Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:32 am
You may want to watch this video.
There's also a first part that lasts a few minutes. It's found amongst a variety of sort-of biographical videos at this website.
Good to know, gun violence only costs five billions more than obesity does.
Can someone repost the link to a good advocacy towards the organized extinction of fat people for the sake of our future, Soylent Green style? :D
More seriously, down the main page comes another picture that shows how homicides and assaults represent the majority of gun related casualties.
Obviously, that is the real gun violence. The one against a peer, most likely for unlawful reasons. Or crimes, in other words.
Then what is both the best deterrent against such crimes and a formidable economical drive?
Gun acquisition by good citizens.
Up to this point, it's not exactly clear where they're going with that, although the overall tone and modern construction and presentation of the accumulated data smell leftist.
Well, you don't have to wait till the third picture to read something that doesn't seem to be very relevant, until you guess that this entire enterprise is aimed at providing ammo against gun property. It reads:
"Guns are used in 70% of homicides and more than 50% of suicides in the United States."
So what? Oh wait, I see what you did here. This research, study or whatever you want to call it solely focuses on the casualties and violence done with guns, never on the self defense part, or the deterrent aspect of gun ownership. How long are they going to push this?
Make people believe that you could reduce gun violence whilst it's largely generated by criminal activity, either by bad guys shooting other people, or good guys killing the bad ones; in which cases it would be quite interesting to look at how much money may have been saved there by allowing someone to defend himself.
It's insane how the entire focus is on the cost, money money money money, but never on the defense and the good that was actually preserved. Yet they precisely tackled the subject of auxiliary costs resulting from people being injured or missing, how it impacts autonomy and the rest of the family.
There's a page with all the data presented in nice graphics.
This one is full of irony.
As it turns out, not only most of the costs are due to homicides (as we've seen earlier on), but the vast majority of these homicide based costs are taken up by prison and its relevant processes.
First of all, would they prefer the criminals to remain free? Or maybe they're advocating for extreme capital punishment, who knows?
Secondly, when homicides aren't caused by guns but by other weapons, they still have no reason to result in lesser costs for anything related to the jail phase. A homicide is a homicide. But they paint it as a "gun thing", see?
Gun = evil.
It doesn't stop there. It's sickening.
Here comes the pro-black racial angle.
So we're going to play that game now? OK. Maybe they should remind the readers that the vast majority of crimes are committed by black people too? Maybe that would explain why they got shot so many times, either in gang warfare, petty crimes or by result of self defense?
This single picture literally implies that owning a gun is something racist!
Then they try to balance this out by giving crumbs to the "white side" by mentioning the suicide rates. Amusingly, one would wonder why the hell is it white people who can't have it anymore and are killing themselves more than black people? Are they sick of their life, their country?
And if these people find enough strength to put an end to their life, how the hell is gun removal going to change a thing to that?
That's exploiting compassion, that's what it is. So a fellow white person should feel concerned, pity those who crossed the river. But then again, they should also ask themselves why the heck the suicide rates by gun are higher within the white population, the one that's supposedly privileged, than within the black one.
There's also a secondary effect that results from the merging of both parts of this picture. On one side, black people are painted as victims of gun violence, at a clear disadvantage against white people, and on the other hand, a statistic largely implies that most of the guns are owned by white people. Just add both and see where this gets you. ;)
That website is Mother Jones; the study is the fruit of their collaboration with Ted Miller and you will probably hear of them and their biased research again.
Let's be clear, there's an agenda there. The study in itself ought to be neutral, limiting itself to presenting cold hard numbers. But it's a clear charge against guns, for the fact that nothing is said about the positive aspects of owning a firearm.
Then, the associated militant depowering message leaves no doubt to what is being done.
There's also a first part that lasts a few minutes. It's found amongst a variety of sort-of biographical videos at this website.
Good to know, gun violence only costs five billions more than obesity does.
Can someone repost the link to a good advocacy towards the organized extinction of fat people for the sake of our future, Soylent Green style? :D
More seriously, down the main page comes another picture that shows how homicides and assaults represent the majority of gun related casualties.
Obviously, that is the real gun violence. The one against a peer, most likely for unlawful reasons. Or crimes, in other words.
Then what is both the best deterrent against such crimes and a formidable economical drive?
Gun acquisition by good citizens.
