EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
nkr
Sweden5451 Posts
| ||
|
uriel-
Singapore1867 Posts
On October 02 2015 20:43 nkr wrote: I always wondered how being forced to carry guns to fight crazy ppl with guns around ever corner is considered being "free". Freedom to be shot to death I guess | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46315 Posts
And to those who wish to say "But Other Country X does this instead!", America simply isn't comparable to any other country (regardless of proximity and size) because we're a consistent outlier when it comes to gun quantity, gun violence, and other disappointing statistics: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lqQT7ug.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UANZQ4l.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KhtdEMb.jpg) ~ http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics (More relevant graphs- and analyses, there too.) | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
| ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On October 02 2015 21:56 Sent. wrote: What's the point of comparing homicides by firearm between US and countries with gun control? To correlate that gun control reduce the number of homicides by firearm ? | ||
|
Swisslink
2956 Posts
A) The right to carry a gun had nothing to do with the mass shooting B) The solution to the mass shootings is actually to distribute MORE guns among the people | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
On October 02 2015 21:58 Faust852 wrote: To correlate that gun control reduce the number of homicides by firearm ? Isn't it obvious? | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
Not for a lot of Americans I guess. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Considering that for many americans the solution is "more guns for everyone, so you can kill the murderer before he kills people" .. Well, i'd say no. To some americans, it's not. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46315 Posts
Some people think that gun control = no guns at all, ever. Those people are generally the ones who disagree with the very strong, positive, obvious correlation. They think that Obama is trying to take their guns away. They are wrong. Of course, many people understand that gun control includes things like gun education, extensive background checks for guns, and still allowing the reasonable use of certain, single-shot, hunting guns. Those things are useful to talk about. | ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
| ||
|
WaylanderSC2_
24 Posts
100? 200? In a country of 330,000,000 that averages 12,000 homicides or more each year? A country that possesses 50% of the worlds firearms? That doesn't seem like as much of a nationwide "crisis" as the media and forum goers lets on. I will always be against gun control. A lot of people are hellbent on throwing the rights away in which the founders of our country died for, but I certainly am not one of them. I think something like free access to mental health care would go a long way in increasing the quality of life of the entire country, including reducing mass murder rates. | ||
|
Yacobs
United States846 Posts
On October 02 2015 22:18 Bleak wrote: I was not sure back then but now, am really glad I decided to go to UK for my masters degree rather than USA. I never felt so safe as I felt in UK during last year before in my life, not even in my home country. If I went to USA the chance of being shot by the police or some guy who just woke up and decided to shoot people would be pretty high. I am even afraid to visit U.S because of all this violence. Uh, sorry but that's just silly and irrational. Regardless of how many mass gun killings there are in the US, it's still a miniscule amount of deaths. As always, getting killed in a car accident, for example, is several order of magnitudes more likely and last I checked the UK has cars too. | ||
|
hpty603
United States262 Posts
On October 02 2015 22:18 Bleak wrote: If I went to USA the chance of being shot by the police or some guy who just woke up and decided to shoot people would be pretty high. I am even afraid to visit U.S because of all this violence. This is absurd. I've lived in the US pretty much all of my life, including some pretty sketchy areas of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and have never even known anybody that has been involved in something like this. Sure, there is a problem in the US and it requires attention but good lord it's not a fucking apocalypse scenario. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5201 Posts
On October 02 2015 22:18 Bleak wrote: If I went to USA the chance of being shot by the police or some guy who just woke up and decided to shoot people would be pretty high. I am even afraid to visit U.S because of all this violence. Define a pretty high chance. I mean, for example, people consider the few % increase of getting cancer when smoking incredibly relevant. Would you then, analogous to that, say that when a certain % (which is ridiculously high for this example by the way) of the population is at risk of being shot because parameters (escalations, crime, abuse of power, misjudgement, ..) and it's raised by some % for moving to the USA, make it all the more relevant? Hypothetically, if we're talking about the population of the USA, 321,941,000, and 5% of the population is at risk of getting shot every day or some shit, that's still 16097050 people at risk. You could one of 1.6million people. But you might not. This is where statistics falter. They view things in a vacuum and 5% chance means that you could get really unlucky and land in a situation where you got all the parameters stacked against you, or you could be in a certain neighbourhood where nothing happens, ever. Ofcourse, it sucks when random people do decide to go on killing sprees just because they snapped and if you're there at that place at that time, you could be indeed very unfortunate, but then those statistics mean jack shit either. Everything on a personal level (or microsocial level) is always circumstantial. Also that last statement is so ridiculous, it implies that the USA is some kind of cesspool of violence. 300mil people still is alot of people and most of them are still decent human beings who just want to live their lives. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46315 Posts
On October 02 2015 22:45 WaylanderSC2_ wrote: How many people have died in Mass Shootings in the United States in the last decade? 100? 200? In a country of 330,000,000 that averages 12,000 homicides or more each year? A country that possesses 50% of the worlds firearms? That doesn't seem like as much of a nationwide "crisis" as the media and forum goers lets on. lol? I just posted a source above. "In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been at least 986 mass shootings, with shooters killing at least 1,234 people and wounding 3,565 more, as this map (click to view the interactive version) shows." ~ http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics That's within the past 3 years alone. So to answer your question: thousands and thousands of people. And that doesn't include individual homicides and suicides that are also concerning statistics about guns and gun-related violence. And scroll up to see the graph of gun homicides per million people in each country: U.S.A. has 30 while everyone else has under 8. That's a very concerning statistic. | ||
|
Korakys
New Zealand272 Posts
Therefore reduce number of firearms = reduced number of shootings resulting in death. Sometimes I really wish the US government would try to fight it's own people so that those people could see just how useless having guns to "protect" themselves would be. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46315 Posts
On October 02 2015 23:13 Korakys wrote: I have observed that it is almost impossible to shoot people to death without using a gun (aka firearms). Therefore reduce number of firearms = reduced number of shootings resulting in death. Sometimes I really wish the US government would try to fight it's own people so that those people could see just how useless having guns to "protect" themselves would be. Do you mean "kill people" instead of "shoot people to death"? Because shooting implies using a gun afaik. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5201 Posts
I will always be against gun control. A lot of people are hellbent on throwing the rights away in which the founders of our country died for, but I certainly am not one of them. I have a problem with the entire right to bear arms, since it assumes that you can't trust to be safe in your own society. That's one backwards way of thinking to live your life in peace. Not only that, but this fucking right assures that there are objects in society that are able to destroy other people. Ofcourse this always happens in some form, because some people are psychopaths, criminals, ... and try to get some form of power by any means, including through the path of arming onself. This is very hard to prevent, but it doesn't mean everyone should be able to counter it with the same arsenal, that's why there is law enforcement (which (supposedly) uses said arms as a last resort). It's like some kind of potential eye for an eye or eye before an eye state that makes exactly zero sense because it just perpetuates fear, vigilantism, accessibility and all the other adjectives that go with the thought of: "I have a gun, what if he has a gun and tries to use it". Also, like it's been said before, gun control != taking your right to bear arms away. How the hell to you get that from a word like control? Don't you think that someone carrying a potential deadly weapon should be capable and resonsible enough to carry said weapon? | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
I guess it's just a pretext to feel powerful against an imaginary enemy. | ||
| ||
