Red Flag

[Hack]

My goal isn't an overall death reduction, but it's death/injury inflicted upon you intentionally by others.

Accidents and self inflicted /= inflicted upon you intentionally by others.

If I wanted to reduce death I would introduce a nationwide fat tax on people who are fat. A nice flat % off your paycheck. It would be a combination of BMI, measurements, and physical ability to help sort out those "I'm not fat, just big boned" people.

Introduce a bill providing healthcare including mental healthcare regardless of employment and sure, you may see those suicide numbers drop. But it won't happen.

How many tens of millions of people have been killed by out of control governments? Hitler, Stalin, etc. The list is far too long and there are people dying right now across the globe for stepping one inch out of line in countries where the ruling class has decided to silence the opposition.

That is the risk we must all balance against our fear of crazed shooters. And it's the reason the founders of the US wanted the populace to have guns.

Sponsored

 

[Grintch]

My goal isn't an overall death reduction, but it's death/injury inflicted upon you intentionally by others.

Accidents and self inflicted /= inflicted upon you intentionally by others.

Which is still car accident fatalities (the ones where it was the other guys fault). Assume half and the rate is still 1.5x the gun murder rate. Isn't it amazing that drunk driving fatalities are blamed on drunk drivers rather than cars? But crazy nut job murders are blamed on guns rather than crazy nut jobs?

Even worse is "medical misadventures" fatalities done to you by doctors and nurses, which is 3x or more the gun murder rate. A recent John's Hopkins study puts it at 250,000 deaths per year, which is almost 30x the gun murder rate.

Lets ban assault doctors ;-)

Woops missed the intentionally bit.

 

[Deleted member]

The question i want to see an anti gun politician answer strait without deflecting is this, "when has a law ever stopped a criminal?" watch their brain explode.

Laws are like locks, they keep honest people honest.

 

[cosmo]

How many tens of millions of people have been killed by out of control governments? Hitler, Stalin, etc. The list is far too long and there are people dying right now across the globe for stepping one inch out of line in countries where the ruling class has decided to silence the opposition.

That is the risk we must all balance against our fear of crazed shooters. And it's the reason the founders of the US wanted the populace to have guns.

Your point is understood. Hong Kong being a living example. I don't support outlawing guns, but rather tightening the purchasing process. Inconveniences for those following the law are an unfortunate byproduct for saving lives.

I do believe gun buybacks from the government should be enacted, simply to reduce the amount of unregistered weapons exist.

The balance should be maintained however other countries do allow gun ownership but don't have our issues. Our Canadian neighbors being one of them.

Which is still car accident fatalities (the ones where it was the other guys fault). Assume half and the rate is still 1.5x the gun murder rate. Isn't it amazing that drunk driving fatalities are blamed on drunk drivers rather than cars? But crazy nut job murders are blamed on guns rather than crazy nut jobs?

Even worse is "medical misadventures" fatalities done to you by doctors and nurses, which is 3x or more the gun murder rate. A recent John's Hopkins study puts it at 250,000 deaths per year, which is almost 30x the gun murder rate.

Lets ban assault doctors ;-)

Woops missed the intentionally bit.

Cars also have insurance, so that even in the instance of an injury, at least costs can be covered. Want to introduce gun insurance costs? I wouldn't mind, but I imagine many would.

Medical practices also need to be improved. America's medical industry isn't exactly a shining example of quality unfortunately. But to say it's malicious like gun deaths is a bit of a false equivalency.

I believe there is a stark difference between accidents, even negligent accidents, vs malicious and intentional harming of someone else.

The question i want to see an anti gun politician answer strait without deflecting is this, "when has a law ever stopped a criminal?" watch their brain explode.

Laws are like locks, they keep honest people honest.

That's an impossible question to answer as you need to know if someone is going to commit a crime to know if they were effectively stopped. How else can you know?

I'm sure you could, if you have the data, do some quick math based on the amount of failed background checks for gun purchases. Take their reasoning for failure, if it is based on violent crimes then take their % chance for repeating a crime, and apply that with some give to the amount of failed checks. It wouldn't be entirely accurate but is probably the best answer you can give to an impossible question requiring prediction of a person's actions.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

My goal isn't an overall death reduction, but it's death/injury inflicted upon you intentionally by others.

I agree that guns aren't the problem; death is. I'm pretty sure not one of these mass shooters woke up thinking if only there were no guns, I would love my fellow man. Or thinking I hate my fellow man but without these guns, I couldn't hurt a fly.

As a society we chose a judicial system that by design lets huge numbers of guilty people escape any consequences for their crimes, including murder. Better x go free than 1 innocent be punished. Unless we decide its okay to lock up a lot of people who would never kill anyone because they have some of the same traits as past killers, there is NO way to keep most of the bad ones from walking among us where there are virtually countless ways to kill or maim. Other than that, best we can do is try to treat the ones we spot and lock up ones that can't be helped like we do with someone with a highly contagious dangerous disease.

If we do the pre-emptive lock up part, don't ask me to participate. I can't read minds.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

My goal isn't an overall death reduction, but it's death/injury inflicted upon you intentionally by others.

Accidents and self inflicted /= inflicted upon you intentionally by others.

If I wanted to reduce death I would introduce a nationwide fat tax on people who are fat. A nice flat % off your paycheck. It would be a combination of BMI, measurements, and physical ability to help sort out those "I'm not fat, just big boned" people.

Introduce a bill providing healthcare including mental healthcare regardless of employment and sure, you may see those suicide numbers drop. But it won't happen.

Whatever happened to making your own way through life? Why does simply existing mean that anyone owes you anything?

You can choose to exist or not. There is not, and should not be, any obligation on my part.

 

[Interceptor]

Drugs kill people everyday, a lot of them. Why don't they have laws to make drugs illegal? (sarcasm)
If they did that no one would bring drugs in our country so " the drugs" wouldn't distroy and kill the innocent people, the innocent people taking taking the drugs wouldn't be robbing and killing, people on the street, in their homes.

THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want your guns for your safety. THE GOVERNMENT wants your guns for their safety.

And people ask why society is the way they are? What a joke. Pay attention. Look at the perversion, news you don't believe, social media that rules your life, wrong is right right is wrong. Pay attention, research. Don't be a government sheep

 

[cosmo]

I agree that guns aren't the problem; death is. I'm pretty sure not one of these mass shooters woke up thinking if only there were no guns, I would love my fellow man. Or thinking I hate my fellow man but without these guns, I couldn't hurt a fly.

As a society we chose a judicial system that by design lets huge numbers of guilty people escape any consequences for their crimes, including murder. Better x go free than 1 innocent be punished. Unless we decide its okay to lock up a lot of people who would never kill anyone because they have some of the same traits as past killers, there is NO way to keep most of the bad ones from walking among us where there are virtually countless ways to kill or maim. Other than that, best we can do is try to treat the ones we spot and lock up ones that can't be helped like we do with someone with a highly contagious dangerous disease.

If we do the pre-emptive lock up part, don't ask me to participate. I can't read minds.

So are there no angry or deranged people in other countries? We have a unique problem, but Western media and cultures aren't drastically different. There is still gun ownership in other countries, but they don't have our problems. Why?

Whatever happened to making your own way through life? Why does simply existing mean that anyone owes you anything?

You can choose to exist or not. There is not, and should not be, any obligation on my part.

What does that have to do with the section you quoted?

Drugs kill people everyday, a lot of them. Why don't they have laws to make drugs illegal? (sarcasm)
If they did that no one would bring drugs in our country so " the drugs" wouldn't distroy and kill the innocent people, the innocent people taking taking the drugs wouldn't be robbing and killing, people on the street, in their homes.

THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want your guns for your safety. THE GOVERNMENT wants your guns for their safety.

And people ask why society is the way they are? What a joke. Pay attention. Look at the perversion, news you don't believe, social media that rules your life, wrong is right right is wrong. Pay attention, research. Don't be a government sheep

So you don't believe that the current laws do anything? You don't believe that if citizens had access to actual military spec weapons, we wouldn't see more death? You don't believe that if we had absolutely no restrictions to purchasing a gun, you wouldn't see more issues?

