Subject:
|
Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:00:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
535 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
60 percent of the violent deaths in your country in the year 2000,
according to this website were due to *just* firearms. That leaves 40
percent for all other forms of violent death combined, including knives,
axes, rope, baseball bats, and let’s not ferget driving over spouses with
vehicles.
|
So what?
All you’ve done is show that people are smart enough to use the best tool
for a certain task -- if you intend to kill someone a gun is a good choice
for that job. In a sense, if you could eliminate a person’s motivation to
kill you would reduce the murder rate, regardless of the advent of guns.
Sadly, people do like to kill themselves and each other.
|
Why is that? What in your society, supposedly the freeest society on the
planet, causes you to kill each other more often, per capita, than any other
country in the world during peace time?
|
Well lets see... According to that site only 0.00004 percent of people decide
to abuse freedom by killing others with guns. And only 0.00006 percent of
people decide to kill themselves with guns. So in the “supposedly freeest
society” only 0.00010 percent of the population abuses that freedom and
shoots themself or others. Now personally I don’t care if someone decides to
shoot themselves, its their choice to make and only physically affects them.
So only 0.00004 percent of the population is abusing their freedom to the
detriment of society. Not exactly what I would call a rampant problem.
|
25,000 violent deaths per year due to firearms is not a ‘rampant problem’?
68 deaths a day
3 per hour.
In the time it took us to write back and forth, say 3 hours, 9 people have died.
9 people whos violent “non accidental” deaths could have been prevented had
there not been any guns. Minimalism gets you nowhere.
| |
| |
I’ll go so far as to grant you the
premise that if you can change your fellow ‘Merican’s mindset about killing
each other, then by all means, keep the gun in your house. But that’s not
going to happen--you’re not going to change your fellow citizens minds,
especially when you have high ideals like ‘outta my cold dead hands’ and
‘lead in the brain’ as your mantras. So get the objects that cause the
harm, and, hopefully, the mindset will change. If you don’t have access to
cigarettes, you can’t smoke ‘em. And if you can’t smoke ‘em, you can’t die
because of ‘em.
|
And just who has the right to tell someone they can’t do whatever the heck
they want to themselves?
|
All too true, and that’s why it was just an example--I don’t care if someone
smokes--they’re only harming themselves. However, guns are not used to harm
oneself, they’re used for harming others. Hence, again, all the difference in
the world. It’s like people who get drunk--I have no issues whatsoever if you
get rip roaring loaded. The second your drunkenness becomes my concern,
however, is when you get behind the wheel of a car. We’re so eager and anxious
to change the mindset of the populace when it comes to DUI, but show me where
that same pressure is shown for responsible gun ownership. I have said,
conceded the very point--you change your mindset where guns are concerned, and I
would have no issues whatsoever about you having a gun in your house. But while
yourself and those who ‘love the gun’ spouting rhetoric like ‘brain lead’ and
‘outta my cold dead hands’, you have no ground on which to stand. None at all.
“My gun is in my house to defend my freedom!” Cites that don’t appeal to bygone
history, please. The violent ramifications of your gun in your house in the
21st century far outweigh *any* rhetorical reason you may throw out there to
justify said possession.
| |
| |
| |
What about the traffic? Why does the fact that it’s largely accidental not
cause you any worries? I mean, I did mean it as a joke but it does have
it’s serious side.
|
I would say that all the difference in the world lies between the concept of
“Accident” and “Violent homicide” and if you can’t distinguish between those
two happenings, then you’ve lost any credibility you’ve had left.
|
And yet the underlying point remains, I am four tims more likely to be killed
in a car accident, than I am to be killed by gunshot.
|
And I’m far more likely to die of old age than anything else, but we’re not
rallying against nature, happenstance or accidents. Why? Because these deaths
are non-preventable. These deaths are not caused by someone seeking to end
another life violently. The underlying point remains, which you cannot seem to
grasp--Accidents happen. Violent homicides are caused. We can reduce the risk
of accidents, and we should put effort and resources into same--seat belts, roll
cages, whatever, to make the vehicle safer. We should also put resources and
effort into reducing the number of violent deaths caused by, dare I say, guns.
Since an auto has a primary use that has nothing to do with violent deaths of
fellow citizens, I’d say I’d rather take my chances with car owner than a gun
owner.
Speaking of which, let’s look ath the number of car owners compared to the
number of gun owners. Let’s look at the history of cars compared to the history
of guns. Add up all the vehicles and the amount of time that they’re used,
compare that to all the guns and the amount of time that guns are used, and see
what the percentage between usage and death really is.
4 times more likely to be killed by a car. Considering that, I’d say by my very
conservative estimates, that cars are used thousands of times greater than guns,
you’ve got nothing with that analogy.
| |
| |
| |
BTW, how many people die of firearm incidents that might have otherwise
have been non-lethal but for the absense of a national healthcare system
and/or adequately speedy medical treatment for the victim? I find that an
interesting question. I am trying to distinguish people that are dead on
the spot from those that die of some other complication even if it’s just
bleeding to death.
|
And I could point to a few countries that have national helth care systems
and such, that, for all intents and purposes, are getting along pretty
well--but that’s another mind-shift that Americans won’t grasp--socialist
ideas do not automatically imply ‘communism’.
| |
If I were to ever kill someone, which generally would never happen unless I
was somehow forced to it, I would go for the incapacitating chest shot and
then the many shots to lethal locations like the head and heart.
Efficiency is my middle name...
|
I’d say is ‘gun-toting-yahoo’ with the ‘incapacitating chest shot, then the
many shots to lethal locations’, but that’s just me.
|
Well that is the price of freedom; you have a 0.00004 percent chance that you
will be killed by some random lunatic with a gun. So this only confirms my
previous analogy of trying to save one’s little finger by chopping off one’s
legs.
|
You’re trying to save your little finger by allowing 25 thousand of your fellow
citizens to die violent deaths, just so you can have a piece of metal in your
house.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: Massive ka-snip! (...) Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. -->Bruce<-- (but then again, those that don't adapt to changing conditions are destined for extinction) :-) (21 years ago, 18-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) I belive the actuall number you wanted was 11,071. The other 16,586 are suicides. So you are slightly more likely to commit suicide with a gun than get shot by one. Regardless suicides only affect those that pull the trigger much like the (...) (21 years ago, 18-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) Well lets see... According to that site only 0.00004 percent of people decide to abuse freedom by killing others with guns. And only 0.00006 percent of people decide to kill themselves with guns. So in the "supposedly freeest society" only (...) (21 years ago, 18-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
111 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
