Racism, Guns, Politics, Religion, etc...

[WVUPharm2007]

I am going to drink every time you put ‘muh’ In front of something as if that invalidates it.

But muh muhs.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[beautifulrobot]

Nah, but for real tho.
I think that the line should be drawn at a point supported by evidence.
If no robust evidence is available, the line should at least not be drawn in direct contradiction of the available data.

The is no objective reason or data to support a ban scary looking rifles over handguns.
No one can argue that. It is a simple fact.

We are thinking, reasonable citizens, and I'm not a journalist, so why do we think legislation should be based on ratings grabbers?

It may be callous, but I'll say It.

School shootings are irrelevant symptoms of a social problem.
What changed in 1999?
Something snapped in our society and hasn't healed.
It isn't guns or their availability.

Why is it that the deadliest, scariest weapons are the least likely to be used in crimes?
It's a really bizarre, important question.

I support the approach of data-driven decisions rather than legislation based off of moral panic and emotional (over)reactions. If only congress didn't impose restrictions on the use of federal funding for gun violence research... (not arguing that you support such restrictions, just pointing out that it's a thing).

What do we do until the restrictions on research are lifted and until more robust data becomes available? Are there no short-term solutions that are worth implementing or experimenting with in the meanwhile, even if they aren't the most robust, evidence-based decisions? Or is watchful waiting really the best option we have?

Also, do you really think there is no association between school shootings and guns or their availability ("It isn't guns or their availability")? It seems that both the lethality of the weapons and availability of lethal weapons are reasonable risk factors for school shootings. They certainly aren't the only risk factors, and I agree with your sentiment that there is more going on than just guns and their availability. Just as the addictive properties of a drug and the availability of addictive drugs aren't the only risk factors for drug addiction, they are still relevant risk factors. Not to insinuate that our current controlled substances laws are good policy - they desperately need to be reformed, and we need more evidence to support more effective drug policies. Although whatever drug policies we come up with in the future, I am certain those policies will still need to address the addictive potential of a drug and the availability of addictive drugs, along with many other risk factors / social issues.

To take the gun availability thing to an extreme - why not put gun and ammo vending machines in high schools if the guns or their availability aren't (part of) the problem?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

They've been around longer than 1999:
List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

That list has some drawbacks...like some of them are adults that shot up a school...but kids taking a gun to school and shooting the place up has been a thing for a while longer than 19 years. The first spree shooting I can identify is in Texas in 1966. NY in 1974. A kid on the rifle team. Imagine if that kid had an AR-15...whew. 1979, a 16 year old in California lost her mind. 1985, Detroit. 1986 Montana. And then they start to become more and more frequent until the fever pitch of today. And it doesn't take long to identify some cases with a lot of injuries that could have been worse if they students had better weapons available to them.

But today vs yesteryear there appear to me to be a few differences...on average there are more victims per incident...they are more frequent (though simple population increases may explain part of that)...and the 24 hour news cycle has just made them seem more common today than in the past...

Most of your points are fair, except for the hand-wringing about modern weapons.

The shooting in Texas in 1966 is an especially hot topic, as it was committed by someone with a bolt action rifle and he was engaged by armed citizens.
There's modern disagreement by NPR over whether the citizens helped or not.

Also:
Do you realize you're pointing out incidents from dates when there were no restrictions on the types of machine guns available, right?

Literally all of those examples could've been committed with an M16

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I support the approach of data-driven decisions rather than legislation based off of moral panic and emotional (over)reactions. If only congress didn't impose restrictions on the use of federal funding for gun violence research... (not arguing that you support such restrictions, just pointing out that it's a thing).

What do we do until the restrictions on research are lifted and until more robust data becomes available? Are there no short-term solutions that are worth implementing or experimenting with in the meanwhile, even if they aren't the most robust, evidence-based decisions? Or is watchful waiting really the best option we have?

Also, do you really think there is no association between school shootings and guns or their availability ("It isn't guns or their availability")? It seems that both the lethality of the weapons and availability of lethal weapons are reasonable risk factors for school shootings. They certainly aren't the only risk factors, and I agree with your sentiment that there is more going on than just guns and their availability. Just as the addictive properties of a drug and the availability of addictive drugs aren't the only risk factors for drug addiction, they are still relevant risk factors. Not to insinuate that our current controlled substances laws are good policy - they desperately need to be reformed, and we need more evidence to support more effective drug policies. Although whatever drug policies we come up with in the future, I am certain those policies will still need to address the addictive potential of a drug and the availability of addictive drugs, along with many other risk factors / social issues.

