Dieing of whiteness ... ?

Bollocks! Try harder. (A gun-killing is a WILFUL act. Obesity is just a very bad habit.)

Whether physical or mental our behaviour depends upon certain laws that circumscribe freedoms. And the US needs those limits badly. Because, without them, people think they can do whatever the hell they want to do. Because America is such a Free Country!

Freedom has its limits. Rules are intended to be obeyed - and when a country does not have Adequate Rules, all hell breaks loose and people start killing one another ("to have some fun").

Moreover, given Hollywood's bent for Visual Cruelty (because it pays-off at the box-office), one can understand why some people think it "might be good fun" ... !

 

This guy Jonathan Metzl is so full of crap that he has to vomit in order to cleanse his bowels. He's like the "experts" who claimed tobacco isn't addictive and doesn't cause cancer. Or the other azzhole "experts" who said that sugar isn't addictive and doesn't cause obesity.

The country's refusal to pass new gun control laws is due to corruption between government and the NRA & co. It is the exact same rubbish: tobacco, sugar, pharmaceuticals, GMO's, and guns. Just get the most expensive lawyers and pay-off the politicians.

 

Anger and frustration are not mental-illnesses. There, I just proved you wrong.

 

I don't think "chose" is the right word (nor is it fair) but they certainly have not chosen to learn how to see life from another (healthier) perspective. So I agree with you that it is their own fault but not for the same reason.

 

*shrugs*

So why do you blame 300 million guns for the "actions" of just a few? Only a few thousands of guns are used in crime each year, less than ⅓ of 1% of the total guns in America. 99% of legal gun owners will never use a gun in a crime. 30% of all guns used in crime were stolen and another 30% were acquired off the street. 71% of all the victims of gun crime have/had criminal records themselves. The number of people killed in mass shootings is quite small compared to the number of people killed on the streets of our major cities. Despite your alarmism over automatic rifles, "Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders than rifles were in 2016, according to the Uniform Crime Reporting data. Handguns killed nine times as many persons as rifles, shotguns, and other guns did combined." https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/02/22/fact-check-are-most-gun-crimes-committed-with-handguns/ Guns aren't even used in the majority of crimes. "90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type." Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms So if you can't get worked up over a "few" Muslims committing terrorist acts, why do you get worked up over a "few" guns being used to kill people?

 

Nonsense. We had far fewer laws and rules in 1900 than we do today and our murder rate then was a tiny 1.1 out of 100K people per year.

"In 1900 there were few governmental welfare programs, though religious and community groups were active. New York City and other ports of entry were flooded with immigrants, who often arrived penniless. Whole sections of such cities were filled with recent immigrants who kept to their native ways and tongues. In 1900, 13.6 percent of Americans were foreign-born, compared with 7.9 percent in 1990.(8 ) Only a minority of children finished high school. Overcrowded housing and extreme poverty were widespread, the gap between rich and poor was enormous, and working conditions were deplorable. Racial and religious bias was rampant. There were few firearm laws; New York had not yet enacted its handgun law or California its waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. Yet despite poverty, lack of governmental welfare programs, massive immigration, multiethnic cities, bigotry, and easy access to guns, the homicide rate in 1900 was roughly one-sixth of what it is today."

https://haciendapublishing.com/medicalsentinel/homicide-and-suicide-america-1900-1998

Almost makes you think the people are to blame and not the guns, huh?

People CAN do whatever the hell they want to do. That's why it's a free country.

Hollywood has been making movies about guns since the first Western back in 1903, The Great Train Robbery. Every study on movies, TV, and video games has shown no connection between them and actual societal violence.

 

Goodness, is that all you got?

Moving right along ...

