The only thing Americans are better at than killing others, is killing themselves.
>Don't be retard
>don't get shot
Fuck that was hard.
At least Americans have natural selection pressures, unlike every other pussified Western nation where citizens live locked in rubber rooms, perpetually "safe", much the same way dairy cows are kept safe in their confinement so the owners can milk them.
Hey,I wonder what race shot the other race more and killed?
Golly gee,I'm sure its not
black on black and
black on white crime
black on asian
mexican on mexican
mexican on white
mexican on black crime
Yes what a shocking statistic that will surely change my stance on gun control.
Just a few questions.
1.) Who conducted this study and what metrics did it use, IE what counts as a firearm related death. Wouldn't most wartime casualties count as firearm related deaths?
2.) Compared to the number of firearm related deaths, what are the numbers for other deaths such as car-related deaths, chemical-related deaths, melee-related deaths etc?
3.)What is the overall number of deaths in the timeframe provided?
4.) Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Actually I'd be interested to see how many non-wartime firearm deaths there were before 1968. This chart is kind of comparing two different things.
Population differences should also be taken into account.
The most gun heavy places on earth (like Plano, TX) have gun death rates that are fractions of European nations. So if we make everyone armed like in Plano, we'll have less crime and shit than Shitrope
31,000 a year is a big number. But your presentation of the figures is very misleading as it doesn't take into account small american casualties in the world wars and the deaths as a percentage of the population in those long ago times.
civil war is about 700,000 deaths from a total population of 30,000,000 which is .023% of the population
yearly gun deaths now is about 0.00001% of the population...
I would argue that america has a psychological and cultural problem rather than a gun problem given that Switzerland has a far lower death to gun violence ratio but has fully automatic weapons in every home.
>Governmental reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that there have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968 (included suicides).
>guns should be taken away because people shoot themselves with them
> OMG! Average of 31,500 per year!
> counting suicides
> blaming them on guns
What a surprise, more lies from the lying liars…
But that’s how bat-shit crazy anti-gun fundies roll, because when the foundation of your belief is that inanimate objects _cause_ murder and suicide, you’ve got nowhere to go but down.
Meanwhile in the real world, the murder rate has continued to decline since 1995 and this despite there being more guns in the U.S. than ever before (300+ million and more each year) as well as almost every state having Shall Issue concealed carry laws on the books.
There are literally thousands of American right now walking around with handguns in their pockets and the murder rate continues to go down.
If guns are the problem as the anti-gun nut fundies claim, how is this possible?
According to this nytimes article,
60% of american gun deaths are suicide.
Which means, that if guns were taken away,
suicide would still happen, via hanging, jumping off of high places, sitting in running cars in garages, etc.
one could ask, how many of non-gun suicides are successful? (Pretending guns simply vanished tomorrow), the vast majority of suicide attempts would probably be unsuccessful.
> The vast majority of murders committed are by blacks against other blacks
These Niggers are doing society a favor.
The question is, how do we get Niggers in detroit, chicago, memphis, atlanta, boston, etc more guns?
the post you responding to says nothing more than "suicides by gun are most successful. if guns magically vanished, there would probably be less suicide deaths." It doesn't take a stand on gun control, it just points out a simple fact. You stated that suicides would still be occurring if guns vanished, which is correct. However, there would probably be less successful suicides since 85% of successful suicides are committed via gun.
This is a point that you need to address in order to make your argument stronger and you want the suicide number to be convincing.
You can read any thing into the post that you want. Guns = most successful suicides. Other common methods = far less successful because other methods may not work as well.
As for cure for a depression, I have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You seem to have trouble staying on topic anon. Changing the topic when you find information you don't like isn't going to help you any.
The metric is supposed to show that gun control should be enacted because of the large amount of gun death's in the country.
Research has shown that taking away people's options for easy suicide lowers the chance of suicide.
However suicide does not seem to be an issue that either liberals or conservatives generally care about.
The real issue is that fact that there have been so many shootings lately, and a huge push to find ways to prove that us having guns is causing these shootings to happen.
But WE aren't the fucking enemy.
There are two motives for these shootings and they all revolve around MONEY. Humans follow money and die for money, because money is power, security, and life.
1. Muslim radicals are fed up because of European and American thievery of their resources and propping up totalitarian puppet leaders that work with us.
2. Certain intelligence agencies find unhappy immigrants in European countries and, posing as ISIS recruiters, manipulate these kids into doing these shootings. The motive for the intelligence agencies is that they require these wars and terror threats to legitimize their existence.
Once Americans decide they aren't afraid anymore, we can demand these agencies get their balls chopped.
>Suicide and depression are different topics
My point is you have to treat the disease, not the symptoms of the disease. If you have a laceration brimming with infected pus, do you take a Tylenol to deal with the pain, then cover the abcess with cosmetics? Or do you clean and disinfect the wound, and utilize antibiotics?
All suicides would fail if we kept everyone in rubber rooms and prevented access to such dangerous materials as rope, household chemicals, transportation, and over the counter drugs. But that would not fix the environment that led them to believe that death is the only relief.
If you want to reduce suicide, reduce the reasons people kill themselves. But you don't want that, you want an excuse to remove weapons from law abiding people, whose only crime is wishing to protect their nation.
It works the same way everywhere M80.
