An honest unusual discussion about firearms

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

It is clear that reducing deaths is not really the issue.... it is getting rid of guns.

A big problem with this debate is that one side wants to use facts, data, and logic while the other side wants to feel good and use emotion. It is oil and water....

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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?

Maybe because in a logical world this is one that we can do something about.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

Actually, it appears that most Australians agree. According to this poll, 62% of the population thought their gun laws were just right, and 25% thought they were too weak!

www.essentialvision.com.au...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

Anywhere in Western Europe, Australia, Canada etc.

Similar countries in being stable developed democracies with functioning economies.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

Actually, it appears that most Australians agree. According to this poll, 62% of the population thought their gun laws were just right, and 25% thought they were too weak!

www.essentialvision.com.au...

I said "not all Australians agree".

I suspect that folks not living in urban centers would be less agreeable.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

It is clear that reducing deaths is not really the issue.... it is getting rid of guns.

A big problem with this debate is that one side wants to use facts, data, and logic while the other side wants to feel good and use emotion. It is oil and water....

You are right.

One side uses facts like America had 3x the homicide rate.

The other uses emotion that they really really like guns.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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?

.

Again with the whataboutism. This thread is about gun deaths, so I’m discussing how to reduce gun deaths. How is that out of line?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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?

In most of these cities, guns are hard to obtain LEGALLY. Chicago doesn't have a SINGLE GUN STORE. Sure, guns are easy to obtain ILLEGALLY. But nothing any of you has proposed affects illegal gun trafficking. All that has been proposed is stopping Jethro from buying an AR-15 at Cabellas in the suburbs which does nothing to prevent Tyshaun from shooting Jahiem over a Facebook beef with an illegal handgun he got from a crackhead who sold it for $20.

I am not arguing the violence has anything to do with genetics, but it most certainly has to do with culture and is highly concentrated within a very specific demographic. Facts are facts and they ain't racist.

Poverty is not the issue.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

Actually, it appears that most Australians agree. According to this poll, 62% of the population thought their gun laws were just right, and 25% thought they were too weak!

www.essentialvision.com.au...

I said "not all Australians agree".

I suspect that folks not living in urban centers would be less agreeable.

Those folks still have their hunting rifles, so they’re good.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

It is clear that reducing deaths is not really the issue.... it is getting rid of guns.

A big problem with this debate is that one side wants to use facts, data, and logic while the other side wants to feel good and use emotion. It is oil and water....

You are right.

One side uses facts like America had 3x the homicide rate.

The other uses emotion that they really really like guns.

Stating 3x's the homicide rate without getting into the underlying data is lazy analytics as I have demonstrated to you several times. Try taking a statistics 101 course to understand why...

a reply to: ScepticScot

There is a LOT of emotions towards guns with American gun owners. Look at how many of them include guns in their selfies. Just the other day, my uncle was showing off his “new toy” (yes, he actually referred to it as a toy) with glee and pride.

Will removing firearms lower death rates due to firearms?

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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?

In most of these cities, guns are hard to obtain LEGALLY. Chicago doesn't have a SINGLE GUN STORE. Sure, guns are easy to obtain ILLEGALLY. But nothing any of you has proposed affects illegal gun trafficking. All that has been proposed is stopping Jethro from buying an AR-15 at Cabellas in the suburbs which does nothing to prevent Tyshaun from shooting Jahiem over a Facebook beef with an illegal handgun he got from a crackhead who sold it for $20.

I am not arguing the violence has anything to do with genetics, but it most certainly has to do with culture and is highly concentrated within a very specific demographic. Facts are facts and they ain't racist.

Poverty is not the issue.

Since Chicago is bordered by areas where guns are easy to get its laws on using them are largely redundant.

The culture you refer to is firmly rooted in poverty and access to guns so yes that very much is the issue.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Will removing firearms lower death rates due to firearms?

Only if you can remove ALL guns which we know is impossible. Yes, it will lower death rates but at what expense?

It is like saying if we sterilize all men can we prevent rape?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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?

In most of these cities, guns are hard to obtain LEGALLY. Chicago doesn't have a SINGLE GUN STORE. Sure, guns are easy to obtain ILLEGALLY. But nothing any of you has proposed affects illegal gun trafficking. All that has been proposed is stopping Jethro from buying an AR-15 at Cabellas in the suburbs which does nothing to prevent Tyshaun from shooting Jahiem over a Facebook beef with an illegal handgun he got from a crackhead who sold it for $20.

I am not arguing the violence has anything to do with genetics, but it most certainly has to do with culture and is highly concentrated within a very specific demographic. Facts are facts and they ain't racist.

Poverty is not the issue.

Since Chicago is bordered by areas where guns are easy to get its laws on using them are largely redundant.

The culture you refer to is firmly rooted in poverty and access to guns so yes that very much is the issue.

If poverty is the root cause, then all poor demographics should be shooting each other up.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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?

In most of these cities, guns are hard to obtain LEGALLY. Chicago doesn't have a SINGLE GUN STORE. Sure, guns are easy to obtain ILLEGALLY. But nothing any of you has proposed affects illegal gun trafficking. All that has been proposed is stopping Jethro from buying an AR-15 at Cabellas in the suburbs which does nothing to prevent Tyshaun from shooting Jahiem over a Facebook beef with an illegal handgun he got from a crackhead who sold it for $20.

I am not arguing the violence has anything to do with genetics, but it most certainly has to do with culture and is highly concentrated within a very specific demographic. Facts are facts and they ain't racist.

Poverty is not the issue.

Since Chicago is bordered by areas where guns are easy to get its laws on using them are largely redundant.

The culture you refer to is firmly rooted in poverty and access to guns so yes that very much is the issue.

If poverty is the root cause, then all poor demographics should be shooting each other up.

Exactly, Appalachia should be a freaking war zone.

originally posted by: Edumakated

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.

Australia thought it was ok to infringe on all citizens' rights to prevent a handful of deaths. Fortunately, we don't think like that here in the US.

To be fair, Australia has never had a constitutional right to bear arms. It's not difficult to infringe on a peoples' rights when they never had the right to begin with.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Will removing firearms lower death rates due to firearms?

Only if you can remove ALL guns which we know is impossible. Yes, it will lower death rates but at what expense?

It is like saying if we sterilize all men can we prevent rape?

This is the crux of the issue.


At what expense?


What is lost if we remove firearms from the equation?

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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?

In most of these cities, guns are hard to obtain LEGALLY. Chicago doesn't have a SINGLE GUN STORE. Sure, guns are easy to obtain ILLEGALLY. But nothing any of you has proposed affects illegal gun trafficking. All that has been proposed is stopping Jethro from buying an AR-15 at Cabellas in the suburbs which does nothing to prevent Tyshaun from shooting Jahiem over a Facebook beef with an illegal handgun he got from a crackhead who sold it for $20.

I am not arguing the violence has anything to do with genetics, but it most certainly has to do with culture and is highly concentrated within a very specific demographic. Facts are facts and they ain't racist.

Poverty is not the issue.

Since Chicago is bordered by areas where guns are easy to get its laws on using them are largely redundant.

The culture you refer to is firmly rooted in poverty and access to guns so yes that very much is the issue.

If poverty is the root cause, then all poor demographics should be shooting each other up.

It is a complex issue. Poverty DOES have a lot to do with it, but it isn’t the sole cause.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Something is not "a wash" based on anecdotal evidence. Statistics are what actually matters in this debate. If you want to roll with anecdotes of say Australia just had a mass shooting, and they're a freakin island with no lawless nations bordering them.