Sorry to hear that. If you are afraid you are going to hurt yourself or your family, please get rid of the guns. Don't keep them at home.
US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)
- Thread starter mongey
- Start date
narad
Progressive metal and politics
No one thinks their guns are going to hurt themselves or their family. It happens to some of them regardless. It can happen to you, too.
spudmunkey
SS.org Regular
How is this gas-lighting horseshit your takeaway from that post? Hold fuck, I don't know why I clicked the "Show ignored content" button for your post, but I was quickly reminded of why it was blocked in the first place.
Blocked? I actually edited out the thought-provoking part of my post.
Like the irony that he is so anti-gun but works for a brewing company. See, firearm-related murder rate in 2019 were a bit over 10,000 in the US (can’t remember the exact number from the FBI), but death due to alcohol was around 140,000 (CDC figure). You should get a job with a gun manufacturer and cut your contribution to deaths by x13
Beer is great. Guns are great.
The problem is that folks overdo it. Whether it's having that extra drink, or being a gun-fucking zealot that supports policy that enables dead children.
The fact you can't understand that is why it's so easy to frame almost everything you post as a joke.
Also, you can go fuck yourself. Like, a lot. You contribute nothing to this community. Nothing. Which is likely similar to your real life persona, which I'm sure is exactly like your internet one.
narad
Progressive metal and politics
Yea, but colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in both men and women, so maybe you should stop being an asshole?
StevenC
Javier Strat 7 2024
You missed the point so badly you definitely shouldn't have guns.
CanserDYI
Yeah, No, Definitely.
How are you about to compare gun manufacturing to alcohol manufacturing? You do realize no one is kicking down school doors and forcing 18 packs down our children's throats by the dozen, right? Right?!
Such a twat, dude.
You do know DUI vehicular homicides are higher in the US than firearm-related murders right? Kids get killed every day by drunk drivers.
And the death rate of alcohol is x13 that of firearm related murders. As a matter of fact, 40% of convicted murderers had used alcohol before or during the crime.
Everybody willfully forgets the damage that alcohol does to society.
All I'm doing is calling the hypocrisy. 140k get killed by alcohol every year and nobody wants to illegalize alcohol. 800k babies get murdered every year and nobody wants to illegalize abortion. 10k people get murdered every year and let's all ban firearms.
CanserDYI
Yeah, No, Definitely.
Throwing away your nonsense about the abortion shit, you're completely right about drunk driving. I 100% support making it more difficult to get access to alcohol for anyone, and genuinely believe if it were regulated as heavily as its counterparts, we wouldn't have the alcoholism issue that we do in this country, and we wouldn't have the drunk driving issue we do, or at least have a much better handle on the issue.
I'm not sure how arguing that alcohol leading to accidental deaths is even remotely in the same conversation as regulating firearms due to staggering amounts of intentional unwarranted deaths caused by people with access to firearms.
Did you know that a vast majority of people who were convicted of strangling another person with a garrote wire were wearing footwear at the time?! Obviously, this means we should start talking about banning tennis shoes, especially for people who played stringed instruments like guitars or pianos.
TedEH
Cromulent
You're comparing accidents to murders. You're comparing vices that people inflict on themselves to weapons used on other people. This has been the most apples to oranges comparison in the history of apples and oranges.
1) Accidental deaths caused by DUI are not homicides. Maybe there's some legal definition somewhere that makes all vehicle deaths "homicide" by some technicality, but your word choice implies that all vehicle deaths are deliberate acts committed to another person - which they're not.
2) Where are you getting this point from? If I google this - the US Department of Transportation claims that there were 35,766 vehicle-related deaths in 2020 compared to the 45,222 gun-related deaths reported by the CDC for the same year (43% of which they attribute to murders - which, I'm sure is a MUCH lower percentage for the vehicle deaths).
Src: The first two results to give me actual numbers when I googled these things:
www.iihs.org
www.pewresearch.org
Two things:
1) Accidental deaths caused by DUI are not homicides. Maybe there's some legal definition somewhere that makes all vehicle deaths "homicide" by some technicality, but your word choice implies that all vehicle deaths are deliberate acts committed to another person - which they're not.
2) Where are you getting this point from? If I google this - the US Department of Transportation claims that there were 35,766 vehicle-related deaths in 2020 compared to the 45,222 gun-related deaths reported by the CDC for the same year (43% of which they attribute to murders - which, I'm sure is a MUCH lower percentage for the vehicle deaths).
Src: The first two results to give me actual numbers when I googled these things:
Fatality Facts 2020: State by state
A summary of fatality statistics about state by state compiled by IIHS from 2020 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data.
www.iihs.org
What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.