People usually kills people.
Soldiers doesn't die as easily in war as hollywood made you think.
In fact, I bet a lot more people die in workplace accidents than firearms.
U.S doesn't have a gun problem, they have mental problems.
Take away the guns, and murricans will kill eachother with slingshoots or bows.
Almosr half of the murders are caused by gang violence. In reality america has two different societies. One very safe with low levels of violent crime. One very dangerous with high levels of violent crime.
You seem to have me confused with someone else. Maybe this a typical "conservative" reaction to information?
You told anon that suicide would still occur without guns. I said you are correct but with info from Harvard if guns magically vanished there would probably we less successful suicide attempts. The point being if suicide attempts remained the same but other methods were employed the number of deaths would be drastically reduced. This is something you should consider before throwing out stats about suicide deaths and guns because it weakens your argument.
As mentioned in the previous post I don't care about gun control, but your suicide stat didn't work. And that's why the previous post only states without any pro or anti gun bullshit, gun = most successful suicide tool, without guns less successful suicide and more people alive. The information is neutral. You can react and go off topic or you can see the weakness and reformat your argument or you can start spouting bullshit like someone personally attacked you.
As for depression and suicide. Yes another way to reduce suicide would be reducing the macro level causes that cause both.
Legalize drugs. Problem solved. Murder spiked during prohibition and spiked again during the war on drugs. The dealers fight with each other. Legalize and regulate drugs and the murder rate will collapse
Killed with guns, not by guns. A gun doesn't magically aim and shoot by itself.
Secondly, you have to look at who's doing the most shooting and where. Tip: It isn't white men, nor does it happen in all-white conservative towns with lots of gun owners.
You seem extraordinarily stupid. It seems the only thing you would ever be good is making gun advocates look bad. Congrats anon.
1) In 2001, there were 2,085 attempts to fall to ones death, however only 651 of these attempts were fatal. meaning only 31% of these attempts are fatal.
2) Out of 19, 849 suicide attempts with a gun 16,869 were successful (85%)
There is a significant difference in the likelihood of a suicide attempt being successful depending on the method used. This is a simple fact. You can get angry about it or you can act like an adult.
Well anon as I mentioned in another post method alone does not equal successful suicide. (Who would guess something as significant as suicide could include multiple factors? See Durkheim's book on Suicide) For South Korea, it is predominately elderly people who live in poverty that try to kill themselves, which is different than the US where it is middle aged men. But when comparing the us vs south korea it might be smart to compare the number or attempts vs # successful suicide attempts. It'd also be smart to think about how age relates to likelihood of success in suicide. How would their suicide rate change if people had access to guns? (It might stay the same, but is very unlikely that it'd go down.)
Like the other anon you seem triggered rather than thinking logically. If guns were to magically vanish and the rate of suicide attempts continued at the same rate, yes, the number of successful suicides would likely be reduced. This isn't a political statement (even though you seem to take it as such). As mentioned above multiple times, I do not care about gun control. However, if you are going to make an argument for one side or the other, it'd probably be a good idea to actually make sense.
The population has more than doubled since 1968, of course the absolute numbers are higher,
The fact that the average shooting deaths per year (half of which are suicides, ~8000 of which are gang related violence, thus from the start lowering that number to ~7500/yr when controlling for suicides and niggers I.E reasonably removing the highest and lowest denominators) has remained fairly constant while the population has continued to rise shows that there is no argument about increased violence OR sustained levels of violence.
And lastly nobody gives a flying fuck so kill yourself.
Atop using these long winded paragraphs.
Also, the largest cause of death for teens in Korea is suicide. So both the extreme young and extreme old are suffering.
But you didn't really answer my question about how gun control helps prevent suicide. I attempted suicide back when I was having side effects from Accutane. I didn't use a gun.
No, I am not "triggered" by posting one sentence. Seems like you are since you're going on and on without directly responding to my point that gun control does not help with suicides.
Gun = 85% likelihood of successful suicide.
Any other method = less likely to successfully commit suicide.
It is pretty simple math. If the number of attempts remain the same the number of successful suicides would drop.
People have a right to end their life. Ignoring that, relegating them to inferior methods of doing so is cruel, and tacking on the bureaucracy of the state to approve who gets to die is dangerous.
And countries with higher suicide rates disprove your expectation. You say those numbers WILL go down like you have precognition. "Simple math" doesn't cover the complexity of behavior, nor is your math statistically accurate.
96.2% of suicide by train attempts are successful. 97% of cyanide attempts are successful. 94.3% of suicide attempts jumping off a building are successful. Desperate people will find a way. What is your point about 85% of firearm attempted suicides being successful? Using your logic, we should ban depressed people from going higher than 3 floors, and near train tracks, since those methods of suicide are even more successful than guns.
Are you suggesting that death by self inflicted gun shot is a humane?
How might that argument would hold up against other conservatives? (right to die is frowned upon by the Christian right).
where are you getting these numbers? what % of suicide attempts use any of these means in the US?
>banning people from going three floors up.
kek. way to strawman that one out.
"Firearms are the most lethal and most common method of suicide in the U.S. More people who die by suicide use a gun than all other methods combined. Suicide attempts with a firearm are almost always fatal, while those with other methods are less likely to kill. Nine out of ten people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide later.
