Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not just Europe. Also North America and Asia. The large majority of first-world nations all beat us on per-capita violence rates. Consistently. Across multiple data sources.
Stop pretending you care about the lives so much if unrestrained gun proliferation is your goal. The two concepts are in direct conflict.
I'm not pretending about anything.
I want very specific answers.
1 - If more people die from drunk driving related incidents than guns. If you were to make sweeping legislation controlling alcohol...would it or would it not address the more significant causation? And subsequently, would it not also make the nation "safer"??
and
2 - I'd like to know why murder is worse than unintentional homicide when the unintended homicide is a direct consequence of a deliberated action that could have been prevented??
Also, within the scope of each respective tragedy, let's assume 1,000 people die from gun assault in one year. The same year 1,000 people die from drunk driving related accidents. The gun murders are spread out over 20 incidents in the year. The drunk driving accidents are spread out over 500 isolated incidents throughout the year.
Why are murder sprees worse if the aggregate attrition is the same?
Even considering, and we will always come back to this , the real life aggregate attrition from drunk driving is GREATER....
1 - If more people die from drunk driving related incidents than guns. If you were to make sweeping legislation controlling alcohol...would it or would it not address the more significant causation? And subsequently, would it not also make the nation "safer"??
and
2 - I'd like to know why murder is worse than unintentional homicide when the unintended homicide is a direct consequence of a deliberated action that could have been prevented??
Also, within the scope of each respective tragedy, let's assume 1,000 people die from gun assault in one year. The same year 1,000 people die from drunk driving related accidents. The gun murders are spread out among 20 incidents in the year. The drunk driving accidents are spread out over 500 isolated incidents throughout the year.
Why are murder sprees worse if the aggregate attrition is the same?
Even considering, and we will always come back to this , the real life aggregate attrition from drunk driving is MORE....
..and of the number of people who have too much to drink and drive, what percentage of them actually kill people....versus the nut who decides they want to kill people and get's their hands on a gun?
At some point adults need to start talking to childish gun fetishists like the children they are, not as if they should be taken seriously.
I'll spell it out later when there is time. Look to Sweden and Switzerland as case studies. Both nations have a lot of gun ownership and a fraction of our per capita homicide rates - guns or otherwise. While they have cases of violence as well, instances of crazies shooting up public venues are much less frequent.
And they have gun control laws that would make an American conservative squeal like a girl.
They also have a culture that is not as prone to glorification of violence and extreme hard-edged "every man is an island and must fight to survive" individualism. That kinda helps as well.
At some point adults need to start talking to childish gun fetishists like the children they are, not as if they should be taken seriously.
Ah - so people who uphold the First Amendment are freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of press, and freedom to petition fetishists?
How about people who support the 14th Amendment - are they children whose desire for due process and equal protection under the law should not be taken seriously?
How about those who benefit from the 15th Amendment - are they uppity, childish, suffrage fetishists who need adult supervision?
You should be careful how you characterize proponents of the constitution, because if you deny people you don't like civil rights, you may find yourself on the short end further down the road.
..and of the number of people who have too much to drink and drive, what percentage of them actually kill people....versus the nut who decides they want to kill people and get's their hands on a gun?
versus the nut.....
At some point adults need to start talking to childish gun fetishists like the children they are, not as if they should be taken seriously.
Wait, what demographics are you comparing here?
Drunk drivers and gun owners? Meaning "gun criminals AND responsible gun owners"
or Drunk Drivers and Psychopaths?
So, a bona fide "nut", who wants to kill people, just stops when he cannot get his hands on a gun??
Elliot Rodger had a gun...but yet chose to use more colorful options... So what gives?
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion, and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
- United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4.
The truth is that an increased proliferation of guns easily accessible by everyone everywhere has made us less safe than first-world nations with reasonable comprehensive gun control measures. Grapple with that.
There is no increased proliferation of guns. Guns stores have been around for years. 2nd amendment has been around for more than a few years too. Guns were just as easy to acquire 25 years ago as they are today.
1 - If more people die from drunk driving related incidents than guns. If you were to make sweeping legislation controlling alcohol...would it or would it not address the more significant causation? And subsequently, would it not also make the nation "safer"??
and
2 - I'd like to know why murder is worse than unintentional homicide when the unintended homicide is a direct consequence of a deliberated action that could have been prevented??
Also, within the scope of each respective tragedy, let's assume 1,000 people die from gun assault in one year. The same year 1,000 people die from drunk driving related accidents. The gun murders are spread out over 20 incidents in the year. The drunk driving accidents are spread out over 500 isolated incidents throughout the year.
Why are murder sprees worse if the aggregate attrition is the same?
Even considering, and we will always come back to this , the real life aggregate attrition from drunk driving is GREATER....
Basing action on pure magnitude is dumb. If you premise action on gun violence as requiring a death toll greater than any other source of death, then you're going to have a lot of crazy people shooting up movie theaters and pizza parlors before anything is done.
When it comes to policy, it's not "one or the other." We continually try to pursue improved reasonable safeguards against driving accidents and DUI deaths, both technological and legislative. We can do the same with guns at the same time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, the real life aggregate attrition from drunk driving is GREATER....
