Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TITAN308]

Cliff Notes 1: You have a better chance of dying from being a fatass than dying from a gun.

Cliff Notes 2: You have 0.000026% chance to be murdered with a gun.

There are 315.9 million humans in this country, and that is currently. That means your chance of being murdered by someone using a gun is .000026%. Here is how I arrived at that number: 8174/315,900,000.

That’s apples and oranges right? Since I used current population not 2012 population. Fair enough. Here is the new and improved number based on 2012 census data. The number was 314.1 million people. So let me get out my calculator again. 8174/314,100,000. This makes your chance of being slaughtered by a gun at…wait for it…..It’s .000026%. WOW!

Just for fun, let’s assume the cops murders were also something to be afraid of. So we had a number of 8855. 8855/314,100,000. This increased your chance of death by gun to a whopping .000028%.

Now let us compare to the chance you have of dying from being fat.

I went ahead and gave the gun grabbers the benefit of the doubt on this one again. I am using a very old number from 1999. Note: murders by gun-wielding Americans continue to decline while obesity continues to rise. At the turn of the century, 300,000 U.S. citizens died from obseity-related illness. So you are 33 times more likely to die from being overweight than you are to be murdered by someone with a gun. 300,000/314,100,000 is .000955.

Full Article: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ou-than-a-gun/

[Ghostpanther]

Cliff Notes 1: You have a better chance of dying from being a fatass than dying from a gun.

Cliff Notes 2: You have 0.000026% chance to be murdered with a gun.

Lol! Awesome. Yet does the media report every time someone dies for being obese? And why are there not demands for tighter donut controls?

[Mayhem]

Cliff Notes 1: You have a better chance of dying from being a fatass than dying from a gun.

Cliff Notes 2: You have 0.000026% chance to be murdered with a gun.

That´s terrible math... just terrible.

First of all you have to look at gun usage not gun death, going by pure population numbers nothing looks worth doing anything about.

On the other hand, the US went to war with two countries because 2996 people died. So when it´s a terror attack it´s ok to do everything, implementing invasive laws and even risking the lives of service men, but when it´s a home made number of 8174 it´s really not worth doing more than necessary.

But secondly you have to be overweight to be able of dying by that cause. It´s not apples and oranges it´s shoes and dartboards.

Nevertheless, the argument never was the number of gun deaths compared to population but to other first world countries.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol! Awesome. Yet does the media report every time someone dies for being obese? And why are there not demands for tighter donut controls?

You forgot the outrage about NY cup size ban?

[TwoNineMarine]

That´s terrible math... just terrible.

First of all you have to look at gun usage not gun death, going by pure population numbers nothing looks worth doing anything about.

On the other hand, the US went to war with two countries because 2996 people died. So when it´s a terror attack it´s ok to do everything, implementing invasive laws and even risking the lives of service men, but when it´s a home made number of 8174 it´s really not worth doing more than necessary.

But secondly you have to be overweight to be able of dying by that cause. It´s not apples and oranges it´s shoes and dartboards.

Nevertheless, the argument never was the number of gun deaths compared to population but to other first world countries.

- - - Updated - - -



You forgot the outrage about NY cup size ban?

Why do you have to look at gun usages and not deaths? That's what people care about right? How many die from guns?

Or are you implying that everytime a gun is used someone dies?

If you take out suicides the gun deaths in the US are around 10k in any given year.

So his number of 8.1k (not sure where that's from) is pretty close.

And I don't really know of anyone who is a fan of the Patriot Act or the other various spying the NSA has done. I don't think you'll find a ton of Americans who are happy about that.

And yes you have to be overweight to die from being overweight. But I think the numbers are like 30%ish of Americans are considered overweight or obese. So I'd say it's a farely widespread issue (obesity that is).

And the issue with the ban on the big cups in NY was the fact that that isn't something that shouldn't be regulated. If someone wants to get fat and die from eating way too much and not exercising then that's on them. It's not up to the government to tell them they can't. Frankly I think it's stupid if that's the choice you make. But then again it's your choice.

[Mayhem]

Why do you have to look at gun usages and not deaths? That's what people care about right? How many die from guns?

Or are you implying that everytime a gun is used someone dies?

If you take out suicides the gun deaths in the US are around 10k in any given year.

So his number of 8.1k (not sure where that's from) is pretty close.

And I don't really know of anyone who is a fan of the Patriot Act or the other various spying the NSA has done. I don't think you'll find a ton of Americans who are happy about that.

And yes you have to be overweight to die from being overweight. But I think the numbers are like 30%ish of Americans are considered overweight or obese. So I'd say it's a farely widespread issue (obesity that is).

And the issue with the ban on the big cups in NY was the fact that that isn't something that shouldn't be regulated. If someone wants to get fat and die from eating way too much and not exercising then that's on them. It's not up to the government to tell them they can't. Frankly I think it's stupid if that's the choice you make. But then again it's your choice.

Yeah i worded that odd, i meant compare gun usage to gun deaths and not gun deaths to population, just like you can´t compare deaths caused by overweight to the population but to overweight people to understand the risk. As i said, it´s bad comparisons. Also tells a lot about how much people care for their freedom if they fight gun laws more than the patriot act.

