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.
Say, for example, we have a trend of gun-violence incidents going down, but still the absolute numbers (as just posted) are still too high for anyone to consider them acceptable? What need for context do we need to make that assessment.
We accept those numbers and worse for road traffic accidents. The stats on RTA just deaths were 32,675 (source NHTSA 2014), 9,967 were from impaired driving from intoxication, 2.3 million people were injured in accidents related to motor vehicles.
So in answer to your question, if all things are equal, if we're prepared to accept the carnage of motor vehicles as acceptable we can't, if we're intellectually consistent, consider the carnage of firearms as unacceptable. Purely from a statistical standpoint, because we know that RTA's and guns both exist within the same common environment and context here in the US.
The context we need is the "trigger" that makes fewer people killed and wounded by an item more important than more people killed and wounded by a different item. Because purely statistically we accept more carnage from road accidents than guns and there isn't any hoopla about banning or regulating cars.
Why are states rights so hard to understand for some? The FEDERAL government is not supposed to declare laws across the board. Again, such notions are an attack on the Constitution.
Great question! Gun laws in Illinois are far more relaxed than in Chicago. Want to own a gun, move a few miles out of the city limits. THAT is what makes states rights so important. Not only was it designed to keep the fed from taking all the power, but it gives people a right to vote with their feet.
The Constitution is meant to protect certain rights of the people against the tyranny of the majority in any given geographic area of this country. A citizen has a right to own a gun whether he lives in Chicago or Alaska.
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans — including 42.8% of gun owners — say that if they were to buy a new firearm, they would choose one equipped with technology that prevents it from being fired by an unauthorized user, a new national survey has found.
The survey suggests an openness to so-called smart guns, personalized weapons and childproof firearms. Their development has been championed in recent years by the Obama administration as well as a range of physicians’ groups and public health advocates.
All have argued that the adoption of such guns would reduce the number of accidental injuries — often involving children — and suicides by teens and others who use someone else’s weapon to end their lives. The technology probably would prevent criminals from using stolen firearms and protect most gun owners from having their weapon wrestled away and used against them.
If this is where you get your information to form your opinions, it is no wonder you are so confused on the issue.
"In a nationally representative Web-based poll of 3,949 Americans"
Do you REALLY think a web based poll is accurate?
I note there is NO link to the actual poll and HOW they did the poll, how it was weighed, etc.
Just another anti-gun hit piece from a VERY liberal anti-gun media site.
Great point.
100% of Americans support the execution of blacks and Jews, according to a nationally representative Web-based survey of 4,000 Americans, reports the KKK Weekly Reader.
By the way, it would take me about 15 minutes to automate survey responses. Have proxy list and automated testing software, will travel.
I get the idea that you along with many others are very good at pointing at exceptions to the rule and then sitting back with a sense of discussion over. Anybody can pick and choose what numbers they want for sake of their agenda, what stories to tell, what examples they prefer to highlight, but always these numbers persist no matter how much we try to deny them or how (here again as posted just before):
Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and injuries annually. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent" for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.
Plus or minus whatever margin of error, are these stats acceptable? Yes or no?
Where are they getting all these violent guns? I have a few, less than 20. I have yet to find one that has been even slightly violent. Is there a pit bull of guns out there somewhere?
The problem isn't the guns in this country. It's the high level of CRIMINALS in this country. Ones we refuse to lock up even after they have preyed on innocent people. Our culture, our lack of value of human life in many areas and our lack of willingness to accept personal responsibility for our actions is the underlying problem.
What's the absolute number of Yaplap injuries that are acceptable? 4? 388? 3,249,277?
Good question. You tell me, and we might get to the bottom of what is acceptable...
Another element to consider as we seem to be doing a bit more intelligently in this thread than others is the level of pain and anguish each incident brings. Given the horrific tragedy that say a child killed in a drive-by can bring, or when a child kills another with a gun for whatever reason, or as represented by any of those numbers posted earlier, what we are really weighing is the pain and suffering of each of those incidents along with the count.
IOWs, these are not just numbers. Luckily for most of us, that pain and suffering is not directly felt, it's remote, something that happens to other people, and as such it is very hard to measure tragedies in quantifiable terms, not easy but necessary. We're not talking about the pain and suffering of buying a bad meal here or a car that doesn't run well after all...
