General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan somebody please explain this to me? Anybody?
The Israeli Palestinian conflict has raged for 9 days.
They are at war with each other using rockets, missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. Deaths have reached more than 200.
Meanwhile in America about 750 people have been killed with guns.
President Biden is calling for a cease fire in the Middle east region. Can we have a cease fire here in America?
I just don't understand how two Peoples at open war with each other using weapons of mass destruction can only manage to kill 200 while we here in America can kill three times that with easily available civilian guns while we are at peace.
Can somebody please explain this to me? ANYBODY??
(because somebody will ask for a link to support my numbers, JUST GOOGLE IT FOR GOD'S SAKE)
NQAS
(10,749 posts)But blowing shit up is also an objective.
Or maybe both sides could call gor s brief cease fire to study Americas success in the death by guns arena.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)but Biden and others have been calling for an end to gun violence in America for years. But it's not the same or as simple as calling for a ceasefire in an escalating conflict in another country.
Among other things, gun violence is random, committed by various people across the country for various reasons. Thousands of people aren't going to stop engaging in it because the president of the United States tells them to cut it out. And he has no leverage or bargaining power with them. The most he can do is work for policies that help to reduce the violence, but as we know, that's very difficult to do given the current political environment and players.
On the other hand, the situation in Gaza is an armed conflict between identifiable warring governmental or representative entities engaged in for very clear, limited, and specific purposes. The United States does have some leverage over them so the president calling for a cease-fire has some weight to it.
I definitely hear you, though. It has to end.
Shrek
(3,970 posts)AndyS
(14,559 posts)and destroys property and infrastructure while indiscriminately making victims of anyone in the area is a WMD. The term is not restricted to chemical or biological agents.
diverdownjt
(699 posts)I did not know that...I just think it's what everyone assumes...and you know that does?
Tarc
(10,472 posts)The previous user is conflating the the US legal definition with the accepted international definition of WMDs.
WMDs, as a person with common sense understands it, are not being used in the current Middle East conflict.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)You win! About 85 Americans a day lose. Every day for years.
But you win. Good for you.
Happy now?
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Next time, don't make untruthful statements and you won't be called out.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)My definition of wmd and yours are both correct depending on who you ask. That's why I have given up on 'link please' responses.
It is not my job to spoon feed information. I see it as your job as a consumer of information to verify anything you see as suspect. If I'm going to lie to you I'll just find links to support that lie.
In this case you questioned my use of WMD, did your work and found something that satisfies your belief that I lied. I'm okay with that.
Perhaps definitions change over time as well. The US was warned of using WMD indiscriminately in Cambodia and Vietnam after carpet bombing from B-52s. No chemicals involved, just lots of 500 pound HE dumb bombs. At the same time the use of Agent Orange went unquestioned.
All that said, nobody made you the final arbiter of how discussions are to be carried out and while we quibble over definitions people die needlessly at an average of 85 a day so gun makers can maintain a profit margin.
back at cha'
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)ShazzieB
(15,952 posts)All the gun killings in the U.S. are perpetrated by a small percentage of our population, but a small percentage of over 330,000,000 people is still a lot of people.
SYFROYH
(34,127 posts)That's the ticket.
bucolic_frolic
(42,663 posts)ffr
(22,645 posts)you'll find that ~64% of those using guns to kill are using the weapon on themselves. I didn't know that until now.
According to Wiki, 2018 showed 38,390 deaths by firearms in the U.S., of which, 24,432 (64%) were by suicide and 13,958 (36%) were homicides.
But to follow your point, even at 13,958/yr for a 9 day period, that equates to 344 people who are killing others, which is still beyond the 200 used in your example and thus your point still holds water.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)A few facts about suicide.
Attempted suicide by gun is 80% successful.
Attempts by other methods are only about 25% (by method varies)
Failed attempts are subsequently attempted and completed only 10% of the time.
Removing guns from the suicide equation would reduce deaths by 50%.
Finally, if 20% of attempts by gun are unsuccessful, what does survival look like? Care to do a google image search on that topic? I don't think you'll enjoy the results. On the positive side it has improved the medical procedure of full face transplant.
hunter
(38,264 posts)... went out on a call that turned out to be a murder / attempted suicide.
They saved the guy who had murdered his wife but he'd splattered too much of his brains to ever stand trial. He died many years later in state care.
I think that call turned my brother off any kind of emergency medicine forever. There are many less horrible ways to make the world a better place that don't involve splattered brains, which is kinda like where I went as well with PTSD I don't talk about here.
My wife and my sister are made of sterner stuff. They save everyone. That modern Hippocratic Oath is a hell of a thing.
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
w
I HATE GUNS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency!
AndyS
(14,559 posts)To experience such horror and carnage first hand is something that, thankfully, few ever do.
For those who dedicate their lives to willingly do so in service to that oath there are also no words to express what should be everyone's gratitude.
heckles65
(544 posts)That's been responded to six ways to Sunday. It's death from firearm, yes it counts.
