Last Vegas strip shooting: More than 20 dead, 100 injured after gunman opens fire near Mandalay Bay

[SlowSpyder]

The main difference there is people choose to smoke and (hopefully) also understand the consequences. People don't choose to be randomly murdered by some lunatic armed with an assualt rifle that he bought at walmart. Can you see what you have posted isn't really a cogent argument? That it's comparing apples to oranges? If people were charged with murdering themselves because they chose to smoke it would make a lot more sense.

Perhaps doing a comparison with murders that involve people randomly dropping fridges from a great height onto other people would make more sense? Yeah?

Victims of 2nd hand smoke are innocent and did not choose to be poisoned to death by some guy that bought a pack of cigs at Walmart. Why do so many of you miss this very obvious point I am making, is it because you are frothing at the mouth to say something anti-2A that reading comprehension goes out the window? The point above, and that I've maintained since go is comparing innocent victims to innocent victims. If you want to include self harm we can do that too, but guns only look even less harmful in comparison.

*edit - I just have to come back to this, because it is mind boggling. I posted the numbers from the CDC, and quite clearly used second hand smoke statistics (41000 / 365). If I used all smokers it'd be 480000 / 365, or more than 1300 dead a day. There isn't a ton of information there to confuse anyone, how on earth did you come to the reply you posted based on what I posted? And bobo likes your comment, I am not shocked...

 

[pmv]

Victims of 2nd hand smoke are innocent and did not choose to be poisoned to death by some guy that bought a pack of cigs at Walmart. Why do so many of you miss this very obvious point I am making, is it because you are frothing at the mouth to say something anti-2A that reading comprehension goes out the window? The point above, and that I've maintained since go is comparing innocent victims to innocent victims. If you want to include self harm we can do that too, but guns only look even less harmful in comparison.

Have you found the data about the years of life lost, yet?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Have you found the data about the years of life lost, yet?

No, I have not looked. I am not sure that data is documented in any complete way that is easily accessible. But, if you have something worth sharing, I'm listening.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Victims of 2nd hand smoke are innocent and did not choose to be poisoned to death by some guy that bought a pack of cigs at Walmart. Why do so many of you miss this very obvious point I am making, is it because you are frothing at the mouth to say something anti-2A that reading comprehension goes out the window? The point above, and that I've maintained since go is comparing innocent victims to innocent victims. If you want to include self harm we can do that too, but guns only look even less harmful in comparison.

*edit - I just have to come back to this, because it is mind boggling. I posted the numbers from the CDC, and quite clearly used second hand smoke statistics (41000 / 365). If I used all smokers it'd be 480000 / 365, or more than 1300 dead a day. There isn't a ton of information there to confuse anyone, how on earth did you come to the reply you posted based on what I posted? And bobo likes your comment, I am not shocked...

what do you hate personal freedoms so much?

 

[Puffnstuff]

You don't care about saving lives.

Check out death on two wheels.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcycles/fatalityfacts/motorcycles

 

[Jhhnn]

There ought to be a 12 step program for military firepower fetishists....

 

[pmv]

No, I have not looked. I am not sure that data is documented in any complete way that is easily accessible. But, if you have something worth sharing, I'm listening.

Well, I have general knowledge - which is that smoking related illness tend to kill quite late in life. And the ability to use google. And a very quick google suggests that smoking leads to a reduction in lifespan of 10 years on average.
The average age of those killed by guns in the US seems surprisingly hard to find, but wiki does state:

17- through 19-year-olds were 4.3% of the overall population of the U.S.[94] This same age group accounted for 11.2% of those killed in firearm homicides.[95]
The 20- through 24-year-old age group accounted for 7.1% of the population,[94] while accounting for 22.5% of those killed in firearm homicides.[95]
Those under age 17 are not overrepresented in homicide statistics. In 2005, 13- through 16-year-olds accounted for 6% of the overall population of the U.S., but only accounted for 3.6% of firearm homicide victims

Which supports the obvious conclusion - that for each of those deaths you refer to, far more years of life are lost to guns than to smoking (and I would suspect that for 'passive smoking' the years lost is still lower, as the dosage per year would be far lower and there would be fewer early cases).