Then we're asked the question, how much of that pain and suffering is acceptable as well, but even more importantly, how much is preventable? To the extent we can prevent any of it, why shouldn't we? Within reasonable practical limits of course, why shouldn't we?
Like the dumbarse example of the "smart bed" analogy brought to light, before the federal regulations adopted to make baby cribs safer, I'll bet we did not have the number of crib deaths as we do many other types of tragic deaths. I don't think there were many people pointing at the low number as compared to auto-deaths, because that's not the issue. The issue or question is the pain and suffering that goes with a baby killed by a bad crib and why not prevent those deaths, regardless the number? With appropriate regulation of crib manufacturing as has been implemented.
Then too there is a another consideration when it comes to many of these analogies vs guns. The auto analogy for example. We all use cars to get around. They serve us a purpose, and we all must accept the risks of driving to take advantage of all a car provides us in the way of mobility. Fortunately, those risks are not too high given all the miles we drive, but they exist. Biggest difference with a death on the road vs a death by shooting, is that at least as fellow car drivers, we're all making use of cars. That's not the same as someone with no interest in guns that gets shot with one, accidentally or not.
Either way, we DO what we can to prevent auto-accidents and improve auto-safety to the extent possible, regardless the numbers as a percent or trend. For a variety of reasons, we are called upon to do the same to prevent gun-related injuries and deaths, regardless the numbers -- what we can.
Good question. You tell me, and we might get to the bottom of what is acceptable...
Another element to consider as we seem to be doing a bit more intelligently in this thread than others is the level of pain and anguish each incident brings. Given the horrific tragedy that say a child killed in a drive-by can bring, or when a child kills another with a gun for whatever reason, or as represented by any of those numbers posted earlier, what we are really weighing is the pain and suffering of each of those incidents along with the count.
IOWs, these are not just numbers. Luckily for most of us, that pain and suffering is not directly felt, it's remote, something that happens to other people, and as such it is very hard to measure tragedies in quantifiable terms, not easy but necessary. We're not talking about the pain and suffering of buying a bad meal here or a car that doesn't run well after all...
Then we're asked the question, how much of that pain and suffering is acceptable as well, but even more importantly, how much is preventable? To the extent we can prevent any of it, why shouldn't we? Within reasonable practical limits of course, why shouldn't we?
Like the dumbarse example of the "smart bed" analogy brought to light, before the federal regulations adopted to make baby cribs safer, I'll bet we did not have the number of crib deaths as we do many other types of tragic deaths. I don't think there were many people pointing at the low number as compared to auto-deaths, because that's not the issue. The issue or question is the pain and suffering that goes with a baby killed by a bad crib and why not prevent those deaths, regardless the number? With appropriate regulation of crib manufacturing as has been implemented.
Then too there is a another consideration when it comes to many of these analogies vs guns. The auto analogy for example. We all use cars to get around. They serve us a purpose, and we all must accept the risks of driving to take advantage of all a car provides us in the way of mobility. Fortunately, those risks are not too high given all the miles we drive, but they exist. Biggest difference with a death on the road vs a death by shooting, is that at least as fellow car drivers, we're all making use of cars. That's not the same as someone with no interest in guns that gets shot with one, accidentally or not.
Either way, we DO what we can to prevent auto-accidents and improve auto-safety to the extent possible, regardless the numbers as a percent or trend. For a variety of reasons, we are called upon to do the same to prevent gun-related injuries and deaths, regardless the numbers -- what we can.
My opinion anyway...
Unfortunately, emotions aren't measurable. Each tragedy stands on its own, which is why you can't draw the line between 5,387 deaths being "acceptable" and 5,388 are "not acceptable". I get the feeling that's why you're refusing to give the number too. But feel free to correct that by stating the exact number that's acceptable.
So can we put that unanswerable "do I look fat in this dress" type question to bed?
Then too there is a another consideration when it comes to many of these analogies vs guns. The auto analogy for example. We all use cars to get around. They serve us a purpose, and we all must accept the risks of driving to take advantage of all a car provides us in the way of mobility. Fortunately, those risks are not too high given all the miles we drive, but they exist. Biggest difference with a death on the road vs a death by shooting, is that at least as fellow car drivers, we're all making use of cars. That's not the same as someone with no interest in guns that gets shot with one, accidentally or not.
Tell that to the around 5000 pedestrians who were killed by motor vehicles, or the 4500 motorcyclists who were also killed by motor vehicles (possibly their own), they were not at the time of their expiration making use of cars.
