It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

An honest unusual discussion about firearms

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

Automobile accidents are not usually the result of someone trying to kill someone else, and you know that.

Whatever gun laws and precautions Australia has taken seems to have greatly reduced gun deaths. I’ll have what they’re having.


If anything, this makes auto deaths a far bigger issue than gun deaths... the product that isn't designed to kill, kills far more people unintentionally.

so let's ban them to reduce deaths. No one has to die.

See how absurd that sounds? Why ban cars because some people can't drive or we have drunk drivers? Why should Kayla's rights to drive herself around be infringed? If you want to drive a Porsche that does 175 mph, why should I say it should be limited to 35 mph because some other idiot decides to speed and kill himself?




posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I'm still waiting on an answer to my question.
Where did the OP get the gun homicide rate of 12 per 100k?

I've found an average of 4 per 100k.

That's a huge difference


Apologies. I got it from the wiki source. Actual figure by them is 11.96.


My wiki search has it at 4.2


en.m.wikipedia.org...


DCs figure is overall firearm deaths.

Yours is homicide rate.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

We think it’s okay enough to not make any changes. Australia felt differently.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

You are right.

?



I think your data just is for homicides, my data is for all gun-related deaths.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I'm still waiting on an answer to my question.
Where did the OP get the gun homicide rate of 12 per 100k?

I've found an average of 4 per 100k.

That's a huge difference


Apologies. I got it from the wiki source. Actual figure by them is 11.96.


My wiki search has it at 4.2


en.m.wikipedia.org...


DCs figure is overall firearm deaths.

Yours is homicide rate.


How can firearms deaths be higher than homicide rates unless we are including suicides?



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

99% of automobile deaths are accidents, not intentional killings. And, we have greatly reduced automobile deaths with safety mechanisms in place (requiring seat belts by law, adding safety features like airbags, etc.) The point is, we haven’t just ignored these deaths by saying “oh well, sh*t happens, no need to do anymore about it.” We are making constantly making changes to address the problems. Just talking about making changes to gun laws gets people outraged.


99% of automobile deaths are NOT ACCIDENTS. The top three causes are Drunk Driving, Distracted Driving, and Speeding. Sure the driver's may not have intended to get in a wreck, but to say they are accidental is absurd. It is like saying a gang member shooting a kid during a drive by is an accident. Hey, we was trying to shoot Tyrone, but instead he shot Jaheim, therefore, it was an "accident".

What more gun laws and precautions do you need? We already have background checks. Felons can't own guns. We have gun safes. We have trigger locks.

Again, the vast majority of gun crime ignores all of those things, so increasing them does nothing.

A seat belt does not prevent drunk driving...


Those are still clearly accidents in that there was no intent to kill someone. There has been more or less continual development in car technology to make cars safer.

Development in gun technology in the other hand is designed to increase lethality.

The obvious point is that US gun laws don't work as the homicide rate is 3 times higher than any comparable country. You mention gun safes as an example. In most countries use of a safe location to store a gun is mandatory as part of the licence requirements.


Again, comparable country? Which countries are you saying are "comparable". Which countries have 300 million people? Which countries have as diverse of population? Which countries have a large inner city black population (I bring this up again because this demographic makes up the vast majority of gun homicides).



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I'm still waiting on an answer to my question.
Where did the OP get the gun homicide rate of 12 per 100k?

I've found an average of 4 per 100k.

That's a huge difference


Apologies. I got it from the wiki source. Actual figure by them is 11.96.


My wiki search has it at 4.2


en.m.wikipedia.org...


DCs figure is overall firearm deaths.

Yours is homicide rate.


How can firearms deaths be higher than homicide rates unless we are including suicides?


Because it does include suicide and also accidental deaths.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Comparable as In developed stable democracies.

Why would population size or ethnic demographics influence gun deaths?
edit on 11-5-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Edumakated

If a concerted effort was put in place to eliminate firearms, then even in urban areas, the death rate would surely decrease.

There would still be multiple issues regarding inner cites, but deaths by firearms would be reduced.



How so, 99% of the firearms used in those crimes are already illegally owned. Your surely don't think gang members and thugs are going to voluntarily turn in their illegally owned firearms do you? Are you planning to go house to house to confiscate?


Firearms are a tool. Without bullets, then they become nothing more than paperweights.


So there is your answer. Regulate or ban bullets. Don't sell any more bullets in the inner cities. We have the right to bear arms, nothing is said about the right to own ammunition. With a limited amount of bullets still in circulation with no more being produced, people are going to have to ration out how many shots they fire off. If anything, this will force people to aim better.

And yes, I'm serious.

You said before here, that the only practical purpose for owning a firearm is for hunting. Since maybe 100 people in the U.S. kill their own dinner anymore, that practicality has been shot dead. Excuse the play on words.

I could go on, but I won't becasue I honestly don't care whether guns are outlawed or not. I don't have a dog in this fight. In my opinion, guns are like bibles: They both belong in a museum because neither one have any practical purpose in modern American society.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

That sounds more like a suicide problem than a gun problem.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I look at the “black thug” problem as a much larger issue than guns. It requires so much more to solve. It deserves its own thread.

Mass shootings, to me, is a 2-pronged problem of mental illness and guns. I think it fits better in the discussion of gun control. Gang issues are just too big to fit, in my opinion.


Mass shootings, statistically, aren't even a problem. Next to zero (something like 0.0000026% chance). To attack mass shootings as an issue is, from the bigger picture, solving problems that just aren't there. Its like climbing past all the fruit on a tree to only take the ones on the top branch.


That isn’t what Australia thought. Since we’re comparing Australia and the U.S.


Good for them.
Not all Australians agree, either.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

You keep talking about accidental deaths, and I am talking about people using guns to intentionally kill others, and how can we reduce that. I think the term is “whataboutism”?

What can we do to reduce innocent people getting killed by guns. That is, what I believe, this thread is about. Can we stay on subject? Is there anything we can do to reduce the numbers of innocent people intentionally killed by guns?



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ScepticScot

That sounds more like a suicide problem than a gun problem.


Overall gun deaths is a misleading figure as it includes suicide and the the US suicide rate isn't I believe particularly high, suggesting more guns don't lead to more suicides.

However accidental gun deaths and homicides are much higher.
edit on 11-5-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

Automobile accidents are not usually the result of someone trying to kill someone else, and you know that.

Whatever gun laws and precautions Australia has taken seems to have greatly reduced gun deaths. I’ll have what they’re having.


Gun deaths are a narrow swatch of deaths overall. Why do you devalue the deaths of other people so much by falsely elevating this one specific mode of killing?

The term "gun death" is, itself, a dishonest term. It turns crime discussion into political discussion. And gets the nation nowhere in the end.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Especially when suicides are included in the list.
Like using a gun was worse than using a razor blade.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Comparable as In developed stable democracies.

Why would population size or ethnic demographics influence gun deaths?


Because in the US, gun violence is highly concentrated among the lower income, inner city black community. It cannot be ignored if the point is to have a factual and honest discussion.

For example, in Chicago (which mirrors most major urban areas), in 2017 there were 678 murders. 527 were black. 116 hispanic. Just 20 were white. Chicago is a city of almost 3 million people. The black population in Chicago is 32%.

So the demographic that is 32% of the population represents 80% of the murders. The vast majority of which committed with a handgun that was already ILLEGAL.

Demographics has EVERYTHING to do with it...



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Especially when suicides are included in the list.
Like using a gun was worse than using a razor blade.


Especially when the majority of those suicides are the result of our for profit wars breaking the minds of soldiers, then discarding them.

In my mind, you save a whole lot more lives from gun deaths by fixing the VA, than by looking at gun control measures.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Another note: guns are just a tool that can cause lots of violence.

If i recall correctly the biggest incidents of violent mass murder came from fertilizer.

So taking guns away wont solve the issue.

Also there many type of gun violence
1. Gang banging
2. Innocent mass murder (ie school shootings)
3. Retaliation


The solution to those issues are different and unique and taking guns away wont stop any of it.

The question is do we take the easy lazy way out and remove the guns in HOPE of making a difference? Or do we look at the real issues and try to address them individually.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Comparable as In developed stable democracies.

Why would population size or ethnic demographics influence gun deaths?


- Mexico along our southern border
- inner cities developed in ways that allow the police to create their own for profit crime syndicates (this should be enlightening reading)
- the southern states are still working out the results of reconstruction, and the jim crow laws that resulted from it. It all crippled half the US for what...5 generations on now?

Im curious...when you say "other comparable democracies"...can you list a few? I have a hard time really understanding who would be on that list.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Comparable as In developed stable democracies.

Why would population size or ethnic demographics influence gun deaths?


Because in the US, gun violence is highly concentrated among the lower income, inner city black community. It cannot be ignored if the point is to have a factual and honest discussion.

For example, in Chicago (which mirrors most major urban areas), in 2017 there were 678 murders. 527 were black. 116 hispanic. Just 20 were white. Chicago is a city of almost 3 million people. The black population in Chicago is 32%.

So the demographic that is 32% of the population represents 80% of the murders. The vast majority of which committed with a handgun that was already ILLEGAL.

Demographics has EVERYTHING to do with it...


Well unless you think (and I assume you don't) that minorities are genetically more likely to shoot each other then clearly ethnicity isn't the cause.

Combination of poverty and easy access to guns maybe a better explanation?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join