To take the gun availability thing to an extreme - why not put gun and ammo vending machines in high schools if the guns or their availability aren't (part of) the problem?

Oh yeah, I absolutely think we should be making huge steps into researching violence of all kinds and how to prevent it.
I disagree with the term gun violence on an intellectual level, but I would wholeheartedly support research on violence committed using a gun.

Like I've said numerous times before, violence is a factor of poverty.

Like I pointed out earlier in the thread, there's a big difference between laws that prohibit things that don't harm anyone and laws that do.
There's yet another order of magnitude of difference between laws that are universally supported and don't hurt anyone and laws that restrict a civil right, which is exactly what firearm ownership is. Affirmed by the Supreme Court and everything.

Also, I didn't mean to apply that there's no association, as there obviously is.
I meant to say that the root cause isn't the gun.
There are worthwhile efforts, but they're being ignored to serve the political goals of the American system.


If our children are so precious, why is it harder and nearly impossible to bring a gun into a court room and there is literally no barrier to entering a school?

Assault style rifles are the SSRI of guns.

The layman reads "May cause suicidal ideation" and believes it to mean that a totally healthy individual with no history of any self harming thought is suddenly gonna want to kill themselves.
Modest Anteater clearly believes guns cause mass shootings, and they aren't alone.
People with deeper understanding know that this isn't the case.

While my answer is obviously no, as they're not consenting adults, your extreme case is a ripe illustration for a counter point:
What percentage of 14-18 year old kids do you think would see that vending machine and say "I should probably kill everyone around me?"

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Most of your points are fair, except for the hand-wringing about modern weapons.

The shooting in Texas in 1966 is an especially hot topic, as it was committed by someone with a bolt action rifle and he was engaged by armed citizens.
There's modern disagreement by NPR over whether the citizens helped or not.

Also:
Do you realize you're pointing out incidents from dates when there were no restrictions on the types of machine guns available, right?

Literally all of those examples could've been committed with an M16

This is true. But there was also less of a "military-looking weapons" fetish at the time, too. People usually bought guns for a purpose rather than to cosplay Army Rangers. You'd have the occasional weirdo that owned something like that, but nobody really did. Consider that I come from WV. I've been around guns my whole life. I've never owned something ridiculous like one of those stupid Bushmaster ARs, but I've owned a Mossburg 500 and used to have a simple .308 Remington hunting rifle in my house. Everyone's family did. During buck season, for the cost of a bullet and electricity to run a freezer, my family and neighbors used to feed their entire family with Venison until Spring. That's the "gun culture" I grew up in. You'd have your pump shotgun at home for the meth head home invaders. And a rifle to take deer with. Whatever the hell it is today is bizarre to me. It's like a cartoon caricature of the one I grew up in during the 80s and 90s. People that buy ARs have no actual purpose for them other than to be posers. It's basically like the gun version of those kids back in the day that would buy a 4-cylinder Honda Civic. Then put an idiotic spoiler on the back. Put on an exhaust that made it really loud and sound like an amplified lawn mower. Put a bunch of racing stickers on it. They just looked like *****s. Or you could just buy a late 80s Mustang for the same price and actually have a fast car.

You are right, though. What can be done by an AR clone could easily be done much better and less dorky looking by something sensible like a Mini-14.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Oh yeah, I absolutely think we should be making huge steps into researching violence of all kinds and how to prevent it.
I disagree with the term gun violence on an intellectual level, but I would wholeheartedly support research on violence committed using a gun.

Like I've said numerous times before, violence is a factor of poverty.

Are most spree shooters poverty stricken, though? The kid in Florida wasn't. Sandy Hook kid wasn't. Columbine kids weren't. Dude in Vegas was legit independently wealthy.

They were just all really ****ed in the head...and due to the lax gun laws in this country...got their hands on some hardware that can cause mass devastation. The old axiom has a point...freedom ain't free.

That's the one thing that irks me about the hardcore 2nd amendment supporters. They want weapons used in the above massacres to be available...but they don't think that they should have to feel any culpability for what happens when said weapons are available. They got the world that they wanted...congrats to them. Guess what...there were unintended consequences...and they shouldn't expect to be allowed to put their fingers in their ears and pretend they can't hear the legitimate criticism of their world view that is being lobbed at them.

