Gun Control - California Style

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 135 discussions (864 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    States who care about their citizens finally have a roadmap on how to hold the people who will sell a gun to just anybody to account.  This is thanks to Texas and their oppressive, demeaning anti-choice law.

    California is passing a law, which Gov Newsom will sign, that allows "Californians to sue “anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts” for damages — the same injunction-skirting mechanism Texas has used to ban all abortions after six weeks, which has so far been permitted by the Supreme Court.".

    https://www.vox.com/2021/12/12/22830625 … reme-court

    Maybe it will help stop tragic incidents like this killing of a little 9-year girl by a civilian shooting at the wrong car after being robbed.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/19/us/houst … index.html

    1. emge profile image79
      emgeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The gun problem is endemic in America but I have a bit of a doubt about this proviso for damages. There is a need for a clear-cut law that makes using a gun without cause a criminal offense to be prosecuted by the state. In case of damages, The onus of filing the case will be on the person concerned and the government has nothing to do with it. In that respect, I don't think it's a very good thing because that case could continue for years and net result is not what is expected.

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        No question it is endemic, it has been throughout our history.  Keep in mind, they are using the same Texas law to prevent pregnancy termination, often before the mother knows she is pregnant. 

        I don't know if you are for or against the Texas law, but be consistent.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      If I sell an ordinary rifle to someone and they then paint it black with a $2 spray can, could I then be sued for selling that dreaded "assault rifle"?

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Again, you are being ridiculous.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          ??Really??  I'm not the one declaring that a common hunting rifle is a military grade "assault rifle", commonly used to assault enemy positions.  I'm not the one giving that lie, but I'm being ridiculous.

          We'll have to disagree on that one.  The entire "assault weapon" was ridiculous from the day it was started, but has proven most useful in scaring people into joining the ignorant herd on gun controls.

          (While the spray paint doesn't count, although it's all that's needed for the majority of people, if I use a hose clamp to stick a 6" pipe pointing down in front of the trigger it is an "assault weapon" under California law.  Or if it has a telescoping stock so it can fit more people.   And yes, that is ridiculous.)

          1. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Neither am I nor is California  So why did you bring it up?

            Yes, assault rifles should be banned like they were before which saved many lives until Conservatives let the ban lapse.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Banning those fake "assault rifles" saved not a single life.  The bigger question is why you are promoting that lie?

              1. My Esoteric profile image82
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Seems to me you are conflating regular hunting rifles painted black and AR-15s and similar weapons of war.

                So no, I am not promoting any lie (which you didn't define, btw), but the TRUTH.  There is no reasonable purpose for people to possess weapons of war (with a few exceptions).

  2. Nathanville profile image91
    Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

    I hope the new Californian Legislation has some beneficial impact, but as guns are endemic in America I’m rather sceptical that it will make much difference?

    In the UK guns are not the issue, as they are illegal anyway; the main problem in the UK is knives, albeit not on the same scale as guns in the USA.  The UK Government’s website on the subject of knifes (and related weapons) e.g. batons and blowpipes etc., spells out in detail what’s illegal in the UK:  https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives.

    1. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know.  The Texas anti-women law has shut down all abortions in that state.  California is hoping it might have the same impact on the kinds of guns they are trying to get off the street.

      Hey, lol, UK-type weapons don't count as weapons in the eyes of those defending or denying the Jan 6 insurrection.

      1. Nathanville profile image91
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, a different world:  Even making a wooden replica of a gun and painting it to look real is illegal in the UK. 

        Under Section 36 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 it is an offence to manufacture, import or sale realistic imitation firearms.  It is also an offence to modify an imitation firearm to make it a realistic imitation firearm.  Under the act the definition of ‘Realistic Imitation Firearms’ is: “An imitation firearm is “anything which has the appearance of being a firearm …., whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile”.

        The nearest equivalent in the UK to the NRA in the USA is the UKARA, although in comparison UKARA is a little cuddly kitten compared to the ferocious big bad monster of the NRA:-

        What Is UKARA? - VCRA and Realistic Imitation Firearms:  https://youtu.be/TapSaSejU2M

        1. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          And as a result, of course, the UK doesn't have nearly the rate of violent crimes that lead to death as America does.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            It would be real interesting to see you attempt to prove that statement, particularly as statistics very plainly show zero correlation between the number of guns in a society and the homicide rate.

            It's just another lie promoted by ignorant people that can't think or read.

            1. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              The data is out there and published. I have used snippets of it in my own work on guns.

              I am sure Nathan will be able to do a much better job than I can in giving you all of the gory detail.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Yes.  So have I.  And any and all data "proving" that fewer guns means fewer deaths contain the phrase "gun deaths" rather than deaths. 

                Which doesn't even come close to proving that fewer guns means fewer deaths; it only proves that fewer guns means fewer bodies with bullet holes in them.

                Which you know and understand very well - the question then is why you are repeating a lie that anyone researching quickly understands is not true?

                1. My Esoteric profile image82
                  My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I have already proved that with this series - http://hub.me/ajSeW (I see I need to back and fix a few typos as well as look to see if there is more data available - remember, Conservatives are doing a good job at suppressing it) to update the charts with. I also need to make some of the explanations clearer.)

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I read, as I recall, one of the early hubs in your series.  Again, as I recall, you stated there was no statistical correlation (let alone causal relationship) between gun ownership and the homicide rate.

                    Now this one says "This actually agrees with my results from the statistical analyses in the previous parts to the series which found that, while close, the rate of gun ownership (as well as regulation strength) and the rate of homicides is not statistically significant enough (it was close, but no cigar) to say with some certainty that "more guns = more homicides".

                    This is exactly what I said.  Without a statistical correlation, how can you possibly say, with honesty, that taking guns away will reduce homicides?  All of your studies say the opposite (although the previous one did say that you believe there is a strong correlation even though you showed there wasn't); why do you say gun ownership is not only correlated but causal?

              2. Nathanville profile image91
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                In my view the data speaks for itself, but I know that wilderness will disagree.

                Details of homicides in England and Wales during the financial year ending March 2020:-

                •    Knife or other sharp instrument = 223 male & 51 female homicide victims:  Total = 274
                •    Kicking or hitting = 96 male & 21 female homicide victims:  Total = 117
                •    Strangulation, asphyxiation = 46 male & 30 female homicide victims:  Total = 76
                •    Blunt instrument = 30 male & 19 female homicide victims:  Total = Total = 49
                •    Shooting = 25 male & 6 female homicide victims:  Total = 31
                •    Poison or drugs = 10 male & 4 female homicide victims:  Total = 14
                •    Burning = 5 male & 8 female homicides:  Total = 13
                •    Other = 50 male & 21 female homicide victims:  Total = 71
                •    Unknown = 20 male & 29 female homicide victims:  Total = 49

                Total 506 male homicide victims in 12 months, and
                Total 188 female homicide victims in 12 months:
                Grand total = 694 (on average, less than 2 homicides in England and Wales per day).

                https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation … of-killing

                As quick look at Google suggests there were 16,669 homicides in the USA in 2019; 24 times higher than England and Wales, for a population that’s just 5 times higher?

                According to the CDC in 2020 there were 24,576 homicides in 2020, of which 19,384 were firearm homicides!  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

                In the UK suicides is a greater issue than homicide.  In England and Wales in 2019 there were 5,691 suicides; equating to an average of 18 suicides per day.  A quick Google search suggests 47,511 suicides in the USA in 2019 – Over 8 times greater, for a population that’s about 5 times larger!  According to Wikipedia, in the USA “A firearm is used in approximately half of suicides, accounting for two-thirds of all firearm deaths.”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_i … ted_States

                The most common method of suicide in England and Wales is hanging, which accounts for 59.4% of male and 45% of female suicides.  Poisoning being the next most frequent method; and it should be no surprise that guns are almost never used in suicides in Britain.

                And of course there’s a question of how many people are killed by the police, usually by gun.  I know that in the USA the figure is shockingly high; in the UK the incidences are so low that each individual person killed by the police is listed in Wikipedia - Just 7 people killed by the police in the UK over the past two years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_k … e_incident

                People can draw their own conclusions!

                1. My Esoteric profile image82
                  My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you Nathan.  And, YES THEY CAN!

                  Face it Wilderness, America is an extremely violent nation and the abundance of guns makes it even more so,  Of course, that doesn't include suicides which EASY access to guns make it SO MUCH more easy to do.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "Face it Wilderness, America is an extremely violent nation"

                    I have said that for years.  I've tried to understand the "why" and failed to do so.  I've talked to others.  I've wondered why we don't try to find out (and concluded it's because of the anti-gun people that refuse to allow any other answer).

                    But I've also shown, just as you did, that the proliferation of guns is not the reason.  More guns doesn't produce more violent deaths (homicides) and both of our studies has shown that.

                    The single exception is suicide, and I did not look deeply into that.  Do societies with more guns have more suicides?  I don't know.  I can assume there are more because the gun is a more sure method of suiciding, and it makes complete sense to make that assumption, but the same can be said for homicide rates and that turns out not to be true.  So I can only assume that suicide numbers would fall without guns, not state it as a fact.

                    If noting else my research into guns vs homicides has pointed out just how false "common sense" can be, how false "obvious assumptions" can be.  You would do well to take that lesson to heart as well, for "common sense", or "gut feeling", or "it's obvious" will never trump hard facts.

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Your country, and most of the world, has a much lower violent death toll that the US.  We can only stand in envy and wonder, for we will never attempt to find out the "why" of that and never an attempt to produce the same result.

                  Instead we "draw our own conclusions" and scream those conclusions to the heavens.  Unfortunately our conclusion is not well thought out; instead we look at the number of guns and decide that that is the cause.  We never try to find out if it is true, just assume it is because "common sense" says so.  And we continue to pile the bodies as a result of that false assumption because we already know the answer without looking.

                  1. Nathanville profile image91
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Is it a ‘false’ assumption?  You may not be able to prove to your satisfaction whether such high gun ownership in America is a major factor in such high violent death toll; but that doesn’t mean it’s not a major factor.  And if there is any chance that such liberal gun ownership laws in the USA is a root cause for the level of violent deaths then surly considering gun controls would be a first tentative step?

  3. Ken Burgess profile image74
    Ken Burgessposted 2 years ago

    There is a reason why people that have the option are fleeing California by the hundreds of thousands.

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe the women should start fleeing from Texas over that draconian abortion provision of theirs?

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        And Florida shortly.

        I think (hope) that what California is doing will put the kabosh on what these anti-women states are doing as the Conservatives on the Supreme Court finally get the harm they are doing.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image74
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Doesn't seem to be a real concern to most people, or else people wouldn't be moving into Texas (many from California no less) by the hundreds of thousands.

        I think people are more concerned about escaping the draconian taxes, lack of law & order, sky high prices, power outages, etc. in CA.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          People from California will take issue with Texas and pressure the state to "call off the dogs" in this matter. In time, they will Californicate Texas

          1. Ken Burgess profile image74
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That's a possibility...

            Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.

            That people would flee a state and then institute the very things that caused the state they left to deteriorate so badly would not be surprising.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              It isn't surprising at all; we are seeing that very thing in my state with a large number of Californians coming in and then wanting changes to match the state they found untenable.

              The stupidity of people can be amazing, can't it?

              1. My Esoteric profile image82
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                That should help your state turn into a civil society.

          2. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I like that.  Texas needs to join the civil world.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Colorado is a prime example, growing up there, it was once a state not  politically distinct from surrounding Utah, Kansas and Wyoming. With the arrival of so much influx from California during the eighties and nineties, politics there began to change. Denver, once a cowtown, has truly become the Queen City of the Plains and figures prominently among the nation's megalopolises. Now the state is firmly within the blue column.

              As Californians won't live in a slag heap, it will eventually go the same way for Texas in time, just as assuredly as the sun will rise in the morning.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image74
                Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I think there is a difference, as people drifted from CA to CO I think it was because of a desire to do so, to have a place in the mountains maybe initially a second home, or to start a new life out west, etc.

