Surge in gun deaths in states relaxing their gun laws.

[RF667799]

Inanimate objects are incapable of committing any act of any kind. It’s ****ing hilarious when you go down this road of stupidity

A child upon hitting his knee on a chair, might instead say that the chair hurt him. That child might very well go on to assign agency to the chair in classic anthropomorphic fashion.

"Bad chair!" "Stupid chair!"

That's why when I hear someone say that a person was killed by a gun, or that guns killed xx people this month....I note that is baby talk.

 

[poppopfox]

That was a direct quote from the article. I did not introduce the term. Maybe learn to read links.

Maybe don't post cherry picked racist propaganda?

 

[Spock]

A child upon hitating his knee on a chair, might instead say that the chair hurt him. That child might very well go on to assign agency to the chair in classic anthropomorphic fashion.

"Bad chair!" "Stupid chair!"

That's why when I hear someone say that a person was killed by a gun, or that guns killed xx people this month....I note that is baby talk.

You must have trouble with the following attributive noun phrases:
car phone
boot camp
golf ball
car crash
dog leash
cat food
gun show
computer program

 

[RF667799]

You must have trouble with the following attributive noun phrases:
car phone
boot camp
golf ball
car crash
dog leash
cat food
gun show
computer program

Try to follow the conversation, please.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Maybe don't post cherry picked racist propaganda?

View attachment 67573979

Facts that poppopfox doesn’t like aren’t racist, they are just facts. Of course, I could pick some cherries just for you.

 

[Lursa]

Your "reasoning" is disconnected from logic. Since one firearm is used at a time and firearms are purchased often by owners of other firearms you 400 million number is wrong as a measurement of prevalence

Great...please provide the number of firearm owners. We'll take it from there.

And since I compete with 2 guns at a time...you're even wrong there. People can take more than one gun somewhere AND use it. This shouldnt have been difficult for you, yet...?

Furthermore, your assumption that 100,000 casualties are trivial because you have inflated the denominator is further evidence of faulty reasoning.

I never characterized anything as "trivial". I used math, period. I drew no conclusions except a proportion.

Again, I wont be allowing misinterpretations to divert from my original post. Refer back to it if you need to, kinda seems like ya do.

And I wont bother with this until you clear up the stuff above, thanks.

The best way to evaluate the American firearm violence problem is to look at the consequences of firearm access.
Evidence demonstrates that access to a firearm facilitates male suicide and, to a lesser extent, female suicide. Households with firearms are a risk factor for death and injury. Finally, intentional and unintentional death and injury to children should be sufficient reason for anyone to question American firearm policy.

On gun violence, the United States is an outlier | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

When we look exclusively at high-income countries and territories with populations of 10 million or more, the US ranks first for its high levels of gun violence.

www.healthdata.org

 

[Spock]

Try to follow the conversation, please.

Firearm violence is the conversation.

 

[RF667799]

Firearm violence is the conversation.

A child upon hitting his knee on a chair, might instead say that the chair hurt him. That child might very well go on to assign agency to the chair in classic anthropomorphic fashion.

"Bad chair!" "Stupid chair!"

That's why when I hear someone say that a person was killed by a gun, or that guns killed xx people this month....I note that is baby talk.

 

[Spock]

Great...please provide the number of firearm owners. We'll take it from there.

And since I compete with 2 guns at a time...you're even wrong there. People can take more than one gun somewhere AND use it. This shouldnt have been difficult for you, yet...?



I never characterized anything as "trivial". I used math, period. I drew no conclusions except a proportion.

Again, I wont be allowing misinterpretations to divert from my original post. Refer back to it if you need to, kinda seems like ya do.

And I wont bother with this until you clear up the stuff above, thanks.

Clearly you are entrenched in a set of magical denials and excuses about firearms and are unable to deal with your own trivialization of thousands of firearm deaths and injuries. Your claims about using two firearms once more demonstrates a need to reduce a national problem to your personal needs or inconvenience. Your reasoning is like the NASCAR driver who cannot understand why they are not allowed to drive at whatever speed they want in whatever vehicle they want.

