[–] [deleted] 4 points 86 points (+90|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

10
42

[–] EarlPoncho 10 points 42 points (+52|-10) ago 

you can't talk rationally about fat people though. 67% of america is overweight. the second you start a dialogue about it fee fees will be hurt. emotion always rules over logic when it comes to fat fucks

6
32

[–] Quawonk 6 points 32 points (+38|-6) ago 

Same thing with guns.

0
11

[–] ABitStiffyInHere 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

This applies to a lot more than obesity. Most of the political spectrum works solely in feels.

0
2

[–] KSlidz 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

wow that was condescending or assholeish I wonder why people might be offended by you...

0
1

[–] NotAnUndercoverCop 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I've seen some leaps in logic in my day. But, you sir just transversed the grand canyon.

Something something guns, something something fatties, something something fee fees.

OK, where's my 40+ up voats?

2
9

[–] Pawn 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

Let's ban cars! Look at all the death they cause! OR lets ban heart disease?!

0
32

[–] farmer- 0 points 32 points (+32|-0) ago 

Or let's focus on mental health. Mental health is behind suicide, mental health is behind many shootings. One could even argue mental health is behind poor health/obesity (or many people claim they are obese because of eating disorders and food addictions). So, I know you're kidding to prove a point, but I think mental health is the thing to focus on

0
9

[–] Ulluses 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I don't think you can ban heart disease... Although banning obesity and smoking would likely demolish many of the heart disease cases.

0
1

[–] BoiseNTheHood 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

And this is where the anti-gun nuts say "but guns are designed to kill, cars aren't!" Never mind the fact that it doesn't matter what it's designed for, but how it's used in a particular case. Or that many types of guns aren't designed to kill and some automobiles are designed to kill.

2
1

[–] benneb123 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

A car has a good purpose other than killing it is transportation. A gun's only purpose is to kill things. You are defending your self under the assumption that the other person wants to keep on living.

0
2

[–] heavy_meta 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

And terrorists. The media/gov obsession is simple fear mongering aimed at stripping away civil liberties.

0
1

[–] ninjai 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

What?! WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL! WONT SOMEBODY PLEAAE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

[–] [deleted] 0 points 55 points (+55|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
8

[–] vuke69 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

You are correct. I hate it when people mess up percentages.

0
2

[–] gindc 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This article was posted multiple times on "that other voting based web site." It didn't do well once the math error was pointed out. It's kind of sad it made the front page of Voat.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] 2219347 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

But they didn't

4
27

[–] Kaysic 4 points 27 points (+31|-4) ago  (edited ago)

While I'm no advocate of gun control, this is a fairly misleading statistic in that it's... well, irrelevant. Saying that a small percentage of guns are used in murders is like saying that a small percentage of humans, compared to the total human population, is murdered. A small percentage doesn't negate the fact that bad things are being done, just that you have a friggin' huge representative population. For example, the number of M60 Patton tanks used to rampage down the interstate in a spree of destruction and mayhem is .0003% (Shawn Nelson, 1995). However, that percentage is only low because a lot of M6 Pattons were built. The small percentage doesn't negate the severity of crimes committed with that small percentage - which means you won't see civilian-legal battle tanks anytime soon.

Alternatively, the number of people killed by police in America as a percentage of all deaths is .004% (2014). That's a tiny fraction of a fraction (you're more likely to die of a kidney infection), but that doesn't make it any less of a horrific issue.

4
14

[–] U-CAN-TRUST-ME 4 points 14 points (+18|-4) ago  (edited ago)

...A small percentage doesn't negate the fact that bad things are being done...

Oh, really? You're right its still horrific, but obviously guns aren't the problem. What about gangs, the drug war (which makes gangs and cartels money), and the toxic society thats perpetuated through music, TV and other forms of entertainment for profit? Wheres the outrage?

1
11

[–] Kaysic 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

Well, that's precisely my point. The statistic has absolutely no meaning - in some cases it reflects an issue, in some cases it doesn't in the slightest, which means it's essentially worthless as an analytical data point.

1
0

[–] Spectre42 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

It's just as difficult for me to blame a gun instead of a person as it is to blame "music, TV and other forms of entertainment" instead of a person. Music, TV, and other forms of entertainment have nothing to do with taking personal responsibility.

4
-1

[–] peachstealingmonkeys 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

"You're right its still horrific, but obviously guns aren't the problem."

I like how you just brushed off guns from the picture in one simple statement. Is it because guns don't kill people it's people that kill people? It's a fucking tool. A very effective tool at killing and it's specifically designed for that very purpose. Ignoring all of that is a bit .. well.. shocking.

0
0

[–] KiloJuliet 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

What about looking at the number of guns that have saved lives? One of my guns saved my brother's life and my own life. Another one of my guns saved my life on another day.

Idiots say "just call the police" but guess what the police knew that the career criminal and felon (already prohibited from having guns) had gotten weapons and had come to attack me and my family. The first time he tried to knife my brother in front of my house and I went out with a gun and he backed off. He then went to go get guns AND THE POLICE KNEW HE WAS THREATENING US WITH GUNS AND THAT HE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS and they did NOTHING. We got a restraining order which again further bans him from having guns and we petitioned a Judge, his probation officer, two police departments, and other areas of the local government to take his illegal guns away and they DID NOTHING despite knowing clearly where he was and where his guns were and that he had no right to have them.

Here's the sad part. He killed a kid during school hours and got caught before he could come to my house to murder my family and got caught later. They were quick to arrest him after he murdered a child in the government's care, but didn't generally care about the public at all.

Now you tell me "just call the police" again when evil people will do evil things no matter what. If it's not a gun it will be a knife, a bomb, a improvised projectile, or other means. Gun control just means "hand all the power to the corrupt government and criminal enterprise".

In addition in my State, California, we have State Senators and House members trying to ban guns while committing serious crimes such as selling illegal weapons and weapons of mass destruction. They deal with gangs and terror groups both state side and abroad. Senator Leland Yee, Kevin deLeon, Dianne Feinstein, and half a dozen other top level Democrats have been proven to be part of this "ban guns then sell them" scheme and Leland Yee even got arrested, charged, and admitted to racketeering, murder for hire, corruption, and illegal arms deals. This is not the safest state to be without a gun.

Many more guns save people than take lives. Most guns save people by intimidation and shots never need to be fired, but there are no statistics for that because it's not convenient for anti-gunners and a lot of times it goes unreported.

0
0

[–] theoldguy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Murders aren't equivalent to homicides. If you shoot a terrorist holding 300 hostages, it's still a homicide.

2
0

[–] Abstentious 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Someone that makes sense in this thread, thank you, the small percentage is due to the fact there is so much guns in america...

0
18

[–] carbanara 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

I vote to ban those .00004% of guns. The trick will be to identify them before they are manufactured.

0
2

[–] Apoplectic1 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

My money is on punt guns.

0
0

[–] Porphyrogennetos 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You can't ban illegal weaponry. It's already been done. It's the number one reason gun control does not work.

Criminals do not follow the law, because they are criminals.

0
0

[–] carbanara 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Bless your heart

2
14

[–] MaxDragon 2 points 14 points (+16|-2) ago 

The government would still rather their population wasn't armed. You know, in case they(government) push things to far,too fast and the people revolt.

0
9

[–] whisky_cat 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Considering how far they've pushed things already, and all the patriotic gun owners were mostly idle... I feel a 2nd amendment style revolution is more fantasy than reality. If the government pushes things far enough to actually warrant people getting off their asses and into the streets, the majority of the people who protest will likely be non gun-owners.

Ironically, I suspect a lot of gun owners will stay at home for self defense, which is self-preserving but not revolutionary. I'm not for gun control, but the whole people revolting with their guns case isn't the grandiose battle some make it out to be.

Just an opinion on the matter, I do agree any government wishes their country be unarmed for the sake of control.

2
0

[–] noblefool 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

If the government pushes things that far, it's already too late because the USA has let their police force acquire sufficient firepower and tanks/MRAPs. Add the military to that and there's not going to be much of a "Revolution". . .

1
0

[–] The_Adventurist 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Oh whatever. I hear this all the time from the NRA and anti-gun-control advocates and it's stupid.

Your rights have already been taken and I don't see a single gun advocate out there shooting federal agents. We have free speech zones now. It's assumed the government is always watching and listening to everything we say. We can be picked up, detained, and tortured without being given any explanation as to why, nor any guarantee that we'll ever be tried for whatever crimes we're being held for. The police can shoot us with the slightest provocation without repercussions.

Let's not pretend like having guns is actually protecting our rights because that's obviously bullshit.

[–] [deleted] 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] LoyalSol 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Yea because you know. Things like that have never happened before.

4
7

[–] Schrodingers_Spy 4 points 7 points (+11|-4) ago 

This statistic just means there are a fuck load of guns in the US.

1
5

[–] zetsumetsu 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Hey and if you just buy a couple more guns for every person you kill this percentage will shrink even more! This statistic just shows that you guys own a shitload of guns.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 4 points (+9|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

0
15

[–] Gracchi 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

As far as suicides, if we aren't going to grow up about letting people control their lives, I'd rather them have access to a firearm to do it than many of the more horrible ways people are forced to resort to.

0
1

[–] U-CAN-TRUST-ME 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

But then how will they put you in jail for violating the law and taking your own life into your own hands?

0
0

[–] KiloJuliet 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

People who have suicidal tendencies tend to self-regulate when it comes to guns. Either they get 5150'd and prohibited or they just decide not to buy a gun in the first place.

A lot of people end up with suicidal thoughts based on medication or environmental factors. For example sometimes hormone supplements cause people to flip out.

3
0

[–] barrinmw 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Suicide is often due to either treatable mental illness or sudden and overwhelming sense of wanting to do it. The latter is results in suicide when the person has an easy way to accomplish their goal, such as having a gun. It is the same reason why putting up a 2 foot tall fence on a bridge lowers the number of suicides on that bridge.

0
8

[–] bulksalty 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

There's a slight math error in the headline, its 0.004% or 0.00004 as a ratio of all guns.

From the CDC's site for injuries and using 310 million guns.

  • There were 21,175 fatal suicides using a gun in 2013. So suicides involved 0.00683% (0.00007 as a ratio) of guns in 2013.
  • There were 505 fatal accidents using a gun in 2013. Accidents were 0.00016% (or 0.000002 as a ratio), note there's an extra zero in 2013.
  • There were 467 fatal legal interventions involving a gun in 2013, so 0.00015% (or also 0.000002 as a ratio) in 2013.
  • There were 281 fatalities of unknown intent involving a gun or 0.00009% (or 0.000001 as a ratio) in 2013.

That site only shows fatalities, so it can't show how frequently guns are used in non-fatal legal interventions, accidents, or suicide attempts.

load more comments ▼ (33 remaining)