                What has been transpiring the past few years is a flight, not one of choice so much as necessity.  The people are "fleeing" California today... what happened to Colorado was a migration of choice, much more positive and gradual.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, they are fleeing in droves.  No doubt the new ability to work from home is helping that exodus and will accelerate the demise of the state (where will it get the vast sums of money it needs when all the wage earners are gone?).  Perhaps the crop harvesters can provide the income for the state.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image74
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Tough to harvest crops when there is no water as CA is going thru the worst drought in history.

                    I like to think that unlike the people who moved voluntarily to CO in years past, the hundreds of thousands fleeing CA now (and NY) learned their lessons.

                    Just like Cubans that fled Cuba hate Socialism, perhaps those fleeing CA have learned to hate and mistrust the Democrat Party.

                2. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Perhaps, while the urgency is not quite the same, I lived in Colorado during the exodus from Southen California to the states of Colorado and Washington during the search for affordable housing and a less hectic pace of life in the eighties and nineties. Washington is even bluer. They  were not initially warmly welcomed, particularely on the "Western Slope" of the state.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image74
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I agree, those were different times.

                    I was a Democrat myself in those decades.

                    I was a "working class stiff" that had been brought up with "work hard" examples all around me.  And the Democrats back then supported the working class stiffs.

                    I was bailing hay at 12 years old, all day, sunrise to sunset, for an actual paycheck. Not because I had to, because I wanted to earn money.  I participated in political campaigns as a teenager, had a conversation once with Ted Kennedy himself during a victory party for a State Rep. 

                    The outlook on the country, the values and "classes" the Dems represented back then were very different.  States like CA and NY were thriving back then, so the people exporting themselves from NY and CA during those decades had no reason to not bring their politics with them.

                    My transition from Democrat to whatever you would like to label me today came much later, though earlier than what is currently going on the last couple of years.

                    That transition happened for me because of a few things:

                    1 - Having a family in NY
                    2 - Working for (running) State Programs and Non-Profits that put me in direct contact with how things like Welfare, Weatherization, and a variety of other programs worked to help the "less fortunate".
                    2a- Went to the Gala events, the parties and whatnot put on for the various Non-Profits, Politicians, etc. paid for by supporters and tax-dollars.
                    2b- Visited many homes that were "government housing", met with many people who qualified for benefits, or new furnaces, or new appliances.

                    People who would drive a 100K mercedes that could qualify to have their mortgage refinanced and partially paid off.  People who had 10k entertainment systems and 5k living room sets, that were getting a free 2k fridge.

                    I got to see a whole lot on how government money got spent and the people that were served.

                    Meanwhile, despite working and my wife being a RN (Nurse) we couldn't pay our bills, our property and school taxes on our small rural home was over 10k a year, we had to spend more than 5k a year to heat our home (oil), gas was the highest (or second highest competing with CA) in the Nation (because of State taxes), electricity costs were the highest in the nation sometimes costing us over a thousand dollars a month.

                    If you worked for a living... boy do you pay for everything in NY, you get to spend all day working, stressing out, and still not having enough money to live on.

                    I think that reality has sunk in for all the people fleeing from CA and NY now obviously for economic reasons as taxation gets worse... but I think the draconian lockdowns, the mandates, the looting, rioting, etc. has also done a lot to wake people up.

                    I think the exodus that is occurring now are the disillusioned (former) Democrats and many Conservatives (economic ones) that can't take what is going on in CA and NY for one more second.

                    I know quite a few people, regular working stiffs, Space X and Tesla employees, to the Joe Rogan types... they are all fleeing, that is the key word... fleeing... CA's taxes and politics.

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Yeah.  A queen city, where it is OK to urinate and defecate on public sidewalks and streets.

                Denver is becoming another San Francisco.  It, too, was once a beautiful city, fund to visit although prices made it nearly impossible to live there.  Now it is nothing but a garbage dump and only fools and people ignorant of what it has become go there.

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Denver is not San Francisco, is that your "broad brush" at work again?

                  But of course, you are opposed to any large city, in principle. It is still a beautiful city, it just is perhaps bit too diverse for your tastes, unlike Boise, Idaho. So much for what you know...... I guess "Mayberry" will do for you?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image82
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I agree, I took several government management classes there over the years.  Very beautiful and pleasant.

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    If you are going to descend into insults the discussion is over.

                    But on the chance you had a bad night, I did not say Denver was San Francisco; I said it was going the same direction.  It will likely end up the same way.

                    But if you mean SanFran is a beautiful city I suspect you haven't been there for a while.  It was going downhill when I was there several years ago and talking to several people that visited more recently every one says they will never go back, for it nothing but a cesspool today.

  4. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Since everybody carries today, why not shoot at each other?

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/20/us/portl … index.html

  5. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Now daddy's with guns have 4-year olds shooting at police.  When will it end? (It will slowed down at least by more effective gun safety laws which don't confiscate guns as some paranoid Conservatives will claim)

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/us/child … index.html

  6. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Another 14 kids and a teacher dead at a Houston elementary school.  The Houston mayor asks how many more is it going to take before something is done?  Gov Abbott will probably respond "who cares how many so long as ANY Texan can possess a gun."

    https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/texas- … g-05-24-22

    Now it is 18 kids!!

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      In Texas, you can buy semiautomatic rifles at age 18 and carry them around in public without a background check or training, but you’re not old enough to buy beer or cigarettes.

      Gun violence is political because NRA lobbyists pay our politicians for their inaction.

      I find it very interesting also that Donald Trump will be addressing a conference held by National Rifle Association (NRA) in Houston, Texas, on Friday.

      The event will be strictly gun-controlled in ways the NRA and Mr. Trump routinely oppose for any other setting. “Guns won’t be allowed in spaces where Donald Trump and NRA executives are speaking"  why? because someone might try to kill them?

    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      What a hate-filled statement about Gov Abbott.   My God unbelievable.

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        But nevertheless representative of his actions to-date.  His laws are why that kid could buy 2 AR-15s and 375 rounds of ammunition with high capacity magazines within 5 days of turning 18.

        I think I was being nice considering the harm Abbott is responsible for!

  7. Valeant profile image84
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    I think it's fair to hate someone whose lax policies directly lead to the murder of children.

  8. Stephen Tomkinson profile image89
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    And lax policies they must be. A troubled 18-year-old who can't buy a beer can buy two semi-automatic rifles. This can't be right and it certainly can't be defended or explained away by platitudes about evil.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      90% of Americans support universal background checks for guns yet this measure can't get through the Senate due to politicians beholden to the National Rifle Association.  Government in the United States really doesn't work for the people.

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        And that includes 75 - 80% of non-leadership NRA members.

        "Doesn't work for the People"- Conservatives sure prove that every day.

    2. Nathanville profile image91
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yep – Only In America:  214 mass shootings so far in 2022 in the USA; 27 of which (one a week) have been in schools.  The only country in the world where gun violence is so horrific (shocking):  Why – Because Americans adhere too rigidly to an outdated Constitution (2nd Amendment), and interpret the 2nd Amendment too liberally e.g. the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the States from the Federal Government by each State having its own State militia (private army) made up from the citizens of the State; hence their right to “keep and bear arms”.  It was a system of defence that was abandoned in England in 1645 when Oliver Cromwell founded a National Army during the English Civil War.

      In this day and age the 2nd Amendment needs amendment; then perhaps America could become more like the rest of the world, and suffer less gun violence, and less gun deaths!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … es_in_2022

  9. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    An appropriate title to this analysis piece - "The most powerful nation on earth cannot keep its schoolkids safe at their desks"   Sadly, that is a statement of fact and not a question.  30 times so far this year children have been mowed down in school, most often with a weapon of war.

    Yet people (?) like Abbott, Cruz, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, DeSantis, Paul apparently have no problem with it since they oppose do anything about it.

    It is no wonder that America is the most dangerous place on earth, of major nations, for schoolkids to live.  It is not too healthy for the rest of us either since we have have a higher chance of being gunned down than any other comparable nation.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics … index.html

  10. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Oh GAWD! Another idiot Trump devotee - Hershel Walker.  Here is what he said when asked about how to stop gun violence on Fake Fox News.

    "Cain killed Abel and that's a problem that we have. What we need to do is look into how we can stop those things. You know, you talked about doing a disinformation -- what about getting a department that can look at young men that's looking at women that's looking at their social media. What about doing that? Looking into things like that and we can stop that that way. But yet they want to just continue to talk about taking away your constitutional rights. And I think there's more things we need to look into. This has been happening for years and the way we stop it is putting money into the mental health field, by putting money into other departments rather than departments that want to take away your rights."

    Even Trump made more sense most of the time.  Sen Warnock should be a shoe-in, lol.

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Damn it, Esoteric, I hate jocks.

      How utterly profound....

      He remains a discredit to our race and just the kind of figurehead token that the GOP crave. I am neither interested in nor follow football, but if you want to be my leader, you are going to have to qualify by having something upstairs.

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, Walker is not only an embarrassment to the Black race, he is an embarrassment to the human race as well (just like his cult leader Trump)

      2. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I  100% agree with that sentiment. As I shared my opinion that  Harris was a token when Biden chose her as a token VP.  One could say, as you have seen fit to label  Walker, she has "nothing upstairs". BUT, is that really fair, to label a mere stranger as having "nothing upstairs"?  I will admit I did and do think Harris does not appear to have much going "upstairs".  But, never thought it was fair to label her in that respect.

        It seems you said the same thing about Tim Scott (that he was a token). The question is, are all black individuals that profess to be Republicans tokens?

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Sharlee,

          I am not pleased with Harris thus far as I expected more from her, but Biden may have deliberately selected her as he wanted a less controversial VP.  But, I need my leaders, regardless of their color, to be both smart and courageous.


          I don't see Tim Scott in the same way, as he is in the difficult position of any black man in Republican Party would be in trying to support the party line in the f ace of ever increasing bigotry and extremism much of it directed at his very own.

          I believe that Tim Scott has a mind of his own and is not a token, Walker and, unfortunately, it seems to me that Harris reminds me more of that.


          I don't believe that I am attacking strangers but two politicians that left me with my opinions of them based upon their words and actions or the lack thereof.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            ' I am not pleased with Harris thus far as I expected more from her, but Biden may have deliberately selected her as he wanted a less controversial VP.  But, I need my leaders, regardless of their color, to be both smart and courageous."

            Fair and good point.

            "I don't see Tim Scott in the same way, as he is in the difficult position of any black man in Republican Party would be in trying to support the party line in the f ace of ever increasing bigotry and extremism much of it directed at his very own."

            I have researched Tim Scott in depth.  I think the bills he has offered and supported speak loudly about his dedication to the people that sent him to Washington. The black community would be very proud of this man if they got to know this man, and what he actually is trying to do while he is in office.

            If interested check out the Bills he presented. I think you will be very surprised. He is my view should be a man that the party highlights. His deeds speak loudly.  https://www.congress.gov/member/tim-scott/S001184

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              The fact that he has shown himself to be a busy legislator is not lost on me. I am sure that if he could introduce and pass legislation on his own, our folks would not come to the conclusions that it has about the Republican Party and its loyalties. But, again, Tim is just one man, the rest of the party needs to catch up.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                He has confessed to being a conservative, and it's clear to me he is a man that is proud of his conservative values.

              2. My Esoteric profile image82
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I noticed that one of his major pieces of legislation is an anti-worker union-busting bill. S.3889 - Employee Rights Act

          2. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I will never understand how a minority or woman can accept today's Trump Republican orthodoxy.  It seems so masochistic.  If Scott and some of the others were only fiscal conservatives, that would be one thing.  But it does seem they accept all of the downsides to being a social conservative that our out to hurt them.

            To each his own, so long as they don't hurt others.  Unfortunately, the Trump orthodoxy clearly hurts others.

            BTW, while I do have my issues with Harris, her lack of intelligence is not one of them, she is quite smart and driven to get to where she is today.

