why aren&#39;t non-gun murders wildly out of control in the usa?

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,101

06.07.2021 02:40AM

-->

@ILikePie5

Black children and teens had the highest gun death rate in 2017 (11.2 per 100,000) followed by American Indian/Alaska Native children and teens (5.6 per 100,000).
Black children and teens were four times more likely to be killed or injured with a gun than their white peers.
Although Black children and teens made up only 14 percent of all American children and teens, they accounted for 41 percent of child and teen gun deaths.
Eighty-six percent of children and teens who died from gunfire in 2017 were boys. Boys were six times more likely than girls to die in gun homicides. Black boys were 17 times more likely to be killed in gun homicides than white boys.
84 percent of gun deaths and 91 percent of gun injuries among children and teens occurred among 15- to 19-year-olds. Infants and toddlers were not immune, however. Guns killed twice as many children under 5 as law enforcement officers in the line of duty

But yeah...lets only worry about the white on white crime and scary rifles when it suits a racist Democrat.

George Kirby

OK Pelosi...

#62

bmdrocks21

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,798

bmdrocks21

06.08.2021 07:14PM

-->

@Greyparrot

More Blacks died from "mass" school shootings than whites, but the media won't teach that to the "highly -educated" Democrats

And I’ll bet the few that do know about that think that guys who wear bed sheets and burn crosses are the perpetrators

10 days later

#63

Debates: 34

Posts: 5,754

06.19.2021 12:52AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

would recommend a more structured and more obviously substantiated post.

That post is one of the more well thought out and researched posts on this site, certainly more substantiated than any I seen from you. This criticism of it is uncalled for and you should apologize.

#64

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

06.19.2021 01:10AM

-->

@Wylted

Sure bud, I really don't care what you of all people think of research. But if you read my post you'd know I was criticizing the presentation not the research:

"It's good research (though your use of news sources is... questionable), but I would recommend a more structured and more obviously substantiated post. People like to deny arguments by all avenues, making your post needlessly hard to read just gives them another excuse"

Also... definitely not - the best researched stuff comes from Oromagi and FLRW....

#65

Debates: 34

Posts: 5,754

06.19.2021 01:59AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

I was criticizing the presentation

What do you think the word "substantiated" means?

#66

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

06.19.2021 04:00PM

-->

@Wylted

According to Cambridge dictionary: "to show something to be true, or to support a claim with facts::"

More colloquially, substantiated means that something (in this context usually an assertion) is backed up with valid evidence and is most likely true. You specifically called it more substantiated than any post I've created (cool, again, don't care what you think about research mister I accept my sources from youtube videos), I specifically responded clarifying that my criticism was never of the research - which is what you specifically commented on - but the presentation.

You reply "do you know what substantiated means"

You are the equivalent of an eighth grader saying "No you." when their teacher corrects them. get over yourself bud.

#67

Debates: 34

Posts: 5,754

06.19.2021 06:14PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

If you know what it means why did you either use it incorrectly or lie and say you used it to mean how the post was formatted

#68

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

06.19.2021 06:36PM

-->

@Wylted

You understand neither context nor nuance, an extremely bad faith acter, or a lier - maybe all three!

My post specifically stated:

It's good research (though your use of news sources is... questionable), but I would recommend a more structured and more obviously substantiated post. People like to deny arguments by all avenues, making your post needlessly hard to read just gives them another excuse

Please notice the word before "substantiated", which is OBVIOUSLY. Now, please turn your attention to the sentence directly following, specifically this bit: "making your post needlessly hard to read just gives them another excuse". You not reading posts well isn't my problem, its yours.

#69

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,101

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxk3c_SbWMg

06.19.2021 07:27PM

-->

@bmdrocks21

And I’ll bet the few that do know about that think that guys who wear bed sheets and burn crosses are the perpetrators.

#70

Debates: 34

Posts: 5,754

06.19.2021 08:03PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Please notice the word before "substantiated", which is OBVIOUSLY.

Reread your original response to me, where you said it was solely a criticism about form. Are you changing it to knowing was about form and substantiation?

#71

Debates: 34

Posts: 5,754

06.19.2021 08:04PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Post 64

But if you read my post you'd know I was criticizing the presentation not the research:

#72

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,101

06.19.2021 08:05PM

-->

@Wylted

Some people are indoctrinated to hate the player and not the game.

#73

Debates: 34

Posts: 5,754

06.19.2021 08:15PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Sad.

I also learned from a pimp, not nk only to hate the game, but that nothing is above the game.

He said about not smacking a hoe when the game calls for it, will come back to haunt me. The fame is apparently pretty sacred.

#74

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,170

06.19.2021 09:04PM

-->

@Wylted

Plaintiff Mr. Wylted, would you please step forward.

