Guns in America

MadHatter wrote:

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.

Whoops, my bad. :lol: :lol: :lol:

MadHatter wrote: In short you are reaching and making up numbers to support your facts via a news paper which is not a good source.

Admittedly I flubbed with the numbers (honestly, I completely blanked on which numbers I needed to get the 1% from and thus got an epic error). However, do you have any reason and support for your claim that my source was inaccurate or unreliable?

MadHatter wrote: 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.

Scenarios, I will not debate scenarios, which is different than if you wish you discuss a situation which happened to you personally. Additionally, it is difficult to debate reports of non-personal home invasion cases because many of the facts of those cases are not released to the public (usually it's the high profile cases that get broad coverage).

MadHatter wrote: 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.

Actually, I never stated a reason for why I want to be rid of guns (aside from the fact that I hate them), but the impetus for starting this discussion was mass shootings. Furthermore, I think your outdated numbers need to be re-evaluated in light of more recent reports such as this and this .

Disclaimer: The first link says mass shootings totaled 900 over the past seven years whereas the second link says 567 over the past 20+ years, but the point is that the numbers are quite a bit higher than the number MH gave.

Those are the most recent four years of data put out by the CDC and FBI. They have not put out 2014 and sure as heck not 2015 so im sorry but 2010-2013 is NOT out dated when its the most recent four years available. Im sorry but your news sources are bunk when they cant get the CDC data as its not out.

News sources are not a valid data source as they all have an agenda. So unless you can back raw data from unbiased sources that prove my numbers wrong this argument is pretty much done. Gun deaths are less then 1% of all deaths in fact they are roughly HALF of 1% sitting at around .5 to .6 percent if we assume ALL murder is caused by guns which knowing its not the numbers are even lower then that. You cant call something an issue if its in the point something of a percentile.

People kill people in a lot of ways and we don't ban cars, knives, swords, alcohol....ect.

What makes guns different?

MadHatter wrote: Those are the most recent four years of data put out by the CDC and FBI. They have not put out 2014 and sure as heck not 2015 so im sorry but 2010-2013 is NOT out dated when its the most recent four years available. Im sorry but your news sources are bunk when they cant get the CDC data as its not out.

Of course news sources have an agenda, but an agenda alone is not an impeachable offense. Your data is out of date and my news sources are compiling and reporting the data as they interpret it yet the data still impeaches yours.

Ousan Ka wrote: What makes guns different?

Because guns have little to no utility outside of killing.

I am not pro-gun. I am pro-protecting myself and my family by any means necessary. That means self-defense classes (since I was 3), knives, swords, staff, extendable batons, big scary dogs, and yes, guns. If I thought it necessary to carry around a rocket launcher to keep my family safe then you bet I'd carry one. I would LOVE to live in a world where none of that was necessary, but as the numbers that are being posted show, I don't.

I'm not for everyone carrying a gun, because arming people who don't want to be armed is dangerous. If a person isn't willing to learn how to use the tool then they shouldn't have it. However, as long as there are people out there that are armed and want to hurt me or my loved ones then I will also be armed and I will know how to use any weapon that I carry.

Jamie Stick wrote: Of course news sources have an agenda, but an agenda alone is not an impeachable offense. Your data is out of date and my news sources are compiling and reporting the data as they interpret it yet the data still impeaches yours.

Ummmm no it doesnt as those news sources cant possibly have data that is not released. Im sorry but your news sources are worthless as the data is not out yet on 2014 and sure not out on this year. So this data could be from ANY time frame and is not cited so it could for all I know be made up. My data is the MOST current.

Jamie Stick wrote: Because guns have little to no utility outside of killing.

Better inform the competitive shooters all over the world they are not using their guns properly then.

since many people own firearms because they see that we live in a dangerous world, i would say that "guns kill people" is not at all a convincing argumentfor banning them: yes of course they kill people, quickly and effectively
thats why i own one
and if i look around at the world i live in and i determine that my safety or that of my family is best served by owning a gun and being prepared to use it then what makes you so selfishly confident that your judgement should supercede mine when its my life on the line?

if you would rather die or even let your lovedones die than take the life of the person doing the murdering then thats your decision

i would rather shoot them

i respect your right to make your decision for your life, i do not recognise YOUR decision with YOUR life as being a valid substitute for MY decision with MY life

MadHatter wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: Of course news sources have an agenda, but an agenda alone is not an impeachable offense. Your data is out of date and my news sources are compiling and reporting the data as they interpret it yet the data still impeaches yours.

Ummmm no it doesnt as those news sources cant possibly have data that is not released. Im sorry but your news sources are worthless as the data is not out yet on 2014 and sure not out on this year. So this data could be from ANY time frame and is not cited so it could for all I know be made up. My data is the MOST current.

Please read the sources before you speak. Not everything has to come from the FBI. Your data is out of date.

MadHatter wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: Because guns have little to no utility outside of killing.

Better inform the competitive shooters all over the world they are not using their guns properly then.

That's entertainment and sport, not utility.

Jamie Stick wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: Of course news sources have an agenda, but an agenda alone is not an impeachable offense. Your data is out of date and my news sources are compiling and reporting the data as they interpret it yet the data still impeaches yours.

Ummmm no it doesnt as those news sources cant possibly have data that is not released. Im sorry but your news sources are worthless as the data is not out yet on 2014 and sure not out on this year. So this data could be from ANY time frame and is not cited so it could for all I know be made up. My data is the MOST current.

Please read the sources before you speak. Not everything has to come from the FBI. Your data is out of date.

MadHatter wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: Because guns have little to no utility outside of killing.

Better inform the competitive shooters all over the world they are not using their guns properly then.

That's entertainment and sport, not utility.

You're dragging out a thread that's been resolved.

As I said unless they link sources the data is bunk. You cant provide any nonbiased sources. You can only provide data not back by anything other then biased news paper bunk. Im sorry but your sources are of no use. My data is raw and untainted yours is not. That data is the most current out there. Your sources are meaningless until you can provide something that actually is collected by a nonbiased agency.

Further your claim about its sporting use. Yes people use them for sporting and defense FAR FAR more then to do harm. As my numbers have proven. You have shown that you will not see facts put forward from unbiased sources or anything that counters your view point. I doubt there is anything more to say. I have backed my point more then enough while yours relies on tainted sources.