More Guns = More Gun Deaths (Everything else is spin and bullshit)

Filed in National by on February 20, 2018

Gun fetishists, 2nd Amendment enthusiasts, mass murder supporters have so many arguments. They are all bullshit. The United States has more guns and as a result we have more gun related deaths.  You don’t have to be a statistician to see the relationship.


About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (42)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dave says:

    See, that’s the kind of narrative/message that is not subject to dispute or other interpretation. Australia, UK, Canada have deranged people just like the U.S. So what’s the missing element?

    It’s a simple message. It is accurate. The data can be correlated and it’s not very easy to blame any other factor (which they will try and do).

    More guns = more deaths. A problem unique to nations where guns are prolific.

  2. Alby says:

    Yeah, that argument — everyone else is doing it so why can’t we? — has worked so well with health care.

    Yikes. I seem to be thinking entirely in rock album titles.

  3. Alby says:

    I predict that Republicans/NRA whores will come to the point at which they will say that because public high schools attract crazed gunmen, we have to get rid of public high schools.

  4. jason330 says:

    I was on a FB Thread yesterday with some NRA types. I was keeping it civil asking questions.

    David: We use guns to protect our president, Congress , senators, banks etc, but not our most precious commodity. Hire ex military or retired police to patrol our schools.

    Elena: And let those teachers and staff who are willing, be trained and armed to protect our schools.

    Jason: That sounds pretty expensive at a time when we are cutting funding for schools and school protection. Would you guys favor a tax increase if it was going to fund these items? I’m seriously asking.

    After that question the thread was over.

  5. Dave says:

    “Yeah, that argument — everyone else is doing it so why can’t we?”

    That’s not the argument. The argument is if they have deranged people, why don’t they have the gun deaths we do?

    We shouldn’t suggest that we do what “they” are doing. We should simply ask, why don’t they have the gun deaths? Let other people do the math. If they want to try and say it’s not because of the guns, we can say “we didn’t say it was,” “so what it is then” Let them fluster for an answer.

  6. Alby says:

    @Dave: My bad, I was trying to say the same thing you’re saying, but I was too clever by half.

    I’m not arguing for specific gun control laws, though I would argue that a nation based on popular sovereignty is violating that principle when it won’t pass a law favored by 90% of the public. I’m saying “if everyone else can do it (prevent gun massacres) why can’t we?”

    It’s the same argument I make on health care. There are a number of ways to achieve monopoly (single-payer) insurance for health care, but there’s no debate it would save money. The evidence shows everyone else can do it, so why can’t we?

    I find the hardest part of making these arguments is that most American conservatives are highly parochial and can’t imagine that life in any other country has any feature worth emulating.

  7. Alby says:

    @jason: You made a basic mistake. Go back and look: I’ll bet every other comment on the thread could have ended with, “Hell yeah!” Yours couldn’t.

  8. RE Vanella says:

    Wow. Never seen anything like it! Considering how receptive the US polity is to reasoned argument and facts this looks like a slam dunk. Even Dave approves!

    The idea that the problem we need to solve is to just come up with an unimpeachable sales pitch is adorable.

    I guess with a clear message like this I expect new legislation any day now. Great work, everybody!

  9. Alby says:

    @RE: Don’t worry, I got this. I speak centrist.

  10. Arthur says:

    my favorite thing i read online was someone defending owning ar-15 style weapons for private needs should we require a militia. So if some other country invades us and our military, reserves, police, etc arent able to protect us we want these people running around in their cabelas camo?

  11. Alby says:

    George Soros will stop at nothing! Now he’s enticed actor George Clooney and his wife to join the March 24 march on Washington by the “Florida high school students” he’s using as a front for his commie ways.

  12. RE Vanella says:

    Cutty say he can’t hang… Classic.

  13. Dave says:

    @Jason “After that question the thread was over.”

    Let them come up with the answer. All you have to do is lead them down the path. Some are too smart to take the bait, but most aren’t. Imagine if you had to pay teachers hazardous duty pay on top of their teaching salary!

    I’ve spent years doing exactly that with my brother, to the point where he doesn’t even engage or offer opinions when I’m around.

  14. Dave says:

    “The idea that the problem we need to solve is to just come up with an unimpeachable sales pitch is adorable.”

    Or…you can just get in their face and shout them down. But I’d have to ask, how’s that working for you so far? How many kids have you saved?

    To a hammer everything is a nail. I get it. Seen that all my life.

  15. jason330 says:

    RE Vanella is right of course. I don’t expect this or any well-reasoned, well explained arguments to change anything. Nor is any shouting in anyones face. This isn’t 1776 or even 1996. This is America 2018, and the only thing that wins is brute legislative force.

    The only thing that wins is brute legislative force.

    Republicans get it, so they win. Democrats don’t, so they lose. (Or, it is more accurate to say, lose on the few items they happen to disagree with Republicans on.)

  16. jason330 says:

    Just an addition wake up call for poor Dave – Debates require two sides that both buy into the rules. We don’t have that, so no message, however cleverly crafted, means shit.

  17. Alby says:

    “I’ve spent years doing exactly that with my brother, to the point where he doesn’t even engage or offer opinions when I’m around.”

    You haven’t changed his mind, though. What he is doing is denying reality by refusing to engage it, which is what all conservatives would rather do than admit they were or are wrong about something. Anything, really. These are people who treat politics as a cult. Statements are of faith, not fact.

  18. RE Vanella says:

    I didn’t want to have to go there, but I’ve personally saved the lives of nine children in three separate incidents.

  19. Dave says:

    That’s true, but at least you tried. Maybe you reached one person, who might reach another. Still your point is taken, that no debates, brute force demonstrations, or anything else, is going to be as effective as legislating the issue, in much the same way that seat belts were legislated.

    And for that you need to win elections. All you have to do is figure out how.

    I’m primarily a pragmatist, not a centrist. I look for strategies that will work. I’ve never been the Man from La Mancha.

  20. Alby says:

    My apologies, then. I think being a pragmatist makes one something of a centrist of necessity — politics being the art of the possible and all that. Were I to work in the political realm, I would be a pragmatist, too, which is why I cut slack to pragmatic politicians, provided they display integrity.

    That said, that’s the reason I would never work within the political system. Once upon a time I believed in pragmatism and incremental change. At my age, the increments are running out, and I realize that if some of us don’t argue for radical change, the pragmatists will be dragged inexorably to starboard.

  21. Alby says:

    “And for that you need to win elections. All you have to do is figure out how.”

    Fair elections would be a good start. That’s why they fight so hard to keep them unfair. And they’ve done it quite well. Democrats got more votes than Republicans for President, the Senate and the House, yet control none of them.

    The American system was set up to ascertain and express the will of the people. To subvert them is un-American; to do so with the help of an adversarial foreign power is treason. The time for convincing people of anything is long past. It’s time to fight.

  22. waterpirate says:

    We need real gun control now. How we get there I am a little sketchy on. A start without trampling any ones rights, would be to make the federal back ground check system really work. Make information from all federal agencies including the military part of the system.

    Gun ownership is not a right, it is a choice, that should be monitored.

  23. Woodt says:

    I don’t own guns. I think we should try and solve problems. Police obviously dropped the ball. Several dozen calls to this guy’s home. FBI obviously dropped the ball. 3 complaints to the FBI in January. My question is this, besides some new gun and security legislation, what are we going to do to fix this problem with the authorities. And if we are not going to fix it, then exactly who should people report dangerous people and situations to?

  24. Alby says:

    I’m sorry, Woody, but I don’t want the FBI coming to my house because someone is “concerned” about my behavior or something I say. That whole line of argument is pure bullshit. Ever hear of swatting? People get killed that way.

    People ratting on each other is no substitute for getting rid of guns.

  25. Woodt says:

    But Alby, even if we get rid of the guns, who are we supposed to report danger to. The police went to this guy’s house about 36 times. Please offer your suggestion as to who to report danger to in lieu of fixing the police and FBI. Remember, even minus guns, there is still lots of danger in the world.

  26. Alby says:

    If they went to his home 36 times and couldn’t find a reason to arrest him, exactly what do you want them to have done?

    “There is still lots of danger in the world.”

    If you want to live your life in fear, go ahead. Leave the rest of us out of it.

  27. Woodt says:

    Alby, you are not answering the question. If, the police and FBI are offered up the mass murderer on a stick, meaning his public, documented, specific mass school shooting threats which involved the police and FBI on 39 separate ocasions, did not make them take action to stop him, and another threatening, dangerous situation arises, who should we notify to try and prevent another tragedy?

  28. Alby says:

    And you are not understanding the situation. They went to his home 36 times and found no reason to arrest him. Do you think they should have arrested him? On what grounds, being scary to you?

    They were not “offered a mass murderer on a stick.” Until he started killing people, he wasn’t a mass anything. He was a mentally ill kid without resources, and neither you nor I know what cracks he fell through. So stop looking to cast blame.

    It’s not my responsibility, or yours, or the neighbors’, to prevent another tragedy. The tragedy isn’t the mental illness, it’s the guns.

    Your question is invalid. I don’t give a flying fuck who you call.

  29. Alby says:

    Here ya go, Woodman: Some schmuck was overheard saying he was going to shoot up the school and got arrested for it. Cops searched him and his home and found no weapons. So he’s got that on his record just because he said something stupid and some quivering lump like you got scared. Probably had something to do with his scary black skin.

    If that’s the country you want to live in, go to hell. That’s a police state.

  30. Woodt says:

    “It’s not my responsibility, or yours, or the neighbors”. Alby, I was wondering how long it would take you to stumble on to the solution.
    Liberty = Responsibility

    If we want to keep our freedoms we have in this country, we must all take responsibility seriously. This means it is up to the citizens to help protect and lookout for each other. Without individual responsibility, there can be no individual freedoms.

  31. Alby says:

    What are you babbling about? What “freedoms”? The freedom to own guns? Worth nothing to me, thanks all the same.

    Your quivering asshole is not my problem. If you’re that scared go see a shrink. Personal responsibility. You should have lived in East Germany. The Stasi would have been right up your alley.

  32. Liberal Elite says:

    @wp “A start without trampling any ones rights, would be to make the federal back ground check system really work.”

    That’s just a bandaid. That will not solve anything.

    The first step here should be to ban all assault rifles. Let the people keep their handguns and hunting rifles, but no civilian needs an assault rifle.

    Simply ban the AR-15 and anything remotely like it.

  33. waterpirate says:

    That would be the sketchy part. How do you put the genie back in the bottle? What do you do with the guns already in circulation? What do you do with people who do not surrender the genie? These are the questions I have that do not have clear solutions to me.

  34. puck says:

    “What do you do with the guns already in circulation? What do you do with people who do not surrender the genie?”

    First thing is a ban on manufacture and sale of assault weapons, and then good research from the CDC and other credible groups. We need good information on the circumstances of acquisition for each gun used in a mass killing.

    At the very least, a ban on the sale would cut down those mass killings where the killer walks into a gun store and easily buys the means of his crime. Sure he could then steal his assault weapon or buy it on the down low, but let’s make them work for it. If we didn’t make it as easy as buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks, a lot of them would give up on their plans. If nothing else, a ban would raise the price.

    That said, we have two totally separate gun problems in America: 1) psychos with assault rifles in their duffel bags, and 2) thugs with handguns in their waistbands. Different perps, different victims, different solutions.