Groundhawg
(517 posts)All we have to do is get the shooters to stop. Let's ask the shooters in Israel to do the same. Easy peasy.
dlk
(11,432 posts)The media likes to report on the novel-new and unusual types of events events. There is nothing unusual about mass shooting in our country. They happen every day. Gun violence has become common and to be expected. Too many Americans have become numb to the bloodshed.
AZ8theist
(5,339 posts)The current conflict in Israel is one-sided, as usual.
The rockets Hamas are firing at Israel are low tech, and not very effective. Israel's "Iron Dome" defensive system, shoots down as much as 90% of incoming missiles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome
https://www.vox.com/22435973/israel-iron-dome-explained
The vast majority of those killed are Palestinians: (213 vs 12)
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/554031-palestinians-go-on-strike-amid-airstrikes
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-may-18-2021/#liveblog-entry-2547259
As far as the gun violence problem here in the United States, the answer is quite plain: Stop electing Republicans.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)The one with the gun is the one that kills.
To paraphrase James Carville, 'It's the guns, Stupid!'
Probatim
(2,457 posts)If we weren't so beholden to Israel and the end times, we would take steps to address these atrocities.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/
mac2766
(658 posts)where Israeli subject matter is concerned, I'm mostly ignorant, but...
What little information that I have on the subject has lead me to believe that we, as a country, should really take a strong look at policy where Israel is concerned. I'm all for supporting their causes, but not to the point that we allow them to commit human rights violations against the Palestinians.
Again... bear in mind how I began this reply.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If you're just walking the streets, you aren't prepared to be shot.
Towlie
(5,307 posts)
?
Why don't you google "Trump" along with "without evidence" and remind yourself of how he abused, and continues to abuse, his ability to spout claims without evidence. We can't criticize him if we do the same thing ourselves.
Don't be lazy, take some pride in what you post. Links aren't hard to add. There's even a "link" button that inserts the code for you. If you want people to "google it for God's sake" then provide a link to the specific google search, like the one I provided above.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)long years of 'debating' gunners has taught me that the 'link please' is a passive aggressive way of calling someone a liar.
I'm frankly tired of spoon feeding information to those who don't want to accept it. I recently responded to some on with a few links for information and the response was, and I'm serious, 'I wanted an article with bullet points'.
intheflow
(28,406 posts)Your defense is that because gun nuts troll you, DUers dont need any evidence of your claims, either. smdh Youre making multiple claims citing actual numbers. Depending on your source, they could be on the money, way undercounted, or way overcounted. As a librarian, lemme tell you, Google is not at all an infallible source. It returns a lot of trash, it returns different sites to everyone, and where you get your info is REALLY important in this age of rampant disinformation.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)I'm tired of spoon feeding information that some respondent disputes because they have a different source.
If I make a claim and you don't like it find your own information. I'm tired of dueling links. You can find them right here in this thread.
Don't like my attitude? My feelings aren't hurt. I no longer care about 'link please' arguments.
Find your own facts, that's what you'll do anyway.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)Get American shooters to announce where they are going to be operating, so people can stay away.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)Republicans in Congress
AndyS
(14,559 posts)The US has more of them than any other civilized country and we are constantly loosening the availability and ease of brandishing them in public.
If more guns make us safer the US would have the lowest homicide rate among advanced nations instead of the highest.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)AndyS
(14,559 posts)The sky is blue. NO, the sky is actually cyan!
I see it as your job as consumer of information to evaluate what you read. I can link to anything to make a point. The blind acceptance of linked information is what gave Trump his power. I can find links to prove that shape shifting lizard people from another dimension have a world government orchestrating all the events we see.
THINK for yourself. Don't just accept something because it has a 'link'.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)AndyS
(14,559 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)BobTheSubgenius
(11,535 posts)I'm afraid there is no satisfactory answer. If, as the 2nd Amend. people claim, guns don't do the killing, and guns are necessary to stop other people with guns, the only explanation is that there is something wrong with Americans. This seems unlikely, based on statistics alone. That leaves a third, as yet unknown or even posited theory.
I too am all ears.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)adjusted for population, the equivalent number of deaths in the USA would be fifty times higher. This is why "rate per 100K population" is a thing in measuring things like this.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)4,000 people a day to die? Instead a war in a small country that lasts a month or so is supposed to allow us to ignore 85 people a day to die every day for 50 years?
A 'war' has a beginning and end. Gun violence in this country only has a beginning.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)that's what the equivalent death rate per capita in the US would be.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)That's a great excuse to ignore the day by day violence that infects the country I live in.
I guess I'll just have to get over it, right?
I'm talking about human lives and all ya' got is statistics? Good answer, great point, good luck with that.
Zeitghost
(3,796 posts)One can point out the error in logic/stats with the op and still care about gun deaths.
Evolve Dammit
(16,632 posts)Tarc
(10,472 posts)The US legal definition is not applicable to international events; the accepted international definition of WMDs is.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)You can find ANYTHING you want on the WWW to support a point of view.
It's selective linking. MY link is better than YOUR link.
Meanwhile people die. People are maimed. Hundreds a day.
All while those of us not being shot argue over definitions.
Great point you made there.
You win 85 people a day in America, land of the free, lose.
Roc2020
(1,603 posts)and horrific fact