Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
Questions for liberals.
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
May 30, 2021 16:20:58   #
trainspotter Loc: Oregon
 
bgate wrote:
Interesting read breaks gun "violence" down into statistics instead of giving you a blanket number the Democraps throw out to you...........
-Mike-

JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???

There are 30,000 gun-related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun-related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:


65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws

15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug-related or mentally ill persons gun violence

3% are accidental discharge deaths


So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)


So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.


This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.


Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.


Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of the crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals, and thinking that criminal will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.


But what about other deaths each year?

40,000+ die from a drug overdose THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths

34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)


Now it gets good:

200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!


710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!


So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:

The taking away of guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.


Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."
Interesting read breaks gun "violence" d... (show quote)


DILLY...DILLY!

Reply
May 30, 2021 17:20:10   #
thom w Loc: San Jose, CA
 
travelwp wrote:
Liberals agree to:

1. Taking money away from Police.
2. Firing police officers.
3. Attacking police officers.
4. Making police officers the object of your scorn.

Question for liberals:
How can these actions lead to better public safety?


1. Taking some money away from some Police.
2. Firing police officers when called for.
3. Attacking police officers. FALSE
4. Making certain police officers the object of your scorn.

Leaving out (3) which is blatantly false, these are things everybody should agree with.

Reply
May 30, 2021 17:22:38   #
thom w Loc: San Jose, CA
 
Huey Driver wrote:
Tell me how well are the gun laws we now have working today? Why do you think more laws will make people act differently when they decide to commit something evil?


Effective gun laws will not rely on criminals obeying them. They will attack the supply stream which delivers guns to criminals.

Reply
 
 
May 30, 2021 17:46:28   #
Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL
 
thom w wrote:
1. Taking some money away from some Police.
2. Firing police officers when called for.
3. Attacking police officers. FALSE
4. Making certain police officers the object of your scorn.

Leaving out (3) which is blatantly false, these are things everybody should agree with.


There are around 800,000 fully commissioned (not reserves or civilian employees) police officers in the US. 306 of them were killed in the line of duty in 2020. How many of these sacrifices were lauded by liberal TV broadcasters? Not many. Were the people who killed them excoriated? Nope. A few of those thugs were killed by fellow officers, but not nearly enough.

How many of the 800k proved to be bad cops deserving of punishment? I'm going to guess less than a hundred. Yes, that's a hundred too many, but should every police officer in the country bear the guilt of those who misbehaved? Policing is a risky business. Departments are going to keep heaping restrictions on their officers in a quest to appease 13% of the population, making it impossible for them to do their jobs without even more risk. Many good officers are resigning and many more will, until all that's left are the bottom of the barrel.

Reply
May 30, 2021 18:59:15   #
FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga
 
thom w wrote:
Effective gun laws will not rely on criminals obeying them. They will attack the supply stream which delivers guns to criminals.


By this you saying... Guns store burglary, home invasion, and theft I suppose? plus of course black market.

I guess if it is that, I will suggest when apprehended a death sentence, the rest of the criminals will understand in a hurry.

Reply
May 31, 2021 00:35:46   #
mwalsh Loc: Houston
 
travelwp wrote:
I expected a response like yours:

1. A question was asked and you didn't answer it.
2. You provided a snarky remark.


When you ask a question based on a snarky and flawed introductory statement, what kind of responses do you expect to get from them?

Reply
May 31, 2021 07:50:28   #
Leo_B Loc: Houston suburb
 
mwalsh wrote:
When you ask a question based on a snarky and flawed introductory statement, what kind of responses do you expect to get from them?


There is nothing flawed or snarky to the OP question. It is factual and accurate. The only flaw is the leftist thinking.

Reply
 
 
May 31, 2021 08:23:21   #
Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay
 
Leo_B wrote:
There is nothing flawed or snarky to the OP question. It is factual and accurate. The only flaw is the leftist thinking.


Says you! Are you willing to bet your life on it?

And no, this is not a threat.

