# Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xelor, Apr 23, 2018.

1. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
22,823
But, to be expected. It is a commonly used (and ridiculous attempt at) rebuttal.

They tend to clam up about it when confronted with reality, however. For example, Tennessee in 2014:

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states 1,020 people in Tennessee died from gunshots during 2014. According to the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, 906 people died that same year from car accidents.

The statistics also reveal gun-related deaths in Tennessee have increased over the past decade. In 2004, there were 865 deaths from gunshots.

During that same period, vehicle-related deaths dropped from 1,191 to 906
.​

Keep in mind that gun ownership in Tennessee is at around 39%.

There's around 1.5 cars per household in Tennessee.

Alternatively, you can point out how one can compare the two. You know, if guns were regulated like cars and their drivers are, of course.

Ultimately, cars are designed for the purpose of transportation. Guns, ultimately, are designed to kill.

Which begs the question. Why is the motor vehicle and their usage more regulated than guns, which are designed with the intent to kill?

3. ### sculptorValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,450
Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.

5. ### sculptorValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,450

• Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.
• An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.
• More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44.
• Road traffic crashes rank as the 9th leading cause of death and account for 2.2% of all deaths globally.
• Road crashes are the leading cause of death among young people ages 15-29, and the second leading cause of death worldwide among young people ages 5-14.
• Each year nearly 400,000 people under 25 die on the world's roads, on average over 1,000 a day.
• Over 90% of all road fatalities occur in low and middle-income countries, which have less than half of the world's vehicles.
• Road crashes cost USD $518 billion globally, costing individual countries from 1-2% of their annual GDP. • Road crashes cost low and middle-income countries USD$65 billion annually, exceeding the total amount received in developmental assistance.
• Unless action is taken, road traffic injuries are predicted to become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030.

Annual United States Road Crash Statistics

• Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year
• An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled
• Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year
• Nearly 8,000 people are killed in crashes involving drivers ages 16-20
• Road crashes cost the U.S. $230.6 billion per year, or an average of$820 per person
• Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad
• ...............................
• "Road traffic crashes rank as the 9th leading cause of death" If memory serves, suicide is ranked 10th

Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.

7. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
14,550
I already did. From a previous post, quoting the Harvard School of Public Health report:
===============
Second, many suicidal crises are self-limiting. Such crises are often caused by an immediate stressor, such as the breakup of a romantic relationship, the loss of a job, or a run-in with police. As the acute phase of the crisis passes, so does the urge to attempt suicide. The temporary nature and fleeting sway of many suicidal crises is evident in the fact that more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt, including attempts that were expected to be lethal (such as shooting oneself in the head or jumping in front of a train), do not go on to die by suicide.
===============
And I am all for that.

But keeping a gun away from a suicidal person is a _very_ effective method of preventing (successful) suicides. Mental health treatment will certainly help but will not be as effective - because quite often the person presents as 100% normal until the event occurs that makes them suicidal (finding out about a spouse's infidelity, getting arrested, finding out about a grave illness, death of a loved one etc)

I agree, and again, I am not proposing "removing everyone's rights."
I'll use an example from skydiving to get away from all the emotion surrounding guns.

30 years ago, the #1 reason for fatalities in skydiving was no-pulls (i.e. jumper did not open a parachute in time.) A company called Airtec developed the first good AAD (automatic activation device) that sensed altitude and speed, and opened the reserve parachute if the jumper got below 700 feet going faster than about 80mph. Once they were widely adopted, they significantly decreased no-pull deaths.

People approached these devices in different ways.

Old-school skydivers didn't much change what they did. They got an AAD and didn't change how they planned dives, what altitude they pulled at etc. They saw a decrease in fatalities.

Most skydivers changed their procedures a little to accommodate the AAD, but didn't take _significantly_ more risks. Their fatality rate stayed about the same.

Some skydivers used the AAD as a way to allow them to do riskier things. As an example, someone would plan a "zoo dive" - a classic formation jump made with low experienced jumpers with minimal preparation. These are traditionally dangerous. When a more experienced jumper would warn them of the risks of such a dive, they'd say "hey, that's why I have an AAD!" This group actually saw their fatality rates go _up_ - because AAD's are great, but they won't protect you from a broken neck when you collide with someone at 7omph.