 

[deleted480308]

This is true. But there was also less of a "military-looking weapons" fetish at the time, too. People usually bought guns for a purpose rather than to cosplay Army Rangers. You'd have the occasional weirdo that owned something like that, but nobody really did. Consider that I come from WV. I've been around guns my whole life. I've never owned something ridiculous like one of those stupid Bushmaster ARs, but I've owned a Mossburg 500 and used to have a simple .308 Remington hunting rifle in my house. Everyone's family did. During buck season, for the cost of a bullet and electricity to run a freezer, my family and neighbors used to feed their entire family with Venison until Spring. That's the "gun culture" I grew up in. You'd have your pump shotgun at home for the meth head home invaders. And a rifle to take deer with. Whatever the hell it is today is bizarre to me. It's like a cartoon caricature of the one I grew up in during the 80s and 90s. People that buy ARs have no actual purpose for them other than to be posers. It's basically like the gun version of those kids back in the day that would buy a 4-cylinder Honda Civic. Then put an idiotic spoiler on the back. Put on an exhaust that made it really loud and sound like an amplified lawn mower. Put a bunch of racing stickers on it. They just looked like *****s. Or you could just buy a late 80s Mustang for the same price and actually have a fast car.

You are right, though. What can be done by an AR clone could easily be done much better and less dorky looking by something sensible like a Mini-14.

An at15 is a very capable weapon for home defense as well as the larger purpose of the 2nd amendment. It may not appeal to you but that doesn’t make it useless

 

[deleted480308]

Are most spree shooters poverty stricken, though? The kid in Florida wasn't. Sandy Hook kid wasn't. Columbine kids weren't. Dude in Vegas was legit independently wealthy.

They were just all really ****ed in the head...and due to the lax gun laws in this country...got their hands on some hardware that can cause mass devastation. The old axiom has a point...freedom ain't free.

That's the one thing that irks me about the hardcore 2nd amendment supporters. They want weapons used in the above massacres to be available...but they don't think that they should have to feel any culpability for what happens when said weapons are available. They got the world that they wanted...congrats to them. Guess what...there were unintended consequences...and they shouldn't expect to be allowed to put their fingers in their ears and pretend they can't hear the legitimate criticism of their world view that is being lobbed at them.

I don’t owe the world any apologies for drunk drivers because there is a beer in my cupboard and a car in my driveway

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I don’t owe the world any apologies for drunk drivers because there is a beer in my cupboard and a car in my driveway

But you have to admit that the legality of alcohol enables drunk drivers and that you are fine with the societal risk and statistical certainty of the deaths of innocent people that comes with it. We've decided that the availability of beer is worth the deaths. Of course, they tried taking away beer and it just created a black market. Or course, beer is addicting...guns mostly aren't. So it isn't really a like for like argument. But that's not important. My point is that there is a risk vs reward on everything. Do you think that the lax gun laws are worth the potential risk of spree shooters? Granted, I understand that you are an absolutist libertarian. And you come from a world view where everyone has absolute individuality and that the concerns of society as a whole are inherently not your concern. And as such, you won't agree with the above at all. In fact, you probably find it insulting. I'm very dissimilar in that I'm a fan of rational pragmatism. That's not to say I support banning them, per se. I'm just telling you where my thinking comes from.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Are most spree shooters poverty stricken, though? The kid in Florida wasn't. Sandy Hook kid wasn't. Columbine kids weren't. Dude in Vegas was legit independently wealthy.

They were just all really ****ed in the head...and due to the lax gun laws in this country...got their hands on some hardware that can cause mass devastation. The old axiom has a point...freedom ain't free.

That's the one thing that irks me about the hardcore 2nd amendment supporters. They want weapons used in the above massacres to be available...but they don't think that they should have to feel any culpability for what happens when said weapons are available. They got the world that they wanted...congrats to them. Guess what...there were unintended consequences...and they shouldn't expect to be allowed to put their fingers in their ears and pretend they can't hear the legitimate criticism of their world view that is being lobbed at them.

I honestly don't care about school shootings.
They are statistically and (whatever the societal version of clinically) insignificant.

Saying school shootings are a reason to ban cosplay assault guns is same logic employed by the loony M.D.s in Austin who say the FDA should ban statins because they cause diabetes.

I don't feel culpable for the actions of mentally ill people.

