Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Democrats Filibuster For Gun Control" video.

  1. You won't be fighting the US army, you will be fighting state and local government. If the US army were to attack US citizens the states would put an immediate end to it.
    1
  2. In the US you can drive a vehicle without a license if you are on private property. In some states open carry is not allowed. In most states you need a CCW for conceal. There are laws in place.
    1
  3. Gun murders have been dropping for the past 20 years. The US is safe if you avoid pockets of violent areas of high gang activities such as places in LA, Chicago, East St. Louis and so on..
    1
  4. A few things. One, gun murders have been dropping for the past 20 years. Next, the vast majority of gun murders involve gangs and drug deals. Other countries don't have cities like LA, Detroit, East St. Louis, Chicago and so on with high crime. You remove those areas the US is now comparable to those other countries. That is not a gun problem, that is a culture problem. I live in the US and I feel that getting shot by a gun is as likely as being struck by lightning because 1. I am not in a gang 2. I don't deal drugs 3. I stay away from bad neighborhoods, especially at night You have to be careful in reading stats.
    1
  5. The US doesn't have a gun problem. You can't list suicides because Japan has more with stricter gun laws. With crime you have to consider we have pockets of high crime and high gang activities such as Chicago and LA. Remove places like that and crime is low.
    1
  6. "You can list the fact that when we compare households with firearms to those that don't have them, easy access to firearms makes the suicides occur at almost five times more." No you can't because you have nothing to compare to. So someone kills them self with a gun. Do you bring them back to life and tell them to now use another method to see if it is just as effective? No. You have no control to compare it to thus your stat is meaningless. "Yeah, with health you have to consider somebody has pockets of cancer and highly sick organs such as the hearth and the liver. Don't count things like that and they're pretty healthy. You don't get to pick and choose the areas where you don't take into account the problems that the huge amount of weapons in civilian hands has caused to the country..." In the US with over 320+ million people, neighboring which was at one time the most dangerous city in the world, and having an entire race that makes up 13% of the population but around 50% of murders, yes you can pick and choose. You can remove outliers in statistics. I avoid high crime/high gang activity places. My chances of getting shot is very low.
    1
  7. "You compare a household with firearms to a household that doesn't have them." With the same people, same income, same lifestyle and up bringing? Is all other variables held constant? No. I own 4 guns and I have yet to see one jump up out of the stand, load itself and shoot. Now does having a gun increase my chances of getting shot by one? By default yes. Just like driving a car increases my chance of getting a traffic ticket. "So, either only people from households that are much more suicidal buy guns, or maybe, just maybe, not having a gun you can quite effectively use to end your life within few seconds in a household makes people consider their situation more, thus preventing them from killing themselves..." There are several ways to end you life beyond owning a gun, Japan proves that. "So, a bunch of gun violence is an outlier in statistics that are meant to show facts about gun violence?" There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of gun violence, they throw the stats off for the entire country. "You're not the standard of which we use to determine things." You can say the same for millions of people in the country who avoid places of high gang activity.
    1
  8. "If you would have bothered to read the study, it says several times that they adjusted for demographic characteristics." I have read the study and the study said itself, in the discussion section that there are a number of limitations such as the neighborhood a person is living in and that more research is needed. The strongest correlation is with suicides. Gun control advocates want to prevent gun murder and gun related crime which is not suicides. Suicides are a completely different issue that is not gun related. And suicides is self inflicted harm. I suggest you read your studies you cite more carefully. "Yes, so can we assume that you don't feel that it's necessary for Americans to have their guns to be able to end their lives? That we could possibly take away guns from people who are sucidal and maybe return them if and when they have gotten the help they deserve? So that while they're contemplating suicide they'd have to plan for it to take minutes and maybe cause much more pain instead of what time it takes to pull a trigger and what they might feel when a bullet goes through their brain?" Suicide is a non-gun related issue. If you are wanting to ban guns to prevent suicides then why not push to put nets around bridges, or ban alcohol (been tried) or drugs (which is illegal) considering how that is the 2nd method for suicides. At this point it is clear to me that you are more scared of the gun and want to flat out ban it. I have four guns as is. Three are rifles that sit in a stand and are completely harmless. One is a pistol that sits in my drawer by my bed loaded for in home protection. Now to you seems to be the scariest thing in the world. To me that is perfectly safe considering how guns just don't accidentally fire, it is in a holster, and tucked away. Any accidents happening with guns is pure negligence and is not gun related at all. "There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of pollution, they throw the stats off for the entire country. There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of wealth, they throw the stats off for the entire country. There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of car accidents, they throw the stats off for the entire country." I fully agree with what you said.....so whats your point? "When were talking about the gun violence statistics of United States, it means ALL THE GUN VIOLENCE in United States is taken into account. You can't just decide to drop areas out to get a more favourable result." In statistics you can. Let me throw an example here. Say a classroom with student takes a tests and 5 score 70 and 5 score 80. Now say you have another class that take the same test and 5 score 50 and 5 score 100. Both classes average out to be a 75. Does that mean both classes are equal? No. On class is more uniform where another class has students holding back the average. Let us say instead of 5 scoring 50 and 5 scoring 100 you have 7 scoring 90 and 3 scoring 40. What is the average? 75. Are the two classes equal? Based off of that stat yes. But in reality one class is more uniformed where the other has 3 weak students holding back the entire class. You can drop outliers. "But i can't say it to the millions of people in the country who happen to live in places of high gang activity and lack the means to move. And i can't say that either of you are the standard of measurement. No, that would be those statistics you want to fudge to your benefit so much..." People who live in those area have a right to defend themselves. Your source you cited even mentioned about people using guns for protection from home break ins. There are law abiding citizens who live in poor neighborhoods that have a gun for protection. What is wrong with that?
    1
  9. Now let me revisit your earlier comment and what you said. 1. "Oh look, how nice. There's been 5 mass shooting since Orlando..." When you water down the standard of a mass shooting then of course the number will be high. This comes down to when you remove the areas of high crime in the US then the number drops a lot. Out of those 5 three are in places notorious for crime, Brooklyn, Oakland and Chicago. One is in Fresno thus 4 of the 5 are in states with very strict gun laws to begin with. And before you cry about how I just can't drop areas to get favorable results, consider the example I gave about the two classrooms. "the presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio = 4.8)..." I addressed how you can't even read your own sources. ".an almost threefold risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio = 2.7)..." Again, your source stated several limitations such as the neighborhood where one lives. This goes with how you can remove areas of very high crime in the US and crime is very low. Remove the outliers and you get a more accurate representation of what is really going on. "You do know that some people live and work in the "hood" and don't have the financial means to move?" I agree, and they should have a gun to protect themselves. I don't live in the hood and even I have a gun for in home protection. Why do you want to take away their only form of protection? Do you want to take away the locks on their door as well? "You do know that many, if not most of the guns in the hands of criminals are from gun owners that kept them in their cars or unsecured in their houses where they were then stolen from? That the large amount of guns in civilian hands is the reason for large amount of guns in criminal hands?" That is negligence. You can't blame the gun for that. "United States is 18th worse country in the world, when looking at homicides done by firearms. There it is, in the middle of developing- and third world countries." Just don't single out gun homicides, look at overall homicide. I know guns are scary to you, but just because you are scared of them doesn't mean you have to strip rights from others. I feel the ignorance you just spewed is scary but I will never push to have your freedom of speech taken away.
    1
  10. Bernie is retiring, he doesn't care.
    1