This nonsensical statement has been presented by yourself on numerous occasions, often without any elaboration as to just what is meant by yourself. As such is it now time to call. Pray tell exactly where does this nonsensical notion, of people in the united stats liking the killing of killing others, actually come about? What is the proof that supports such utter foolishness?
There is not a nation in the world that is devoid of either homicides or suicides. Someone is always dying either by their own hand, or the hand of someone else, no matter what country is selected for comparison. That matter, however, is not relevant to the question actually being presented. Where is the actual evidence that shows the majority of deaths in the united states are truly needless?
It is the false belief of yourself that only those who are paranoid choose to legally carry a firearm. No evidence has been presented to prove such a statement, so it is nothing more than your word alone.
Government has no legitimate, compelling interest in knowing where everyone is at any given moment of the day. And since the presence of surveillance cameras have done nothing to actually deter crimes from being committed, their legitimacy of existence is even weaker.
According to the CDC, the claim being made by yourself is factually incorrect. The tenth leading cause of death in the united states is suicide, not homicide. It is not the criminal use of a firearm, it is individuals choosing to end their own existence. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
Would you say deaths from self defense (someone defending themselves from a deadly threat) are majority of gun deaths in the US or minority of deaths? I’m quite confident very small minority. That leaves accidental, suicide and murder. All of these are needless deaths. At least to me they are. I think you would agree we don’t NEED accidental shootings. We don’t NEED suicides. And we don’t NEED people murdering innocent people. Now...this is NOT...I repeat NOT me saying we need to take away guns or add more gun laws. I’m just calling a spade a spade.
The city of Paris has a population size of approximately two and a quarter million individuals. The nation of France has a population size of approximately sixty seven million individuals. The united states, by comparison, has a population size of at least three hundred and ten million individuals. No accurate, honest comparison between the two can be made.
Feeling the need to engage in a particular course of behavior does not mean the need does not exist. How many individuals in the united states do not know how to change a tire, simply because they have not yet experienced a flat?
Why do law enforcement officers regularly kill suspects who are operating a motor vehicle in a reckless fashion, if the motor vehicle is not a weapon? Why does law enforcement officers kill suspects who are carrying a baseball bat, or some other blunt implement, if they are not legally classified as weapons? Explain such.
What difference does such make? Why is it important? Why does it ultimately matter to the discussion? Why? Whether or not they are needed does not change the fact that deaths attributed to negligent discharges are quite low. There is also the fact that accidents will continue to occur regardless of whatever course of action is engaged in, and there is nothing that can be done about it. Law enforcement officers are living proof of such, as duty firearms have to be modified to try and overcome poor trigger discipline from individual officers who will simply not practice safe firearms handling skills. Whether or not they are needed, they are going to continue regardless. If firearms were not used, there are plenty of other options available that are just as lethal, and just as effective as firearms. That matter aside, why are suicides not needed? A significant percentage of murders in the united states are perpetrated by criminal individuals, against other criminal individuals in what are best regarded as turf wars. The majority are not innocents. None of which does anything to actually demonstrate that the majority of deaths in the united states are truly needless.
Wow. I’m at a loss for words. I’ve never come across anyone who viewed suicides, accidental deaths and murder with such callousness. You have yourself a good day.
It is not so much a matter of callousness, as it is being a realist. The united states, like every other country in the world, possesses a finite amount of resources, and cannot provide care and assistance to the overwhelming number of individuals present. For example, too many states squander their resources on providing financial incentives to illegal aliens who have no business being in the country to begin with, rather than providing basic, necessary care to those that served in the military and are left in a state of limbo on secret waiting lists, or are otherwise homeless due to being unable to integrate back into society, and cannot turn to anyone for help. As a result they succumb to mental illness and die in the streets, or are killed by law enforcement officers because too many are too willing to ignore their problems. It is finite resources that are at issue in this particular matter. It does not matter what sort of care is provided to the public, or how affordable it may be, if those that are in need of it simply will not seek it out. If someone wishes to end their own existence, for whatever reason, that is ultimately their decision to make and theirs alone, and government does not have either a legitimate interest, or a legal authority to tell them that they must continue going on living when they have no desire to do such. Nor should government squander finite resources in providing care in trying to keep these individuals alive, when that is simply not what they want. Every dollar that is wasted in trying to provide care for those that do not wish it, is another dollar that cannot be spent trying to provide for those who truly wish to be helped, and who can actually be helped. If this problem can ultimately be alleviated by suicidal individuals removing themselves from the equation, and violent criminal individuals killing each other in turf wars, thus eliminating the human equivalent of dead ends so resources cannot be wasted on them, then so be it.
What are your chances of being hit by lightning? Do you try to minimize your risk in a thunderstorm or ignore the risk?
If I was running errands going from car to shop a thunder storm would not stop me. I would still walk from car to shop and shop to car without any real worry. Still gotta live my life and get things done.
I think most people share your viewpoint. Live life one foot in front of the other, whatever happens just happens. No reason to try to exhibit any control over your own life and fate. Just whatever happens will happen. However, other people see life in more deliberate terms, such as my view of "hope for the best and plan for the worst" and that covers most potentials. Accordingly, I try to be preemptive in both avoidance of and being able to deal with negative events, just as I proactively pursue what is of positive potentials. I also try to do so for others in my care, nuclear circle and community circle. So not only am I defensive of myself, but of others - even of you. Therein lies the difference. Not only do you not worry about yourself, by your messages you don't worry about anyone else either. Thus, you see no reason to be able to be prepared to defend anyone else, while I do. To me, that is the greatest difference between us. In your message, and nearly all anti-gun messages, the singularly personal perspective is purely ego-centrix. It is only about what may or may not happen to you, figuring if you are cautious you should be ok. Others? Why should you care about other people? If they recklessly allow themselves to be in a dangerous situation, only they are to blame - even if children. A tough guy is dragging a woman into a car as she screams for help - as happened here to a Denny's waitress going to her car at night at the end of her shift. A bum just walking down the street. Crime of opportunity. Others, older folks, saw this happening and called the police giving the vehicle description and license plate - it was the woman's own car. The police did find the car the next day - and the woman's body. That is what you also are prepared to do - call the police, which in effect would be doing nothing at all in any real terms. I could have stopped him, minimally by taking out a tire and radiator if not enough time to get close enough to go face to face, allowing me then to be able to get to my vehicle and catch up to the semi-crippled car if nothing else. What could you do? Nothing of any value. Lack of a firearm by a good citizen caused that young woman to die a horrible death. That seems the core difference between you and I it seems. Our attitude towards others. In the past, I have questioned if it is ethical for a person with a firearm to defend any adult who could have one, but does not. If it is that person's philosophy and morality that they will never use a firearm to defend anyone, wouldn't I be violating that person's ethical code if I used a firearm in their defense? It would seem my ethical duty would be to respect their ethics and not come to that person's defense or the defense of his family. Do you agree? Did I describe your view accurately?
I exhibit control over my life where I can. I don't worry about things that might happen. And by might I'm referring to something as rare as getting hit by lightning. Not going to waste my time worrying about something like that. The fact that you think you're going to shoot out a tire or radiator of a moving target, while your body is surging with adrenaline tells me you watch too many movies. A childhood neighbor was struck in the head by a bullet from a cop trying to shoot out a tire of a criminal. The TRAINED cop missed and went into my neighbors car and ricocheted into his head. He lived but he ended up having a plate in his head. My not carrying a gun has ZERO to do with ethics and morality. ZERO. I just simply don't care or need to carry one. As I've told others....carry all the guns you want. Makes no difference to me. I hope you never have to use them.
I have saved a child's life by virtue of firearms, but those type stories prove nothing as anyone can make up anything. Saved my own life too with a firearm. Even gave example of preventing a robbery with no one hurt by virtue of merely showing I had a firearm. Merely having a firearm prevents or deters crime 99% of the time - preventing anyone being harmed. In the situation I described, once I started shooting the overwhelming odds would be he'd let go of the woman and get in the car to try to get away. I am confident I could hit the radiator and likely a tire if within 50 yards, which more than covered the distance involved. However, even if I missed and hit her accidentally? Still, she would have had a better chance of living. However, obviously a person shouldn't shoot if the situation rises too high a risk of hitting others. A curious fact? Although armed citizens vastly outnumber armed police, in terms of actual shootings an innocent person is 6 times more likely to be shot by police than a non-police armed citizen. Most police aren't very good shots and most police are not well trained for sudden crisis situations, unfortunately. Some are trained wrongly as to when to shoot and when not to. It is an interesting contrast, isn't it? My carrying a firearm (or sometimes another weapon) is very much a matter of ethics/morality to me. Not only does this apply to others directly, but even indirectly because if I lose my life they then also suffer from the lose too. Ethics and morality in such a question is not part of your decision process according to you. I would think for anyone where legal having a firearm or other weapon to have an ability to defend others and yourself is inherently a huge ethical decision how it is approached. You claim it isn't at all to you. Do you consider ethics/morality in any of your decisions?
So many people are too naive. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people are victims of violence crimes. Factor that over a lifetime and the odds of it happening to you are nowhere near as low as you think. While most survive, many suffer horrific pain, enormous financial loses, severe psychological damage and often are disfigured or disabled for life because of it. "It can't happen to me" is how most people see it - and they are not accurate. REAL stats that support gun rights are NEVER presented because how do you document what doesn't happen? However, a simple study could be done with the base facts: 1. How many adults per year are the victim of a violent crime? 2. How many of those adults were openly wearing a firearm? 3. How many of those adults were not openly wearing a firearm? 4. What percentage of people openly carry a firearm? With that, it could be calculated whether people openly having a firearm versus those not openly having a firearm are more often a victim of a crime? I can't recall any instance of a person - man or woman - openly having a firearm being violently assaulted - other than in law enforcement. Criminals seek easy opportunity and defenseless victims.
