Thread: Your Favorite Director at it again.

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

lol suicide is illegal...that´s kinda weird isn´t it? hahah...how does that work?

I know right? Another genius law... I guess it's incentive to succeed in your attempt or go to jail? lol

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Yes but you are making two assumptions here...

1. That we can do something about it.
2. That we should do something about it.

We have far bigger fish to fry in terms of causes of death than guns in this country. More people die of poisoning than gun deaths for example, according to the CDC... For example:

From CDC 2010 causes of death:
Injury deaths 180,811; per 100,000 population: 58.6
Motor vehicle traffic deaths 33,687 (10,228 due to drunk driving); per 100,000 population: 10.9
Poisoning deaths 42,917; per 100,000 population: 13.9
Firearm deaths 31,672 (19,000 by suicide); per 100,000 population: 10.3

I want you to think about the actual scope of the situation. Should we be expending energy saying firearms deaths are too high when 60% of them are by suicide and our deaths by car accident is so high? By the way, suicide is technically illegal in most states - has that stopped anyone? What about poisonings? Shouldn't we do something about that?

That said, I tend in most cases to think that we can't affect the kind of change you're talking about through legislation. The NRA has done some fantastic work on gun safety awareness and self protection that are a good start, but we could certainly be doing more as a people to educate and inform. Legislation, I dunno, not so much.

Also, for non-suicide deaths by firearm, gangs or gang related activity represents about half of that number. So I suppose if you want to take down death rates by firearm, you would want to start with expansive suicide prevention programs and crack down on gangs.

Problem is, neither of those is a popular platform to run on in a national election when talking about guns, now is it? It's much more profitable for political candidates to talk about the boogeyman out there with a gun who is waiting to shoot up a school or something, which we both know represents an absolutely minuscule part of the numbers.

Here's the thing though - the US deaths by injury, motor vehicle, and poisoning are all within a reasonable range when looking at worldwide statistics. However, when you look at death by bullet - we are much, much higher. We are taking steps as a nation aimed to prevent death by injury (i.e. OSHA), death by poisoning (CDC, poison control centers), and motor vehicle deaths (car safety, DUI). But we don't seem to have the same focus on death by bullet.

And I am looking at the actual scope of the problem - and the suicide rate by gun is actually a big part of it. Why are private weapons prohibited on military bases?

Let's look at car deaths - how many people have been saved because seat belts were mandated? Legislation can achieve it's purpose. We as a country go to great lengths to ensure our roads are as safe as possible to drive on - and spend a huge amount of money on that effort. Is the fact that 2,000 fewer people die by bullet than on the road mean we shouldn't take steps to prevent death by bullet? Based all the estimates I could find there are more guns (approx 310 million) in the US than cars (approx 253 million) - yet one is heavily regulated and the other isn't. Seems out of balance to me.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

If we're basing our response on relative risk, then why are we spending so much money combating terrorism?
Year - Deaths per million caused by terrorism
2001 10.52
2002 0.05
2003 0
2004 0
2005 0
2006 0
2007 0
2008 0.01
2009 0.06
2010 0.01
2011 0.02
2012 0.03
2013 0.02

I could not agree more with you. You're more likely to be killed slipping and falling in your shower than by a terrorist - literally.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I haven't seen him say anything that sounds more anti-American than a lot of what I hear from, for example, teabaggers. Can you quote some examples?

I think your post sounded like you were trolling there, so I won't respond with more than this message, thanks.

Originally Posted by iravedic

Here's the thing though - the US deaths by injury, motor vehicle, and poisoning are all within a reasonable range when looking at worldwide statistics. However, when you look at death by bullet - we are much, much higher. We are taking steps as a nation aimed to prevent death by injury (i.e. OSHA), death by poisoning (CDC, poison control centers), and motor vehicle deaths (car safety, DUI). But we don't seem to have the same focus on death by bullet.

And I am looking at the actual scope of the problem - and the suicide rate by gun is actually a big part of it. Why are private weapons prohibited on military bases?

Let's look at car deaths - how many people have been saved because seat belts were mandated? Legislation can achieve it's purpose. We as a country go to great lengths to ensure our roads are as safe as possible to drive on - and spend a huge amount of money on that effort. Is the fact that 2,000 fewer people die by bullet than on the road mean we shouldn't take steps to prevent death by bullet? Based all the estimates I could find there are more guns (approx 310 million) in the US than cars (approx 253 million) - yet one is heavily regulated and the other isn't. Seems out of balance to me.

Again you are making fallacious assumptions to support your point. Firearms and ammunition are faaaaaaaar more heavily regulated than cars are. Focus on death by bullet - ATF. Guess you forgot that?

As for your worldwide comparison, we have WAY more guns than most other nations, so that explains more firearms deaths. Comparing the US to other countries on this topic is not going to get it done. Plus I just showed you the numbers, including suicide - they are minuscule when compared to other numbers in the U.S. - and I showed you what we should focus on in order to have the most impact based on the numbers.

Your reference to seat belts is not a good one in that seat belts are designed to protect drivers in an accident, which is an unexpected event that is not intentional by any party. There is not a seat belt analogy when it comes to firearms except when it comes to accidental discharge, and the industry has come a long, long way all by themselves in that regard. But again, no legislator would ever push for prevention of accidental discharges either because it's not sexy enough to get them elected or keep them elected.

Granted the ATF is there to monitor gun manufacturers and sales. But your posit that they are more heavily regulated than cars is unfounded.

How are the numbers of death by firearm "minuscule" compared to other issues? Based on your numbers death by bullet lines right up with poisoning and auto deaths. Death by injury is larger - (but looks like you have a typo in there somewhere - the math doesn't work). As to the seatbelt reference - I do think it is valid. A car has multiple purposes - how many purposes does a gun have?

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Again you are making fallacious assumptions to support your point. Firearms and ammunition are faaaaaaaar more heavily regulated than cars are. Focus on death by bullet - ATF. Guess you forgot that?

As for your worldwide comparison, we have WAY more guns than most other nations, so that explains more firearms deaths. Comparing the US to other countries on this topic is not going to get it done. Plus I just showed you the numbers, including suicide - they are minuscule when compared to other numbers in the U.S. - and I showed you what we should focus on in order to have the most impact based on the numbers.

Your reference to seat belts is not a good one in that seat belts are designed to protect drivers in an accident, which is an unexpected event that is not intentional by any party. There is not a seat belt analogy when it comes to firearms except when it comes to accidental discharge, and the industry has come a long, long way all by themselves in that regard. But again, no legislator would ever push for prevention of accidental discharges either because it's not sexy enough to get them elected or keep them elected.

How about mandatory bullet proof vests in high crime areas? LOL.