Indeed. When do we start talking about militias? j/kSome costs have hardly been studied at all—like the trauma and fear that stunt neighborhood development and prompt schools to deploy armed guards.
Up to this point, it's not exactly clear where they're going with that, although the overall tone and modern construction and presentation of the accumulated data smell leftist.
Well, you don't have to wait till the third picture to read something that doesn't seem to be very relevant, until you guess that this entire enterprise is aimed at providing ammo against gun property. It reads:
"Guns are used in 70% of homicides and more than 50% of suicides in the United States."
So what? Oh wait, I see what you did here. This research, study or whatever you want to call it solely focuses on the casualties and violence done with guns, never on the self defense part, or the deterrent aspect of gun ownership. How long are they going to push this?
Make people believe that you could reduce gun violence whilst it's largely generated by criminal activity, either by bad guys shooting other people, or good guys killing the bad ones; in which cases it would be quite interesting to look at how much money may have been saved there by allowing someone to defend himself.
It's insane how the entire focus is on the cost, money money money money, but never on the defense and the good that was actually preserved. Yet they precisely tackled the subject of auxiliary costs resulting from people being injured or missing, how it impacts autonomy and the rest of the family.
Pathetic. Turning away the capacity to defend yourself in favour of shit paper money that will last between a few weeks to a few months at best? Cretins.Nobody who knows Longdon expects any of that to get in her way—certainly not the mayor's chief of staff, Reuben Alonzo, who worked closely with her on a program in 2013 that took 2,000 unwanted firearms off the streets, the largest buyback in the state's history. Longdon was one of the first people the mayor turned to for advice on gun policy, Alonzo says, noting that it wasn't just a matter of her personal story. "There's a stereotype about advocates like Jennifer," he says, "but her approach is really quite pragmatic. She has the knowledge to back it up."
Longdon is well aware that 2,000 unwanted guns melted down by the Phoenix PD is a tiny fraction of the firepower out there. But the cost of gun violence works out to more than $800 a year each for Arizona's 6.7 million residents, and if she can start to chip away at that by keeping guns out of the wrong hands, it's worth it to her. "Not one of those guns will ever be used in a suicide, an accidental discharge, or a crime," she says, "and that is significant."
There's a page with all the data presented in nice graphics.
This one is full of irony.
As it turns out, not only most of the costs are due to homicides (as we've seen earlier on), but the vast majority of these homicide based costs are taken up by prison and its relevant processes.
First of all, would they prefer the criminals to remain free? Or maybe they're advocating for extreme capital punishment, who knows?
Secondly, when homicides aren't caused by guns but by other weapons, they still have no reason to result in lesser costs for anything related to the jail phase. A homicide is a homicide. But they paint it as a "gun thing", see?
Gun = evil.
It doesn't stop there. It's sickening.
Here comes the pro-black racial angle.
So we're going to play that game now? OK. Maybe they should remind the readers that the vast majority of crimes are committed by black people too? Maybe that would explain why they got shot so many times, either in gang warfare, petty crimes or by result of self defense?
This single picture literally implies that owning a gun is something racist!
Then they try to balance this out by giving crumbs to the "white side" by mentioning the suicide rates. Amusingly, one would wonder why the hell is it white people who can't have it anymore and are killing themselves more than black people? Are they sick of their life, their country?
And if these people find enough strength to put an end to their life, how the hell is gun removal going to change a thing to that?
That's exploiting compassion, that's what it is. So a fellow white person should feel concerned, pity those who crossed the river. But then again, they should also ask themselves why the heck the suicide rates by gun are higher within the white population, the one that's supposedly privileged, than within the black one.
There's also a secondary effect that results from the merging of both parts of this picture. On one side, black people are painted as victims of gun violence, at a clear disadvantage against white people, and on the other hand, a statistic largely implies that most of the guns are owned by white people. Just add both and see where this gets you. ;)
That website is Mother Jones; the study is the fruit of their collaboration with Ted Miller and you will probably hear of them and their biased research again.
Let's be clear, there's an agenda there. The study in itself ought to be neutral, limiting itself to presenting cold hard numbers. But it's a clear charge against guns, for the fact that nothing is said about the positive aspects of owning a firearm.
Then, the associated militant depowering message leaves no doubt to what is being done.