Your complaint that Theweakereredge used the statement " I would recommend a more structured and more obviously substantiated post" incorrectly,

is denied. I find that " more obviously substantiated" post, means "more easily percieved proof of evidence" which is his point exactly.

I find for the defendant Theweakeredge.

Judge FLRW

#75

Debates: 34

Posts: 5,754

06.19.2021 09:20PM

-->

@FLRW

I agree that it was his original statement, but his follow up statement, contradicted that. So he was may have forgot what his first statement was, and for whatever reason he just doubled down on his nonsense

#76

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,170

06.20.2021 01:09PM

-->

@Wylted

Bailiff, please remove Mr. Wylted.

646 days later

#77

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

03.28.2023 01:42PM

this thread seems topical. of course, folks will continue to ignore why non-gun murders aren't wildly out of whack, just like gun murders are wildly out of whack.

#78

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,101

03.28.2023 02:06PM

-->

@n8nrgim

What would you consider to be "in whack"

Like, how many killings in a nation of 340 million would be considered "a normal amount" to you.

#79

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

03.28.2023 03:48PM

-->

@Greyparrot

it should be compared to non USA countries. if this is a bad person problem, and not a gun problem.... non gun murders should be at a wildly higher rate in the USA than non USA countries. but what we see is a similar rate to other countries. the only stat that is out of whack in the USA is gun murders, which indicates this is almost surely a gun problem, not just a bad person problem. bad people would be more likely to kill with knives and other weopons too, if this is just a bad person problem.

i mean it's common sense. take any argument between people. consider what would happen in group A that has a gun, and group B that doesn't have a gun. it's idiotic to argue the prescence of a gun makes no difference in an argument. but, folks like to pretend the having guns around makes no difference on the murder rate. absolutely idiotic.

#80

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,101

03.28.2023 11:34PM

-->

@n8nrgim

I get that it's really easy to compare other countries, but you can't expect to get all the good stuff that other countries have without the bad stuff as well.

You can have near zero crime and murders in the USA; but the tradeoff is the country looks like China or Singapore. The more free a country is, the more crime. That's a unavoidable cost of a free nation. The authoritarianism required to make a country safe will also make it a country not worth living in.

EU nations have plenty of problems that the USA does not have. There are tradeoffs for changing the entire fabric of a nation.

If there is something all Americans forgot to appreciate during the Covid lockdown years is that the price for safety paid with a loss of freedom makes life extremely depressing and bleak. You can't be so obsessed with staying alive that you completely miss out on the experience of life. It's why we take risks in the first place, because an unexamined life is not worth living as Socrates said. It's why millions of migrating people flee their familiar homes to take a chance on this country.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

#81

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,113

03.29.2023 01:35AM

-->

@Greyparrot

Well put. I can actually rebut most of the usual pro gun arguments, but what you just posited isn’t one of the usual ones. Whereas the pro gun argument posits gun freedom being greater than any negative consequences reaped from gun freedom, you (and Ben) are saying that freedom in general is greater than complete safety in general. As Thomas Sowell says, “There are no solutions, just trade offs.”

Also, the USA is an incredibly large and diverse nation compared to ones with better crime stats. And being one of the world’s major firearms producers, it isn’t too shocking that there are a lot of guns. One thing no one seems to have an answer for though: gun ownership didn’t really get markedly huge until the 1970’s. What caused that large increase?

#82

Melcharaz

Debates: 6

Posts: 780

Melcharaz

03.29.2023 01:41AM

ease of access does affect ease of disregard.

if (action) is easily accessible, then action is more likely to happen.

of course making it less easy wont remove the killings, it just makes it riskier for the killer.

#83

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

03.29.2023 04:30PM

-->

@cristo71

"One thing no one seems to have an answer for though: gun ownership didn’t really get markedly huge until the 1970’s. What caused that large increase?"

my guess is the politicization of the NRA. around the time you mention, the NRA went from nonpolitical, to political, and started feeding propaganda to the population.

#84

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,101

03.29.2023 04:48PM

-->

@cristo71

@n8nrgim

Around 1970 was the beginning of a long and still current decline of the 2 parent family especially for minorities. It's a massive driver of crime which would cause people to want more guns for protection. And then as gun regulations started to soar in response to the crime, it made even more people nervous about a possible outright ban on guns.

Am I close?

#85

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

03.29.2023 05:03PM

-->

@Greyparrot

that's a good argument too. both my theory and yours are probably at play, but one would think your theory is more fitting.

#86

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,113

03.29.2023 10:00PM

-->

@Greyparrot

@n8nrgim

Yes, interesting thoughts, guys. It would be ironic if the gun control act of 1968 caused that much blowback. I don’t just mean more people acquired guns, but people started collecting them. Using the 80/20 rule, 80% of the guns are owned by 20% of the people.

Perhaps Charles Bronson and his Deathwish movies are part of it, eh?

#87

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,101