Obama was inaugurated to his second term a few days ago and he's made it clear that new gun laws are a top priority. Obama is basically exploiting the fact that right now America is preeminently concerned about it's homicide rate after the shootings at Sandy Hook. Well, are murder rate is 4.8 per 100,000 which is down significantly from just a few years ago by the way. Is that a high murder rate? Well, compared to some countries, yes. It's higher than Canada which is at 1.6 per 100,000 or Germany which is at 0.8 per 100,000. However, is 4.8 really a high murder rate? It's true that it's high for an industrialized country, but compared to less modernized countries, are nation is a peaceful utopia. In Honduras for example, the murder rate is 91.6 per 100,000 which is 19 times higher than ours. There are tons of countries out there with muder rates that dwarf our own. Granted, most of them are third-world backwaters. But why compare ourselves with others to begin with? The countries of the earth will not ultimately be judged by their murder rates. So why not look at our murder rate by itself and judge it by it's own merits? Let's ask ourselves independently of this data from other countries, what sort of risk murder genuinely presents to America? 4.8 murders per 100,000 people is 0.0048%. That's what all this talk of new gun control is about. The fact that 0.0048% of the population are murdered. Murder is actually only 0.7% of all deaths in the U.S. On the list of all things likely to kill you, murder is tied with Parkinson's disease.
You're more likely to kill yourself than you are to be killed by someone else. Heart disease and cancer make up more than half of all deaths. So McDonald's and Marlboro are a much bigger threat to your safety than guns are America. Ronald McDonald might not shoot up a school, but little billy's chubby tit's are probably going to put too much strain on his heart one of these days and kaput.
McDonald's gets away with killing you because McDonald's kills you slow. As for Marlboro, everyone knows that cigarette's are bad for you, but I still know plenty of people who smoke and it's still legal to smoke. It's regulated, sure, but no one's having trouble getting it. The restrictions aren't such that anyone is being disuaded. Cigarrete's get away with killing you because they kill you slow. Nice and slow, and I say good. Aren't we supposed to be the country that champions liberty over safety? Aren't we supossed to be the country that smokes a cigarette, eat's a Big Mac, and fire's an Assault Rifle into the air? If America has any greatness, it's greatness is freedom. Not the sanitized freedom of the politicians who just use it as a buzz word. But the dirty freedom of outlaws and rebels. The freedom to own guns, to do drugs, to eat what you wanna eat, and to do what you wanna do as long as it's not hurting anyone else. But I think Obama is right when he says that it also means the freedom to see a doctor if you need to. Even if your own behavior led to you needing one. It means the freedom to know that if you lose your job, you're not just doomed to starvation. It means the freedom to be able to continue living comfortably even after you've grown too old to work. Why can we not embrace the liberties espoused by the libertarians as well as the safety nets envisioned by the liberals? Why can't we save our money and lower the murder rate at the same time by turning our shady black markets into well regulated and taxed white markets?
Afterall, our murder rate has far less to do with our gun policies than with our drug policies. Because our murder rate of 4.8 becomes far less when you take away gang violence. How far it goes down depends on whose numbers you're using, but no one can argue that without gangs, are murder rate is not 4.8 per 100,000. It's probably closer to half that. Roughly the same as the rest of the industrialized world, and why do gang members kill one another? It's not pleasure. It's business, and that business is drugs. Without a black market to fuel their criminal enterprises, most street gangs will fall apart and gang violence will ultimately drop. Our current murder rate; already lower than it was in the 90s would shrink to be on par with every other industrialized nation, and we wouldn't have to change our gun policy at all from what it is now. Well, I take that back, we can close the gun show loophole because that's just common sense, but everything else that Obama is talking about is just silly, and it simply won't work because it doesn't address the true problem. The real problem is our drug policy, not our gun policy. If Obama truly wants to lower violence, he will end the war on drugs.
You're more likely to kill yourself than you are to be killed by someone else. Heart disease and cancer make up more than half of all deaths. So McDonald's and Marlboro are a much bigger threat to your safety than guns are America. Ronald McDonald might not shoot up a school, but little billy's chubby tit's are probably going to put too much strain on his heart one of these days and kaput.
McDonald's gets away with killing you because McDonald's kills you slow. As for Marlboro, everyone knows that cigarette's are bad for you, but I still know plenty of people who smoke and it's still legal to smoke. It's regulated, sure, but no one's having trouble getting it. The restrictions aren't such that anyone is being disuaded. Cigarrete's get away with killing you because they kill you slow. Nice and slow, and I say good. Aren't we supposed to be the country that champions liberty over safety? Aren't we supossed to be the country that smokes a cigarette, eat's a Big Mac, and fire's an Assault Rifle into the air? If America has any greatness, it's greatness is freedom. Not the sanitized freedom of the politicians who just use it as a buzz word. But the dirty freedom of outlaws and rebels. The freedom to own guns, to do drugs, to eat what you wanna eat, and to do what you wanna do as long as it's not hurting anyone else. But I think Obama is right when he says that it also means the freedom to see a doctor if you need to. Even if your own behavior led to you needing one. It means the freedom to know that if you lose your job, you're not just doomed to starvation. It means the freedom to be able to continue living comfortably even after you've grown too old to work. Why can we not embrace the liberties espoused by the libertarians as well as the safety nets envisioned by the liberals? Why can't we save our money and lower the murder rate at the same time by turning our shady black markets into well regulated and taxed white markets?
Afterall, our murder rate has far less to do with our gun policies than with our drug policies. Because our murder rate of 4.8 becomes far less when you take away gang violence. How far it goes down depends on whose numbers you're using, but no one can argue that without gangs, are murder rate is not 4.8 per 100,000. It's probably closer to half that. Roughly the same as the rest of the industrialized world, and why do gang members kill one another? It's not pleasure. It's business, and that business is drugs. Without a black market to fuel their criminal enterprises, most street gangs will fall apart and gang violence will ultimately drop. Our current murder rate; already lower than it was in the 90s would shrink to be on par with every other industrialized nation, and we wouldn't have to change our gun policy at all from what it is now. Well, I take that back, we can close the gun show loophole because that's just common sense, but everything else that Obama is talking about is just silly, and it simply won't work because it doesn't address the true problem. The real problem is our drug policy, not our gun policy. If Obama truly wants to lower violence, he will end the war on drugs.
Last edited:
