Coronavirus Death Toll Estimation USA

Sorry, just saw my mistake.

I mean to say "I think Eiryl literally means to start throwing people into the fire"

As in, your final volcano solution.

You are more than welcome to, you know, leave.

Nobody is here forcing you to post.

Take your Fourth Reich ideas to Twitter to where they belong.

cant believe im saying this......

but....





his comment wasnt politically driven; the way he said it was that we basically either come to terms with our current covid strategy isnt working and figure something else out, or we throw it all away and just ignore covid and let people die.

im very partial option 2 honestly. let the healthy people go about their lives as normal, and the at risk people live in a bubble, instead of trying to make everyone live in a bubble.

Personally, I rather not let innocent people die. Especially since we know who are the most vulnerable.

We should have kept the country open, help spread herd immunity, while at the same time enforced restrictions on keeping the vulnerable people safe (aka elderly people).

Mind you, we would have still needed to create field hospitals to help stem the influx of COVID patients, but we already did that anyway with the lockdown.

Instead, now we have a great portion of this country who are still cowering in fear trying not to get COVID, while at the same time a good portion (imo, greater than 66%) of those who are cowering in fear have already gotten it and gotten over it. But still have to suffer because it's unknown.

That’s a sarcasm tag.

You’re on some dummy ***like your other post musing about how you haven’t heard about school shootings lately.

I'm not sold one way or the other about how the openings should be handled, but I'm getting annoyed by the people preaching that even one death is unacceptable. "Acceptable risk" is inherent in practically everything we do and people are being killed or having their lives ruined for other reasons by being kept at home too. It's just convenient to set an impossibly high bar with an attached emotional argument to destroy any rational discussion on what the level of acceptable risk should actually be for reopening.

Heres a counter for your sarcasm: you mock the thoughts and prayers crowds, because you perceive them as 'doing nothing to fix the problem'. The issue with your stance is that you believe the innate flaw of the human condition, in that we are all inherently capable of and prone to evil; can be fixed - or at the very least, forcibly repressed. Religious people are taught and educated that the indelible sin of humanity exists - that evil exist as a feature rather than a bug. They are taught that while evil exists, its the job of good people to resist that evil, and to help others resist that evil.

to put this in simpler terms

Evil people are like a dog.
Religious people understand that The dog is going to have the urge to bite someone no matter what you do. the best you can do is teach them to not bite, and stop them when they try to bite someone.
The Gun control advocates believe that the dog cant bite if you put a muzzle on it.

The control side of the argument is flawed, because even if you muzzle the dog it will still have the urge to bite someone, and its never been taught how to resist that urge. so when the muzzle inevitably fails, what happens? the dog bites someone anyways.

The point i'm making is - you cant fix the problem with any degree of anti-gun laws. people who want to do harm, will do harm regardless of the presence of a gun. you really think a kid with the will power it takes shoot up his school, would be deterred because he couldn't get hands on a gun? no. you are sorely mistaken. any kid with that kind of a willpower and desire to hurt, is going to find another way. he'll run them over with his car. hell build a bomb in his basement. hell poison the school lunches, or he'll just get an illegal gun from the local gangbanger who had no intention of following the laws and giving up his guns.

its that simple.

The same people who say that a wall is pointless because people will inevitably find a way to break through it also say that gun control will prevent violence. The "where there's a will there's a way" argument is only applicable to politically convenient situations.

How did we even get on guns? wow.

Because political topics are fluid and intersect with each other quite often.

COVID cases in children > No Schools > No School Shootings > Gun Control.

It's really that simple.

I'm not gonna bother backreading to see if this was discussed previously but there was some news and studies about the covid 19 immunity and how antibodies only last a few months at best:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/13/health/covid-immunity-antibody-response-uk-study-wellness/index.html

and that the virus is also airborne:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/7/13/21315879/covid-19-airborne-who-aerosol-droplet-transmission

So... if they make a vaccine are they expecting it to completely eradicate the disease? or will it be like a flu shot each year? If its the latter, whats the point of the shutdowns? Why is covid a big concern and not the common flu?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm



IF we do get a vaccine in a somewhat timely manner, does anyone think the comparison of infected and deaths rates are going to be comparable to other contagious diseases?

kinda starting to feel this is being used more as a political weapon. Hope Biden gets elected so the covid fear magically disappears so I can go back to doing my normal life routine

I mean, it will. Fewer guns, less violence. It's a pretty straightforward equation. The discussion is not, and has never been, about that; it's about whether or not the right to self defense via firearm is absolute (no restrictions on guns, ever) or qualified (rules on licensing and ownership, to varying degrees depending on the speaker). Anyone saying some gun control won't result in less violence has abandoned logic at the most elemental level.

