More guns means more gun deaths and more deaths overall.
Mega bucks frivolous lawsuit payouts - the crooked American dream
- Thread starter marke
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
That's simply not true.
Guns are often used for self-defense where no death is involved.
Okay. I will add and more serious bodily injury. Guns do more damage than they prevent when you consider accidents, completed suicides, self-defense, and mistaken self-defense death and injury.
Right Divider
Body part
You are mistaken. There are many more cases of self-defense without death or injury than there are gun accidents.
Amazingly. it is possible to defend yourself without a gun.
Right Divider
Body part
Duh
This runs counter to the data.
Creating law to stop gun accidents always creates a great deal more accidents and deaths.
Guns do not create suicides, and a law to stop suicide by gun would not only not stop suicides, but it would create a lot more death and pain as an unintended consequence outside of suicides.
Death by self defense or "mistaken self defense" would only be brought up if you are trying to lie by statistics, or if you have alterior motives more to do with your political objectives than safety. In either case, again, laws to stop self defense, mistaken or not, would result in more death and pain than allowing people to defend themselves with guns.
Let us review the data sometime.
That would depend on the law. I am for creating a greater civil duty to store and track guns more carefully for gun owners. When someone's gun results in a death or injury that reasonable containment measures would have prevented, the gun owner should have some of the liability. How would that create more accidents?
Suicide attempts involving guns is 10x more 'successful.' Men have a higher suicide rate than women, while women have more attempted suicide, in part, because men use guns more often.
Guns are more efficient killing machines than fists or knives or cars. Self-defense can be made in many cases without guns and without as dire a result. Guns amplify the results of a mistake.
There are cases where actual gun use is instrumental in saving the lives of victims. Much of this protective factor does not have to be eliminated by gun restriction and increased liability.
The cases where gun use is pivotal in saving a life are dwarfed by accidents and intentional gun misuse. For the vast majority gun owners, only peace of mind and psychological compensation for personal physical inadequacies is provided.
Let's start at the top. If we average the number of people killed by government since the advent of inexpensive efficient gun power, it averages over 2 million per year. And to be clear, the government can only pull off those kinds of numbers with guns. So that is the number one thing you have to defend yourself against.
Next, using 2020 numbers in the US, suicides were at about 25k using guns and there were about 20k murders using guns.
In light of these numbers, the less than 1000 accidents and negligence deaths (combined) should not be used to restrict rights unless you have an ulterior motive.
You mention suicides later so I'll mention it in a bit.
Gun murders in the US look like this:
And this would be true for any city in the US. Most of the murders take place in certain places in urban areas having nothing to do with the availability of guns except for the laws written on pieces of paper. This tells us that more restrictions on guns will not solve the problem, but solving what turns out to be a gang problem would save a great deal of lives.
And this brings up another objective measure how I care more about people than you do. I actually try and find a reason for the problem and fix that instead of calling for solutions that upon evaluation have been proven not to work.
This is already the law... to mention it adds to the suspicion that you have an ulterior motive.
Obviously the problem isn't the gun, but people thinking the best solution to their problems is deleting themselves.
Removing the rights of others to defend themselves because a tool that someone else uses for another reason is not reasonable.
Yes, that's why governments cannot kill so many people if they don't have guns. So in your proposed restrictions, if the people cannot have guns, the government loses their guns, too, right?
You don't get it. There will be mass murders and the murder rate won't change enough in order to stop more restrictions being called for. Even if you think we can just tweak a few registrations or training requirements and then we'll be done with restrictions, that would make you a useful idiot for the agenda that calls for more restrictions. Why? Because the very reasons you are calling for restrictions will still be there after your restrictions are put in place.
This is flatly wrong. accidents and misuse (negligence) combined account for less than 1000 deaths a year, while defensive gun use is pivotal in avoiding millions of incidents of violence, crime, and death threats each year. Your understanding of the numbers is so far off that it couldn't possibly be by accident.
Of course being safe grants peace of mind even if I never have to use a gun. Why do you want to rob people of their peace of mind? Are you some kind of sicko?
And what's wrong with realizing one is physically inadequate? Especially as I get old I'll admit I'm physically inadequate to take on most fit young men even if they don't have a gun. What I am is a good person, though, so me having a gun means not only that I stay unmolested but the young ruffian will have a better outcome as well because me having my physical inadequacies compensated for with a gun makes them avoid a violent encounter with me. That's because I'm a better person than you are in that I care for the young ruffian while you want to plunge him into a life of crime without the natural consequences that come from everyone being able to defend themselves. I even understand that he, as a young ruffian, makes a better world if he can defend himself against even more evil and more physically capable ruffians above him.
And I'm much more able to protect myself without a gun than most females even at my advanced age, so restricting guns to females borders on misogyny. You need to learn equality and fairness.
Last edited:
Fewer guns mean more murders of defenseless Americans who have been stripped of their God-given rights to defend themselves with guns.