Every U.S. study that has examined the relationship has found that access to firearms is a risk factor for suicides. Firearm owners are NOT more suicidal than non-firearm owners; rather, their suicide attempts are more likely to be fatal. Many suicide attempts are made with little planning during a short-term crisis period. If highly lethal means are made less available to impulsive attempters and they substitute less lethal means, or temporarily postpone their attempt, the odds are increased that they will survive. Studies in a variety of countries have indicated that when access to a highly lethal and leading suicide method is reduced, the overall suicide rate drops driven by a drop in the restricted method."
This doesn't means guns need to be banned, but if you are arguing that guns have nothing to do with suicide rates, the argument doesn't carry much weight. People like owning guns because they are effective, powerful and easy weapon to use, these same attributes that are positive for arguments about protection become negative when viewed from the perspective of suicide. I don't understand why this gets you bent out of shape.
Holy shit. Yes desperate people will find a way. That's true for any fucking mental condition. He's talking about the people who would decide "hmm, maybe I shouldn't an hero" because the most effective method isn't on the table.
Also pay attention to the fact that in those battles. . . THE PEOPLE WERE ARMED. The people who die firearm related deaths in the US are mostly suicides, but in ALL the shootings, had the victims been armed, there'd be a lot less victims. That statistic would be shocking, if it wasn't just common sense. They're pretty much just saying "look at us point to numbers that don't actually deal with the multitudinous variables of human existence!"
We have more rights then you, yet youre mocking the US. I have a wonderful new idea: non-american, fuck off. We don't care about your opinion, and it has less then zero value in regards to the way our country is run.
NON-AMERICANS: FUCK OFF.
EXCUSE ME, don't trigger me by racially assuming things. If we banned those guns, they wouldn't shoot each other!!! They would just turn in their guns and stop buying them from personal dealers who sell only stolen guns!! I'm sure they'd even turn them in if we required it by law!
According to CDC and other universities, firearm isn't the most lethal method. If you take it away, they will find other ways which are in fact more lethal. Like jumping in front of a train, jumping off a building. That is what they do in Korea since the average citizen cannot get a firearm.
In every other country with high suicide rates, removing guns from the equation did not I pact the number of suicides one bit.
>short term crisis,short term solutin
Because it is so hard to find a tall building and jump, compared to purchasing a gun?
Impulse suicides happen. They close off the roof of the tallest building at the university I graduated from during finals because of this. People would see the final was hopeless, walk out of the classroom up to the 11th story roof and jump off.
I don't see how doing something with firearms helps impulse suicide.
>Lobbies control your laws
And we still vote in the people whom we choose. Lobbies whom we pay to lobby (NRA, ACLU) voice our opinions. Some lobbyists represent companies.
>Some cant even vote
Non-Americans can't vote, and retards who cant find their ID cant vote in all of, what, 3 states? It sounds like a decent idea to me.
First you're against businesses because of lobbying, then you're against? Ive never even heard of this. Car dealerships are fucking everywhere. There is no shortage of car sales.
>Jews cuck you for money
LOL, name any first world country that doesn't support Israel. They do it because we do it. I dont agree with it, but it still let's us spy on you.
>You're safe nowhere
This is pure myth. I drive for a living, and within my 500 miles radius, working every hour of any day, I have never been robbed, mugged, harassed, etc. Hell, ive seen more guns in my life then you cucks ever will, and have only ever heard gunshots at ranges and on the 4th of July. The media portrays the US falsely. That's like saying that everyone in the UK has terrible teeth and eats crumpets every day. It may be true, but in very, very small pockets. its very rare to ever actually encounter crime here. People fall for percentages and skewed data too easily. Do you have any idea how huge the US truly is? Do you know how many people there really are?
Yea, take a look at syria, whom has no real government, and let me know how that flawless freedom works.
Switzerland has forced military service.
Japan has 0 guns.
UK has people decide what's safest for them.
Germany gets cucked by liberal leader.
Australia is more cucked then the UK.
And don't give me those measly little countries with no actual government. They cannot compare to a nation the size of the US.
Yeah, because its not like
>suicides are the majority of that stat
>gang warfare is a leading factor
But, oh, sorry, was I using logic? Time to stoop down to the level of your average day liberal:
GUN CONTROL. NOW GUN CONTROL. NOW GUN CONTROL. NOW GUN CONTROL. NOW GUN CONTROL. NOW GUN CONTROL. NOW
>In civilized countries you have rights besides "comply or die"
You aren't even allowed to buy a gun for self-defense in Germany.
THE GOVERNMENTS BLAME THERE FUCKING RAPES ON THE WOMEN
How do you have rights?
It must feel terrible being wrong. I can taste your bitter tears from here, as I load .223 rounds into my magazine, lube my glock 42 for tomorrow, and gaze into the woodland pattern of my armored vest. This is freedom. You will never feel the cool touch of a round as it caresses your testes. You will never drive a 500 HP mustang. You will never own a fucking tank.
Placing your head in the sand and ignoring any weakness your argument isn't the best way to make a strong case. The only thing you have proven is that you are irrational and blinded by ideology. your retardation is comical since as I've mentioned multiple times I don't give a fuck about gun control just your poor reasoning on a simple aspect of the broader issue.
