Guns and numbers
In an average year in the USA about 40,000 people die in car accidents, 4,000 in swimming accidents and 800 in bicycle accidents.
Just going by the numbers, shouldn’t we be banning cars first? Would save 100 people every day.
Quote: Ace2In the USA, over the last decade, about 50 people per year die in mass shootings.
In an average year in the USA about 40,000 people die in car accidents, 4,000 in swimming accidents and 800 in bicycle accidents.
Just going by the numbers, shouldn’t we be banning cars first? Would save 100 people every day.
1 per state per year? That is nothing.
Quote: Ace2In the USA, over the last decade, about 50 people per year die in mass shootings.
In an average year in the USA about 40,000 people die in car accidents, 4,000 in swimming accidents and 800 in bicycle accidents.
Just going by the numbers, shouldn’t we be banning cars first? Would save 100 people every day.
My only response is it is quite Trumpian to claim about 50 people per year dies in mass shootings.
I think 18 just got massacred a day ago.
Perhaps an Ostrich with his head in the sand thinks the number of people killed in mass shootings is that low.
And regardless of whether its a mass shooting or not what difference does that make.
Guy gets gunned down with his girlfriend. Reply is "well, your death is insignificant to our statistics. 20 other people didnt die with you."
Quote: Ace2In the USA, over the last decade, about 50 people per year die in mass shootings.
I’d ask for a source but I fear you’d just post a pic of your butt because that’s clearly where you pulled this “stat” from.
I did not invent 50, I looked it up. Remember it’s a 10 year average off a graph
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png
Only 10% of lightning strikes are fatal, so estimate 500 people struck by lightning per year in the USA
10 times more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a mass shooting.
Quote: SteverinosWho has proposed banning all guns?
DoN’t BaN aLl GuNs, ThE gOvErNmEnT sHoUlD sTiLl HaVe GuNs!!1!
Quote: RSDoN’t BaN aLl GuNs, ThE gOvErNmEnT sHoUlD sTiLl HaVe GuNs!!1!
History won’t be kind to the complicit.
Quote: Ace2All deaths are significant. The question is why is 40,000 considered acceptable risk (no ones trying to ban driving) while 50 is considered outrageous...and a ban should be put in place.
Utility is one reason. Lots of activities are made more difficult without a vehicle. That said, I think America's fat ass should walk more. So, I'm not even all that much against it.
Quote: Ace2All deaths are significant. The question is why is 40,000 considered acceptable risk (no ones trying to ban driving) while 50 is considered outrageous...and a ban should be put in place.
I’ve said this before in basically the same exact thread and everyone said I was ridiculous.
But I think more states should follow Virginia and be more punitive towards dangerous drivers.
1st offense excessive speeding or reckless driving will get you jail time in Virginia.
Quote: Ace2All deaths are significant. The question is why is 40,000 considered acceptable risk (no ones trying to ban driving) while 50 is considered outrageous...and a ban should be put in place.
I did not invent 50, I looked it up. Remember it’s a 10 year average off a graph
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png
Your point makes no sense.
Aside from mass shootings there are thousands that die by guns.
For a direct comparison to cars you have to compare mass shootings to MASSIVE car accidents
How many people died in collisions involving at least one dozen cars?
Now if you say any car accident is problematic then you have to say any gun death is problematic not just go looking at mass shootings
I see your reasoning, but it seems the mass shootings generate most the outcries from the anti-gun crowd, not the other 99.9% of deaths where a gun was involved.Quote: darkozYour point makes no sense.
Aside from mass shootings there are thousands that die by guns.
For a direct comparison to cars you have to compare mass shootings to MASSIVE car accidents
How many people died in collisions involving at least one dozen cars?
Now if you say any car accident is problematic then you have to say any gun death is problematic not just go looking at mass shootings
Quote: ams288I’d ask for a source but I fear you’d just post a pic of your butt because that’s clearly where you pulled this “stat” from.
Can't be anymore fake than you describing the "hate" of Tucker Carlson.
Quote: Ace2I see your reasoning, but it seems the mass shootings generate most the outcries from the anti-gun crowd, not the other 99.9% of deaths where a gun was involved.