It's all very well for you to say you haven't looked, but you are the one who has been throwing around comparisons of raw death counts, which doesn't actually tell us anything, as what matters are years of life lost (for purposes of public health and social policy, not for individuals of course). So if you want to carry on making that argument you need to actually find the data. You are the one making the argument, you need to supply the data. But I'll take a shot(!) at it.

The crudest calculation suggests that for the 112 passive-smoking deaths a day the years lost would be 1120. For the gun case the figure would be equal if one assumed an average gunshot victim was about 45 years old. But the stats above imply that is highly unlikely to be the case, what with nearly 40% of victims being under 24.

So we are left with the conclusion that gun violence is a more serious problem than passive smoking.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well, I have general knowledge - which is that smoking related illness tend to kill quite late in life. And the ability to use google. And a very quick google suggests that smoking leads to a reduction in lifespan of 10 years on average.
The average age of those killed by guns in the US seems surprisingly hard to find, but wiki does state:

17- through 19-year-olds were 4.3% of the overall population of the U.S.[94] This same age group accounted for 11.2% of those killed in firearm homicides.[95]
The 20- through 24-year-old age group accounted for 7.1% of the population,[94] while accounting for 22.5% of those killed in firearm homicides.[95]
Those under age 17 are not overrepresented in homicide statistics. In 2005, 13- through 16-year-olds accounted for 6% of the overall population of the U.S., but only accounted for 3.6% of firearm homicide victims

Which supports the obvious conclusion - that for each of those deaths you refer to, far more years of life are lost to guns than to smoking (and I would suspect that for 'passive smoking' the years lost is still lower, as the dosage per year would be far lower and there would be fewer early cases).

It's all very well for you to say you haven't looked, but you are the one who has been throwing around comparisons of raw death counts, which doesn't actually tell us anything, as what matters are years of life lost (for purposes of public health and social policy, not for individuals of course). So if you want to carry on making that argument you need to actually find the data. You are the one making the argument, you need to supply the data. But I'll take a shot(!) at it.

The crudest calculation suggests that for the 112 passive-smoking deaths a day the years lost would be 1120. For the gun case the figure would be equal if one assumed an average gunshot victim was about 45 years old. But the stats above imply that is highly unlikely to be the case, what with nearly 40% of victims being under 24.

So we are left with the conclusion that gun violence is a more serious problem than passive smoking.

You're drawing some conclusions with some ball park numbers. Second hand smoke kills some almost 4x (estimating for the sake of ease) as many people as firearms homicides and accidents combined. So to get the same number of living years the average homicide / accident gun victim would have to be significantly younger on average.

Today, about 79 years is the average life expectancy in this country. So let's say on average second hand smoke victims die at 69, they lose 10 years (I'd argue with this number, but let's go with it). But there are 4x as many of them as homicide and accident victims. That's 40 years of human life lost, statistically, comparing to average expectancy and a single gun homicide / accident victim. Is the average homicide / accident gun victim 39 years old? Because that'd have to be the average to equal second hand smoke, going by this method.

And since we're going way out there with overly broad sweeping averages, how do we account for the hundreds to thousands of lives saved each year by guns in these meaningless equations? Tobacco gets a net zero in saving lives.


Also, could we do this when looking in absolute harm terms? Anti-2A'ers love to include suicides because it inflates the numbers. Let's look at this again with 480000 deaths for tobacco vs. some 36000 for all firearms deaths combined...

 

[pmv]

You're drawing some conclusions with some ball park numbers. Second hand smoke kills some almost 4x (estimating for the sake of ease) as many people as firearms homicides and accidents combined. So to get the same number of living years the average homicide / accident gun victim would have to be significantly younger on average.

Today, about 79 years is the average life expectancy in this country. So let's say on average second hand smoke victims die at 69, they lose 10 years (I'd argue with this number, but let's go with it). But there are 4x as many of them as homicide and accident victims. That's 40 years of human life lost, statistically, comparing to average expectancy and a single gun homicide / accident victim. Is the average homicide / accident gun victim 39 years old? Because that'd have to be the average to equal second hand smoke, going by this method.