1. Your link says shotgun to head = most lethal. Your link goes on to say, "
Whilst individual studies might differ in terms of the actual mortality rate, they are fairly consistent that firearms and hanging are the two most effective methods. Jumping is also very effective if done from sufficient height." now we have a difference in the stats as the Harvard study places falls with a much lower success rate, but even if falling = less success it will equal less deaths. (You could debate how significant the difference would be based on the success rate and likelihood of people that would have used fire arms would now pick jumping off tall shit).
2. The Harvard research supports the notion that reduction in firearms = reduction is suicide deaths because other means are not as efficient (which your link says as well).
3. As for kid jumping off dorms. Access to the roof is often forbidden and high Windows don't seem to open wide enough to let people squeeze through. Regulating the space may prevent suicide deaths as the kids might turn to something less effective than falling.
4. Impulse suicides.
The Harvard study points out fun owners are not more suicidal but they have a greater risk of dying in suicide. If a gun is right there it is easy.
There are many ways to kill oneself and to kill other people. The power, ease, and accessibility of a gun makes it an attractive and effective tool for both. The power of the gun is what makes attractive for the idea of protection and for self harm. It is two sides of the same coin.
Roughly 2/3 of the 30,000+ number that gun control advocates like to parade around are due to suicide, dropping the annual non-suicide firearms deaths to 8K to 11K per year. They hate it when you point that out, by the way.
They're even more annoyed when you point out that nearly half (5,101 in 2010) of firearm homicides occurred in just 5 cities - L.A., NYC, Chicago, Detroit, and DC...all of which have some of the strictest gun control in the US.
Also interesting that in the UK and Australia, with near-total firearms bans in effect, the suicide rate remained virtually unchanged before and after bans; people found other ways to off themselves.
The U.S. has a homicide rate of about 3.9 per 100,000, and there are about 310 million firearms in private possession.
In contrast, Brazil requires all firearms to be registered, firearms may not be carried outside the home, every owner must have a permit costing about $1,000 which must be renewed every 3 years... and Brazil has a homicide rate of 24.6 per 100,000 (more than six times that of the USA) and only 17 million firearms (less than 6 percent of the USA), over half unregistered.
Just think - over 310 million firearms in the U.S., and yet at least 309,989,000 of those aren't being used to commit a murder in any given year.
Within the US, those numbers are also skewed a bit by the fact that the U.S. Virgin Islands has a homicide rate of 54.6 per 100,000 and Puerto Rico's rate is 18.5 per 100,000.
By the way, the U.S. homicide rate is 112th of 218 countries measured annually by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, while civilian firearm ownership is higher in the US. than anywhere else by far, at about 91 firearms per 100 people.
FBI statistics say black males (6 percent of the population) account for approximately 54% of firearm homicides and over 35% of all firearm homicide victims.
For white males, gun deaths are overwhelmingly suicide-related (77%).
For black males, gun deaths are overwhelmingly homicide-related (82%).
Solution to most gun violence = legalize drugs. Most gun violence comes from low level dealers fighting over turf, stolen product, etc. The majority of problems come from the low level dealers not the users.
If drugs were legalized and regulated America s level of violence and number of people would dramatically drop.
However, this wouldn't change most calls for gun control because no one gives a fuck about poor blacks killing each other, but instead worry about school shootings and terrorism.
Think before you open your mouth, or just don't speak if you don't know what you're talking about. The U.S. Civil War had more deaths than every other U.S. war combined, whether measured per year or in total -- you don't just "double up". By many measures it was the bloodiest Western war of the 19th century (and of all previous centuries, by extension, but there were fewer people and crappier weapons then).
If you are going to count the suicides under death by guns I demand that you move and count the suicides of veterans as death by warfare.
Yah, OP's assumptions suck.
He breaks apart the different wars into smaller circles, but he doesn't break apart the big lie of "firearm deaths" into murders by race, homicides, accidents, and the biggest one of all suicides.
Firearms are not the problem. The looney left with their inability to recognize simple facts are the problem. One, Triggers don't pull themselves. Two, you are only guilty and should have your human rights taken away AFTER you commit a crime.
OP has failed to count two significant things in his "war deaths."
War has two sides, thus not counting the enemies dead in American conflicts is unfair. After all an American shooting an American gun at a foreign person should count for something. Maybe racist op will compromise and count them as 3/5ths of a death?
Civilian casualties from war should also be count. Especially for the Civil War.
Stop trying to justify these stats. The fact is, there would be much less death in america if there were no guns. I'm not saying that people would just stop killing each other. It would just be a lot harder to do so. Please consider the difference of killing someone with a firearm to killing someone with a knife. For one, you can't do the later by accident.
Simply put, guns are designed, built and purchased to kill. There is almost no other practical use for a gun. When you allow the sale of weapons designed to kill, people are going to kill.
I always though the "stupid american" stereotype was just myth, but hearing some of you gun nuts is just proving it to be true.
>lot harder to do so
so, before there were ever guns we had no conflicts, no wars, no deaths at the hands of others because to most it was a lot harder to do so
>hard to use
Throwing a ton of numbers together like that strips them of all meaning.
