would be effective for preventing guns from getting in the wrong hands while maintaining the ability for upstanding citizens to safely own firearms.

 

Now that the NRA exists solely as the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, we no longer have a large organization of firearm experts lobbying for safe gun laws. Which means that if we ever get to a boiling point and the country actually decides to do *something* about the insane number of gun deaths, those laws will likely be written by people who lack the expertise to make them as effective as they can be. I'm not convinced banning the AR-15 will do a whole lot since there are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles out there, but if we get to a point where Congress actually passes something, I'd bet an AR-15 ban would be part of that.

 

The fact that most gun deaths are suicides I think underscores even more that we need effective firearm legislation. Most people who survive a suicide attempt do not end up dying of suicide. They end up moving on and leading a normal life. And most methods of suicide attempts (pills, cutting, etc) are far more likely to fail than succeed. But somebody who attempts suicide with a gun is about 90% certain to die. If they did not have access to that weapon in that brief moment, they more likely than not would not have died. Better laws around simple things like gun storage and red flag laws would likely go a long way here.

 

And I completely agree that we should focus more on handguns. We talk more about rifles because they are used in the kinds of shootings that make the headlines, but the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are by handgun. I would be in favor of handguns being far more regulated / restricted than rifles.

[ArdmoreRyno]

6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The NRA used to actually propose gun control legislation because as the experts on guns, they knew what laws would be effective for preventing guns from getting in the wrong hands while maintaining the ability for upstanding citizens to safely own firearms.

 

Now that the NRA exists solely as the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, we no longer have a large organization of firearm experts lobbying for safe gun laws. Which means that if we ever get to a boiling point and the country actually decides to do *something* about the insane number of gun deaths, those laws will likely be written by people who lack the expertise to make them as effective as they can be. I'm not convinced banning the AR-15 will do a whole lot since there are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles out there, but if we get to a point where Congress actually passes something, I'd bet an AR-15 ban would be part of that.

 

The fact that most gun deaths are suicides I think underscores even more that we need effective firearm legislation. Most people who survive a suicide attempt do not end up dying of suicide. They end up moving on and leading a normal life. And most methods of suicide attempts (pills, cutting, etc) are far more likely to fail than succeed. But somebody who attempts suicide with a gun is about 90% certain to die. If they did not have access to that weapon in that brief moment, they more likely than not would not have died. Better laws around simple things like gun storage and red flag laws would likely go a long way here.

 

And I completely agree that we should focus more on handguns. We talk more about rifles because they are used in the kinds of shootings that make the headlines, but the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are by handgun. I would be in favor of handguns being far more regulated / restricted than rifles.

 

We need to focus on the core of the problem and it's not guns. That's the end results of the problem. There are a plethora of other things that lead to the point of a shooting event. 

[ChiGoose]

9 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

We need to focus on the core of the problem and it's not guns. That's the end results of the problem. There are a plethora of other things that lead to the point of a shooting event. 

 

If this was true, we would see the same rate of gun deaths in peer countries, but we don't.

 

So, it's either:

• The availability / accessibility of guns; or
• Americans are inherently inferior to people like Canadians and the British

I really don't think it's the latter...

[ArdmoreRyno]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

If this was true, we would see the same rate of gun deaths in peer countries, but we don't.

 

So, it's either:

• The availability / accessibility of guns; or
• Americans are inherently inferior to people like Canadians and the British

I really don't think it's the latter...

 

Our kids and young adults are on more psychotropic medications than any country in the world, by a LARGE margin. We also lead the world with drug abuse (opioids, marijuana, meth, etc.). We have the highest single parent household percentage in the world. 

 

Lots of reasons that we ignore. 

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Our kids and young adults are on more psychotropic medications than any country in the world, by a LARGE margin. We also lead the world with drug abuse (opioids, marijuana, meth, etc.). We have the highest single parent household percentage in the world. 

 

Lots of reasons that we ignore. 

 

Do those factors correlate with firearm deaths? Do we have data on that?

 

Just a quick look shows we have only a slightly higher rate of single parent household than the UK (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/12/12/religion-and-living-arrangements-around-the-world/ ), but the UK does not have a similar rate of firearm deaths.

[716er]

3 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Our kids and young adults are on more psychotropic medications than any country in the world, by a LARGE margin. We also lead the world with drug abuse (opioids, marijuana, meth, etc.). We have the highest single parent household percentage in the world. 

 

Lots of reasons that we ignore. 