So overall AAD's have not changed the fatality rate in skydiving very much. Per-capita it's about the same as it was in 1990. As the equipment has gotten safer it's saved a lot of people, but the people who see it as something that will save them from dangerous situations have seen more deaths.

I see guns in the same way. If that 80 year old woman thinks "hey, now I can go to that store that gets robbed all the time because I have a gun! It's the great equalizer; I am now the equal of those thugs!" then having that gun may just get her killed - even if it can protect her in some situations.

Of course. But the gun greatly changes the outcome. Compare a mass murderer who goes to a school with a knife or a bat vs. an AR-15.
OK, cars are a good example. So let's treat guns like cars. As others have pointed out, fatality rates are similar.

Let's license all gun owners so we don't have incompetent gun owners leaving loaded guns out for their toddlers, or shooting at targets when they don't clear downrange, or shooting themselves when they mishandle guns.

Let's require registration so we can make sure that guns meet basic safety requirements, just as cars are required to do. This also allows recalls when guns are found to be dangerously defective.

Let's require insurance to mitigate the damage they do when misused. Just as with car insurance, the insurance will be made available to compensate victims of gun misuse. Responsible gun owners will, of course, pay far less than irresponsible owners - which will result in an excellent incentive to be responsible.
Australia is pretty good evidence. Not a single mass shooting since stricter gun laws, and a gun buyback program, went into place.
So we can't use evidence of places where it has worked?

I agree that if all evidence is rejected there is no evidence, but that's hardly a reasonable approach to a problem.
Yes, like gun buybacks. No one thing will be a 100% solution.

8. ### Truck Captain StumpyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
890
sorry. you are correct about that

absolutely true, which is already policy (and has the legal support should it be enforced)

application of policy is also dependent upon funding and local support
man, I haven't jumped in a long time - lawn dart. LOL

I really did get your point, and I am all for training and advocating stress shooting on top of regular shooting! It's one reason I joined the NRA
That and the free hat and sticker... because obviously that makes all the difference (joking)

actually, I think cars are a good example for other reasons too. What if the only statistics we collected with regard to cars was the deaths, accidents and uses during a crime? We would have a significantly different perspective on cars...

This is one reason I argue against making gun judgement calls based upon the crime and health/accident statistics

I"m not sure about the other two as I have research to do, but this may well be an appealing start.
the industry doesn't particularly like the idea, though. The link is to an old article, but I've been fighting with my carriers for a while.

sorry, but I have to disagree. You can't attribute everything to the gun laws, nor can you attribute it to the buyback program, especially considering the historical problems with the buyback program. "...buyback programs set low prices, com-pared with sales through the illegal markets..." is especially relevant IMHO. There is still considerable debate about the reasons for any of the decreases. So long as there have been sweeping changes in various laws, there can't be a way to tie it all to the NFA, and that is still a debated point in AUS, even.

moreover, violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all in AUS. Snopes has a good article on AUS and the NFA.

That, more than anything, is the reason I continue to advocate for firearms.

Sorry, but, so long as those countries still contest what is actually causing their dropping rates (discounting the violent crime issue for the moment) then it's hardly reasonable to assume it is due to the gun control methods. More to the point, there are huge cultural (etc) differences between nations, espeically those who wish to drag Japan into the discussion. You cannot assume that the US will react to the laws and controls like the Japanese did, especially considering the disparate cultures, so why would anyone assume that because a gun ban worked in [x] nation so obviously it's good for [y] nation.

I'm not arguing that we need a 100% solution.

I am, however, arguing that we stand a better chance putting money, funding and expertise in areas that we know will have a profound effect, such as mental and physical health, etc

we have effective laws but we refuse to enforce those laws

it is rediculous to make more laws that are even more restrictive in the hopes that those laws will somehow be enforced when we can't fund or enforce existing laws, IMHO.

