Fentanyl killed 74,000 people in the US last year.  Guns killed 47,000 people.

The democrats are letting illegal aliens into the country at unrestrained rates, the same ones bringing fentanyl into the country.  Yet the democrats want to take your guns?

If the democrats were so worried about deaths...don't you think they'd want to stop the source of where the fentanyl is coming from MORE than they'd want your guns????

So, gun control isn't about safety of the American public at all.  No, gun control is about just that..."control"!  Controlling YOU!  Restricting YOUR freedoms, and preventing you from doing anything about it.

Once again...

Fentanyl - 75,000 dead
Guns       - 46,000 dead

Fentanyl is responsible for 160% more deaths in the US than firearms are.

What does this tell you?

According to the search results, gun suicides accounted for nearly 56% of all gun deaths in the United States in 2023.
That leaves less than 23,000 to the ever-growing criminal element.
I wonder how many of those were due to illegally procured guns?

40,900 people died in car accidents in 2023. I'm not hearing any cries to outlaw motor vehicles.

It takes a special kind of stupid to drink the anti-gun Kool-aide.

(10-25-2024, 12:27 PM)FCD Wrote: Fentanyl killed 74,000 people in the US last year.  Guns killed 47,000 people.

What does this tell you?

I haven't looked lately because the numbers are just an excuse for attempts to crack down on a right that shall not be infringed. It's a pointless conversation because the opposing view point will assert that any number is too many and will lobby for further restrictions of rights. The only time that further restrictions of rights isn't the only solution is when some NGO or lobby sees a way to create new tax-payer funded revenue streams.

I believe a substantial portion of those gun deaths are suicide or gang/urban crime related. Fentanyl can also be readily connected to gang and organized crime activity. The money spent on refugee service NGOs facilitating circumvention of legal immigration routes (including the NGOs that then provide services locally once they're here) could have built a wall, increased surveillance on imports, and provided addiction services to citizens in need. The DNC faithful have cried for decades about privatization, but ignore that their fake "non-profit" NGO model is a black hole for money.

Medical errors, which the CDC doesn't track, are higher than both. A true and honest accounting of the mortality from medical errors over the past four or five years would probably make errors number one. I can only call gain of function a medical error or a terrorist enterprise, and it's unlikely it will get the latter designation it deserves. Early treatment for COVID was denied in the interests of pharmaceutical profit and ICU treatment denied patients the normal antibiotic protocols that go with ventilation. Arbitrary mitigation via the authoritarian pseudoscience of "we have to do something" made the public focus on things that didn't stop them from getting ill. The CDC and FDA refusal to address adverse events and base recommendations on risk/benefit profiles have resulted in more deadly or disabling "errors". It can be called medical errors or negligent manslaughter, but dead or disabled is dead or disabled.

Becoming addicted to street drugs is unwise in a world ruled by eugenicists and sociopaths that don't value human life. If not for the tax-payer funded profit generated through "free" public distribution of pharmaceutical interventions for opiates and the tax-payer funded rehab industry, we'd probably be told there is no fentanyl problem.

Unless you're living among street crime or are suicidal then the risk of being injured or killed by guns is far lower than being injured or killed by what you eat, what you drink, who you get your medical treatment from, the drugs you take, or any number of things that nobody cares to talk about.

Risk perception is almost entirely driven by consumption of propaganda and emotion for the public. Has been for a long time. Political ideologies and corporate profits, often synergistically, are the main purveyors of the propaganda.

NPR on medical errors.

(10-25-2024, 03:48 PM)Ksihkehe Wrote: It's a pointless conversation because...

I singled this out because it is not a "pointless conversation"; it is a vital conversation if we wish to retain our inalienable rights.  Those who give up on the conversation, and let the opposition win, lose not only their rights, but their freedom.  So, it is very pointed.  Very important.

Yes, the left will drone on (and on...and on) with their tired tropes, but the truth is only out there if the discussion is relevant and important...which it is.