Our kids and young adults are not on more psychotropic medication that any other country in the world. This is factually incorrect. Portugal leads the way there, by a large margin. Roughly 1/4 of their inhabitants are on psychotropics. One’s life expectancy in Portugal is also roughly 3 years more than it is in the US. 
 

There are 4 other countries in front of the US in psychotropics as well - Belgium, Spain, Canada, and Sweden.

 

Hard to trust your “facts” as the first one is blatantly incorrect.

[Big Blitz]

They want you in a mask permanently because they are convinced it's keeping them safe and slowing the spread of a virus as lethal as the flu - for anyone over 90.

 

They want to take all your guns.  

 

There is a lot they want to do and will do if not for the very presence, existence, and ownership of those guns.

 

Good work clowns, for admitting it, and instead of potentially getting actual changes that might be useful (doubt it) you'll get nothing.  Because you're lunatics.  And your fake concern for safety doesn't mean you get to fake you know what kind of guns people should own.   

 

 

Biden had the audacity to essentially say "well uh...um.....people say you need them as a defense against the government.  Common man.....you can't take on fighter planes...helicopters.."

 

No you dolt.  The hope is the forces in that government will never turn their weapons on their own people.  

 

That if it ever does hit the fan every branch of the military fractures.  

 

Does anyone have any freaking clue what the events surrounding an actual Civil War or insurrection or revolt would look like?  And that armed citizens is vital no matter how many Apache Helicopters we have.  Hopefully a good deal of them will be on the side of the people when it does hit the fan.  

 

And it's beyond inevitable we're headed toward a divorce.  This is unsustainable.  Half the country thinking the other country is a legit threat to their lives....one half actually is and wants to disarm you and force you to take a flu shot.  

 

Unsustainable.

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

You said men, now you change it to people. 
 

You tell us, you asked why men are angry, as if there is some excuse besides easy access to murder weapons. 
 

 

YOU said men!!! Don’t be an arse Tibs. So let me ask you again, why do YOU think men are angry? (Your premise, not mine.)

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

They want you in a mask permanently because they are convinced it's keeping them safe and slowing the spread of a virus as lethal as the flu - for anyone over 90.

 

They want to take all your guns.  

 

There is a lot they want to do and will do if not for the very presence, existence, and ownership of those guns.

 

 

I think this "us vs them" talk is not only problematic in that it does not facilitate actual discussion, but it's also dangerous because it drives us to our own sides and leads to demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with us as "them."

 

It also allows for us to take any member of the "them" group and ascribe their belief to everyone in that group even if the group as a whole does not agree. A good example of this is the mask mandate claim here. I have not seen anyone in a position of authority advocating that we require everyone be masked forever. I am sure there are some people somewhere who have expressed that belief, but it is not a mainstream position of the Left. However, by making this claim,  we can simply smear anyone on the other side as being unreasonable and dismiss anything they have to say.

 

It would be like taking the words of an extremist on the Right and saying everyone on the Right is a neo-nazi white supremacist ("They want to disadvantage minorities. They believe being white is superior..." etc). It's not true. There are some that may express that view but that's not the actual policy of the Right. But I could make that claim, point to someone who fits that profile and feel like I've made my point that my group is superior to their group.

 

Not only does it not get us anywhere, but it actually pushes us apart and makes things worse.

 

Let's be better than this.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think this "us vs them" talk is not only problematic in that it does not facilitate actual discussion, but it's also dangerous because it drives us to our own sides and leads to demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with us as "them."

 

It also allows for us to take any member of the "them" group and ascribe their belief to everyone in that group even if the group as a whole does not agree. A good example of this is the mask mandate claim here. I have not seen anyone in a position of authority advocating that we require everyone be masked forever. I am sure there are some people somewhere who have expressed that belief, but it is not a mainstream position of the Left. However, by making this claim,  we can simply smear anyone on the other side as being unreasonable and dismiss anything they have to say.

 

It would be like taking the words of an extremist on the Right and saying everyone on the Right is a neo-nazi white supremacist ("They want to disadvantage minorities. They believe being white is superior..." etc). It's not true. There are some that may express that view but that's not the actual policy of the Right. But I could make that claim, point to someone who fits that profile and feel like I've made my point that my group is superior to their group.

 

Not only does it not get us anywhere, but it actually pushes us apart and makes things worse.

 

Let's be better than this.

Well I'm pretty sure that I'm "us"....are you "them"? 😉

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

YOU said men!!! Don’t be an arse Tibs. So let me ask you again, why do YOU think men are angry? (Your premise, not mine.)

And you asked why Men were so angry? Then you changed it to people. 

 

You are a realm idiot. You come here to play word games and pass on the latest talk radio garbage