First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
A moment of silence for the 93 million Americans that died from gun violence today
23712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17

MakotoKamui wrote:



Well, even if you didn't see when the other user corrected you, at least you answered my question - to you, about 1% loss is an acceptable number, it would seem.


Well your question was a loaded nonsense question. It's like asking "how many people must die to heart attacks before you ban fast food and sugary drinks".
23712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Nasigno wrote:

You probably have prior, but the issue is, it does not answer why this is blown up in every news and incident to shout the agenda that excessive numbers of people are being killed by any specific means.

So really, again. Is something that kills less than 1% of the total population of a country really that crazy a problem?



Yes. About 2.5million people die in the USA each year. That is 0.8% of the population. By your logic, death itself isn't really a big deal. Who cares, right? It's less than 1% of the total population.




Dragon
69453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17

Rujikin wrote:


MakotoKamui wrote:



Well, even if you didn't see when the other user corrected you, at least you answered my question - to you, about 1% loss is an acceptable number, it would seem.


Well your question was a loaded nonsense question. It's like asking "how many people must die to heart attacks before you ban fast food and sugary drinks".


At least fast food and sugary drinks do provide nutrition, even if their side effects can be dangerous if not balanced. Can't exactly chew on bullets. Well, I mean, you can, but I wouldn't suggest it. They taste disgusting.

But you made the thread about gun violence and numbers, that's all I was responding to. If you want to get into fast food issues, probably best to take that to a new thread.. though I think I remember seeing one of those in the past. Might've been a year or three ago, not sure.
25610 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Beyond The Wall
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17
OI VEY! REMEMBER THE 93 MILLION!
3322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / livin in debauchery
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/26/17

MakotoKamui wrote:

At least fast food and sugary drinks do provide nutrition, even if their side effects can be dangerous if not balanced. Can't exactly chew on bullets. Well, I mean, you can, but I wouldn't suggest it. They taste disgusting.


Also lead-based so yeah, still a health risk.
16125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17

Nasigno wrote:

Since you want to go this way, lets go.

Amazing that out of the 2.5 million, you are worried about only 12,000. When realistically cars are double that, doctors are in hundreds of thousands, and tobacco is in the 400~ odd thousand.

This is what I love about the whole argument, it appeals that "lives matter" but lets be honest do they really matter to you? How far you willing to give up to "save lives?"

Right now, double the loss of life (30,000+) is attributed to private ownership of cars, of which over 1,132 children are killed annual to DUIs, and another 10,000 adults. Just basic car accidents is outweighing guns in lives lost. You willing to give up that privilege to guarantee a higher degree of safety? But no, the argument always comes back "hurr durr it's not meant to kill people" or "I need my car!" well,

A. sure its not designed too, but guess what double die to it in America every year

B. You don't need it, many nations have nice public transit, we could just copy them (Seems to be a trend to copy gun control, why not copy public transit too!)

So again, do those arguments above apply to you too? Or you willing to give up your privileges for the "greater good of saving lives" cause by all accounts owning cars is killing more Americans each day than guns do.


And where do the goalposts lie as they seem to be moved to wherever is most convenient for you. You say "under 1%" doesn't matter, but under your arbitrary goalposts, no death matters. Now I ask, where do the goalposts lie? When do lives start mattering to you?

Now, as for the rest, what you are doing is committing the fallacy of relative privation. The existence of other causes of death does not make gun deaths irrelevant or mean that we shouldn't do anything to try to reduce this number.
1603 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Nasigno wrote:

Since you want to go this way, lets go.

Amazing that out of the 2.5 million, you are worried about only 12,000. When realistically cars are double that, doctors are in hundreds of thousands, and tobacco is in the 400~ odd thousand.

This is what I love about the whole argument, it appeals that "lives matter" but lets be honest do they really matter to you? How far you willing to give up to "save lives?"

Right now, double the loss of life (30,000+) is attributed to private ownership of cars, of which over 1,132 children are killed annual to DUIs, and another 10,000 adults. Just basic car accidents is outweighing guns in lives lost. You willing to give up that privilege to guarantee a higher degree of safety? But no, the argument always comes back "hurr durr it's not meant to kill people" or "I need my car!" well,

A. sure its not designed too, but guess what double die to it in America every year

B. You don't need it, many nations have nice public transit, we could just copy them (Seems to be a trend to copy gun control, why not copy public transit too!)

So again, do those arguments above apply to you too? Or you willing to give up your privileges for the "greater good of saving lives" cause by all accounts owning cars is killing more Americans each day than guns do.


And where do the goalposts lie as they seem to be moved to wherever is most convenient for you. You say "under 1%" doesn't matter, but under your arbitrary goalposts, no death matters. Now I ask, where do the goalposts lie? When do lives start mattering to you?

Now, as for the rest, what you are doing is committing the fallacy of relative privation. The existence of other causes of death does not make gun deaths irrelevant or mean that we shouldn't do anything to try to reduce this number.


So again, yes when an issue is less than 1% it is treated as a non-issue. If tomorrow I told you had less than 1% chance to die from XYZ would you actively do anything to prevent it? The point is you wouldn't. We could do a whole matrix of things that outweigh guns being a issue in America that could otherwise be prevented, negligence is the key killer right now, right next to self harm whether it be suicide, or just not taking care of yourself properly.

Forgive me if its not "moral" to say less than 1% is alright, but lets be honest, if you told me tomorrow you were going to make less than 1% difference is fixing something I'd tell you don't waste the effort. If you told your manager you could not even improve 1% would you get a promotion? a raise? No you wouldn't.

I'm not going to promote trying to ban guns when that realistically isn't the issue. Whats the issue? People -killing- other people, not shooting, its killing. Remove the tool it doesn't change the intent, you want to fix murder you gotta make people stop trying to kill others. Which lets be honest, is asking for a lot, hence why people rather try to ban the tool than just owe up to the fact you will -never- fix murder issue, you can only mitigate it to "acceptable" levels.

It's like me saying get rid of your car, cause literally more die to DUI-related car accidents than gun homicides each year, almost double to triple die to all car accidents but you aren't going to give up your car tomorrow and force everyone else for the "greater good" because its something you find as an "essential" convenience. I could propose and fund all sorts of public transit grids, even cut the carbon foot print we have with banning cars, but you wouldn't bite would you? You like your car, you like your freedom to drive right? Not that I fault you, cause lets be honest most would not say yes to this, including me.

So again, if you are going to question my goal posts, again how much convenience you take for granted are you going to give up to save lives? You already know if I banned cars tomorrow you'd save triple the amount of people killed in homicides each year. Is that not enough to say its worth -you- not owning a car?
16125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17

Nasigno wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Nasigno wrote:

Since you want to go this way, lets go.

Amazing that out of the 2.5 million, you are worried about only 12,000. When realistically cars are double that, doctors are in hundreds of thousands, and tobacco is in the 400~ odd thousand.

This is what I love about the whole argument, it appeals that "lives matter" but lets be honest do they really matter to you? How far you willing to give up to "save lives?"

Right now, double the loss of life (30,000+) is attributed to private ownership of cars, of which over 1,132 children are killed annual to DUIs, and another 10,000 adults. Just basic car accidents is outweighing guns in lives lost. You willing to give up that privilege to guarantee a higher degree of safety? But no, the argument always comes back "hurr durr it's not meant to kill people" or "I need my car!" well,

A. sure its not designed too, but guess what double die to it in America every year

B. You don't need it, many nations have nice public transit, we could just copy them (Seems to be a trend to copy gun control, why not copy public transit too!)

So again, do those arguments above apply to you too? Or you willing to give up your privileges for the "greater good of saving lives" cause by all accounts owning cars is killing more Americans each day than guns do.


And where do the goalposts lie as they seem to be moved to wherever is most convenient for you. You say "under 1%" doesn't matter, but under your arbitrary goalposts, no death matters. Now I ask, where do the goalposts lie? When do lives start mattering to you?

Now, as for the rest, what you are doing is committing the fallacy of relative privation. The existence of other causes of death does not make gun deaths irrelevant or mean that we shouldn't do anything to try to reduce this number.


So again, yes when an issue is less than 1% it is treated as a non-issue. If tomorrow I told you had less than 1% chance to die from XYZ would you actively do anything to prevent it? The point is you wouldn't. We could do a whole matrix of things that outweigh guns being a issue in America that could otherwise be prevented, negligence is the key killer right now, right next to self harm whether it be suicide, or just not taking care of yourself properly.

Forgive me if its not "moral" to say less than 1% is alright, but lets be honest, if you told me tomorrow you were going to make less than 1% difference is fixing something I'd tell you don't waste the effort. If you told your manager you could not even improve 1% would you get a promotion? a raise? No you wouldn't.

I'm not going to promote trying to ban guns when that realistically isn't the issue. Whats the issue? People -killing- other people, not shooting, its killing. Remove the tool it doesn't change the intent, you want to fix murder you gotta make people stop trying to kill others. Which lets be honest, is asking for a lot, hence why people rather try to ban the tool than just owe up to the fact you will -never- fix murder issue, you can only mitigate it to "acceptable" levels.

It's like me saying get rid of your car, cause literally more die to DUI-related car accidents than gun homicides each year, almost double to triple die to all car accidents but you aren't going to give up your car tomorrow and force everyone else for the "greater good" because its something you find as an "essential" convenience. I could propose and fund all sorts of public transit grids, even cut the carbon foot print we have with banning cars, but you wouldn't bite would you? You like your car, you like your freedom to drive right? Not that I fault you, cause lets be honest most would not say yes to this, including me.

So again, if you are going to question my goal posts, again how much convenience you take for granted are you going to give up to save lives? You already know if I banned cars tomorrow you'd save triple the amount of people killed in homicides each year. Is that not enough to say its worth -you- not owning a car?


...Less than 1% die each year. Period. End of story. No context or qualifiers. If 1% is your true quota than literally nothing meets that standard. Combine every single cause of death and you still haven't met that quota.

Did you miss that when I said it the first time? That is why your "1%" quota is ridiculous. Literally nothing meets that quota. But lets say you were able to fix that 1%. Well then you have literally zero people dying (actually, at that point you would have people coming back from the dead).

Your maths are so very clearly busted...

As for the rest, I haven't proposed any policy changes at all in this thread. When did I say that I wanted to ban guns? I didn't and I don't. That isn't the point. The point is simply that your "less than 1%" stance is fundamentally ridiculous.

Address that and maybe we can move on with the conversation.
1603 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Nasigno wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Nasigno wrote:

Since you want to go this way, lets go.

Amazing that out of the 2.5 million, you are worried about only 12,000. When realistically cars are double that, doctors are in hundreds of thousands, and tobacco is in the 400~ odd thousand.

This is what I love about the whole argument, it appeals that "lives matter" but lets be honest do they really matter to you? How far you willing to give up to "save lives?"

Right now, double the loss of life (30,000+) is attributed to private ownership of cars, of which over 1,132 children are killed annual to DUIs, and another 10,000 adults. Just basic car accidents is outweighing guns in lives lost. You willing to give up that privilege to guarantee a higher degree of safety? But no, the argument always comes back "hurr durr it's not meant to kill people" or "I need my car!" well,

A. sure its not designed too, but guess what double die to it in America every year

B. You don't need it, many nations have nice public transit, we could just copy them (Seems to be a trend to copy gun control, why not copy public transit too!)

So again, do those arguments above apply to you too? Or you willing to give up your privileges for the "greater good of saving lives" cause by all accounts owning cars is killing more Americans each day than guns do.


And where do the goalposts lie as they seem to be moved to wherever is most convenient for you. You say "under 1%" doesn't matter, but under your arbitrary goalposts, no death matters. Now I ask, where do the goalposts lie? When do lives start mattering to you?

Now, as for the rest, what you are doing is committing the fallacy of relative privation. The existence of other causes of death does not make gun deaths irrelevant or mean that we shouldn't do anything to try to reduce this number.


