Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

Please take a look at these stats as of July 5, 2015. Then tell me we don't have a gun violence problem in the U.S.

Back to ignoring direct questions yet again I see. When you seek discussion, then choose to ignore questions, you prove your insincerity is only exceeded by dishonesty. Bub bye.

HEARTLESS wrote: Actually holding our DA's responsible for enforcing the laws by trying cases, having a Gov. that trusts the people and court system to carry out the death penalty, having a Mayor and his appointed Chief that no longer coddle criminals while endangering our police officers is hardly a status quo proposal, but I anxiously await your proposals.

Think "prosecutorial discretion", HEARTLESS. If you look up the definition, it basically says prosecutors have virtually absolute power in deciding whether or not to move forward with cases. When negligence is involved, it appears prosecutors balk at going forward with any charges because those responsible/negligent have "suffered enough already". Of course, the prosecutorial discretion thing goes to other cases, as well.

As far as the rest of your logic is concerned, I'm not so sure it's on topic here. That might be the subject of a whole different thread, actually.

On proposals, I've already shared some in another thread via Jim Wright whom you proceeded, if I remember correctly, to label a "self-proclaimed gun expert": mymountaintown.com/forum/6-the-courthous...oach-to-gun-violence

Please forgive me if I choose to go with his reasoning and his proposals.

HEARTLESS wrote: Back to ignoring direct questions yet again I see. When you seek discussion, then choose to ignore questions, you prove your insincerity is only exceeded by dishonesty. Bub bye.

Good grief, HEARTLESS! Give me a chance to address them before going all indignant on me. I found the Gun Archives info and shared it. THEN I tried to address your post. Give me a break, Dude!

Editing out the expletive I used in response to HEARTLESS. My apologies to other readers of this thread. Seems he got to me.....again.

I might just have to say adios to him, too.

Here's another one: 4 Found Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide at South Carolina Home

Since this incident apparently ended in a suicide, and some have questioned whether suicide should even be included in "gun violence" discussions, does it then not constitute gun violence? Also waiting to see if somehow this incident might have been related to "domestic violence". If that's what did happen, does it qualify as "gun violence" because "domestic violence" has been put out there as different from gun violence?

This, to me, is how conversations about gun violence get convoluted to such a point that we seem to suffer from collective cognitive dissonance on the subject. Oops! Did I just use the word "collective"?

Splitting hairs is not the way to arrive at some kind of solution to a problem - gun violence or not. Bogging ourselves down into the minutiae is, all too often, both counter intuitive and counter productive.

One more link on what I'm trying to point out here: What We Don't Know About Gun Laws Hurts Us

Whether anyone accepts what the author has to say, he makes some valid points as far as I'm concerned.

There's that amorphous phrase again - "gun violence" - which can mean anything anyone decides they wish it to mean, which makes the phrase meaningless outside of the echo chamber it was cultivated in.

Are we next going to start calling all automobile collisions "auto violence"? Makes as much sense as what you are attempting to do here with that other useless phrase . . .

PrintSmith wrote: There's that amorphous phrase again - "gun violence" - which can mean anything anyone decides they wish it to mean, which makes the phrase meaningless outside of the echo chamber it was cultivated in.

Are we next going to start calling all automobile collisions "auto violence"? Makes as much sense as what you are attempting to do here with that other useless phrase . . .

One could also say you're once again using a logical fallacy to compare two disparate types of incidents. Truth is, the "phrase" is meaningless to you. It isn't to me. Where does that leave us? Excuse me, but I'll stick with my interpretation and perception of the "phrase" over yours.

PrintSmith wrote: . . . which makes the phrase meaningless outside of the echo chamber it was cultivated in.

I acknowledged it had meaning to you Z, and why. But don't think for even a second that echo chamber nonsense is going to be allowed to stand unchallenged anytime it is used.

Learned my lesson when those seeking to infringe on the liberty of others cultivated terms like "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" to similarly attempt to vilify those who took exception to having their liberties infringed. Those phrases made it into popular vernacular essentially unchallenged by those who knew the phrases were just a load of hooey. Now this same group of control fanatics is at it again, trying to foment the impression that it isn't a matter of if that gun will cause harm, only when it will cause harm.

Inventing terms to control the tenor of the debate isn't a tactic that will remain unchallenged anymore - the phrase will be challenged whenever it is used to expose it for the empty, meaningless nonsense that it is.

ZHawke wrote: As long as you do not claim guns "save lives", I'm ok with the concept that guns don't kill people.

I haven't read through this thread yet, but I will say that you are 100% correct. Guns don't save people, nor do they kill them...on their own. That said, there are no other tools that I can think of that are as effective in countering another gun or any other weapon being used by a criminal. I see a gun like I do a hammer... a hammer can't build a house on it's own but can if used by someone who knows how to use it. It can't kill someone on it's own either unless used by a criminal strong enough to swing it. But it's not a great self defense weapon against someone else with a hammer, for that I would recommend a gun.