  35. Rufus Y. Kneedog says:

    I think if a referendum were held today, at least 75% of the citizenry would favor banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons. There should be time to get that on the mid-term ballot. Where is the leadership to make it happen? A democratic presidential hopeful should be jumping on this issue. This should be far less controversial than shoveling dirt on Al Franken’s political career.
    As for the ones in circulation today, as a practical matter leave them out there. They can become treasured heirlooms, fall into disrepair and gradually disappear. Although within a week we’ll read about how gun sales are through the roof again.

  36. Dave says:

    @wp “how do you put the genie back in the bottle”

    1. Stop the growth – ban AR-15s
    2. Subtract from the remaining total – Implement turn in programs
    3. Subtract from the remaining – Seize AR-15s when they are encountered
    4. Subtract from the remaining – Render useless (from lack of use, lack of cleaning, etc)
    5. Subtract from the remaining – Prohibit sale of ammunition that may be specific to the most common AR-15 calibers (.223 and 5.56 as the most common)
    6. Repeat 2,3,4 ad nauseam

    This problem did not appear overnight. Nor will it go away overnight. (A pragmatic and incremental solution that will work, cause that’s what I’m all about)

    The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Lao Tzu

  37. Woodt says:

    Alby, your responses to my arguement are unrelated to what I am talking about. I don’t know why you think my arguement infers that I am afraid or scared of everyday things. I’m not, but even if I were, it’s not related to my liberty equals responsibility discussion. We have thousands of freedoms in this country. We can travel freely around the country. We can hangout with our choice of friends. We can spend our hard earned money how we want. We can choose whether or not to believe and, or practice religion, and we our free to practice whatever type of religion we choose. Yes, we can own guns. Yes we do have freedom of speech. These freedoms I have listed are just the tip of the iceberg. Now, to maintain these freedoms as a nation, great responsibility is required. If a wreck less driver passes you driving the wrong way on a one way road, would you not stop as soon as it was safe to do so and call police? Of course you would. If you saw a strange man force his way into a neighbor’s house and then you heard a girl scream, would you not try and help or at least call the police? Of course you would. If you felt a local elected official was doing a horrible job, would you not make sure and vote in the next election to try and remove that person from office? Of course you would. These are all responsible actions that you would take. Well, if a troubled kid that you knew showed how he was going to get a gun, and that he was going to shoot up a school, would you keep it to your self or tell someone? And if you told the authorities, would you not want them to take your suspicion of danger seriously. And finally, would you not be highly disappointed in the authorities if they just “blew you off”. Of course you would, and that’s what makes a responsible person.

  38. Alby says:

    Dude, I just don’t care. I mean, go to town, but I’m not interested in a dialog about this. I have more important things to do that explain life to someone who’s not getting it on purpose.

    What part of this don’t you get: The authorities responded, and could not arrest him because of the “freedoms” you jabber on about but clearly don’t understand. They could not charge him with any crime.

    I refuse to spend money on flagging mentally ill people for gun-buying purposes when we won’t spend enough money on mentally ill people on any other front. I’d rather treat them and get rid of the guns altogether so I never have to worry about them getting hold of any. You either, for that matter.

    This is a thread about guns, not mental health, and I don’t want to have a conversation with you about mental health. We’ll let you know when we’re coming for your guns, though.

  39. Alby says:

    @Dave: That’s pretty much how they handled it in Australia, isn’t it?

  40. Woodt says:

    “We’ll let you know when we’re coming for your guns though”
    Alby, refer to the first sentence of my first comment. “I don’t own any guns.”

    But, we can always use Mexico as a successful gun ban example, can’t we?

  41. Jason330 says:

    Mexico has the bad luck of neighboring a country with about of control gun problem.

  42. Alby says:

    Don’t understand why you’re defending somebody else’s dog in the fight, then.

    The haven’t touched the 2nd Amendment — in fact, they’ve expanded it, and gun nuts have done nothing but push for more. The Amendment SCOTUS threw away was the 4th. I’ll fight for the 2nd only after I get the 4th back.