Thats just due to headlines and scale.
I am sure there were boats that sank before the Titanic but the size and scope of the disaster called for a reforming of nautical rules about boat safety.
Imagine if there was a lobbying firm in 1912 called the National Boating Association (Yeah, the NBA) which fought for the least restrictive regulations for boat captains and ships to abide by.
Quote: darkozThats just due to headlines and scale.
I am sure there were boats that sank before the Titanic but the size and scope of the disaster called for a reforming of nautical rules about boat safety.
Imagine if there was a lobbying firm in 1912 called the National Boating Association (Yeah, the NBA) which fought for the least restrictive regulations for boat captains and ships to abide by.
Imagine if there were a lobbying firm called CNN or NYT propagating the idea that guns are the cause of the uptick in mass shootings and other crimes despite gun ownership being at all time lows.
Quote: Ace2Imagine if there were a lobbying firm called CNN or NYT propagating the idea that guns are the cause of the uptick in mass shootings and other crimes despite gun ownership being at all time lows.
Yes, we all can agree that its knife and boomerang sales that are the cause of violent gun deaths
Nothing to do with actual guns
Quote: Ace2In the USA, over the last decade, about 50 people per year die in mass shootings.
In an average year in the USA about 40,000 people die in car accidents, 4,000 in swimming accidents and 800 in bicycle accidents.
Just going by the numbers, shouldn’t we be banning cars first? Would save 100 people every day.
It's like you went as far out of your way as possible to use the most disingenuous "numbers" possible. Total number of deaths from guns and cars in the US are very similar. Total number of deaths in mass casualties from guns and cars are also very similar.
It would be truly great if we had guns and cars regulated similarly. The gun sellers give so much money to politicians to make sure that will never happen.
The war on drugs or alcohol prohibition era always comes as an example/excuse. I believe an official study actually proved the prohibition did in fact lowered the consumption and allowed far more sober next generation and apart from giving birth to wave of gangsters crime (again - easy access to assault guns) did (surprisingly) work. And if there is no government war on drugs there'll be less murders related to it and far more drugs in the hands of your children. I know which is worse. Of course solutions are always complex and simple ban alone is unlikely to address the core of the issue on its own. But when you start taking measures they compound and drag consequences towards the right direction. People in Europe don't see owning or operating a gun as something fun or to be proud of, they see it as a burden and accident waiting to happen mostly. That's a consequence of the general mindset there, which in turn is a consequence of the lack of easy access to all sort of weapons to play and have "fun" with. Everything is related.
Quote: bobbartopCan't be anymore fake than you describing the "hate" of Tucker Carlson.
I wonder where this 21 year old murderous white nationalist asshat was radicalized? 4chan or Fox News?
Quote: TomG
It would be truly great if we had guns and cars regulated similarly. The gun sellers give so much money to politicians to make sure that will never happen.
So, what you are saying is there should be a three day waiting period while they do a background check before you buy a car? Than in places like SF you should not be allowed to buy a car at all? In DC you can buy a car but are not allowed to have the wheels attached? That you have to keep your car locked up in the garage when not in use (proposed law.)
Is that what you are saying? Because if we regulate cars like we do guns, that is what it would look like.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo, what you are saying is there should be a three day waiting period while they do a background check before you buy a car? Than in places like SF you should not be allowed to buy a car at all? In DC you can buy a car but are not allowed to have the wheels attached? That you have to keep your car locked up in the garage when not in use (proposed law.)
Is that what you are saying? Because if we regulate cars like we do guns, that is what it would look like.
Car sales are already more regulated than gun sales in most places. Try to open a new car store where you live and see what happens. In most places in the US there will be people from the government making it far more difficult for you than if you tried to open a gun store
But your ideas are taking gun regulations and applying it to cars. We could also take car regulations and apply it to guns. Can only gain access with a key; pay annual taxes, insurance, and inspection; prohibited from operating when intoxicated; take a test proving you have your senses; can be searched by the police any time you take it out. Why does the government make it so difficult to own and operate cars, but nothing like this for guns when the number of violent deaths they cause each year are fairly similar? The rate of deaths from car use is far lower (how much time do we spend using cars, compared to using guns?), while the regulations surrounding them are far higher -- doesn't make much sense.
