• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can we all agree that the efforts Democrats make to reduce gun violence will benefit red states more than blue states?

As near as I can tell, your reply is all opinions, and opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. Source your claims.
Nothing I stated was an opinion.
 
Your absurd levels of illogic require no refutation. No one can have discussion with people that completely abandon the logic within language. This constant Greek chorus of "gun violence does not exist" is all just a way to escape from reality via the misuse of language and logic. A cause is always extreme when it refuses to uses common language and logic.

You can inappropriately call something "gun violence" if you wish. I just point out how stupid it is.

Notice how you have restrained yourself from specifically attacking my argument, and instead are trying to rely on attacking me personally? I did. :LOL:

Why don't you come back when you can gimmesometruth.
 
No, I'm stating this.
AI-
In summary, restricting access to firearms, particularly during times of crisis, is a critical component of suicide prevention strategies and has been shown to reduce both firearm suicide rates and overall suicide rates. This is because firearms are a highly lethal method, and most individuals who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide later.
Firearms have no relevance to suicide rates.
 
Lots of people die from gun violence in large urban population centers. But per capita gun deaths in red states far outstrip blue states.




[td]

How many people die from gun-related injuries?






[/td]



[td]
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) releases mortality data that includes breakdowns of gun-related deaths across the country. The recent figures outline trends that affect communities nationwide (and you can search our site for data near you). Here’s what CDC data reveals about where and how often these deaths happen.
  • In August 2024, an estimated 3,800 people died from gun-related injuries. Gun deaths were 2% lower than they were the previous month.

  • Between January and August 2024, an estimated 30,100 people died from gun-related injuries, down 5% from the same period in 2023.





[/td]



[td]
Age-adjusted rate of firearms deaths in 2023





[/td]



[td]
  • 2023 gun death rates were highest in Washington, DC (30.6 per 100,000 people), followed by Mississippi (29.4) and Louisiana (28.3). The rate was lowest in Massachusetts (3.7).
  • In 2023, Washington, DC, also had the highest rate of gun-related homicides at 28.5 per 100,000 people. The gun-related suicide rate was highest in Wyoming (19.0). 

  • That same year, 95% of gun-related deaths were either suicides or homicides. (The rest include accidents and law enforcement interventions.) Suicides have comprised the largest percentage of gun-related deaths since at least 1979. About 55% of all gun-related deaths in 2023 were suicides.





[/td]



[td]


[td]
Explore the map













[/td]​

[/td]
Benefit as in more shootings in red states?
 
Hahahaha! But lumping suicides, murders, and accidents together as if they are alike makes sense. /s
Statistically, are auto fatalities lumped into a single figure, and broken down into sub categories?

Weak attempt at deflection denied.
 
So you're saying rural people's enter the city, shoot it up and then go home?

Wow, never heard of that theory.
Source that claim, you can't.
 
Statistically, are auto fatalities lumped into a single figure, and broken down into sub categories?

Yes. Or do you think they counted the deaths in New Orleans and in the Wisconsin Christmas Parade as traffic fatalities?

Are lynchings, suicides by hanging, and the odd anchor rope accident all the same thing?

Weak attempt at deflection denied.
 
Whatever the user wants to use it for.

Of course they are unconstitutional.
Source the SCOTUS case or the section of the Constitution (it's not the 2nd).

You are incorrect.
 
You can inappropriately call something "gun violence" if you wish. I just point out how stupid it is.
All you and your fellow 2a nuts do when you twist commonly understood concepts is to show your desperation, you are trying to tear down language and logic, it is the classic smashing the game board when you lose move. Its beyond pathetic.
Notice how you have restrained yourself from specifically attacking my argument, and instead are trying to rely on attacking me personally? I did. :LOL:
Report it, stop telling me about your opinions on what constitutes a personal insult. This is another diversion.
Why don't you come back when you can gimmesometruth.
You are distorting the English language, and I'm the one supposedly lying.
This comes just after you complained about ad homs.

Absolutely zero legitimacy. It is all disingenuous argument.
 