The rationalizations, such as yours, are the reasons why firearm access has killed and injured a million persons over a decade in America.
Shameful!

 

[Spock]

A child upon hitting his knee on a chair, might instead say that the chair hurt him. That child might very well go on to assign agency to the chair in classic anthropomorphic fashion.

"Bad chair!" "Stupid chair!"

That's why when I hear someone say that a person was killed by a gun, or that guns killed xx people this month....I note that is baby talk.

Baby describes talk just as firearm describes violence. Hence, firearm violence.

 

[Lursa]

Clearly you are entrenched in a set of magical denials and excuses about firearms and are unable to deal with your own trivialization of thousands of firearm deaths and injuries. Your claims about using two firearms once more demonstrates a need to reduce a national problem to your personal needs or inconvenience. Your reasoning is like the NASCAR driver who cannot understand why they are not allowed to drive at whatever speed they want in whatever vehicle they want.

The rationalizations, such as yours, are the reasons why firearm access has killed and injured a million persons over a decade in America.
Shameful!

All about me ...because you're already confronted with a counter-argument you cant refute. And when I reasonably suggested you refine your argument into something scalable, rational...you continue to complain and make it about me. You didnt directly address what I wrote...just immediately tried to shift and wiggle.

Sorry, I dont just blindly follow your attempts at diverting into something 'you feel you can control.'

 

[RF667799]

Baby describes talk just as firearm describes violence. Hence, firearm violence.

"Firearm Violence" isn't baby talk as much as it is dishonestly conflating unlike things into a single category as if they are the same.

Nobody would seriously say suicides and lynchings are the same thing, yet gun control zealots do the equivalent of inventing a "Rope Death" category and pretending that the solution is to ban ropes. Or mandatory Rope Training as a condition of purchase. Or Safe Rope Storage Laws. Limitations on length.

 

[Spock]

All about me ...because you're already confronted with a counter-argument you cant refute. And when I reasonably suggested you refine your argument into something scalable, rational...you continue to complain and make it about me. You didnt directly address what I wrote...just immediately tried to shift and wiggle.

Sorry, I dont just blindly follow your attempts at diverting into something 'you feel you can control.'

Your argument is nonsense and ignores the consequences. But, you are correct in one thing-- you will refuse to address the consequences of firearm prevalence.
The entire argument for firearm control measures is the consequence of firearm proliferation. When you ignore the consequences, you have created a false reality.

 

[Spock]

"Firearm Violence" isn't baby talk as much as it is dishonestly conflating unlike things into a single category as if they are the same.

Nobody would seriously say suicides and lynchings are the same thing, yet gun control zealots do the equivalent of inventing a "Rope Death" category and pretending that the solution is to ban ropes. Or mandatory Rope Training as a condition of purchase. Or Safe Rope Storage Laws. Limitations on length.

You have a need to minimize the actual extent of firearm death and injury because you cannot face the statistics.

 

[RF667799]

Your argument is nonsense and ignores the consequences. But, you are correct in one thing-- you will refuse to address the consequences of firearm prevalence.
The entire argument for firearm control measures is the consequence of firearm proliferation. When you ignore the consequences, you have created a false reality.

Sounds like the opening narration of Plan 9 From Outer Space.

 

[RF667799]

You have a need to minimize the actual extent of firearm death and injury because you cannot face the statistics.

Three goalpost moves in a row! How far can he carry them, folks?

You don’t understand that when you do that, it's as good as an admission that your previous point was lost.

 

[Lursa]

Your argument is nonsense and ignores the consequences. But, you are correct in one thing-- you will refuse to address the consequences of firearm prevalence.
The entire argument for firearm control measures is the consequence of firearm proliferation. When you ignore the consequences, you have created a false reality.