In 2020, the U.S. experienced a record number of gun murders, as well as a near-record number of gun suicides.
www.pewresearch.org
It's called "vehicular homicide", weather it's intentional or not. So technically yes.You're comparing accidents to murders. You're comparing vices that people inflict on themselves to weapons used on other people. This has been the most apples to oranges comparison in the history of apples and oranges.
Two things:
1) Accidental deaths caused by DUI are not homicides. Maybe there's some legal definition somewhere that makes all vehicle deaths "homicide" by some technicality, but your word choice implies that all vehicle deaths are deliberate acts committed to another person - which they're not.
2) Where are you getting this point from? If I google this - the US Department of Transportation claims that there were 35,766 vehicle-related deaths in 2020 compared to the 45,222 gun-related deaths reported by the CDC for the same year (43% of which they attribute to murders - which, I'm sure is a MUCH lower percentage for the vehicle deaths).
Src: The first two results to give me actual numbers when I googled these things:
Fatality Facts 2020: State by state
A summary of fatality statistics about state by state compiled by IIHS from 2020 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data.What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.
In 2020, the U.S. experienced a record number of gun murders, as well as a near-record number of gun suicides.
Latest data from FBI FBI 2019 Data. 10,258 firearm-related murders in the US in 2019.
TedEH
Cromulent
I'm gonna need a source for that, 'cause once again, google says otherwise. In Canada, and in some states, a vehicle can be considered a weapon, but there are specific circumstances or qualifiers that push it into the realm of homicide. Not all vehicular deaths are classed as homicide.
But even if I hand you that one, which would be some semantic BS that means nothing -
That link you gave provides nothing of substance to back up any of what you said - where's the vehicular number you compared it to to make your point? If anything - that chart proves MY point because in the FBI list of "all the homicides" vehicles aren't even their own distinct category on the list. That 10k number makes up 74% of everything that site classifies as a homicide.
That's a great source to point out that in 2019, 74% of homicides were firearms related - not even counting non-homicide deaths.
I think there's some funny business going on with legal definitions here. Vehicular manslaughter (vehicular homicide) exists, but it's a very narrow subset of deaths that result from crashes, along with possibly some other weird cases that might not involve crashes, so they are two distinct statistics.
Automobile fatality is someone dying as a result of a crash. Automobile homicide is someone dying as a result of someone else's criminal activity with an automobile.
So, if someone dives their car off of a giant cliff - automobile fatality. If someone drinks and drives, criminally, and runs over a pedestrian , that's vehicular manslaughter. Likewise, if someone is not under the influence of alcohol, and just snaps one day and runs over a crowd of revelers, that's murder (for those of you who live under a rock, or are outside of the USA, Darrell Brooks).
But yeah, I guess if people really wanted to kill each other, they could use a car, or a bus, or a brick, or a poisoned apple, or their bare hands. But guns make it all so convenient - faster, smaller and easier to conceal, more difficult to counter, hard to trace, etc. If you don't believe this, ask the military if they'd rather engage the enemy with guns or with Ford Escapes.
I think this is sort of a case where you have to choose what your point is before trying to make a convincing argument. If the logic is basically "Cars kill more people than guns, therefore, we should have more stringent government control over cars than guns, but that's ridiculous, thus no gun control," the logic falls apart at each seam - 1. A car is intended to take you from point A to point B, but incidentally can be used to kill someone, whereas a gun is intended to kill. 2. We already have stringent controls over cars: you have to register your car, you need a license to drive your car (which, if you abuse, gets taken away), you have to insure your car, get your car inspected, etc. 3. The system of the DMV is far from perfect, but it's universally agreed that, despite serious problems, the system needs to be in place, so the last attempted point also fails for the vast majority of people.
And I'm not smart for making these arguments, I'm just parroting these exact points that were made a thousand times before from conservatives who parroted the exact same argument. So, either you are new to this whole debate or you are mistaking stubbornness and deliberate refusal to listen to reason as winning an argument based on sound logic.
