The purpose of a gun is to kill. The purpose of a car is to travel from point A to point B.
Tell me again how being pro-car means that you are pro-fatal car accidents. I want to watch you try to reason and think, again. It’s funny!
You better stick to meaningless, pointless, one-liners. Innuendos, “I am sooo smart”, are your strong suit. Stick with those.
Imply you have an argument, or that you can reason. I want to see it.
Please keep it civil gents.
In 2011, just 323 people were killed with rifles, including ‘assault’ rifles, according to the FBI.
Apparently it’s impossible to determine how many of these kills were committed by assault rifles, because assault rifles aren’t a legit category of weapon, which also means it’s impossible to determine how many people used assault rifles in defense of themselves and others, I mean I’m sure it’s happening, at least occasionally, why wouldn’t people be using them in defense?
http://liberalguns.blogspot.ca/2013/01/how-many-people-are-killed-by-assault.html
If say half of these kills were committed with ‘assault’ rifles, that’s about 160 a year.
There’s about 300 million people in the US, so the odds of being killed by one are about 1 out of 2 million.
And even if we banned assault rifles, all, most or at least many of those some odd 160 kills a year may end up being committed with other rifles, or with other guns, or with other weapons, or with hands and feet anyway.
I mean in 2011, 728 people were killed with hands and feet, 1694 were killed with knives, so hands, feet and knives are much deadlier for they’re more readily and easily available.
So let’s say just 80 of those 160 kills were preventable, banning assault rifles would only prevent about 80 kills.
And how many of those some odd 80 kills a year were committed by gangsters, who would’ve probably got their hands on one anyway, one way or another, with or without an assault weapons ban, because they’re criminals with no respect for law and order, and in many cases using them to kill other gangsters for that matter?
Again, let’s just say half.
Then that takes the number down even further, from 80 to 40 preventable deaths.
I mean according to google, approximately 3500 people inadvertently drown a year in the USA, in non-boat related drownings.
Should we ban recreational swimming?
I mean it’s a completely unnecessary activity, like owning an assault rifle supposedly is.
Or should we at least make it illegal to take your kid swimming?
And thousands of people die a year bicycling, dozens-hundreds of them kids.
Should we make it illegal for kids to ride bikes?
Dozens-hundreds of people die skating, skiing and snowboarding a year.
Dozens-hundreds of people die kayaking.
Guns are a necessity for some, ranchers use them to defend their livestock from wild animals, hunters kill animals who’s meat they mean to eat and/or sell, and people occasionally use them to defend themselves and their families from burglars and armed robbers.
And arguably people ought to have the right to own assault rifles, in prep for a manmade or natural disaster, and if a few extra people die a year because of that, so be it, it’s an acceptable risk, again the odds of you or your kid being killed because there wasn’t an assault rifles ban is 1 in many millions, it’s astronomically low, and there’s many other activates from swimming to bicycling we allow ourselves and our kids to do, that’re just as, or far more deadly dangerous.
It would cost billions of dollars for government to purchase everyone’s assault rifles, as there’s millions of them in the USA, for only a few dozen deaths a year, instead we could be spending that money to build new hospitals and improve existing ones, saving thousands of lives, and it would cost millions of dollars a year to continually enforce an assault rifle ban, we could use those millions to give poor people the advanced medical procedures they so desperately need to save their lives, but hardly anyone thinks of this stuff, hardly anyone counts the cost.
No they just scream: ban guns, or ban assault rifles, as if it was self-evident.
Few people think about this stuff rationally because they’ve been conditioned to react to it solely on an emotional level, for arguably government in conjunction with the media have an agenda.
From my research it’s not about saving lives, it’s about government further monopolizing force.
They always want a little more for them, and a hell of a lot less for us.
Yes, there is going more than one factor at play…
How about for one, off the top of my head:
Kennesaw GA population: over 30,000
Chicago population: over 2,700,000
Now using a bit of math on your own stats:
Chicago murders: 0.015% of the population p.a.
Kennesaw GA murders: 0.00033% of the population p.a.
That’s a factor of 45 times more murders p.a. as a proportion of population, taking into account that 1 variable alone. Now add in things like population density, diversity, poverty, street gangs, and consider the murder rate before strict gun laws were introduced in Chicago… - I doubt they were introduced because there wasn’t enough gun crime before…
I only had to think about this for a few minutes with no expert knowledge on either area, just to completely obliterate your misuse of statistics.