I don't agree with this statement.

Sure, the cases of random, passion-based shootings and violence will fall, but inversely other methods of violence and death will rise. A lot of violence occurs outside of gun violence.

It doesn't matter the success rate of the use of the weapon in question (gun vs. knife vs. car vs. bomb vs. fists vs. bats), violence will occur, and random, passion-driven violence will continue to occur. You will just be replacing guns with the next deadly thing. You haven't solved anything.

Placing full blame on an object instead of the behavior will never solve anything.

The problem is that most gun owners are actually law-abiding citizens.

It's the illegal ownership that is the problem.

A gun is, by design, the simplest, most effective means of violence available to the modern human. Reducing their availability makes violence - especially the heat of the moment stuff you mentioned - not only more of a hassle, but less likely to be deadly.

(For the purposes of this discussion, we can ignore "kid shot his face off when he found daddy's .44, the cases of which would go down without a reasonable means of replacement)

I'm not saying it would be some massive drop, but to say it would have no effect ignores the extremely basic math to it. The discussion has always been about rights; discussing the math of it is not a favorable battleground to those who want less gun control, and they mostly avoid it accordingly. I mean, why do you think they wrote and passed the Dickey Amendment?

I agree with you 100%. If you remove all legal ownership of guns in the world, the number of deaths caused by gun from legal owners would drop to zero.

I think the number of deaths cause by guns period wouldn't change much. It will be reduced, and in some places significantly (only because they have low populations and/or ownership in the first place), but in the overall standpoint, not so much.

see you have the equation half right, and it bugs me. you acknowledge that people pick guns because of their efficiency at killing, but dont acknowledge that its an irrelevant factor, and base your entire stance on reducing the availability of guns out of some illusion that doing so will invariably reduce the rate at which people are murdered.

if that were true, people would have only started committing murder with the advent of guns - which simply isn't true. we've been murdering each other in massive amounts since the dawn of mankind. it is a very simple problem - those with the sufficient will and drive to kill someone, are going to kill someone.

you take away all the guns
theyll just use illegal guns
you take away all the illegal guns
theyll use knives
you take away all the knives
theyll just use illegal knives
you take away all the knives
they'll just use potato peelers
you take away all the potatopeelers
theyll just use illegal potato peelers
you take away all the illegal potato peelers
theyll just use trucks of peace
you use barriers to stop the trucks
they just use bigger trucks

to put it simply - someone who is going to kill someone is going to kill someone. Hypothetically for the purpose of the argument (this is expressedly only to prove my point): you know what i'd do if i didnt have a gun but wanted to kill someone? i'd pull of my sock, fill it with a baseball sized rock, and use it like a flail to crush the persons skull in from behind while they werent watching.

my problem is : you are ultimately conflating guns existing with propensity to violence. they arent the same thing, and they dont cause the other to exist.


arguing that deaths would decrease if guns werent in the mix is disingenuous because it discounts the deaths that the presence of a gun actively prevents- something nobody bothers to mention. lets say you do what europe did - delete all the guns. Did that stop violence? did it have a marked reduction of overall violent acts? the answer is no. they've actually had increases in violent acts, BECAUSE the threat of a gun was removed.

Actually it's not because your way over simplifying. Gun crimes are overwhelmingly committed with illegal firearms, meaning "Gun Control" will do absolutely jack ***for it. Making an already illegal firearm even more illegal is an exercise in futility and not what the Democrats are interested in. Every recommendation they make is about taking firearms away from lawful non-violent responsible citizens.

Just look at the violent gun crime rate of any Democrat controlled city to see this in action. They make it damn near impossible to own a legal firearm yet somehow the violent crime rate keeps climbing. Almost like those possessing illegal firearms don't really care about "Gun Control" laws in the first place.

