Isn't it time you yanks grew up regarding your gun death epidemic?

[OldLady]

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

I seriously question these figures. Seriously.

Prove them wrong. Either that or admit that facts are irrelevant to you, your mind is made and that's all that matters!

How can OL or ANYONE takes those figures seriously when the numbers for my nation are 100% BULLSHIT, so we need a further investigation then into the OTHER figures the same CRAP graph gives for Canada, Australia and South Africa. If # 2 my nation the figures are 100% BULLSHIT then perhaps ALL the other nations figures are also.

The author of that piece is now the Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson, so I'm thinking someone fudged with the numbers--a photoshop or something? If those numbers are real, they aren't comparing apples to apples, that's for sure.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

How do you claim a country is "civilized" when their violent crime rate is double that of ours?

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behavior.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: Britain the most violent country in Europe and even worse than South Africa and U.S.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.

www.telegraph.co.uk

^^^^ The above is from 2009 and it's crap, a link from 2009 should not even be allowed to be posted as it is NOT even RELEVANT on ANY level.

Sorry the below after # 1 is horsecrap, I can tell you we are certainly NOT # 2, look where the figures are coming from the EU Commission and THE UNITED NATIONS, total horsecrap and also the article is from 2009

View attachment 340871
Trashing my nation with the above CRAP will NOT go unchallenged, so let's look at some actual figures and NOT the above SHIT. We have one of the LOWEST murder rates in the world - and yes we have approx 4.5 millions guns in private ownership I add.

View attachment 340875

View attachment 340877

Very hinky numbers. We have half the violent crimes of Canada? CANADA?

Yes how stupid is that. Not to mention it is beyond hilarious that Luxemburg is in that list, they have a population of about 600.000 and look at their actual crime rates, all very low and moderate and yet that 100% BULLSHIT graph posted that has my nation at # 2 has Luxemburg also as one of the most VIOLENT nations on the planet ROFLAO.

Crime in Luxembourg

Information about crime in Luxembourg. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

Oh and from the above website I will add my nation and we are a low crime nation, as a Patriot I am NOT going to have my nation subjected to filthy Propaganda not on THIS forum OR in Real Life or ANYTHING:

Crime in Austria

Information about crime in Austria. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

 

[Levant]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know (or particularly care) what the real numbers would show, comparing us to the rest of the world but the real numbers would just be murder per capita, robbery per capita, suicide per capita. The tool of choice for the death is meaningless; it's the death that counts. Since guns are banned in the UK, guns aren't the tool of choice but other tools are. Even so, guns still get used so bans are useless.

 

[DOTR]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

The second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

THEY ARE THE SAME GUN!

The same action, the same mechanics, the same ballistic characteristics, they take the same magazines, the same ammunition. The only difference is in what furniture is installed on them—purely a cosmetic difference, that has no bearing on how suitable either is for any purpose, legitimate or otherwise.

If I'm not mistaken, both the guns ion that picture are Ruger MIni-14s. I could be wrong, but I know that that's a popular gun to depict in two widely-different cosmetic forms, in order to emphasize the abject ignorance of hoplophobic cretins such as yourself, who are so easily led to believe that a gun's cosmetic appearance has any bearing on it's suitability for legal or illegal uses.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

And you forgot to mention the reason for the 2nd making all your other bullshit just that..bullshit.

Still ignoring mag size....and ergonomic add ons to make it easier to kill lots more faster.

And the Sacred Founding Fathers also were adamantly opposed to a standing army. Times change.

That falls into the bullshit is bullshit list.
The 2nd says nothing about how many rounds you can shoot at one time.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

The second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

The left always leave out the intent of the 2nd.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Still ignoring mag size....and ergonomic add ons to make it easier to kill lots more faster.

Both of those guns take the same magazines. You can just as easily put a 5-round magazine (if they exist for that gun), a 10-round magazine, a 30-round magazine,or a 100+-round drum on one as on the other.

And you are far more ignorant than I otherwise thought you to be, if you truly believe that the purely cosmetic differences make one of those guns any more or less suited to “kill lots more faster”, or for any other purpose, good or ill.

 

[OldLady]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

The second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

 

[Unkotare]

Say you have two people that go on a diet. One guy is 100 lbs, and the other is 200 lbs.

After they go on a diet, the one guy is 150 lbs, and the other is 180 lbs.

Does the guy who gained 50 lbs, then claim his diet is working because he weights less than the 180 lbs guy?

No his diet was a failure. He gained 50 lbs. The other guy lost 20 lbs.

The guy who starts at 100 pounds probably needed to gain weight, and is better off, now at 150. At the time of my injury, last September, I was at about 150 pounds, and that was too light. I was healthier, a few years earlier, at about 170. Since my injury, I've lost more weight, and am down to around 135.

To get back to 150 would be a successful diet for me. To get back to 170, even better.

Have you considered...eating?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The left always leave out the intent of the 2nd.

It is obvious enough, why.

Ultimately, the desire to undermine the people's right to keep and bear arms, always, without exception, is rooted in desires and intents which, if acted on, would give the people just cause to use their arms, if necessary, to oppose any such actions. It's no mystery at all why the left wrong in this country wants the people to be unarmed and defenseless.

Just look at what they are doing with the #CoronaHoax2020.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

The second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Another dem who fails to grasp the fact that American troops will not be attacking American citizens.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

If that were true, then there is a procedure by which the Constitution can be amended, to overturn the Second Amendment. Until that procedure has been successfully completed, the Second Amendment stands with the rest of the Constitution, as this nation's highest law, and those who seek to undermine or disobey it by any means other than the legitimate Amendment process are no better than the lowest criminals.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

To get back to 150 would be a successful diet for me. To get back to 170, even better.

Have you considered...eating?

Alas, I can only eat so much. And the forced inactivity, due to my injury, has resulted in my appetite being less than before. And to make things even worse, I'm diabetic. The easiest and cheapest form of calories is in carbohydrates, but due to my diabetes, I cannot process carbohydrates as well as those who are not diabetic, and it is harmful for me to consume to much carbohydrate.

At least, given my need to be careful about excess carbs, it is fortunate for me that modern automobiles use fuel injection.

 

[justinacolmena]

then there is a procedure by which the Constitution can be amended, to overturn the Second Amendment.

No. It is set in stone. The right to keep and bear arms, i.e. to possess and carry firearms, along with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is unalienable, and it existed long before the independence of United States or the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

There is also a clause in the Bill of Rights that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

The second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

The 2nd was written for the exact situation we're facing right now.
Which is why dems are doing what they're doing.
They want to take away guns that have the ability to hit long and are efficient while leaving us with guns that are for the most part useless past 30 yards.
Now why would a government do that? Especially when the vast majority of killings are committed with handguns.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

I seriously question these figures. Seriously.

Prove them wrong. Either that or admit that facts are irrelevant to you, your mind is made and that's all that matters!

How can OL or ANYONE takes those figures seriously when the numbers for my nation are 100% BULLSHIT, so we need a further investigation then into the OTHER figures the same CRAP graph gives for Canada, Australia and South Africa. If # 2 my nation the figures are 100% BULLSHIT then perhaps ALL the other nations figures are also.

The author of that piece is now the Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson, so I'm thinking someone fudged with the numbers--a photoshop or something? If those numbers are real, they aren't comparing apples to apples, that's for sure.

Let's do the entire 100% BULLSHIT graph from 2009 and do it from 2018-2020 (Jan-May 2020) figures for each nation, okay I already CORRECTED the figures for my nation and also Luxemburg in my post # 122

Here is the 100% BULLSHIT graph from dubious methodology from 2009:

Here below are ALL the CORRECTIONS to the above CRAP.

FIRST the MOST VIOLENT nation on this planet is South Africa, and I am NOT shocked that it is as for many years South Africa has been INFAMOUS for it's extreme violence and extreme crime rates:

Crime in South Africa

Information about crime in South Africa. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

Crime in United Kingdom

Information about crime in United Kingdom. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

Let us compare the crime rates between the UK and South Africa and they are HORRIFIC:

Crime Comparison Between South Africa And United Kingdom. Safety Comparison.

www.numbeo.com

Crime in Sweden

Information about crime in Sweden. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

Crime in Austria

Information about crime in Austria. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

Crime in Luxembourg

Information about crime in Luxembourg. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

Crime in Belgium

Information about crime in Belgium. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

Crime in Canada

Information about crime in Canada. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

Crime in Finland

Information about crime in Finland. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

Crime in Netherlands

Information about crime in Netherlands. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

Crime in France

Information about crime in France. Shows how much people think the problem in their community are property crimes (home broken, car theft, etc.), violent crimes (being mugged or robbed, being attacked or insulted), corruption and other crimes.

www.numbeo.com

 

[OldLady]

And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

View attachment 340895

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

THEY ARE THE SAME GUN!

The same action, the same mechanics, the same ballistic characteristics, they take the same magazines, the same ammunition. The only difference is in what furniture is installed on them—purely a cosmetic difference, that has no bearing on how suitable either is for any purpose, legitimate or otherwise.

If I'm not mistaken, both the guns ion that picture are Ruger MIni-14s. I could be wrong, but I know that that's a popular gun to depict in two widely-different cosmetic forms, in order to emphasize the abject ignorance of hoplophobic cretins such as yourself, who are so easily led to believe that a gun's cosmetic appearance has any bearing on it's suitability for legal or illegal uses.

Well, both Ruger 14's. The bottom one is a Tactical Rifle. It has 30 different add-ons to enhance "performance." This is from Field and Stream on what a "Tactical Rifle" is.

A tactical rifle is a firearm designed for shooting people in a precise manner, as opposed to New York City Police Department doctrine, which is to empty the magazine as fast as you can in the general direction of everything standing and hope for the best.Mar 20, 2014

As far as accuracy goes, both can be made to be accurate. But a tactical rifle with a heavier barrel, can generally shoot more rounds before barrel heat starts to affect things. For hunting, this doesn't really come into consideration as you probably wont be taking that many shots.Oct 30, 2008
Tactical Rifles | Field & Stream

And I guessed right. The "tactical" version accepts 20 round mags.

 

[OldLady]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

The second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Another dem who fails to grasp the fact that American troops will not be attacking American citizens.

Well then what are you worried about? Who IS going to attack us that you need to defend yourself from?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

To get back to 150 would be a successful diet for me. To get back to 170, even better.

Have you considered...eating?

Alas, I can only eat so much. And the forced inactivity, due to my injury, has resulted in my appetite being less than before. And to make things even worse, I'm diabetic. The easiest and cheapest form of calories is in carbohydrates, but due to my diabetes, I cannot process carbohydrates as well as those who are not diabetic, and it is harmful for me to consume to much carbohydrate.

At least, given my need to be careful about excess carbs, it is fortunate for me that modern automobiles use fuel injection.

Sounds like you're in the same boat as me.
My type 2 didnt really affect my appetite that much at first and I cant confirm it's the cause now.
After cancer surgery,and five hip surgeries,with one more still to go and my back surgery my appetite crashed.
If I didnt force myself to eat I'd go days without eating.