For instance, the civil war alone represented 187,500 deaths per year (going by the chart's idiot estimate). Whereas those gun deaths are 32,273.7 deaths per year. Which sounds like a lot, until you realize the population is ten times higher today than it was in the civil war. So the civil war claimed .6% of the US population per year and gun deaths over 47 years are claiming only .0001% of the US population per year.
Also, if you go by the graph's idiot logic, gun deaths are positively dwarfed by car related fatalities of the last 47 years. If you assume a low average of 46,500 car deaths per year per the last 47 years, you get 2,185,500 car deaths over that period. 44% more than deaths by guns.
You miss the point. The practical purposes that nearly all guns are purchased for and in fact used for are either self-defense, target shooting, or hunting. 310 million guns in civilian hands. 11,000 are used to kill (0.0003%), and most of those are attributable to drug crime for which gun control will do literally nothing whatsoever.
Why does the military have guns? Police? To protect and defend. Why would I want my wife or daughter to be armed? Same reason. When seconds count, police are minutes away.
More importantly, why did American patriots put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution? To provide a bulwark against tyranny and the atrocities that a government can unleash against citizens or "subjects" that it deems a threat. The now-so-enlightened, anti-gun British can be thanked for that, as well as for the 1st, 3rd, and 4th amendments. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, and many more - there are literally dozens of cases just in the last century where governments have disarmed and then killed off their citizens by calling them dissidents. Almost none thought it would happen in their own "enlightened times."
For that matter, the U.S. and its allies, up to and including the Obama administration, has seen wisdom in arming a country's citizens - even with automatic weapons and artillery - against a tyrannical government.
There will be some criminals who break our laws and use guns to kill innocents. Heroin and cocaine are illegal, and yet anyone, anywhere, can get their hands on some in an hour or two if they were motivated to do so. DUI manslaughter is illegal, but what steps do we take to keep an average person from purchasing alcohol? We don't require a background check, we catch and punish them when a crime is committed. Someone could easily kill 50 people with a vehicle in short order - all they have to do is find conditions just like a mass shooter would - lots of targets with little cover and no defenses.
Excellent point. Anti-gun libs love to exaggerate and make up their own numbers. No semiautomatic weapon, including an AR-15, can fire 50 projectiles in 3 seconds. Period.
But let's ask this, since it's popular to paint "assault weapons" (A stupid term on its face, it's just a semiautomatic rifle, being unfairly associated with an automatic machine gun) as particularly deadly, I'm sure the anti-gun folks would be happy if we just stopped there, right? Like Obama and Hillary say, you crazy gun nuts, we aren't after ALL guns, just the really scary "assault weapons?"
Well, let's see: with a 1911 .45 pistol, available to the public for over 100 years now, I can fire 8 rounds (each more than twice as big as an AR-15's) with the original magazine, drop the mag, and insert a new one all in a few seconds, lather, rinse, repeat. A revolver, around since Colt's 1873 Peacemaker, can fire six rounds, take 10-20 seconds to reload, and fire six more, etc. and thus hit 1-2 dozen targets in a minute without a particularly high degree of skill. In fact, at a medium pace of one trigger pull per second and 15 seconds to drop in 6 new bullets, someone could send 24 bullets downrange in just over a minute. What about Joe Biden's comment that all you need for home defense is a double-barreled shotgun? There you have nine 00 buck lead balls, each bigger than an AR-15 round, headed out with each trigger pull - 18 projectiles in less than 2 seconds. Reloading might take 10 seconds if you're slow about it.
Make no mistake - they want the "big, black, scary" guns now (which aren't substantially different for a mass shooting scenario) because they keep trying to make it sound like a full auto battlefield machine gun - but they will stop at no less than complete disarmament. If bad guys chose sportscars for getaway vehicles, they'd ban sportscars - and define a Honda Civic with a spoiler as a sportscar too. Meanwhile, a Toyota Camry would do the same job, so they accomplish nothing.
To be fair, once you start talking about the size of the bullet, you're kinda undermining your own arguments by diving into the same type of emotional appeal as those you're arguing against. As there isn't much correlation between caliber and lethality and the more factors you add to such an equation (skill level, reaction times, recoil, etc) the fuzzier that correlation gets.
The primary issue being how low recoil, high fire rate weapons allow for much lower skill levels to achieve higher lethality. But even still, lone gunmen never seem to achieve very high lethality at all.
So the question is, if they don't want to take away "all" guns, what guns are supposedly "safe" from ban and confiscation, and on what basis? You don't get much more old-school, cowboy gun than an 1873 Colt Peacemaker or a double-barreled farmer's shotgun - but the point is those could be just as deadly if used as mass shooters use guns - indiscriminate firing to maximize casualties at close range. If someone were going to fight to defend his homestead from invaders at close and far range, an AR-15 is a versatile choice. Close range only, shotgun is a good defensive weapon (or offensive, in the wrong hands). Carrying concealed or in a vehicle, a revolver or semiauto pistol is the right tool for the job.
Here's the important point, though: for someone bent on killing a bunch of people indiscriminately, in a close range, target-rich, no-return-fire environment like a gun-free zone, it's just a matter of their sick personal preference. ANY firearm more advanced than a muzzleloader will do all the damage they are looking for in the ten minutes or more it takes police to arrive. For that matter, a crude bomb (Boston) or even knives would lead to mass casualties (2014 Kunming knife attack killed 29 and wounded 143). Against unarmed, concentrated groups of people, a single person with a machete could kill dozens in minutes (if you don't believe it, ask a Tutsi.)