            Is she a "token"?  No, no more than Pence was to get the conservative religious vote.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Eso, yes Scott is still a Rightwinger and Republican at his core. Today's GOP have gone beyond "conservative" to "off the rails".  I just think that with the extreme positions the party has taken on so many issues, he would fumble for words.

              Yes, they screw over labor in favor of management, that is what Republicans do, and what they have always done as long as I have been around. That is certainly part and parcel of the idea behind fiscal conservatism.  If Scott were confronted with open carry/no restriction gun laws or draconian GOP interpretations of abortion rights or none there of, what would he say in an interview?

              Being comfortable with a more strident and populist Left, i would have been happier if Biden has provided a "token" that would appeal to my affiliations and our wing of the party, instead of another establishment mainstreamer. Would a Warren or Sanders as VP sink Biden's candidacy?I can't be certain. They both are intelligent and activist and would not be content on the job unless they could "upset the Apple cart". That is in effect a great deal of what is needed and what I wanted, but the country may well not have been ready. That is my disappointment, while Hershel is a dummy, Harris is not.

              She lets me down in what she has done. I like to see that intelligence get the gridlocks undone, and assist in the improving the party's message, not sit there and let the Republicans prevail and just roll over us. Smart people find workarounds so that what was once impossible, will now just take a little bit longer.   

              Do Something!!

              1. My Esoteric profile image82
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "Would a Warren or Sanders as VP sink Biden's candidacy?I can't be certain." - [i]Yes, I think it would have.  Biden didn't win by much in any of the  battleground states.

                Would the black vote had come out for a Warren or a Sanders as much as they did for Harris?  How about in Maricopa County in AZ where there are many more "conservative" leaning Latinos.

  11. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    States with the most gun violence share one trait - More Guns = More Deaths.  Also, weak Gun Safety Laws = More Guns.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics … index.html

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      As usual the lie is apparent right off the bat.  From your link:
      "The indisputable fact is that where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths."
      Whereas your statement is that there are more deaths, without the qualifier.  Good for you in noticing that it doesn't matter if the body has a bullet hole or not, it's still dead.  Ten lashes with a wet noodle for telling the lie.

      One is a no brainer, the other is outright false.  Just a look at a few states with high gun ownership rates:

      Wyoming.  Gun ownership; 66.2%  Homicide rate: 3.1
      South Dakota Gun ownership 55.3% Homicide rate 4.5
      Idaho Gun ownership: 60.1%  Homicide rate: 2.2
      Vermont Gun ownership 50.5% Homicide rate 2.2

      And some states with low gun ownership rates:

      Illinois Gun ownership 27.8%  Homicide rate 9.1
      New York Gun ownership 19.9% Homicide rate 4.2
      Florida Gun ownership 35.3%  Homicide rate 5.9
      Maryland Gun ownership 30.2% Homicide rate 9.1

      So it's not true that more guns = more deaths.  It might be true, though, that weak gun laws = more guns.  It sounds right, but accepting it after the bold lie that more guns = more deaths is difficult.

      https://worldpopulationreview.com/state … p-by-state
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U … %20rows%20

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "Whereas your statement is that there are more deaths, without the qualifier. " - Why do you insist on being obtuse? I'll answer that - because you simply want to be argumentative and deflect.

      2. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        As to your statistics - it is not that simple and that kind of simplistic analysis will often lead to wrong conclusions with complex problems.

      3. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I took a look at your Wikipedia link and one thing popped right out at me. Generally speaking, there is a distinct upward trend from 2011 - 2020.  In a lot of cases it accelerated after Trump took office (not surprising). You know what also increased from 2011 - 2020:  Gun Ownership, raw numbers and rates.

        Go figure!

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yep - when liberals began attacking their hero for no reason but their loss of political power, when folks began seeing the months long riots, when the calls for defunding the only protection they had...people bought guns.

          Don't know that it changed the statistics much though.  More guns does not equal more murders.  No matter how many times you say it, it remains untrue.

          1. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            No matter how many times you say it is untrue, it is true and your own sources point strongly to that.

            BTW, it was the pandemic and Trump's hate speech, not the summer violence or the insurrection, that led to the huge increase gun purchases.  Your innuendo's don't work with thinking people.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Assuming that you refer to more guns in a state = more deaths, the short data list I gave here sure showed that, didn't it?  All that needs done is to read the opposite of what the data says.

              You may think it was Trump, but your imagination is once more running wild.  Not even the pandemic did that (no one shoots a virus), but the lockdown, the poverty and desperation of that lockdown, the depression of the lockdown - these and more did.  Our reaction to the pandemic, then, helped fuel the gun buying. 

              But if you think that watching cities burn as police and politicians do nothing (or take negative actions such as refusing help) you need some psych studies.  People respond, and the fight or flight response is among the strongest.  When violence goes unchecked night after night, month after month, the response is to get ready for it on MY doorstep, not just across town.  When people watch anarchy happening in their city, state or country, without response from the protective groups of police, they will respond.  When they find their government taking control of their lives and bodies (masks and vaccines) without reason (whether those people were right or wrong) they will respond.  And the response was a readiness for the expected violence.

  12. Valeant profile image84
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    The lie that gun violence is the same as homicide rate was a rather weak attempt to discredit the article's claim.  But, as usual, changing the original meaning of something is something you always attempt to do to undermine the arguments of others.  And something we all can easily spot.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The article claimed that fewer guns means fewer gun deaths, and I responded that that was a no brainer.  How did I change the original meaning?

  13. Stephen Tomkinson profile image89
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    You're right Nathanville. The Constitution seems to be treated as if it were Holy Writ.

    1. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      And it wasn't intended to be that way regardless of what Conservatives think.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Nor was it intended to be changed at the political whim of a few liberals.  Instructions on how to change the Constitution are written within it.  They are difficult to accomplish, to the horror of the liberal that would change it every year, according to the political winds.

  14. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Here is a little lesson in logic
    1.  If all guns were banned in America and it was 100% enforced, then it is self-evident that violence by gun would be non-existent in America and the overall rate of homicides and suicides would be drastically reduced since something 75% of all homicides are currently by gun.

    2. If all guns were banned in America and it was 80% enforced, then it is self-evident that violence by gun would be extremely rare in America and the overall rate of homicides and suicides would be drastically reduced since something 75% of all homicides are currently by gun.

    3. If all guns in America were subject to California/Massachusetts gun safety laws and it was 80% enforced, then it is still self-evident that violence by gun would be very low in America and the overall rate of homicides and suicides would be still be very much reduced since something 75% of all homicides are currently by gun.

    Why?

    Because in states with similar laws the mortality rate due to firearms runs between 3.3 and 8.5 per 100,000. On the other hand, in states with lax gun laws like Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Mississippi, Louisiana, you know, Conservative states, they same statistics range from 12.7 to 28.6!

    When you look at gun ownership, as Wilderness did but used the wrong y-axis, you get something like this.  Top Ten States:
    Montana (66.30%)                  - 20.9
    Wyoming (66.20%)                 - 25.9
    Alaska (64.50%)                     - 23.5
    Idaho (60.10%)                       - 17.6
    West Virginia (58.50%)           - 18.1
    Arkansas (57.20%)                 - 22.6
    Mississippi (55.80%)               - 28.6
    Alabama (55.50%)                  - 23.6
    South Dakota (55.30%)          - 13.6
    North Dakota (55.10%),          - 13.8

    To me, that is irrefutable.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "then it is self-evident that violence by gun would be non-existent in America and the overall rate of homicides and suicides would be drastically reduced since something 75% of all homicides are currently by gun."

      When someone says "it is self-evident" what it really means is "I think so and therefore it is correct".  Please provide data showing that without guns the homicide rate will fall.  Your statement hinges on the assumption (assumption, unproven) that without a gun, killers will not kill.  As that is manifestly false (take a look at the statistics for murder by bludgeoning and by hands and feet), you will have a very hard time showing that murders won't happen, OR that it will fall drastically.

      Would you mind posting the link to your "statistics"?  It is not from what I used - I can't find your homicide rates anywhere on the chart, and the one I used was for homicide rates, not "mortality rate due to firearms" anyway.  Did you find one for only gun deaths and are trying to say that if there are no guns no one will die by a gun, changing it from no one will die by violence to violence by a gun?

      1. Valeant profile image84
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        He got the stats from the FBI.  It's easy to find.

      2. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "When someone says "it is self-evident" what it really means is "I think so and therefore it is correct"." - That may be YOUR definition of "self-evident" but that is not the correct one.  Here are some.

        clear or obvious without needing any proof or explanation:
        Solutions which seem self-evident to humans are often beyond the grasp of computers.

        : clearly true and requiring no proof or explanation
        The meaning is self-evident.
        self-evident truths

        (Logic and Math.) A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident as first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; as, ``The whole is greater than a part;'' ``A thing can not, at the same time, be and not be.

        Definition of axiom
        1: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE sense 1
        one of the axioms of the theory of evolution
        2: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
        cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have"
        3: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
        the axioms of wisdom

        So no, self-evident means self-evident.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          LOL  Self-evident to the speaker.  Which is what I said.

          As just a single example, consider the "self-evident" statement that 2+2=4.  Although we all accept it as "self-evident", if you every try to prove, mathematically, that simple, self-evident statement you will find that it is not so simple and that it is most definitely NOT self-evident.

          When your definition is that something is self-evident it means that it is clearly true and needs no proof, it simply reverts to the fact that it is self-evident to the speaker, and that speaker neither needs nor has proof.  To anyone else that may or may not be true, and doubly so in any controversial subject (such as the one being discussed).  "I think so and therefore it is correct" in other words.

      3. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Sure - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm … irearm.htm

        Hint - Since we are talking about guns, most people will understand we are talking about deaths from guns and not pitchforks.

        To me, at least, you are trying to deflect by playing word games.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          OK - you're going to default back to gun deaths rather than homicides, in an attempt to insinuate that if gun deaths fall so will homicides.

          There is no argument here; take the guns away and murders using a gun will fall (at least if you are successful in getting the guns).  But all that means is that killers will find another way, so the body count does not change significantly, which is the ONLY thing I'm interested in.  I don't care if a body has a bullet hole, only that there is body.  You do, and that's fine, but don't try and convince me that it's OK to have a body as long as it doesn't have a bullet hole, and don't try to deflect from killed victims by slipping in that one word to deflect from the body count.

          I recognize, from seeing it done dozens of times, that a great many writers and speakers will not discuss the body count before and after taking guns - only that the number of bodies with holes will go down.  I've seen it over and over and over as "proof" that gun controls work, and the argument does work...for those that don't catch the qualifier or are simply afraid of guns and want them gone from their neighbors home.  I am neither of those.

          Murdered people are not a game; it is you who are trying to deflect from the death toll by limiting the conversation to one specific type while pretending that it will matter to the survivors or the dead if it isn't by a gun.  Trust me here; the grieving parents at Uvalde couldn't care less if their child has a bullet hole, is burned to death, run over by a car, poisoned by their school lunch, or gassed with a war gas.  The ONLY thing that matters to them is that their child is dead (and, in this case, mostly from inaction from the "protectors" of those children).

      4. Nathanville profile image91
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Homicides in England and Wales from 2003 to 2015:-

        •    2003 = 1,047 homicides
        •    2004 = 904 homicides
        •    2005 = 868 homicides
        •    2006 = 764 homicides
        •    2007 = 758 homicides
        •    2008 = 775 homicides
        •    2009 = 664 homicides
        •    2010 = 620 homicides
        •    2011 = 639 homicides
        •    2012 = 553 homicides
        •    2013 = 558 homicides
        •    2014 = 533 homicides
        •    2015 = 534 homicides

        N.B. the USA population is 5 times the UK, so multiply these figures by 5 to get a more direct comparison!
           
        In 2020 there were 695 homicides (506 males and 188 females killed); the homicides by method of killing in England and Wales were:-

        •    Sharp instrument e.g. knife = (275 homicides) 40%
        •    Other = (137 victims) 20%
        •    GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm) e.g. hitting and kicking with bare hands and feet = (115 homicides) 17%
        •    Blunt instrument = 5%
        •    Strangulation = 5%
        •    Gun = 4%
        •    Poison = 3%
        •    Motor vehicle = 3%
        •    Drowning = 2%
        •    Burning = 1%
           
        33% of murderers were under the influence of alcohol and or illicit drugs.