Reply
May 31, 2021 08:39:23   #
thom w Loc: San Jose, CA
 
Alafoto wrote:
There are around 800,000 fully commissioned (not reserves or civilian employees) police officers in the US. 306 of them were killed in the line of duty in 2020. How many of these sacrifices were lauded by liberal TV broadcasters? Not many. Were the people who killed them excoriated? Nope. A few of those thugs were killed by fellow officers, but not nearly enough.

How many of the 800k proved to be bad cops deserving of punishment? I'm going to guess less than a hundred. Yes, that's a hundred too many, but should every police officer in the country bear the guilt of those who misbehaved? Policing is a risky business. Departments are going to keep heaping restrictions on their officers in a quest to appease 13% of the population, making it impossible for them to do their jobs without even more risk. Many good officers are resigning and many more will, until all that's left are the bottom of the barrel.
There are around 800,000 fully commissioned (not r... (show quote)


In what way does my post counter any of that?

Reply
May 31, 2021 08:54:12   #
Leo_B Loc: Houston suburb
 
Kraken wrote:
Says you! Are you willing to bet your life on it?

And no, this is not a threat.


Here is the OP. What exactly is flawed or snarky? What are you even talking about for that matter. And yes, I am 100% certain the OP is fair and accurate and not in any way, shape or form flawed or snarky.

Liberals agree to:

1. Taking money away from Police.
2. Firing police officers.
3. Attacking police officers.
4. Making police officers the object of your scorn.

Question for liberals:
How can these actions lead to better public safety?

Reply
May 31, 2021 09:02:50   #
Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay
 
Leo_B wrote:
Here is the OP. What exactly is flawed or snarky? What are you even talking about for that matter. And yes, I am 100% certain the OP is fair and accurate and not in any way, shape or form flawed or snarky.

Liberals agree to:

1. Taking money away from Police.
2. Firing police officers.
3. Attacking police officers.
4. Making police officers the object of your scorn.

Question for liberals:
How can these actions lead to better public safety?


Where did you get that I said flawed or snarky?

You obviously have reading problems so anything you say should be taken as BS.

Reply
 
 
May 31, 2021 11:18:10   #
Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL
 
thom w wrote:
In what way does my post counter any of that?


It does not. The use of the word "some" makes your statement factual. There are "some" bad police officers. I know a couple of them, fortunately retired now. Perhaps you do too. The thrust of my statement was to ask why "some" people paint every cop with the same brush?

Reply
May 31, 2021 11:43:59   #
mwalsh Loc: Houston
 
Leo_B wrote:
There is nothing flawed or snarky to the OP question. It is factual and accurate. The only flaw is the leftist thinking.


Where did I say his question was snarky?

Reply
Jun 1, 2021 13:08:49   #
dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho
 
thom w wrote:
Effective gun laws will not rely on criminals obeying them. They will attack the supply stream which delivers guns to criminals.


"Attack the supply stream which delivers guns to criminals". WOW!!! If that is not the most ridiculous statement about keeping guns from criminals I have ever heard, princess.

Explain on what supply stream that is. You make it sound as if there is a specific supply of guns coming from specific sources that could be stopped from delivering firearms to criminals. So tell us what those sources are. Surely you do not mean the supply of firearms delivered to the Mexican drug cartel by President Obama and AG, Eric Holder, do you? Now THAT was truly a supply chain that should have never been started. And to top it all off it supplied tons of firearms to some of the most dangerous and ruthless drug dealers on the planet. Thanks Barack and Eric for breaking America's laws and having America's own ATF officers in on the crime.

But back to you princess. What supply chain is going to be stopped. What effective gun laws will be enacted to accomplish this task? Enquiring minds want to know.

From my experience criminals get their firearms by home break ins, breaking into a gun store, breaking into a National Armory to get military firearms and so on. Once they have those firearms they then use them in crimes OR sell them on the street. But we are talking about scattered thugs selling firearms. Are you aware of a Cabela's or Big Five type of store that does wholesale business ONLY to thugs? How did you come by this information? Is that where you purchased your sawed off shotgun?

It does sound like you are on the right track with your stopping the supply chain of firearms to thugs. What laws will be enacted, by whom, when?

Dennis

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.