Guns don't kill people....

originally posted by: watchitburn

If you have to dig for the most ridiculous, obscure and far fetched nonsense in an attempt to validate your BS then by all means knock yourself out.

Yes and a journal article is also up there with it right?

I said it can happen. Just because something in your vast experience has never occurred to you does not mean that something isn't true. It's a rare thing. Rare random stuff happen.

And mate, you've completely blown out a tongue-in-cheek response to the title of this thread.

If you have to come battling in on your high horse belittling people for a throwaway comment to validate your ego, then by all means have a bunch of

a reply to: auroraaus

A meteor could land on your head too, and it's about just as likely.

a reply to: watchitburn

It's like showing card tricks to a dog isn't it?

originally posted by: angeldoll
Oh yeah you're right. I've never heard of a gun killing any body before.

I mean, a gun killing a person? Who in the world would have such a ridiculous idea?

I'm sure a gun lying on the ground with no one loading, holding, aiming, or pulling the trigger has killed a human before.

Anything is possible.

So I guess cars, swords, hammers and pianos kill people too. Ban them all.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: filthyphilanthropist
All I'm saying is that my argument is the logical continuation of the argument used in the title.
If people are going to use that form of argument, they ought not to stop after the first line.

Not really. I mean, sure if you're looking at it in a most black and white way. You can't seperate people from guns. It is not possible anymore no matter if they ban every last one of them.

While not exactly, the closest term I can think to describe it is an idiom. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. I'd rather focus on the truth within that statement which could be spoken with any choice weapon. The real problem are people and culture. Other places with guns don't share the same level of violence as we in these Kinda Sorta United States. Clearly guns are not the problem. The problem is the people.

Of course, if we are going literal on phrases I prefer, "Guns don't kill people; bullets do."

Guns have one function: to do extreme damage to a living being, which often results in death.

Considering a gun fatality the victim couldn't have died without a gun, regardless of who pulled the trigger. It's a gun fatality after all. Context is king.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Political, religious, and ideological radicalization and extremism, psychological disorders often derived from bullying and disfunctional families, polarizing and triggering media and news outlets, and people.. Kill people.

While guns are ultimately more effective than most other weaponry, there are many ways that a deranged person can cause harm to a large amount of people if they decide to do so..

If there are so many other easier myriad ways to kill people, why aren't they being used? Remember, the majority of the debate is not repealing the 2nd amendment (most agree this will never happen), but rather that the ease of purchasing guns is orders of magnitude greater than utilizing any other method (many of which again are orders of magnitude more regulated).

After the Oklahoma city bombing, there was immediate legislation to limit/track purchases of large quantities of fertilizer. There has been no such reaction to the plethora of school shootings (for example).

a reply to: deadlyhope

A couple weeks back in Alabama a female student was killed by a gun.

There have been many instances of guns going off without an operator.

It is most often due to poor manufacturing and sometimes manipulation of trigger assemblies.

So some guns do kill people.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Actually, this and similar discussions happen regularly on ATS, or at least some of us attempt to have these discussions with people who always only want to blame the gun and the "gun culture" instead.

I personally have tried to discuss the reality of overmedication in our society; I've tried to discuss piss-poor parenting trends (in both broken families and complete families); I've tried discussing the decline of proper schooling of our youth, where we keep trying to teach more and more at earlier and earlier ages with is having a negative effect on our children; I've tried to discuss the reality that it's not necessarily a money thing in our schools, but more of an issue of redesigning the way that we approach schooling; I've discussed willful ignorance in our society as it pertains to guns (many facets of it--lack of teaching gun safety to children, lack of proper storing of weapons, instilling fear of the gun in our youth, blaming the wrong problem and thing, etc.); I've tried to discuss how there has been a numbing of violence in our youth (although I don't think that's a major problem for most children) and how it could possibly be reducing the respect for human life that was a societal standard not too long ago; I've discussed how no-tolerance policies in school create an atmosphere where children are not allowed to figure out how to constructively deal with confrontation and personal issues with other people; I've discussed how the prevalence of social media is removing people's ability to effectively communicate in person and deal with internal issues; I've tried to discuss the loss of the concept of "personal responsibility" in our young kids; I've discussed the entitlement mentality in some of our youth (and young adults) and their inability to react in a healthy way to not getting what they want.

I've tried to discuss a lot of things, and in general, they either get ignored or only gain traction with one or two people who agree, and then it's lost in the crowd of comments that accumulate in gun threads.