There is zero reason to believe that a ban of a group of firearms (black semiautomatic rifles with "tactical" grips and such) that have little real world difference from any other ordinary firearm, will deprive a criminal of a means to commit mass murder. Kids learn target shooting with a basic .22. People who don't understand firearms will want to ban the basic Marlin Model 60 that most kids plink tin cans with when learning gun safety, describing it as "capable of firing 18 shots semiautomatic with a bullet the same diameter as an AR-15 round."
And what of the 300 millions guns already in the US? People seem to forget that this is just legally obtained guns, and doesn't account for illegally imported guns, built guns, or the millions of guns sold after this number was estimated.
The reason there are so many is because we have a right as Americans to own guns. Your slave mind may not be able to comprehend that.
I completely agree with you. The "bullet size," or rather bullet diameter, means little in this context; I was trying to make an association with the fact that an AR-15 .223/5.56 round isn't like some sort of anti-aircraft round; anti-gun folks wouldn't know that and think it's devastatingly powerful. In fact, it's been criticized by our own military as underpowered for many anti-personnel applications where they would prefer a 7.62/.308. However, at close range on an unprotected target, assuming shot placement in a vital area, the damage may vary, but the actual outcome from 5.56, 7.62, 00 Buck, or .45 is likely going to be the same, namely, a fatality.
I sometimes wonder: if I were being held at gunpoint, or dodging bullets, what would I hope was on the other end? Hard to say, but I know the shotgun would instill the most fear as even a low-skill shooter would be likely to score a catastrophic hit. If I knew for sure I was going to get hit with one bullet, the .45 might be scariest. Best accuracy would go to the 5.56, but I don't think mass shooters are shooting more than a few yards at any target anyway, so the advantage is lost. Firing rate is almost identical among them all, up to their capacity, but reload time isn't the big factor it's portrayed by those who want to ban "high capacity" magazines.
You do have a good point with the recoil issue, though - low (and well distributed) recoil on some firearms does factor in, assuming multiple shots on the same target, as it makes it much easier for the shooter to stay on target with his victim for follow-up shots.
>so why don't people who you vote for represent your interests in the first place? Oh that's right, you're not free.
I vote for those who represent me. Democrats vote for those who represent them. Why is someone from a dictator-lead country trying to suggest I dont know how my country works? On top of that, what is with your obsession with America?
>your lack of knowledge of the population is staggering. 25% of african americans don't have any form of ID in the first place.
What the fuck? We all get drivers licenses, you can go get a regular ID at any time. We all have social security cards from birth. One can get a CCW in most states. There are countless ways to get an ID, that excuse is like saying 'I want a drink but the fridge is 10 feet away!'
>ok so you're just going to ignore the point of competitivity. It's sad that I know your country more than you do. Try to research why Tesla doesn't sell its own cars in most states.
Tesla cant afford to build as many dealerships as other companies. Do you have any clue as to the cost of building, employing, and stocking a dealership? We have a lotus dealership, a smart dealership, a Fiat dealership, all uncommon names here that are doing just as you're suggesting they can't. On top of that, youre well over 1000 miles away from US soil, and are making assumptions about what youve been told is the case. I live in what you sit and argue about on the internet.
Please see your own words, just one line below these words. You are by far the most hypocritical, stereotypical foreigner that hates a country you have nothing to do with, no understanding of, and no control over.
>You can literally present no rebutal.
I did. You chose to ignore it because you either didn't like it or couldn't read it.
>Hurt durr u so mad lel
This board is for debating and discussing news. You're welcome to respond with a childish reply and admit defeat.
Exactly. You should Google the video of Representative Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) about high capacity magazines. She argues, with a straight face, that a ban would be effective over time since magazines are ammunition and they would eventually get used up, and then there would be no more.
Never ceases to amaze me that elected officials or media types who start rambling about gun control have such a near-total misunderstanding of what they're talking about. Can you imagine if they let that fly with sports commentators? "Oh, no, that's clearly the third down. Just look - there are one, two, three, no, four guys all on the same team in that pileup. It's the fourth down."
>In fact, it's been criticized by our own military as underpowered
the rounds have single hit stopping power. any shot that hits flesh is most often described as "explosive" even in military reports.
i suppose if you're talking about trying to shoot the driver of a moving car through the side of a car door and a passenger then maybe it's not quite powerful enough to do that in a short burst.
it's not underpowered by any means in a civilian setting. in a civilian setting it is point and click death.
In 2014, about 16000 were murdered with any type of gun.
This site breaks it down by section, and please also note the difference between the CDCs numbers and the FBIs numbers.gunpolicydawtorg/firearms/region/united-states
You should really look into the car dealership thing more. The lack of dealerships isn't a matter of cost, it is flat out illegal in many states for tesla (or any other manufacturer) to sell thier cars directly to the public (which is one of tesla's selling points). There are fucked up laws in place that there HAS to be a middleman to peddle you your new car.