 

While I agree with your opinion on Metzl, you're off-base on sugar. Sugar doesn't cause obesity. From the National Institutes of Health: "Carbohydrate (sugar) addiction, including tolerance and withdrawal, has been demonstrated in rodents but not in humans (Garber and Lustig, 2011)" "In conclusion, I don't see any evidence supporting the view that carbohydrate addiction really causes obesity." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257837/ Neither do junk food or soda. "Despite their bad reputation, junk food, fast food and soda aren't the root causes of America's obesity epidemic, Cornell University researchers contend. While these sugary and salt-laden foods may not be good for your health, the scientists found no significant difference in how much of these foods either overweight or normal weight people consumed. The real problem, according to the researchers: Too many Americans eat too much." https://www.chicagotribune.com/life...-food-obesity-health-1105-20151105-story.html

Not sure what your point on pharmaceuticals is. As for GMO's, here's one report on corn: "A Review of 6,000 Studies Across Two Decades Delivers Its Verdict on GMO Corn" "Perhaps some of this distrust will be put to rest with the emergence of a new meta-analysis that shows GM corn increases crop yields and provides significant health benefits. The analysis, which was not limited to studies conducted in the US and Canada, showed that GMO corn varieties have increased crop yields worldwide 5.6 to 24.5 percent when compared to non-GMO varieties. They also found that GM corn crops had significantly fewer (up to 36.5 percent less, depending on the species) mycotoxins - toxic chemical byproducts of crop colonization. Some have argued that GMOs in the US and Canada haven't increased crop yields and could threaten human health; this sweeping analysis proved just the opposite." https://www.sciencealert.com/after-...s-find-gmos-in-corn-are-actually-good-for-you From Harvard: "Though knowing who to trust and what to believe regarding this topic is an ongoing battle, major health groups, including the American Medical Association and World Health Organization, have concluded from the research of independent groups worldwide that genetically modified foods are safe for consumers [4]. Regarding toxicity, this includes any dangers related to organ health, mutations, pregnancy and offspring, and potential for transfer of genes to the consumer. ... To address these concerns, there have been over 100 research studies comparing the effects of traditional food to genetically modified food, the results of which have been reviewed in various journals [1], [2]." http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/will-gmos-hurt-my-body/ From Italy: "In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists cataloged and analyzed 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number. The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded." https://geneticliteracyproject.org/...foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

As for the NRA, they don't buy politicians. Instead, they target politicians who oppose them and work for their defeat. It's a much more effective strategy. And they don't have to run afoul of the law to do it. "In addition to donations for candidates, the NRA isn’t shy about going negative. In fact, aligning oneself in ideological opposition to the NRA is a surefire way to earn a severe challenge to your election bid. During the 2011-2012 election cycle, the NRA spent more than double ($13 million) against Democrats and a few unfavored Republicans than they spent in favor of their chosen candidates (see figure below). The NRA is an even stauncher enemy than it is a friend." https://www.mic.com/articles/66769/...reakishly-effective-in-the-gun-control-debate

 

Can't answer any of my points, can you.

 

Actually you have no evidence of that, not "plenty".

 

I've said this before and I'll try again. It's the behavior of irresponsible owners that creates most of the problems. A simple solution.
Require gun owners to carry liability insurance on their guns.

A responsible owner that has only self defense guns or hunting guns that uses proper security and safety rules would pay little just like safe drivers with no records and safe cars pay far less than someone with a DUI or a car with 200 MPH on the speedometer.

An owner that is a poor risk, frequent stolen guns for example, pays more until they change their behavior. They will be paying insurance on the stolen gun until it's recovered so if it's used in a crime their insurance will compensate the victims. It may be possible to add a mitigating circumstances to relieve the owner of liability in the case of a stolen weapon despite proper precautions.

An owner with enough weaponry for a small army would pay accordingly. Someone wants a large capacity magazines would pay accordingly. Silencers and other such add-ons as well.

Straw purchases eliminated. Unregistered private sales a thing of the past. Yet people get to keep their guns.

Ultimately, gun manufacturers will make more smart guns and non-lethal guns to make the insurance companies happy.

 

They want to keep their guns like they want to keep their house or car. It’s THEIR property.