        The UK Government Stats link into this UN link below:-
        https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and … icide.html

        I conclude that part of the reason there is more violence in the USA than the UK is because guns are freely available in the USA, but are extremely difficult to get hold of in the UK.  Plus neither criminals nor police carry guns in the UK.

        1. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Two numbers surprise me, both being low: the 33% with alcohol involved and the 5% strangulation (I figured that would happen to a lot of women)

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I'm more surprised by the "blunt instrument" (baseball bat or other club).  Elsewhere that figure is second only to guns, and actually exceeds that number of murders of all long guns combined (data from a few years ago - it might not be the same for 2020).

          2. Nathanville profile image91
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I guess there are factors other than drink and drugs that are common causes to murder:  In the UK in 2020 56% of females were murdered by someone they knew e.g. partner, family member or friend; whereas only 30% of males were murdered by someone they knew?

            The 5% for strangulation doesn’t surprise me, in this day and age a lot of the British men are wimps and no match for women (LOL); although I would have thought that strangulation victims would predominantly be women.  But looking closely at the data, in England and Wales in 2020 45 men were strangled compared to just 30 women?

            The link for the data is below, but the charts can give a misleading impression from just a casual look; for example, in Figure 7 strangulation, asphyxiation appear to be higher for women than men, but running the mouse over each bar gives the percentage for each sex separately e.g. Male victims of strangulation is 9% of 506 offences (506 being the total male victims), thus 45 victims – whereas female strangulations (although it looks bigger in the chart) is 16% of 188 offences (188 being the total number of female victims), thus only 30 female victims. 

            https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation … gmarch2020

            1. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Interesting. Thanks.

              1. Nathanville profile image91
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Erratum:  When I stated ‘Strangulation’ above, I was a bit sloppy; it should have read ‘Strangulation/ asphyxiation.  And the figures I gave for ‘Strangulation/ asphyxiation’ in 2020 are somewhat skewed from the norm in that they include the ‘Essex Lorry Deaths’; 39 Vietnamese people, 31 men and 8 women who were being smuggled into Britain in the back of reregulated lorry (air tight) and thus died of asphyxiation en-route. 

                9 people in the UK have been convicted of various crimes related to the incident, and a further 19 jailed in Belgium.  The two main culprits were given 20 years and 27 years respectively for 39 counts of manslaughter and people-smuggling.

                So take that one incident out of the equation and you end up with 14 men that were strangled or asphyxiated in that year, and 22 women; which fits in with your surmise that women tend to be the more likely victim of strangulation.

                Essex lorry deaths: People smuggling ringleaders spared life sentences https://youtu.be/uXHuzvL19TM

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Unfortunately two data points (the US and the UK) do not make a statistical universe sufficiently large enough to draw conclusions from.

          Compare all the developed countries for gun ownership vs homicide rates (rather than simply comparing two of them) and you will find that countries with lots of guns have fewer homicides just as often as they have more homicides.  There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates; without a correlation one cannot declare causation.

          1. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Of course, there absolutely is.  You presented only one data point, Switzerland, and as I pointed out, that was dubious.  Where is the link to the others you are referring to.

            Also, because you made the point, when you say homicide, do you mean homicide by gun or by any means?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              It only takes one data point to disprove a theory, while it takes many to prove it right.  You know that as well as I do.

              I mean homicide.  I don't care if the body has a bullet hole in it, a knife slice, poison in the belly or anything else; I don't want the body at all.  Your entire thrust appears to be eliminating bodies with holes in them, that any other cause of death is fine, but I disagree.

              1. My Esoteric profile image82
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "It only takes one data point to disprove a theory," - Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  It depends on the theory.  If the theory is that Earth is at the center of the Universe (people were put to death by Christians if you didn't agree), then you are right, one data point destroys that theory.  On the other hand, as it is here, if the theory is that the higher the rate of gun ownership the higher the rate of death by gun, then it is false, one data point does not disprove it.

                If you mean any homicide, then you are mixing apples and oranges.  It is non-sensical to draw a correlation (let alone a cause and effect) between one cause of death (guns) and the universe of deaths.  You are supposing that owning guns drives death by knives and pitchforks and drowning, which on its face is a ridiculous relationship.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Not at all.  I have always presumed that gun controls were being instituted to save lives (please correct me if I'm wrong) but when ONLY gun deaths are counted, ignoring that killers will use whatever tools are available, then that isn't so.

                  For instance - you take away the gun that Bob meant to use to kill in a mass murder.  Instead he constructs a truck bomb and kills 100 people rather than the 20 he might have gotten with his gun.  Did you save lives?  Does it matter that the 20 didn't die?  Do you get a pat on the back for saving 20 while 100 died instead?

                  I think not.

                  But, say you, what if he killed only 19 with his truck bomb?  Don't I get credit for the one saved?  Yes, of course...but you don't get credit for the 20 you will claim you saved by ignoring the results of the new weapon.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image82
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "ignoring that killers will use whatever tools are available, then that isn't so." - Except that is provably untrue, just like your claim eons ago that if someone who wants to commit suicide with a gun will chose another means if one is not available. The jury is in on that one - many, many people will forgo killing themselves if they can't do it by gun. 

                    Provided the initial data needed prove your statement incorrect and he started down that path with his wanting to adjust for population.  Now, a minimum of another thirty countries whose data can be trusted are needed to make a good statistical case. But it can be done.  Also, Common Sense works against a one-for-one exchange in weapons if a gun isn't available.  The fact is, without guns being easily available the homicide rate by gun will decline.  And where guns are used in the majority of homicides, then the overall homicide rate will decline as well.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image82
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Your example is a false equivalency since the chances of Bob constructing a bomb are next to nil if he can't get an AR-15 or similar weapon of war.  Chances are high that if Bob can't get his desired weapon, he will drop the idea as too risky. 

                    And, if he doesn't, and grabs a pistol or knife, a lot less people will die.

            2. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              More to the point from https://www.politico.eu/article/global- … e-numbers/

              Country    Firearm Death Rate   Firearm Ownership Rate

              - USA                                   4.16                                 120.5
              - Canada                              .496                                   34.7     
              - Finland                               .214                                  32.4
              - Swiss                                 1.83                                   27.6   
              - Sweden                              .253                                  23.1
              - Germany                            .083                                   19.6
              - France                                .315                                   19.6
              - Australia                              .177                                  14.5
              - Mexico                             15.547                                  12.9
              - Russia                                .724                                   12.3
              - Brazil                               20.796                                    8.3
              - UK                                      .039                                     7.1
              - Poland                                .082                                     2.5

              By and large, this supports the idea that the lower the RATE of gun ownership means a lower RATE of death by guns.

              The two obvious outliers are Brazil and Mexico.  Both have a unique problem not seen in the others - massive gang (mainly drug) violence, almost to the point of war.  I would also distrust the Brazil data as I would Russia's.

              While the trend is very clear, there are a whole host of factors that drive the variability.  But the point remains that is if you plot this with the rate gun ownership on the X-axis and the rate of deaths by gun on the y-axis, you get a clear upward sloping line.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I'm sorry, but when I can pick out pair after pair after pair that show the opposite result from what you wish your conclusion doesn't wash.

                UK and Poland.  Guns wend down, deaths up.
                Russia and Australia.  Guns down, deaths up
                France and Germany.  Guns identical, deaths way up
                Sweden and Switzerland Guns down very slightly, deaths down by a factor of 7
                Finland and Canada.  Guns nearly identical, deaths halved.

                No cherry picking; leave out Brazil and Mexico (I agree they are not useful), and take every pair from the bottom as they come.  3 of the 5 pairs show the opposite of what you want, the other two show great reduction in deaths without change in ownership.  This data does NOT show what you want it to.  Not unless you carefully cherry pick the pairs.

                Beyond that you are still hung on the premise, or assumption if you wish, that without a gun there will be no death.  Either that or a body is fine as long as it wasn't done with a gun.

  15. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    On average, every American owns 1.2 guns.  The closest competitor to that horrible statistic is the Falkland Islands at 0.61 guns per man, woman, and child.  On top of that, getting guns in America is the easiest place on earth as well.

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us … index.html

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Approximately 40% of US homes has a gun.  For Switzerland the number is 48%, yet it has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.  Apparently more people with guns = fewer homicides, right?

      (Your numbers and mine are different because of multiple guns in a home, and because mine is per home rather than per person.  US citizens tend to own more than one, while the Swiss don't.)

      https://www.thelocal.ch/20200128/europe … %20people.

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        How hard is it to get a gun in Switzerland? As easy as Mississippi?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Much more difficult.  Given that more homes have one already, how does that matter?

          In addition, military service is required (for males), and (I think) all in the military take their weapons home with them.  It's more of a militia than our concept of an army, although they do have a standing army as well.  That means that a lot of the guns aren't owned by the homeowner, but he does have possession and access to them, which is what counts if you're going to murder with it.

          But it doesn't matter how hard it is to get when half the country is armed (as in the US).  The point was that more households have guns than in our own country and the murder rate is an order of magnitude less than ours.  More guns = more murders, right?

          1. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The whole point of gun safety laws is to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, isn't it?  So, it is self-evident (and statistics back this up), the tougher it is to get a gun, the less likely it is for the owner to misuse it.

            GIve a gun to the bum on the street corner (which you can do in some states), what are the chances it will be used to evil purposes. Give the same gun to someone who had background checks run, had to wait five days, required to take training classes, and other measures responsible states have put in place, what is the likelihood THAT person will put it to evil ends.

            Let's put it this way, could the Texas kid gotten two AR-15s and 375 rounds in high capacity magazines in Switzerland?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I understand what you're saying, and there is some truth in it.  Apparently a reference from mental health can be required to issue a permit to buy.

              But at the same time, when 48% of homes have one, when every militia member has one at home, when every male is required by law to serve, it doesn't seem that big a deal to get one.

  16. IslandBites profile image89
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago
    1. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Amen

  17. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Just thought I would put this out there to remind everybody that the 2nd Amendment is not monolithic as the NRA wants you to believe.

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
    JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIADISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I remember that one from one of the court's most esteemed conservative justices.

  18. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    I was updating my Guns in America series and came across this fun fact.  2020 was a very slow year for mass killings.  Why, because of the pandemic created lockdowns.

    There was one incident in January, second in February, and a third in March. The next mass casualty event didn't happen until August.

    For comparison, there were 18 mass killings in 2019, 8 in 2020, and 13 in 2021 (still suffering from Covid).  In 2022, there have been 9 so far and we aren't even half way through the year.

  19. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    You notice what is missing from these daily reports of mass gun violence?  Any mention of the false equivalencies put forward such as knives, pitchforks, truck bombs, water poisoning, drowning, strangulation, and the other manner of deaths.

    Nope, it is always guns.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/us/tulsa … index.html

  20. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Oh, and then there is this (they are getting younger)

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/us/calif … index.html

  21. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago
  22. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    They can't be ALL bad, but they (Trump Republicans) try.  Here is a rare example of them doing something right which is pissing off the NRA (who is suing them) and fellow non-Florida Republicans. 

    They created a meaningful and effective Red Flag law that works.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics … index.html

  23. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Nice to see public pressure building up on Republicans to ban the AR-15 style mass murder weapon of choice.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … px-dlt.cnn

  24. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Another MASS SHOOTING last night in Philadelphia.  That is number 239!!!!  MORE THAN 2 A DAY.  This one was with pistols, one with an extended magazine.

    "There have been at least 239 mass shootings so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive. CNN and the archive define a mass shooting as one in which at least four people are shot, excluding the shooter."

    There are just TOO many guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

    The ONLY things, I fear, that will allow sensible gun safety laws to be enacted is 1) God forbid, but the friends and families of these obstructionist Republicans become casualties of gun violence and/or 2) 61 or more Democrats are elected to the Senate.  Neither is likely to happen.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/us/phila … index.html

    1. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      And now I learned there were EIGHT mass shootings since FRIDAY!!!!

