hit me with your best graph

 

I see the US having the highest firearm homicide rate of any industrialized first-world nation with a stable police force and a fair court system, which isn't under military / gang rule.

 

Oh geez. Here's an interesting analysis.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811346.pdf


So...if you want fewer auto fatalities, steer the economy into a recession so that youths stay home and play video games instead of driving to work.

 

Makes sense. And you also see an uptick in firearm deaths during that same period, as bored, unemployed people are more likely to commit suicide / murder / armed robbery.

 

why does the tool matter? We are ranked VERY low for homocide rates, and the top 10 countries have VERY strict anti-gun laws.

 

Brainey, I created a new thread for your arguments in favor of eugenics / ethnic-cleansing, so as to keep this thread about firearms legislation. You can find it here: https://www.miataturbo.net/current-e...quently-86897/


Edit: I see that you've retracted your statements and deleted the thread.

Edit 2: This thread isn't about electoral politics, it's about firearms legislation. Please stay on topic. I happen to agree with you on that topic, but this isn't the place for it.

 

oh **** off deleting my ****. you ****.

 

From the FBI:
8,583 homicides are commited by firearm. Most of the rest of the total Joe posted are suicides.
Using the 400 police shootings you posted, police killings account for ~4.6% of homicides with firearms.
Just to be clear, I am completely ok with bad guys being killed by police.

 

Yes, I agree, I don't think the tool being used is as significant as it's made out to be. Showing that more guns leads to more gun homicides is a straw argument, as a country can theoretically eliminate guns and gun perf-uh-nerra (paraphernalia) to get to zero gun-related-deaths while it's citizens fearlessly kill each other at the astounding rate of .1%/year with sticks and stones. The ideal "deaths vs. guns" graph shows total guns vs. all homicides - or even "gun owners per capita" vs. "all homicides per capita".

 

 

 

 

And that includes all the inner city gang-bangers. If we graphed homicides only committed by lawful gun owners, it wouldn't rise above the bottom line.

 

Needs more perspective:



The graph you posted only shows that auto deaths has dramatically decreased in recent years and that gun death is remaining steady. The day obama declares that all people going outside must wear body armor, youll also also see a drop in the gun deaths line iin a similar manner. So your call for car-control laws IS the case...

If we plotted the same , along with the number of cars on road and guns on street, it would look even more favorable for guns.

Autos are getting safer over time through safety standards and things like seat belt laws. History shows a spike in the murder rate everytime guns gets regulated. All in all we are much safer today than we ever in recent history than we ever were. If you look at my chart, you can see auto deaths are simply narrowing the gap, but that homicides in general are also in similar decline.

The problem is, were are comparing accidents vs intential murder. We could probably argue that it would be best to compare DUI related fatalities vs gun murders, because at least there's some aspect of criminal behavior. But we all know accidents is one of the biggest killers in the world -- in fact it's the 4th highest cause of death. Murder doesn't make the top ten, but suicide does (although it makes the list for ages 1-24).

 

 

Said it before, saying it again: Evangelical open-carry advocates do more harm to the image of legitimate gun-owners than any ten mass-shooters.




Surprised nobody has yet mentioned the editorial which ran on the front page of The Times this morning. The one which specifically calls for the complete banning and confiscation of guns which look scary.

Brief excerpt:

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Full text: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/op...n-america.html

Trouble is, merely removing "certain kinds of weapons" ain't gonna do jack ****. So long as anyone has access to anything that'll fire a bullet, qualifying access to certain guns based on their aesthetic characteristics will accomplish absolutely nothing other than to **** off law-abiding citizens.




Here's a useful infographic showing all the weapons used in the 121 largest mass-shootings since 1996. It's the second one from the top: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...gs-in-america/

Notice how few of those weapons are "military-style assault rifles." The majority are either sporting / hunting long guns, shotguns, or semi-auto pistols. Even a few revolvers (mostly .38s) round out the mix.






An open letter to US lawmakers:

Time to **** or get off the pot. You need to either repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban / confiscate ALL firearms in civilian ownership, or just walk away and leave the whole firearms market completely unregulated.

Either way, stop ******* around with onesy-twosy laws which accomplish nothing but to create confusion and criminalize nonviolent citizens.

 

no one reads the NY times.

plus one word: inalienable.

 

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation/videos/10153859461221833/