Don’t get me wrong, gun deaths are bad. Today, being the 4th, yet another 6 people were murdered in Illinois by an armed nut.
My question is, what makes gun deaths worse than any other tragedy? The argument seems to be that they are easily preventable and therefore lets do whatever can be done to do so, even if we have to essentially do away with the Constitution.
But if the number of gun deaths justifies taking away our Constitutional right to bear arms, why are other things that cause death in similar or even greater numbers, and are just as easily preventable ignored?
Strange thread name. Person caused deaths?
1 Like
Well now we all know guns are autonomous. We mustn’t ascribe any human responsibility for someone being killed by a gun. That would lead to an expectation of responsibility in other areas of our lives which is totally unrealistic and unreasonable.
I’m interested in why one instrument causing death is singled out over others that are equally or more dangerous.
2 Likes
e7alr
4
Well, gun death, would imply that the gun died. …Couldn’t help my self.
But to the posted question, I suspect it is because death at one’s own hand, or the hand of another is a pretty universally deplored thing. These types of death involve intent to cause physical harm, to self, or others.
1 Like
Interesting point. Most people, including myself until I looked it up, probably don’t realize that suicide by gun happens more than murder by gun. But again, other causes of death are as or more numerous and none are vilified like guns…
That’s easy.
Homicides attract attention due to foul play involved. And firearms (in this country) are weapons most commonly used to commit homicide.
Also see this source:
https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/
1 Like
One on one murder usually has a motive. Shootings that are racially motivated have a motive. Shooting political leaders have a motive. But it is hard to wrap ones head around the fact that a person would just shoot innocent folks, especially children. I think that we are at a point where we have enough information to make moves on the mental capacity front. And that we should be looking hard at what might be done better with background checks.
I get this, but if banning guns or regulating them to the point of infringing on the right to bear arms for the cause of saving lives is a worthy or justifiable cause, why aren’t other things that cause just as much death gone after?
For example: in 2020 over 12,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. Why is there no movement to make alcohol illegal again like it was throughout the 1920s? After all, dead is dead and if that number could be reduced or eliminated, why are we not vilifying alcohol and outlawing it? Yes, there were more gun deaths, but 12,000 people is still a lot…
1 Like
e7alr
9
It is an anti social motivation, rather than a material motivation. That type of killer just wants to do it. Likes the rush, the power.
The weapon in this case is the car…
What is a cars primary purpose?
L[quote=“GrandWazoo, post:7, topic:242434, full:true”]
One on one murder usually has a motive. Shootings that are racially motivated have a motive. Shooting political leaders have a motive. But it is hard to wrap ones head around the fact that a person would just shoot innocent folks, especially children. I think that we are at a point where we have enough information to make moves on the mental capacity front. And that we should be looking hard at what might be done better with background checks.
[/quote]
Ok, but consider this: throughout the 19th century in America, especially the latter half, most men openly carried guns on their hips. Yes, we read about outlaws who killed a handful of people and shootouts like the ok corral, but the gunfights at high noon like we see in the movies were very rare. Also, can you think of a single incident throughout that time period where mass shootings occurred? One time when some gun toting outlaw went into a one room school house and shot up a bunch of kids? It seems gun violence was much less common when everyone carried than it is today when carrying is infringed upon. Guns haven’t changed. They can still kill, yet too many people today want to take them away. Why?
e7alr
13
Spend more time on the intentions of the human using the instrument of death, rather than the instrument.
2 Likes
I suspect because we tried that and it didn’t work - and because of 21st amendment. However, we are still trying to fix this issue and so there’s this:
However, these fatalities are still considered accidents and foul play i.e. homicides will attract more attention like I was saying earlier.
Be that
Some guesses:
Numbers. A guy with a gun can kill more people in a shorter time than say a hammer or knife murderer.
The range. People can be killed from dozens of yards, with no chance at self defense.
Surprise. As above, you can go quite a while before realizing that you are in a mass shooting.
The brutality. Ever wonder why photos of these crime scenes are never releases? For that matter, did you know one of the Ulvalde victims was so mangled that a DNA test was required?
1 Like
Both matter…
There is a reason why mass shooters choose guns and not a car or a knife.
Mental illness is not unique to the US, neither is young males.
L[quote=“PurpnGold, post:11, topic:242434, full:true”]
The weapon in this case is the car…
What is a cars primary purpose?
[/quote]
Is a car more autonomous than a gun?
Also, while the current record for mass gun death is the 59 people killed in Las Vegas a few years ago, the current record for vehicular mass death is 89. The bomb that Timothy Mcveigh put in that van in Oklahoma killed 169. So answer your own question: what IS the primary use of a car?
Back in the times you talk about, guns were predominant in the west and were tools for survival. There was a whole hell of a smaller population. And social pressures were a lot different. And the movies have painted a picture of the wild west that is pretty inaccurate.
2 Likes
e7alr
19
In murder who did it is all that matters. How they did it is only relevant to proving who did it in court. The dead person is still dead, and the killer is still the killer. Your political motivations aren’t relevant to either.
4 Likes
The right to bear arms is granted in the Constitution and “shall not be infringed” yet, the right is being infringed so clearly the Constitution doesn’t matter. You say drunk driving deaths aren’t deliberate, yet the drinking is. Shouldn’t the number of lives saved be the deciding factor? After all, the vast majority of gun owners ( at least those who obtain their guns legally) never commit a crime, yet they’re the ones whose rights are infringed due to the actions of a very few.
2 Likes
