Wise One wrote:... it's always a treat to battle with you.
Wise, I wish I could say the same about battling with you. Meaning that not as an insult but, strongly to the contrary. I would love for us to lounge over a glass of Merlot. Reading your vast posts reveals that we do share common ground among some issues, albeit firearms obviously not one of them. And I like opposing viewpoints, they make me grind even if not improving my intellectual ability. I feel positively assured that I would sunder from the table being the benefactor of our gathering… if not from the conversation (unlikely), then certainly from the wine.
Wise One wrote:What your tribe ignores, I think willfully so, is balanced assessment of positives and negatives... boiling down to public health results… a gun can save you but it can also kill you. Which is more likely?
What your gaggle ignores, and I am sure willfully so, is that the positives do outweigh the negatives. And I find it humorous you speaking of the Left trying to strike a balanced assessment of anything.
As we well know, benefits and drawbacks can be calculated with every action, item, decision etc. Why are firearms and their use expected to deviate from this fact of life? They don’t. And because they don’t, the Left spins and whirls on the negatives.
Truth too is the skewed data concerning firearms. The negatives are well documented. The police are called, the data recorded (such data is also debatable at times). The positive uses of arms, however, are chiefly undocumented; on a guess ratio of at least 1:500 reported to beneficial occurrences.
Reiterated from my post to fangz, there is no public health issue in relation to firearms. You and I debated this about page 5. This is an unsubstantiated claim of the Left; a repetitive lie. A claim, which lays blame upon a tool and the subsequent action taken utilizing it. The likes of such, blaming an implement, are unheard of in the health community, until this spin that is.
To as which is more likely, being saved by a firearm or killed by one? I am fairly well trained in the use of firearms for combat. I certainly cannot predict if one would save or kill me. However, if faced with that predicament, I think my chances are better when armed. A footnote, the Left would have only the military and police armed if their Utopia existed. Under this, I will remain armed by decree. I have a problem with this elitist stance… yet a debate for another time.
Wise One wrote:…soft anecdotes published by the NRA about how a gun saved the day. Go directly to overall statistics on deaths and the prevalence of guns in the US populace vs. other countries …trumpeting of "but it's my right!" Putting out guns in large numbers is more likely to injure and kill people than not doing so.
First, “it’s my Right!” We cannot just throw out Rights Wise, keeping the ones that suit us and discarding the ones that do not. Doesn’t work that way, I’ve said this to you before. The government does not grant us Rights.
Go directly to the overall stats on deaths and the prevalence of automobiles in the US vs. other countries. Go to the stats of corn chopper deaths in the US vs. other countries. Go to the stats of children poisoned by household chemicals in the US vs. other countries. Go to the stats of poisoning or child abuse in the US vs. firearm deaths of children. Putting out cars, farm equipment, chemicals and miscreants in large numbers is more likely to injure and kill people than not doing so… and these are statistical “duh” moments Wise. All of this argument is subjective.
Your contempt for the NRA is baffling. Why lay blame upon an organization? Because its “contrary to your agenda talk” is unsettling? The “soft anecdotes” published by the NRA are to substantiate its cause, yes. How does such tactic differ from any other organization? The NRA obtains factual data without the need to spin. At least the res ipsa loquitur approach of the NRA is in stark contrast to the “spin it all” tactic of the Brady Bunch.
Wise One wrote:Guns are infectious agents that carry the probability, not the certainty, of injury and death. Releasing a gram of H1N1 flu virus above town at night would elevate flu incidence but would not doom all to death.
I liked it Wise. Nice try. This bucket doesn’t hold a bit of water but, I thought it innovative thinking.
Wise One wrote:If the ubiquity of guns were a net safety factor, we would have lower injury and death statistics than other countries. But we have hugely higher numbers, and it is obvious to all but the ideologue that the benefit is not worth the cost.
Again, I must call statistical “duh.” However, I believe that this issue goes much deeper in society and psychology than simply a surface finding and claim.
If you remove the thug / drug / gang homicides and injuries from the recent stats, this country has a relative good record with firearms. The vast majority of firearm owners are fine and lawful folks. The 2% whom are the scourge of our society get all the attention.
Firearms are a part of our short history. Guns have been present within our society from the first day of John Smith and his blunderbuss. Another factor of this country and society is that we were founded upon violence. From the first days spent defending against those whom did not welcome our intrusion to the present days of self-preservation, firearms are a part of “us.” Marry this to the fact that we cannot raise our children and teach them right from wrong, and the stage is set for the problems we have.
You compare us to other societies Wise. They are not we, none of them, not one… only in the aspect that we are all humans. Just as you, I too hate what transpires in our country. Unlike you, I will not hate the game, I will hate the player. The benefit of arms in our society is certainly worth the cost.
As defined by Wise: Truckie = ideologue.