And yet you make an unsupported claim. If it's nonsense, prove it. Otherwise, it stands, just like it did the last time.

 

[Spock]

And yet you make an unsupported claim. If it's nonsense, prove it. Otherwise, it stands, just like it did the last time.

Your reasoning is equivalent to the claim that since there are 1 billion matches in the USA and only 1000 forest fires, the fires are of no concern.
You will have to explain why 100,000 deaths and injuries is acceptable regardless of whether the "chance" is 1 % or 0.0003% of a given firearm being involved.
Do you rationalize the 2002 DC Beltway Sniper shooting because only 1 guns was used?




















































































































































































++++++++++++

 

[stealthycat]

how many of the last 50 years has it been autos causing all the deaths of children ? do you have the numbers ? oh wait .. I'll do it

that's what's being discussed - what the top accidental deaths of kids were. Even 1 more is more and enough to push something from #2 to #1 ... and its relevant to show that for 50 years it wasn't guns it was cars .... what changed to make guns the #1 ?

we have literally 100 million or even 200 million more guns in the USA now than before.... and just last 2-3 years they've crept to #1 and its all because of suicides - isn't that the truth ?

In 2022, there were 2,526 gun deaths among children and teens ages 1-17, averaging to nearly 7 per day. AI Overview

Why are you wildly exaggerating that number?

I used the wrong numbers - my bad

The report, Gun Violence in the United States 2022: Examining the Burden Among Children and Teens, assessed the latest finalized data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, highlighting that 48,204 people, the second highest on record, died from gunshots in the U.S. in 2022, including 27,032 suicides, an all-time high for the country.

Guns Remain Leading Cause of Death for Children and Teens | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Center for Gun Violence Solutions latest annual report highlights CDC 2022 firearm deaths, with focus on young people and people of color

publichealth.jhu.edu

 

[Spock]

how many of the last 50 years has it been autos causing all the deaths of children ? do you have the numbers ? oh wait .. I'll do it

42,514 traffic fatalities in 2022 in the United States
21,172 accidental deaths of children in 2022 by guns in the USA

You will try include people who intentionally took their own lives - that's not reasonable to do

I find it incredulous that you would think that guns killed children since the typical gun apologist claims that cannot happen.

However, your numbers are suspect.

 

[stealthycat]

Firearm violence is the conversation.

a firearm is incapable of violence

fyi

 

[stealthycat]

I find it incredulous that you would think that guns killed children since the typical gun apologist claims that cannot happen.

guns cannot kill - they're incapable

they can be used wrong though - like automobiles

 

[Lursa]

Your reasoning is equivalent to the claim that since there are 1 billion matches in the USA and only 1000 forest fires, the fires are of no concern.
You will have to explain why 100,000 deaths and injuries is acceptable

I never characterized anything as "trivial". I used math, period. I drew no conclusions except a proportion.

regardless of whether the "chance" is 1 % or 0.0003% of a given firearm being involved.
Do you rationalize the 2002 DC Beltway Sniper shooting because only 1 guns was used?

Great...please provide the number of firearm owners. We'll take the math from there.

And since I compete with 2 guns at a time...you're even wrong there. People can take more than one gun somewhere AND use it. This shouldnt have been difficult for you, yet...?

Again, I wont be allowing your misinterpretations to divert from my original post 50. Refer back to it if you need to, kinda seems like ya do.

And I wont bother with more until you clear up the stuff above, thanks.

 

[Spock]

guns cannot kill - they're incapable

they can be used wrong though - like automobiles

You posted "deaths of children in 2022 by guns in the USA" indicating that firearms do cause firearm violence.

 

[stealthycat]

You posted "deaths of children in 2022 by guns in the USA" indicating that firearms do cause firearm violence.

it was a quote

you know guns cannot do anything on their own, they're inanimate objects

if guns started killing people? and if they all got together and coordinated it? they'd kill millions in a single afternoon

guns don't have brains, they're incapable