Coreece

Just an observation, but the difference that I'm hearing is about socialist programs that are earned vs those that are not. Is that essentially what the argument is?

Like "fetus = person"? Sez the guy who compared a fetus to cake. . . .but then again, atheists do eat babies so I guess that makes sense.

Just to point out the very brief distinction, that's not what it set out to do but that's what it did. When we asked "How do we do this?" the answer was to focus on the poor areas and the poor areas looked like black Americans. The solution then became to over-police and go to war against black Americans. The lessons were all expended on them and now that the opioid crisis is a white rural issue our hears and wallets are wide open - because we know better. Right? I not going to say that it's entirely a racial thing that we're now so supportive of drug users but there's certainly a stark difference in approaches. I can pretty much agree with all of that, but I think some of the differences in approach can be attributed to the healthcare industry's role in the problem and the sheer number of people that have been affected by it, along with the liberal call against the war on drugs in general.

Well, you did start with programs that were specifically in place to target "them". The war on drugs was in large part aimed at incarcerating black Americans. Do you think that a war on guns would have a different effect? But anyway, you'll start hearing a lot more about black incarceration levels and Biden's 1994 crime bill now that he's running for office. The bill called for the sentencing commission to study the 100-to-1 rule which lead to their strong recommendation against it because of the racial disparity and detrimental effect on the black community. Around the same time Clinton made a speech speaking out against the mass incarceration of blacks, but then signs a bill disapproving amendments based on the sentencing commissions recommendations, thus leaving that 100-1 rule intact. And then they'll try to tell you that it was all just an "unintended consequence."

Yeah, like I said, a bucket of water on a raging fire. Your gun related death rate is nowhere near other first world countries. By any normal measurement you are not doing enough. A while back you were talking about a solution that would take generations to work, so it's not really accurate to say that you're not doing enough just because it takes time to see the results. Thankfully tho we have been seeing results with our current strategies and it's taken us less than 1 generation to cut the crime rate in half.

I just now saw what you meant. My bad.

How can you read your last post and honestly think you are doing enough? 3 pages ago I posted how it's sad some people prefer trolling over any effort to spread awareness about proven prevention programs that in many communities are either underfunded or non-existent.

How can you read my last reply to you and then honestly post shit like this?

And you guys are still murdering each other at a rate not really seen at any other first world country. I mean, you have to go to shit holes to see that type of murder rate. Ya, that's why it's called Chiraq - a complete 3rd worldish shithole with gun homicide rates in the 30s and 50s, while rich white people just several blocks away enjoy gun homicide rates at or near 0 and live in communities ranked among the highest when it comes quality of life. And this same fucked up pattern is repeated in almost every major metropolitan area. It's not about celebrating, it's about acknowledging progress and knowing what works and what doesn't. We are implementing new gun laws, we are implementing more CDC violence prevention programs that have been proven to work. The CDC is and has been doing research, and we are proposing funds for even more research. So all of the people that keep saying that we are doing nothing but offering useless thoughts and prayers are quite frankly, full of shit.

You must be using the same bot software Gowlerk is using that completely ignores any relevant content previously stated in our conversation. Yes, we know the numbers show some gun regulations are effective, and others no so much.

I thought we were done talking about abortion.  If you want me to stick to the point then perhaps billvon should finally cool it with his persistent strawmen. Nobody here was talking about how the deaths of certain people don't count because they don't belong to the right category, unless of course he was talking about gowlerk and how he ignored Canadian gun homicides. The only other group that even remotely resembled what he was saying seemed to be the pro-choice types, but to keep this thread from derailing like the last one, I'll concede the later in favor of the former.

You were the one saying that you don't worry about gun violence, as if you don't have to do anything about your gun homicides reaching a 25 year high. Most of the guns in the US are in the suburbs and rural areas that typically have gun homicide rates at or near 0 or well below the national average, unlike some intercity neighborhoods run by democrats with gun homicide rates in the 30s and 50s.

