The top 15 ways to die in the US and guns isnt one of them

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Unrealised
 


In 2011, murders committed with guns accounted for 8,500 deaths in 2011.


Interesting that the rate has been decreasing since Obama took office.........



Thats because more folks than ever have guns now.
A very interesting correlation. Gun ownership has gone up by a huge number every single year sine the regime took power, but gun deaths are going down. Now, correlation does not equal causation but according to liberal gun grabbers more guns cause more violence. Perhaps they should reconsider their position?




posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


I put a smiley on that post because I was wondering how long someone would actually make some fatuous link between the 2



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
So basically, we don't get enough exercise, smoke too much, drink too much, eat too much junk food, eat too much food in general, and atop all that we spend far too much time worrying about all of the above and more to be too stressed out which occasionally even leads to a blow out.

Does that about sum it up?


Its weird Americans are so obese. Europeans, at least the G8 counties, have about the same lifestyle. Either there is something in the food, or Americans just consume that many more calories.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by circuitsports
• The 15 leading causes of death in 2009 were:
1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
11. Septicemia
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal dis­ease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson’s disease
15. Assault (homicide)




I really don't get this. What is the point? Look..

Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant heart disease?
Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant cancer?
Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant respiratory disease (short of using a gas)?
Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant strokes?
...

I mean.. what is the point?

However, you can guarantee that a legal law abiding citizen who has access to high powered guns, and who happens to have a really crap week and decides to end it all but first taking out half the neighbourhood, CAN walk around intentionally and instantly ending dozens of lives.

Right up until then, he's your boss, employee, neighbour, buddy, work pal, pen friend.. but after, oh he was a bit weird, who knew...



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 

Why the focus on guns?

Theyre a tiny part of the equation when talking about causes of death...


Well it's the topic. The top 15 ways to die in the US and guns isnt one of them

Kinda makes it relevant to the discussion.

What I'm wondering with interest is.. if suddenly guns in the US are illegal to own... will ATS make it a 404 topic like other illegal things? It seems that the god given right to own guns has forgotten the god given right to do as you wish in the privacy of your own home as long as you hurt no one.

That would be highly interesting, to see if there is consistency.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by beezzer
 


Appreciate the sentiment, but tyrannical governments have military equipped with tanks, fighter jets, bombs, helicopters, drones, body armor, unlimited ammo...you get the picture.


Tanks can't shoot unless someone pulls the trigger. Jets can't fly unless someone is piloting.

Not every member of the military is a mindless drooling moron. That category appears to be most apt in the civilian leaders.


Well, then - I'm confused. If you don't think the military will actually shoot you, then why be so insistent on having military-style weapons for defense?? Why not give those up? Is it just because of criminals? It only takes one shot to the head to stop a guy - you don't need to shoot him up 50 times in 4 seconds - unless that's how you get your thrills



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


There's really no such thing as a "military-style" weapon. All fire on the same principle. Some fire at a higher rate than others is all.

The Second Amendment doesn't hold a caveat on range, caliber, muzzle velocity or load capacity. Government, while trying to restrict firearms, does.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


There's really no such thing as a "military-style" weapon. All fire on the same principle. Some fire at a higher rate than others is all.

The Second Amendment doesn't hold a caveat on range, caliber, muzzle velocity or load capacity. Government, while trying to restrict firearms, does.


Regardless of the terminology, why does the average person need a weapon that can kill 50 people in 4 seconds?

The Second Amendment is fairly vague, in that it doesn't specifically state what qualifies as "arms". That leaves it up for interpretation. "Arms" could be interpreted as what would be needed for basic protection and food - not weapons of mass destruction meant to kill large crowds of people.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


There's really no such thing as a "military-style" weapon. All fire on the same principle. Some fire at a higher rate than others is all.

The Second Amendment doesn't hold a caveat on range, caliber, muzzle velocity or load capacity. Government, while trying to restrict firearms, does.


Regardless of the terminology, why does the average person need a weapon that can kill 50 people in 4 seconds?

The Second Amendment is fairly vague, in that it doesn't specifically state what qualifies as "arms". That leaves it up for interpretation. "Arms" could be interpreted as what would be needed for basic protection and food - not weapons of mass destruction meant to kill large crowds of people.


Once you start putting limits on the types of weapons simply based on rate of fire, you have begun to disarm. There is no asterisk in the Second Amendment. Once you accept that there are caveats, then it stops becoming a right and then becomes a simple privilege of the state.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Unrealised
 


I would say most of the 'accidents' could have been the result of automobiles!
I see way too many people driving on others' bumpers all the time.I also
see a lot of people running red lights as well.
I had an 'accident' at home when I tried taking a solid oak bed apart by myself.

All we ever hear from you{plural} gunophobes is guns are responsible for everything
bad that happens in the world!



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Once you start putting limits on the types of weapons simply based on rate of fire, you have begun to disarm. There is no asterisk in the Second Amendment. Once you accept that there are caveats, then it stops becoming a right and then becomes a simple privilege of the state.


But, there are other types of caveats - you have freedom of speech, but you cannot specifically threaten to kill someone (like the president) without consequences. Your rights stop when they are in danger of threatening the rights of others. Having a weapon designed solely for killing large numbers of people could be seen as threatening the rights of others. That's why I think weapons that were originally designed for military use (most efficient at killing many people), then released to general consumers, should be banned. Just like nuclear weapons are banned.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Merinda
 


To be brutally honest I think they put something in our food.
They are making the U.S. population slow and easy to catch.
Should they disarm the U.S. population it will be time to run.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I'm just trying to imagine the world if you got your way.

First off, criminals would still have firearms and be conducting crimes with near impunity.

Gun free zones are also free-fire zones across America.

Normally innocent people are now prisoners and soley dependent on the state for protection.

The government gets to decide what size, caliber, max load of firearm they deem you to have.

Sales in crossbows increase until government steps in to deny those as well.

Crime increases.

Homicides increase.

School shootings increase.

Home invasions increase.

Of course, just mere speculation on my part. But it is a right that should be kept. Not limited, denied to Americans.

Chicago, one of the toughest gun law cities in America had 500 shooting deaths this year. If gun bans are put into place, imagine Chicago all over America.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by magma
I think it is pretty sad that number 10 is Suicide.

Pretty sad....


That is sad, but the number is likely skewed due to all of the incidences of autoerotic asphyxiation gone wrong being incorrectly attributed to suicide rather than accidental death.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I'm just trying to imagine the world if you got your way.


Chicago, one of the toughest gun law cities in America had 500 shooting deaths this year. If gun bans are put into place, imagine Chicago all over America.


I'm imagining a world much like the 1940's and 1950's - before the average person had access to the military-designed killing machines. A person might have a pistol or a shotgun, but that was it. You didn't have the kinds of crimes and mass shootings you have now. These types of assault style weapons should never have been made available to anyone outside of the military. Yeah, I know - that cow's out of the barn, and it just makes me sad, sad, sad.

Chicago, by the way, has some of the toughest inner-city areas. That's where you are seeing the shootings. The nicer neighborhoods don't see those types of shootings. It's the same all across the country. We need to fix the inner-city problem, then the shooting problem will go down. The average person doesn't need an assault style weapon - it wouldn't infringe on anyone's right of food and basic protection to not have one.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by circuitsports
• The 15 leading causes of death in 2009 were:
1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
11. Septicemia
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal dis­ease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson’s disease
15. Assault (homicide)




I really don't get this. What is the point? Look..

Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant heart disease?
Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant cancer?
Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant respiratory disease (short of using a gas)?
Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant strokes?
...

I mean.. what is the point?

However, you can guarantee that a legal law abiding citizen who has access to high powered guns, and who happens to have a really crap week and decides to end it all but first taking out half the neighbourhood, CAN walk around intentionally and instantly ending dozens of lives.

Right up until then, he's your boss, employee, neighbour, buddy, work pal, pen friend.. but after, oh he was a bit weird, who knew...



Well its more like slow death.....a fast food joint on every corner, a liquor store ect...and there goes your boss, neighbour ect getting a messed up heart and so on. Oh and sure some want to shut them down but it will not happen.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I'm just trying to imagine the world if you got your way.


Chicago, one of the toughest gun law cities in America had 500 shooting deaths this year. If gun bans are put into place, imagine Chicago all over America.


I'm imagining a world much like the 1940's and 1950's - before the average person had access to the military-designed killing machines. A person might have a pistol or a shotgun, but that was it. You didn't have the kinds of crimes and mass shootings you have now. These types of assault style weapons should never have been made available to anyone outside of the military. Yeah, I know - that cow's out of the barn, and it just makes me sad, sad, sad.



This is not quite true. There were loads of WWI and WWII combat weapons in the closets of the american public in the 40s and 50s. Bolt actions and semi automatic weapons, rifles, american, british, german ect brought home from the war.

If the truth be told there are likley still to this day a large number of these weapons hidden all over Europe....under floors, behind walls ect, that folks picked up durring and after the wars over there.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


There's really no such thing as a "military-style" weapon. All fire on the same principle. Some fire at a higher rate than others is all.

The Second Amendment doesn't hold a caveat on range, caliber, muzzle velocity or load capacity. Government, while trying to restrict firearms, does.


Regardless of the terminology, why does the average person need a weapon that can kill 50 people in 4 seconds?

The Second Amendment is fairly vague, in that it doesn't specifically state what qualifies as "arms". That leaves it up for interpretation. "Arms" could be interpreted as what would be needed for basic protection and food - not weapons of mass destruction meant to kill large crowds of people.



Its not vague. Its clearly a tactical meaning, tactical weapons. And its not about food, hunting and personal protection, its about the tactical capacity of the people.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock


This is not quite true. There were loads of WWI and WWII combat weapons in the closets of the american public in the 40s and 50s. Bolt actions and semi automatic weapons, rifles, american, british, german ect brought home from the war.



Not sold for mass consumption.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Then what are you so worried about?


reply to post by winofiend
 

Yep. Not a really great comparison, although if weaponized ebola or something was on the list that might be a different story.
edit on 12/29/2012 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join