Quetzal
New member
I have been out of town this weekend, so it is very possible I missed it. Sorry about that.
It not about a "gun culture," but a "death culture."
- Thread starter elohiym
- Start date
a) Cell phone grammar on a bus so no worries. b) Starting a rebuttal based on grammar is an extremely weak position to take. It makes look both petty and unable to address the point.
I did read the point and your contention that your two cites proved your point. They did not so I pointed out that your two studies are not comparing the same things based on two different weapons.
Really? Pray tell, why is the hand gun irrelevant to the point you were making? You included all knives but not all guns. Why?
Christian pacifism as demonstrated by Jesus stands up to our death culture, just as he did to the Roman Empire.
The American Empire apparently believes that "Violence Saves."
War, genocide, capital punishment, murder and making decisions concerning another nation's sovereignty keeps the ol' Death Culture going.
It is pure silliness and a lack of imagination and creativity to still believe these days that giving in or fighting back are the only choices available to deal with conflict.
elohiym
Well-known member
I agree. It stands up to it and defeats it, one person at a time.
How do you define death culture? I'm glad you are willing to discuss the idea since that is what the thread is about.
I agree, but how many people actually believe those are the only two choices?
elohiym
Well-known member
I haven't finally arrived at those points, but made them in the OP and then again in the thread.
Countless fallacies? Dozens of strawmen? A straw man is a type of fallacy, so your hyperbole is redundant and ironic ad hominem. :chuckle:
You think the only point that really matters is handguns were used more than knives. Why does that matter? Is this where you finally address the OP and debate the topic?
elohiym
Well-known member
Rather it makes me look like someone not willing to guess what you meant to say when you are unwilling to write a comprehensible sentence.
Do you agree those studies support the claim that there are hundreds of thousands of knife injuries treated in ERs every year and tens of thousands of gun injuries treated in ERs every year?
elohiym
Well-known member
Because my point was, "far more people are seriously injured by knives every year than by guns." See page 17.
The study I included was for all firearms injuries treated in the ER over the two year period. It was intended to show you how few gun-related injuries there are per year compared to knife related injuries, supporting my point above.
Moreover suicide by gun outnumbers homicide 2 to 1, homicide by gun has actually went down while suicide by gun has went up. Kind of an inconvenient truth about death by firearms...
| There were 32,288 deaths from firearm violence in the United States in 2012, a rate that's remained relatively stable over the past few years. But since 2006, gun suicides have increased from 57 percent of all firearm-related deaths, according to research published this month in the Annual Review of Public Health. Gun deaths by suicide have outpaced homicide-related deaths in the United States over the past 35 years. But since 2006, the decrease in gun-related homicides have almost been matched by the increase of gun suicides, according to the study from Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-are-dying-from-gun-suicides-than-homicides/
Dan Emanuel
Active member
This is exactly the kind of thinking that went into my view, that I want firearms, and I agree with the Second Amendment.
:up:DJ
1.0
I agree that it is a half truth.
First error, you included all knives but excluded hand guns. Second error, your stats for knives are based on all knife injuries. Your stats for guns are limited to unintentional injuries.
It's not really all that surprising either. How many people handle a knife every day and compare that to how many handle a gun every day. Your data wasn't normalized.
The way you are using the data makes it a half truth. Your data has not been normalized so you cannot do a one for one comparison. There are liars, damn liars and staticians. You currently fall under the third category.
elohiym
Well-known member
Is it true that more people visit the ER every year for knife-related injuries than gun-related injuries? Yes or no? If you claim it's not true then post some evidence to prove it.
Sorry, won't be a party to your intentional deceptions.
elohiym
Well-known member
You cannot disprove that fact more people visit the ER every year for knife-related injuries than gun-related injuries, so you have to dodge.
Where have you addressed the topic of the OP? (Oh, that's right, you haven't.)
I will not play your game. How many people use a knife on a daily basis? How many people use a gun on a daily basis? You are ignoring that crucial fact.
What you are doing is setting up a false comparison. What you are attempting to do is say something very much like more people are killed in GM products every year than are killed Lexus's therefore GM products are more dangerous.
Not much to address. We have movies where all the problems are solved by killing the bad guy. We have pro life people who would happily kill doctors and mothers for participating in an abortion. On the pro choice side, we have the death of the baby. Both sides agree that somebody must die, they just disagree about who should die.
Excellent post, weird isnt it how they always include suicide in the numbers, guess they dont want people to understand that gun homicides are far far lower than those who defend themselves with them.
Quetzal
New member
Another stat that I came across is that gun related homicides are on a downward trend since the 90's.