I`m not arguing what´s more common, mind you. It´s established that gun deaths (or in this case, gun murders alone) are not a high cause (thank god) of death in the US. That doesn´t mean there can´t or shouldn´t be anything done about it. Also it´s quite the difference between getting murdered or risking death due to an unhealthy lifestyle. It´s nowhere near comparable. Talking about pure percentages of the population is meaningless. You can make anything seem insignificant with that approach.

[TwoNineMarine]

Yeah i worded that odd, i meant compare gun usage to gun deaths and not gun deaths to population, just like you can´t compare deaths caused by overweight to the population but to overweight people to understand the risk. As i said, it´s bad comparisons. Also tells a lot about how much people care for their freedom if they fight gun laws more than the patriot act.

I`m not arguing what´s more common, mind you. It´s established that gun deaths (or in this case, gun murders alone) are not a high cause (thank god) of death in the US. That doesn´t mean there can´t or shouldn´t be anything done about it. Also it´s quite the difference between getting murdered or risking death due to an unhealthy lifestyle. It´s nowhere near comparable. Talking about pure percentages of the population is meaningless. You can make anything seem insignificant with that approach.

Ah I see what you were trying to say now.

And people have fought the Patriot Act. Perhaps people view keeping a right (2nd Amendment) to be easier then trying to get rid of such a big law (the Patriot Act).

I also agree that something should be done. I just disagree with most of the suggestions that have been thrown around on here.

And I understand the percentages thing. But the anti-gun side throws them around whenever it benefits them. Why can't the pro gun side? Lol

[TITAN308]

That doesn´t mean there can´t or shouldn´t be anything done about it.

Here is my problem with this argument.

There are so many other things that cause many more deaths that no one literally give a shit about. Like cars that can exceed 85mph (the maximum speed limit in the USA). Why do they even allow these types of cars to be produced? (following anti-gun logic). Why are we allowed to own cars that can go double, or more, the speed limit?

I never see these types of topics on the news. Never. Nor do I see threads about it on internet forums that are 2,214 pages long debating it.

Because no one gives a shit. You know why they don't give a shit? Because they own a car and debating something they own or enjoy is unacceptable. Nevermind cars cause more deaths. Imagine that.

"But... but... but a car is not made to kill" - yet somehow it manages to kill more people every year than something designed "to kill"?

Where is the outrage? Where is the thousand page threads?

[Mayhem]

Here is my problem with this argument.

There are so many other things that cause many more deaths that no one literally give a shit about. Like cars that can exceed 85mph (the maximum speed limit in the USA). Why do they even allow these types of cars to be produced? (following anti-gun logic). Why are we allowed to own cars that can go double, or more, the speed limit?

I never see these types of topics on the news. Never. Nor do I see threads about it on internet forums that are 2,214 pages long debating it.

Because no one gives a shit. You know why they don't give a shit? Because they own a car and debating something they own or enjoy is unacceptable. Nevermind cars cause more deaths. Imagine that.

"But... but... but a car is not made to kill" - yet somehow it manages to kill more people every year than something designed "to kill"?

Where is the outrage? Where is the thousand page threads?

As with everything, make a thread if you want to debate it. Incidently i do think it makes no sense to have cars that exceed speed limits. There´s probably an argument to be made that not all countries have the same speed limits and it would be wasteful to produce cars for each country, how easy or hard it is to make cars purely based on laws compared to guns is another topic i guess.

The thing is, cars constatly get safer. It´s a top priority and constantly being done. Laws regulating cars and traffic are implemented all the time. Hence you don´t see people really fighting for it, because no one is actively fighting against making cars and roads more save.

The car is not made to kill is a very acceptable argument, because despite killing more people by accident, cars are less used to kill people on purpose! Plus cars are opperated far more often than guns. Comparing cars to guns simply on numbers ignoring time in use is pretty moronic.

[Daelak]

Here is my problem with this argument.

There are so many other things that cause many more deaths that no one literally give a shit about. Like cars that can exceed 85mph (the maximum speed limit in the USA). Why do they even allow these types of cars to be produced? (following anti-gun logic). Why are we allowed to own cars that can go double, or more, the speed limit?

I never see these types of topics on the news. Never. Nor do I see threads about it on internet forums that are 2,214 pages long debating it.

Because no one gives a shit. You know why they don't give a shit? Because they own a car and debating something they own or enjoy is unacceptable. Nevermind cars cause more deaths. Imagine that.

"But... but... but a car is not made to kill" - yet somehow it manages to kill more people every year than something designed "to kill"?

Where is the outrage? Where is the thousand page threads?

The government, through executive agencies, legislation, and regulation are doing things that have lessened the growth or even reversed the trend in the deaths of Americans. Again, the corollary of what we did in terms of funding and legislation to fight a national security issue, the war on terror, even though it killed less Americans than US firearm deaths, shows the flaws in our system.

