It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does this topic never comes up when comes to guns?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Can you tell me how many of the incidence of gun violence in the statistics you posted are from police, or situations of legal self defense?

No where in the article does it mention if its illegal gun crime, police shooting criminals, stray shots from police, or acts of self defense. For all i know, it could be counting times when someone dropped a rifle and broke their toe.

I did find this


Over 60 percent of the injuries were caused by handgun “assault;”


If that is the case, then what are the other 40%?




posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: Destinyone

When you can point out where I said take your guns, then I may work on that issue..


I am saying for the health care costs..should people who want nothing to do with guns be paying for something that is a direct result of those guns.

Should gun manufacturers be held responsible for these injuries?

They have held tobacco companies responsible in the past for diseases caused by cigarettes, even though the cigarette did not get up and force its way into peoples mouths.(that one was for you NEO..
).


Should car manufacturers be held responsible for drunk driving fatalities?

Should Frito-Lay be held responsible for obesity?

Should Coke or Pepsi be held responsible for the cost of diabetes care?

Also, tobacco companies were held liable for purposefully misrepresenting (lying) about the "dangers" of cigarettes . . . not because they are "harmful". Have gun manufacturers ever claimed that guns were not dangerous and will kill someone if you shoot them?

A little critical thinking goes a long way . . .


OK first..if cars were the reason someone got drunk, maybe, but it is i alcohol that causes a person to get inebriated.
Is it just Frito Lays that are causing obesity or a variety of junk?

Same goes for Pepsi and Coke.

Guns manufacturers should be held responsible because they are not doing anything about keeping guns away from the wrong people.

Or is it the gun advocates who should be held responsible by fighting every reasonable gun law making guns more accessible to the wrong people. After all it is you guys who fight any sort of mental health qualification to own a gun.
It is you who fight having to go through waiting period or background check at a private gun show..etc.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Interesting but...

Obesity cost the US 190 BILLION in 2005. www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Smoking cost the US 193 BILLION in 2004. www.lung.org...

And yet an 18 year old can walk into ANY convenience store, buy a pack of smokes and then head to McDonalds for a Supersized Big Mac. Worse yet, there are no background checks prior to the purchase of these deadly items! OMG, right?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I wonder how much responsible gun owners save this country.

Are you aware of how many of us hold them at bay until police arrive and arrest the suspect? The crimes we may have prevented those individuals from committing by taking them out of the mix?

I was a victim of armed robbery in one of my retail locations and forgetting to switch off my safety saved that young mans life. He was arrested later based off my surveillance footage. Suprise, suprise...repeat offender. Violent felon...typical criminal. He is currently serving 20 years so I guess it will cost the US alot to house that sob for that amount of time. But that's not this gun owners fault; blame the dumbass who pulled it and the court system for letting it get that far...repeatedly.

If someone had taken him down before me it may have saved a lot. You know...like the brain damage induced to the person he robbed before me who he pistol whipped into a coma? Ohhh....cost must only equal money. What the hell ever.

I'll told you before onslaught. Your twisted and deluded misconceptions cost you enough. Restraint and intelligent candor being amongst the most "expensive" of those attributes...so quit being so "cheap"......



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone

When you get all these obese people skinny, and not costing us money...I'll consider your proposal of giving up my gun.

LOL I use my guns to defend my fat ass. You're throwing him out of the frying pan and into the fire.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Guns manufacturers should be held responsible because they are not doing anything about keeping guns away from the wrong people.


Do you have any instances of firearms manufactures selling to anyone but licensed distributors?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
The Public Health Cost of Gun Violence




The high figure underlines the need to treat gun violence in the U.S. as a public health issue as well as a law enforcement challenge, according to physicians and advocacy groups contacted by The Crime Report.


Gun Violence Costs Americans $5.6 Billion In Medical Bills Every Year




According to a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study, nonfatal gun injuries and gun-related deaths cost the United States $5.6 billion in medical spending every year, and an additional $64.6 billion when accounting for the lost productivity that stems from gun-related violence:


How Guns And Violence Cost Every American $564 In 2010




the numbers are too burdensome on the mind, and on the wallet, to ignore and deserve a place in the on-going debate over what, if any, regulations should come.


Are people really OK with these numbers? Should gun manufacturers be held liable for these injuries? How about gun owners?