I don’t think you realise that you’re actually advocating gun control by comparing guns with cars…
You have to pass a driving test to drive a car, there are highly restrictive speed limits everywhere compared to what even the worst cars are able to reach, along with signs everywhere telling you what to do and not do with your car, and car technology has progressed to be safer and less deadly with airbags and crumple zones etc. Everything about the progression of driving has been to make it LESS deadly. And their deadliness is set to reduce even further with the use of AI. Along with the obvious fact that people have already mentioned: the purpose of cars was never to kill but to transport, supporting this is precisely not being ok with people dying.
Way to weaken your argument, idiot.
Sil,
Are you sure about your math?
1 murder per 10 years
400 murders per 1 year
I suck at math so I’d like you to confirm your certainty.
Not only are guns a necessity for many outdoorsmen: campers, hikers, hunters, for ranchers, rural people who live miles away from the nearest police station among wild animals, for people who want to protect themselves and their families, their friends and neighbors…but they can also be fun when handled responsibly, they look cool, they’re fun to target practice with, and they give people a sense of freedom, power and security…and of course a few psychos unfortunately let that sense of power go to their heads, somewhat tainting and tarnishing things for the rest of us.
Some people collect guns, antique guns, new guns, it’s a hobby for them.
So to say guns are just there to murder people I think is an exercise in hyperbole, they’re a weapon, but they’re also a tool, they can be used for good or bad.
And like it or not, they’re here to stay.
Now perhaps they require more regulation stateside, that is another matter, gun salesmen perform background checks on people alerady, but apparently you can purchase guns at gunshows wihout a background check in some rural parts of the south.
Perhpas something should be done about that.
But it’s ludicrous to want to ban all guns, to portray them as inherently evil, or to make it so only former police officers or solders can legally purchase them, some people depend on them for their livelihood.
Very glad to see that you cannot refute what I have said.
I wish I could say I was surprised.
Haha
My working:
Chicago murders: 400 p.a. out of 2,700,000 = 0.00015 murders per year per person (the 1st number divided by the second to 2 significant figures)
Kennesaw murders: 1/10 p.a. out of 30,000 = 0.0000033 murders per year per person (the 1st number divided by the second to 2 significant figures)
One as a proportion of the other (1 divided by the other):
0.00015/0.0000033 = 45 (rounded down) i.e. 45 times more murders per person per year in chicago over Kennesaw, even with the gangs there and all the other factors I mentioned + didn’t mention.
Clearer?
It’s highly important to be able to understand statistics in these times - with so much information available - when they can so easily be presented to appear to favour one thing over another, when in fact an impartial analysis of the statistics may point to a very different conclusion. Not sucking at math is critical - try to figure out why you (think you) do. If you can, see if you can overcome it and you can become one of the savvy few who can see through statistical bullshit.
Good job I did then, if UrWrong’s sufficient observation was not enough for you.
Not clearer. How did you obliterate his statistics? Wasn’t he notating that Kennisaw with all its guns was safer than Chicago without its guns. It looks like your 45 more times likely to get killed in Chicago and much safer in Georgia.
Don’t worry, guns aren’t going to be banned.
They couldn’t even ban one worthless accessory - bump fire stocks - even after it contributed to the 58 dead and 851 injured in Vegas 2017. 
Perhaps one major problem that raises the level of psychosis in some powder keg folks is urbanization, which those types of people are not cut out for, overly populated areas are where tensions seem to soar. Some people may not be in tune with society at large, especially when it pens them in.
I am saying that, per person, there are only 45 times more murders in Chicago than in that one place in Georgia.
There’s still more in Chicago per person, but the way he presented it was that it was over 400 per year vs 1 in 10 years, which sounds alike a factor of 4000!
Only 45 times more likely compared to 4000 times more likely is quite the difference… no? And that’s only taking into account a single variable that he failed to even mention. A single variable that makes nearly 100 times the difference is somewhat relevant, right?
Now imagine if the statistics he was presenting were controlled for all the other relevant variables.
If a fuller study was conducted and the difference between a cherry picked place with loads of guns vs a place with the toughest of gun laws impartially presented (never mind all the other places in the US that might complicate his attempted clarity), it could easily be the case that the average citizen is safer from murder by gun in Chicago than Kennesaw! Do you understand? Consider as a second relevant variable that gang on gang violence far outweighs gang vs citizen violence. Stay out of gang territory in Chicago, and it’s probably already the case that you might as well be in Kennesaw. Now, wouldn’t that obliterate his statistics that try and dupe the unwary reader into thinking that more guns make you 4000 times safer than with strict gun laws?