No doubt it's more than adequate for lots of situations and it's versatile. I'm not criticizing the 5.56 round. I'm a fan for the same reasons the US military is: low weight, low recoil, versatile round, substantial damage to target. Compare it to 7.62x51, the prior standard for the M14 and various NATO weapons, and it in no way compares with one-shot stop effectiveness. The 5.56 round was developed because of its low weight (user can carry twice as much ammo for the same weight) and low recoil, leading to better control.
But don't take my word for it: Dr. Martin Fackler, the founder and head of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory for the US Army, described 5.56 as highly dependent on yaw and deformation for effectiveness, and that it if it fails to upset because it doesn't pass through enough tissue, (e.g. "only" a limb), then it creates "relatively insignificant" wounds. His words: "As expected, with decreased wounding effects, rapid incapacitation is unlikely: enemy soldiers may continue to pose a threat to friendly forces and violent suspects can remain a danger to law enforcement personnel and the public."
As far as a car door, that tiny amount of steel does little to slow either a 5.56x45 OR a 7.62x51.
My point doesn't contradict yours, however, nor does yours contradict mine. As I wrote before, assuming shot placement in a vital area, outcome = likely fatality. My point is that when described by the media or uninformed individuals, the 5.56 is usually described as "high powered" and in superlative terms that would make you think it's some devastating alien ultra-round. It's a great round, but it's a small caliber, high velocity round; in comparison to other rifle rounds, even standard hunting rounds, its strengths are not in the impact or penetration it delivers to the target. It's around 1250 ft/lb2 energy, less than half that of 7.62x51, 30-06, or 308, or even a 100-year old Russian Mosin 7.62x54.
America srsly needs a gun ban
dont worry im sure old Obama has a trick up his sleeve before he steps down
But Hillary is also for gun control so no worries there,Trump aint gonna win to racist and percentice wise
about fucking time !
here is a thought. there are approximately 318.9 million people in the USA. That 31,500 people a year just does not register. As a counter point from the years or 1968(to be similar to your info) to 2015 the number of FATAL car crashes were between 54,589-32,675(the number of deaths has sharply dropped off with newer vehicles in more recent years) does that mean we need to ban cars as well for our safety? how about instead of banning guns or making laws stricter, lets improve the areas where these violent actions occur. gang violence wouldn't happen if they didn't have any thing to fight over .
it makes me sad knowing I live in the US and can do nothing about not only the state of gun control but also the impression that I'm a mindless gun-toting goon. I want nothing to do with firearms and wish the US would ban them completely. It's a daily level of disgust that I feel for millions of others that live here.
the wildly funny thing is that "innovation" seems to be a strong deterrent for regulation. Yeah man, bandwidth requires so much innovation. we use the same cable and fiber lines that have been in use via infrastructure for years, but it's literally a no-thought to increase bandwidth to individual homes once their "low tier" internet plan eschews the minimum that the company offers; they literally upgrade you for being a cuck and doing nothing while locked into a contract. what does this tell you? do we really need infrastructure innovation?
Looking at that average, I can already tell they are counting suicide and justifiable homicide by gun. Thank fuck the FBI keeps track of homicide statistics and posts them online where anyone can see. Get fucked Jew York Slime.
Slide it again kike
You missed my point completely, its gonna take a lot more to kill someone with a blade/bow/stick than it is to shoot someone.
2/3 of those purposes are killing, the last is practise killing. You don't seem to have a lot of faith in the country you call home if you think everyone should be armed for self defence. The only reason you would need guns for self defence is if the attacker has a gun. Unless you are not confident in your ability to defend yourself without one.
>muh rights to kill
So you personally think that disabled or elderly shouldn't be able to defend themselves? You support rape and assault on women? All people who are much less capable of physically defending themselves on average. The only logical explanation for not wanting a person to be able to defend themselves is that you want to be able to take advantage of them. So who would you target? Elderly abuse or rape? Mugging people or robbing houses? What violent action are you afraid to take while people are physically capable of stopping you?
Lol. In my country people generally don't need to defend themselves, perhaps because there aren't psychopaths running about the street with guns. Just because I'm against the right to own killing machines does not in any way mean I want to attack the elderly and women alike. What a stupid assumption to make, then again I'm arguing with Americans what did I expect? Perhaps you Americans need to stop breeding generation after generation of psychopathic killers. Perhaps preventing them from accumulating an arsenal would be a good start.
I got a couple of questions towards this graph:
1) How many gun related deaths stem from suicides?
2) How many gun deaths come from inner city and gang related crimes?
3) How many of the deaths from the graph are from rifles and high powered weaponry against handguns?
You can't say it that way when you're communicating with close minded people. You have to beat around the bush by talking about studying the demographics and looking at the most affected communities, etc.
It's absolutely true that a white American with a gun is as safe to be around as a Japanese or a European, and that none of these people would walk through Detroit etc at night or even in broad daylight, but none of them will ever admit that.
TBH it costs more money to keep these people alive and a burden on society, cleanup and a funeral are cheap, decades of treatment ends up being money that noone, self, family, friends, employers, government, etc, wants to spend on them. Not to mention that its usually unsuccessful and leads to a pain filled life of misery.
Let them end it if they choose, you should be able to go to a hospital and get a pill, and be cremated or w/e with dignity.
First off, your response had nothing to do with what he said.
Second, that's not what it's for. It's for target shooting and protecting my family. If someone breaks in, i shoot them. Plain and simple, yet you eurofags will never understand.