Look, some NWO (sorry, that sounds paranoid, but hear me out) wants to take away our freedom...what do "WE" (the people) have to prevent that from happening?

Now, I'm not saying an armed insurrection will happen, but "deterrent" is a powerful thing. 

Hey, I'm not going to let my entire career earning go towards supporting people other than my wife and myself.  And...I've got the (fill in the blank) to do it!

(10-25-2024, 06:55 PM)FCD Wrote: I singled this out because it is not a "pointless conversation"; it is a vital conversation if we wish to retain our inalienable rights.

You singled it out and removed it from the context in which it was said. The full context, in fact, is a criticism of wasting time on irrelevant aspects of those vital discussions. Like arguing with sycophants over the numbers and real risks.

Quote:Ksihkehe: "I haven't looked lately because the numbers are just an excuse for attempts to crack down on a right that shall not be infringed. It's a pointless conversation because the opposing view point will assert that any number is too many and will lobby for further restrictions of rights...."

If you want to argue with sycophants on the Internet about things that are just distorted facts used as excuses for their irrational beliefs, rather than serious policy positions, that's your prerogative. None of them that use the deaths as a point have any serious understanding of real risks. You can tell them about risk until you're blue in the face. Numbers are irrelevant. There is no number, including zero gun deaths, that will cause them to switch to being pro-liberty. No number of violent criminals allowed to cross the border, no matter how high, will change their immigration beliefs.

As you can see from my willingness to flesh out thoughtful replies... I'm eager to talk about it seriously. If we're all past believing all that gun deaths risk bullshit, it seems discussing those deaths is just a game of slap-ass with the guys. If anybody here disagrees that the number of deaths is a red herring... they can certainly come post, but I won't be riding the moron-go-round having pointless discussion with them.

I just can't be bothered to spend much time on lowest common denominator nonsense that isn't relevant or serious. Anybody pretending this is the reason they support gun restrictions is either lying or ignorant. Why bother wasting time on them? Are they actually making any decisions? Are they going to vote differently?

If you allow the anti-freedom advocates to continue controlling what the discussion is about then it's never going to be about things that actually matter. We should just import the DNC posters now and become ATS-lite. You will remain mired in unwinnable debates over shit they don't actually care about, all while they cover their ears and repeat more nonsense. The gun deaths discussion can be rebutted with the information I provided and a few minutes on Google search. If it was a real argument that anybody cared about we wouldn't still be discussing it two decades later.

The pointless discussion I'm referring to is discussing irrelevant things with irrational or ignorant people. I would hope that's not a terribly controversial opinion here.

(10-25-2024, 08:18 PM)Ksihkehe Wrote: You singled it out and removed it from the context in which it was said. The full context, in fact, is a criticism of wasting time on irrelevant aspects of those vital discussions. Like arguing with sycophants over the numbers and real risks.


If you want to argue with sycophants on the Internet about things that are just distorted facts used as excuses for their irrational beliefs, rather than serious policy positions, that's your prerogative. None of them that use the deaths as a point have any serious understanding of real risks. You can tell them about risk until you're blue in the face. Numbers are irrelevant. There is no number, including zero gun deaths, that will cause them to switch to being pro-liberty. No number of violent criminals allowed to cross the border, no matter how high, will change their immigration beliefs.

As you can see from my willingness to flesh out thoughtful replies... I'm eager to talk about it seriously. If we're all past believing all that gun deaths risk bullshit, it seems discussing those deaths is just a game of slap-ass with the guys. If anybody here disagrees that the number of deaths is a red herring... they can certainly come post, but I won't be riding the moron-go-round having pointless discussion with them.

I just can't be bothered to spend much time on lowest common denominator nonsense that isn't relevant or serious. Anybody pretending this is the reason they support gun restrictions is either lying or ignorant. Why bother wasting time on them? Are they actually making any decisions? Are they going to vote differently?

