Guns in America

MadHatter wrote: So I have factually prove for four years going back that gun deaths are less then 1% of deaths in the US and that a big mac and laziness is FAR FAR more likely to kill you. How much more do I need to go back?

Again, correlation does not equal causation. I applaud your sources, but they don't show that the Big Mac and laziness are more likely to kill you. You only demonstrated that heart disease is highest killer as of 2012 which is not the same.

MadHatter wrote: Further you said you would rather die then kill someone well how about the family in Cheshire connecticut who had a home invasion using a bat and a kitchen knife. The women were raped and then the house burned down around them while they were still alive. The youngest of them was only 11! So you are saying its better that these people were disarmed then having a fighting chance? Because we saw what them being unarmed resulted in. Would you rather allow that to happen to people you love then take a life? Because I would go out fighting with anything and everything I had rather then suffer that fate but you would say that you have the right to demand I cant.

Emotional appeal game strong, but it doesn't change the fact that the cost of living with having taken a life is too high for me. Unless you've taken a life, I don't think you're qualified to tell anyone taking a life and living with that is better than losing one's own.

You only attacked the idea that it's mental illness. You did not debunk the statistics regarding how many lives are taken by gun wielding criminals vs. everything else.

I'll give you three of the four articles you posted were good (Articles 1, 2 and 4) But Kimberly Yonkers clearly wants to shout out to the rooftops that she knows something- that she doesn't. A great deal of people with mental illness go undiagnosed, therefore it cannot be used as a means of discrediting the idea that they had mental illness. In fact it is a much stronger argument to say "when we looked into these guys we found they were linked to extremists, which is not a psychiatric illness, it's a self-esteem issue". Instead of attacking that gun violence is 20% higher here than in other developed countries, she misses that violence doesn't know weapons, and does not address the concern that violence can come in any form. Which is something that SeventhSL pointed out in regards to Australia.

7% of our budget goes towards helping the mentally ill- and? We have far more people than other nations, PLUS we have a stigma against it here (making it more difficult to diagnose some of these people that need the diagnosis).

But mental illness wasn't the only problem he demonstrated. He demonstrated that there are a number of other issues, and if we start banning all of them...we'll we will all end up suicide watch.

Now is that a completely valid argument? It's extreme. Actually I think the best argument in here came from SeventhSL: Homicide just finds another avenue to inflict it's will upon others.

Ousan Ka wrote: Personally, I see Jamie's idea of gun control (ban, turn over guns, or go to jail) to be very opposed to Jediism. Seems to me that Jediism is probably closer to libertarianism than fascism.

Banning guns is only a half measure. I'm an anarchist so ultimately I'd rather not have a State, but since there is one I can only support policies which make the world safer while I not-so-quietly work towards the end of current regimes.

Oh please the cost is too high? Ok we know that obesity is the LEADING cause of heart disease. So yes logcially it stands to reason that being lazy and poor diet are the leading cause of death but lets toss that aside. I have STILL proven that guns cause less then 1% of all deaths in the US. You cannot claim something is an issue when it is less then 1% of all deaths. Its not even in the TOP TEN. Accidents are in the top ten. So yea you are more likely to die of a heart attack or slip and fall then a firearm. Please explain what cost is too high.

Further you have yet to answer up to the statement that you in one breath claimed oh look I dont own guns and nothing has happened but oh guns are dangerous. Sorry but if you have lived your life with nothing happening it doesnt appear guns have been a risk now does it. They are either an issue or they are not. I have as I said had my life saved by a gun more then once. So dont tell me about cost vs reward. Unless YOU have had defensive scenarios like I have it would appear that you are the one unqualified to talk. Finally I dont need to have done something to know that I would rather send the other person into the grave early then watch my family members die at their hands.

Can I remind all involved in the debate...

TOTJO FAQ wrote: Here at TotJO we debate arguments not personalities and ideas instead of people.

Let's try and keep to the issues, not to the people debating them please.

Alethea Thompson wrote: You only attacked the idea that it's mental illness. You did not debunk the statistics regarding how many lives are taken by gun wielding criminals vs. everything else.

Ah, finally someone paying attention. You're right, but I think it would be almost impossible to prove my ultimate point so I will include this link which I think lends credibility to my lesser points.

Alethea Thompson wrote: I'll give you three of the four articles you posted were good (Articles 1, 2 and 4) But Kimberly Yonkers clearly wants to shout out to the rooftops that she knows something- that she doesn't. A great deal of people with mental illness go undiagnosed, therefore it cannot be used as a means of discrediting the idea that they had mental illness.

You're right, that third article isn't the strongest one of the bunch.

Alethea Thompson wrote: 7% of our budget goes towards helping the mentally ill- and? We have far more people than other nations, PLUS we have a stigma against it here (making it more difficult to diagnose some of these people that need the diagnosis).

Which would suggest we need to increase spending towards mental health research and care, but not open-season gun policies.

Alethea Thompson wrote: But mental illness wasn't the only problem he demonstrated. He demonstrated that there are a number of other issues, and if we start banning all of them...we'll we will all end up suicide watch.

Non sequitur, how does banning guns result in us all ending up on suicide watch? I saw two causes: mental illness and gangs, but because you're arguing that violence will continue even without guns I don't really see how that factors into anything.

MadHatter wrote: Oh please the cost is too high? Ok we know that obesity is the LEADING cause of heart disease. So yes logcially it stands to reason that being lazy and poor diet are the leading cause of death but lets toss that aside.

No, we do not. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary . Obesity is one of the causes, but it is not the necessarily the leading cause.

MadHatter wrote: I have STILL proven that guns cause less then 1% of all deaths in the US. You cannot claim something is an issue when it is less then 1% of all deaths. Its not even in the TOP TEN. Accidents are in the top ten. So yea you are more likely to die of a heart attack or slip and fall then a firearm. Please explain what cost is too high.

One percent looks small, but in 2012 the population of America was 313 million people . That means that 3,130,000 people died of gun deaths. It's a little disingenuous to say it's only one percent in that context.

MadHatter wrote: Further you have yet to answer up to the statement that you in one breath claimed oh look I dont own guns and nothing has happened but oh guns are dangerous. Sorry but if you have lived your life with nothing happening it doesnt appear guns have been a risk now does it. They are either an issue or they are not. I have as I said had my life saved by a gun more then once. So dont tell me about cost vs reward. Unless YOU have had defensive scenarios like I have it would appear that you are the one unqualified to talk. Finally I dont need to have done something to know that I would rather send the other person into the grave early then watch my family members die at their hands.

I don't recall you saying that a gun has personally saved your life, only that you would feel safer with a gun than without because you'd be defenseless. No, I will not engage in scenarios because that's just speculation and therefore not evidence.

Jamie Stick wrote:
One percent looks small, but in 2012 the population of America was 313 million people . That means that 3,130,000 people died of gun deaths. It's a little disingenuous to say it's only one percent in that context.

Except your numbers are FALSE. I posted how many deaths total and how many from murder that year the number from murder is around 14,500 ish. Go back and look. Sorry but that is a tiny number of people. Further you did your math based on total population not total deaths. In short you are reaching and making up numbers to support your facts via a news paper which is not a good source.

Jamie Stick wrote:
I don't recall you saying that a gun has personally saved your life, only that you would feel safer with a gun than without because you'd be defenseless. No, I will not engage in scenarios because that's just speculation and therefore not evidence.

Thats fine people miss things. But you in one breath say unless ive been in a situation then I cant know and yet refuse to debate situations because they are useless. Sorry but you consistently goal shift here.

The fact is that gun deaths and murder in general are a TINY percentage of deaths in the US. You cant claim something is an issue when its less then 1% of all deaths. As I said you are more likely to get hit by a bus or die in a slip and fall then die from a violent encounter. Your argument is all fear based and not based on reason or fact. Its fear of something bad happening when the numbers show that its highly unlikely to ever happen.
Now you could attempt the argument that oh then why do you need a firearm. First of all firearms are like a parachute you are unlikely to ever need one but if you need it and dont have it you will likely never need it again. Secondly you are attempting to ban something based on fears that are by clear numbers unfounded. In other words you want to restrict a right based on baseless fears. Finally I could spend the day posting situation after situation where guns saved lives that means that while guns are less then 1% of the issue as far as death in concerned they do help people every day. But it appears you are saying its better to add to the total of dead or injured then let them defend themselves and those they love.

Well, I try to keep in mind that I live in a time and place where people sell cigarettes and alcohol...These things come with packaging that say they will kill you.

Thats not limited to the US, and once you consider the fact that people are allowed to do that and do so with a smile, and the amount of deaths tobacco and alcohol cause yearly, well...Common sense, intelligence,mental illness, personal responsibility....

Well, all the data in the world will not fix stupid apparently.

Still, I would not deny people there freedoms, though clearly there needs to be something done in regards to gun control, but I still support the right to own guns, and yes, I own guns. I dont smoke cigarettes, or drink though.

I do like fast food occasionally....

Conversations like this, give me gas.

I don't really think the mental illness is the problem. I tend to agree with the following:



I could live with or without guns (I certainly enjoy them, but I can live without them), I'm more concerned with fixing the overarching problem- which is that most of the time it turns out these people are recluse, don't have hardly any good influences, and are left to their own devices. The Charleston shooting is one of the exceptions to the rule, where he had good friends but somehow he got suckered into believing the nonsense of white supremacists.