The last part of this post is the “juicy” content of mine. I am also including the interactions that led up to my “juicy” content.
JGH posted this:
JR wrote: Would it be important if the majority of firearm deaths (in the US) are suicides?
JGH: Is it important how many people use their car exhaust to kill themselves?
MB: Are there really 35k firearm deaths in 2014? Seems a bit on the high end.
JR: (to MB), the CDC reports that in 2014, there were 21,334 deaths in the US by firearm suicide. FYI, I presume that the motor vehicle deaths stats are typically only for collisions / crashes.
MB: So if you subtract the folks who were going to find a way to kill themselves, leaves you with around 10k… So yeah… Alcohol, tobacco and firearms vs nabisco, Kraft, and coca cola…
JR: The number of people killed by “errors in the administration of medication by health professionals” is far higher than all of the above things combined. These are just statistics being used to advance political agendas.
JGH: Oh shit!
BE: They also include firearm deaths caused by people not allowed to own a gun, by regulation. But more regulation should work, right? 😉
JGH: Wonder how many car wrecks are from people that had a suspended license?
PW: They always use suicide to artificially inflate the numbers. Remove suicide rate and it’s another story. Remove gun access from someone who is suicidal they will use a rope, jump from a bridge, over dose. An engineered metal tool that shoots lead projectiles isn’t the problem with suicides. That’s why someone that reports as suicide gets a trip the hospital and gets lock down; They will use whatever.
So now that we’ve identified death as a concern, looking at alcohol related deaths maybe we should regulate that more as well? There are far more alcohol related deaths. Maybe reinstate the old progressive idea of total prohibition? If not, why? Isn’t mitigating death our objective or is this really just about making people not fear other people having guns?
DL: More strict gun control doesn’t work. More thorough weapons training along side a thorough mental evaluation, let’s say yearly would go a long way towards solving the problem.
FM: Why don’t they regulate alcohol? Never quite understood why that killer instinct liquid drug is not more regulated.
JR: They do regulate alcohol. They even criminalized it for a while, but there was far more cash flow for them to regulate and tax it than to criminalize it. The license to sell alcohol is over $10k per establishment.
No one cares about death statistics except for promoting political agendas. The number of deaths per year from abortion are far above all these things. But death itself is not the issue.
The issue is power. If the statistics are shocking to the public, then the government can present the stats in a campaign to regulate some new thing, like if traffic fatalities are high enough, then make a law about seatbelt use and fine people for not wearing them.
A slave owner makes rules to preserve the lives of the slaves because the slave owner benefits from the Human Resources. The governments that extract wealth from their Human Resources have the same basic concern, except with less actual interest in each individual.
To a slave owner with only 50 or 100 slaves, like Thomas Jefferson, he may know most of them by name. He wants them to be compliant and productive and orderly, so he feeds and houses them (like socialism) but also makes sure that they do not have easy access to guns or the keys to their chains.
Governments care much less about their individual Human Resources. The give each of them a number. They also train the youth to grip on to mental and emotional chains on their own (and carry them around everywhere), then send $10k or $20k per year to the government.
Did you kill another of the government’s Human Resources? That is a crime!
Did you kill a lot of enemy British soldiers in a war? Here is a medal.
Did you kill some Native American children and bring their scalps in to the government office as proof? Here is a modest incentive to bring in more scalps in the future.
Did you realize that the government put out a “hit” contract on a foreign leader, (who was probably democratically elected), then go out and assassinate the designated target? If so, there might not be a medal and a public ceremony, but there may be a very big payday. As part of the pay-off, the government might even cancel all of your tax debts or wipe out your seven felony convictions.
Ever heard of “Miranda rights?” That was a case involving a man with the last name of Miranda. He raped some woman and later told some police investigators that he did.
Eventually, he was released from prison (and his conviction was canceled) not because he was innocent, but because the investigators failed to inform him that he has the legal right to decline to confess even if he was guilty. How did the lady that he had raped feel about his conviction being overturned and him being released? I am not sure.
but let’s not talk like the government as a whole is interested in protecting each of us personally. Governments extract wealth from their Human Resources by force.
If the government can get away with criminalizing something and imprisoning a few million people for ten or twenty years, that is good for them. They can tax the public $40- $50k per year per inmate. The more that they can provide convincing justifications to extract more and more from their Human Resources, the better for their business. They want to keep their Human Resources dependent and compliant, right?
governments want the masses to be generally demoralized, but then boost morale a bit by celebrating how generous and brave the government is in regard to protecting the public from all these dangerous people who were arrested for things like unlawful possession of marijuana. The idea is that there is hope for salvation, and the government is that hope. Also, there is a general paranoia that if the government disintegrated, then how would the city water in the city of Detroit be kept clean?!?!