So again, yes when an issue is less than 1% it is treated as a non-issue. If tomorrow I told you had less than 1% chance to die from XYZ would you actively do anything to prevent it? The point is you wouldn't. We could do a whole matrix of things that outweigh guns being a issue in America that could otherwise be prevented, negligence is the key killer right now, right next to self harm whether it be suicide, or just not taking care of yourself properly.

Forgive me if its not "moral" to say less than 1% is alright, but lets be honest, if you told me tomorrow you were going to make less than 1% difference is fixing something I'd tell you don't waste the effort. If you told your manager you could not even improve 1% would you get a promotion? a raise? No you wouldn't.

I'm not going to promote trying to ban guns when that realistically isn't the issue. Whats the issue? People -killing- other people, not shooting, its killing. Remove the tool it doesn't change the intent, you want to fix murder you gotta make people stop trying to kill others. Which lets be honest, is asking for a lot, hence why people rather try to ban the tool than just owe up to the fact you will -never- fix murder issue, you can only mitigate it to "acceptable" levels.

It's like me saying get rid of your car, cause literally more die to DUI-related car accidents than gun homicides each year, almost double to triple die to all car accidents but you aren't going to give up your car tomorrow and force everyone else for the "greater good" because its something you find as an "essential" convenience. I could propose and fund all sorts of public transit grids, even cut the carbon foot print we have with banning cars, but you wouldn't bite would you? You like your car, you like your freedom to drive right? Not that I fault you, cause lets be honest most would not say yes to this, including me.

So again, if you are going to question my goal posts, again how much convenience you take for granted are you going to give up to save lives? You already know if I banned cars tomorrow you'd save triple the amount of people killed in homicides each year. Is that not enough to say its worth -you- not owning a car?


...Less than 1% die each year. Period. End of story. No context or qualifiers. If 1% is your true quota than literally nothing meets that standard. Combine every single cause of death and you still haven't met that quota.

Did you miss that when I said it the first time? That is why your "1%" quota is ridiculous. Literally nothing meets that quota. But lets say you were able to fix that 1%. Well then you have literally zero people dying (actually, at that point you would have people coming back from the dead).

Your maths are so very clearly busted...

As for the rest, I haven't proposed any policy changes at all in this thread. When did I say that I wanted to ban guns? I didn't and I don't. That isn't the point. The point is simply that your "less than 1%" stance is fundamentally ridiculous.

Address that and maybe we can move on with the conversation.


Alright, lets think hard about this.

U.S. Population as of 2017, is roughly 321 Million.
Latest data says 13,000~ to 9,000 die to gun homicides a year.

13,000 / 321,000,000 = .00004

.00004 * 100 (To make it a Percent) = 0.004

1% > 0.004% > 0%

It's safe to say, that even a thousandth of a percent is greater than 0, but at the same time is LESS than 1%.

So yes, less than 1% of the population in America is killed by guns, period.

I'm amazed I had to articulate that the decimal point in numbers is actually something, and that it can have values that exist between 1 and 0.

Even if you combined the total deaths in America, the fact is less than 1% of the US Population dies each year, congratulations. Amazing isn't it?
16125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17

Nasigno wrote:

Alright, lets think hard about this.

U.S. Population as of 2017, is roughly 321 Million.
Latest data says 13,000~ to 9,000 die to gun homicides a year.

13,000 / 321,000,000 = .00004

.00004 * 100 (To make it a Percent) = 0.004

1% > 0.004% > 0%

It's safe to say, that even a thousandth of a percent is greater than 0, but at the same time is LESS than 1%.

So yes, less than 1% of the population in America is killed by guns, period.

I'm amazed I had to articulate that the decimal point in numbers is actually something, and that it can have values that exist between 1 and 0.

Even if you combined the total deaths in America, the fact is less than 1% of the US Population dies each year, congratulations. Amazing isn't it?


I'm not really sure what you were trying to prove there, but congrats? I guess?