Some people are so brainwashed that they mistake any attempts to have people be more responsible gun owners with "trying to take our guns". That mindset just means we have more irresponsible gun owners.
Quote: TomG
Some people are so brainwashed that they mistake any attempts to have people be more responsible gun owners with "trying to take our guns". That mindset just means we have more irresponsible gun owners.
Because "take the guns" is the real desire of the anti-gun crowd. Some are more open about it than others. But ever notice that they just want to make it harder for law abiding folks? In case you didn't know it, there are already laws against shooting people. Gun laws are not the answer.
One of the reasons I support self-driving cars and improved public transportation, almost all car wrecks are human caused, very few are caused by mechanical defects or external conditions. Humans are reliably bad at most things, and humans easily get distracted and emotional.
Quote: GandlerI have worked many dangerous jobs. But, the most dangerous aspect of almost every job is driving (even if it is to commute to and from an office). Like you say over 40k die a year, but many more are injured.....
One of the reasons I support self-driving cars and improved public transportation, almost all car wrecks are human caused, very few are caused by mechanical defects or external conditions. Humans are reliably bad at most things, and humans easily get distracted and emotional.
Self-driving cars should be a thread. I have never seen such over-promise in my life.
Quote: AZDuffmanSelf-driving cars should be a thread. I have never seen such over-promise in my life.
It will be a reality eventually. It is just a matter of when. There are already endless functional prototypes. However, probably the largest hurdle will be state laws, there are only a handful of states where they are currently legal (Nevada happens to be one). And, there are other requirements that may need to be fleshed out (like will a licensed driver need to be in the drivers to seat to monitor performance, etc...) or can they be truly "driverless" . Probably the political and legal aspect will transpire slower than the actual technology development.
Quote: GandlerIt will be a reality eventually. It is just a matter of when. There are already endless functional prototypes. However, probably the largest hurdle will be state laws, there are only a handful of states where they are currently legal (Nevada happens to be one). And, there are other requirements that may need to be fleshed out (like will a licensed driver need to be in the drivers to seat to monitor performance, etc...) or can they be truly "driverless" . Probably the political and legal aspect will transpire slower than the actual technology development.
It will take a generation. So many small things. Might get it to be like an airplane where you put it on auto for some main roads, but people think they will sit like in their living room and not even pay attention. I have seen them driving around, still lots of equipment that has to be sized down.
For some reason, some manufacturers want to eliminate driver controls. Makes no sense on many levels.
No way I want one. From what have seen younger people will accept more than older, women more than men.
If we regulated pilots and button-pushers in more responsible ways, we'd never have to worry about nuclear weapons wiping out mankind. I don't understand why there isn't an NRA equivalent for those of us who are aficionados of nuclear warheads.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt will take a generation. So many small things. Might get it to be like an airplane where you put it on auto for some main roads, but people think they will sit like in their living room and not even pay attention. I have seen them driving around, still lots of equipment that has to be sized down.
For some reason, some manufacturers want to eliminate driver controls. Makes no sense on many levels.
No way I want one. From what have seen younger people will accept more than older, women more than men.
Many cars already have auto for highway driving (Teslas etc...), but I mean fully autonomous cars where you do nothing but get in.
I don't know if manufacturers want it, many of the companies are tech (or pizza) companies, not car manufactures that are doing the serious development.
For me driving is a chore. I am not an somebody who needs control. If I could read or work in lieu of driving, it would increase my productivity. I am not afraid of driving (I go on many long road trips, often driving 12 plus hours at a time), but I never enjoy it, and I always prefer to let somebody else drive me. I have never been a car person, so the whole fascination has never struck a chord with me. And, like I said, I am more afraid of the other drivers who may be drunk, unlicensed, aggressive, or just not paying attention than I am afraid of my own performance, but I am introspective enough to know that even I can make mistakes when driving that a computer would not.
Quote: redietzI always say, "Nuclear weapons never killed anyone. It's the pilots or the people pushing the buttons."
If we regulated pilots and button-pushers in more responsible ways, we'd never have to worry about nuclear weapons wiping out mankind. I don't understand why there isn't an NRA equivalent for those of us who are aficionados of nuclear warheads.
That is a terrible analogy.
Guns and Nuclear Warheads are both designed to kill people. This is not a secret. People that support guns, do so knowing that they can be used to kill (hopefully responsibly, in defense or hunting). However, in the military nuclear programs are extremely rigorous (as they should be), ensuring that everything is done properly.
I support gun ownership (and I support America having nuclear weapons), knowing the intent of both tools.
If a nation uses nuclear weapons improperly, hold that nation accountable, if a person uses a gun improperly, hold that person accountable.
Quote: GandlerMany cars already have auto for highway driving (Teslas etc...), but I mean fully autonomous cars where you do nothing but get in.
I am aware. Cadillac has one of the best from what I hear.
Quote:I don't know if manufacturers want it, many of the companies are tech (or pizza) companies, not car manufactures that are doing the serious development.
Uber and Dominoes are two of the biggest. I don't get it. Why take on all that capital and operating cost when you can pay a driver and be done with it? I know people who are such lumps that they will not order the pizza from a place they have to go to the driveway for vs a their door.
Quote:For me driving is a chore. I am not an somebody who needs control. If I could read or work in lieu of driving, it would increase my productivity. I am not afraid of driving (I go on many long road trips, often driving 12 plus hours at a time), but I never enjoy it, and I always prefer to let somebody else drive me. I have never been a car person, so the whole fascination has never struck a chord with me. And, like I said, I am more afraid of the other drivers who may be drunk, unlicensed, aggressive, or just not paying attention than I am afraid of my own performance, but I am introspective enough to know that even I can make mistakes when driving that a computer would not.
See, I can't work in a car. Can't read in a car. I pull 20-30,000 miles per year and have had driving jobs. Used to be a car person, not anymore that much. But I do just as soon drive most of the time. I do not at all trust a computer to drive my car. You are not supposed to use cruise control in the rain. I once hydroplaned and was facing backwards the other lane of traffic at 60 mph or so. Somehow I missed almost getting killed, just a fender bend. But that sours one on letting the car drive.
People think the computer will be perfect. It will not. Just a few fatalities and watch all hell break loose.
Quote: GandlerThat is a terrible analogy.
Guns and Nuclear Warheads are both designed to kill people. This is not a secret. People that support guns, do so knowing that they can be used to kill (hopefully responsibly, in defense or hunting). However, in the military nuclear programs are extremely rigorous (as they should be), ensuring that everything is done properly.
I support gun ownership (and I support America having nuclear weapons), knowing the intent of both tools.
If a nation uses nuclear weapons improperly, hold that nation accountable, if a person uses a gun improperly, hold that person accountable.
LOL. I need to take one of those classes where I learn the proper and improper way to use nuclear weapons. Maybe the NRA has a few?
Quote: redietzLOL. I need to take one of those classes where I learn the proper and improper way to use nuclear weapons. Maybe the NRA has a few?
Join the Navy and sign up for the Nuclear Program.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/security-troops-u-s-nuclear-missile-base-took-lsd-records-n877056Quote: GandlerThat is a terrible analogy.
Guns and Nuclear Warheads are both designed to kill people. This is not a secret. People that support guns, do so knowing that they can be used to kill (hopefully responsibly, in defense or hunting). However, in the military nuclear programs are extremely rigorous (as they should be), ensuring that everything is done properly.
I support gun ownership (and I support America having nuclear weapons), knowing the intent of both tools.
If a nation uses nuclear weapons improperly, hold that nation accountable, if a person uses a gun improperly, hold that person accountable.
I wouldn't dream of using a firearm while on acid. lol
Quote: petroglyphhttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/security-troops-u-s-nuclear-missile-base-took-lsd-records-n877056
I wouldn't dream of using a firearm while on acid. lol
Probably not wise.
But, in that article, the airmen in question were Security Forces, not actually Nuclear Personnel.
Security Forces in the Airforce are essentially the MPs (military police) of the air force, they essentially guard the gate and patrol the base, pull you over for speeding, etc..... they don't actually operate anything to do with the nuclear program. I am not defending their actions, but I doubt they used LSD while on duty.
I will say that no branch of the military tests for LSD (and I have never had a public or private job test for LSD, its way too expensive), which makes it one of the legally safer drugs to do while in service (not advocating anyone take illegal drugs). But, that is one reason it is popular with some.
Though I do support drug legalization, so I don't get offended by drugs as much as some would.
Quote: Ace2In the USA, over the last decade, about 50 people per year die in mass shootings.
In an average year in the USA about 40,000 people die in car accidents, 4,000 in swimming accidents and 800 in bicycle accidents.
Just going by the numbers, shouldn’t we be banning cars first? Would save 100 people every day.
Why have mass shootings eclipsed suicides and homicides in terms of national attention? By this chart, there were about 38,500 total gun related deaths in 2017 (adding suicides and homicides, not even counting mass shootings).
Source: Gun violence in the United States.
If we're going to talk about gun control, we should be using a number in the tens of thousands, not 50.
Quote: WizardWhy have mass shootings eclipsed suicides and homicides in terms of national attention? By this chart, there were about 38,500 total gun related deaths in 2017 (adding suicides and homicides, not even counting mass shootings).
Source: Gun violence in the United States.
If we're going to talk about gun control, we should be using a number in the tens of thousands, not 50.
Exactly, mass shootings are more newsworthy, but there are mass amounts of shootings everyday.
I do not know if suicides would be effected by any kind of gun control. Guns used in gang violence are made or obtained illegally so all of the checks in the world would not change that.
Quote: Gandler
Exactly, mass shootings are more newsworthy, but there are mass amounts of shootings everyday.
I do not know if suicides would be effected by any kind of gun control. Guns used in gang violence are made or obtained illegally so all of the checks in the world would not change that.
I think suicides might go down just because it takes away a low pain and high probability means of suicide. I don’t think suicides should be used in, “Gun violence,” numbers because I think it’s a hell of a stretch to call it violence at all.
People should have the right to die whenever they want to by way of as pain free a means as possible. Guns shouldn’t be necessary as people should be allowed to be willingly lethally injected after a certain waiting period, if they wish.
Anyway, I think including suicides unfairly props up, “Gun violence,” numbers just for the purpose of making an argument. I’m only concerned about the murders.
Quote: Mission146I think suicides might go down just because it takes away a low pain and high probability means of suicide. I don’t think suicides should be used in, “Gun violence,” numbers because I think it’s a hell of a stretch to call it violence at all.
People should have the right to die whenever they want to by way of as pain free a means as possible. Guns shouldn’t be necessary as people should be allowed to be willingly lethally injected after a certain waiting period, if they wish.
Anyway, I think including suicides unfairly props up, “Gun violence,” numbers just for the purpose of making an argument. I’m only concerned about the murders.
your post contains the assumption that the suicide was a well thought out thing - not an impulsive act because of a very depressed day - possibly due to some very bad news - what the professionals call reactive depression
your post also seems to imply that if they didn't have a gun available they would have done it some other way
as a society we believe that suicide should be prevented and that suicidal people need attention from mental health professionals
you seem to be suggesting that is the wrong way to approach the issue - that the way to approach it is to just let people kill themselves - that if they see life as having no value at all, that is not something the society should have any comment about - just accept their conclusion - even if it is due to extreme depression which is often treatable
euthanasia because of a great deal of pain from for example, cancer, is an entirely different issue
I don't believe either the assumption you made, or the implication has any validity at all
come to your own conclusion in considering how many resources we allot for each in your arguments
Quote: lilredroosteryour post contains the assumption that the suicide was a well thought out thing - not an impulsive act because of a very depressed day - possibly due to some very bad news - what the professionals call reactive depression
I’m not assuming that, I’m suggesting that for those for whom it was a well-thought out thing should have a painless means of doing so. Either way, I still don’t see how it constitutes violence.
Quote:your post also seems to imply that if they didn't have a gun available they would have done it some other way
Quite the opposite, I think suicides would go down because you’d eliminate a relatively painless way to do it with a high probability of success.
Quote:as a society we believe that suicide should be prevented and that suicidal people need attention from mental health professionals
you seem to be suggesting that is the wrong way to approach the issue - that the way to approach it is to just let people kill themselves - that if they see life as having no value at all, that is not something the society should have any comment about - just accept their conclusion - even if it is due to extreme depression which is often treatable
Yeah, if a person wants to die, then that person should be allowed to die. It’s only that sense of responsibility towards others they feel that has resulted in them not killing themselves already.
As far as legalizing a means, yeah, counseling, mandatory waiting period, Yada Yada Yada...if after all of that they’re determined to be within their senses and still want to die, they should be permitted to do so.
Quote:euthanasia because of a great deal of pain from for example, cancer, is an entirely different issue
I don't believe either the assumption you made, or the implication has any validity at all
What’s the difference the reason why? Untreatable disease? What difference does it make. We’re all dead in the end anyway, so why not permit someone to die when they want to?
Quote: Mission146
Quite the opposite, I think suicides would go down because you’d eliminate a relatively painless way to do it with a high probability of success.
This depends. Men commit more suicides but only because they succeed, women attempt in similar numbers but do not choose as violent of methods. Women are more likely to load up on pills while men will more likely shoot or hang themselves. If guns vanished you would have more hangings or more guys using their cars in a violent way.
My grandfather shot himself, I am glad he went in peace on his own terms.
Quote: AZDuffmanSelf-driving cars should be a thread. I have never seen such over-promise in my life.
They cannot work on the same roads
where there is even one real driver.
All the cars have to be computer
controlled and talking to each other
for it to work.
Quote: EvenBobThey cannot work on the same roads
where there is even one real driver.
All the cars have to be computer
controlled and talking to each other
for it to work.
I have seen them work on a small scale. Real slow and making a perfect turn. But so slow they will cause problems. What I saw there was always someone inside ready to take over. My prediction is we see a few deaths and the usual crowd that gets worked up at a few deaths will push for bans. We'll be long gone by the time they are considered normal.
Quote: Mission146What’s the difference the reason why? Untreatable disease? What difference does it make. We’re all dead in the end anyway, so why not permit someone to die when they want to?
We can't stop them, but in cases other than euthanasia, we should take reasonable steps to not make it easy. A case in point is the planned suicide prevention nets at the Golden Gate Bridge, at a cost of $211 million (source: Golden Gate Bridge suicide barrier construction begins). Without studying it in depth, I tend to oppose that for reasons of cost and that these are likely well-planned suicides that will just occur elsewhere. I do support the suicide hotline phones, which I've seen there.
The assault spoon and fork kill more people than all of the car accidents, and mass shootings combined. We must ban them!
Quote: EvenBobThey cannot work on the same roads
where there is even one real driver.
All the cars have to be computer
controlled and talking to each other
for it to work.
No, they don't. Tesla uses multiple radar systems and doesn't need to communicate with anything else.
The chart below shows suicide rates among high-income countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Firearm
The median is about 14 total suicides per 100,000 per year, with the USA being near the median.
In USA the total is about evenly split at 7 gun-related plus 7 non-gun suicides.
Countries like Germany and Sweden, with strict gun control, should then have a total rate of around 7 since guns aren’t so available to commit the other half. But their citizens just found other ways to commit the same act. Their total rate is about the same as ours, but the split is more like 1 gun-related plus 13 non-gun suicides.
Quote: Mission146Yeah, if a person wants to die, then that person should be allowed to die.
then why have we as a society never considered that option (other than euthanasia for people in horrible physical pain)
we all must be 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐏𝐈𝐃 not to have realized the brilliance of your simple solution
you basically state that mental anguish (depression) is the same as horrible physical pain from stage 5 cancer
not even close to being true - stage 5 cancer is a death sentence
depression is treatable - if it recurs it can be treated by different methods - your message is dark and ugly
you have a strong mind - your writing is effective
it's a shame you use it to put out nonsense like this