No. He never mentioned 4000 times more likely. 45 times more likely is bad enough. Gang on gang crime would be a factor to you? How would you analyze for nonexistent factors in Kennisaw?
You never actually say anything.
Use more one-liners.
Retard.
Er… you realise that mentioning 400 murders per year and mentioning 1 murder per 10 years is mathematically equivalent to 4000 times more murders? So yes he did mention 4000 times more murders per year (taking into account only ONE relevant variable).
45 times more likely would still be a lot worse, yes, which is what it would seem like with only TWO of many relevant variables. With more than TWO relevant variables, it may very well be far less than 45 - it could even be the case that it’s actually safer in Chicago with their stricter gun laws.
Gang on gang crime would be a factor to me? As a THIRD relevant factor, it would affect the stats for the average non-gang-affiliated resident of Chicago, never mind me. I’m not important here, the objective stats are important when they take into account as many relevant variables as possible.
Using just our THIRD factor of gang on gang crime, you adjust the number of murders for the average citizen in both places by deducting gang on gang murders from the total in each place respectively. I am imagining you don’t need to deduct much from Kennesaw, but for all I know the town is just as plagued by gang violence as Chicago, eh?
I am not getting the feeling that you’re following any of this logic. Not sure I really want to spell this one out in more and more basic terms each time. If you still aren’t understanding it might be more respectful to the flow of the thread to PM me.
The murder of adult gang members is not comparable to the mass-murder of children.
The spree-shooting phenomenon must be analyzed for what it is. The goal of spree-shooters is to cause as much damage, death, and harm as possible, with little to no hope for redemption. Thus it is a suicidal-homicidal tendency.
To compare them to other types of murder, or car accidents (as one moron tried to do), is plain dishonest and unintelligent.
If anybody is serious about further discussion then focus on the nature of spree-shooting suicidal tendencies. Spree-shooters have a state-of-mind where they have lost all hope in their own future. Some want revenge. Some want fame. Or both. But the catalysts can be investigated pretty easily. The general public is reactionary. They talk about what to do after the crime has already taken place. Very few people, or nobody, is really talking about Prevention, or whether acts of mass violence can truly be prevented in the long run. Maybe they can’t, but that would mean, mitigation should be the focal point of the matter.
Silhoutte, you have gained some respect from me for your participation in this thread. Good to see somebody with a brain and interest, applying it to relevant matters for once. Everybody else in this thread, massive loss of respect.
The leftist-liberal response is obvious, “take away everybody’s guns!” It’s not completely realistic and accurate, but the message becomes more reasonable and poignant as the reaction to these spree-shooting events. What is the rightist-conservative response? Nothing. Silence. And any answer is better than no answer. Conservative-right don’t really have a response. Some responses have been “arm the teachers” but this is quite ridiculous. Has society become so depraved that teachers must bring guns to classrooms? It is a fallen, failed society. Everybody knows this on an intuitive level. It represents a complete distrust throughout the undercurrent of society, that, elementary school children must be “on guard” at all times.
Several responses in this thread, particularly from Gloominary are, “don’t worry, it’s not very frequent, mass shootings are rare”. The problem is, they are becoming more common and prevalent, and more deadly. The other conservative-right response “armed guards at school” will also not solve the problem. Because they will be the first ones ambushed and killed, the first target, for future spree-shooters.
Currently, the liberal-left is dominant, because they have an answer which is better than no answer. So society is going to swing that way, especially after the next few spree-shootings and mass-murders occur. Next month, maybe? Within 3 months? 6?
It’s shameful that these types of things cannot be discussion reasonable and rationally. On this note, the apathy throughout society is too high. Western society is too fractured, fragmented, and anti-social. Perhaps this is also part of the Cause of the spree-shooting phenomenon. It is the problem, and also the cause. Average people are becoming more distrustful of each-other, than trustful. Becoming more resentful than compassionate. If people won’t bridge such gaps upon the death of their own children then what hope is there for greater social cohesion or trust in the future? When not even sacrificing your own kin moves a community to action? Yeah, that’s Apathy.
Donald Trump with Jeff Sessions just recently banned bump stocks for semi automatic rifles, let the cognitive dissonance commence!
They’re going to militarily lock down the country one way or another in the near future where they’ll try to disarm the population. Be prepared for that as it is coming.
Learn how to sneak up on people unaware with a knife, machete, hatchet axe, hammer, or cross bow so you can steal their guns for yourself when the time comes if you don’t possess any where if you don’t they’ll be using them on you…