This isn’t complex. Government isn’t involved.

 

Dieing of whiteness ... ?

No, I'm dying of trolling.

 

Don't you mean "Dieing of trolling"?

 

No my spelling is better than that.

 

I prefer to use statistics to judge what and who the real dangers are. Rhetoric and scare tactics don’t work on me. I’m not afraid to let my kids play outside because someone might break into my gated community and are just driving by to snatch my kids mid day. Won’t live my life in fear like many peoples because they overestimate the odds of certain occurrences.

Like TDS, it’s a miserable way to live. Thinking there are racists behind every bush. Thinking you’ll get shot every time you leave your house. Terrible.

 

While I don’t endorse this notion, I have noted that most gun enthusiasts are right wing.

But as evidence that the reactionary right wing tends to vote against their own interests without realizing it because powerful interests pander to their fears and resentments, this will do.

Another prime example is the approach the GOP took to the Affordable Care Act.

Under the act, states had the option of expanding their Medicaid programs with Federal money, and offering better subsidies for lower income workers.

35 red states refused to do so, literally depriving millions of people across Trump territory of access to affordable health insurance.

But you won’t hear that on the right wing talk radio.

Tom Franks wrote a book about this phenomena a few years ago, “What’s the matter with Kansas”

 

Perhaps we should legalize suicide and provide facilities for it, this would allow cowards to avoid having to do it themselves and use the Police.

 

"A study from 2007 in the Harvard Journal of Law found that gun control has little effect on murder rates.

In fact, some findings of the study even point to the opposite, that countries with high rates of private gun ownership actually have lower rates than some countries with strict gun control laws."

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/harvard-study-gun-control-does-not-reduce-murder-rates/

In fact, all of the studies that claim that gun control saves lives have to conflate suicide rates with murder rates in order to generate any meaningful results. The only lives gun control saves are potential suicides.

 

Here's why that plan will never work:

"After Connecticut enacted one of the most draconian gun-control regimes in America, official estimates suggest that the overwhelming majority of the citizens targeted by the latest assault on gun rights failed to comply. Indeed, analysts say it appears that most people largely ignored the new statute, which purports to ban numerous non-registered “assault” weapons and standard-capacity magazines. Now, despite resistance by the governor, state lawmakers are reportedly “scrambling” to come up with a possible amnesty plan allowing gun owners to register past the deadline.

According to news reports, some 50,000 newly mislabeled “assault weapons” and 40,000 so-called “high-capacity” magazines (10 or more rounds) targeted under the scheme were registered with state officials by the January 1 deadline. However, estimates and an official report by the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research issued before the new law suggest there are many, many more that went unregistered. Massive non-compliance with gun-registration schemes has been the norm in the United States and abroad, experts pointed out — and analysts say that is likely what happened in Connecticut."

"“Historically speaking, 90-percent or more of those required to comply with gun registration laws in the U.S. refuse to do so, and there is no reason to suspect that this registration attempt in Connecticut is any different,” Owens continued in comments about the radical new registration scheme. “I’ve seen estimates of 1,000,000 firearm magazines that should have been registered under the law, but the state reports registering only 40,000 ... just 4 percent.”"

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...wners-fail-to-register-officials-push-amnesty

 

So only outlaws buy guns, or at least 90% of them. Are you trying to make an argument for confiscation?
I suggest a way to keep their guns and be responsible citizens. You seem to recommend prison and fines.

 

So drinkers and drug users should pay extra insurance according their usage? Do you agree Pot smokers need extra insurance too?

 

No, I'm suggesting that you're never going to take Americans' guns away from them. Any attempt to do so will start Civil War II.

 

I guess facts don't matter to you. The "Great Recession" (Depression) began in 2007, Obama took office January 20, 2009. What devastated the middle class was a housing meltdown, unemployment of 9.5%, crash in financial sectors, and bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler along with their dealer structure. All long before Obama took office. Learn.

 

Exactly when did I suggest taking anyone's gun?