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        NOPE - MAKE THAT 10!!!!

  25. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Isn't it AMAZING how conservative illogic works.  Ted Cruz and others blame Everything Else of all of the gun violence in America, yet all other nations have those SAME problems.  Why do THEY NOT HAVE so many people killed by guns yet A<ERICA can have 10 MASS SHOOTINGS in two days?

    It is the GUNS stupid! Too many guns in the wrong hands.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/politics … index.html

  26. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Won't miracles never cease. We might, possibly, maybe, by chance be able to ban (or at least keep them out of the hands of immature, irresponsible 18 year olds) weapons of war yet!!!  Just think how many lives that will save if it comes to pass.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/politics … index.html

  27. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago
    1. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Too many guns!

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/us/orlan … index.html

      Here is why city's like Chicago and New York have too many guns. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/us/tyrek … index.html


      What a bullet really does.

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/health/g … index.html


      Is gun safety reform dead again?  Yes, if Trump Republicans have anything to say about it.
      https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics … index.html

      In the meantime, survivor tales will fall on deaf, uncaring Republican Cult ears.
      https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.html

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics … index.html

      Supreme Court Justices are not immune.

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics … index.html

      1. tsmog profile image84
        tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Including the links in the original post you have presented a lot of info to ponder. However, as I see it, as horrific as gun deaths are in actuality they aren't even in the top ten for death type, though they surpass vehicle deaths. That is what the other side looks at for their argument. And, that is not bringing mass shootings into the discussion.

        Let's face it they are not going to do what they did in Australia. Guns are not going away. However, there has to be a starting point for change to occur. I think what should happen is to start over with a baseline national gun legislation that is reasonable and can all the other old ones on the books. And, if a state wants to do more they can. Otherwise it is band aid after band aid that appeases public sentiment until the next outrage occurs.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Oh, Australia die not take all the guns away.  Only all the semi-automatic rifles.  And sat back applauding their action as the death toll fell...at the same rate it had been falling for years.  This was a great achievement, to maintain the status quo, according to Australian politicians.

          1. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            We have been over this Wilderness.  You are trotting out the NRA line, not the truth.  As I showed you once before, the data does not support your claim.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I believe it was Sharlee that posted a graph of Australian homicides around the year of the buy back.  On this forum, if I'm not mistaken.

              It plainly shows what I said, although this time the Aussies show a rise in the death toll, not a slow drop, after the Gun Grab.

              Whatever you think you showed, it was not the truth.

              1. My Esoteric profile image82
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                No, it does not "plainly" show what you are talking about.  I spent a lot of time and effort debunking those misleading statistics.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Look at the graph posted carefully.  It goes UP after the guns were taken.  That does not indicate a lowering of homicides.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image82
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I saw the graph, I studied the numbers AND I looked at other factors that are involved.  I went into a lengthy analysis of why you and Sharlee were misinterpreting what the numbers were showing.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          !00% agree

        3. Valeant profile image84
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, the change has to start national.  Nothing too extreme, but slight changes.  As an example, around 60% of the guns recovered from Chicago originate from outside the state.  So if states around Illinois are allowed to be more lax than national standards, it won't help those states that want tighter restrictions.

          Some other data to support a change:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-assault- … 07345.html

        4. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          BTW, while guns may not be in the top ten causes of deaths for Americans, it is the leading cause of death for American children, 19 and younger.

          1. tsmog profile image84
            tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, I already know that. So?

            1. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I would think that would be self-evident, I guess not to some.

              1. tsmog profile image84
                tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I am just being a realist regard my original post. Yes, there certainly is a problem and the fact your brought up is damning, though does it matter? As said earlier guns are not going to disappear. They are here to stay and people will continue to be killed by them. Sad!

                1. My Esoteric profile image82
                  My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Making guns disappear (save for weapons of war) is not the point nor is it what gun safety proponents want. The goal, once you get past the paranoia of the gun rights nuts, is to make it as hard as possible for somebody who shouldn't have a gun, get one.

                  That is doable if it weren't for the deadly opposition of people who don't give a damn about human life.

                  1. tsmog profile image84
                    tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I agree to an extent. I like the gun laws where I live in Calif and am happy with them. I don't see them becoming reality on a national level. Some, maybe. But, to be honest if I see someone in the summer wearing a jacket I look to their hip for a concealed weapon by nature.

                    As far as doable goes just because there is a law on the book doesn't mean it will be followed. For extensive background check there is no bank of data of any kind whatsoever for mental illness persons other than the one for research projects of volunteers. Besides it is known 1 out of 5 persons has a diagnosis. The only way with a background check to know that information is if someone voluntarily admits to it. And, as far as that goes if a person is given a diagnosis they are not going to show up to his/her home and confiscate their guns. Or, again, show up in data bank in the future.

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Then why do we continue to see attempts to ban guns that are NOT "weapons of war"?  Bans on handguns, bans on semi-automatic rifles (or any semi-automatic weapon), bans on guns with folding stocks or barrel shrouds, etc.?  None are "weapons of war", yet the cry continually goes out to ban them.

  28. My Esoteric profile image82
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago
  29. Stephen Tomkinson profile image89
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    Somebody really needs to explain to me how the Constitution can be used to excuse mass murder. I apologize to those who think that I'm a wishy-washy pinko, but it makes no sense to me at all.

    1. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      What makes you think the Constitution does excuse it?

      GA

    2. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Just ask the NRA leadership, they will give you a thousand reasons.

  30. Stephen Tomkinson profile image89
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    Simply because it's always trotted out. In my opinion, it doesn't excuse it at all. The amendment covers two possible scenarios, neither of which apply today.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      So stop it!  Get your politician on a line that will end the violence.  Not a line to take guns away to no effect, a line to stop American violence.

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Why is your go-to always a light switch, all or nothing?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Same question back at you.  Why is your only solution to take guns away from killers, hoping they will not kill with something else?

          1. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I rarely, if ever, use all or nothing words like you do, or mischaracterize one's position like you just did.

    2. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That's not an uncommon view. It has been addressed many times judicially, but never in its favor. I assume one of your scenarios is the militia thing, what is the second?

      GA

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        My second part is "in order to secure a free state" as in A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        In my reading, nowhere in there does it imply "self-defense".  Instead, it is pretty clear it is talking about defending the state.  Scalia invented a rational to infer it also meant "in personal self-defense" out of whole cloth, in my opinion.

        Now, with that said, I have no heartburn at all with people being given the right to "bear 'reasonable' arms" for self-defense.  It is just that that rational was not part of the original 2nd Amendment.

        1. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I think the 'state's security' part is in reference to why the state needed a militia, not why citizens need guns. It is the 'militia' part that says why citizens need guns. So I say there is only one inference in the text: that citizens needed to have guns so militias could be formed. There is no inference that is the only reason.

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "I think the 'state's security' part is in reference to why the state needed a militia, not why citizens need guns." - I absolutely agree.  That is why I think Scalia was very wrong in his ruling, despite my parallel belief that Americans "should" have a right to "bear arms" for self-protection.  It just needed to come about in a different manner.

            1. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              It has been a while since I dug into Scalia's opinion. I will have to look again to make sure I know more about it than he did.

              GA

              1. My Esoteric profile image82
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                As you do, consider Scalia's supposed "literalist" philosophy in interpreting the Constitution. I have found over time that for conservatives who say that is the correct way do so only when it is convenient. When you look at their rulings, they are as "activist" as any liberal judge they put that label on - the probable demise of Roe v. Wade being a poster child.

                1. GA Anderson profile image89
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I haven't heard Scalia called a literalist before. I certainly don't see it.

                  I found a great read analyzing his opinion. After reading, my response would be 'Yeah, what he said . . .'

                  His reasoning for the "self-defense" extrapolation is generally acknowledged as sound. The main criticism seems to be the path he took to define which "arms" were protected.

                  The contrarian 'more Originalist' criticisms reached the same understanding as Scalia's opinion, but by a, claimed, more constitutionally sound path. Hmm . . .

                  GA

                  1. My Esoteric profile image82
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "His reasoning for the "self-defense" extrapolation is generally acknowledged as sound" - My point, of course, is that "extrapolating" is what liberals do and people like Scalia abhor.  Yet he did it.

                    Even though I support owning guns for self-defense, I just can't by the twisted (not an insult) logic he used to get there.  You have to make a lot of major assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is about personal self-defense.  The only way I can see it is if one buys the argument that a "State" and a "person" are similar enough to be considered the same thing.  If you do, then the 2nd Amendment could be written:

                    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Person, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

                    and still make sense.

                    As to Scalia - https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2006/11/ … iteralism/

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Given that those people were (in their view) under the thumb of a terrible tyranny, it would seem that a "free state" includes freedom from a tyrannical government.

          1. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            You are right about that.  The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure citizens were able to form State militias using their own arms in order to fight against the British should they come back (which they did).

            The original purpose of the 2nd Amendment no longer exists unless you think Mexico or Canada is going to attack us and the federal forces won't be enough to repel them.  Nevertheless, it is still on the books.

    3. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago

      Let's Make Sure More People Have Guns

      June 3, 2022 (and we have the weekend to go):

      - Chesterfield, VA - Graduation party : 1 dead, 7 injured

      - Omaha, NE - Apt complex: 1 dead, 3 injured

      - Ecorse, MI - Ambush at a party: 5 wounded

      - Socorro, TX - Graduation party: 5 wounded

      - Phoenix, AZ - Strip mall fight - 1 dead, 8 wounded

      - Saginaw, MI - BBQ shooting - 4 dead plus a fetus, 3 wounded.

      Others between June 4 and June 5

      - Hempstead, NY - Residential area: 1 dead, 3 wounded

      - Summerton, SC - Graduation party: 1 dead, 7 wounded

      - Philadelphia, PA - Nightclubs: 3 dead, 11 wounded

      - Chattanooga, TN - Nightclubs: 3 dead, 14 wounded (it happened a week earlier also)

      - Mesa, AZ - Nightclub: 2 dead,2 wounded

      - Grand Rapids, MI - 1 dead, 3wounded

      -

      In non-mass shootings, 246 people are killed a day with guns.

      Don't tell me we don't have a uniquely American gun problem!

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/11/us/us-ma … index.html

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        We don't have a uniquely American gun problem.

        We DO have a uniquely American problem with violence, though, and one that we steadfastly refuse to solve, address or even acknowledge.

        1. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          "We don't have a uniquely American gun problem." - The data does not support your claim. If you want me to report it, I'll be happy to do that.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            So?  America has neither the highest number of guns per household nor the highest homicide rate.  What is unique about it then?

            1. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              There you go again trying to argue with extreme positions.  Face it, you don't want the obvious to be true, consequently there is no amount of reliable information that will change your mind.

              Also, if you have to ask "what is unique" in the face of all of the available information, then you clearly don't understand, or don't want to understand the problem.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Eso, if you don't think the violence in America is an "extreme" case you desperately need to rethink your position.

                I notice you didn't bother to describe what is "unique" about the violence in America, though.

                1. My Esoteric profile image82
                  My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "if you don't think the violence in America is an "extreme" case you desperately need to rethink your position." - what a comment like that displays is your propensity to purposefully misinterpret the written word

                  Sighhhhh - It is UNIQUE because NO OTHER WESTERN-ORIENTED  COUNTRY HAS SUCH A HIGH RATE OF DEATH BY GUN THAN AMERICA, whether it be suicide or homicide.  It is not even close and is one of those self-evident things that you chose to be oblivious to.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I guess that is true if the "western oriented countries" are picked just right, with those having higher rates being denied the designation.  Of course, that is (as always, it seems) limited to gun deaths rather than murders in total.  A curiosity to me as I don't care if a body has a bullet hole or not, but you seem to think it makes a huge difference to the survivors or even the dead.