[Warning: illustration that could be perceived as a strawman follows:
Do you support prohibition of alcohol?

If not, are you wracked with guilt when you think about the ~80-100,000 deaths each year from alcohol use?

There is no reason for high bac capacity assault liquor to be available.
Why don't they just drink beer like normal people?

But you have to admit that the legality of alcohol enables drunk drivers and that you are fine with the societal risk and statistical certainty of the deaths of innocent people that comes with it. We've decided that the availability of beer is worth the deaths. Of course, they tried taking away beer and it just created a black market. Or course, beer is addicting...guns mostly aren't. So it isn't really a like for like argument. But that's not important. My point is that there is a risk vs reward on everything. Do you think that the lax gun laws are worth the potential risk of spree shooters? Granted, I understand that you are an absolutist libertarian. And you come from a world view where everyone has absolute individuality and that the concerns of society as a whole are inherently not your concern. And as such, you won't agree with the above at all. In fact, you probably find it insulting. I'm very dissimilar in that I'm a fan of rational pragmatism. That's not to say I support banning them, per se. I'm just telling you where my thinking comes from.

To be fair, cities big enough to have speakeasies were party zones filled with normal people, not addicted individuals

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

An at15 is a very capable weapon for home defense as well as the larger purpose of the 2nd amendment. It may not appeal to you but that doesn’t make it useless

An AR is much safer than a shotgun or pistol for home defense.

It is much more accurate and precise, with less risk of overpenetration or stray rounds leaving the home.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

That really depends on what type of ammo you use. If you're rolling with hallow points or birdshot, penetration isn't as much of an issue.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

If not, are you wracked with guilt when you think about the ~80-100,000 deaths each year from alcohol use?

I pretty much answered all of this above...
...but I actually don't drink. So, no, I don't feel wracked with guilt.

 

[deleted480308]

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

That really depends on what type of ammo you use. If you're rolling with hallow points or birdshot, penetration isn't as much of an issue.

I meant building materials of houses.

An M193 cartridge out of an AR-15 will have less penetration in drywall than a typical 9x19.

I pretty much answered all of this above...
...but I actually don't drink. So, no, I don't feel wracked with guilt.

Yeah, I know.
My response was semi tongue in cheek.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Just watched a 60 minutes segment and I have to say Germany is running their prisons the correct way. They focus on normalization and getting people out of prison and back to life is the way to go.

 

[Sparda29]

Just watched a 60 minutes segment and I have to say Germany is running their prisons the correct way. Their focus on normalization and getting people out of prison and back to life is the way to go.

Norway too.

Inside the World's Most Humane Prison - Photo Essays

 

[Sparda29]

If we aren't gonna expand gun control, then we should also get rid of airport security, simple NICS background check and buy the ticket and that's it, you walk onto the plane.

We also should get rid of pharmacy schools, medical schools, etc. background check and a fee and you get whatever professional license you want.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Norway too.

Inside the World's Most Humane Prison - Photo Essays

There were murders simply walking around, the thought of killing doesn't even cross their minds. One had darts in his room, they could easily rally together and take out the guards.

Instead we lock people up for 23 hours a day and we wonder why almost immediately after getting out of prison, they end up back in.

 

[Sparda29]

There were murders simply walking around, the thought of killing doesn't even cross their minds. One had darts in his room, they could easily rally together and take out the guards.

Instead we lock people up for 23 hours a day and we wonder why almost immediately after getting out of prison, they end up back in.

For one thing, we shouldn't have private prisons. No one should be making money via prisons.

 

[spacecowgirl]

I honestly don't care about school shootings.
They are statistically and (whatever the societal version of clinically) insignificant.

Saying school shootings are a reason to ban cosplay assault guns is same logic employed by the loony M.D.s in Austin who say the FDA should ban statins because they cause diabetes.

I don't feel culpable for the actions of mentally ill people.

[Warning: illustration that could be perceived as a strawman follows:
Do you support prohibition of alcohol?

If not, are you wracked with guilt when you think about the ~80-100,000 deaths each year from alcohol use?

There is no reason for high bac capacity assault liquor to be available.
Why don't they just drink beer like normal people?



To be fair, cities big enough to have speakeasies were party zones filled with normal people, not addicted individuals

WTF?

 

[Modest_anteater]

Yep, but their rate of people murdered has decreased less than ours in the same time period.