Blaming everyone else and failing to take responsibility for your own problems is not going to help the situation. But wait, you've said that you weren't interested in the stats and debating how many gun deaths is too many. Now, suddenly the numbers matter to you. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Tell that to these people: Toronto Shooting During NBA Victory Celebration Most Recent Mass Shooting at Church in British Colombia, CA Canada's Gun-Related Homicide Rate Hits Its Highest Level in 25 Years Tell it to these families. https://nypost.com/2019/03/19/dozens-of-young-kids-were-victims-of-accidental-shooting-deaths-in-2018/ While it wouldn't provide much comfort, at least I would be factually accurate. The rate did drop by nearly 50% despite nearly doubling the amount of guns. (maybe even more.) You on the other hand would be lying, or at least providing a false sense of security by saying that Canadians don't have to worry about gun violence given the recent mass shootings and reaching a 25 year high for gun homicides in Canada.

Toddlers and adolescents showing off their parents guns would probably fall under proper storage/gun safety solutions. The 13-17 year old gang bangers in Chicago would fall under inner city violence that calls for early violence prevention/education solutions recommended by the CDC. I thought we were done talking about abortion.

I'm open to a different perspective, but if we're going to rely solely on the NRA to provide gun safety training, then we're in trouble. Being that I'm not a member, I doubt they'd care much about how they're not spending my money. Maybe if you join they'll listen to what you have to say about their lifestyles. Personally I'm grateful for any funds they're willing to provide, whether it's 5, 10, 15, 30, 40 or 50 million. It's probably more than any whinging gun control group gives for safety training.

So what's Everytown's reasoning for denying the forensic science other than the number's not fitting their narrative? And is the margin of error large enough to affect the reliability of those numbers? And if forensic M.D's have been so incompetent over the last 20 years, how many suicides did they mistakenly list as unintentional? Or is it all just some conspiracy? Also, there is more to determining a suicide than just examining a dead body. Didn't you just say that's it's not quite as simple as just looking at the numbers? Is it because of the quantity of the laws, or the quality/type of law, among other factors? I just posted how the decline in unintentional shooting deaths has been attributed to gun safety programs and state laws, but you STILL ignored that part of the post and denied the science behind the numbers, which is pretty much what the article is talking about: "Still, neither side of the gun debate talks much about the progress that has been made."

So he's talking about accidents and you're talking about suicides. Part of the problem is that people seem to mesh everything together and expect a few broad solutions to fix the entire problem. Everything has to be addressed accordingly: Rural/suburban suicides/mass shootings vs. inner city violence Rural shotguns/rifles vs. inner city handguns Hunting accidents vs domestic accidents Adult accidents vs child accidents Federal Issues vs. State Issues vs. County Issues vs. City Issues vs. Neighborhood issues etc., etc., etc. . .

Tell that to these people: Toronto Shooting During NBA Victory Celebration Most Recent Mass Shooting at Church in British Colombia, CA Canada's Gun-Related Homicide Rate Hits Its Highest Level in 25 Years Again and again and over and over. . .

Not necessarily, as stated multiple times, the decline in the US has happened despite nearly doubling our guns over the last 30 years or so.

There were 824 unintentional gun deaths in 1999, and 482 in 2015. "Taking into account population growth over that time, the rate fell 48%." "Experts attribute the decline to a mix of gun safety education programs, state laws regulating gun storage in homes and a drop in the number of households that have guns." I know you're not interested in stats and facts, so I guess you can just attribute that decline to all those thoughts and prayers you guys keep talking about. In Canada however, they just keep happening over and over and again and again without any improvement over the last 5 years or so. You guys may want to start doing something about that.

Some Stanford studies suggest that the evolution of reason developed more so for social cohesion rather than the search for truth. Apparently nobody is immune to ignoring facts/evidence. I found these awhile back but they're still relevant/interesting: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Children, behave. Don't you have some some stupid Canadian firearm accidents to deal with? They keep happening again and again and over and over. . .

That explains a lot.

If you focused more on the "foot in mouth" setting maybe you wouldn't have this problem. . .