                    But we are NOT "unique" in the number of homes with guns in them - we are not the highest by a long shot.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image82
                      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      "I guess that is true if the "western oriented countries" are picked just right, with those having higher rates being denied the designation. " - And you just told another tall tale.

                      "Of course, that is (as always, it seems) limited to gun deaths " - [i]But isn't that what we are talking about?  Gun deaths?  No other comparable nation has the same rate of death by gun - not even close.  As to overall homicides, you are still wrong.  Only Russia, of major indutrialized nations has a higher homicide rate.

                      Don't waste your time trying to point to Venzuela, Columbia, Mexico and the like.  Each has circumstances that make them uncomparable to America.


                      "But we are NOT "unique" in the number of homes with guns in them - we are not the highest by a long shot." - Sorry, you can't even make that statement because the NRA made it impossible to keep track anymore.  We no longer have a clue as to how many guns are in circulation today. The only clue you have is the increasing number of homicides and suicides by gun.

    4. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago

      Here is one way to protect school children - Cancel school and buy more guns, espceially weapons of war.

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/15/us/misso … index.html

    5. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago

      Soon, every ciry will be no safer than people were in Dodge city in the 1800s.

      That said, IF the NY law made it near impossible for any citizen to obtain a permit IS TRUE, then I am not sure I can disagree with the dicision.  Gun safety laws are necessary, but not unreasonable ones.

      I wonder if NY can pare back their law somewhat to make it easier for truely law abiding citizens to obtain a permit that it will pass muster.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Wanted to point out a fact ---  How Many Gun Owners are in America? 32% of Americans say they personally own a firearm according to the 2021 National Firearms Survey. This means that more than 81.4 million Americans own guns.

        Does this not offer some indication that the great majority of gun owners in America are responsible?

        1. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Let me give you a fact - in 2020, there were 45,222 people killed by guns. That represents a 14% increase over 2019 and a 25% increase from five years before and a 43% increase from 10 years ago.

          So, in ten more years a MINIMUM of 450,000 people with have died from gunshot wounds.  Now, with the SC decision, that number will increase dramatically.

          OBVIOUSLY, there are a lot of gun owners who are NOT responsible.

          Why do you fight so hard to keep guns in the hands of the irresponsible ones?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "Now, with the SC decision, that number will increase dramatically."

            Why?  Because a legal owner can now legally have it on their person?  How will that dramatically increase the number of murders using a gun?

            1. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Because, in a short amount of time, anyone will be able to obtain a weapon -  there will be very few prohibitions stopping the sale of pistols, rifles, assault weapons, machine guns and the bumpstocks to turn many of them into automatic weapons,and high capacity as well as high capacity magazines to make it easier to kill lots and lots of people.  I bet they will even approve the sale of devices that will turn almost any gun into a machine gun.

              The SC just guaranteed an increase in Uvaldi's.

        2. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          "Does this not offer some indication that the great majority of gun owners in America are responsible?" - Since most Americans are responsible, give me your reasoning for having any laws at all.  I ask, because that is the logical extension of your logic.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Very simply, we need laws to make sure responsible law-abiding citizens can buy a gun, ( hence the reason we have   81.4 million Americans own guns. that buy guns following our laws. I certainly did not in any way indicate we do not need gun laws. You're taking the conversation off into la-la land".

            Gun laws can help ( but not insure) that guns are going into safe hands.  However, gun laws are not the answer to keeping guns out of the wrong hands.   I am PRo Gun LAWS. PERIOD.

            Let me remind you ---   Most crimes are done with guns or guns that were obtained illegally. Gun laws do not prevent a criminal from getting a gun, stats well prove that. Facts tell us that we have  81.4 million Americans who own guns. Facts tell us the majority of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.

            "Based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates
            (SPI), about 1 in 5 (21%) of all state and federal
            prisoners reported that they had possessed or
            carried a firearm when they committed the offense
            for which they were serving time in prison (figure 1).
            More than 1 in 8 (13%) of all prisoners had used
            a firearm by showing, pointing or discharging it
            during the offense for which they were imprisoned.
            Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had
            obtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed,
            carried, or used it during the offense for which they
            were imprisoned.

            An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a
            firearm during their offense. Among these, more than
            half (56%) had either STOLEN it (6%), found it at the
            scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street
            or from the underground market (43%). Most of
            the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family
            member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had
            purchased it under their own name from a licensed
            firearm dealer."

            US Department Of Justice report --- https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

            1. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              "Very simply, we need laws to make sure responsible law-abiding citizens can buy a gun, " - Think about what you just wrote - you want laws on the books to "allow" people to buy guns? There are no such laws to "allow" someone to do something, only laws to "prevent" people from doing something.  In this case, laws to prevent "irresponsible" people from purchasing guns.  Of course, now that conservatives have spoken, there will be no such laws!  Yet, despite you declaring that you are "pro-gun laws period", by defending the Conservative's deadly ruling you contradict yourself.

              What are your statistics supposed to prove??  I am at a loss.  I suspect those in Uvaldi, Buffalo, Chatanouga (twice), Philadelphia, Tulsa, Chicago, Laguna Woods, Pittsburg, Columbia, NYC, Sacramento, and Portland - and that is just in 2022 so far - will very much disagree with you.

              THOSE are the statistics that have REAL meaning.  And now, it is just going to get worse every year - thanks to conservatives.

              That said, even your statistics beg a question.  "How much of the 32% who got their guns from family members, as a gift, or purchased legally could have been reduced with BETTER gun laws that you say you are in favor of?"

      2. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I read more about the backward-looking Supreme Court decision.  Two things those activist Conservative Justices will have accomplished:

        1.  The reversal of the vast majority of gun safety laws on the books

        2.  Hundreds of thousand of deaths by gun that would not have happened absent their horrible decision!

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Is it your position that SCOTUS members should have voted how you think the decision should have gone to benefit the country rather than by what the Constitution says? 

          That decision reversed "the vast majority of gun safety laws on the books"?  Elucidate, please, explaining which laws are reversed (more than half of those on the books, you claim).

          1. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Obtuse, obtuse, obtuse!  The Constitution doesn't say anything about what Thomas wrote.  If fact, those six idiots slapped our founders in the face and stompted on their graves with that decision. 

            Now a thousands more will die and tens of thousands wounded because of their deadly ruling.  I am now in favor of stacking the court to save America.

            Your second statement is so rediculous as to not warrant addressing.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I see.  You refuse to address either comment or question, presumably on the theory that you are always right without needing any reasons or facts.

              Something that is pretty obviously false to begin with.

    6. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago

      This is what people have to do now to protect themselves from trigger-happy gun owners. Now, that there will be very few restrictions on purchasing weapons of mass destruction, imagine what people are going to have to do now.  Further, I would advise anyone vacationing in America from abroad to consider that America will be as dangerous a place to be as it is in Mexico.

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/26/us/gun-v … index.html

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Do you honestly think that gross exaggerations help your cause?  Or are you saying that we will now be able to purchase a nuclear bomb from the neighbor down the street?

        1. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          What was the exageration? That there will be very few restrictions on anybody buy a deadly weapon?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "Now, that there will be very few restrictions on purchasing weapons of mass destruction  https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4251050

            Weapons of mass destruction are defined by the UN as  “[…] atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which might have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above.”  https://www.bing.com/search?q=what+is+a … ORM=CHROMN

            Homeland Security defines it as "nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people."  https://www.dhs.gov/topics/weapons-mass-destruction

            You, on the other hand, seem to define it as a semi-automatic gun.  This is a gross exaggeration; weapons of mass destruction have never been defined as a simple rifle.  My question to was whether such exaggeration and loaded terminology, however false, helps your argument.

    7. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago

      I was hoping we could get through the holiday without have to report another mass shooting. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable happened. This time in Chicago.  Six people dead so far and many more wounded.

      https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/illino … index.html

      1. Nathanville profile image91
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, more mass shootings in the USA than the rest of the free world put together should be a strong indication that there are just far too many guns in America.  To an outsider the answer seems obvious - Less guns and tighter gun controls, not more guns.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Worked well for drugs, didn't it?  Laws prohibiting the sale, ownership or use of illegal drugs...and the death toll from overdoses keeps climbing.

          1. Nathanville profile image91
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            ??? Drugs are not guns; apart from which the overall prevalence of drug use reported in the UK has remained relatively stable throughout the last decade, so it's not climbing as you claim - unless you're just talking about the USA?

            Besides, just think how much higher drug abuse would be if it wasn't a controlled substance.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, I meant the US.  But where does the opinion that it would have climbed come from?  The assumption that there would be more drug overdoses if they were not illegal?

              Like guns, the assumption is that if a gun is illegal criminals won't have guns, and the assumption that if guns are illegal people won't kill (at least at anywhere near the same rate).  Neither assumption is founded on fact, just on "common sense" that is false to fact.

              1. Nathanville profile image91
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                If you restrict something, its harder to get, so its not a false fact, it's common sense.

                Gee Whizz, make drugs legal and let everybody have guns; just think of the carnage and death!!!! 

                No thanks, I'll stick to common sense and support the high level of restrictions in guns and drugs that we have in the UK.  At least on celebrations in the UK similar to your 4th July I'm not going to be shot at.

              2. My Esoteric profile image82
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "The assumption that there would be more drug overdoses if they were not illegal?" - You are witnessing Wilderness' Obtuseness.


                "Like guns, the assumption is that if a gun is illegal criminals won't have guns, and the assumption that if guns are illegal people won't kill (at least at anywhere near the same rate). "- You do know, don't you, that has nothing to do with reality nor what sensible people are trying to accomplish.

          2. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, it did. The assault weapon and high capaicity ban was a great success, until conservatives decided they didn't want any more success.

            And yes, more guns lead to more deaths and a higher death ratel, exactly like more drugs do.  Fewer guns lead to less death and a lower death rate.  Ask any European.

    8. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago

      Like at Uvaldi, a doctor reported that died had their "bodies explode" from the type of weapon of war and ammunition used in the Highland massacre.  War vets reported that the sound of the attack was no different than what they expierenced in Iraq or Afghanistan - all in the name of making sure anybody can get a weapon of any type in America.

      https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/illino … index.html

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Once again, exaggerations do not aid your argument.  Or do you have more information than the rest of us as to the gun used?  (A "high powered rifle" means an ordinary hunting rifle to me, not an automatic weapon or even a 50 cal. sniper rifle).

        Instead of helping, all it means to most people is "I am making this all up, so do not believe or listen to me!"

        1. IslandBites profile image89
          IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I dont think it has been reported what specific guns he used. But this is how it sounded.

          https://youtu.be/car_3Nv3dtw

          1. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            What the model was may not have been reported but it was clearly a weapon of war. No "normal" rifle built for civilian use can do that or blow apart a body like this one did.

            1. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              That is just baloney. As you frequently say, facts have been shown, here, multiple times, that prove how misrepresentative your thought is.

              The rapid rate of fire, (as recorded in videos), and the extreme bodily damage you highlight, are characteristic of almost every single semi-auto hunting rifle made, (that loads by 'clips')

              Videos using the same ballistic gel as anti-Ar-15 folks use to show this damage also show the same damage created by a 30.06 deer-hunting rifle. I think you are aware of this and are being purposely hyperbolic using claims that have been shown to be inaccurate.

              GA

              1. My Esoteric profile image82
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                You will need to show me that video, because the one's I have seen show a distinct difference.

                I tried to find a comparison chart of muzzle velocities of AR-15 assault rifles and other semi-automatic hunting rifles.  While I could find information for the AR-15 (3,251 fps) I couldn't for others (in time, I will).  I did find this, however, to differentiate an assault weapon and hunting rifles.  (Correction, I found one for the 30-06 - between 2,600 and 2,800 fps. about 16% slower - and therefore less destructive on the human

                The AR-15 is, by design, easier to shoot accurately and rapidly than a a typical hunting rifle because it mitigates recoil. The standard AR-15 bullet, as previously stated, carries kinetic energy of 1300 foot pounds; a typical hunting rifle bullet has between 2600 -and 4000 foot pounds, meaning it has greater recoil. The excessive recoil of a hunting rifle precludes rapid firing on target, because of the obligatory motion of the gun and its impact on the shooter. But the moderate energy of the AR-15 allows shooting on target literally as rapidly as the trigger can be pulled, while providing ample bullet speed to inflict lethal wounds.

                https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/p … ncna848346

                Therefore, I hardly think I am being hyperbolic.