Why should people who want nothing to do with guns be paying out of their own pockets to cover these bills for others?


No, I don't think that we should hold the gun companies liable, because they also supply our armed forces, and police.

We shouldn't hold gun owners liable for this situation either, because they are usually lawful. And if they're not, they go to jail.

Considering America has 313 million people living on her, these things are going to happen.

Did you know that it's against the law to not own a gun in swizerland. Why is their gun crime so low?

I know the population is smaller, but I would argue that it's CULTURE. America is a violent nation.

Violent movies, violent games etc etc. If you crack down on guns in a violent nation, you will see crime and violence SOAR because there would be no fear in them.

The other half are arguing because America is a violent nation, that's all more reason to ban them.

By taking them, all you're really saying is "Let's ban guns from the good people" because the criminals don't apply.

You could also argue that criminals steal/buy their guns from good people, which is probably true.

But unless you can destroy every gun in the world, banning all firearms is the wrong route.

I'm not saying you are for banning guns completely, but for those who are.

As far as gun regulation, there are regulations. The 1800's is proof of that.

England tried to ban all their guns and look at them. Didn't work.

When it comes down to it, Americans need to realise that guns are not going away here.

Americans need to realise that there are 313 million people living in America and bad things are going to happen because we are a violent nation.

Stricter gun laws will do nothing. There is nothing else you can do but Crack down on hollywood, Crack down on the psychiatric industry and Alcohol industry.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Feltrick


And yet an 18 year old can walk into ANY convenience store, buy a pack of smokes and then head to McDonalds for a Supersized Big Mac. Worse yet, there are no background checks prior to the purchase of these deadly items! OMG, right?





And that same 18 year old cannot go around a crowded school and force feed everyone until they get fat or make them smoke cigarettes until they die.

Now do the same thing with a gun and shoot..see the difference as what a background check is for.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: Destinyone

When you can point out where I said take your guns, then I may work on that issue..


I am saying for the health care costs..should people who want nothing to do with guns be paying for something that is a direct result of those guns.

Should gun manufacturers be held responsible for these injuries?

They have held tobacco companies responsible in the past for diseases caused by cigarettes, even though the cigarette did not get up and force its way into peoples mouths.(that one was for you NEO..
).


Should car manufacturers be held responsible for drunk driving fatalities?

Should Frito-Lay be held responsible for obesity?

Should Coke or Pepsi be held responsible for the cost of diabetes care?

Also, tobacco companies were held liable for purposefully misrepresenting (lying) about the "dangers" of cigarettes . . . not because they are "harmful". Have gun manufacturers ever claimed that guns were not dangerous and will kill someone if you shoot them?

A little critical thinking goes a long way . . .


OK first..if cars were the reason someone got drunk, maybe, but it is i alcohol that causes a person to get inebriated.
Is it just Frito Lays that are causing obesity or a variety of junk?

Same goes for Pepsi and Coke.

Guns manufacturers should be held responsible because they are not doing anything about keeping guns away from the wrong people.

Or is it the gun advocates who should be held responsible by fighting every reasonable gun law making guns more accessible to the wrong people. After all it is you guys who fight any sort of mental health qualification to own a gun.
It is you who fight having to go through waiting period or background check at a private gun show..etc.



Your engaging in "special pleading" . . . which, is a logical fallacy. Why is it the manufacturers responsiblity to monitor who and how their products are used, but not those other industries. And, as pointed out, those other industries cost the U.S. more in health care costs than the one you are dead set on punishing.

No logic in your argument.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Destinyone

When you get all these obese people skinny, and not costing us money...I'll consider your proposal of giving up my gun.


LOL I use my guns to defend my fat ass. You're throwing him out of the frying pan and into the fire.


If it came down to it...I'd use my guns to protect your fat ass too...what are friends for...


My guns are strictly for self defense, should such an occasion arise. And a small circle of friends should they not have access to their own gun in a dangerous to them, situation.

Des



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Guns manufacturers should be held responsible because they are not doing anything about keeping guns away from the wrong people.


Do you have any instances of firearms manufactures selling to anyone but licensed distributors?


Do you have any instances of gun manufactures making sure these same licensed distributors are not doing anything illegal or making sure the right people get guns?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
funny I saw a petition once that wanted to ban a substance that kills something like 200,000 people around the world a year. Is the leading cause of industrial corrosion, and can sometimes be tainted and poison to consume. It was called water. But they called it by it's chemical name and something like 90% of the people polled wanted to ban it because it cost the people too much to have around.

You are using the same logic.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Do you have any instances of gun manufactures making sure these same licensed distributors are not doing anything illegal or making sure the right people get guns?


As you are obviously unaware of how the firearms market functions I will help you out. Manufactures sell to distributors who then sell to dealers which then sell them to the end users. Firearms manufactures never deal with selling firearms to the public so determining who is the 'right people' is left to the dealers and the Federal and Local authorities.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Should people who want nothing to do with guns be paying out of their own pockets to cover these bills for others?


You can make pretty much the same argument for anything; alcohol, automobiles, various foods, etc.



You are correct, but there is another angle.
If the anti gun lobby started exposing how much is spent on gunshot wounds, some may figure out that the health industry is literally bending the US taxpayer over.
I don't think medical billing will be a question anytime soon.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

When the thread is about those other industries then I will bytch about them..


But this is about gun violence and the health care costs.

Yes I believe if more companies were held responsible for the damage they cause, maybe more would be done..education, how their product is made..etc.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Interesting perspective but the OP is about the monetary cost of gun violence on society. Obesity and Tobacco are costing this nation far more in health care costs than gun violence. I and other posters have proved that point. I would guess that's why you're trying to change the topic of the discussion...Oh well, I'll play.

You are correct...or are you? What about the salesman who has a soda machine in the school, he is contributing to the obesity and health care cost of those students. I mean, sure, he's not "forcing" them to drink that liquid death but he is making it available for anyone...even those who are already overweight. If a gun manufacturer just left guns in the school and allowed anyone to take it you'd be upset about that, right? But soda? No, it's up to the kids to be responsible and not drink it.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Since it hasn't been mentioned yet . . . Why isn't anyone asking why the CDC is making this a "public health issue" now, yet they did not in the 90's.

Some may remember the POTUS stating he will seek to "work around congress" to "stop gun violence"? Well, by the CDC proclaiming "gun violence" a public health issue, the gov can now take and enforce steps to restrict gun ownership.

Parents of children who are also gun owners are now, technically, putting their kids at risk. Which means CPS can now become involved and pressure gun-owning parents by threatening their parental rights. Nothing pulls at the heart strings like "child safety".

Insurance companies can be mandated to include "gun ownership" in their actuary tables and inquire about ownership on applications, just like they do for smokers. Gun ownership can then be used to increase premiums or outright deny applicants. Forcing gun owners to choose between health care and owning a firearm.

This is simply part of what the POTUS keeps stating he will do . . . since, the American people are not only not falling for the rhetoric and media distortions, but are fighting back against it.

This is merely a political ploy . . . using the CDC to promote the gov's anti-gun agenda.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Do you have any instances of gun manufactures making sure these same licensed distributors are not doing anything illegal or making sure the right people get guns?


As you are obviously unaware of how the firearms market functions I will help you out. Manufactures sell to distributors who then sell to dealers which then sell them to the end users. Firearms manufactures never deal with selling firearms to the public so determining who is the 'right people' is left to the dealers and the Federal and Local authorities.


Exactly. They are doing this to avoid responsibility for their product.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: solomons path

When the thread is about those other industries then I will bytch about them..


But this is about gun violence and the health care costs.

Yes I believe if more companies were held responsible for the damage they cause, maybe more would be done..education, how their product is made..etc.


So, what you are saying is you don't care about the causation for violence in this nation . . . you simply want guns gone and those that work in that industry punished?

If you are not interested in facts and the truth . . . just come out and say so. Why the intellectual dishonesty?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Guns manufacturers should be held responsible because they are not doing anything about keeping guns away from the wrong people.


Do you have any instances of firearms manufactures selling to anyone but licensed distributors?


Do you have any instances of gun manufactures making sure these same licensed distributors are not doing anything illegal or making sure the right people get guns?


As a FFL holder; that is the ATF and FBIs job. Deal with the bs red tape I have to and tell me it's not well regulated. Within the private business sector of course. Not on Eric holders type of thing.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join