I mean, would you be OK banning guns if our gun homicide rate went to zero but our overall homicide rate increased? Because that's what you seem to be unwittingly suggesting.

There is diminishing returns with gun control. The US will only put up with so many of these mass shooting and there will be a lot more in the future as they become more common.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ats-and-0-republicans/?utm_term=.bb85d66ee3fb

In 2020 when Mark Zuckerberg is elected he will initiate massive gun reform laws. So enjoy your military roleplay now. Soon you will have to surrender your guns or face serious jail time.

States with Stricter Gun Laws Have Fewer Gun Deaths

Gun nuts BTFO'd.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

WTF?

Thank you for this well thought out response.
10/10, would read again

 

[wagrxm2000]

I dread the day Australia has a horrific mass shooting. Unfortunately I think it's going to happen soon. Someone is going to get all this talk about Australia in their head and prove a point.

I don't know what's going to happen law wise but if they do start banning certain guns, they are quickly going to learn it will do nothing because once again, criminals aren't going to give up their guns.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

There is diminishing returns with gun control. The US will only put up with so many of these mass shooting and there will be a lot more in the future as they become more common.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ats-and-0-republicans/?utm_term=.bb85d66ee3fb

In 2020 when Mark Zuckerberg is elected he will initiate massive gun reform laws. So enjoy your military roleplay now. Soon you will have to surrender your guns or face serious jail time.

States with Stricter Gun Laws Have Fewer Gun Deaths

Gun nuts BTFO'd.

So, if there's over 300,000,000 guns in private hands in the US, how many people do you think they can put into prison?

Did Australia put over 2 million people in jail after their gun ban failed?

 

[spacecowgirl]

Thank you for this well thought out response.
10/10, would read again

Anyone that says "I honestly don't care about school shootings. They are statistically and (whatever the societal version of clinically) insignificant" is not someone I can have any sort of useful discourse with. We are so far apart, it would be a fool's errand to try to find any middle ground.

 

[deleted480308]

Anyone that says "I honestly don't care about school shootings. They are statistically and (whatever the societal version of clinically) insignificant" is not someone I can have any sort of useful discourse with. We are so far apart, it would be a fool's errand to try to find any middle ground.

Try, “I don’t find curtailing the rigts of uninvolved innocent americans to be an appropriate response”. Your turn

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Anyone that says "I honestly don't care about school shootings. They are statistically and (whatever the societal version of clinically) insignificant" is not someone I can have any sort of useful discourse with. We are so far apart, it would be a fool's errand to try to find any middle ground.

I agree.

If I said "I don't care about the few kids that have severe reactions to vaccines" someone on Facebook would probably react the same way.

 

[Modest_anteater]

Anyone that says "I honestly don't care about school shootings. They are statistically and (whatever the societal version of clinically) insignificant" is not someone I can have any sort of useful discourse with. We are so far apart, it would be a fool's errand to try to find any middle ground.

You can't reason with gun nuts. Just let them spend all their discretionary income on weapons.

 

[wagrxm2000]

It really is amazing how a few shootings occur and people go crazy. We literally have tens of thousands of drunk driving deaths a year and yet no one talks about it.

Is it the deaths of children or is it about the guns only? Hmmmmmm, I'm leaning towards the latter.

And I actually want someone to respond to this because it makes zero sense that people only go crazy over gun deaths but stay silent to all the other deaths that are preventable.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Remember when Kanye said George Bush didn't care about black people?

That's what I think of people who are outraged about school shootings but don't care about everyday brown or black victims.
Any other victims.

School shootings are a money making endeavor by the 24 hour news company.
"Awareness" or "caring" does nothing

 

[Modest_anteater]

Remember when Kanye said George Bush didn't care about black people?

That's what I think of people who are outraged about school shootings but don't care about everyday brown or black victims.
Any other victims.

School shootings are a money making endeavor by the 24 hour news company.
"Awareness" or "caring" does nothing

Ill just leave this here for all the individuals that worship guns. Maybe take a second to reflect on how you are alienating yourself from the community.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Ill just leave this here for all the individuals that worship guns. Maybe take a second to reflect on how you are alienating yourself from the community. View attachment 230206

Well would ya look at that.
Not a single black or brown child in that meme of a comic.