The issue is this, you've claimed several times you friends consider you a numbers guy. Well if you were then you'd either take my position which is that 32,000 deaths and 2.3 million injuries are considered acceptable for a car, so pft, guns, they're nothing. Or you should be focusing on the greater impact of road traffic accidents. Which are to be frank in the vast majority of cases entirely preventable.
People don't need to drive, we choose to. There are a million ways to provide people goods services and employment without the need for a car, there just needs to be the will to do so. There is no such will to develop walkable communities, or provide public transportation, or for companies able to do so to telecommute, so we'll keep nibbling around the edges including technology that reduces risk of death to the driver, but does little for those people who are not in a car or light truck, an ABS, ABS actually provides you with around a 100ms wider window to prevent a collision, under the best conditions, under the worst it can actually reduce your window (but they're fringe cases and not considered important).
The risks are not too high, but your chance of being killed in an RTA are more than three times the chance of being intentionally killed by a gun. Your chance of being injured in an RTA is more than 25 times the chance of being injured with a gun. However those risks are apparently not too high, but they are for guns. That as I mentioned is logically inconsistent, doubly so for a self proclaimed numbers guy, numbers guys are only interested in the numbers, and the numbers are quite straight forward. Let me put it this way...
You have 32,000 deaths and 2.3 Million injuries from cause A.
You have 11,000 deaths and 90,000 injuries from cause B.
Which cause is the higher priority?
I think the issue with the auto analogy is quite simple, it illuminates an inconvenient truth you and others do not wish to address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Either way, we DO what we can to prevent auto-accidents and improve auto-safety to the extent possible, regardless the numbers as a percent or trend. For a variety of reasons, we are called upon to do the same to prevent gun-related injuries and deaths, regardless the numbers -- what we can.
My opinion anyway...
It's a matter of scale. The bigger the issue the more response should be provided. However that isn't what we see, for decades tens of thousands have died and millions have been injured on the roads of the US and it's a perfectly acceptable price to pay for our convenience and pleasure (note I don't think people even consider it as acceptable or not, they just don't consider it a choice). However it's not an acceptable price to pay for a constitutionally protected right, the right of self defense.
Unfortunately, emotions aren't measurable. Each tragedy stands on its own, which is why you can't draw the line between 5,387 deaths being "acceptable" and 5,388 are "not acceptable". I get the feeling that's why you're refusing to give the number too. But feel free to correct that by stating the exact number that's acceptable.
So can we put that unanswerable "do I look fat in this dress" type question to bed?
I don't know that emotions are measurable, but I think we all have a sense of how to measure them in some form. The difference between emotions related to being a little over weight vs losing a child, for example, are extremely different even if we can't measure that exact difference. We all know that injuries and deaths, no matter what the cause, are tragic rather than just disappointing, so we treat the problem of injuries and deaths with a good deal more seriousness and urgency than we do problems that don't tend to bring that sort of pain and suffering. Fair?
That said, I don't think the question you want answered is the right one, but many people will answer that even one preventable death or injury is worth preventing, worth striving for. I tend to agree, and then we strive toward that end until our smarts and/or resources are applied to the fullest extent that makes sense. That's really the question. What CAN we do that makes the best sense given our smarts and resources.
Perhaps no more easy a question to answer, and perhaps best left to those who have all the necessary information available, not only in terms of options but available resources, much like we are forever faced with the benefit of more police on the beat vs what it costs.
Tell that to the around 5000 pedestrians who were killed by motor vehicles, or the 4500 motorcyclists who were also killed by motor vehicles (possibly their own), they were not at the time of their expiration making use of cars.
Interesting addition or qualification introduced here with "time of their expiration."
Most all of us use cars to get around once we become old enough to drive. Not so with most all of us when it comes to using guns.
Most all of us recognize and readily accept the risks that go with our use of cars and how cars are typically used by others who own cars. Just like we all eat but run the risk of food poisoning, or like we all use a stove to cook but run the risk of something catching on fire when doing so. None of these examples are the same when it comes to most of us and the use of guns.
Now you even try to suggest that although we all use cars, as pedestrians killed by motor vehicles, those pedestrians are not using a car at the "time of their expiration."
If that somehow makes a difference or somehow serves as a counter-argument with regard to how use of a car is significantly different than use of a gun, then my patience is about to "expire."
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.
You tell me?
