HorrorMovieFans.com

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:The biggest single issue here is the NRA and the influence they have over the debate.

I guess we are ok with doing nothing if a group who advocates following the constitution is the single biggest problem. Personally, I think people killing others is the big issue.

That’s not one issue or one root cause. The NRA are your biggest stumbling block to even an intelligible debate on the issue.

if we're looking for an intelligible debate, the nra may be a stumbling block. also people being too close to it or taking things too personally. if any debate is to be had, seriously, it needs to be done with rationality and calm.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:The biggest single issue here is the NRA and the influence they have over the debate.

I guess we are ok with doing nothing if a group who advocates following the constitution is the single biggest problem. Personally, I think people killing others is the big issue.

That’s not one issue or one root cause. The NRA are your biggest stumbling block to even an intelligible debate on the issue.

if we're looking for an intelligible debate, the nra may be a stumbling block. also people being too close to it or taking things too personally. if any debate is to be had, seriously, it needs to be done with rationality and calm.

For an emotive debate, sure. I’m talking factual debates. The NRA has destroyed that avenue. Because if it existed you’d have no guns.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:The biggest single issue here is the NRA and the influence they have over the debate.

I guess we are ok with doing nothing if a group who advocates following the constitution is the single biggest problem. Personally, I think people killing others is the big issue.

That’s not one issue or one root cause. The NRA are your biggest stumbling block to even an intelligible debate on the issue.

if we're looking for an intelligible debate, the nra may be a stumbling block. also people being too close to it or taking things too personally. if any debate is to be had, seriously, it needs to be done with rationality and calm.

For an emotive debate, sure. I’m talking factual debates. The NRA has destroyed that avenue. Because if it existed you’d have no guns.

let's do it here. what facts are you looking for? amount of gun deaths. amount of people saved by guns? what else would be relevant?

there would only be no guns because you don't want them, and wouldn't accept anything less. and a lot of people share that view.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
(stats are for 2014)

all injury deaths
number of deaths: 199,752
deaths per 100,000 population: 62.4

all poisoning deaths
number of deaths: 51,966
deaths per 100,000 population: 16.3

motor vehicle traffic deaths
number of deaths: 33,736
deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

all firearm deaths
number of deaths: 33,594
deaths per 100,000 population: 10.5


if you can find the rates for 2015-2017 from the actual cdc, and not just what other sources claim is indicated by the cdc, that would be awesome.

i can't find data on lives saved, that comes directly from the cdc, as opposed to some news source that claims the cdc is their source. if you can find that, awesome. if you would accept the data that is said to be sourced from the cdc that works too.

there is a lot of talk that, in 2012, obama called for a study from the cdc. and they found that somewhere between 500,000 to 3 million lives are saved by fire arms every year.

but i can't find anything like that sourced from the cdc. which is why i asked if any of you could find it, or if you were willing to take somewhere citing the cdc as their source.

It’s allbadly sourced garbage because the NRA has entrenched legislation that prohibits the study of gun violence b

the cdc is garbage. got it. if the nra wanted to control the narrative, it wouldn't be so hard to find numbers for saved lives by gun with official sources.

zombie wrote:the cdc is garbage. got it. if the nra wanted to control the narrative, it wouldn't be so hard to find numbers for saved lives by gun with official sources.

The CDC, because of the Dickey Amendment, is not allowed to research gun violence in the US or any significant part. It’s why you don’t know if guns save lives, if background checks work, if there’s any point to banning bump stocks or high caliber mags. Because since like 1996 there has been negligible studies on it. Which is why you see stuff like guesswork from the right and left about laws vs gun deaths. You have the basic statistics nationally and statewide of gun deaths. That’s it. You don’t even have an electronic database for guns and gun owners and registers etc. how insane is that?

it is insane. to only have the deaths available to look at, and just basic "this is how many died in this year, or this city / state" only works against the nra and against those who are pro-right to carry. if this was designed to control the narrative in favor of the second amendment, there would at least be info to be found about how many saved lives. how many responsible gun owners vs. violent ones or careless ones. etc.

zombie wrote:it is insane. to only have the deaths available to look at, and just basic "this is how many died in this year, or this city / state" only works against the nra and against those who are pro-right to carry. if this was designed to control the narrative in favor of the second amendment, there would at least be info to be found about how many saved lives. how many responsible gun owners vs. violent ones or careless ones. etc.

