Draitex
Northern Beast from the Swedish tundra
As I said, the Backing was through some of the actions he did like Anchluss and the other referendums not his rise itself I already admitted that
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
Operation Wignut
USSDF Riot Squad
What's Svalbard? The National Park Rangers are for protection of the wildlife in nature reserves, and act as guides for visitors, as well. Bear spray is non-lethal to the bears, and they are a protected species in the US.
Draitex
Northern Beast from the Swedish tundra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard
it's a country close to the northpole, there roams polar bears and stuff so they need to use weapons when they go outside
While protected, anyone outside of settlements is recommended to carry a firearm to kill polar bears in self-defence, as a last resort, should they attack, and is required to have appropriate means of frightening and chasing off polar bears
I don't too much about the gun laws in US and can only quote Uk gun laws witch are ovi very strong. It does seem there there are too many guns in US as you read the news and see mass shooting from time to time. When I have been there I always felt safe though but I also feel safe in Uk. You don't really see the guns on show so it does't really seem like an issue. I remember once thought a waiter said he had a gun in his car to shoot anyone who tried to steal it. Witch was very strange to me ! If someone steal my car fuck it I'm covered. I would never kill someone over a car and I can't believe anyone would. It just a meaning object If some steals it I get a replacement or money so I not even worried at all.
When I take Americans about the sought of thing before and they get very offended about it. And say the need guns other wise they feel scaryied to even walk around. But no one had gun in the frist place you'd be back to square one. The other arguement is you kill some one with what ever e.g a knife. But I am pretty sure it is harder t kill 20 people with a knife than it is a gun (Have't treid though)
I also think not all people cna be trusted with guns. If you i get in a massive agrument or fight we punch it out who ever loses loses and thats that. You probably get hurt but most lilkely live. In america if you have a gun and use it you would pretty much end up killing someone
I think its the kinda of situation where you have guns because other people have guns to protect yourself. However no one really uses guns into a 'sick' Individual lets lose with gun on a crowd of people
When I take Americans about the sought of thing before and they get very offended about it. And say the need guns other wise they feel scaryied to even walk around. But no one had gun in the frist place you'd be back to square one. The other arguement is you kill some one with what ever e.g a knife. But I am pretty sure it is harder t kill 20 people with a knife than it is a gun (Have't treid though)
I also think not all people cna be trusted with guns. If you i get in a massive agrument or fight we punch it out who ever loses loses and thats that. You probably get hurt but most lilkely live. In america if you have a gun and use it you would pretty much end up killing someone
I think its the kinda of situation where you have guns because other people have guns to protect yourself. However no one really uses guns into a 'sick' Individual lets lose with gun on a crowd of people
Operation Wignut
USSDF Riot Squad
Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015. The population at that time was 316 million people. That is, 0.0042% of the population died by guns. Counting accidents, police shootings, mass shootings, and good old homicides, that is 167 times smaller than the average population growth rate in the US. In comparison, car accidents, vehicular homicide, vehicular manslaughter and suicide caused 38,000 deaths in the US. That's more than twice as many deaths. Gun deaths accounted for 0.5% of all deaths in 2015, and mass shootings accounted for 2% of all gun deaths. Mass shootings accounted for 0.000001% of all deaths in America. Hepatitis C killed more people than mass shooters. Sepsis killed more people than all guns in the United States. Drug abuse killed more people than guns. Obesity-related problems killed more people than guns.
As for the graphic, that INCLUDES SUICIDE. Taking that away brings us to 4.3 per 100,000 people in America. Which, if we take suicide away from gun deaths in all those countries, we get much more manageable numbers, like 1.2 per 100,000 people in Canada, and 0.08 per 100,000 in Germany.
[Edit]: in America
You are right in saying that it is quite small compression compeared to growth ect. However ever if that many people where getting killed by cars. You would still place speed cams and speed limits. You would still want that number to be lower. I think ever though US has large population people but this number is still to high ? Well I can think of wars that have killed less american population
Afghanistan War 2,363
Iraq War 4,492
So yeah US Kills more of its own population with guns in ONE YEAR than in two wars ..... And you're okay with that ? For me this is still stupid how can you deny this when more people are dieing each from guns than in wars ? Even if suicide accounts for alot of this that number still seems way to high
I never understood this, "we don't have to deal with this issue, because XYZ kill more people then guns". Why not adress both issues?
NotAcasul
meanie
So... what do?
Operation Wignut
USSDF Riot Squad
We've been working on car safety for decades and yet they kill tens of thousands of people every year anyways. We have hundreds of traffic laws on the books, cars are safer than they've ever been, and yet they are responsible for double the deaths. What do you propose we do to resolve THAT situation?
Meanwhile guns are literally killing machines, a third of all households own them, and yet sepsis kills more people. Coupled with the fact that gun laws are already ineffective (illegal guns are a real problem) and yet no one is buying illegal cars. Every single car that has ended a life in this country is legal.
I do want that number to be lower, but how? All these cars are legal, but we have hundreds of traffic laws on the books. We have preventative measures in school zones, we have speed bumps, we have traffic light cameras, we have roadside speedometers, we have goddamn UAV radar tracking on major California highways, and yet still thousands of people die to perfectly legal cars. And yet the machines designed for killing still kill less people.
You know we have a military deployment, right? We aren't sending civilians into war zones to fight for us. We have combat armor, we have advanced weaponry, and we have actual infantry tactics.
But stateside, we have civilians shooting civilians. Civilians don't wear body armor. Civilians don't have ready evacs waiting to take them to a hospital. Civilians don't have a squad to protect them (in most cases). Civilians shoot out of passion or insanity. The military shoots to obey orders.
I think you've got confused what I am saying. I know the army has all these things ect. But does't change the fact more people where in US where shoot and killed by US citizen than in both wars but together and just in one year. I am simply saying surely this fact alone is deeply worrying !?
Operation Wignut
USSDF Riot Squad
No it's not. The military is protected. They have a much lower rate of engagement and bullet-wound fatality rate than the general public.
You're comparing people who wear soft fabrics to people who wear bulletproof vests. Of course people that don't wear protective gear are gonna die more, and that's what happens. Plain and simple.
I'm not ganna debate with anymore if thats what you think okay but I really just feel you missing my point. Even with protective gear ect there still alot people geting shot in one year compeared to years that when on for years , the numbers arn't even close and thats the point I'm making 2k + 4k does't add up anywhere near 15k estimate that are killed by firearms in US
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Well I think you are both missing one point. You are only looking at the American casualties, what about how many people they shot. I am sure that will change the war numbers quite a bit.
Operation Wignut
USSDF Riot Squad
Look at per capita if you want to talk.
2,300 died in Afghanistan, 4,500 in Iraq and there was around 2.7 million people deployed in that area.
6,800/2,700,000 = 0.2% of all people deployed in that area died.
15,000/316,000,000 = 0.004% of all people in America died.
Tell me why we should be worried that the amount of deaths per capita caused by guns in the US is 50 times smaller than an active war zone.
Tell me why we should be worried people wearing protective body armor, have state of the art technology and advanced tactics that fight in an active war zone are more likely to die.
It's a reasonable conclusion that people who are fighting in a war would die more, so why should we be worried?
Well I think you are both missing one point. You are only looking at the American casualties, what about how many people they shot. I am sure that will change the war numbers quite a bit.
That was the point though it was about people in US dying from fire arms
'It's a reasonable conclusion that people who are fighting in a war would die more, so why should we be worried?'
Is that a contradiction ? Because I agree it is a reasonable conclusion that people in a war are fighting more, so why are the more death is US by shooting than in these war zones ? This is my point
Is that a contradiction ? Because I agree it is a reasonable conclusion that people in a war are fighting more, so why are the more death is US by shooting than in these war zones ? This is my point
Dr Fallout
Centurion
While I get what you're saying you're ENTIRELY ignoring the fact that their opponents have better weaponry and arms. While yes, it's true that the US military have protective gear, squadmates and hospital evacs, we also need to take into account enemy numbers, arms, tanks and military aircraft that kill more people.
Uh? what should we do about it? No clue. No reason to get all defensive. At no point have I said that I would know the answer, or what kind of measures would be appropiate. To use your example with cars. Well, I would say it's pretty much obvious. Let people who are experts like engineers, car mechanics and scientists do, what they already did for the last 60 years. Finding ways how to make cars safer. I am pretty sure that driving a car today is a lot safer then 80 years ago. And maybe in the future, someone will figure out ways how to lower accidents.
No clue. Who knows what we will see in 10, 20 or 50 years.
Point is, you can not even get to try to fix a problem if you don't realize that there IS a problem. It feels like talking to an alcoholic. - I am not refering to you, I am saying in general, when it comes to the issue of mass shootings.
I could't agree with this more !
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
What does that have to do with the price of cheese?
What does that have to do with the price of cheese?
The subject of this thread is gun control. Try to stay on topic, please.