A New Look at Guns and Gun Violence
Guns in the home don't keep you safe. It increases the chance of a family member's death and suicide. CM
See the Gun Violence Tracker: Week: Oct. 21 - 27, 2021
Years 2016 - 2021
- 393 deaths and 711 injuries over the past week
- 20,671 deaths and 40,399 injuries over the past year
- 97,773 deaths and 193,947 injuries over the past 5 years
Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate
Experts said legislatures are doing the work in setting the landscape on guns.
ByLibby Cathey -- October 28, 2021, 5:06 AM
Do you really love life? Do you really want to protect the innocent? The Christian Community needs to wake up and step up. The gun deaths are NOT maybe people. They are real people. CM
Source: Gun Violence Archive:
* All data is lagged by three days. Full methodology
* Figure is current month-to-date. All data is lagged by three days. Full methodology
* Figure is current year-to-date. All data is lagged by three days. Full methodology
Comments
-
I wonder how many people who are true bible Christians have ever contributed to the data above by shooting someone.
Guns are not the problem any more than an automobile is. The evil heart to kill is the problem. Consider the evil heart of those who support abortion.
-
@Truth said:
"Guns are not the problem...The evil heart to kill is the problem".
A similar statement like yours has been made in these forums by a former poster (@reformed), and a current poster reasonably answered it (@Bill_Coley) some time ago. Bill's words apply to your current statement. See: https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/906/a-new-craziness-in-america/p2
Bill_Coley Posts: 2,487May 3 Flag
@reformed posted:
I don't have a problem with guns because guns are not the problem. Shot mine today.
"The fact that you shot your gun yesterday is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the fact that in the United States, too many people shoot guns, not for sport, or hobby, or training, or self-defense, but to injure or kill other people - "too many" as in at per capita rates that are orders of magnitude greater than many other developed nations. Those per capita firearm violence rates in this country ARE a problem. I've seen nothing in your posts that suggest you agree, but if you aren't bothered by those rates, then you're mistaken, and you need to change your view. And if you and others who agree with you that "guns are not the problem" won't change your views, fine; Congress needs to change the law anyway. Basic strategy? Convert the "guns are not the problem" people, but until we convert them, compel them via changes in the law.
"Fortunately, large majorities of Americans support changes in our gun laws. Unfortunately, our Congress will not pass any that matter. The ultimate solution will have to be changes in the membership of Congress" (emphasis are mine).
So, you see, I am not the only one that sees the gun population and the need for enhanced laws for the safety of all. CM
-
What IS relevant is the fact that in the United States, too many people shoot guns, not for sport, or hobby, or training, or self-defense, but to injure or kill other people - "too many" as in at per capita rates that are orders of magnitude greater than many other developed nations.
Then take a good look at what tooooo many people are putting between their ears and how and in which direction society's morals are being directed by media, movies, education, etc ....
Guns are no more the problem than other items that could be misused to kill (murder) people ... what needs change is society's morals, people's attitudes and their demeanor ...
-
You totally missed knowing Jesus, but at least you have some common sense about guns.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Guns are no more the problem than other items that could be misused to kill (murder) people ... what needs change is society's morals, people's attitudes and their demeanor
If guns are no more the problem than other items that could be "misused to kill (murder) people," why are guns used to commit so many more murders than any other items? In the year 2020 in the U.S., 12,892 murders were committed using handguns or firearms "type not stated," but only 4,838 murders were committed using any of the means identified in 10 other categories combined, including the categories labeled "rifles," "shotguns," and "other guns." [NOTE: If included with the handguns and firearms, those three categories' murder totals would revise the grand totals to 13,663 (firearms) and 4,067 (non-firearms)?]
If, for example, knives are as big a problem as guns, shouldn't we see much less than a 7-1/2-to-1 ratio between firearms murders and knife murders?
In what measurable/quantifiable ways are guns "no more the problem than other items"?
-
@Truth, to whom are you addressing your comments? It would be helpful to state it to get a more direct response. Again, it's not required, but it would be helpful. CM
-
If guns are no more the problem than other items that could be "misused to kill (murder) people," why are guns used to commit so many more murders than any other items?
makae gun laws more strict to prohibit guns for the average Joe, and those who want to kill and murder will still have guns and commit their evil. And there will be higher figures of the use of other "instruments" ...
In what measurable/quantifiable ways are guns "no more the problem than other items"?
In that the problem is not the gun nor the knife nor any other instrument ...The problem is the murderer, not what is being used to commit the crime.
-
Three guesses, C Mc. It seems you guessed well on the first go.
In that the problem is not the gun nor the knife nor any other instrument ...The problem is the murderer, not what is being used to commit the crime.
There is a kind of people unable to grasp this arcane concept. Such people think that guns kill people in the hands of people with no free will. This may be philosophical.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
makae gun laws more strict to prohibit guns for the average Joe, and those who want to kill and murder will still have guns and commit their evil. And there will be higher figures of the use of other "instruments" ...
HERE'S a report from the New York Times that summarizes the steps citizens in 16 countries including the U.S. must take to own a gun. If prohibitions of or other encumbrances to gun ownership explain higher murder-by-firearms rates, then why are those rates lower in ten of the other 15 countries, the same in one of the 15, and higher in only four?
And if American laws make it hard for the "average Joe" to have guns, why is the per capita number of guns among U.S. citizens at least twice as high as any of the other 15 countries on the list, and seven times higher than the rate among the other 15 countries considered as a group?
That said, you still haven't explained why, if guns are "no more the problem" than knives, rocks, ropes, or whatever items could be "misused to kill (murder) people," then why are so many more murders committed by guns? Knives are as readily available as guns; so are rocks, ropes, and many kinds of poisons. But FAR more murders are committed by guns than any other means. Why?
And do you claim that were there no guns in the world - none, anywhere, in the possession of ANYONE - there would be approximately the same number of murders per year as there are now? It seems to me that if you believe guns are no more the problem than any other items - that the problem is in the human heart - then your answer must be yes, but please confirm.
-
a report from the New York Times that summarizes the steps citizens in 16 countries including the U.S. must take to own a gun. If prohibitions of or other encumbrances to gun ownership explain higher murder-by-firearms rates, then why are those rates lower in ten of the other 15 countries, the same in one of the 15, and higher in only four?
Why? because more or less people commit such evil ... I would take a look at the societies, their morals. The fact that some forbid possession of guns does not prohibit a criminal from having a gun and murdering someone.
One could of course campaign for a general law that forbids owning a car ... number of car accidents would decrease because number of cars decrease, but would it prohibit the "speed freak hazardeur" from getting his hands on a car and causing a deadly accident? No.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Why? because more or less people commit such evil ... I would take a look at the societies, their morals. The fact that some forbid possession of guns does not prohibit a criminal from having a gun and murdering someone.
I fear we have lost sight of the target of our exchange.
Your initial claim was that "[g]uns are no more the problem than other items that could be misused to kill (murder) people."
If that's the case, I then asked, why in the U.S. are there FAR more murders by firearms than by all other items/methods combined? If guns are no more of a problem than knives, for example, why are there SO MANY TIMES MORE deaths by guns than by knives?
Your reply, I guess, was that gun ownership restrictions leave guns in the hands of "those who want to kill and murder." Which of course didn't answer the question I asked: If guns are no more of a problem than any other weapon, why are there SO MANY TIMES more murders by guns than by any other weapon?
After that, we moved farther away from my question, so I limit this post to that question: If, as you claim, guns are no more of a problem than any other weapon, why are there SO MANY TIMES more murders by guns than by any other weapon? Why do "those who want to kill and murder" choose to use guns rather than knives, bats, ropes, poisons, etc. if all those other means of murder are just as much a part of the problem as guns? Doesn't the fact that "those who want to kill and murder" choose guns so much more often than all other means combined by necessity mean that guns are more of a problem than any other option? If your child came home with a report card that showed high marks in math and language arts, and low marks only in science, would you conclude that science was no more of a problem for your child than any other subject?
-
Your initial claim was that "[g]uns are no more the problem than other items that could be misused to kill (murder) people."
If that's the case, I then asked, why in the U.S. are there FAR more murders by firearms than by all other items/methods combined? If guns are no more of a problem than knives, for example, why are there SO MANY TIMES MORE deaths by guns than by knives?
The rather simple point of truth to which I was referring is this: In NO CASE of a killing comitted by a person s the instrument (gun, knife, stone, bare hands, etc.) i the cause or reason for the crime, rather the problem is with the person. Simple and plain.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
The rather simple point of truth to which I was referring is this: In NO CASE of a killing comitted by a person s the instrument (gun, knife, stone, bare hands, etc.) i the cause or reason for the crime, rather the problem is with the person. Simple and plain.
And yet again you fail to answer - fail even to mention - my questions.
OF COURSE those who commit murders by WHATEVER means are responsible for the deaths resulting from their use of those means. But I didn't ask you about legal liability; I asked you about means in a perfectly legitimate and fact-based question based on your original claim that "[g]uns are no more the problem than other items that could be misused to kill (murder) people."
Knowing that you and I agree about the legal liability of those who commit murders, please address my questions directly:
- Why in the U.S. are there more than three times as many murders committed by firearms than by all other means combined?
- Doesn't the fact that the people you called "those who want to kill and murder" choose guns so much more often than all other means combined by necessity mean that guns are more of a problem than any other means?
- If year after year your child came home with report cards that showed high marks in math, language arts, and every other subject EXCEPT science (in which he or she consistently scored low marks), would you claim science was no more of a problem for your child than any other subject?
- And do you claim that were there no guns in the world - none, anywhere, in the possession of ANYONE - there would be approximately the same total number of murders per year as there are now? It seems to me that if you believe guns are no more the problem than any other items - that the problem is solely in the human heart - then your answer must be yes, but please confirm.
-
OF COURSE those who commit murders by WHATEVER means are responsible for the deaths resulting from their use of those means. But I didn't ask you about legal liability; I asked you about means in a perfectly legitimate and fact-based question based on your original claim that "[g]uns are no more the problem than other items that could be misused to kill (murder) people."
I am not talking about legal liability either ... I am talking about my original claim! In other words, the whatever instrument is used is NOT the problem, in whatever case the person is the problem. Simple, plain ... no need to talk about the instruments as if these were the problem ...
-
@Wolfgang posted:
I am not talking about legal liability either ... I am talking about my original claim! In other words, the whatever instrument is used is NOT the problem, in whatever case the person is the problem. Simple, plain ... no need to talk about the instruments as if these were the problem ...
And for the fourth time you evade my questions, so I'll rephrase: REGARDLESS AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FOCUS OR INTENT OF YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM...
- Why in the U.S. are there more than three times as many murders committed by firearms than by all other means combined?
- Doesn't the fact that the people you called "those who want to kill and murder" choose guns so much more often than all other means combined by necessity mean that guns are more of a problem than any other means?
- If year after year your child came home with report cards that showed high marks in math, language arts, and every other subject EXCEPT science (in which he or she consistently scored low marks), would you claim science was no more of a problem for your child than any other subject?
- And do you claim that were there no guns in the world - none, anywhere, in the possession of ANYONE - there would be approximately the same total number of murders per year as there are now? It seems to me that if you believe guns are no more the problem than any other items - that the problem is solely in the human heart - then your answer must be yes, but please confirm.
-
And for the fourth time you evade my questions, so I'll rephrase: REGARDLESS AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FOCUS OR INTENT OF YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM...
I will stick to my original claim and its intent and am not interested in other points that were raised later on, thus no further comment. If others misunderstood the post and my original intent, I pray that has been clarified by now.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
I will stick to my original claim and its intent and am not interested in other points that were raised later on, thus no further comment. If others misunderstood the post and my original intent, I pray that has been clarified by now.
The history of our exchanges on matters of social and political policy shows that you're "not interested" in most, perhaps none, of the "other points" I raise to you via the questions I pose, Wolfgang. We both know why throughout the years you've chosen not to mention, let alone engage, the vast majority of my questions, and on the few occasions you've chosen to mention questions - as in this current exchange - you've chosen not to address them directly: Because candid, truthful answers to my questions would acknowledge the falsehood of your claims and/or the weaknesses of your arguments. Instead of candor, then, you've repeatedly chosen evasion.
- Guns are a problem in America PRECISELY BECAUSE they're used to commit murder three or more times as often as all other means of murder combined. You know that, but aren't willing to acknowledge it.
- The "human heart" doesn't explain why murderers use guns so much more often than all other options. You know that, too, but aren't willing to acknowledge it.
- Were your child year after year to earn high grade marks in every subject other than science, you WOULD conclude that science was more of a problem area for your child than any other subject, but you aren't willing to acknowledge it.
- And if guns didn't exist - no gun ANYWHERE in the world, in ANYONE'S possession - there would NOT be as many total murders in the world each year as there are now. You also know that, but aren't willing to acknowledge it.
My claims are true; you're just not willing to acknowledge it.
-
Consider the heart motive for needing to make guns guilty of sin instead of people. Also consider the intellectual ineptitude.
-
@Truth posted:
Consider the heart motive for needing to make guns guilty of sin instead of people. Also consider the intellectual ineptitude.
Because your practice is not to identify the poster(s) or post(s) to which your posts respond, I'm not certain that my posts in this thread are among the targets of these two sentences. But in case they are....
The concern of my posts has been the means of, not the motivation behind, the 13,663 murders by firearms reported in the U.S. during the year 2020.
Imagine two people on the lawn of a public building, each whose intention is to break some of the building's windows. Now equip one of the two with bricks and the other with Nerf balls, and for the purposes of our thought experiment, require that they both use only the tool with which they have been equipped - no sharing of resources; no collection of resources from the surrounding grounds. Who's going to break more windows, the person equipped with the bricks or the person equipped with the Nerf balls? They have the same intention! Their sin "motives" are identical. But they aren't equally equipped, and hence won't inflict equal levels of damage.
The point of my posts in this thread has NOT been about the motives behind the 13,663 murders in the U.S. in 2020, but about the equipment available to those whose intention is to commit murder. My claim has been that when it comes to efficiency and productivity as a potential murder weapon, firearms are much more efficient and productive than say knives or ropes or motor vehicles. Guns' increased efficiency and productivity in large measure explain why in 2020 three to four times more murders were committed by firearms than by all other means combined.
I will welcome and consider your alternative explanations as to the popularity of firearms as a murder weapon in the U.S. but for this post, my chief aim is to make clear that my focus is on the means, NOT the motive, of our thousands of murders each year.
-
Sure. You own your focus.
My focus was on your dubious motive for focusing on means.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I will welcome and consider your alternative explanations as to the popularity of firearms as a murder weapon in the U.S. but for this post, my chief aim is to make clear that my focus is on the means, NOT the motive, of our thousands of murders each year.
A clear statement for the American Congress in making gun laws. Send it to them.
Can you help me understand why some Christians in general; those particularly in CD hate abortion but love guns (an evil instrument of death) made to kill? They have so much concern about what's in another woman's (not their wife's) womb and will take a man or boy's life, in a heartbeat, all under the guise of protecting family and they vituperated ego. CM
-
Where in the words, "Consider the heart motive for needing to make guns guilty of sin instead of people. Also consider the intellectual ineptitude" did you express a focus on or even a casual mention of my "dubious motive for focusing on means"?
-
@C Mc posted:
Can you help me understand why some Christians in general; those particularly in CD hate abortion but love guns (an evil instrument of death) made to kill? They have so much concern about what's in another woman's (not their wife's) womb and will take a man or boy's life, in a heartbeat, all under the guise of protecting family and they vituperated ego.
In my view, such apparently conflicting points of view are commonplace among Americans, me included. For example, I am passionately opposed to the death penalty, yet I support a woman's right to choose abortion services. But it's also true that many who oppose a woman's right to access to abortion services passionately support the death penalty. In such a conflicted culture, who's "pro-life"?
Some, such as the Roman Catholic Church which opposes both a woman's right to access abortion services AND capital punishment, are consistent in their views, but many of us must address our seeming conflictedness.
Our national gun lust is profoundly unsettling, but it's also part of our nation's DNA, and hence, isn't going to change in your or my lifetimes. An analogy: There are members of the U.S. Senate for whom protection of the filibuster, which permits 41% of that body to overrule the other 59% of the body, is more important than protection of constitutionally mandated voting rights. Similarly, in the U.S. writ large protection of gun rights is more important than protection of the people's safety.
If the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999 (15 killed), Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012 (26 killed), Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia, in 2012 (33 killed), and Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018 (17 killed) didn't move the needle toward support for reforms to our national gun lust - and they didn't - nothing will. To many Americans, it simply doesn't matter how many people die because of guns. As a result, too many Americans will continue to die because of guns.
-
I discussed your doubtful motive for focusing on guns instead of sin. Once again your failed deflection exhibits your questionable motive. Bill, your dirty underwear of motives is flashing brightly in the sunshine.
-
@Truth posted:
I discussed your doubtful motive for focusing on guns instead of sin. Once again your failed deflection exhibits your questionable motive. Bill, your dirty underwear of motives is flashing brightly in the sunshine.
First, I don't think a two sentence, 20 word post such as yours that I quoted in my previous post can "discuss" much of anything, let alone another poster's "doubtful" motives.
Second, in my previous post I made clear my "motive" for discussing guns rather than sin: "The concern of my posts has been the means of, not the motivation behind, the 13,663 murders by firearms reported in the U.S. during the year 2020." That is, I didn't focus on sin because my post wasn't about sin... or any other force/influence that might lead to, motivate, or create violence in America. My post was about the means of violence, not its root causes.
If for whatever reason(s) you believe people shouldn't post about and as a nation we shouldn't discuss the means of violence in America, I certainly welcome you to that view, but it won't change my view that the means of violence matters and must have our attention.
So, no "deflection." I didn't post about sin, so I couldn't have deflected from it. If YOU want to post about sin - say, in something more than a two sentence, 20 word post - have at it! We will welcome your contribution to the discussion. In the meantime, consider accepting the fact that CD posters often post on subjects of their own choosing (e.g. the means of violence) rather than yours (e.g. sin).
And as for my dirty underwear, I told my wife we needed to put up curtains in our laundry area. Your observation seals that deal.
EDIT: And speaking of "deflection," your three sentence, 33 word most recent post did a good job of deflecting from the thought experiment I raised to your attention in my previous post. Please address: Two people equally motivated by sin to break windows in a building, one armed with bricks, the other armed with Nerf balls. Which of the two will do more damage to windows if they can only use the items provided to them?
-
For clarity from Bill’s green fog, here is the point that matters.
Consider the heart motive for needing to make guns guilty of sin instead of people. Also consider the intellectual ineptitude.
-
@Truth posted:
For clarity from Bill’s green fog, here is the point that matters.
Consider the heart motive for needing to make guns guilty of sin instead of people. Also consider the intellectual ineptitude.
This exchange is going nowhere.
Perhaps we'll try again another time.
-
I regret that you are unable to find a way forward with the notion: "Consider the heart motive for needing to make guns guilty of sin instead of people." I had thought you could.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