                1. GA Anderson profile image89
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Here is a comparison video for .223, (AR-15), vs. 30.06, (hunting rifle).

                  You can see a direct comparison in the ballistic gel. The video also shows the actual muzzle velocities: 2867 fps vs 2663 fps— 7% difference.

                  The gel results and muzzle velocity are nearly identical.

                  I say your claim: "No "normal" rifle built for civilian use can do that or blow apart a body like this one did." is debunked, visually and factually. So, yes, your claim was very hyperbolic and inaacurrate.

                  Ballistic Gel Test!! **Hornady 223 & 30-06

                  If you go to the video you can also see others that compare firing speed, (trigger pulls), showing a 30.06 'hunting rifle' being fired at the same rapid rate as an AR-15.

                  Also, the gel tests fairly debunk the claim of the .223 being designed as a 'tumbling' bullet. It acted the same as the 30.06 in the gel.

                  GA

                  1. My Esoteric profile image82
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I watched the video several times but had a hard time following it because my audio made it very hard to hear the narrator.

                    I will watch it more, but here is my initial impression once I figured which shot was which.

                    1.  The 30-06 was slower than then the .223

                    2.  The 30-06 went completely through the gel, which I read mitigates damage to some extent.

                    3.  Some of the video seemed to show a more "explosive" result shortly after the .223. entered the gel than did the 30-06.  But, the final disturbance didn't look that much different at first blush.

                    I am looking for more.

                    This describes what a .223 bullet does to the human body.

                    https://ncpolicywatch.com/2022/06/13/mo … an-beings/

                    The question I am researching is whether other semi-automatic rifles that are considered "hunting" rifles (as opposed to semi-automatics built specifically for war) which fire the .223 creates similar damage.

                    1. GA Anderson profile image89
                      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      I know the feeling: you can't believe your lying eyes.

                      Even after saying they don't look "much different at first blush" you still want to find something that will prove your eyes wrong. Geesh.

                      As for your "hunting rifle" search, re. .223 bullets, that too has been shown in the comparison of the .223 Ranch rifle.

                      Here you go, (again):

                      https://hubstatic.com/14683410.jpg

                      GA

    9. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago

      Clearly, the Red Flag laws need to be strengthened and since it is Illinois, they probably will be.

      In September that year, a family member reported that Crimo threatened "to kill everyone," and had a collection of knives, Covelli said. Police removed 16 knives, a dagger and a sword from their residence.
      Highland Park police submitted a "Clear and Present Danger" report about the visit to the Illinois State Police, the state agency said. Family members were not willing to file additional complaints, the state police said in a Tuesday news release.
      The knives confiscated by Highland Park police were returned the same day after Crimo's father claimed they were his, the state police said.
      Over the next two years, Crimo legally purchased five firearms, according to Covelli -- including rifles, a pistol and possibly a shotgun. State police confirmed Tuesday that Crimo passed four background checks between June 2020 and September 2021 when purchasing firearms, which included checks of the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
      To buy firearms in Illinois, people need a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card. Crimo was under 21, so he was sponsored by his father, state police said. Crimo's application was not denied because there was "insufficient basis to establish a clear and present danger" at the time.


      https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/06/us/highl … index.html

      Should the shooter's father be charged?

    10. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago

      Of course, Republican McConnell has no interest in reducing the new uniquely American passtime - mass shootings with weapons of war.  A sport which happens on average once a day!

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/06/politics … index.html

    11. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

      "The assault weapon and high capacity ban was a great success, until conservatives decided they didn't want any more success." Amen and amen. The 12 largest car rental companies won't rent a car to someone under 25, but those folks can buy a gun! How much intelligence does it take to see some reasonable solutions to this epidemic of killings? A 2-year-old is now an orphan because his parents took him to a 4th of July parade! Your second amendment rights are more important than a child having parents? Where are all the right to lifers on this?

      1. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I heard the officer Mike Fanone, the policeman the insurrectionists almost killed, say that:

        1. He owns lot's of guns, including an AR-15.
        2. He says he was required to have one as a Metro Police Officer and keeps one around now that he is retired to keep qualified.
        3. He believes this war weapon should not be in the hands of anybody who isn't military or law enforcement.
        4. Public safety outweighs the entertainment value of possessing something designed specifically to kill lots of people very quickly.

    12. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago

      Just a reminder of what this is all about - an UNSAFE AMERICA

      "These days, it's impossible to celebrate -- or even gather -- in American communities without fear, including in places of worship, inside our cars, at grocery stores, the mall, or even in our schools. There was no clearer example of that than the shooting one week ago that pierced the sense of collective joy during Fourth of July holiday festivities in the town of Highland Park, Illinois.

      Thanks to the gun lobby's "guns everywhere" agenda, none of us are safe anywhere."


      - Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and the author of "Fight Like a Mother: How a Grassroots Movement Took on the Gun Lobby and Why Women Will Change the World."

      1. Nathanville profile image91
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah - Looking across the pond from Europe; I don't see America becoming a safer society until/unless more Americans see sense!

        After reading your sentiments I contemplated on Britains most dangerous night of the year; Guy Fawkes - 5th November.  It pales into insignificance compared to the gun violence in America, but Guy Fawkes night is the Fire-Services busiest night of the year in Britian.  For example, in 2019 the Scottish Fire-Service dealt with 374 bonfires on one of their busiest nights of the year between 3:30pm and 11:30pm, and their Operations Control handled more than 1020 calls from members of the public that night - and it's a similar picture repeated in every region of Britain and Wales.

        Disturbing Origin of Bonfire Night & Guy Fawkes Day (5th Nov): https://youtu.be/R92dkwpDcMI

        Lewes Bonfire: Britain's most dangerous Guy Fawkes celebration: https://youtu.be/Fcecvnlgu8E

    13. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 23 months ago

      Cain slew Able with a rock.  Had he had an AR-15, he would have killed Adam and Eve as well.

      1. GA Anderson profile image89
        GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        The AR-15 gave him time travel too? I want one.

        GA

    14. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 23 months ago

      Here is an example of the danger Clarence Thomas has caused with his "let everybody and their brother have a gun" decision.  A federal judge struck down a Texas law banning 18, 19, and 20 year olds from carrying guns in public.  His reasoning?  They weren't banned in the late 1700s and minors could be part of the militia.  Here is to another 1,000 or more people being murdered.  (I am amazed Texas even had the ban)

      It won't be long before it won't be safe to walk outside your house in America where each city, town, and hamlet will be like Dodge City of old.  Can you imagine, since they didn't ban guns from bars in the late 1700s, they won't be able to in America pretty soon.

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/26/us/texas … index.html

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        "It won't be long before it won't be safe to walk outside your house in America"

        It won't be long?  It already isn't.  We're already at the point where a simple stroll through the park risks mugging, rape or murder.  Where a short drive risks being car-jacked. 

        Meanwhile liberals continue to pretend that an inanimate object is the cause of our violence while at the same time ignoring it happening and refusing to take steps to put an end to it.

        1. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Interesting.  Until Trump came along, all of those crimes you mention were on a steep decline (except for motor vehicle theft which was only declining slightly).  Since Trump, they all have been increasing dramatically, especially homicides.  That was another "problem solved" by having Trump as president,  lol

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            You're right - since Trump (after he left) liberals have made it increasingly clear that it is fine to commit crimes.  At least if they don't threaten the "powers that be" in DC.

            Of course, that has been going on for years, getting worse all the time.  Poor, poor criminals (violent or not) must be left alone to do as they wish.

            1. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              That is totally nonsensical. It is also untrue.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                Right.  And you can provide truthful statistics showing crime has fallen since Trump left office?  I think not.

                1. My Esoteric profile image82
                  My Esotericposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  You made the claim, you prove it.

        2. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          There is no "pretending" about it.  The fact is, if nobody possessed guns, nobody would be killed by them and the homicide rate would be a lot lower.  But, because this nation has a love affair with guns, we put up with thousands of dead people as a result.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            Unfortunately you are completely incapable of proving that without guns people won't kill (at nearly the same rate).  It makes for fine rhetoric, but when examined in depth it fails every logic and fact test.

            But I will agree that without guns bodies won't have bullet holes in them.  Of course that means that you must disarm not only the law abiding people (fairly easy) but criminals as well (impossible).  And figure out how to convince survivors that bodies without bullet holes are preferable to bodies with bullet holes - personally I doubt that they will care much and I'm positive the dead won't care.

            Perhaps the gun haters need to take a big step backwards and actually look at reality and experience rather than simply spouting false-to-fact concepts and ideas that wouldn't work even if true.  Perhaps if they actually addressed the problem instead of wringing their hands and crying over the number of guns we might get somewhere.  But, unfortunately, they won't.

            1. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              Come on Wilderness, get real.  Where did I say "Unfortunately you are completely incapable of proving that without guns people won't kill "?  Why do you make those things up? 

              And, you are deflecting, of course, from the statement.  So, let me try again:

              The fact is, if nobody possessed guns, nobody would be killed by them and the homicide rate would be a lot lower.

              And YES, that can be proved by comparing rates between countries who make heroes out of gun owners and those who protect their citizens by limiting access to guns.  That is a simple statistical analysis.

              "disarm not only the law abiding people (fairly easy) but criminals as well (impossible.)." - Why impossible??  England has almost done it, so has many countries in Europe, without even trying hard.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                "And YES, that can be proved by comparing rates between countries who make heroes out of gun owners and those who protect their citizens by limiting access to guns."

                Then do so.  Provide statistics, data and proof rather than a simple statement of unsupported opinion.  Strip it of your ridiculous description ("make heroes of gun owners") and show us the data.  Provide a list of at least 50 countries, their gun ownership rates and their homicide rates.  And then draw a graph of the data and provide the mathematical equation of that graph showing proof that fewer guns = lower homicide rates.

                "Why impossible??  England has almost done it, so has many countries in Europe, without even trying hard."

                You are correct.  Some countries (particularly dictatorships) have almost done it.  Unfortunately that is not what you said, and "almost" leaves tens or hundreds of thousands of criminals in a country the size of America with guns.  We have, for years and years, made it illegal for criminals or ex-cons to possess a gun...and the result is tens of thousands that do so anyway.  "Almost" appears to mean anyone that wants a gun can have one and it is still "almost all" that don't.

                1. My Esoteric profile image82
                  My Esotericposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  Look, Wilderness, I know you are smart. I know you read as much as I do.  I know you have previously read my stats on the comparison.  I know you have read what Nathansville has written on the subject.  Rather than me wasting my time regurgitating the obvious, do a simple Google search on your own.

                  You are also deflecting far away from the point.

                  You made the silly and ridiculous claim that "Meanwhile liberals continue to pretend that an inanimate object is the cause of our violence while at the same time ignoring it happening and refusing to take steps to put an end to it."

                  To which I truthfully and objectively responded "There is no "pretending" about it.  The fact is, if nobody possessed guns, nobody would be killed by them and the homicide rate would be a lot lower.  But, because this nation has a love affair with guns, we put up with thousands of dead people as a result.

                  And then you deflected and went down another rabbit hole.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, I read your article some time ago (at least if memory serves me right and it was yours).  And I read your conclusion, which (paraphrasing) was: "I couldn't find a statistical correlation between the number of guns and the homicide rate, but I'm sure there is one so therefore more guns = more homicides".  At least I think that was your hub and your comment.

                    Whereas I set out to prove the same thing, collected the data and examined it.  Just like you I couldn't find a correlation (let alone proof of causality), but that's where we took different paths for I accepted that startling fact and you stuck with your gut reaction rather than the proof you had accumulated.

