Wayne LaPierre does not speak for “pro gun people.”
Oh, we’ll solve that one, then. Because we’re only allowed to work on one problem at a time.
This is a ridiculous statement. Tow-truck drivers and auto mechanics see non-broken-down cars around them all the time, just like the rest of us do.
Just because they only work with cars that are broken doesn’t mean they’re sacrificing their normal perceptions of the typical ratio of broken to non-broken cars in ordinary circumstances.
Likewise, ER workers live in the same world as the rest of us and have the same opportunities for comparing different types of gun use in ordinary circumstances as the rest of us do.
Twitter is blowing up over the tone deaf NRA with the hashtag #stayinmylane
This one jumps out
Yet nobody cares to work on it. Yet the currently proposed “solutions” for the other problem had already been tried, and showed zero effect.
Yes, that’s what they’re saying.
Most right-wingers know zero about government budgets but they “know” taxxus is teh bad and needs to go down so dem libruls stop sending mah money to dem shithole countries in Afferka.
Most right-wingers know zero about the tribulations of being black in America but they “know” if’n I dint like it heeare i’d pack my bags and hightail it to another country. And no Jesus-lovin cop nebber shot no blackie whut dint need shootin.
But when a rational thinker expresses an opinion about guns, he’d better be prepared to write an essay on the difference between .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO ammo, and how the barrel twist rate affects choice of ammo. Otherwise any opinion he has about guns is worthless.
Welcome to America.
“Pro gun” may not be the right terminology. How about “ammosexual”?
Cu the shit; you know exactly what I was trying to relay in the analogy. For my original respondent’s point, they’d either have to be:
- Living in a war zone and operating out of a MASH unit,
- engaging in serious confirmation bias,
- totally full of shit.
I was nice and allowed, by analogy, that they might be engaging in confirmation bias. Even the worst neighborhoods in Chicago they don’t have a 10:1 gunshot victims vs. ordinary patients ratio.
A lot of those are linked to having a medical system where patients are shuffled, moved or kept and where which tests they get are based, not on need, but on ability to pay, in vs. out of network, and crap like that. Administrative shit.
Like I said, I’m a piss-poor writer. I don’t mean 10 to 1 GSW vs regular patient. That ratio here is more like 1500-1, though it was worse when I worked in Dallas.
I mean a “good” use of a gun vs a "bad’ use. I’m using the term good rather loosely. Good would be a police officer shooting a criminal that is attempting harm, or someone defending himself against an armed attacker. Yes, calling those “good” is debatable, but that is what I was referring to. All the other causes I listed for GSWs are “bad” or have no possible justification.
1 “good” shooting vs 10 "bad’ shootings.
That’s not what they said:
You wrote it fine. ExTank apparently couldn’t read it.
All three of those statements are false.
-
The move to electronic medical records, computerized dispensaries, optical verification of prescriptions, call-and-repeat procedures, electronic pill bottles, and a dozen other things are being put into place specifically to combat the (incidently, widely disputed) “medical errors” problem.
-
The US has made no attempt to solve the gun problem with any of the “proposed solutions” in the last fifty years, at least. The NRA’s money shuts down even trivial restrictions like assault weapon and large ammo bans.
-
These solutions are known to have non-zero effects, as shown by basically every other country on Earth in one way or another.
But let’s keep up the distractions and irrelevant asides, because now is TOO SOON after this tragedy to talk about real gun control.
Pro-gun people will nitpick any number, graph, and rational argument for reasonable gun-control to death. They will pretend not to understand your argument while setting up some straw man (I submit into evidence Exibit 98345778222333A: the 1 in 10 ExTank claims to misunderstand). They will never provide numbers/graphs or anything to back up their claims
Do not engage.
Let them provide the numbers, Let them provide the rational arguments.
They are making extraordinary claims about the utility and safety of their deadly toys. Under normal debating rules they have to provide the fucking evidence.
Demand they make their toys safe. End it there.
Their guns: their problem Do not engage.
There is a place for guns. It is: inserted into the mouths of the fucking NRA. Every single one of them. (Though blowing NRA “brains” out is not a particularly dramatic act - all you get is a big puff of hot air that stinks of festering ego.)
Whoa there guys, tell us how you really feel!
nm
But making guns safe might cause them to take one second longer when they play John Wayne and shoot the bad guy, so it is totally unacceptable.
Unfortunately, it is their guns, our problem, since the rest of us are the ones getting shot. Perhaps we can have a rule that any gun possessor shooting an unarmed person in any way gets an immediate death penalty, while shooting an armed person goes through normal procedures with some jail time in the worst cases but otherwise a fine.
Maybe that would help.
You have to make manufacturers, sellers, owners liable for any and all damage.
Let them figure out how they want to organise registration and all that shit.
“So you made this bullit? You don’t know who you sold it to? That’s a shame: $$$$ please”
Suicide is a choice and a basic human right. Including deaths by suicide is one way to hide true numbers.
There were 500,000 Americans killed by smoking, 50,000 of which were killed by Second Hand smoke.
80,000 alcohol related deaths.