Why aren’t you claiming yourself to be a … um, what would be the word? … hoplophile, yes, that’s it. Something like a pedophile but with a different fixation.
Did you read the part where I wrote (and you quoted) that it usually requires “one of two”?
You dumbass, I said BY ITSELF the number is meaningless, because IN CONTEXT that number BY ITSELF doesn’t do a damn thing to support your claim that simple gun safety rules “routinely fail”.
But no, rather than address it like an honest person, instead you take the typical anti-gun extremist route, and twist things around to avoid having to face the truth of what I posted. You are simply intellectually dishonest because you are an extremist on this issue.
I bet you’ve never once actually addressed those arguments head on, rebutted any of their points, and instead danced around it like you are here.
Aaaaand there’s your first problem. You make a sweeping matter of fact claim…using a baseless assumption as its foundation. What reason do you have to support your assumption that the denominator is “rather low”?
Frankly, I can’t see any valid reason for it. There is going to be well over 1 million people every day handling/interacting with firearms, just going by numbers of armed police and security guards in the country. There are something like 30-40 million people who go hunting every year. Millions more who just go target shooting (NSSF analysis says roughly 40 million target shooters per year). Then there are all the niche shooting sports, which at this point the number of them doesn’t even matter because I’ve made my point - that 48 injuries a day/17,000 a year is truly a wholly insignificant number in comparison. It is just laughable that you think 48/day, 17,000/year by itself shows simple gun safety rules “routinely fail”, and that it represents a good justification for more gun control.
More assumptions and blatant anti-gun owner extremism. You’ve got nothing substantial supporting you so far. I’ve already demonstrated that the number of daily professional gun users by themselves shows that the number of accidental gun injuries is amazingly low in comparison. Add in all the hobbyists you go on and on about, and the accidental gun injury rate drops even more significantly.
In other words, you’ve still got nothing to support your claim or arguments.
Says the one ignorantly and baselessly promulgating fears about hobbyist gun owners and the supposed ineffectiveness of gun safety rules (which I’ve shown to be a crock of shit). :rolleyes:
Incidents which are absurdly rare, both statistically and in hard numbers.
Well, of course you’re going to estimate their value as low, because you are an extremist who doesn’t actually care whether your assumptions are valid or not, you just care about trying to make things look as bad as possible for guns and gun owners and will make your assumptions accordingly.
Me, I prefer having actual information. Target shooting in America added $23 billion to the nation’s economic activity, and supported 185,000 jobs. Combined with Hunting in America, recreational gun users in these two categories alone added over $110 billion to the economy and supported more than 866,000 jobs. And this is where the majority of the money for nature conservation efforts comes from as well.
So, factually, the value of the activities that feed into the denominator are demonstrably not “low”.
And yet it still remains the case that an order of magnitude more people are sent to the ER each year because of skateboard accidents, than gun accidents, largely in service to recreational activity. Your minor point about being less likely to injure others doesn’t change the fact that accidental gun injuries are still an comparatively insignificant issue that rarely happens relative to the prevalence of gun usage.
So what? That is irrelevant to a comparison of number of injuries that show how relatively rare an accidental gun injury is in comparison, and it certainly does nothing to support your claim that simple gun safety rules “routinely fail”.
So you’re gonna shift the goal posts to avoid having to support your claim that simple gun safety rules “routinely fail”? Talk about completely breaking the context as well.
Oh yes, “gunfucks” dismiss that figure as insignificant because they need it to be…oh wait, I almost forgot that I factually demonstrated in this post that your dumbass belief is absolute bullshit. That figure IS insignificant, because something that occurs something like .0001% of the time or so (and is probably even less than that) is pretty much the definition of insignificant. I would like it to be lower, but it may be completely unfeasible to actually do so in reality. But you are stuck in an unwavering anti-gun la-la-land, and pretty much nothing you and other anti-gun extremists have proposed would make any meaningful dent in that number, because gun accidents are already trivially rare compared to the prevalence of gun usage/interaction on a daily/annual basis.
Gun accidents are so rare (as I have demonstrated) despite the prevalence of gun usage and gun owners because gun owners are already overwhelmingly safe with their guns, precisely because of simple gun safety rules which routinely prevent accidents from occurring.
Monster104, something happening 50 times a day is “routine” enough for me. You want to pretend that routine is defined by an incidence rate? Sure… just tell me what incidence rate defines “routine”? Further, you can’t even tell me for sure it doesn’t meet your assuredly arbitrary definition of routine, since you cannot tell me the denominator. You dumb little bitch.
Leaving a gun where a child can access it is an action.
Don’t late term abortions occur about that frequently? Are they routine?
And depending on the circumstances, that would be considered negligent homicide. I don’t get your point. Like I said, we already have a legal system in place that handles this stuff.
Are you under the impression that someone leaves a gun out, their kids shoot each other and the cops say “well try to be more careful next time”
I don’t object to gun owners who fuck up going to jail, I object to twisting the current legal rules that have worked well for us for centuries just so that we can create special criminal liability for gun owners. Its not just that you are persecuting gun owners, its that you are undermining the legal system in a nation of laws in order to do so.
My god, your arguments are stupid as hell.
Increasing the sentence for a particular crime is now “undermining the legal system”, guys.
