Some facts about guns in the US

And many people, once confronted about their suicide attempt and given the attention and care they need don't attempt again... what's your point?

I have several knives, three swords, and a pistol... yet not once since meeting my wife have I ever considered attempting suicide, despite having attempted multiple times in the past. Suicide isn't like buying a pack of gum in the checkout line at the grocery store... it isn't an act of opportunity or impulse... it is something that happens because you have been pushed to an incredibly dark place and don't think you have any other alternative.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is always so 'bullshit'. Think of a good reason to restrict the possession of firearms from 'some people'? Because they're even more dangerous with a firearm. Over the course of my life I've had occasion to be involved with folks I considered very dangerous. They always were armed. That's how it's done in the USA.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK... First of all, where did I say "some people"? Oh, that's right, I didn't... I've been in the military, and until recently, Law Enforcement... I know a bit about firearms... They don't kill, people do. Let's say I wanted to kill you, yet guns didn't exist... I couldn't just stab, choke, poison, burn you to death?... Again, guns don't kill, people do. Where there's a will, there's a way.

ETA...you mentioned the USA... I may be wrong... But, I'm guessing you're not even from here?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some people = dangerous people. The ones you mentioned in your post. Dangerous people kill people with guns. Less guns in the hands of dangerous people = less people killed by dangerous people using guns. Or you could arrest all the dangerous folks. To bad you don't know who they all are.

I live in SoCal. I've lived in the USA for 68 years. Guns just make it easier for dangerous people to apply the dangerous trade. You should know this. I was a punk gremmie 60 years ago.

 

I live in So Cal as well... Born and raised. Your point is taken, a firearm makes it easier for some to commit acts of violence... But, you can't accuse a keyboard of being a troll, can you?... BTW... I'm turning 50, and still a punk... Lol.

 

But you could call the internet a weapon.... just kidding. I live in O'side. My surfing days came to an end about 12 years ago because of a neck injury. Jammed it really bad in an auto accident. Got ran over by a box truck on the Northbound Interstate 5 right by San Onofre.

brucep

 

You're right, the Internet can be seen as a weapon. Sad... Born and raised in L.A. I know Oceanside well though... I was a Navy Corpsman, Fleet Marine Force, for 9 years. And like you, I surfed for years... Hermosa was my fave... But, anyplace that rated over 3 foot would do.

And as I'm sure you must know... My screen name is based on a surfing term. : )... I'm no Gremmie though... Lol

 

It was a fun part of my life. A very big part. It fit so well with my work and family life. I worked 4 on 4 off so I could do early morning or glass off after work depending on the shift.

Later

 

Later Bruce... Nice to hear from another So Cal surfer. Take care bro.

 

As Long As We're Not Talking About Responsibility

It's the separation of the elements that makes your argument seem so strange.

To the one, the problem is people.

To the other, most Second Amendment arguments in the firearms debate rely on a modified—that is, amended—version of the right to bear arms. In that context, we cannot broadly separate people and guns.

However, this argument is also cheap cover. It's almost funny that one can note—

And the firearm advocacy crowd? To the one, nobody's taking their guns away anytime soon. To the other, as I noted, the phrase "responsible gun owner" is meaningless.​

—and yet people go on about the banning of guns.

Furthermore, I think the defense of the gun/killing culture in the United States would have an easier time if it wasn't a combination of guns and killing. To the one, we're passing laws in the states that encourage people to shoot, and with the expected rise in "justifiable" homicides.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Researchers John Roman and Mitchell Downey at the Urban Institute examined overall homicide data and found that cases resembling the Martin shooting—handgun homicides with a single shooter and victim who are strangers to one another—are twice as likely to be deemed justifiable in Stand Your Ground states as they are elsewhere. According to their study, 7.2% of such homicides in non-Stand Your Ground states were deemed justifiable, while 13.6% of the same type of homicides in Stand Your Ground states were deemed justifiable—nearly twice the share.

A Mayors Against Illegal Guns analysis of demographic data shows that the increase in justifiable homicides has disproportionately affected the African American population. The number of both black and white justifiable homicide victims has increased in Stand Your Ground states, but because the rate of victimization among black Americans was already much higher before enactment of Stand Your Ground laws, the subsequent increase has also been more dramatic. Controlling for population, the number of homicides of black people that were deemed justifiable in Stand Your Ground states more than doubled between 2005 and 2011—rising from 0.5 to 1.2 per 100,000 people—while it remained unchanged in the rest of the country.

The Urban Institute also examined racial disparities in justified gun homicide rulings that involve a single shooter and victim who are strangers. The researchers found that when white shooters kill black victims, 34% of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable, while only 3.3% of the deaths are ruled justifiable when the shooter is black and the victim is white. This discrepancy does not appear to be affected by the relative ages of or relationship between the shooters and victims. When an older white man shoots a younger black man with whom he had no prior relationship, the shooting is determined justifiable 49% of the time. Yet when the situation is reversed, and an older black man shoots a younger white man with whom he had no previous relationship, the homicide is only judged justifiable 8% of the time.

(National Urban League, et al.)​

There are a few general sentiments about such outcomes: Those who are shocked; those who would justify such outcomes because, you know, black people; and those who would point out that the SYG laws are working exactly as they were intended.

It has long been apparent to me that the issue really isn't about owning and using guns, but killing people. Mandatory insurance? No accidents under law? Your gun, your responsibility? These are all unacceptable to the firearm advocates I've known over the years.

Think of it this way: When it's a gang-banger killing a rival for a $100 pair of shoes, we're all supposed to be appalled at the shooter. But when a guy shoots someone in the back for swiping twenty bucks from a tip jar at a hot dog stand, we're supposed to ... what, admire the shooter? I mean, sure, the dead guy tried to swipe the tip jar. Bad move. But shooting him in the back? What this reminds is that the value of human life is very, very low when one has a gun in his hands.

And that is the problem with the firearm lobby and its surrogates and sympathizers.

You want to tell me the problem is people? Well, guess what? We have no reason to trust the people with guns.

Of course, if we all went and strapped up in order to defend ourselves against these "responsible gun owners", well, see, that's the whole point of the firearm lobby's argument. The whole purpose seems to be to create conditions under which everyone needs a gun.

The problem is this: Gun owners are a risky enough bunch that, under SYG, I have no reason to not stick a knife in the throat of the first guy I find who's packing heat. Gun owners are just that fuckin' dangerous.

It's probably best for all of us, then, that I do not believe in such a world.

I don't know what it would take to compel me to end another person's life for reasons of "self defense" or twenty bucks worth of machismo. Life has a greater value to me than revenge, pride, a car stereo, the tip jar, or a tavern brawl. In truth, I can't imagine living in such profound, perpetual fear.
____________________

Notes:

Murphy, Tim. "Justifiable Homicides Up 200 Percent in Florida Post-Stand Your Ground". Mother Jones. September 16, 2013. MotherJones.com. March 15, 2014. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/09/stand-your-ground-justifiable-homicide-increase

National Urban League, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and VoteVets. Shoot First: 'Stand Your Ground' Laws and Their Effect on Violent Crime and the Criminal Justice System. September, 2013. MayorsAgainstIllegalGuns.org. March 15, 2014. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/images/ShootFirst_v4.pdf

 

Ya know, sometimes I don't really know where you're coming from...Plain and simple question for ya... Do people kill, or guns? There is no grey area here. People are evil... We hate, we steal, we kill... It's a dog eat dog world... Don't blame a dog for barking... It's what they do.

 

Nobody Says You Have to Eat 'Em

I know the feeling. I would ask you to stand still while I scramble you some eggs, but some might consider that a threat against your life.

 

Dude... Maybe it's the meds I'm on, but that post made no sense. Please expand. I respect you, you are intelligent... Yours was the first post, I ever read here at SF. But, sometimes you baffle me. This is one of those times. Are you asking me a question, or making a statement?

 

Tiassa, no disrespect mate, but I'm not entirely sure where you were going with that post either...

 

Considering Irresponsibility

General Response

Go back to #490. To the one, this is "some facts about guns in the US"; the digression on banning guns is inevitable.

To the other, though, this is ridiculous. Not only have I had the opportunity to consider cloacal velocity and lethality, but the effort to dismiss the fact of what guns are—lethal weapons—is itself somewhat astounding. To the other, as Repo Man put it:

"You don't often hear of convenience store clerks being robbed by being threatened with "If you don't give me all of your money, I'm going to bring you bacon and egg sandwiches every morning until you die a premature death from heart disease!"​

Really, that's how silly the discussion gets when we all watch the birdie instead of look at what's actually happening.

Like I said, when the egg misfired, nobody died.

But, of course, that was simply a response to Captain Kremmen, who was wont to remind, "Eggs are dangerous because of the risk of Salmonella."

You know, so like I said, I would ask you to stand still while I scramble you some eggs, but some might consider that a threat against your life.

It's just that after a while, one wearies of the distractions and straw men: "Plain and simple question for ya... Do people kill, or guns? There is no grey area here."

And sometimes one just doesn't feel like repeating himself:

The gun lobby has spent much effort trying to convince us that the problem isn't guns. And, in a way, they're exactly right: People with guns are the problem. But these are the United States of America; banning the possession of firearms is not something we are allowed to do without changing the Constitution. But banning the possession of firearms is a great straw man for "responsible gun owners" seeking to change the discussion to anything but responsibility.​

I mean, really, it's getting pretty silly in here.

 

I'm sorry... But it just seems your argument, is semantics. Tomato, tomatoe. It seems your arguement is politically based, not so much personnaly based... But, I digress. To each their own.

 

Sorry, I'll have to re-read that in the morning when I'm not addled by sleepiness - I really can't follow... but I think it's just me being tired. Let my brain reboot and I'll try again in the AM.

 

All we get from our elected 'leaders' is distractions and straw men. Intellectually and morally this nation is in the 'trough'.

 

Like I said in an earlier post, 'responsible gun ownership is a thing of the past' and the way I see it if we as a nation cannot enact gun controls that make this the rule and not the exception then ban the mutha,s. Besides, I will be glad to help Bloomberg spend his gazillions on this worthy cause.

 

I'm less pessimistic in a sense. Take gun banning off the table - really take it off the table, so that the people who would be in charge of that kind of regulation are not in fact and in public pushing an agenda that would impose a wholesale and bureaucratically mudbound override of civil liberties and common sense on the millions of Americans who for whatever reason want to keep a firearm around the house, and I think the general run of firearm advocates in my neighborhood would suddenly be found on the side of the squint-eyed, pragmatic angels.

Isolate the nuts. They really aren't the political power center they appear to be - and I live in Michelle Bachmann's home district. All their neighbors know they are dangerous lunatics. Which puts these neighbors one up on the crowd that doesn't recognize the dangerous lunacy in a public debate over whether people should be allowed - by their government - to have guns.

But that may appear to be even more pessimistic, I s'pose.