https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...7db34f19da.jpg
Things that make you go Hmmmm
Printable View
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...7db34f19da.jpg
Things that make you go Hmmmm
not sure, i took it from statista last night but googling on my phone says otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Jakal
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankin...es-by-country/
i didn’t mean to bring in violent crime, i am pretty focused on the fact that most of the 50k gone yearly in the usa are very preventable and very out of line among developed nations.
my bad.
Ehh, the fart smelling thing was a bit insulting. I'll give you that. But it wasn't directed at anyone in particular and honestly was a bit lighthearted. Its arguably an accurate observation though, as this place and thread in particular is of course an echo chamber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper
Thers no strawman there though. I don't need to create a weaker version of peoples points to attack. I can interact with their points such as they are. Violence is a problem. Mass shooting are a problem. I don't need to distort that to interact with it. I absolutely have empathy for why people could think just getting rid of the guns is a solution. The emotions behind such an attitude are absolutely reasonable. However just based on emotions, well meaning people often make situations worse int he long run when not considering all variables rationally.
The difference is I'm not sure DIRECT action is going to solve the problem, but rather seems short sighted and overly simplified to me. I mean we could say direct action would be having some basic amount of security for soft targets, but thats something people here seem very opposed to.
If you think I'm making a fool of myself thats fine. Not really any of my business or skin off my back. Often people seem to need to dismiss people with ideas they find difficult to interact with. I've taken a break from this place for months. I'll probably go back to that soon as I get busy and have better things to do.
You could also say that to anti gunnners, there is no amount of collateral damage for mass disarmament that they think wouldn't be worth it. In fact, the idea there could be collateral damage to disarmament isn't something they will even admit could be remotely possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by plugboots
I think many proponents of gun ownership believe in balancing the collateral damage of an armed vs unarmed society. As I have said before, if you're going to do the math on this. you need to factor in that when unarmed societies are victimized by governments it happen on an absolute massive scale in the tens of millions. Average that out over the decades and its far far higher than the total number of murders in the US since WWII.
Human brains aren't good at calculating extremely high consequence events that are also extremely low frequency. Anyone who skis in avalanche terrain should know this. If you refuse to factor in the hundreds millions unarmed victims of ethnic cleansing etc, well, taht doesn't make much sense in the long run. You're choosing just to look at one side of the scale, claiming, its obviously weighted heavily to that side, while being willfully blind to the other side of the scale.
Checks and balances are fundamental to democracy.
How do you think other countries avoid this level of gun violence?
That is if you have now done the 30 seconds of searching to correct your earlier statement about how there isn’t any difference in gun violence amongst developed nations.
And it’s fucking stupid and disingenuous of you to keep saying that other posters think non gun violence is not a problem.
Can your brain hold on to the idea that a person can be more concerned about gun violence while simultaneously still being concerned about non gun violence? Or are you such a simpleton that it’s hard for you to imagine such a complex non-binary nuanced thought (I’m kidding…it’s not complex at all)
Hey, ya know what? I followed your advice, I actually was hoping to find something I'd find difficult to interact with, something that would make me challenge my views.Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
What did I actually find? Oh yea, he's using stats on GUN DEATHS and not GUN MURDERS.
Including suicides in these stats is manipulative disingenuous and intentionally misleading. Its like the stats on CHILREN being killed by guns that sneakily define children as under 21 not under 18 or under 16. Hell, if you include 18-21 year olds in that, you're including combat deaths for soldiers in active wars. That is such an entirely different issue from domestic US murder rates. Even if the poster of such info wasn't trying to be misleading with this, the people who compiled those stats absolutely are.
Anything else?
Guns are more like cigarettes. They're addictive and make the owner feel better but are actually likely to te harmful to them and everyone else around them..
Pregnant woman accused of shoplifting shot by Walgreens employee
Murika!
It's not hard to support the notion that we would likely reduce the number of SUCCESSFUL suicides annually by 50% if we had gun laws modeling most other first world nations. Including suicide numbers is 100% relevant to this discussion.... especially considering how many decide to take out other family/coworkers with them..
Can your brain hold on to the idea that gun ownership is not the only variable? The US is very different than those other countries in many ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
Just like someone trying to use the stat of US drivers wearing seatbelts at 5% less leading to more car deaths, and that meaning US people are just more hardheaded, but ignoring Euros smoking way more cigs.