Why do you support politics that silences people of color, modest anteater?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Now this:

Teen drawn to ISIS brought homemade bomb to Utah school, police say

How long until this becomes more common?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

If whataboutism cured cancer, you could bottle this thread and make millions.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

If whataboutism cured cancer, you could bottle this thread and make millions.

But muh bigpharma wouldn't allow it

 

[deleted480308]

Ill just leave this here for all the individuals that worship guns. Maybe take a second to reflect on how you are alienating yourself from the community. View attachment 230206

all I think is screw you for not backing his ability to have a gun and fight back

 

[BidingMyTime]

Why are we ignoring the real problem, air plane crashes???? Today alone in my Facebook feed, 2 airplane crashes (Nepel and Iran) AND a helicopter crash in New York! How can nobody care about these innocent lives???? We need to ban airplanes, or at least only allow people who have a PROVEN genuine need for them to be able to fly. Like military, or maybe paramedics on life flights. There is no reason why the average person HAS to fly, and it's just to dangerous to allow them.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Another cancer patient cured.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Another cancer patient cured.

*teleports behind you & steals your meme 2 use against u*


Saying school shootings are important is like a triage nurse saying an ER patient with a broken ankle is just as serious as an onco patient.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

*teleports behind you & steals your meme 2 use against u*


Saying school shootings are important is like a triage nurse saying an ER patient with a broken ankle is just as serious as an onco patient.

Yeah, but refusing to fix or simply be concerned about the broken ankle because cancer exists is silly. Hence the ridiculousness of whataboutism.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Yeah, but refusing to fix or simply be concerned about the broken ankle because cancer exists is silly. Hence the ridiculousness of whataboutism.

Yup.
That's fine and makes sense. I'm not sure how long a triage nurse that ignored a person having a stroke because several children broke their ankles would last.
The problem lies in the analysis of risk versus benefit.

The pro-regulation side seems to think there are immense benefits with zero risk.
The anti-regulation side sees zero or negligible benefit with large or significant risks.

 

[Old Timer]

Why are we ignoring the real problem, air plane crashes???? Today alone in my Facebook feed, 2 airplane crashes (Nepel and Iran) AND a helicopter crash in New York! How can nobody care about these innocent lives???? We need to ban airplanes, or at least only allow people who have a PROVEN genuine need for them to be able to fly. Like military, or maybe paramedics on life flights. There is no reason why the average person HAS to fly, and it's just to dangerous to allow them.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

That's not what a strawman fallacy is

 

[Old Timer]

It really is amazing how a few shootings occur and people go crazy. We literally have tens of thousands of drunk driving deaths a year and yet no one talks about it.

Is it the deaths of children or is it about the guns only? Hmmmmmm, I'm leaning towards the latter.

And I actually want someone to respond to this because it makes zero sense that people only go crazy over gun deaths but stay silent to all the other deaths that are preventable.

No , we as society don't say silent. Cars now have seat belts and air bags. They are engineered to protect the occupants, Guard rails prevent you from leaving the road. Roads are engineered for safety. We have blood alcohol; limits to reduce drunk driving. Every time you get in a 1-2 ton vehicle moving at 40-50 mph you can damage yourself in an accident. The benefit outweighs the risk. Guns are not the same. The simple fact of the matter is guns are unsafe. Period.

Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.4

The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat.5

On a state-wide level, states with higher rates of household firearm ownership have been shown to have significantly higher homicide victimization rates.

People who support uncontrolled gin ownership just have to own up to the fact they are willing to let people die so they can have as many guns as they want.

And by the way, if you want to us the car analogy. My car is registered with the state inspected for safety, insured and I have to demonstrate some minimal competence before I am allowed to to use it. If it was that way for guns, we would all be a lot better off.....


And by the way, I am a gun owner. It's a beautiful Winchester 30/30 Looks like this:

The thing is, fully loaded it would take a while to empty the magazine. If you don't think automatic, semi automatic and weapons with bump stocks don't kill people faster and in greater numbers in a shorter period of time shows you are just, well , not well versed in facts.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Old Timer...only drives Chevys...owns a Model 94 repeater...

...Mr. 'Murica over here.

 

[deleted480308]

No , we as society don't say silent. Cars now have seat belts and air bags. They are engineered to protect the occupants, Guard rails prevent you from leaving the road. Roads are engineered for safety. We have blood alcohol; limits to reduce drunk driving. Every time you get in a 1-2 ton vehicle moving at 40-50 mph you can damage yourself in an accident. The benefit outweighs the risk. Guns are not the same. The simple fact of the matter is guns are unsafe. Period.

Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.4

The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat.5

On a state-wide level, states with higher rates of household firearm ownership have been shown to have significantly higher homicide victimization rates.

People who support uncontrolled gin ownership just have to own up to the fact they are willing to let people die so they can have as many guns as they want.

And by the way, if you want to us the car analogy. My car is registered with the state inspected for safety, insured and I have to demonstrate some minimal competence before I am allowed to to use it. If it was that way for guns, we would all be a lot better off.....


And by the way, I am a gun owner. It's a beautiful Winchester 30/30 Looks like this:

The thing is, fully loaded it would take a while to empty the magazine. If you don't think automatic, semi automatic and weapons with bump stocks don't kill people faster and in greater numbers in a shorter period of time shows you are just, well , not well versed in facts.

The stats about risk to the owner never seem to seperate out the law abiding and non substance abusing without mental health issues.....do you have any that do? Because “all homes with a gun” doesn’t really accurately describe my situation.

And the point of a semiautomatic is that it would perform better/faster if you ended up needing to fight for your life. That’s a feature, not a flaw.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The stats about risk to the owner never seem to seperate out the law abiding and non substance abusing without mental health issues.....do you have any that do? Because “all homes with a gun” doesn’t really accurately describe my situation.

How do you know you and your family aren't currently or won't become mentally unstable?

 

[deleted480308]

How do you know you and your family aren't currently or won't become mentally unstable?

A middle age professional couple with an ideological/religious objection to illicit substance use, that largely applies the nonaggression principle, with no mental/behavioral issues currently in them or their kids would have a lower risk of issues than “all homes with guns”....

I’m not particularly interested in the exercise of time travel predictions or guaranteeing somehow that I could never turn into a dangerous person because no one has ever quite figured out how to guarantee no one will ever try to harm me or my family. So given the lack of guarantees, I’ll stick to insisting on my right to pursue what I consider effective self defense

You do you

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

No , we as society don't say silent. Cars now have seat belts and air bags. They are engineered to protect the occupants, Guard rails prevent you from leaving the road. Roads are engineered for safety. We have blood alcohol; limits to reduce drunk driving. Every time you get in a 1-2 ton vehicle moving at 40-50 mph you can damage yourself in an accident. The benefit outweighs the risk. Guns are not the same. The simple fact of the matter is guns are unsafe. Period.

Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.4

The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat.5

On a state-wide level, states with higher rates of household firearm ownership have been shown to have significantly higher homicide victimization rates.

People who support uncontrolled gin ownership just have to own up to the fact they are willing to let people die so they can have as many guns as they want.

And by the way, if you want to us the car analogy. My car is registered with the state inspected for safety, insured and I have to demonstrate some minimal competence before I am allowed to to use it. If it was that way for guns, we would all be a lot better off.....


And by the way, I am a gun owner. It's a beautiful Winchester 30/30 Looks like this:

The thing is, fully loaded it would take a while to empty the magazine. If you don't think automatic, semi automatic and weapons with bump stocks don't kill people faster and in greater numbers in a shorter period of time shows you are just, well , not well versed in facts.

Citing the Kellerman and Wintehude studies which are based on the kellerman studies, nice.

The very fact that you're posting such outlandish stats from studies you obviously didn't read is sad.
You just said and apparently believe that having a 4 pound machine in a home makes its occupants 17 times more likely to kill themselves.

You are saying that if there are two totally equal individuals living in two houses, one of them will be 1,700% more likely to kill themselves if a gun is merely present.

What gives? Do you believe in magic or something? How can an educated individual look at that statistic and not think "I should probably brush the dust off of my drug lit book and find out what's wrong here."

Kellerman famously had a problem with the non random sampling where he focused on inner city areas.

Wintehude is literally just an antigun me-too activist funding his own "research" and, yet again, magically getting loads of random samples from the hoods and barrios.
Weird how all of these researchers rely on poor areas.

He also literally wrote a propaganda novel that led to the banning of dirt cheap handguns in California based on the racist term "Saturday Night Special"

Weird, he used stigma attached to a term denigrating African Americans to pass legislation.


You might as well cite Wakeman.
Absolutely ridiculous.

How do you know you and your family aren't currently or won't become mentally unstable?

As long as you make over $18,000 per year, Oldtimer's study doesn't apply to you.