How many deaths are too much? (Gun thread)

[Lord Coke]

Okay this is a question I have asked myself recently and I don't have a good answer to it.
As a qualifier I believe that firearms are nesscary for the security of a free state. But that is somewhat outside the scope of what I want to discuss.

We hear the anti gun community argue via their talking points that one more life is to much. That can not be true or else we are holding guns to a standard that no other issue is held to.

We accept that we want to live in a free society so we allow thousands of preventable deaths a year from
unsafe cars
alcohol
tobacco
and the number one killer unhealthy food.

Let's forget about the Second Amendment for a second and assume that we could save some lives a year if we banned all guns as the anti gun community ultimately want. And let's further assume that this would not curb any of are other freedom by giving the government to much power. Solely focus on the guns here.

How many lives would be worth curbing American freedom.
It can't be one.
It can't even be 100.
Is it a 1000? 10000? How do you calculate this?

 

[Trotsky]

This really isn't a coherent reflection of American views on this issue, though, especially since the "death" concern with guns is deaths of persons other than the person choosing to engage in the conduct.

Eating shit food, smoking, drinking --> those primarily kill the person engaging in them. Persons dying by drunk driving and secondhand smoke are pretty negligible compared to deaths from end users.


EDIT: Also "if we banned all guns as the anti gun community ultimately want" is a straw man and the philosophical weakness of rigid 2A types. It's maddening that any restriction on guns automatically converts to "they want to ban all guns!" arguments.

And the thing is: people with your absolutist fear mongering logic didn't really exist in any meaningful amount until 2008. Gun control was extremely popular through the 80s and 90s.

 

[MMAViewer]

Cars alcohol tobacco and un healthy food get regulated to minimize deaths . We should regulate gun ownership to minimize deaths.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This really isn't a coherent reflection of American views on this issue, though, especially since the "death" concern with guns is deaths of persons other than the person choosing to engage in the conduct.

Eating shit food, smoking, drinking --> those primarily kill the person engaging in them. Persons dying by drunk driving and secondhand smoke are pretty negligible compared to deaths from end users.


EDIT: Also "if we banned all guns as the anti gun community ultimately want" is a straw man and the philosophical weakness of rigid 2A types. It's maddening that any restriction on guns automatically converts to "they want to ban all guns!" arguments.

And the thing is: people with your absolutist fear mongering logic didn't really exist in any meaningful amount until 2008. Gun control was extremely popular through the 80s and 90s.

Lots of pointless nitpicking to seemingly avoid answering the question that is the purpose of the discussion. But since you could have just not posted, it appears you're really out to undermine the discussion.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Cars alcohol tobacco and un healthy food get regulated to minimize deaths . We should regulate gun ownership to minimize deaths.

We do.

 

[Stoic1]

Cars alcohol tobacco and un healthy food get regulated to minimize deaths . We should regulate gun ownership to minimize deaths.

Already done.

 

[Mark Cutting]

We're in truly bizarre and probably irreversible times.

Texting while driving kills and injures a lot of people a year. When a ban is proposed people shriek about "freedoms" being eroded. I mean...are your fucking trivial dumb shit texts really more valuable than the well being of your fellow motorists ?!

Substitute any other people killing activity for texting while driving and you'll get the same backlash.

It seems fat too many Americans are guided by emotion, hyperbole and impulses rather than decency, rationality and enlightened outlooks.

 

[Trotsky]

Lots of pointless nitpicking to seemingly avoid answering the question that is the purpose of the discussion. But since you could have just not posted, it appears you're really out to undermine the discussion.

I don't have an answer, nor do most people. It's a silly question meant to reduce and obfuscate the issue. I could say the target should be gun deaths proportionate to our rate of gun ownership and poverty, but even that isn't a static figure.

 

[Lord Coke]

This really isn't a coherent reflection of American views on this issue, though, especially since the "death" concern with guns is deaths of persons other than the person choosing to engage in the conduct.

Eating shit food, smoking, drinking --> those primarily kill the person engaging in them. Persons dying by drunk driving and secondhand smoke are pretty negligible compared to deaths from end users.