Let me ask you this. What's better, being robbed and having a gun to fend off thieves, or hiding in your closet hoping to not be found?
Because I know what you, who is forced to be disarmed, would do.
Most of that shit is gangbanger and cartel (read: nigger and spic) related. A very large amount actually, however we can't know for sure because they process a lot of Hispanics and even some blacks as "Caucasian" to bump up the white crime rate. I would upload a pic if I could, just look up some FBI most wanted lists. It's mostly Hispanics labelled as white male.
It's already regulated. Nobody gave a shit in the 80's and 90's when more people were murdered with guns. This is a concerted effort by treasonous cunts and non Americans to make anyone who owns a gun a criminal. The fact that they toss in suicides and justifiable homicide without mentioning it in OP's image is proof of how low they will stoop.
>misleading graph is misleading
>In a nation with gangs, mentally unstable, suicides, justified homicide, etc.
>Years since 1968: 48
>Average length of war: 6.25 years
>Equating firearm related deaths with violent firearm deaths
I thought this dumbassery ended at /pol/
I was wrong
This is the stupidest fucking metric I've ever seen. On a long enough timeline, the number of Americans that die from bee stings will outnumber the Americans killed in wars.
On another note, how many Americans have died in automobile accidents from 1968-2015?
>Wow, life is dangerous and people get killed
I guess that's when gun deaths started to be recorded.
They could've said 1965 and it would make a perfect whole 50 years, making the point even more obvious, but I guess they didn't have any data of before 1968
They reproduce faster than they kill each other. Before they die in a hail of bullets over Nike's they will have replicated 2-5 times or more.
Couple this with the fact that the average black woman is so obese that she will die of heart disease right around the same time she loses fertility, you basically have Zerg.
The monetary toll of death and violence and unintended children only increase.
So you're trying to use semantics to support your claim?
The suicidal person is still pulling the trigger, they're still killing themselves with a gun. The OP in fact can be taken two ways ("is killing themselves" can be taken as killing each other or killing themselves). And the article even says that it is including suicides.
Please shitpost elsewhere.
I agree. Why not instead of deportation, we just try our best to resolve the crime and stop it from happening? Like you said, legalizing weed, encouraging minorities to get jobs and stop killing one another.
It's not saying war deaths = gun deaths in the US, it's using the war deaths as a comparative figure. They are pointing out that deaths with guns are close to the number of deaths in every war since the country started.
If you wanted to call it into question, then you should ask how population size and density has risen since the revolutionary war. We have way more people now so it's understandable that we have way more deaths. It's still a depressing thought, and something should probably done other than shitposting, but them's the breaks kid.
A big part about finding work is the dated methods we have to find it. There are hundreds of job posting sites, but that requires a computer or in some cases a phone. Employment offices usually push out temp employment, which isn't a sustainable method especially if the company is shitty. Honestly a lot of this would be avoided if temps didn't get practically abused. Most companies use temps to avoid health insurance and other benefits afforded to perm employees, which considerably drives down temp morale.
This is not excluding the idea that some companies barely glance at poorer applicants before moving on to someone else. They want dependable workhorses, and that doesn't really work when someone wants a raise due to high costs of living.
The fact we are facing is that firearms have killed more in the US than have died in all major wars. Nothing beyond that.
One kind of idiot says that restrictions on firearms wouldnt cut that number down.
The other kind of idiot says that gun restrictions would save all those suicidal lives.
Note that this excludes DC as an outlier; the 2010 statistics give DC a homicide rate of ~ 20 / 100000.
This is notably higher than the rest, but since the passing of DC vs Heller (2008), striking down the ban on gun ownership in DC, gun crime and murder has been dropping rapidly.
2/3rds of that number are suicodes. What I do with my own body does not concern you. Fuck off and eat shit. If I want to off myself it's my own choice.
If you are going to compare self-inflicted deaths to ones sustained in warfare you might as well add the 88,000 or so peoppe who die to alcohol each year.
You can burn them to death instead.
Reminder that the deadliest mass murder by a single person was arson
Even more kills than the OKC bombing
77% of WHITE gun deaths are suicide.
"Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks committed half of ALL homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years"
blacks always gotta fuck up everything
Why are they such savages? Shitlibs subconsciously acknowledge this by not holding them to the same standard as white.
Heard this black woman Ayaan Hirsi Ali call it "The Racism of Low Expectations"
"Deaths from mass shootings are a relatively small share of firearm homicides. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report (Congressional Research Service, 2013), 78 public mass shootings occurred in the United States from 1983 through 2012, claiming 547 lives"
The way the media talks about them you'd think the number would be higher......
NRA has the money of multiple gun manufacturers tho, where would this antigun lobby ever get the money to challenge that. I have mixed opinions on the issue, but only an idiot wouldn't see that they have a vested interest in keeping guns legal.
How many of these are suicides? How many are related to inner city violence?
I'd like to see the figure adjusted for suicides and that data used to make a heat map of gun violence across the country.
You're assumption is that the killing is a "murder" or unjustifiable death. What you anti-gun nuts always fail to consider is the number who are killed as a result of self-defense. It's the reason most people own guns in the first place.
Probably because they felt like it would be relevant to start measuring from the start of the first big gun control act since the start of the century: