So 37.5% of murders are committed using something other than a gun. We have a continuing violence problem, but going after one specific object isn't going to solve that.
I don't focus on the tool being used. I am concerned with the act. The easy way out is to remove an object from society, but that won't solve the underlying problem.
Reducing gun availability to the dangerous assholes who are doing the violence is a moral imperative. But you don't give a shit about what's right if it might inconvenience you even a little bit.
Wait. Those numbers do not add up. If you add all those numbers up, you come up with 11659, not 12664. Also, if you add up the handgun, rifle and shotgun numbers you get 6899, not the 8563 that is listed. You would have to add in 1664 of the "other/not stated", which makes no sense since they are unknown. So, Mike, where DID this chart come from?
62.5% are committed by using a gun, an overwhelming majority. No one thing will solve the problem. Does that mean we don't even try to cut those numbers? Since guns are the choice of killers, starting with guns seems logical. There are steps that will cut those numbers, but you are unwilling to even try some of those steps. Which means you are comfortable with 33,000 deaths a year by guns; and irrational with your stand that nothing will help.
We've tried a lot of steps. We've taxes certain guns out if the mainstream, we've instituted a prohibited persons class, a background check system to identify those prohibited for retail sales, restriction on interstate private commerce, bans on the import of whole classes of otherwise legal guns, etc. we've done none of those things for knives. So do you think we should start to try and bring those 1700 knife deaths down with "common sense" knife control?
But as we've seen repeatedly in states and cities that have onerous gun control, the results are so often poor that there is no evidence to say that regulating guns does anything other than burden good citizens.
At least you are honest and proclaim that needless deaths from guns are OK. Of course that position promotes death, thank you for making yourself clear. .
Anonymous, please don't put words into my mouth. I deny that gun control would save the lives that you claim. That does not mean that I see needless deaths as acceptable. I see the solution as something other than what Mikeb demands.
Now I understand why you started with Jim. Sorry, since I'm not Jim and there is another Jim currently posting I did not catch you were responding to me. Gun control has worked. If rates of violence are so much less today, that only supports fewer guns are needed, not more.
As I pointed out in the other thread, the amount of knife deaths is well above your threshold where "something must be done". The whole EU has ~1000 gun murders per year, and far more restrictions on guns, yet you still call for more. Given how unregulated knives are in the USA, I would assume you'd have to call for at least some moderate knife control to attempt to bring those 1700 murders down.
You're either being facetious or your a hypocrite. How often have you signed onto the cold-hearted argument that the number of gun deaths is so small a percentage when divided by the number of gun owners or the number of guns or the total population that nothing needs to be done? But now, to make your stupid point, your harping repeatedly on the knife thing. Facetious or hypocritical, take your pick.
I write about gun control. I don't write about Ebola virus control, or plutonium control or knife control. That doesn't mean I'm not for those things, especially if it means not being a hypocrite in your eyes.
One distinction that you're trying to gloss over in your slick double-talking way is that guns have one purpose, to kill. Knives, on the other hand, are made to cut things and like many other objects, CAN be used to kill, but that's not their primary purpose.
For this reason, guns require special restrictions.
My point as I stated before, is not that you should ask for the same restrictions on knives as guns. You want the restrictions on guns to be "special" - above and beyond that of other weapons because they're "designed to kill" and more people die by them? Fine, that is consistent with your logic. But we have NOTHING (certainly by your definition) in the way of proper knife control. You are very cagey about not wanting to even talk about it, and constantly making rationalizations of why guns are different. But if "design" is the key differentiator, then should Samurai swords be more regulated? Those aren't made to dice tomatoes.
So 37.5% of murders are committed using something other than a gun. We have a continuing violence problem, but going after one specific object isn't going to solve that.
ReplyDeleteYou're so biased it's ridiculous. What percentage would be enough for you to admit something needs to be done about gun availability? Would 90% do it?
DeleteI don't focus on the tool being used. I am concerned with the act. The easy way out is to remove an object from society, but that won't solve the underlying problem.
DeleteReducing gun availability to the dangerous assholes who are doing the violence is a moral imperative. But you don't give a shit about what's right if it might inconvenience you even a little bit.
DeleteAre you ever going to drop that "minor inconvenience" bit? Do I have to repeat the list of your demands? Those aren't minor.
DeleteAnd let's not forget the severe penalties for these "minor inconveniences". Prison is no minor inconvenience.
DeleteWait. Those numbers do not add up. If you add all those numbers up, you come up with 11659, not 12664. Also, if you add up the handgun, rifle and shotgun numbers you get 6899, not the 8563 that is listed. You would have to add in 1664 of the "other/not stated", which makes no sense since they are unknown. So, Mike, where DID this chart come from?
ReplyDeleteI think you're missing something. That category called "other/not stated" is in the firearms area. It's blue.
Delete62.5% are committed by using a gun, an overwhelming majority. No one thing will solve the problem. Does that mean we don't even try to cut those numbers? Since guns are the choice of killers, starting with guns seems logical. There are steps that will cut those numbers, but you are unwilling to even try some of those steps. Which means you are comfortable with 33,000 deaths a year by guns; and irrational with your stand that nothing will help.
ReplyDeleteWe've tried a lot of steps. We've taxes certain guns out if the mainstream, we've instituted a prohibited persons class, a background check system to identify those prohibited for retail sales, restriction on interstate private commerce, bans on the import of whole classes of otherwise legal guns, etc. we've done none of those things for knives. So do you think we should start to try and bring those 1700 knife deaths down with "common sense" knife control?
DeleteBut as we've seen repeatedly in states and cities that have onerous gun control, the results are so often poor that there is no evidence to say that regulating guns does anything other than burden good citizens.
DeleteWe haven't done shit. Proper gun control has never even been started.
DeleteAnd never will, if we have anything to do with it.
DeleteAt least you are honest and proclaim that needless deaths from guns are OK. Of course that position promotes death, thank you for making yourself clear. .
DeleteAnonymous, please don't put words into my mouth. I deny that gun control would save the lives that you claim. That does not mean that I see needless deaths as acceptable. I see the solution as something other than what Mikeb demands.
DeleteWe have used gun control before, it does work. Not 100%, nothing works 100%. Denying the facts is not an intelligent way to proceed.
DeleteJim, we've had gun control in various forms, and it has failed always. Rates of violence were much higher in the past than they are today.
DeleteNow I understand why you started with Jim. Sorry, since I'm not Jim and there is another Jim currently posting I did not catch you were responding to me. Gun control has worked. If rates of violence are so much less today, that only supports fewer guns are needed, not more.
DeleteAs I pointed out in the other thread, the amount of knife deaths is well above your threshold where "something must be done". The whole EU has ~1000 gun murders per year, and far more restrictions on guns, yet you still call for more. Given how unregulated knives are in the USA, I would assume you'd have to call for at least some moderate knife control to attempt to bring those 1700 murders down.
ReplyDeleteYou're either being facetious or your a hypocrite. How often have you signed onto the cold-hearted argument that the number of gun deaths is so small a percentage when divided by the number of gun owners or the number of guns or the total population that nothing needs to be done? But now, to make your stupid point, your harping repeatedly on the knife thing. Facetious or hypocritical, take your pick.
DeleteHe's pointing to the high measure of nonsense in your position, Mikeb.
DeleteI am not being hypocritical. I don't support knife control. I am simply showing how you would be a hypocrite if you don't.
DeleteI write about gun control. I don't write about Ebola virus control, or plutonium control or knife control. That doesn't mean I'm not for those things, especially if it means not being a hypocrite in your eyes.
DeleteOne distinction that you're trying to gloss over in your slick double-talking way is that guns have one purpose, to kill. Knives, on the other hand, are made to cut things and like many other objects, CAN be used to kill, but that's not their primary purpose.
For this reason, guns require special restrictions.
They don't require special restrictions. You want them to have special restrictions.
DeleteA deadly weapon should have special restrictions, it's not the same a buying a flower
DeleteMy point as I stated before, is not that you should ask for the same restrictions on knives as guns. You want the restrictions on guns to be "special" - above and beyond that of other weapons because they're "designed to kill" and more people die by them? Fine, that is consistent with your logic. But we have NOTHING (certainly by your definition) in the way of proper knife control. You are very cagey about not wanting to even talk about it, and constantly making rationalizations of why guns are different. But if "design" is the key differentiator, then should Samurai swords be more regulated? Those aren't made to dice tomatoes.
DeleteYou have your opinion, and I have the Constitution. But tell me this: What if that flower is an opium poppy?
DeleteThat's a dense comparison. Poppies are not designed to kill. They are natural to the natural world. Something a gun is not.
Delete