Let me rephrase:

-According to you, deaths only matter if the cause effects more than 1% of people every year
-According to statistics, 2.5 million people die in the USA each year, constituting about 0.8% of the population
-Therefore, under your quota, no death (no matter the cause) matters

Do you understand what I am getting at? It's pretty simple but it seems you've missed it three times now. Do you agree that no death of any cause matters? If so, then I think you have some issues. If not, then you need to acknowledge that your quota is broken.
23712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17

MakotoKamui wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


MakotoKamui wrote:



Well, even if you didn't see when the other user corrected you, at least you answered my question - to you, about 1% loss is an acceptable number, it would seem.


Well your question was a loaded nonsense question. It's like asking "how many people must die to heart attacks before you ban fast food and sugary drinks".


At least fast food and sugary drinks do provide nutrition, even if their side effects can be dangerous if not balanced. Can't exactly chew on bullets. Well, I mean, you can, but I wouldn't suggest it. They taste disgusting.

But you made the thread about gun violence and numbers, that's all I was responding to. If you want to get into fast food issues, probably best to take that to a new thread.. though I think I remember seeing one of those in the past. Might've been a year or three ago, not sure.


A bullet can save your life though. An old grandma can protect her grandkids with a gun while without it they could all be murdered by one insane but job. Or worse yet abducted and forced into sex slavery. Not all people deserve to live.

You want me to revive old dead threads that no one will read or respond to? Never had a mod ask me to become a necromancer before ahahahahahaha!!!
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17
lol that's almost 30% of the entire US
36761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / St.Louis
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17
thats alot of money
1603 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Nasigno wrote:

Alright, lets think hard about this.

U.S. Population as of 2017, is roughly 321 Million.
Latest data says 13,000~ to 9,000 die to gun homicides a year.

13,000 / 321,000,000 = .00004

.00004 * 100 (To make it a Percent) = 0.004

1% > 0.004% > 0%

It's safe to say, that even a thousandth of a percent is greater than 0, but at the same time is LESS than 1%.

So yes, less than 1% of the population in America is killed by guns, period.

I'm amazed I had to articulate that the decimal point in numbers is actually something, and that it can have values that exist between 1 and 0.

Even if you combined the total deaths in America, the fact is less than 1% of the US Population dies each year, congratulations. Amazing isn't it?


I'm not really sure what you were trying to prove there, but congrats? I guess?

Let me rephrase:

-According to you, deaths only matter if the cause effects more than 1% of people every year
-According to statistics, 2.5 million people die in the USA each year, constituting about 0.8% of the population
-Therefore, under your quota, no death (no matter the cause) matters

Do you understand what I am getting at? It's pretty simple but it seems you've missed it three times now. Do you agree that no death of any cause matters? If so, then I think you have some issues. If not, then you need to acknowledge that your quota is broken.


So, let's get this straight again. The idea of getting rid of murder is a pipe dream, you can try this moral high ground all you want. But in the end nobody is going to produce a system, law, or otherwise that will reduce it further than what it already is. Hence why it's at an "acceptable" rate.

People tend to just overlook how much worse it is elsewhere, and then act as if you can make all murder stop. Or the alternative when someone has an realistic view of it, they are "inhuman" or mentally screwed, thanks for pointing that finger at me cause it proves my argument on that

Death happens, you are human you are designed to die from the moment you are born. How it happens has some differing significance but at the end of, it will happen.

I would be more worried if the say the murder total was more than fractions of a percent of both the population or the actual fatality rate a year.

But be honest, do you really even care? Are you actually hurt when someone dies? Or you just trying to say you are to keep a morally "good" face? What's your "goal" post
255 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / England
Offline
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/26/17

dulun18 wrote:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm



unhealthy lifestyle killed more people than anything else.. i would blame fast food!! but many tried and all failed at passing any law against fast food industry..



Not a good idea, the Labour party here in England are trying to put a sugar tax out and ban ads to do with fast food/unhealthy food before the watershed hours. No one should regulate what goes in your body, in my opinion. If a fat dude wants to eat 30 McDonalds a week, let them. It's their choice and it's their body.

With Guns however it's a tricky one, there are suicidal kids killing themselves because their parents have a gun in their house.
Not to mention the amount of school shootings.



First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.