Vehicles are heavily regulated, far more than any firearm legislation. Driver's history is accessible to all law enforcement at any given time, a background check has to take 3 days or less, and is limited in the databases the FBI can check. There is no comparison to vehicles and firearm violence. We have safeguards in place with vehicles that have saved millions of lives over the past 60 years, yet you expect me to believe that policies that our industrialized counterparts in Europe and Australia, wouldn't work here, because hurr durr 2nd amendment hurr durr, gun culture hurr durr? No thanks.

[TITAN308]

All this talk about car safety and heavy regulation.

Yet they still kill more people every year than guns.

So basically, the car industry is what the gun industry should be seems to be the argument, heavy regulations and all, detailed record checks, yet people are still dying left and right.

Sounds like a plan.

[Daelak]

All this talk about car safety and heavy regulation.

Yet they still kill more people every year than guns.

So basically, the car industry is what the gun industry should be seems to be the argument, heavy regulations and all, detailed record checks, yet people are still dying left and right.

Sounds like a plan.

Yeay, I can say the "laws don't stop people from breaking them, so we should repeal all laws." again.

[TITAN308]

We have laws on the books regarding guns. Some people choose to ignore those laws. So whats the solution? More laws?

You want a way to regulate something to a point so that no one ever can abuse it. Good luck.

- - - Updated - - -

We've established, roughly, that in the United States you have a 0.000026% chance of being murdered with a firearm.

Should we shoot for 0.000025%?

I wish some of you would just admit you want to regulate certain things based on your "feels" - because the stats sure don't tell the same story.

[Daelak]

We have laws on the books regarding guns. Some people choose to ignore those laws. So whats the solution? More laws?

You want a way to regulate something to a point so that no one ever can abuse it. Good luck.

I want to regulate it so people with glaring mental health issues cannot buy a gun legally.

- - - Updated - - -

We have laws on the books regarding guns. Some people choose to ignore those laws. So whats the solution? More laws?

You want a way to regulate something to a point so that no one ever can abuse it. Good luck.

- - - Updated - - -

We've established, roughly, that in the United States you have a 0.000026% chance of being murdered with a firearm.

Should we shoot for 0.000025%?

And even less of a chance of a terrorist attack, yet we spend trillions of dollars on it and regulation.

[TITAN308]

I want to regulate it so people with glaring mental health issues cannot buy a gun legally.

No argument from me there. Now if you can do it in a manor that doesn't fuck with the rest of us, I am on board.

And even less of a chance of a terrorist attack, yet we spend trillions of dollars on it and regulation.

And we shouldn't spend that kind of money. That is an entirely different debate. Government waste.

[Noradin]

We have laws on the books regarding guns. Some people choose to ignore those laws. So whats the solution? More laws?

You want a way to regulate something to a point so that no one ever can abuse it. Good luck.

- - - Updated - - -

We've established, roughly, that in the United States you have a 0.000026% chance of being murdered with a firearm.

Should we shoot for 0.000025%?

I wish some of you would just admit you want to regulate certain things based on your "feels" - because the stats sure don't tell the same story.

If you were murdered tomorrow in broad daylight in NY why bother going to court over it, it would only be 0.0000003% of the population, police officers might die if we try to apprehend the offender, should we risk their lifes over 0.0000003%?

[TITAN308]

If you were murdered tomorrow in broad daylight in NY why bother going to court over it, it would only be 0.0000003% of the population, police officers might die if we try to apprehend the offender, should we risk their lifes over 0.0000003%?

lol

Your argument is a horrible analogy. I'm sorry.

In your analogy, someone clearly has broken the law. Guns themselves do not break the law merely by existing.

[Daelak]

No argument from me there. Now if you can do it in a manor that doesn't fuck with the rest of us, I am on board.



And we shouldn't spend that kind of money. That is an entirely different debate. Government waste.

Which I have explained, at length, that the background check system that other European countries use, as well as Australia, would no affect the purchasing of a firearm if you did not have a history or mental illness or aggression. They look for a pattern of behavior.

[Mayhem]

All this talk about car safety and heavy regulation.

Yet they still kill more people every year than guns.

So basically, the car industry is what the gun industry should be seems to be the argument, heavy regulations and all, detailed record checks, yet people are still dying left and right.

Sounds like a plan.

Well if you keep ignoring the arguments made then there´s not really any use replying. Just pretend living in a world where the #1 goal for "anti-gunners" is to grab all the guns!

[TITAN308]

Which I have explained, at length, that the background check system that other European countries use, as well as Australia, would no affect the purchasing of a firearm if you did not have a history or mental illness or aggression. They look for a pattern of behavior.

Well you'll have to cut me some slack, this thread is a few thousand pages long.

I don't think you'll find most gun owners are against preventing mentally screwed people from having guns. A majority of the push back comes to regulating the firearms themselves (not purchasing of) - like what features they can or can not have, which often appears to be decided based on some arbitrary thing. (see California: Bans the ownership of .50 caliber rifles, yet no .50 caliber rifles have been used in a crime).

[TZucchini]

Cliff Notes 2: You have 0.000026% chance to be murdered with a gun.

What's that number look like in other developed nations across the globe?