Simplify the world to the point of being binary if you like, but it isn't reality. There are many more variables that contribute to violence in the US other than gun ownership.
For one, our history with slavery creating a disenfranchised underclass that lives primarily in urban ghettos, to which the CIA then purposely peddled crack and destabilized further. That is where the vast majority of violence and gun violence takes places, and is part of the drug trade. it seems to me like there are ways to improve this that seem obvious, and don't take anyone's rights. I'm all for increasing federal funding to schools in poor areas that can't generate enough tax locally to properly fund themselves. Unfortunately, the same solution doesn't apply to creating funding for police departments in those places, because of the existence of the absolutely predatory prison industrial complex that imprisons far higher numbers of our fellow citizens than any other industrialized nation for profit. This dynamic is the very core of the vast majority of US violence and gun violence. The powers that be would rather we fight amongst each other than form unity to question that and demand change though. Regardless of everything else we disagree about, we should all be able to agree about this, and action towards changing it woudl absoluty reduce violence.
Sadly, the next common form of violence is men killing their wives girlfriends or exes which is fucking tragic. I'm not sure what to do about that.
Suicides and gun deaths are part of the shadow of guns in society
You don’t get to pretend it isn’t a part of the issue
The stat about kids leading cause of death is under 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
Ok, lets infringe on peoples rights because maybe it will help. That is a non started for a lot of people, especially when there are avenues to reduce violence that DON"T infringe on peoples rights.
Namely, reforming the prison industrial complex and improving opportunity and quality of life in our absolulty disenfranchised crime ridden areas.
but the powers that be don't want us to agree on that. They'd rather we fight amongst ourselves about gun control, fight about which parts of the bill of rights we prioritize over others, while they attack all aspects of our civil rights and freedoms.
why not focus on the changes we can all agree about, that the powerful don't want us to agree about? Do that for a decade and see where we get? if that was a common attitude maybe abortion and health rights wouldn't be under attack.
But lumping them together is still dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
No, it's not dishonest. Ever see a room where someone blew their had off? I'll bet you $20 that you can't stop posting in this thread for three days.
It’s directly relevant
But like, if I post to take the bet, does that mean I'm losing the bet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco Kid
I have a friend who's parents operated a motel. He spent one spring break during college cleaning up that kind of mess in one of the rooms. Heard him bust out that story in response to someone talking about suicide.
He's a gun owner.
You are wrong. From my previous post.Quote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
In 2020 45,000 people were killed with guns in the US.
I would say that a dead person is a particularly bad outcome. In violent situations that result in death, guns are used 79% of the time.
"Pew research
Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) U.S. murders in 2020 – 19,384 out of 24,576 – involved a firearm."
Yea of course. But its not the same issue. They're related but shouldn't be lumped together.Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
i never said it just wasn't relevant. I didn't dismiss it. Just want accurate representative ways of using stats not deliberately misleading ones.
Your stat doesn't contradict what I said. I never said most murders aren't with guns. Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by basinbeater
There were not 45k murders in the US in 2020. That is not true. https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/...-in-us-in-2020
Yea a lot of people offed themselves during the pandemic, and murders also went up, but lets use clear and accurate stats.
if you guys are so obviously right, you shouldn't have to be misleading to prove it.
Then help me understand what is misleading about itQuote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
I edited my previous post. Although I think you might be willfully ignorant anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
Please connect the dotsQuote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
I have not read anyone pretending that murder is 45k
Is your issue that suicide isn’t violence?
Do you not think there are a separate albeit somewhat overlapping set of causal variables for murder and suicide?Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
What is the utility of not separating the stats on them other than to not be misleading?
They're related but surely there is utility in considering them separately and not just lumped together correct?
So we split them and still talk about the aggregate reasons guns present a public health problem in the US?
To my mind, just saying there are 45k deaths by gun is summary enough.
The parsing does nothing to change that except that it takes more words
It is certainly important to understand the makeup of the number. But it doesn’t reduce or revise the takeaway.
There is no utility in lumping them together or separating them out if you have already decided that 45k/yr dead is an acceptable tradeoff.Quote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
How many would it take? 100k? 200k? A million? There must be some sort of threshold that eventually would make you say, too many gun deaths. What is it? Because apparently it is above 45k for a large percentage of the population. That's fucked. Don't bother responding with a bunch of bull shit. (We know you will anyway.)
I’d suggest he actually is sensitive to the 45k by the interest in dividing it up somehow