GUNS: Report Links State Gun Laws to Rates of Slayings, Trafficking

[Dawn]

GUNS do not kill people, other people do.

The development of weapons (including guns) served only one purpose and one only. Kill. Guns and other weapons are tools build to kill. We can have illegal or legal, moral or amoral reasons to kill. It doesnt change the fact that a gun is a tool build to kill.

Not a reason to be in favor or against the gun laws.

Just a reason to call that argument fallacious as Marquis2 said earlier.

 

[meesterperfect]

its like blaming religion for causing humans to kill other humans.

when we all know even if religion didn't exist humans would still find another reason to kill one another.

 

[Facetious]

Regardless if he tries or not in his 2nd term?? nobodies givin up their guns!! and I am sure come hell or high water they will have a doosey of time trying to pass any kind of legislation to ban the sale of arms!! not too mention the population is flooded with weapons that the government can't do SHIT ABOUT!!

I love your optimism but the ATF have their way with every party they come in contact with.
This is not to suggest that this particular administration will dispatch them . .. .. but they can. One by one, piece by piece, "turn 'em over before such and such a date or else . . !"
It places the responsibility upon the people. The gov. need not employ a blanket coverage approach to seizure, at least for the legal, law abiding, citizens' firearms. Bummer, I know

:hi: we're here and we're coming in whether you like it or not

 

[Facetious]

The development of weapons (including guns) served only one purpose and one only. Kill. Guns and other weapons are tools build to kill.

What comes first, the idea that a free people have a right to defend their person and family from that or those who would harm them, or one's impetus to "kill" ?

 

[Marlo Manson]

I love your optimism but the ATF have their way with every party they come in contact with.
This is not to suggest that this particular administration will dispatch them . .. .. but they can. One by one, piece by piece, "turn 'em over before such and such a date or else . . !"
It places the responsibility upon the people. The gov. need not employ a blanket coverage approach to seizure, at least for the legal, law abiding, citizens' firearms. Bummer, I know

:hi: we're here and we're coming in whether you like it or not

Ok I understand your point but if they expect us the people to surrender our weapons. is Uncle Sam paying us for the hard earned money we spent to own these weapons?? I am refering to the legal law abiding citizens of course, that have spent there money on their cache of weapons??

I don't think anyway you try to ban guns or sieze guns in any capacity whatsoever that it is do-able!! their is no way in hell it will happen!! their would be an uprising too overthrow the government!!

We the people enable these fucktards into office out of a lack of any other choice, but these fucktards will not ever succeed in changing or suceeding in unarming the citizens of the US of America!!

I would imagine it is almost impossibe to unarm the USA!! theirs as many guns as their are humans in this country?? :dunno::hatsoff:

 

[Will E Worm]

its like blaming religion for causing humans to kill other humans.

when we all know even if religion didn't exist humans would still find another reason to kill one another.

Humans would find another reason to kill each other.

Religion and guns are not the problem. Greedy and power is the main problem.

One by one, piece by piece, "turn 'em over before such and such a date or else . . !"

That would start a war in this country.

If they set a date to turn in weapons, within that time frame
a war would start.

Hourofthetime.com
Free podcasts, I forget which one, but it is said on one of them.

The reasons to start the war to restore America and the true laws
would be...
1. A Nuclear strike against the US.
2. Martial Law and the confiscation of weapons.
3. Invasion from an outside enemy.

There might be a few more, but that's the major reasons.

 

[georges]

The development of weapons (including guns) served only one purpose and one only. Kill. Guns and other weapons are tools build to kill. We can have illegal or legal, moral or amoral reasons to kill. It doesnt change the fact that a gun is a tool build to kill.

Not a reason to be in favor or against the gun laws.

Just a reason to call that argument fallacious as Marquis2 said earlier.

There are disciplines in olympic sports where guns are used like the biathlon, the pentathlon and the world wide shooting competitions.
The guns were primarily weapons for hunting and defending the land of farmers and settlers against thieves. Trap and skeet is a well known and popular shooting discipline. I don't understand why you systematically associate guns with kill. Metallic silhouette shooting or long range shooting are also sport disciplines of shooting. Perhaps for you a knife is a tool to stab or kill someone as well.:dunno: All is up to the sanity of the individual who uses the gun.

 

[LBP 76]

There are disciplines in olympic sports where guns are used like the biathlon, the pentathlon and the world wide shooting competitions.
The guns were primarily weapons for hunting and defending the land of farmers and settlers against thieves. Trap and skeet is a well known and popular shooting discipline. I don't understand why you systematically associate guns with kill. Metallic silhouette shooting or long range shooting are also sport disciplines of shooting. Perhaps for you a knife is a tool to stab or kill someone as well.:dunno: All is up to the sanity of the individual who uses the gun.