I understand it as the NRA being so paranoid that they think having data equates to having guns seized. But everything else runs with data and you can see when data goes wrong how bad it can be for the organizations impacted. More data is always better. As I said there’s no evidence that background checks do or don’t have an impact because it’s just guesswork at this point. Even the “states with stricter laws have fewer deaths” is conjecture and has exceptions. But the exceptions are not studied as they can’t be. It’s a sick and twisted grip on the US legislature that the NRA has, and it is disproportionately able to influence Washington like no other group seems to be able to.

"the nra is paranoid" is just conjecture. could also be that their stated, perceived purpose as an organization, is not actual. but again, conjecture. neither of us know for sure. all i can go by is how counter productive to the cause they claim to favor, all of this. it does more to further the agenda of those who want no guns, than of anyone else.

I think we should also break down the type of violence further. For instance, suicides should be parsed out from all of them, as people will certainly find other ways.

Foo wrote:I think we should also break down the type of violence further. For instance, suicides should be parsed out from all of them, as people will certainly find other ways.

as far as suicide goes, don't they already do that to an extent?

I stand by my belief that gun control measures hurt the weakest of society the most. A firearm means a 120 pound woman can prevent rape by three 300 pound men. Without a gun, she has little chance.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:I think we should also break down the type of violence further. For instance, suicides should be parsed out from all of them, as people will certainly find other ways.

as far as suicide goes, don't they already do that to an extent?

Most gun death stats used by control advocates include suicides.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:I think we should also break down the type of violence further. For instance, suicides should be parsed out from all of them, as people will certainly find other ways.

as far as suicide goes, don't they already do that to an extent?

Most gun death stats used by control advocates include suicides.

well, yeah. they are gonna lump them all. but there are stats that separate suicide out.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:I think we should also break down the type of violence further. For instance, suicides should be parsed out from all of them, as people will certainly find other ways.

as far as suicide goes, don't they already do that to an extent?

Most gun death stats used by control advocates include suicides.

well, yeah. they are gonna lump them all. but there are stats that separate suicide out.

You used the 30k stat, but I believe 20k were suicides. Reducing the number by 2/3 really changes the perspective, imo.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:I think we should also break down the type of violence further. For instance, suicides should be parsed out from all of them, as people will certainly find other ways.

as far as suicide goes, don't they already do that to an extent?

Most gun death stats used by control advocates include suicides.

well, yeah. they are gonna lump them all. but there are stats that separate suicide out.

You used the 30k stat, but I believe 20k were suicides. Reducing the number by 2/3 really changes the perspective, imo.

you're right. i also said gun deaths. and not gun homicides. also, don't know if police action or self defense (or defense of another) kills are counted into that total.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:I think we should also break down the type of violence further. For instance, suicides should be parsed out from all of them, as people will certainly find other ways.

as far as suicide goes, don't they already do that to an extent?

Most gun death stats used by control advocates include suicides.

well, yeah. they are gonna lump them all. but there are stats that separate suicide out.

You used the 30k stat, but I believe 20k were suicides. Reducing the number by 2/3 really changes the perspective, imo.

you're right. i also said gun deaths. and not gun homicides. also, don't know if police action or self defense (or defense of another) kills are counted into that total.

Random violent acts with guns are actually surprisingly rare compared to the way things are often hyped.

since you seem to want the stats.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
(for 2013)

all suicides
number of deaths: 44,193
deaths per 100,000 population: 13.7
cause of death rank: 10

firearm suicides
number of deaths 22,018 (compared to 33,594 deaths in all, for 2014.. i don't have a number for 2013)
deaths per 100,000 population: 6.7

suffocation suicides
number of deaths: 11,855
deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

poisoning suicides
number of deaths: 6,816
deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1