Whats the chance?

[Wcross]

What is the real chance of being murdered by a gun in America? Is it really as high as the doom and gloomers say it is?

[CO Liberal]

1. I'd Say It's a Lot Higher.....

....than in countries with more stringent gun control measures in place.

IMHO.

[Wcross]

2. But what %?

1 in a thousand or what?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

3. Like

Brazil?

[iverglas]

4. when a law is passed

banning the dumping of raw sewage in rivers, after decades of raw sewage being dumped in the rivers ...

Do the rivers magically become pristine and potable the next day?

Do the neighbouring countries that dump raw sewage into the waters that flow into the rivers stop doing that the next day?

Does no one ever dump raw sewage into a river again?

Should we not ban the dumping of raw sewage into rivers?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Let me be the first to say it.

GUNS DO NOT EQUAL RAW SEWAGE!!!

With that out of the way, maybe someone can address what I actually said ...

.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

5. And raw sewage

has exactly what to do with the chance of being killed with a gun in America?

Probably not much, since even you yourself say that 'GUNS DO NOT EQUAL RAW SEWAGE' (nice shouting btw).

So whatever you were attempting to say with your strawman about sewage, it is worth nothing in the discussion that is being started.

Maybe you could comment specifically on the discussion started in this thread, please.

[iverglas]

6. follow the thought, now.

At least try. See how the thread thingy goes? Like this:


"Original message":
What is the real chance of being murdered by a gun in America?
Is it really as high as the doom and gloomers say it is?


CO Liberal
Response to Original message
1. I'd Say It's a Lot Higher.....
....than in countries with more stringent gun control measures in place.
IMHO.


YOU
Response to Reply #1
3. Like
Brazil?


You see? That was the post I was responding to. If there is a tangent here, I'm not the one who took it, dear. Did you forget what you'd said?

You -- and in so few words!! -- made the point that in Brazil, which you appear to be offering as a country "with more stringent gun control emasures in place" (do unenforced laws = "stringent measures"?), one does *not* have a lower chance of being murdered by a gun than in "America". (Brazil is in America, y'all.)

So ... YOUR point "has exactly what to do with the chance of being killed with a gun in America"??? If I may be so bold as to quote you.

You're the one who chose to make that ... point. Nobody held a gun to your head, eh?

If you don't like it being challenged and aren't up to defending it, that's fine.

If you wish to defend it, you'll need to be establishing, first, that there *are* "stringent gun control measures" in Brazil, and second, that the prevalence of firearms homicide in Brazil could be reduced (a) in the short term, and (b) by stringent domestic gun control measures alone.

Kinda like those polluted rivers, doncha see? I'll bet you do.

Imposing stringent gun control measures, alone, does not end illegal access to firearms, and the criminal use of firearms, including homicides, let alone in the short term. Who would even dream, let alone suggest that someone else would say, that they could/would?

Just like rivers don't get magically clean when you stop dumping raw sewage in them. All that old raw sewage is still there. Just like all those old guns.

Imposing stringent domestic gun control measures doesn't affect access to firearms outside the borders of the country doing it. And a country like Brazil has some big, undefendable borders. No country with borders like that can expect domestic gun control measures, alone, to stem the flow of firearms from outside the country into the country. Who would dream, let alone suggest that someone else would say, that they could/would?

Just like raw sewage doesn't stop streaming into country A's rivers from upstream in country B when country A stops dumping it in. All the foreign sewage is still flowing across the border. Just like all those foreign guns.

So what's needed? A variety of measures. A variety of domestic measures, and an international variety of measures.

But I'll ask again: should we not ban the dumping of raw sewage just because it doesn't solve the WHOLE problem?

I hope this has helped you.

"Maybe you could comment specifically on the discussion started in this thread, please."

Maybe you should be more careful about what you say, and don't say things that you don't want to get responses to. Perhaps sticking to the point yourself would be a useful strategy. Just my unsolicited advice; feel free to ignore it.

.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

7. blah blah blah

Did you say anything meaningful in there?

I just tuned it out once I realized that you were resorting to your usual incivility.

If you wish to make a point and have a discusion about that point, please do so in a manner conducive to discussion, and not as flamebait.

But I as I think of it, that is not what you REALLY want to do is it?

:hi:

[iverglas]

8. "civil"

Per the Oxford Concise:

1. of or belonging to citizens

That there is my preferred meaning.

Citizens -- people who have responsibilities in and to civil society.

In a democracy, citizens have the responsibility to behave transparently. To speak, when they speak on matters of public policy, honestly, in good faith, and with respect for both their interlocutors and the whole body of other citizens.

Civil discourse is discourse in which each party strives to convey its message transparently -- to state clearly what the message is and to state the real reasons why it is being conveyed -- and to understand and acknowledge the message, and meaning, being conveyed to it.

People engaged in civil discourse may well speak harshly and may not always be friendly. But they always speak truthfully and completely, and listen attentively to what is said to them and respond to what is said to them. They do not divert the discourse, or disguise their message, or pretend not to understand what is said to them or that what is said to them is something other than what it was. True respect, true civility, lies in doing that.

Rote rules about "personal attacks" and the like really have not the first thing to do with civil discourse. In true civil discourse, for instance, lies are never tolerated; misrepresenting one's interlocutor's words or meaning is never tolerated; offering less than the whole truth is never tolerated; employing deceptive reasoning is never tolerated; claiming to speak from some exalted high ground while concealing one's personal interest and what one stands to gain from one's position atop that moral mountain is never tolerated; appealing to others' anti-democratic, selfish impulses rather than to the shared, democratic values of the citizenry is never tolerated.

I merely muse, variations on the theme of "civility", which I will never go along with characterizing as speaking in pretty words. And of course I invite anyone who might ever catch me out in any of those tricks, who ever sees me offer disrespect in return for respect, or bad faith for good faith, to call me out.

Civil society. Civil discourse is just about its most important foundation stone and guarantor. In fact, the preservation of civil society pretty much depends on its citizens' commitment to civil discourse.

.

[slackmaster]

9. Zero

Guns are inanimate objects and therefore incapable of malum in se.

[RoeBear]

10. Damn, you're right!

I've been brainwashed enough by the media not to recognize that ridiculously worded question. (no offense to the original poster)
Until guns can animate themselves there is no chance of anyone, anywhere being "murdered by a gun".

[dustind]

11. not much...

If you are not in a gang being murdered by someone with a gun is tiny

Over half the time it is suicide, next highest is gang warfare, then by the police, I forget where it goes from there, but the total is 28K give or take.

As for odds, less than one in ten thousand. ~1/10,400 give or take for total deaths including suicide, etc. Acording to the FBI homicide(murder, self defence, police, etc) is 8,700. If you take away gangs, police, self defence you get a tiny number, divided by close to 300 million and you are pretty safe. It is your life style that determins how you will most likely die.

CO Liberal, how many people die because they can not defend themselves in other countries? It also does not work too well when you figure that most countries have a lot lower population.

[556]

12. Very very low

Since you said murder we will first discard those who choose to end their own life with a firearm. There are approx. 30,000 deaths each year via firearm. Roughly 2/3rds of those are suicide. So approx. 10,000 people are murdered each year by firearms. Now we will take a conservative 240,000,000 person population in the U.S. (even though it's actually closer to 280 mil). With those numbers we can do a generic calculation. Please understand your chances may be higher or lower depending on where you live at in the country. But just so you have a general idea we will do it this way. All you have to do now is take 10,000 and divide it by 240,000,000. Your chances just by population to murder rate are 0.000041667%. That number isn't going to change much if you were to do a national average being as like I said earlier the numbers will be higher in some places and lower in others.