VOG Forum banner
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,536 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
interesting when you look at the facts.

Taken from another forum....original author unknown.

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,107 Posts
their projections for the United states population for 2025 is 69 million people. WTF happen to the rest??
Trump got the wall built and shipped the illegals out.

:crackup:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,789 Posts
What I take from this is if corporation, pharmaceuticals, food industry, medical industy etc actually gave a sh1t about anything but the dollar, tons of lives we be actually saved. The issue with guns, and you can call me whatever you like, is that America is the last obstacle in creating One world government. Millions and millions of Americans are armed to the teeth and until they figure out how to get those guns they can't take the final step in your total domination. The Daegel Corporation is a military contractor and you can look them up, according to them their projections for the United states population for 2025 is 69 million people. WTF happen to the rest??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flyboy

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,107 Posts
What I take from this is if corporation, pharmaceuticals, food industry, medical industy etc actually gave a sh1t about anything but the dollar, tons of lives we be actually saved. The issue with guns, and you can call me whatever you like, is that America is the last obstacle in creating One world government. Millions and millions of Americans are armed to the teeth and until they figure out how to get those guns they can't take the final step in your total domination. The Daegel Corporation is a military contractor and you can look them up, according to them their projections for the United states population for 2025 is 69 million people. WTF happen to the rest??
Way to go! Your tin foil hat made some sort of time warp and allowed me to quote your future post.o_O
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,536 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
If you're going to ban guns because of what a few psychos do...try banning alcohol because of deaths on roadways by drunks, or better yet ban the cars ( I know California is planning on doing that)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,210 Posts
i\ The Daegel Corporation is a military contractor and you can look them up, according to them their projections for the United states population for 2025 is 69 million people. WTF happen to the rest??
......Raptured. :angel4:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: BoilerMan and FredE

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
How many gun related deaths are acceptable to you then?
Having strict gun laws in a few states is retarded because you can travel to the next state and bring the guns back in. You blokes carry on about your right to own guns. Great, fantastic own them. Gun control isn't about taking your guns off you. Its about limiting who has guns. what type of guns they own and both registered guns and owners of guns. Pretty simple stuff.
If you fail to see how its worked in other countries then I'm sorry there is no hope..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,210 Posts
We do limit who has guns. We have many laws that are specificly designed to prevent criminals from purchasing and/or possessing guns. And yet, they still get them and use them, criminally, I might add. Where as law abiding citizens (and my guns are "registered", as I filled out paper work on all of them) do not use their weapons in a criminal matter.


What, exactly, is your answer to this??? And please, no meaningless platitudes.

What I fail to see is any kind of linear connections in your argument to any fact or logic. I do see a sarcastic rhetorical question, a slur regarding general intellegence, and a certain frustration at the inability to make a cogent statement. But , please, go on..........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,210 Posts
And......."Gun Control" whenever and wherever discussed by leftists means exactly taking all guns away from everyone. Except, I'd be willing to bet that they would allow an exemption for themselves, as is so often the case.

But, let's assume that they only want to limit guns and their ownership and use for the higher good :)crackup:). That assumption made, consider this. In 2010 a patent and design for a "bump stock" device was presented to the OBAMA (can't get more leftist than this) administration (by proxy) for approval. It was approved! ....???...But, now they want to ban such? They only want this now as a political ploy to use against the opposition, not for any real humanitarian purpose.

Also consider.....They had both houses and the presidency and yet, passed no laws regarding gun control for any humanitarian purpose. In a word, they are full of S#!T. (its a Texas thing). Considering these two facts alone, there is NO reason to believe that they care. Support that kind of insidiousness if you wish, but I'd rather not. I'd rather have an open and honest discussion of the whole matter. Of course, this IS a problem, since when all the facts are brought to bear, it is clear that the guns are not the problem, and their arguments become meaningless. I suspect (actually I KNOW) that this is why they lie and skirt or avoid an honest discussion. You know, the one where BOTH sides get to talk with out being called names or shouted down?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
We do limit who has guns. We have many laws that are specificly designed to prevent criminals from purchasing and/or possessing guns. And yet, they still get them and use them, criminally, I might add. Where as law abiding citizens (and my guns are "registered", as I filled out paper work on all of them) do not use their weapons in a criminal matter.