And since we're going way out there with overly broad sweeping averages, how do we account for the hundreds to thousands of lives saved each year by guns in these meaningless equations? Tobacco gets a net zero in saving lives.


Also, could we do this when looking in absolute harm terms? Anti-2A'ers love to include suicides because it inflates the numbers. Let's look at this again with 480000 deaths for tobacco vs. some 36000 for all firearms deaths combined...

Huh? You are just repeating the same calculation I showed in the post you are replying to! (but less accurately as 112/32 is 3.5 not 4, so the age you end up with is 44 not 39 - I said 45 on the assumption life expectancy is now 80, but sure, I'll accept 79).

And yes, the whole point is - as I clearly said - that the average gun accident/homicide victim is much less than 44 years old. That's the whole point I'm making!

I'm not discussing self-inflicted harm because that's a whole other argument and involves different moral issues. But feel free to call for a ban on all smoking if you want to take a strong anti-self-harm stance. For me the issue with that is a practical political one, not a deep moral one. As far as self-destructive behaviour goes we do tend to ban the things we can get away with banning, and let other things pass. It's a completely different issue.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Huh? You are just repeating the same calculation I showed in the post you are replying to! (but less accurately as 112/32 is 3.5 not 4, so the age you end up with is 44 not 39 - I said 45 on the assumption life expectancy is now 80, but sure, I'll accept 79).

And yes, the whole point is - as I clearly said - that the average gun accident/homicide victim is much less than 44 years old. That's the whole point I'm making!

I'm not discussing self-inflicted harm because that's a whole other argument and involves different moral issues. But feel free to call for a ban on all smoking if you want to take a strong anti-self-harm stance. For me the issue with that is a practical political one, not a deep moral one. As far as self-destructive behaviour goes we do tend to ban the things we can get away with banning, and let other things pass. It's a completely different issue.

Ok, so now suicides don't count in the equation, got it.

And nothing, nothing at all on how many life-hours are saved by guns? It would be a hard number to equate, but you have to agree it is likely a sizable swing the other way and cannot be ignored.

The numbers you posted show those 24 and under make up less than half of all firearms homicides. So how does that extend to knowing the age of all firearm homicide victims?

 

[pmv]

Ok, so now suicides don't count in the equation, got it.

And nothing, nothing at all on how many life-hours are saved by guns? It would be a hard number to equate, but you have to agree it is likely a sizable swing the other way and cannot be ignored.

The numbers you posted show those 24 and under make up less than half of all firearms homicides. So how does that extend to knowing the age of all firearm homicide victims?

Do I need to say everything multiple times? _You_ are the one making the claim regarding smoking vs guns, it's up to _you_ to provide the numbers and do the work.

Are you seriously suggesting having 40% of victims under 24 is compatible with the average age being over 44? Well go ahead and prove it then, as you are the one making implausible claims. Maybe there are violent street gangs of 70 year-olds bringing the averages up, but you'll have to show the stats on them.

PS - what's with the passive-aggressive 'got it'? When did I say suicides count? I specifically explained why they aren't relevant. But you don't really do rational engagement, do you, just stupid sneers, because you have a fixed idea that you are emotionally-driven to defend, regardless of whether you have any rational argument.


Suicides would count as part of a different discussion. Guns do increase the frequency of suicide - such deaths go up with the availability of means - but that issue is more compatible to non-passive smoking and other self-inflicted morbidity (like drugs or obesity) and is a different argument.

As for 'lives saved by guns' - that's your claim and its up to you to substantiate it and quantify it. I fear it's impossible as you are now getting into complex counter-factuals, at which point you could argue all sorts of things about alternative universes (hey, maybe cigarettes save lives by providing jobs for the tobacco industry...etc etc).

 

[SlowSpyder]

Do I need to say everything multiple times? _You_ are the one making the claim regarding smoking vs guns, it's up to _you_ to provide the numbers and do the work.