EDIT: Also "if we banned all guns as the anti gun community ultimately want" is a straw man and the philosophical weakness of rigid 2A types. It's maddening that any restriction on guns automatically converts to "they want to ban all guns!" arguments. Are you telling me that that position has actually changed? Or do these people still secretly habor the same feelings.

And the thing is: people with your absolutist fear mongering logic didn't really exist in any meaningful amount until 2008. Gun control was extremely popular through the 80s and 90s.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html

Okay so ,most gun deaths are from suicides so that is not true.
Also in the 80s and 90s the Brady Campaig'n's position was to ban all handguns. After that simply was to unpopular they changed their position to "common sense gun reform".

Do you think that this position actually change privately?

 

[Trotsky]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html

Okay so ,most gun deaths are from suicides so that is not true.
Also in the 80s and 90s the Brady Campaig'n's position was to ban all handguns. After that simply was to unpopular they changed their position to "common sense gun reform".

Suicide isn't the reason for public concern. Mass shooting and gun homicides are. You know that, but you're not interested in a good faith dialogue.

 

[Seano]

How about we look at the reason mass shootings are so common today?I notice that no one seems to want to do that.

 

[Lord Coke]

Suicide isn't the reason for public concern. Mass shooting and gun homicides are. You know that, but you're not interested in a good faith dialogue.

I am looking for an answer. How many lives need to be saved to ban all guns. That seems like a pretty straight forward question.

 

[Mark Cutting]

How about we look at the reason mass shootings are so common today?I notice that no one seems to want to do that.

When people question the mental capacity or health of a white mass shooter/school shooter, etc... they get attacked by SJW's and race baiters. Same thing for the urban crime rate; or "black on black" crime, if you will.

We have to scrutinize every single shooting on it's own merits. If we see repeated instances of mental health issues then it might be wise to really look into that angle. I think one could even argue there are "mental health" issues surrounding the staggering young black male violent crime rates.

Not sure why people take things so personally. If some white asshole commits a crime I don't feel guilty, but it clearly makes others feel so.

 

[xcvbn]

Suicide isn't the reason for public concern. Mass shooting and gun homicides are. You know that, but you're not interested in a good faith dialogue.

While it's obvious mass shootings are a major concern and potentially/already are a nationwide crisis, let's not forget this isn't the only issue we face as a society. It's also not necessarily the easiest or most difficult problem to solve either.

There are many real issues that don't directly cause bloodshed, but they must certainly cause suffering/low quality of life. How we quantify these problems and rank them in order of importance is difficult but should be considered.

It seems to me that public health and public health care are undoubtedly more of an issue than any issue with guns. It's not an easy or exciting fight, it's not as bloody and gory either, but I don't think there's a question about whether this is having a bigger impact on quality of life in America.

 

[splendica]

NVM

 

[jamel]

Have yall ever been to a paintball field and seen how the adults lack trigger discipline and muzzle awareness?

Just imagine if they had access to a real firearm.

 

[genecop]

Freedom costs....lives...how many? However many is needed to maintain it..

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't have an answer, nor do most people. It's a silly question meant to reduce and obfuscate the issue. I could say the target should be gun deaths proportionate to our rate of gun ownership and poverty, but even that isn't a static figure.

No, it's a poignant question meant to illuminate long-term perspective and goals. What you're doing in this thread is a better example of obfuscation.

That's a start. But proportionate compared to what?

You know that, but you're not interested in a good faith dialogue.

Says the guy entering a thread to say how stupid the OP is.

 

[Rational Poster]

How many deaths are just enough?

 

[7437]

We're in truly bizarre and probably irreversible times.

Texting while driving kills and injures a lot of people a year. When a ban is proposed people shriek about "freedoms" being eroded. I mean...are your fucking trivial dumb shit texts really more valuable than the well being of your fellow motorists ?!

Substitute any other people killing activity for texting while driving and you'll get the same backlash.

It seems fat too many Americans are guided by emotion, hyperbole and impulses rather than decency, rationality and enlightened outlooks.

People shriek about the right to text and drive? Source?