The True Cost of *** ******** in America

[Luxman]

I'm more liberal minded, but I do believe any sane person should have the right to own guns.
But before they can get the guns, they have to go thru a mandatory safety training so they know how to properly use a ***.
There should be a waiting period of at least 2 days, for a background check and so they can calm down and rethink buying the *** if it's for an emotional motive of revenge or ********.

Here’s all the data the NRA doesn’t want you to see.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-***-********-in-america

 

[assari]

The most important thing that related to civil firearms:

Store them in a safe place

 

[Ulysses31]

10 bucks

 

[Mr. Daystar]

You do realize that, these statistics are just as tweaked against guns, as the NRA's are, in favor of guns. I would also like to point out, doctors **** more people, then guns do. As I've said before, and I will most likely say again, the only people laws effect, are the law abiding. Criminals do not buy from stores, or even *** shows. They do not get training, they do not care, they are criminals.

 

[Johan]

I'm more liberal minded, but I do believe any sane person should have the right to own guns.
But before they can get the guns, they have to go thru a mandatory safety training so they know how to properly use a ***.
There should be a waiting period of at least 2 days, for a background check and so they can calm down and rethink buying the *** if it's for an emotional motive of revenge or ********.

I'm fine with that.
But what if the person's psychological condition changes. What if a psychiatrist detects that this person is not as sane as she used to be. What if the doctor says that this person could now be a threat to herself or to other people. What if, for example, this persons converts herself to Islam, radical islam to be specific ?
Do we really want radical muslim *** owners ?

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Guns saved the lives of Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Guns saved the lives of Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman.

But sadly, they couldn't save Charlie Hedbo.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Only because French laws turn patrol officers into victims. If the first responders had been armed or if ANYONE in the office had a carry permit the damage would have been minimal.

 

[Ulysses31]

In light of the many ****** attacks in France the past few years all Police should be armed or at least have a rapid response armed unit on the scene in minutes, those guys should never have been able to get so far away for so long. I seem to recall a video on the news after they left the offices where they started shooting at a police car and it backed away and let them go, unbelievable.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Only because French laws turn patrol officers into victims. If the first responders had been armed or if ANYONE in the office had a carry permit the damage would have been minimal.

Dude, remember me....I'm in the choir too...the guy in the third row, with the .40cal Sig under his robe.

 

[Luxman]

Ok, then make bullets ******* and the only ammo available are tranquilizer darts that knock people or ******* out for 10 minutes.
That way no one gets ******, everyone can carry a ***, and guns can be fun instead of dangerous.

I'm being sarcastic, but it is a good idea.

 

[Johan]

Guns saved the lives of Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman.

Actually, Zimmerman would never have stalked on Trayvon Martin without a ***. Without Zimmerman's ***, both of them would still be alive.
So if say that Zimmemran's *** cost Martin's live, I'm 100% right. And you know I am. It pisses you off to thed point you can't admit it but you do know that I'm right.

Only because French laws turn patrol officers into victims. If the first responders had been armed or if ANYONE in the office had a carry permit the damage would have been minimal.

Even if the first responder would have had guns, the journalist would have been ****** 'cause they had been ****** before the cops showed up.
And the cops would have been ****** as well 'cause even a cop with a Glock-17 wouldn't be very effective against a well-trained terrorist with an AK-47

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

I'm more liberal minded, but I do believe any sane person should have the right to own guns.
But before they can get the guns, they have to go thru a mandatory safety training so they know how to properly use a ***.
There should be a waiting period of at least 2 days, for a background check and so they can calm down and rethink buying the *** if it's for an emotional motive of revenge or ********.

Here’s all the data the NRA doesn’t want you to see.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-***-********-in-america

The majority of US states have no waiting periods. In most states, anybody over 21 can walk into a *** shop and buy a handgun so long as they pass their 4473.

Yet I never see stories about people who went to their local *** shop, purchased a handgun legally and then used it to **** somebody that day or the next. The waiting period was a solution looking for a problem. All it does is inconvenience people.

If anti-*** people were truly about saving lives, they'd be advocating abolishing parking lots at bars. And more importantly, they'd be fighting to get lawmakers, judges and politicians to keep violent predators behind bars...because the overwhelming majority of people who use guns in crimes are people who've already proven to be threats to society.

Look at the cop who got shot in the face in Boston last month. The piece of **** who shot him was a career criminal with several felony convictions. Yet he was back on the streets, committing more crimes and ultimately shooting a cop in the face.

 

[Ouroboros_IV]

The thing I find funny about this topic is that I've actually changed my views on the subject. What makes it so hard is that there is no clear cut answer and there is no genuine statistic to really prove the what-ifs in our society.

I used to believe that life without guns would be safe, but now I'm not so sure. I still stand firm to my opinion that a society without guns is better than one with guns, but the problem is that society is unrealistic. The real battle will be trying to confiscate guns and that's the problem. There will always be some sort of means of obtaining guns which can cause great damage to a society where a majority are without weapons.

I think the best answer would be, if it were possible, guns should only be used by those who don't want to use them. Unfortunately there is no way to read someone's intentions when selling a ***. So until a reliable plan for a society without guns is crafted, I do believe that the right to bear arm is the safe recourse for now.

Ok, then make bullets ******* and the only ammo available are tranquilizer darts that knock people or ******* out for 10 minutes.
That way no one gets ******, everyone can carry a ***, and guns can be fun instead of dangerous.

I'm being sarcastic, but it is a good idea.

I was actually thinking about this too. Don't know how something like that will work, it seems like plausible idea, albeit an expensive one. Though you can still **** someone with tranquilizers.

Perhaps rubber bullets would be a better alternative.

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

I was actually thinking about this too. Don't know how something like that will work, it seems like plausible idea, albeit an expensive one. Though you can still **** someone with tranquilizers.

Perhaps rubber bullets would be a better alternative.

I don't think it is plausible. If you look at the defense ammo out there, it is designed to expand as it penetrates. To increase the likelihood of terminating the life of anybody on the receiving end as quickly as possible. Because, in a defensive situation, lethality could mean the difference between life and death.

If some home invader is running at you with a *****, hitting him with a tranq dark or rubber bullet isn't going to stop him before he plunges that blade into you. You can watch Youtube videos of people getting hit with rubber bullets and beanbag rounds and not even staggering.

I've been a legal concealed handgun carrier for almost a decade and I'm very much into firearms. There really isn't any practical less-lethal option out there. Besides, if it was easy and legal to buy and carry a tranq ***, can you imagine how many people would be ******* that **** because it's non-lethal?

 

[Luxman]

What about a taser type bullet with a built in tiny capacitor that shocks the target for a few seconds and ************* them.
If they keep coming shoot them again with more taser bullets.
The taser bullet has two needles that penetrate the skin and deliver the electric shock.

http://www.tgdaily.com/trendwatch-features/32820-taser-goes-high-tech-with-a-“wireless”-bullet

 

[luis1972]

Let's take a look to Europe stats specially Northern countries

 

[Supafly]

Let's take a look to Europe stats specially Northern countries

Here is an article in a renowned german newspaper on the topic. It is in german, I will point out the main specs for you:

http://www.zeit.de/2014/04/waffen-deutschland

...

Zwar registriert das Statistische Bundesamt jährlich rund 70 Tote durch Schusswaffen bei Angriffen und Unfällen, dazu kommen etwa 750 Selbstmorde. Ob die Todesschüsse aus einer illegalen oder einer legalen Waffe kamen, wird aber seltsamerweise nicht erfasst.

...

~ the Census Bureau registers each year abround 70 deaths due to firearms, either through attacks or by accident, and 750 suicides have to be added. Butstrangely enough, it doesn't get added if the guns involved are legally owned or *******.

The sheer numbers:

~81.084.000 Citizens

70 + 750 = 820 deaths by *** per year

81084000 / 820 = 1 death per firearm per 98882 citizens per year.

...

5,5 Millionen legale Schusswaffen gibt es in Deutschland, verteilt auf 1,45 Millionen Besitzer: Jäger, Sportschützen, Sammler oder Sicherheitsunternehmer. Nicht bekannt war bisher, wie viele Waffen es in den einzelnen Kreisen und Städten gibt. Auch hier klafft eine Lücke in der Statistik. Die ZEIT hat daher erstmals die Zahlen aller 550 Waffenbehörden zusammengetragen. Die Unterschiede sind groß: Sie reichen von weniger als 25 Schusswaffen pro tausend Einwohner in Städten wie Berlin, Leipzig, Flensburg und Freiburg bis zu mehr als 150 in ländlichen Kreisen in Rheinland-Pfalz, Bayern, Niedersachsen und im Saarland, wo es viele Jäger und Sportschützen gibt. Im Osten Deutschlands zeigen sich noch die Folgen der DDR: Dort gibt es weniger Schusswaffen, weil Schützenvereine verboten waren.

...

81 mill Germans / 5,5 mill legal guns = every 15th German owns a firearm. Note: in the former GDR states of Germany, where *** clubs were strictly forbidden, there are fewer guns per capita than in the west.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

81 mill Germans / 5,5 mill legal guns = every 15th German owns a firearm. Note: in the former GDR states of Germany, where *** clubs were strictly forbidden, there are fewer guns per capita than in the west.

That's surprising to me. I didn't expect it to be that much.

 

[Supafly]

Here is an article in a renowned german newspaper on the topic. It is in german, I will point out the main specs for you:

http://www.zeit.de/2014/04/waffen-deutschland



~ the Census Bureau registers each year abround 70 deaths due to firearms, either through attacks or by accident, and 750 suicides have to be added. Butstrangely enough, it doesn't get added if the guns involved are legally owned or *******.

The sheer numbers:

~81.084.000 Citizens

70 + 750 = 820 deaths by *** per year

81084000 / 820 = 1 death per firearm per 98882 citizens per year.

... and if we look at it like this: The suicides are not the real problem regarding *** ********, then, the statistic goes to:

81084000 / 70 = 1 death per firearm per 1.158.342 citizens per year.