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Drugs kill people everyday, a lot of them. Why don't they have laws to make drugs illegal? (sarcasm)

You got my vote! Lets start with the drug that the most non drug users have heard of and are afraid of. If we could magically get rid of all of it and the ability to make it, all of those addicts would be cured. I have no doubt, as with certain types of guns, if you take that drug away, they would become model citizens.

 

[Timeless]

If I wanted to reduce death I would introduce a nationwide fat tax on people who are fat. A nice flat % off your paycheck. It would be a combination of BMI, measurements, and physical ability to help sort out those "I'm not fat, just big boned" people

The problem with this is like most things in that you give up your rights to the government in what would ultimately become a gateway to other rights or penalties based off of bureaucrats with sub 10% approval ratings. Starts with fat tax and all of a sudden you start getting taxed for other activities deemed dangerous (mountain climbing, skydiving, racing (legal and illegal), etc, etc.

So basically a big nope.

 

[cosmo]

The problem with this is like most things in that you give up your rights to the government in what would ultimately become a gateway to other rights or penalties based off of bureaucrats with sub 10% approval ratings. Starts with fat tax and all of a sudden you start getting taxed for other activities deemed dangerous (mountain climbing, skydiving, racing (legal and illegal), etc, etc.

So basically a big nope.

That's probably right. It's also right in-line with the click it or ticket laws for seatbelts. Do you disagree with that as well?

 

[HoosierDaddy]

That's probably right. It's also right in-line with the click it or ticket laws for seatbelts. Do you disagree with that as well?

Not a fan of seat-belt, helmet, etc laws. But since I'm not stupid so not impacted myself and since that is not in my top 50 causes, I'll let the stupid people who don't use belts, helmets, etc. fight the laws.

 

[Deleted member]

That's an impossible question to answer as you need to know if someone is going to commit a crime to know if they were effectively stopped. How else can you know?

I'm sure you could, if you have the data, do some quick math based on the amount of failed background checks for gun purchases. Take their reasoning for failure, if it is based on violent crimes then take their % chance for repeating a crime, and apply that with some give to the amount of failed checks. It wouldn't be entirely accurate but is probably the best answer you can give to an impossible question requiring prediction of a person's actions.

If someone has lost it to the point that they are going to kill someone, they don't care about a law. Seriously dude, no murderer or potential murderer has ever been sitting there contemplating killing someone and going "wait i can't do that it's illegal".

 

[cosmo]

If someone has lost it to the point that they are going to kill someone, they don't care about a law. Seriously dude, no murderer or potential murderer has ever been sitting there contemplating killing someone and going "wait i can't do that it's illegal".

I'm not denying that. If someone is really going over the top there is absolutely nothing that can be done. If they're smart enough, they'll think around any potential stop block to achieve their destruction.

For those who aren't that savvy, having tighter restrictions, tighter controls on selling, WILL lessen their ability to hurt others. The Dayton kid should not have been able to have purchased his guns legally, and we should learn from it. Maybe if he tried to do what he did with only a handgun there would have been less deaths and injury. Creating an inconvenience is an unfortunate byproduct, but it should also instill into people how serious owning and purchasing a gun is.

 

[Timeless]

That's probably right. It's also right in-line with the click it or ticket laws for seatbelts. Do you disagree with that as well?

As a freedom loving individual no, but as driving a vehicle is a privilege (not a right) then I can deal with it.

If someone has lost it to the point that they are going to kill someone, they don't care about a law. Seriously dude, no murderer or potential murderer has ever been sitting there contemplating killing someone and going "wait i can't do that it's illegal".

I'm not denying that. If someone is really going over the top there is absolutely nothing that can be done. If they're smart enough, they'll think around any potential stop block to achieve their destruction.

For those who aren't that savvy, having tighter restrictions, tighter controls on selling, WILL lessen their ability to hurt others. The Dayton kid should not have been able to have purchased his guns legally, and we should learn from it. Maybe if he tried to do what he did with only a handgun there would have been less deaths and injury. Creating an inconvenience is an unfortunate byproduct, but it should also instill into people how serious owning and purchasing a gun is.

Death penalties are really the only thing that would make a potential murderer pause at all and I am not sure even then.

We are too soft as a society to really put any fear into a would-be killer. If society would allow for public painful executions then perhaps some of the partly sane individuals might pause.

Sponsored