This has Democrats scared because it bypass's almost every law they can make which has better then snowballs chance of surviving a court ruling.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/diy-guns-an-intro-to-modern-3d-printing-and-making-your-own-firearms-at-home/

$200 USD for the printer, another $20 or so for the plastic and some spare change for some metal parts and you can make a disposable weapon that will survive 30~100 rounds. Use a metal barrel and kit components and it'll survive several thousand rounds before requiring a recondition.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

The Democrats been trying to effectively outlaw firearms by playing with definitions with some measure of success. Being able to just print custom stuff on an as-needed basis side steps that whole issue.

Personally I don't even want republicans to die.

Sweden tried that. It didn't go well for them. Way higher death rate than other scandinavian countries, economy hit worse.

In Japan EVERYONE wore masks, nothing was shut down, the economy contracted less than 3%.

Politics and Religion....

I beg to differ. The problem with guns is they are inherently a non violent way to kill things. Well... non violent on the part of the user.

If people had to commit ACTUAL violence up close and personal, like fists, knives, clubs, quaterstaves, swords, shovels, rakes, and implements of destruction, there would be a LOT less violence.

Just as anyone saying that a border wall won't result in fewer border crossings has abandoned logic at the most elemental level. Deterrents are deterrents.

However, none of that was the point. The point was the inconsistency in logic.

Say it with me cause it's been while.

Democrats Good
Republicans Bad
Orange Man VERY BAD!

Trumps about to start trying to hide numbers.


https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/covid-19-faqs-hospitals-hospital-laboratory-acute-care-facility-data-reporting.pdf

source?

The HHS.gov website...?

Jeez, Captain Panty Twist, you sure go off half cocked easy.

I simply was saying I was surprised at all that was included in the term, "school shooting." Clearly when the media and liberals use the term, "school shooting" to denounce guns, they mean the crazy dudes who run in with automatic weapons and take out as many kids/teachers as they can. They are not referencing one dude shooting his ex lover in the parking lot.

I was just surprised that "officially" that basically anything remotely involving a school or property of a school where a shooting occurs was in that mix. No wonder the numbers are so high, anytime I heard things on the news like, "there were XXX school shootings in 2017" I was always kind of shocked I had not heard of 90% of them and thought they were pillowing the numbers. Now I see how/why.

And liberals and your media DON'T care about toddlers getting hit in drive bys in major cities, even Eiryl admitted to that. They will deflect from those occurrences as fast as possible and turn the attention to something some white guy did that was bad that week. Just a fact.

Probably trying to weed out the ones who died from like, obvious head trauma that are being tossed into the Covid numbers just because they tested positive.

I don't know that but, wouldn't surprise me.

But that begs a different question, if someone, just an example, died of an accident in some fashion, why would they then test them for Covid at all? They're DOA. Or even if they come in, almost dead from some kind of physical trauma, they know obviously what the issue is that got them there, why would they then test for Covid before they pass? Being that as anyone knows, you have to specifically tell the "lab" to test for certain things when doing blood work. Just curious. Not that anyone here really knows.

Yeah I see that now but it shouldn't be. They need to categorize things differently because when the media screams, "school shooting numbers are way up" absolutely nobody here can in good conscience argue that most people don't assume that means, dude's entering schools with automatic weapons and creating real life Call of Duty. NOBODY thinks, 6 yr old somehow getting their parents gun and accidentally shooting another 6 yr old.

i'm sorry, you linked an FAQ page. where did the quotes come from. I Want to read the articles

Bingo, this is the crux of the whole argument about guns for me.

Being I don't own a gun, probably never will and am not a gun's rights advocate, I'm pretty qualified to speak on this from a middle-of-the-road standpoint.

Personally, I would not be bothered in the least if they created sweeping and stringent restrictions on the legal acquisition and ownership of firearms. You've ever had a felony? Even non-violent? No gun. You cannot pass a mental evaluation? No gun. I wouldn't even care if they eliminated all automatic weapons to be honest being that the vast majority of illegally owned gun crimes don't even involve automatic weapons.

But, what Saevel stated is really the problem I have with the entire conversation. Liberal politicians and judiciaries have been screaming for years and years about second chances for criminals, incarceration for certain offenses are too harsh, and some of these crimes include illegal gun use and/or ownership. If they REALLY cared about gun violence, not just cared because it was in their view, anti-conservative in nature, they'd want to lock up those gun violation men and women for as long as possible, not fight like lions to lessen their sentences.

He is being completely dishonest. He only partially quoted the document.


Middle of page 10 of the source he provided.