Are you seriously suggesting having 40% of victims under 24 is compatible with the average age being over 44? Well go ahead and prove it then, as you are the one making implausible claims. Maybe there are violent street gangs of 70 year-olds bringing the averages up, but you'll have to show the stats on them.

Wooo dude, you're the one making the claim! I'm questioning it because you have supplied incomplete evidence. Yes, having 40% of all victims being under 24 could very well not make the average victim 39 - 44. Supply reasonable complete evidence.

And for a third time, what about those life-hours preserved because of a gun? It happens daily.

 

[SlowSpyder]

@pmv

Was just thinking... is it ok when a 50 year old dies from cancer he or she wouldn't have had if smoking wasn't a thing? Because they only lose x amount of life years, does that make it ok to you?

And again, what about all the lives preserved by guns? How do we add that into an otherwise totally incomplete equation?

 

[Younigue]

Wow, I just clicked on show ignored posts... @SlowSpyder just super loves being an obtuse imbecile. I suppose that's a good thing given he clearly has no choice in the matter. Poor little dude. Sad face *note: my eyes are dancing from dark amusement.

 

[brycejones]

@pmv

Was just thinking... is it ok when a 50 year old dies from cancer he or she wouldn't have had if smoking wasn't a thing? Because they only lose x amount of life years, does that make it ok to you?

And again, what about all the lives preserved by guns? How do we add that into an otherwise totally incomplete equation?

The first three words don't apply to anything you have posted in p&n.

 

[Jhhnn]

I wonder how many times Paddock watched this truly inspirational video- The narration is really terrific, ya know?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCCT8JtwQeI&feature=youtu.be

The smoke coming off the barrel is the bad stuff, huh?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Wow, I just clicked on show ignored posts... @SlowSpyder just super loves being an obtuse imbecile. I suppose that's a good thing given he clearly has no choice in the matter. Poor little dude. Sad face *note: my eyes are dancing from dark amusement.

What is sad is that you ignored my posts. I have never once personally attacked you. I just posted things you don't want to see. You are an example of why Trump won. You'd rather just hear what makes you feel good vs. cold hard logic and reality.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The first three words don't apply to anything you have posted in p&n.

I openly and honestly compared numbers and tried to find a reasonable answer, you have nothing but a weak attempt at a personal attack.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I wonder how many times Paddock watched this truly inspirational video- The narration is really terrific, ya know?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCCT8JtwQeI&feature=youtu.be

The smoke coming off the barrel is the bad stuff, huh?

Never saw that before, awesome.

 

[Jhhnn]

Never saw that before, awesome.

Yeh, there's a whole bunch of manly & mindless freedumb in that. Speaking of mindless-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8

 

[pmv]

@pmv

Was just thinking... is it ok when a 50 year old dies from cancer he or she wouldn't have had if smoking wasn't a thing? Because they only lose x amount of life years, does that make it ok to you?

And again, what about all the lives preserved by guns? How do we add that into an otherwise totally incomplete equation?

I get it, your mind is a closed box that can't take in anything anyone else says. You don't read any post before replying to it, I get that now. You know you love your guns and nothing else matters.

Not wasting any more time on you.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I get it, your mind is a closed box that can't take in anything anyone else says. You don't read any post before replying to it, I get that now. You know you love your guns and nothing else matters.

Not wasting any more time on you.

Seriously, that's your reply? Take a look in the mirror bud. I'm asking for complete stats, you have nothing so you throw a tantrum. I am asking for you to calculate or at least take a look at how many life-hours have been saved by guns, you continue to ignore this. Pathetic. Whatever dude.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Yeh, there's a whole bunch of manly & mindless freedumb in that. Speaking of mindless-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8

Ted Cruz is a turd and his obvious attempt at getting votes and trying t appeal to certain people is as see through as the average anti 2A'ers partisan crusade against the 2A.

 

[ch33zw1z]

why do you hate his freedom so much?

 

[brycejones]

I openly and honestly compared numbers and tried to find a reasonable answer, you have nothing but a weak attempt at a personal attack.

Nope you haven't tried to be reasonable at all in this entire thread. All you've done is try to duhvert.

So nope you haven't thought about shit. Start a smoking thread if you're really so concerned.