Guns in America

#1
GUNS IN AMERICA

Here are some very Interesting Facts About Gun Control:

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016.
Do the math: 0.0000925% of the population die from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant!)
What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100.
Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation - or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others.
For example, California had 1,169 - and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California of course.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault - all are done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose – THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
· 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets grim:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical malpractice. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!

So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in malpractice would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ....... Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple. Taking away guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies.
 
#2
At the time I posted this, I did not know of the Las Vegas shootings. While my opinion concerning guns is still the same, my prayers go out to the victims and families in LV
 

Professor Plumpe

School for Scandal
#5
This is another truly horrendous and senseless massacre of the innocents and my thoughts are with the bereaved and injured.

This is largely a political issue so could I please ask that any further posts pertaining to gun control be confined to the Politics Thread.

Thank you..
 

Charlie Farley

Sponsoring Vendor
#6
This isn't in any way, shape or form related to anything regarding
' to control or not '.
But an interesting fact came up on the BBC news tonight.
Four times as many people die from all gun related incidents,
so suicide, accidents and murder, in the US every year, than
( not just US forces ) the combined deaths of all Coalition forces
in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 16 years.
That's quite a stunning fact.
 

Dave Hood

Lifetime Premier Supporter
#7
Al, let me give you my opinion as a gun owner You said that gun deaths in the US are "statistically insignificant?" Tell that to the families of the 58 people who were killed and 500 more that were injured in Las Vegas. I personally think it's sick that our politicians are more concerned about the NRA lobbyists than the families of this country.

Should we enforce the gun laws that are already on the books? Of course we should. Would tighter gun laws have stopped what happened in Las Vegas? Probably not given the horrific number of guns already in the hands of pricks like the guy in Las Vegas. But to explain massacres like the one in Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas or a typical weekend on the South side of Chicago as "statistically insignificant" is sick.

Hopefully the compassion, morals and leadership of our current President will bring hope to this country. I guess I should stop there....
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
#9
Okaaaay...here's my challenge to all the anti-gun, "we need more GUN laws" folks :

Write out - word-for-word - your specific recommendation for a gun law that would, if enacted, end all gun crime...a law that would put so much fear in the hearts of terrorists, gangbangers, dope dealers, and LOONS (and/or whatever other additional brand of criminals you'd care to mention) that they wouldn't even dare THINK ABOUT violating it - let alone DO so (like they've violated every other gun law that's been passed to date). There has to be a way to word such a law 'cause y'all keep INSISTING "more gun laws" will stop gun crime...right?

If you CAN'T come up with the wording for the aforementioned law - then just ADMIT that no single law or combination of laws HAS EVER - AND WILL NEVER - change the behavior of criminals/loons and quit your sanctimonious insistence that "more GUN laws" are the answer to gun crime. DECADES OF PASSING MORE AND MORE "GUN LAWS" has proven conclusively it's just a 'feel good' exercise...and that the only thing passing YET ANOTHER "gun law" does is make it possible for some full-of-themselves politicians to puff out their chests and proclaim to the world they DID SOMETHING about gun crime...it does NOT change the behavior of criminals.

What worthwhile purpose is served by further restricting/disarming law-abiding people (unconstitutionally 99% of the time, BTW)? THEY aren't the problem. THEY obey the country's laws. Why screw with them??? What does that accomplish???

G'night, All.
 
Last edited:
#11
I have no solution either, but I struggle with how an "armed law-abiding" person would have helped in this situation. A shooter, armed to the teeth, 30+ floors above the scene. Really???

And why are guns like this available for sale in the first place??? Handguns I get to a certain degree (personal protection and all). Rifles and shotguns - OK. Semi-automatic weapons - no.
 

Doug S.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
#12
Okaaaay...here's my challenge to all the anti-gun, "we need more GUN laws...
Larry, Larry, Larry...you know darned good and well that NOTHING anyone could compose would have any persuasive impact on this issue, nor on your enthusiastic support of private gun ownership (I own 4 firearms, so, no, I am NOT anti-gun), so I won't even try.

What I will do is suggest you read the first line in the 2nd ammendment. It is all about maintaining a "...well-regulated militia...", it says nothing about private gun ownership. At that time England was still viewing America as ripe for another of their military quests and the 2nd Amendment was our way of saying "...hands off, we WILL respond with our own army..."(a "militia").

You also know that the only way to impact gun-realted deaths at the hands of the likes of the LV shooter (who apparently had in excess of 25 guns in that Hotel suite) is to enact further limits on home-gun ownership. As I read the 2nd ammendment I didn't see anything that ensured carte-blanch rights to own deadly weapons.

Now I will challenge you to do as you suggested...compose a lengthy piece of legislation that would eliminate the type of inappropriate gun usage seen in Las Vegas and yet guarantee the right to even limited gun ownership.

Right...that probably can't be done, either.

So, keeping in mind that the 2nd Ammendment was all about our country's right to maintain a ARMY to keep foreign countries from invading our country in a war-like manner...how would you propose our laws be ammended (or composed) to assure without exception that incidents like occurred in L.V. won't occur?

I sincerely doubt it can be done.

Cheers to you, Larry...and good luck!

Doug
 

Dave Hood

Lifetime Premier Supporter
#13
Doug, you are absolutely correct about the original intent of the second amendment. It's about the right to maintain a well-regulated militia.

Larry, the NRA and folks like you always come back with "No gun law will fix this". I couldn't agree more. The core issues are based in our society, declining family relationships, etc. However, do you not believe that gun laws that require a universal background check, close the gun show loophole, and limit the number of rounds a magazine can hold would at least make sense? Or would you adamantly defend the right of deer hunters to purchase a Thermold AK-47, 7.62x39 Caliber Magazine clip that holds 47 rounds? The NRA's position that any form of increased gun legislation infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens is just crazy.
 
#14
If someone truly wants to kill lots of innocent people we are hard pressed to stop them. Whether with a car, truck, bomb, fire, or anything else. Can you imagine if someone used a small plane loaded with explosives or gas crashed into the middle of that concert? There would have been 500 or more dead. If guns are gone, the lone nutcase will still have a black market gun or thousands of other means to kill, hell they do it once a month in Germany, England, and France. We have to figure out a way to identify and stop the bad guys before they do this. They have a profile, oh, that's right, we can't do that. I have quite a few guns, and not once has one of them threatened me or anyone else. It's the disturbed, fanatic. We have our work cut out for us, its going to get far worse before it gets better.
 

Doug S.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
#15
We have to figure out a way to identify and stop the bad guys before they do this. I have quite a few guns, and not once has one of them threatened me or anyone else. It's the disturbed, fanatic. We have our work cut out for us, its going to get far worse before it gets better.
Agreed on all counts, Al...There is truth to that old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

As much as I hate to say it, I think we need even MORE governmental control over who can have guns. Unpopular with this crowd? Sure...but if we were to do a better job of weeding out the "disturbed fanatic" when doing background checks, it might help reduce the carnage somewhat.

I don't understand the recent increase in these mass killings...when Charles Whitman climbed to the top of that tower at the University of Texas and shot people, it didn't spawn such a spate of incidents as we have seen recently.

I hope none of us ever lose a family member to a senseless shooting like this one in LV...and I hope (against hope) that you're wrong about it getting better before it gets worse!

Doug
 
#16
Agreed on all counts, Al...There is truth to that old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

As much as I hate to say it, I think we need even MORE governmental control over who can have guns. Unpopular with this crowd? Sure...but if we were to do a better job of weeding out the "disturbed fanatic" when doing background checks, it might help reduce the carnage somewhat.

I don't understand the recent increase in these mass killings...when Charles Whitman climbed to the top of that tower at the University of Texas and shot people, it didn't spawn such a spate of incidents as we have seen recently.

I hope none of us ever lose a family member to a senseless shooting like this one in LV...and I hope (against hope) that you're wrong about it getting better before it gets worse!

Doug
All of these people have mental issues, and the people around them are blind to the tell tale signs that they don't choose to believe.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
#19
Doug, you are absolutely correct about the original intent of the second amendment. It's about the right to maintain a well-regulated militia.

Larry, the NRA and folks like you always come back with "No gun law will fix this". I couldn't agree more. The core issues are based in our society, declining family relationships, etc. However, do you not believe that gun laws that require a universal background check, close the gun show loophole, and limit the number of rounds a magazine can hold would at least make sense? Or would you adamantly defend the right of deer hunters to purchase a Thermold AK-47, 7.62x39 Caliber Magazine clip that holds 47 rounds? The NRA's position that any form of increased gun legislation infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens is just crazy.

Do YOU believe that crooks, loons, gangbangers, terrorists, et al, would jump thru all the L-E-G-A-L hoops gov't sets up to acquire their guns/ammo...or do you think they'd steal them or buy them on the black market?

Do YOU believe that, if the aforementioned scum wanted some of the particular AMMO you mentioned, they would buy THAT "legally"?

Do YOU believe only criminals, et al, should have access to high capacity magazines (because that's EXACTLY what outlawing them would mean)?




The NRA's position that any form of increased gun legislation infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens is just crazy.
'Flat-out wrong, sir. 99.9% of all EXISTING "gun laws" already DO infringe on the right to keep and bear...and if you'd like me to prove it, quote ANY existing gun law you wish and I'll do so...NOT by "interpretation" or thru the use of tortured 'straw man' legalese used to "justify" infringement, but by the use of a dictionary and the application of the legal tool referred to as "the ruling of the reasonable man".

I'll repeat what I've said countless times before: If The Founders had intended there be ANY restrictions/preconditions/exceptions/exemptions/qualifications or limitations of any kind on the right to keep and bear - they'd have LISTED them. But, they didn't. Instead, they chose to write "...congress shall pass NO LAW INFRINGING" on the right to keep and bear. That ought to tell all anti-gun rights folks something. ;)
 
Last edited:
Top