Because that IS what guns were developed for doing; killing. They weren't developed primarily or even secondarily for shooting clay targets. They were designed to kill primarily people and secondarily animals/birds.

 

[Will E Worm]

Anything can be used to kill. Baseball bats weren't created to kill people, but they have been used to kill.

Guns were created for hunting and defense.

There's no excuse for people who use any item to murder.
No one can demonize guns or anything else just because a criminal uses them improperly.

 

[Facetious]

There are those who believe, at least for everybody other than themselves, that, under no circumstances shall a defender take the life of aggressor, even in the event that said aggressor held a blade to their throat ! It's a mindset that I will go to my grave never understanding.
Also, when it comes to criminal victim advocacy . . forget about it, the only resolve for victims of crime is that they exchange their former personal responsibilities i.e. freedoms in for a greater, purported level of security.

They deserve neither . . . right, Will E ? :tongue:

 

[marquis2]

Anything can be used to kill. Baseball bats weren't created to kill people, but they have been used to kill.

Guns were created for hunting and defense.

There's no excuse for people who use any item to murder.
No one can demonize guns or anything else just because a criminal uses them improperly.

You have just hit on the difference.Many things can be USED to kill , guns are INTENDED for it.They cause loss of life simply by making it easier to take it.They were not designed to make the world a better place.They were certainly nor created for hunting and defence, they were initially military weapons which were adapted later.Cerainly they have a use for hunting and just possibly for defence though any law enforcement agency will put you right on the idea that they enhance your safety.

 

[Philbert]

Sigh...
Automobiles weren't designed to kill...swimming pools weren't designed to kill...yet both are responsible for many more deaths than handguns and other firearms.
So what if guns are designed to do flesh destruction...every shot doesn't kill the target, but the target instantly becomes unable to function as well or at all. The purpose of firearms is to alter a situation...and people decide when and how to use said weapon.
That is a fact of the real world, not the world of dreams and imagination many anti-gun advocates percieve.
Wanna live in peace? Make sure your enemies are afraid to invade your space. That includes criminals and terrorists, mean dogs and bullies.
A gun equalizes the power of the weak and the strong, so I like firearms for everyone who qualifies...pretty much all the citizens.
Don't want a gun...don't get one, and hope you never find yourself in the spot where no one can help you before the harm is done.

 

[Philbert]

My absolute definitive statement on the subject...!

"If we're going to ban all guns then we have to ban all swimming pools.

In a given year there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 swimming pools in the US. That is 550 children under the age of 10 dead every year. Meanwhile, there is one child killed by a gun for every 1 million guns. In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under the age of 10 die every year from guns, while 550 die in swimming pools.*

The likelihood of a death by pool (1 in 11,000) vs. death by gun (1 in 1,000,000+) isn't even close. Your child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than as a result of gunplay.*

Most Americans, and everybody else, are terrible risk assessors. The basic reality is that the risks that scare people and the risks that kill people are very different.*

You can have my swimming pool when you pry it out of my cold, dead backyard."

*Source: "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

 

[girk1]

I am with Georges.



There are too many armed Americans and too many Militia groups
that will fight back and take back their government.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

They just don't have rifles now.

I totally disagree with yamamoto & any serious military mind who would think that if the strongest military in the history of the world is defeated & invaded by another country there is no way hell some fat, undisicplined, out of shape armed citizens with ak-47's are going to stop them.

To invade the US you would need air & technological superiority & bomb us into oblivion & any citizen who would dare point a gun at this invader would wish they had never seen a gun. The only way those guns will help is with the ensuing chaos & protection from other desperate citizens who are looting & terrorizing fellow citizens. If the US miltary can't stop an invasion then no one on earth can & armed citizens would be little more than a nuisance.

As the owner of three guns( 870 express, mossberg atr 30-06 & another handgun soon to replace a stolen glock 17) I am all for gun owership. Although I see no reason for an Ak 47 or Tec-9(some people get their rocks off differently I guess:dunno & have no problem with 'reasonable' gun control laws, people have misguided reasons for owning them. Far, far more gun owners are killed by guns than successfully use them in self defense & the US invasion theories are ludicrous.

For the most part ,Obama only wants fairly reasonable gun control laws.

 

[marquis2]

Sigh...
Automobiles weren't designed to kill...swimming pools weren't designed to kill...yet both are responsible for many more deaths than handguns and other firearms.
So what if guns are designed to do flesh destruction...every shot doesn't kill the target, but the target instantly becomes unable to function as well or at all. The purpose of firearms is to alter a situation...and people decide when and how to use said weapon.
That is a fact of the real world, not the world of dreams and imagination many anti-gun advocates percieve.
Wanna live in peace? Make sure your enemies are afraid to invade your space. That includes criminals and terrorists, mean dogs and bullies.
A gun equalizes the power of the weak and the strong, so I like firearms for everyone who qualifies...pretty much all the citizens.
Don't want a gun...don't get one, and hope you never find yourself in the spot where no one can help you before the harm is done.

Yes. a gun makes a weak criminal as strong as any householder.
It's almost frightening looking at the arguments put forward in justification for gun ownership.They are so flawed as to be ridiculous but remember the people who actually believe them are the ones who actually own guns.The last people who should have guns are those who can't think straight and believe in fairy tales.

 

[Philbert]

Yes. a gun makes a weak criminal as strong as any householder.It's almost frightening looking at the arguments put forward in justification for gun ownership.They are so flawed as to be ridiculous but remember the people who actually believe them are the ones who actually own guns.The last people who should have guns are those who can't think straight and believe in fairy tales.

Exactly...I'm glad my post helped you see the light.
I don't want to have a "bigger than you" contest with someone everytime I have a nice tv, or a cute daughter...no matter the size of the thief, or home invader, it's nice to know a well placed shot will end the problem.

As for the idea that thinking straight is a criteria for gun ownership, are you suggesting you are qualified to decide what is straight thinking and allow just those lucky folks to have the rights set forth by the Founding Fathers?

And any Supreme Court Justice who found the amendment does set forth the right of individuals to keep arms either has a gun or believes in Fairy Tales? Even for this site, that's pretty out there.
Speaking of ridiculous arguments...

 

[marquis2]

Exactly...I'm glad my post helped you see the light.
I don't want to have a "bigger than you" contest with someone everytime I have a nice tv, or a cute daughter...no matter the size of the thief, or home invader, it's nice to know a well placed shot will end the problem.

As for the idea that thinking straight is a criteria for gun ownership, are you suggesting you are qualified to decide what is straight thinking and allow just those lucky folks to have the rights set forth by the Founding Fathers?

And any Supreme Court Justice who found the amendment does set forth the right of individuals to keep arms either has a gun or believes in Fairy Tales? Even for this site, that's pretty out there.
Speaking of ridiculous arguments...

No. It's the notion that ownership protects against tyrannical government or provides overall personal safety. Neither is true, the second one is demonstrably false and the first is ultimate self deception.

 

[jo-nathan]

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

That says it all

 

[Will E Worm]

I totally disagree with yamamoto & any serious military mind who would think that if the strongest military in the history of the world is defeated & invaded by another country there is no way hell some fat, undisicplined, out of shape armed citizens with ak-47's are going to stop them.

far more gun owners are killed by guns than successfully use them in self defense & the US invasion theories are ludicrous.

For the most part ,Obama only wants fairly reasonable gun control laws.

You're misguided and wrong. :tongue:

Not every Militia member is "fat". Also, Yamamoto words were wise.
Obama is a Socialist, he doesn't have our best interests in mind.

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

That says it all

:thumbsup:

 

[girk1]

You're misguided and wrong. :tongue:

Not every Militia member is "fat". Also, Yamamoto words were wise.
Obama is a Socialist, he doesn't have our best interests in mind.



:thumbsup:

NO. Anyone who actually believes that any country that is disicplined & DEDICATED enough ,has air superiority,technology,etc.... to successfully invade the most powerful/technologically advanced military in the history of the world & a nuclear superpower will see foolish old men with rifles as no more than a nuisance. The notion that some armed citizens can defeat them is beyond ludicrous. With misguided/foolish Japanese leaders like the 'wise' Yamamoto it is no wonder Japan was nearly bombed into oblivion.:dunno:

And of the roughly 20 something thousand(?) or more citizens killed & millions robbed/burglarized yearly I am sure that many(maybe most) of them were gun owners, yet very, very few have used their gun against persons who victimize them. I am nearly 40 years old (nearly everyone I know owns guns) & I have yet to know of a single person to use their gun in self defense, but I have known a dozen or so of them murdered because bad guys normally get the drop on you. And I have known a few locked up for unjustified murder.

My shotgun & (pistol I shall replace ) are also for self defense among other purposes(hunting/recreation), but I am not under the impression that a gun is the answer to my personal safety.
However it is(gun ownership) a 'little' peace of mind & I agree that the threat of armed homes can make 'some' criminals think twice or be a bit more cautious ,but criminals don't wait until you are ready for them they catch you at your most vulnerable.

Well Bowdown to your socialist President.:bowdown: I thought that mindless nonsense that Obama is a Socialist was over when he spanked McCain's ass on Nov. 4.