What, exactly, is your answer to this??? And please, no meaningless platitudes.

What I fail to see is any kind of linear connections in your argument to any fact or logic. I do see a sarcastic rhetorical question, a slur regarding general intelligence, and a certain frustration at the inability to make a cogent statement. But , please, go on..........
I live in a country that introduced gun reform 20 years ago. Since then there have been no mass shootings of any kind. Can you remember 20 weeks without a shooting?
I'm not trying to attack you about you intelligence or be sarcastic towards you. I just don't understand why there is some much resistance to something like this. The recent shooting injured over 500 people and sadly took the lives of 59. I would gladly give up my firearms in any attempt to stop that from happening again. It seem selfish to protest your right to firearms when thousands of innocent people a year die from that very thing.

Maybe this is just more mealiness platitudes from a leftists to you. There is no right or wrong answer to this it seems. But something has to give,,, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,235 Posts
Most gun violence is not due from the license carrying legal owning citizens. (Aka good guy) Unfortunately this one was. Gun banning I think would be like illegal drugs. There will always be a market for illegal drugs. As well as illegal guns. Only difference would be is the law abiding citizen will have even a harder time to own a gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
This is simple to me.... If you take guns away from the good guys, bad guys will still have them. The good guys will now have no way to protect themselves (and others) from the bad guys.

I'm 57 years old and grew up in Baltimore City (that's right, one of the 4 cities cited in the OPs stats). I was shot at as a teen. Still, I never felt the need or desire to own a gun and never did my entire adult life. Until I turned 55 years old two years ago. Terror attacks, crime out of control in many places, and a lot of people incredibly angry and out of control if you don't believe the same, media inspired, hate filled crap that they believe. For me, and some of my closest Friends, we felt that it was time to arm ourselves and our Families.

We applied for permits, purchased firearms, and had a life long gun owner teach us about firearms and firearms safety. We took a class on when it is OK to use your weapon and what to do if, God forbid, that ever becomes a reality.

My wife and my friends wives have learned how to use firearms for protection.

In my opinion, if you do not arm yourself in today's America, you are doing yourself and your Family a disservice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,846 Posts
The argument from other civilized countries that have disarmed their populace is an interesting one.. but it's not so easy to say 'we took away guns so now there aren't any gun deaths'... it's a bit more complicated than that. I found this little column.. and I haven't fact checked all of it.. but it does raise some interesting points:

Here's a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 - Turkey disarmed it's citizens, and between 1915 - 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 - Russia disarmed it's citizens, and between 1929 - 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 - China disarmed it's citizens, and between 1948 - 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 - Germany disarmed it's citizens, and between 1939 - 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 - Cambodia disarmed it's citizens, and between 1975 - 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 - Guatamala disarmed it's citizens, and between 1964 - 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 - Uganda disarmed it's citizens, and between 1971 - 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

[Editor: You can argue about the numbers, but the point here is that disarmed citizens are vulnerable, and that there are many historical examples of disarmed citizens being killed and oppressed by their own government. The excuse given by authorities that they need to take guns away from citizens in order to lower crime rates is not supported by facts. Even if a government does not turn on its own citizens after disarming them, people are less safe - because unarmed citizens are easy targets to criminals. Over and over again, it has been clearly shown that taking guns away from citizens does not lead to a decrease in crime but rather a dramatic increase.]

Australia has disarmed it's citizens, and a year later the homicide rate in the largest province is up 300%. The burglaries of seniors is "dramatically" up.

I guess the criminals did not turn their weapons in. Only the innocent law abiding citizens turned in weapons.

In US cities with the highest crime rates, taking guns away from the citizens has not lowered the homicide rate. All it has done is to make it easier for criminals to operate.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top