It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson take on guns and violence

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 09:49 AM
Why doesn't Neil tweet about deaths caused by falls.
If our government cared, they would have us all wear helmets to save a lot of lives.

Oh, the government really doesn't care about deaths caused by falls?
That's right.... falls are not a threat to the government. Guns do constitute a threat to government power.

The point about the pools .... (and I am not trolling BTW) is that the OP doesn't care so much about people dying, just about the fact that people can have guns.

posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 11:31 AM

Yesterday afternoon, he composed three tweets where he laid out the numbers.

And they're sobering.

* 1.4 Million: Americans who died in all Wars fought since 1776. 1.4 Million: Americans who died via household Guns since 1968— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) November 9, 2015

According to PolitiFact, this actually slightly understates the case (American war deaths were closer to 1.2 million as of 2013).

* 400,000: Americans who died fighting in World War II. 400,000: Americans who died by household Firearms since 2001— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) November 9, 2015

This, sadly, is also true.

* 3,400: Americans who died by Terrorism since 2001 3,400: Americans who died by household Firearms since five weeks ago.— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) November 9, 2015

Estimates vary — and Tyson's is on the high end — but 2015 is expected to see approximately 33,000 total gun deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is nearly 3,200 every five weeks (comparable to the nearly 3,400 Americans who have died in terrorist attacks since 2001).

* source:

LAYDIES, aaaaaAAAAND Gentle-MEN !!!!

This is the first time that someone I respect has spoken on the subject.

< looks around the room >

Surely the propaganda ministers are losing control if this fine astrophysicist has wandered so far from his area of expertise to speak on the topic. Interesting how the 1968 numbers start _after_ riflery was taken out of the schools. Also Mr DeGrasse, if I may, a "gun" is a naval weapon, I believe the correct term is "fire arm" or "side arm." But I see someone must have corrected him by the second tweet.

The-powers-that-Be just lost. Who is setting the narrative now, eh? Well done ATS, they are coming down from their shinny towers to speak to us, on topics we find important.


Hell Yes!!!

/dances off stage
Mike Grouchy

edit on 12-11-2015 by mikegrouchy because: spelling and format

posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 02:18 PM
a reply to: butcherguy

Yes, you are trolling and in this case, you are derailing the topic.

Topics are Dr. Tyson's tweets about guns, which you are not addressing.

Please stay on topic and stop trolling. Thanks!

posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 03:46 PM
a reply to: SuperFrog

Neil and tweets are covered in the first line of my last post.

posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:26 PM
a reply to: SuperFrog

Pointing out the man's opinion and selective use of information on a subject he is not expert is trolling?


The OP drops his name to lend weight to a POV when in truth, his opinion is no more weighty than your average Joe on the street. Now, if we were talking about astronomy then his input is valuable.

No one wants to see someone shoot up a school or church or whatever. The cause of this behavior and the remedy is what all the discussion is about. As a scientist I would think NDT would understand the multivariate nature of the problem instead of regurgitating some knee jerk, feel good, do nothing response in the form of pseudo-statistics.

Of course this may just be further trolling on my part. The envelop of 'meaningful input' is pretty darn narrow here.

posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:38 PM
a reply to: ABNARTY

Not really that narrow.

Agree with the OP premise, and you're in the groove.

What's the issue here?

posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 08:15 PM
a reply to: Shamrock6

I guess so.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how much do you agree with these random numbers? 1 being absolutely and 10 being absolutely and then some.

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in