9. ### Truck Captain StumpyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
890
This is a colloquial interpretation and belief and bears no factual accuracy. if the purpose of conversation is to establish colloqial belief and or disseminate personal opinion, this definition is acceptible, however, I have to argue this point because it's factually incorrect and you keep making a point of reiterating it:

"guns" are the platform or mechanism to deliver a projectile, and as such, they're designed to accurately activate (fire) and or deliver the said projectile under controlled circumstances.

The projectile is designed to deter, damage, disable and or kill.

the Gun is inert metal and it's purpose cannot be to kill as it's incapable of doing such on it's own (unloaded).

.

You can argue that they're both typically used in conjunction with each other, but that is irrelevant considering you don't actually need a gun to deliver a fatal shot. You only require a projectile and a means to activate it.
- Orygunner, Oregon

10. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
14,550
Has anyone, ever, been killed intentionally by a bullet not fired from a gun?

(I mean, I can imagine all sorts of accidents - "a thousand round of ammo fell on him and crushed him!" - but given that we are talking about things designed to kill, has anyone ever used a bullet WITHOUT a gun successfully in this manner?)

11. ### Truck Captain StumpyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
890
used? I can't answer that except to state that unconventional warfare teaches methods to fire a round without a gun (example: zip gun)
the problem is that a bullet without the focus of the gun barrel (or tool) isn't very powerful, but can still be lethal at close range or when it's impact area is dangerouns (femoral artery).

considering modern modifications to ammo, it's not as common for ammunition to discharge without considerable punishment (or by design). This is still a direct threat to firefighters, cops and other emergency services (military included) as a fire with ammo in it can still be as lethal as a gun. It's also still taught in some fire academies with a quick refresher on physics and how to determine the threat level. It is also taught to deployed military as well as certaain specific military courses like improvised weapons, unconventional warfare, munitions supply and storage and USAF base recovery after attack.

found, via MIL-FOIA - Realistic Safe-Separation Distance Determination for Mass Fire Hazards
SS Grandcamp - unknown statistics on cause of death re: bullets vs explosion
HAWTHORNE, NEVADA, U.S - injuries, no fatalities
PUGACHYOVO, UDMIRTIA, RUSSIA - no reported human statistics of any kind available
Ryongchon, North, Korea -162 fatalities (most attributed to explosion) no other reliable data available

I am sure that you can find death statistics on the subject by reviewing fire department, military and other FOIA data, especially that released around certain events considering... cartridge safety wasn't always equivalent to today's standards (WWI, WWII, 1812, Civil War, etc)

12. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,450
Because they are more dangerous in ordinary use, for starters.
Look at the mayhem they cause, the destruction they do, just by accident, even after being as tightly restricted and continually monitored and pillowed with safety features as they are.

And then there's the obvious: because they can be.
The regulation of cars is a constant reminder of what a government - even a decent, representative, functioning government of a relatively free society - will do if it can, and what it will neglect, and how it will justify itself and so forth - its actual "motives", in a sense.

I'm often puzzled at the insistence of gun control advocates - especially the jambing faction - in reminding people of this.
When your arguments have degenerated to this level of absurdity, it's time to take stock, re-evaluate the premises.

13. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
14,550
I don't think an example that requires a homemade gun to be deadly will demonstrate that bullets are dangerous without guns.
Sort of. I was once at a range where a bullet cooked off while it was on the table. (It was a very odd occurrence and the guy at that lane wouldn't talk about it afterwards, so I have a feeling he did something really dumb.) They found the bullet; it had apparently hit the (concrete) ceiling and suffered no deformation and only moderate marking, indicating it didn't have much energy when it hit.

Would it have killed him? We don't know (fortunately) but it was unlikely based on the condition of the bullet.
Agreed. But again that's an argument that bullets are not dangerous without guns.

Doing a cursory web search I found about a dozen firefighters who had been hit by exploding ammunition in house fires. None were killed. One described it - "we went to make entry in the structure that’s when the ammunition started cooking off. I took two to the chest and one to the head." He was not seriously injured and continued to fight the fire.

But all of this is sort of beside the point. It's like arguing "guns or bullets aren't dangerous, it's hammers that are dangerous, because without the hammer the gun won't fire!" Well, yes, but that's sort of missing the point.

14. ### Gawdzilla SamaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,999
Actually, while I handled claims for State Farm we had a case where a five year old ran over his own head. I could tell you how he did it, but where's the fun in that. BTW, I'm no a fanatic gunner, I think 234,000,o00 guns is too damn many, especially with children killing children.

15. ### Gawdzilla SamaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,999
Over at JREF we had people equating swimming pools to guns, "one's just as bad as the other!" It sorted out the facile liars quickly.

16. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,450
Swimming pools are far more dangerous than guns, compared one to one. And rather less useful, in the sense used to defend cars.

From a public health standpoint they would have been banned long ago - or life jackets and helmets required in the fenced off area, depth restricted and soft liners required, limits on number of swimmers, life guard training and licensing requirements, special rules for households with children below pool age, certainly nothing like a diving board permitted, etc. Every year there are tragedies that could have easily been prevented by responsible behavior.

Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
17. ### Gawdzilla SamaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,999
Never had a five year old kill a three year old with a swimming pool he found under the sofa cushions, where a responsible gun owner had stored it safely.

18. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,565
How many people die as a result of a deliberate use of a car in the USA?

19. ### Gawdzilla SamaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,999
Damn few.

In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 of with fatalities, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000. About 2,000 children under 16 die every year in traffic collisions. Records indicate that there have been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.
Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

20. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
22,823
Wait, so your contention is that a gun is not designed for the purpose of killing?

Oh yeah. It would be so much better if the manufacture and use of motor vehicles were not regulated at all... If they were treated like guns, where even little kids would be allowed to drive a car on the road, much like they can own and shoot a firearm! And seatbelts? What a waste of money that is and demanding people wear them is like a nanny state!

What about brakes? Pfft, cars with faulty breaks should be allowed on the road and frankly, the regulations that exist that demand cars not have faulty breaks, broken windscreens, faulty seatbelts, bald tyres is just "a constant reminder of what a government - even a decent, representative, functioning government of a relatively free society - will do if it can, and what it will neglect, and how it will justify itself and so forth - its actual "motives", in a sense."...

I mean, the car manufacturers that were forced to recall cars with faulty steering, faulty airbags, faulty brakes.. It's ridiculous! There should be no regulation to force manufacturers to do this, just as there should be no regulation that should warrant that there be a driving age, that demand people drive while under the limit of speed and alcohol and not be influenced by drugs while behind the wheel of a car. And don't even get me started on laws and regulations that the damn Government imposes on "the people" when it comes to speed limits, particularly those around schools. If people want to drive 100mph past a school at end of day bell time, then they should damn well be allowed to do it and no Government should be regulating that and if a parent wants to drive their car while pissed as a fart with their kids in the back without a seatbelt, then no Government should infringe on the rights of the parents! Damn kids should just learn to run while crossing the road!

I too am often puzzled how gun advocates often wail about car regulations being somewhat unnecessary and the motives behind such regulations, while ignoring the bleeding obvious.

21. ### Truck Captain StumpyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
890
it really depends on proximity to the round and location of the strike. Strikes to ertain area's of the body are dangerous. You can bleed out quickly if certain arteries are punctured -especially if you can't render aid fast enough.

its more of an argument that bullets aren't typically dangerous without being properly utilised.

did ya find one at Randolph AFB circa 1991 or 1992?
cop stealing ammo from the work armoury and hiding it in a dumpster that subsequently was lit by a passing kid...

yes and no. was just making the point that the gun is really just the tool to deliver and focus the bullet.

Purpose and intent have to be established in law

.

and i've never had a five year old take any of my guns, period

accidents happen, especially when people are distracted or refuse to train or be responsible

.

I thought what I stated was pretty clear

22. ### Michael 345Bali 1 week here 2 to goValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,542
Swimming pool no - to big

But my spa fits nicely