                    All of which is why I challenged you to provide that proof that you are so adamant exists, showing that more guns = more murders.  And which you have steadfastly refused, for years, to do.

                    But I didn't deflect at all: I continue to challenge your statement that "The fact is, if nobody possessed guns, nobody would be killed by them and the homicide rate would be a lot lower", while you continue to refuse to provide supporting evidence.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image82
                      My Esotericposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                      ""I couldn't find a statistical correlation between the number of guns and the homicide rate, but I'm sure there is one so therefore more guns = more homicides".  " - Yes, I said the first part, but not the second. Had I been more precise (and I will go back and change it), I should have said "I couldn't find a statistical correlation at the 95% confidence level between the number of guns and the homicide rate."  I also need to go back and relax the confidence interval to where it does become significant.  I may have to start from scratch though because it seems all of my spreadsheets, which contained my data, got deleted somehow. sad

                      " showing that more guns = more murders." - SEE, there you go again moving the goalposts (and deflecting). I DO NOT claim 'more guns = more murders' (in terms of rates).  I DO claim, and proved the following:

                      - 'the higher the rate of gun ownership = the higher the suicide rate" at a 95% confidence level

                      - "the laxer the gun safety laws = a higher gun ownership rate"'

                      Now, in terns if raw numbers "more guns = more murders" is true on the face of it.  To claim otherwise is just foolish.


                      As to the "and the homicide rate would be a lot lower"," part - that again is by logical conclusion.  The ONLY way for that not to be true is if EVERY SINGLE death by gun is replaced by death by some other means.  I don't think even you would claim that is even a remote possibility.

    15. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 23 months ago

      Another Trump Republican does his thing with a gun. This time threatening a Senate candidate in Utah.

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/27/politics … index.html

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        Try as hard as I could, but I could not find anything in your link to indicate that the accused (Jack Aaron Whelchel) has any connection to Trump, approves of Trump as either a President or citizen or is a Republican.

        Are you making things up or was there other information you neglected to supply?

        1. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          I suppose it could be a radical liberal who wants Lee to win.  But which is more likely?

          It is called drawing logical inferences: 

          1.  It was right after a McMuillin rally
          2. McMullin is opposing Lee
          3. This is very Trumpy Utah we are talking about.
          4. Trump Republicans have proven themselves to be violent.

            Nah, I'll go with Trump Republican.

    16. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 23 months ago

      With America awash in guns, this and several others this weekend has become the NORM.

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/29/us/safew … index.html

    17. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months ago

      Top 10 homicide rates in the United States:

      Mississippi
      Louisiana
      Kentucky
      Alabama
      Missouri
      South Carolina
      New Mexico
      Georgia
      Arkansas
      Tennessee

      Actually, if  Mississippi was a country, it would have the 23rd highest murder rate.

      All in all these states have some of the loosest gun laws.
      And are  among the worst states nationally in terms of education and other socioeconomic factors. Almost all net beneficiaries of federal funds, receiving more money than paying in taxes. 



      https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisMurphyC … 53/photo/1

    18. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 23 months ago

      Machine guns wreck havoc across the US. Also, a 3-year old accidentally kills self in Gainesville, FL after getting hold of an UNSECURED LOADED pistol (hopefully, they are prosecuting the father - that is much better than passing a law requiring they be secured).

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/30/us/autom … index.html

    19. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 22 months ago

      Four year old takes loaded gun to class - Father faces charges. YEA!

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/01/us/child … index.html

      In Arizona this week, a second-grader was found with two guns and ammunition at Cochise Elementary School, the sheriff's office there said in a Facebook post. The child's parents were called and a juvenile referral made with charges of misconduct with a weapon and minor in possession of a firearm, according to the sheriff's office. -

      - The parents should have been arrested as well unless they can prove the kid stole them from a secure location.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        I would go with that (parents arrest) too, as long as it was their guns.  Guns picked up in the street, from a neighbor kid or house, bartered for with a piece of candy - these kinds of things cannot be immediately controlled by parents and it is likely they would not know for weeks or months.

        1. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          That goes without saying.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            I would disagree there - that would be much like the poor girl that can't get an abortion for her child with acrania (sp?).  The state says a doctor would not be prosecuted for performing one, while the law is explicit that she COULD be prosecuted. 

            Same thing for the parents with a child that stole a gun from the neighbor and hid it under the porch, taking it to school the next day.  They COULD be prosecuted if it isn't written into the law that they could not.

            1. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Not sure I follow.  In the acrania case, the law was too vague and left the doctors in limbo.

              Not sure what the parents would be prosecuted for under the scenario you laid out.  Maybe the people the kid stole from if the guns weren't properly secured.

    20. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 22 months ago

      And more gun violence.  BTW, for every one I report here, I read about 20 more that I don't get around to posting.

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/04/us/virgi … index.html

      1. GA Anderson profile image89
        GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        A blurb from your offered links would be helpful in deciding whether to click or not.

        GA

        1. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          That is probably true.

          For this one, someone apparently shot up 7 (none fatally yet) people in Norfolk, VA.  Some of them were students a Norfolk State University.

          Then this one just popped up:

          5 people injured in a mass shooting in Charleston, SC.  My guess it is a bar fight of some sort.

          https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/04/us/charl … index.html

    21. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 22 months ago

      How many more kids feel "They Won't Protect Us" and refuse to return to school? This is not the America I remember growing up where all I had to worry about was getting nuked by the Russians.  That was an unreal threat. Being wiped out in a school shooting is a very real threat indeed.

      Also, it is expensive in more ways than the lose of lives to people wielding mass killing devices - they are not going to reopen Robb Elementary but demolish it instead.  This is a fate that meets many schools where mass killings took place.  It is SO common, the federal gov't has set up a special grant to help defray the costs.

      (It is good to know that it is costing those who insist on keeping weapons of war in the hands of anyone who wants one a little bit of their tax dollars.)

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/us/uvald … index.html

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/us/schoo … index.html

    22. My Esoteric profile image82
      My Esotericposted 18 months ago

      Three weeks and 36 mass shootings in 2023.  That says it all about the lack of gun safety laws and those who oppose keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

      https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/politics … index.html

      1. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

        In regard to mass shootings and Gun strong gun laws. It appears that strong gun laws do not stop mass shootings.

        " As of January 2023, California had the most mass shootings in the United States, with 24 total shootings since 1982. The source defines a mass shooting as a shooting where three or more people were killed."  https://www.statista.com/statistics/811 … -by-state/

        Yet California has some of the strictest gun laws in the US.
        https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/com … s-america/
        https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws … alifornia/
        https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/us/c … -laws.html

        It would appear strong gun laws are not curbing mass shootings in California.

        1. My Esoteric profile image82
          My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Strong gun laws were NEVER intended to STOP all mass shootings.  This may be a surprise, but they are intended to reduce the number of them.  For example, the assault weapon ban in 1975 had a significant impact on reducing mass killings.

          I figured some one would bring up California gun laws.  All that tells me is the larger point was missed.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            "Strong gun laws were NEVER intended to STOP all mass shootings."

            Such a strange response, you clearly contradict your own words ---  The very words that I responded to.

            "MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
            Three weeks and 36 mass shootings in 2023.  That says it all about the lack of gun safety laws and those who oppose keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them."

            Do you read your posts, or just change your train of thought
            frequently? Or again are you just being argumentive?

            You accused me of missing the point --- I missed no point, I think anyone reading your comment, and my reply can ascertain the context of both comments.

            You just seem to be all over the place, and contradict your own views so frequently.

            Tip -- maybe share your view, and not what Google tells you your view should be.   You have personal views I am sure.
            :

            1. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              I'm sorry, where is the contradiction?  Are you assuming facts not in evidence?

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                It is very clear that you contradicted yourself. I will copy and paste just so anyone else is interested in seeing how badly you contradicted yourself. LOL

                ECO stated -   "Strong gun laws were NEVER intended to STOP all mass shootings."

                Such a strange response, you clearly contradict your own words ---  The very words that I responded to.

                "MY ESOTERIC Then  WROTE:
                Three weeks and 36 mass shootings in 2023.  That says it all about the LACK OF GUN  SAFETY LAWS and those who oppose keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them."

                You have a true problem with context.

                1. My Esoteric profile image82
                  My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Sorry, those are two separate trains of thought.  In one case I contradicted your claim that gun laws were meant to STOP gun violence.  That is clearly wrong.

                  On the other hand, the gist of the other statement is that lax guns laws inevitably lead to higher rates of murder like we say in California in the last couple of days.

                  It is quote a stretch to equate those two.  I will say, I should have added the word "EFFECTIVE"   I forgot how picky your side is.

            2. My Esoteric profile image82
              My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              I was going to say the same to you - except replace Google, which is a fine way to find information, with Right-Wing propaganda.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                I am not the one that says one thing one moment, and then the complete opposite the next.  As I said, our views are very far apart. I as a rule will stick with personal views.

                  I also look to several outlets for info.  You appear to stick to CNN University Of Propaganda. 

                I will give it to you, you stick in there with CNN, nowadays most won't admit to reading or listening to CNN.

                Jan 24, 2023 ---   "CNN placed 18th in total primetime viewers with a paltry 444,000 viewers on average, and sixth in total day with 417,000 . In Adults 25-54, CNN placed 29th in primetime with 93,000 on average, and 15th in total day with 80,000 on average. The 80,000 A25-54 average in a total day represents the network’s smallest delivery since 2014."   https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/week-of … ay/522618/

                Profits Slump at CNN as Ratings Plummet
                The network is on a pace to drop below $1 billion in profit for the first time in years, according to people familiar with its operations, amid steep declines in TV viewership.
                https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/busi … licht.html

                They may not be around too much longer.

                1. My Esoteric profile image82
                  My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Neither am I.

                2. My Esoteric profile image82
                  My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Not sure what your CNN-Profit link has to do with anything other than Mr. Licht is getting off to a rough start.

                  As to viewership - since your refuse to do an apples-to-apples comparison, there is no meaning to your statistic.

                  Also, the article also said Ratings are down from their Trump-era heights across cable news,", although CNN is more pronounced.  They don't get into why though.  Is there more, better competition. Are other mainstream media getting a larger share of the pie?

                3. My Esoteric profile image82
                  My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  As you like to say - Don't Hold Your Breath.

      2. My Esoteric profile image82
        My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this
        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Other countries do better. We should be able to figure out how to do better.

          1. My Esoteric profile image82
            My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            I will be more direct.  MOST countries do MUCH better and we know how they do it.  Sadly, the politically powerful on the Right simply don't give a damn.  Just let the bodies keep dropping in ever increasing numbers.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              I'm thinking that even though California has some strict gun legislation we have a national problem with people being able to order individual parts for guns and assemble them.  Also, guns flow in from neighboring states with more lax laws.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            We might...when we quit assigning blame to an inanimate object and look within the psyche of Americans to try and understand the propensity for violence.

            Until that happens we are stuck with piles of bodies, whether by gunshot or some other weapon.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              I think we have tons of research around gun violence, who generally commits such acts and why along with early warning signs.  We all know there is very little support for any spending on programs to address such issues.  Politicians would rather this issue continue as a political football. It's another issue that goes into the category of too difficult and too large of a problem for their meager minds to deal with.

              I find it interesting that gun ownership is also relatively high in Canada, at about thirty-five firearms per hundred residents (ranking fifth globally), but the country does not struggle with a similar level of gun violence as in the United States. 

              This seems to be a problem we could solve, if we wanted to.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                I think so.  We can at least identify it, and quit pretending that a chunk of iron is the root cause of the violence in America.

                One has only to compare gun ownership rates with homicide rates worldwide to see there is no correlation between the two.  Or look at the tool used for murder in the US; there are more murders committed with hands and feet than rifles, including that dreaded "assault rifle"...so we attack the assault rifle rather than looking for causes.

                But it is politically expedient to blame the tool rather than the hand that holds it.  One capitalizes on fear while the other accuses us, the people, for the problem.  Which is easier for politicians is obvious.

          3. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            This is very true, it would seem we could do better.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)