More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

[Luxman]

Guns don't kill people, idiots and assholes allowed to own guns kill people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cers-die-on-the-job-in-states-with-more-guns/

 

[BCsSecretAlias]

"As with all studies, this one has its limitations. Because it only looked at correlations between gun ownership and officer death rates, it can't definitively say whether some other unseen factor may have been driving both."

Which makes the article and your thread irrelevant.

 

[Luxman]

Which makes the article and your thread irrelevant.

Regardless of the unseen factors, "More police officers die on the job in states with more guns"!!!

 

[BCsSecretAlias]

Regardless of the unseen factors, "More police officers die on the job in states with more guns"!!![

Half of the deaths are from traffic accidents. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/law-enforcement-fatality-rates-by-state.html DOCTORS ARE THE THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE U.S. !!!!!!!! http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx

 

[Jagger69]

Regardless of the unseen factors, "More police officers die on the job in states with more guns"!!!

And more people die from cancer in states that have the most bathtubs. The fewer the bathtubs, the fewer the incidences of cancer. Can it therefore be deduced that bathtubs cause cancer? Of course not....it all has to do with population density. The more people, the more bathtubs and, correspondingly, the more incidences of cancer.

Statistics can be manipulated to prove almost anything you want if they are spun the right direction.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

We aren't "allowed" to have guns. It is an unalienable right endowed upon us by our creator.

 

[Johan]

We aren't "allowed" to have guns. It is an unalienable right endowed upon us by our creator.

Yeah, the God who said "Thou shall not kill" and whose son said "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give him your cloak as well" gave you the right bear guns. Makes total sense...

 

[Luxman]

And more people die from cancer in states that have the most bathtubs. The fewer the bathtubs, the fewer the incidences of cancer. Can it therefore be deduced that bathtubs cause cancer? Of course not....it all has to do with population density. The more people, the more bathtubs and, correspondingly, the more incidences of cancer.

Statistics can be manipulated to prove almost anything you want if they are spun the right direction.

I agree, statistics can be manipulated, but it's a numbers game, a state with more guns will have more gun deaths.
There are variables that can increase or decrease the number of gun deaths in different states, like better police training, stricter gun laws, more public awareness, better education in schools about gun safety, etc.
But if you mainly look at the numbers, like in the article, more guns = more gun deaths...

People have the right to own guns, but at least make the laws stricter with a waiting period of a week for a background check.

 

[BCsSecretAlias]

Yeah, the God who said "Thou shall not kill" and whose son said "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give him your cloak as well" gave you the right bear guns. Makes total sense...

Commandments and rights are two different things.

 

[Johan]

Commandments and rights are two different things.

Yep, Commandments come from God, Right come from the Founding Fathers (for Americans).

 

[BCsSecretAlias]

Yep, Commandments come from God, Right come from the Founding Fathers (for Americans).

Wrong again. Unalienable rights come from God. Leaders that love freedom recognize that fact and create documents recognizing the rights. Then leftists spend generations trying to dismantle them.

 

[pool_hustler]

We aren't "allowed" to have guns. It is an unalienable right endowed upon us by our creator.

Could be I'm overlooking it, but I can't find anything in the Bible that guarantees anything of the sort.

What I can find is the 2nd amendment; a man made construct (and one I support, btw).

And...would that be the same creator who also created all men equally? (unless you were a slave, or a woman, a non property owner, etc...)

Wrong again. Unalienable rights come from God.

Only in the hearts and minds of the devoutly faithful.
As a counsellor you'd have no material evidence to prove this.

 

[Jagger69]

We aren't "allowed" to have guns. It is an unalienable right endowed upon us by our creator.

Could be I'm overlooking it, but I can't find anything in the Bible that guarantees anything of the sort.

What I can find is the 2nd amendment; a man made construct (and one I support, btw).

And...would that be the same creator who also created all men equally? (unless you were a slave, or a woman, a non property owner, etc...)

Wrong again. Unalienable rights come from God.

Only in the hearts and minds of the devoutly faithful.
As a counsellor you'd have no material evidence to prove this.

The only "inalienable rights" that were ever specifically referred to by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Pretty vague, wouldn't you say? By transference, one could consider the Bill of Rights to be an extension in detail of Jefferson's ambiguous reference so, regardless of your political viewpoint on the proliferation of guns and all the trappings that go with the second amendment, it is really inarguable that this right is indeed "inalienable" from a legal standpoint. Of course, that could be changed with the adoption of an amendment so the constitution, as a living document, was deliberately designed to be subject to alteration (which it has been 27 times, including the original Bill of Rights). Therefore, apparently, man has the ability to interpret what our creator guarantees to us and, in fact, the ability to determine when and in what fashion He has changed his mind when it suits us.

 

[georges]

Some more facts inherent to the matter:
http://fox59.com/2016/07/12/police-man-fires-more-than-a-dozen-shots-into-home-car-of-impd-officer/
http://bluelivesmatter.blue/group-5-opens-fire-police-dc/
http://lawofficer.com/2016/07/arrests-made-after-facebook-posts-urged-others-to-kill-all-white-cops/
http://lawofficer.com/2016/07/federal-raid-tied-to-murder-plot-against-police/

 

[BCsSecretAlias]

The only "inalienable rights" that were ever specifically referred to by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Pretty vague, wouldn't you say? By transference, one could consider the Bill of Rights to be an extension in detail of Jefferson's ambiguous reference so, regardless of your political viewpoint on the proliferation of guns and all the trappings that go with the second amendment, it is really inarguable that this right is indeed "inalienable" from a legal standpoint. Of course, that could be changed with the adoption of an amendment so the constitution, as a living document, was deliberately designed to be subject to alteration (which it has been 27 times, including the original Bill of Rights). Therefore, apparently, man has the ability to interpret what our creator guarantees to us and, in fact, the ability to determine when and in what fashion He has changed his mind when it suits us.

I assume your use of "inalienable" in quotation marks is meant as some sort of correction. Both are correct and the final version used "unalienable" with earlier drafts using "inalienable".

 

[Jagger69]

I assume your use of "inalienable" in quotation marks is meant as some sort of correction. Both are correct and the final version used "unalienable" with earlier drafts using "inalienable".

No....you assume wrong. It's actually a misquote on my behalf to a direct reference of the words Thomas Jefferson used in the Declaration of Independence and the quotation marks were there to indicate same. He did indeed use "unalienable"....my bad. The substance of what I had to say is of much more importance than the use of "inalienable" versus "unalienable". Both words are in the dictionary and have the same meaning so I guess it doesn't really matter.

Thanks for pointing it out, however. I had always thought it was "inalienable". Maybe they should change the name of the document to the "Declaration of Undependence" so everything matches up grammatically as far as the prefixes go??