If you allow the anti-freedom advocates to continue controlling what the discussion is about then it's never going to be about things that actually matter. We should just import the DNC posters now and become ATS-lite. You will remain mired in unwinnable debates over shit they don't actually care about, all while they cover their ears and repeat more nonsense. The gun deaths discussion can be rebutted with the information I provided and a few minutes on Google search. If it was a real argument that anybody cared about we wouldn't still be discussing it two decades later.

The pointless discussion I'm referring to is discussing irrelevant things with irrational or ignorant people. I would hope that's not a terribly controversial opinion here.

I'm not sure I understand what point you're debating with me here, or perhaps I'm misreading it.  I didn't select the excerpt of your text to argue, merely to point out that these same people are the ones making policy in this country on a daily basis.  Therefore, I feel it is indeed pertinent.  This isn't about some imagined encroachment on our rights, it's real.  This isn't about 'me' allowing anti-freedom advocates to continue controlling conversations, it's about society allowing it and not seeing the forest but for the trees. 

As for lowest common denominators, I agree, but yet these same lowest common denominators are influencing public opinion and thus the laws which continue to take away our rights.  Regarding your willingness to discuss the topic rationally, how do you expect the fence-sitting, middle of the road, portions of the population to form an informed opinion unless you present the (true) facts on both sides of the argument, rather than allowing the corrupt MSM to continually carry one unified message that personal firearms ownership is evil?  I don't agree with you on this point.  It is relevant.

Now, perhaps I have noted a factoid which is universally understood by all who are not on the DNC side of the fence, but I don't believe that to be the case.  For example, did you know the facts I stated in the OP?  You might have surmised the same, but did you know them?  This isn't meant to call you out here, but rather to point out that, while seemingly patently obvious to many, these facts are seldom stated in an open and comparative way.

Again, I'm not sure what you're arguing here, or if you're arguing at all.  Maybe this is a product of my lack of understanding, and I will accept that, but what is the harm in pointing it out?  I feel as though you feel these are wasted words, but are you confident that everyone who may be undecided is fully informed of simple facts such as these?  Every day we are bludgeoned with woefully inaccurate misinformation, and then when policy is implemented to support this inaccurate information those who are semi-informed just shrug and say..."Meh!".  These are calculated events with a calculated outcome.  'Disarm the people and they can no longer resist the ever increasing draconian policies we may wish to implement'.  How do you see this as an irrelevant talking point?  It's working! 

Twenty years ago we saw the sunset of completely pointless regulatory legislation, the AWB, and then nine years after that we saw the exact same legislation come up for vote, enacted by the same groups I speak of.  Yes, it was defeated in 2013, but here we are again in 2024 facing the same debate (and likely the same legislation).  Is it pointless?  Yes, but the democrats keep trotting it out there in hopes that one of these times the public will be so apathetic as to allow it to pass without care.  This is a concern in my book.  When we talk of wasted time and discussion, how is this not more of the same, but on a far larger scale of both our tax dollars and or governing body's time?  I completely agree with you, this shouldn't even be a discussion, but unfortunately it is.  We can choose to ignore it, or we can remain vigilant and fight these discussions whenever and wherever they may arise...every time.  I choose the latter.  I choose this path because I have seen what happens when we become complacent and/or apathetic about important discussions such as these.

Please understand that the bulk of my reply is not directed at your personally, as I value your opinion highly.  However, I've had to craft my reply around yours.  My apologies for not explaining the excerpt I took from your reply adequately.  I meant only to isolate that quote only as a rhetorical point of relevancy to the larger discussion at hand, not as an affront to you.

edit - After re-reading your reply a couple of times, and looking at the link you provided, I need to add one more point. Yes, there are 'other' things which are equally non-nonsensical in today's propaganda driven MSM, things like medical errors and so many others. I wish I could point out 'all' of the areas where we 'the people' are being misled by the propaganda machine, but alas that would be a very long post indeed. The point in my OP is just one of a long list of injustices being perpetuated on society today. I don't mean to imply that my OP is the "only" one. And, I appreciate your pointing out others. We all should.

Best,
FCD