But that's the curse of democracy - you can take a society that has two completely ignorant muppets and they can outvote the guy with sound logic every time. And I think that's perhaps what people like @StevenC , who live under the reign of an autocrat, might underestimate about the USA when they say stuff like "just ban all guns like we did here and the problem will be 99% solved." Here in the USA, we've painstakingly and patiently cultivated the perfect breed of human being who doesn't give two shits about which logical path leads where. Something that rarely gets talked about anymore is how GW Bush and his first lady completely neutered our public primary education system, and how those people who suffered poor education because of that are now voting. Whether it was all part of some master plan to keep everyone here stupid enough to keep voting for the people who only wish to prove how stupid everyone is, or if it was just stupidity inadvertently breeding more stupidity, I don't care, honestly- the end result is the same, and it's just as I predicted. We even had a virus that might as well have been bioengineered to eradicate conservative boomers, and they're still in a good place to win the next election. So, yeah, that's why most of us are soft on the gun debate - nothing drastic is going to happen without the government intervening against the popular will, which, itself, would be a bigger problem than the problem we'd be trying to solve. So it just is the way it is.
Automobile fatality is someone dying as a result of a crash. Automobile homicide is someone dying as a result of someone else's criminal activity with an automobile.
So, if someone dives their car off of a giant cliff - automobile fatality. If someone drinks and drives, criminally, and runs over a pedestrian , that's vehicular manslaughter. Likewise, if someone is not under the influence of alcohol, and just snaps one day and runs over a crowd of revelers, that's murder (for those of you who live under a rock, or are outside of the USA, Darrell Brooks).
But yeah, I guess if people really wanted to kill each other, they could use a car, or a bus, or a brick, or a poisoned apple, or their bare hands. But guns make it all so convenient - faster, smaller and easier to conceal, more difficult to counter, hard to trace, etc. If you don't believe this, ask the military if they'd rather engage the enemy with guns or with Ford Escapes.
I think this is sort of a case where you have to choose what your point is before trying to make a convincing argument. If the logic is basically "Cars kill more people than guns, therefore, we should have more stringent government control over cars than guns, but that's ridiculous, thus no gun control," the logic falls apart at each seam - 1. A car is intended to take you from point A to point B, but incidentally can be used to kill someone, whereas a gun is intended to kill. 2. We already have stringent controls over cars: you have to register your car, you need a license to drive your car (which, if you abuse, gets taken away), you have to insure your car, get your car inspected, etc. 3. The system of the DMV is far from perfect, but it's universally agreed that, despite serious problems, the system needs to be in place, so the last attempted point also fails for the vast majority of people.
And I'm not smart for making these arguments, I'm just parroting these exact points that were made a thousand times before from conservatives who parroted the exact same argument. So, either you are new to this whole debate or you are mistaking stubbornness and deliberate refusal to listen to reason as winning an argument based on sound logic.
But that's the curse of democracy - you can take a society that has two completely ignorant muppets and they can outvote the guy with sound logic every time. And I think that's perhaps what people like @StevenC , who live under the reign of an autocrat, might underestimate about the USA when they say stuff like "just ban all guns like we did here and the problem will be 99% solved." Here in the USA, we've painstakingly and patiently cultivated the perfect breed of human being who doesn't give two shits about which logical path leads where. Something that rarely gets talked about anymore is how GW Bush and his first lady completely neutered our public primary education system, and how those people who suffered poor education because of that are now voting. Whether it was all part of some master plan to keep everyone here stupid enough to keep voting for the people who only wish to prove how stupid everyone is, or if it was just stupidity inadvertently breeding more stupidity, I don't care, honestly- the end result is the same, and it's just as I predicted. We even had a virus that might as well have been bioengineered to eradicate conservative boomers, and they're still in a good place to win the next election. So, yeah, that's why most of us are soft on the gun debate - nothing drastic is going to happen without the government intervening against the popular will, which, itself, would be a bigger problem than the problem we'd be trying to solve. So it just is the way it is.
StevenC
Javier Strat 7 2024
I mean, basically every English speaking country has the word "manslaughter" for unintentional death. And it's the vast majority of traffic deaths*.
*source: literally my job
*source: literally my job
Drew
Forum MVP
And yet, weird how absolutely no one has a problem with things like laws banning public intoxication, operating automobiles while under the influence of alcohol, or allowing - requiring, even - bartenders to not serve customers who they believe are drunk, and holding them legally liable if they do.
Shit, if we had the same sort of laws for guns as we do drunks - despite the 2nd amendment specifically pointing to the importance of quality regulation - we'd be in a whole better world with respect to gun safety.
If only it was illegal to shoot people. Maybe we should propose that into law.And yet, weird how absolutely no one has a problem with things like laws banning public intoxication, operating automobiles while under the influence of alcohol, or allowing - requiring, even - bartenders to not serve customers who they believe are drunk, and holding them legally liable if they do.
Shit, if we had the same sort of laws for guns as we do drunks - despite the 2nd amendment specifically pointing to the importance of quality regulation - we'd be in a whole better world with respect to gun safety.