Firearms have no relevance to suicide rates.
And what do you suppose this means?
"...and most individuals who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide later."

Your ideology is laughable.
 
Benefit as in more shootings in red states?
The benefit of passing common sense gun laws would show up more in red states. This is because rural gun violence is more spread out among the populations, while urban gun violence has a greater impact on fewer populations (age, poverty level etc)
 
Yes. Or do you think they counted the deaths in New Orleans and in the Wisconsin Christmas Parade as traffic fatalities?

Are lynchings, suicides by hanging, and the odd anchor rope accident all the same thing?
So why should gun-related fatalities not be lumped in a single number?

Yes, in that they all result in a death, no because they don't result in close to 1% of gun fatalities (in other words, it's not a real problem). How many firearm related deaths are you okay with annually?
 
All you and your fellow 2a nuts do when you twist commonly understood concepts is to show your desperation, you are trying to tear down language and logic, it is the classic smashing the game board when you lose move. Its beyond pathetic.

When you refuse to apply your concept to anything else, it's a tell that there's special pleading going on.

Argue on the basis of fallacy if you like. Pretend homicides, suicides, and accidents are the same thing (in a singular context) if you like.

I'll continue to point out the stupid nature of those sorts of arguments no matter how angry you get and how many names you call.



Report it, stop telling me about your opinions on what constitutes a personal insult. This is another diversion.
You've not made a single response specific to my argument. It's all ad hominem and froth.

You are distorting the English language, and I'm the one supposedly lying.
This comes just after you complained about ad homs.

I didn't complain. I welcome the inept diversions.

Absolutely zero legitimacy. It is all disingenuous argument.

One would think it would have been simple to point out something disingenuous in that case....

😆
 
So why should gun-related fatalities not be lumped in a single number?

You're the one that wants to do that. It's up to you to explain the rationale behind it.

Yes, in that they all result in a death, no because they don't result in close to 1% of gun fatalities (in other words, it's not a real problem).

I think you made up that percentage.

How many firearm related deaths are you okay with annually?

That's a hell of a question to ask me right after you got done explaining you're okay with over 12,000 rope deaths annually.
 
When you refuse to apply your concept to anything else, it's a tell that there's special pleading going on.
You have no idea what I apply to anything else, this is stupid.
Argue on the basis of fallacy if you like.
you haven't shown a fallacy, you created an assumption out of nothing.
Pretend homicides, suicides, and accidents are the same thing (in a singular context) if you like.
No one said they are, you are again creating strawman arguments.
I'll continue to point out the stupid nature of those sorts of arguments no matter how angry you get and how many names you call.
You are not doing anything like that, you are simply creating nonsense and strawman.
You've not made a single response specific to my argument. It's all ad hominem and froth.
I've already shown the irony of this. This has all started from your denial of language, you are not creating any argument.
I didn't complain. I welcome the inept diversions.
Of course you complained, you labeled it an ad hom. This is a perfect example of your twisting language, moving goalposts.
One would think it would have been simple to point out something disingenuous in that case....

😆
You are in denial of crap you post, of course you won't admit to all of this sophomoric nonsense.

You 2a nuts cannot discuss the subject without going off on pointless semantic deadends. You can't even agree on the concept of what gun violence constitutes without these pointless diversions about people committing suicide by jumping from buildings. Anything is allowed by cults, no matter how absurd. It is all so childish.
 
And what do you suppose this means?
"...and most individuals who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide later."

Your ideology is laughable.
Reality doesn’t care how you feel. Firearms are completely irrelevant to suicide rates. As well as homicide and violent crime rates.
 
And you pretend that because I didn't say suppressor, you act like it isn't a problem.
It's the incompetence. I don't pretend you're incompetent you proved it.
Do you feel that red flag laws are common sense?
Not by any measure of what common sense is.
Or do you group it all under 2nd Amendment protection?
I don't think the government should be allowed to interfere with our rights without due process. Giving them cart Blanche just to take away your constitutional rights is a reckless insane idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom