• 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!

Lost in the scuffle.

You’re the extremist ideologue focus on whatever minutiae you prefer.

If focusing on the common factor between all gun-related deaths and not allowing myself to be deflected makes me an "extremist ideologue," then so be it.
 




Regarding your “Ha” suicide stat, you could have stuck with your CDC link where you could have included the fact that guns are involved in 50% of suicides. That figure was not given in your huffpost link, yet you chose not to pick the one that gave the gun stat, which is obviously pertinent. Correct, not a far-right source, but certainly a glaring omission:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Both the guns and why people kill themselves and each other are “real issues”. Another why is why people more often use guns to kill themselves and each other.

About 35% of mass murderers commit suicide, which I don’t know includes suicide by cop.

Suicide is on the rise, though, apparently not currently more than average. Violent crime, however, is has gradually risen slightly higher since 2011, but still the lowest since 1971:

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2016

As of 2015, firearms were used in 71.5 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.8 percent of robberies, and 24.2 percent of aggravated assaults. So, to say that “More important than gun control is understanding why violence and suicide is on the rise.”, as if to leave the issue of gun control and gun violence behind, ignores the facts:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-crime-statistics-released

States with higher gun ownership tend to have more gun involved deaths, though a correlation and not a proven cause and effect:

http://reverbpress.com/politics/firearms-per-capita-by-state/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...0-States-By-Gun-Sense-And-Gun-Violence-Deaths

There is no need for me to post a link to the fact of the US having the highest rate of murder and gun ownership among developed countries as it’s an accepted fact. Gun control, though, works in those countries that experienced an increase in gun involved crime, death and injury that chose such controls:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...an-learn/ar-BBF0H3L?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartanntp

These are measures we can take that work. Perhaps we can succeed in implementing just a couple of them. Then, there are the many other countries with low gun violence rates that already have more gun control in place than we do.
 
If I focus on trucks then how can I focus on guns? No thank you, I will focus on the guns, since they are the present factor in every death involving a gun.

so very interesting how guns are involved but people are not in your peculiar paradigm, may i ask how you presume the gun became loaded and the trigger pulled.
 

the hs was referring to the far right Huffington post. are you seriously that obtuse.
 
so very interesting how guns are involved but people are not in your peculiar paradigm, may i ask how you presume the gun became loaded and the trigger pulled.

That you think this is a clever question says something about you. Is that a popular joke at gun get-togethers?
 
But if we focus on other issues, how can we focus on guns? Guns are the factor in every gun-related murder, so looking at other factors seems like an extremely inefficient way of focusing on guns.

Is it your belief that removing guns will cure us of wanting to kill ourselves and others?
 


\now that i have read your post, i wonder why you ignore the question as to the root cause of violence. Hint violence existed before gun powder.

so from my OP the section you ignored

My conclusion is this. The gun debate masks the real issue of why people want to kill themselves and others. It also elicits the question are mass murderers really committing suicide?

More important than gun control is understanding why violence and suicide is on the rise.
 
I thought you were being sarcastic, the idea that this is a serious post is highly disturbing

I still think he's being sarcastic. Has to be.
 
Is it your belief that removing guns will cure us of wanting to kill ourselves and others?

Straw man fallacy, nirvana fallacy and reductio ad absurdum all in one short question. Good job!
 

Then do so. Look at the guns loooong and hard. Determine how it is that the gun causes death, and get back to us. Take Tylenol for any headaches.
 
If focusing on the common factor between all gun-related deaths and not allowing myself to be deflected makes me an "extremist ideologue," then so be it.

Really? Guns are the ONLY common factor between all gun related deaths? Sure about that, hos?
 

get this, The OP does not take a position on gun laws, it asks simple questions

My conclusion is this. The gun debate masks the real issue of why people want to kill themselves and others. It also elicits the question are mass murderers really committing suicide?

More important than gun control is understanding why violence and suicide is on the rise.

The title alludes to that so why does it escape you?
 
They see me trollin, they hatin, patrollin, trying ta catch me white and nerdy...
 
Really? Guns are the ONLY common factor between all gun related deaths? Sure about that, hos?

If you can point to me an instance in which somebody was killed with a gun in which a gun wasn't a factor, I'm curious to hear about it.
 
That you think this is a clever question says something about you. Is that a popular joke at gun get-togethers?

i see we have reached your intellectual cap and the bar is set low
 

The "why" is very simple: guns make it easier. As with almost everything else in human history, if something is made easier to do, more people will do it...even if it's wrong and/or illegal.

Firearms make it easy to end it all with the pull of a trigger - no need to go to the effort - and pain and uncertainty - of slitting one's wrists, or hanging oneself. Why do you think the Golden Gate bridge was a popular way to commit suicide? Just jump and it's all over - but on the way down, they might discover that such is a bad idea and no longer want to do it (although it's of course too late by then). With a firearm, it's just the easy, almost effortless pull of a trigger.

What's the real difference? Generally speaking, people don't fear death - they fear pain...and having to go through significant effort to hang oneself or cut one's wrists or take a great deal of medicines might not work...and the person knows he might wake up in a very worse situation than before. Guns almost completely precludes any such possiblity.

That's why the more guns, the more suicides. It really is that simple. The "why" people want to commit suicide - which you claim is the real debate - is not the issue. There's no single "why" - there are many, many "whys". Hopelessness, great shame, great physical pain, great emotional pain, heartbreak, personal sense of duty...you name it. Different cultures have different general rates of suicide, too. But you should pay more attention to why the suicide rate in Australia dropped so significantly after the gun ban took effect - the people still had their same cultures, their same crises, their same social pressures...but the suicide rate dropped and stayed lower. The only difference was that after the gun ban took effect, there were fewer firearms with which people could so easily take their own lives.

As to the mass shooters, I think you'll find that most of them don't much consider the fact that they're almost certain to die. They're much more fixated on what they wanted to do, which is usually borne of frustration or humiliation or - again - hopelessness. That's why many school shooters turn out to be ones that had been picked up by the bullies.

Again, less guns, less suicides. Guns are NOT the cause...but there is no stronger enabler of suicide...or of mass murder.
 
If you can point to me an instance in which somebody was killed with a gun in which a gun wasn't a factor, I'm curious to hear about it.

If you can point to me an instance in which somebody was killed with a gun in which a human wasn't a factor, I'm curious to hear about it.
 
So is the blame the tool argument
No, that's stupid.

We have countless laws that regulate, track, require re-approval of, licensing of, the ownership and operation of a wide variety of "tools".
That we desire this for tools that are designed to kill humans, is not an outlier, and obviously not stupid. We do in fact have gun laws already on the books, we're simply talking about more/different ones.

Any/all such laws that regulate "tools" require at root, some attribution of being a public safety hazard to said tools. Without it, there would be no laws differentiating the safety of any dangerous tools.

if applied when trucks are used as weapons to perform mass killings. Those truck enthusiasts think it's a loose nut behind the wheel problem, not a truck problem.
Depends on how big the truck is, we have different licensing requirements for heavier trucks. And different still for carrying hazardous materials.

Why do we have one set of laws for driving a passenger truck, and another set of rules for driving a semi carrying chemicals that could easily kill a large number of people? Tools, depending on their use, their danger, etc., etc., are all governed differently. That they are governed by laws to improve safety, is not in question. That each tools differences in terms of relative danger, etc., is taken into account when making such laws, is not in question.

So I can't see that you have a point with that line of reasoning.
 



Before i read your post, which i will. many drugs come through the Mexican border, not in dispute. many people, including teens, die from drug overdoses or use. Does that mean that you support a border wall to lessen drug and gun trafficking?

just looking to see if you are consistent in your reasoning.
 

Bingo. We can't solve the problem with gun control because even if we took everyone's guns away, the real problem would still be there. Just the weapon of choice would be different. And, we're not going to take everyone's guns away anyway.
 

There's this Really New kind of technology - it's called tunnels. You may have heard of them. Drug-runners have been using tunnels for years underneath the parts of our border that already have tunnels:

One of the longest cross-border drugs-smuggling tunnels between Mexico and the US has been found by authorities in San Diego, American officials say.

They say the 800m (874 yards) tunnel was used to transport an "unprecedented cache" of cocaine and marijuana.

It was the 13th sophisticated secret tunnel found along California's border with Mexico since 2006.

But a local official described it as "ingenious" and unlike anything seen before.

Three have been found on the same short street in San Diego that runs parallel to a border fence with Mexico.


BTW, the same thing goes for the Gaza Strip which Israel has pretty much completely walled off - so the Palestinians built tunnels and got their goods from Egypt.

That is why this wall is not just a shameful display of xenophobia, but it's next to useless for its stated purpose, and so it's an epic-scale waste of taxpayer money.
 


as i said, before i read your post, but if you insist on this line of reasoning, can guns come through tunnels?

How can you effectively ban guns? back then to why do people kill people.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…