-->
@TWS1405_2
If confiscating guns is the only way to stop mass shootings, then they should start with the Capitol police before taking them from everyone else.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people
Posts
Total:
312
-->
@Greyparrot
if i'm making the general claim that all guns kill people, then you are making the general claim that all people kill people. you are being irrelevant, as usual. actually, sometimes guns kill people, but you'd rather play word games and semantics. when there's a gun murder, the person killed someone, the gun did, and the bullet did as well. that's a fact.
-->
@n8nrgim
But nobody makes that claim. We claim crazy people with guns kill people. You can't say "crazy guns" kill people. In fact, the vast majority of guns never kill anyone.
45,222 2020 deaths recorded out of 465 million guns (99.99%)
So if 99% of all guns in America never kill anyone, why would you say guns kill people? You could say ".01% of guns killed people in 2020" and I would say, "Yeah, that's right."
-->
@Greyparrot
it's just a matter of talking that's imprecise. if it's fair to say people kill people, then it's fair to say guns kill people. it would be more accurate to say 'some' people kill people, and 'some' guns kill people. to quibble about the wording is an irrelevant semantic. you say guns dont kill people.... well, some of them do. that's a fact.
-->
@n8nrgim
Yeah, but be honest when you say "Some" guns. We are talking about .01% of all guns.
And I can say guns never kill anyone and be talking about 99.99 percent of them.
This matters a LOT.
Considering out of 278,063,737 cars and 38,824 deaths in 2020, Guns are slightly less dangerous than cars...
And most cars don't kill people either.
-->
@badger
What's your plan, genius?
Prolly live a very chill life without the DT's
-->
@badger
Yet “morons” like you focus on rifles while ignoring violent human behavior spawned from mental illnesses.I don't focus on shit. I think you should ban all guns like pretty much the entire rest of the world. It is especially ugly however when kids bring death machines to school and blow each other away. There's no other regular occurrence the world over which comes close to comparing. Congrats, you're number 1.
Liar liar. You focus a lot on gun related issues in the US. The receipts are in your retorts/comments/postings.
School shootings are still rare and few far and between. They can be stopped, but not by banning guns.
I do not care what goes on around the world. I do not live around the world. I live in one place. The US. So I only care about my country.
It will be a very long time before all those guns are confiscated,What's your plan, genius? Sell another 300 million guns?GP your whole politics would have the US government shoveling food into your fat mouth. Fuck Ukraine. Fuck black people. Fuck anyone trying to scrape any bit of fair treatment for themselves. It's ugly as hell, dude. You are a degenerate.
Who are you replying to here? I didn’t make that statement. Try paying attention to detail, ffs 🤦🏼♂️
I am not a degenerate. I am a patriot who served my country. I defend others when put in harms way. I have never harmed anyone out of spite. Unlike others.
-->
@TWS1405_2
They guy has no problem shipping 100 billion dollars worth of American guns to prolong the Ukraine/Donetsk civil war, but the rest of the world needs to be gun free....
Typical drunk Irish logic.
-->
@n8nrgim
Greyparrotif i'm making the general claim that all guns kill people, then you are making the general claim that all people kill people. you are being irrelevant, as usual. actually, sometimes guns kill people, but you'd rather play word games and semantics. when there's a gun murder, the person killed someone, the gun did, and the bullet did as well. that's a fact.
The gun and/or bullet “did” nothing. Both are inanimate objects that “do” nothing but just sit there. Just like a stabbing or blunt force inanimate object. It “does” nothing. Same for a shotgun and rifle of any kind. They “do/did” nothing. Inanimate objects “do” nothing. Fact. Period. Fact.
People kill people. More often than not with their own hands, fists and feet. Rest of the time is with an inanimate object, i.e., a tool.
Take away one tool, there will always be another. You cannot ban everything. I mean really, is banning spoons going to stop obesity?
-->
@n8nrgim
you say guns dont kill people.... well, some of them do. that's a fact.
Cite just one cited source demonstrating a gun, untouched by a human being, ever got up, walked over to someone, and shot and killed them. Please. Inquiring minds want to know.
-->
@Double_R
Yes, every gun death also has a 'presence of a gun' element to it.
Which becomes irrelevant when you address the human element. Again, with your scenario, the whole thing could've been prevented with better storage, and possibly better parenting.
The difference generally speaking is that gun safety advocates understand this full well and make no attempt to refute it. 2A advocates meanwhile often argue implicitly or explicitly that the presence of a gun is not the issue, that instead is all about the people involved.
You have yet to prove the latter thinking wrong.
More important, however, is your framing of the issue here. Your argument falsely pits the ideas of the 2nd Amendment and gun safety against each other when they, in fact, go hand-in-hand. The 2nd Amendment protects our right to bear arms, and gun safety advocacy tells us to be safe with the firearms we have the right to own.
Ideas of gun safety are the reason we have lock boxes and safeties, and why we practice trigger discipline and proper storage. They're the reason we keep our guns pointed at the floor or at the sky, and why we make sure to unload our guns before storing them. They're the reason for innovations in smart gun technology as well. They are not the reason we see calls for gun control legislation. That kind of legislation is from anti-2A ideals that posit humans cannot be safe with guns in the first place, therefore, such legislation is incompatible with ideas of gun safety.
In a similar vein, the 2A does not condone improper storage and technique with firearms, it only posits that we cannot trust the government to regulate those sorts of things (and guns in general). In fact, the words "well-regulated" found in the 2A are referring to the idea of proper gun training, not regulations on guns. This is because the whole 2A is based on the idea that any government that can disarm its people for the sake of power eventually will.
The fact that you can always find a person to blame (the parents in this example) is irrelevant to the fact that without a gun in the picture no child would have ended up dead. So when people say "guns don't kill people" that statement is just plain wrong in any meaningful sense.The two elements (the person and the gun) will always be present in every gun death. The 2A advocate strategy is to pretend only one is to blame and then argue that one should be the person and not the gun (because how do you blame an object?). That's just childish simpleton nonsense. We need to look at the whole picture.
If you want to look at the whole picture, we can look at what happens when we address improper gun safety to remove the specific human element causing the problem versus what happens when we address the fact that there was a gun in the house in the first place.
If we remove the gun from the household, we still have a child that does not know the danger of certain objects, and parents that cannot store dangerous objects properly. What is there to stop a child from harming or killing themselves or someone else with a kitchen knife, power tool, or something else? You can talk about how firearm deaths among children are more common than any of those, but that doesn't change the fact that the core issue still remains. You may have saved the child here, but it comes at the cost of having a gun to defend the household, and you've done nothing to negate the possibility of a different accident.
If you take improper storage out of the equation, the gun still exists, but the child never got to it in the first place. Furthermore, with proper storage involved it's safer to assume that other objects around the house would be stored properly. The same concept applies for better parenting. Here, the core issue is resolved. You have saved the child, you still have a gun to protect the household, and you've lowered the odds of another kind of incident.
Therefore, we can conclude that human behavior matters more than the presence of a gun.
It's at this point where you would probably talk about how much more common gun deaths among children are than knives and power tools. It is here, however, where I will point out that gun-related accidents that result in a child fatality are not as common as you think they are: You've made an inconsistency in your presentation of data (that I failed to catch last time I replied to you).
This whole hypothetical is about a child accessing a gun and killing someone with it in an accident. However, the data you've cited to prove that this is a more common issue includes other gun-related child fatalities that are not the result of the kind of accident you've described.
In 2020, around 6 per 100,000 children died as a result of firearm-related injury, putting firearm-related injury as the #1 cause of death among children. That much is true. However, this statistic is almost completely comprised of homicides and suicides, incidents that are not what you've described here. This is important because these things are significantly more difficult to prevent by removing guns from the equation than an accident like you've described. A murderer will use other weapons for murder (that being gracious in assuming they won't obtain contraband firearms) and a suicidal person has ample other methods as well.
The other issue with blaming the parents is that there was no malice involved here, just irresponsibility. But human beings are inherently irresponsible, so while the criticism is valid in any individual scenario, it is not a valid argument when we're debating public policy. The argument there is essentially that human beings need to stop being human beings.
Humans will always be human beings. On that, we agree. To say that we cannot significantly reduce these incidents through education, however, is incorrect. As I cited in my last reply, a study found that a good fire safety course can significantly reduce incidents where children start fires. Common sense would tell us that a good driving course helps to prevent accidents as well (need I go find a study for it?). The same logic can be applied here: Proper gun education will result in a decline in these types of incidents. No gun control needed.
If someone urgently needs a gun that is all the more reason to not sell it to them. That's literally the point of a mandatory waiting period.
I suspect you're saying this because you think someone who urgently needs a gun is suicidal, or of the criminal element. This is only half of the truth. Consider the fact that there are many people who urgently need a gun because of crime in their neighborhood, or a threat they may have received. Should these people who are trying to get guns for self-defense be forced to wait for weeks, sometimes even months, to be able to defend themselves?
Again, the criminal or suicidal person had ample other methods. The people who are in these situations don't, since criminals don't follow gun laws. These laws only create scenarios where a person feels forced to turn to the black market to get their hands on a gun, or put themselves at greater risk. And no, you can't expect to have a police officer to guard your house every night. The saying is every bit as true as it is commonly spoken: When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.
Everything we do is a result of a cost/benefit analysis. Guns are a contentious issue because they are a frequent cause of unnecessary deaths in this country, while the benefits of having so many guns out there and so easily accessible is minimal.Lighters are far more useful and necessary to the functioning of our society and cause no where near as many casualties. The idea that we would put all of these requirements in for lighters is therefore every bit as absurd as it sounds.
Minimal? The presence of guns as a natural deterrent for a tyrannical government is reason enough to justify having so many of them in this county. A tyrannical government can shed far more blood and end far more lives than the current collective of criminals we have in this country.
But since you're so concerned about all the current deaths in this country that involves guns, I add the other point that guns are likely used to save more lives among the populace than they are used to end to my argument here.
The idea that we should pass all these gun control laws, or ban guns entirely, is just as absurd as it would be for lighters.
But since you're so concerned about all the current deaths in this country that involves guns, I add the other point that guns are likely used to save more lives among the populace than they are used to end to my argument here.
And yet USA inexplicably has 5 times the murder rate of any first world country.
The idea that we should pass all these gun control laws, or ban guns entirely, is just as absurd as it would be for lighters.
Imagine writing this.
-->
@badger
And yet USA inexplicably has 5 times the murder rate of any first world country
And the data suggests it would be even worse if we got rid of guns.
If you're going to be passive-aggressive with comments like "imagine posting this," at least tag me next time.
-->
@badger
And yet USA inexplicably....
It's not inexplicable. Authoritarian nations will always have lower rates of fringe behavior over free nations. America literally allows crazy people to run wild in the streets.
-->
@Mharman
Just a massive coincidence that the country with the most guns in the world has the highest murder rate by far out of first world countries.
-->
@Mharman
Amazes me how many foreigners know what's going on in America and have no idea what the streets on any major city on the west coast looks like with crazy people free to do whatever, and it's just a simple gun problem going on here.
-->
@Greyparrot
@TWS1405_2
Yes, "people kill people, but guns help."
I meant that people would still be able to defend themselves at home and other places most of the time. Not during a massacre.
Is there any number of child murders that would cause you to consider gun control?
-->
@b9_ntt
Maybe, but there has never been a single discussion about handgun control, so it shows that no party is actually going to do anything meaningful anyway.
"The gun made him do it"
Do you know what else is USA number 1 in, among developed countries?
Deppression pill popping 😀
-->
@badger
Gun violence in America isn’t that simple of an issue. There are many factors at play.
-->
@Mharman
Ah so not the very obvious answer, but some other complicated one. Convenient for you.
What do you think Jesus' favourite gun would be?
-->
@Mharman
I think the issue deserves more than "thoughts and prayers" in response to massacres with automatic weapons.
-->
@TWS1405_2
if someone asks 'what was the cause of death' it is fair to say 'a gun;. a gun caused someone's death. that is, a gun killed someone. beyond this, you are just playing word games and semantics so there's no point continuing this line of argument.
a person is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife. people are impulsive, so the ability to just push a button and the other person dead, is significant. plus, a person can kill others with much greater speed and efficiency.. you are comparing apples and oranges by arguing about non-gun weopons. completely void of logic and common sense to make the arguments you guys are making.
banning a spoon wouldn't make a difference in stopping obesisty, cause they will just use other methods to eat. again, there's no comparison between guns and non gun weopons.
-->
@b9_ntt
Agreed.
-->
@badger
A nail gun. He was a carpenter, after all.
Anyway, if you want a simple answer, we are the first world country with the worst gang problem.
-->
@Mharman
We also arguably have the worst mental health care in the world. Some of the things our leaders do actually create insane people.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The goal of a mass shooter is to kill as many people as humanly possible. If you remove guns, are knifes more effective at that or is discreet poisonings across the country more effective at not only doing so but decreasing the chances of getting caught so you can get a higher kill count?
No one really knows because no one ever bothers to even try this, which is what makes it so strange that you keep coming back to this hypothetical which has no tie to reality.
There are countries with more or similar guns per Capita and it doesn't happen. Switzerland has very high gun ownership and it doesn't happen, so does Yemen.
There US leads all developed nations on earth when it comes to gun deaths per Capita. Is it your position that gun ownership rates has little to do with this?
If you hate American citizens and want them to die than there are better ways to do that than by lying and claiming gun ownership is the root cause of these shootings.
What is with this stupid talking point you've latched onto lately? Since when does disagreeing with you on guns equate to hating Americans and wanting them to die?
-->
@b9_ntt
->@Greyparrot@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Yes, "people kill people, but guns help."I meant that people would still be able to defend themselves at home and other places most of the time. Not during a massacre.Is there any number of child murders that would cause you to consider gun control?
Before guns, stabbing and blunt objects.
human beings will find whatever tool is useful and more efficient to achiever their goal.
Did’t Cain kill Abel with a blunt object? (A ROCK)
Human beings will use whatever tool is available and efficient for their purpose.
It can be a fireman. A bomb. A pressure cooker, a rock, a knife, a screwdriver…..
Children are soft targets because they are in soft target areas.
Think on that.