Two killed in Maryland mall shooting; motive uncertain
And so it goes. On and on and on.
Shotgun. As in this particular shooting had nothing to do with handgun carry, “assault weapons”, or any of the other bugaboos popular with the anti crowd. Nothing short of banning hunting guns would have prevented this.
ETA: I don’t suppose the mall banned guns?
Oh, well, then; I guess those two dead people don’t even count. Just add them to all the other statistics on top of the, “I guess that’s just the price we have to pay to play with our dangerous toys” pile.
Joe Biden told us a shotgun was all we needed. I wonder if he’s gonna back of that claim now.
Then you’re an idiot for ignoring everything I’ve already explained about why that is so absurdly stupid. But you’ve long established that repeating stupidity is enough for you to claim a valid argument, so perhaps I was just naive you would address your own ignorance for a change. But, sadly, your ignorance appears to be both willful, and truly routine.
I don’t have to pretend shit, that’s what “routine” IS: something with such a high and regular incidence rate that it is the normal expected outcome.
You know what something with a .00001% or less rate is called? Deviance. Language has different words for a good reason, imbecile.
An incidence rate a hell of a lot greater than .00001%, as I’ve already explained. Because .00001% is deviating from the norm, not establishing a routine.
All you’ve demonstrated here is a complete lack of critical thinking and comprehension, considering I factually established a minimum denominator of 60+ million a year, which was plenty good enough to show how full of shit you are. Since it means 17,000 a year is not routine, it is deviating from routine. You’ve got things so backwards your ass has become your mouth, you dumb little bitch.
Um, no, it’s “That’s the price other people have to pay so *we *can play …”
Its not just changing the sentence for a particular crime. Its changing the standards of what constitutes murder.
Remember when I asked you about drunk drivers that end up killing people? You said you felt they should be treated similarly. Its bad enough that you want to twist the system to achieve a desired result (persecuting negligent gun owners as if they were murderers), you end up distorting the entire system in an effort to make your desired result make sense. Heck you even posited that someone who left their keys in the car should be criminally liable if some kids go joyriding and kill someone (a lot of people start the car and leave the keys in the ignition to warm up the car on a cold day, others just feel safe enough in their neighborhoods that the ignition (or maybe the glove compartment are convenient places to leave the keys).
Once again, we have laws in place that covers this stuff. I think almost every state has at least a 20 year maximum sentence and several states have a 50 year maximum sentence for negligent of unintentional homicide. What you are proposing is a 20 year minimum sentence with a maximum sentence of life in prison for negligent and or unintentional homicide. And in the process you may be violating the constitution and putting people who were negligent in jail for longer than rapists.
Its just a bad idea born of a desire to punish negligent gun owners in a way that you wouldn’t punish negligence in almost any other circumstance.
And is there any benefit other than play associated with the private ownership of guns? I mean this was a shotgun, about the last thing that anyone wants to ban (if they are open to the idea of ANY guns remaining in private hands), are you also in the “ban all private ownership of guns” brigade?
I’m in the – if you want to have a conversation about gun violence, as you claim you do, you can’t start your end of the conversation with, “yeah but,” every time – brigade.
This mall shooting is just another in a seemingly endless series of shootings in this country. It should be discussed, but we can’t discuss it because this time it was a shotgun and not the same kind of gun that was used that last time some gun-fuck decided go off the deep end.
You have an instant out every time this happens: “oh you just want to ban all guns.”
Fine, then I’ll just have to come back with, “you don’t give a shit about all the dead people,” rebuttal. At least my argument concerns itself with actual living beings.
Well then what do you propose that would actually reduce the incidence of these shootings? It isn’t like gun owners like these killings, but I can’t think of anything but the complete abolition of firearms that would stand a chance- and even that wouldn’t work as well as some hope.
Where do I make excuses for the mall shooter? Where do I say “yeah but?”
You’re the one that portrayed gun murders as the consequence of our trite desire to have things to play with. So I called you on it. If your attitude is that gun deaths are simply the result of folks who aren’t willing to give up their toys, then perhaps you are the one that isn’t ready to have a conversation about guns.
No, I bring up the fact that its a shotgun and noone wants to ban those except for those in favor of total bans and folks that use language like yours seem to think bans are the answer.
So what is your wonderful idea that doesn’t involve banning guns? This thread is 78 pages long, maybe you posted it and I missed it.
It wasn’t your rebuttal, it was your opening line.
This is getting into hijack territory, but I strongly disagree with you that it would be a distortion of the system to recognize certain actions (drunk driving, leaving loaded firearms unsecured, etc.) as sufficiently negligent as to cross the line into actual intent to cause nonspecific harm. I view both of those actions as fundamentally similar to placing an armed, lethal booby trap–which also, in defiance of current law in most states, should be construed as intent to murder in my opinion. Perhaps we just need a new category of felony murder–“involuntary manslaughter” doesn’t seem to me to adequately cover actions that are grossly reckless and negligent AND have a disproportionately high chance of causing mayhem.
Hell, the PA code only defines booby traps as reckless endangerment, a 2nd-degree misdemeanor, as far as I can tell. That’s just ridiculous.
As much as it’s also a stupid argument badly used, better available mental health care would be a great start.