It's not that people don't try to discuss this stuff--it's discussed all over this site--it's just that we really have no tangible answers, so it's all just generally speculation, even if educated speculation. The anti-gun people have it easy: They can point to the weapon and the bullet and say that 'this is the problem,' and get away with that because it plays on the emotions of people and it's an easy scapegoat that is visual in nature--nearly everything that I listed is not, so it's harder to discuss with emotional people.

I mean, take the first response to your OP--someone being snarky, sarcastic, and passive-aggressive in blaming the gun. It's thoughtless comments like that which are the problem, because they derail EVERY thread or comment that tries to actually discuss the true foundations of the issues at hand.

It's pathetic, and proof that as much as people want to believe it to be true about themselves, too many on here are not deep thinkers or trying to deny ignorance, just perpetuate ideology and thoughtless talking points.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
All the kids in that school knew which kid to point to as the most likely to go on a murderous rampage before it happened.

He was visited by the Law over 70 times.

The overall "system" operating in that district directly caused a violent danger to go unchecked.

I did a thread on this here. The enabling of this by local officials went deeper than many people realize.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Shooting incidents only occur when people and guns are brought together.
Therefore the logical solution is to keep them apart.

If you really think keeping them apart is the logical solution, then there's a package waiting for you in Austin.

Technically you are right, if there were no guns then people could not shoot each other. If there were no knives, people could not stab each other. If there were no cars, people could not run each other over. If there was no text messaging, people would watch the road better. If there was no alcohol, people could not make stupid decisions. If there were no cleaning chemicals, people could not use them in bad ways. If there were no tide pods, kids would not eat them(nor do laundry).

I see your point, if we didn't have any of the things people could use to do stupid things, then people couldn't use any of the things they do to do stupid things. So, with that logic, is there anything we can have??

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: deadlyhope



I mean, take the first response to your OP--someone being snarky, sarcastic, and passive-aggressive in blaming the gun. It's thoughtless comments like that which are the problem, because they derail EVERY thread or comment that tries to actually discuss the true foundations of the issues at hand.

It's pathetic, and proof that as much as people want to believe it to be true about themselves, too many on here are not deep thinkers or trying to deny ignorance, just perpetuate ideology and thoughtless talking points.

Too true. Some people just want to blame the gun and the NRA, and it distracts from actually getting at the meat and potatoes of the issue and possibly finding a solution. On the other side, we've got people pretending a raised fist is the same as a Nazi salute. The over the top rhetoric on both sides derails honest discussion. These people are barriers to progress.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

If there are so many other easier myriad ways to kill people, why aren't they being used? Remember, the majority of the debate is not repealing the 2nd amendment (most agree this will never happen), but rather that the ease of purchasing guns is orders of magnitude greater than utilizing any other method (many of which again are orders of magnitude more regulated).

After the Oklahoma city bombing, there was immediate legislation to limit/track purchases of large quantities of fertilizer. There has been no such reaction to the plethora of school shootings (for example).

Wait, are you talking about how they infringed on the second-and-a-half amendment, where the right to keep and bear fertilizer shall not be infringed?

Also, here's the reality of the use of non-firearms in murders according to the FBI from 2012-2016:

In those five years, there is an average of 30% of the murders being committed by something other than a firearm. Those things include:

- Bladed weapons
- Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)
- Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) (yes, body parts are considered weapons)
- Poison
- Explosives
- Fire (arson)
- Narcotics
- Drowning
- Strangulation
- Asphyxiation
- Other weapons not stated

So, people do use things other than guns in nearly one out of every three murders. Furthermore, in nations like Australia, where guns 'aren't a problem' because they are basically outlawed save for a few circumstances, gun crime and murders still occur, and murders and violent crime using things like bladed weapons are on the rise ever since the gun ban.

Yawn, another guns don't kill thread

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Wayfarer

If there are so many other easier myriad ways to kill people, why aren't they being used? Remember, the majority of the debate is not repealing the 2nd amendment (most agree this will never happen), but rather that the ease of purchasing guns is orders of magnitude greater than utilizing any other method (many of which again are orders of magnitude more regulated).

After the Oklahoma city bombing, there was immediate legislation to limit/track purchases of large quantities of fertilizer. There has been no such reaction to the plethora of school shootings (for example).

Wait, are you talking about how they infringed on the second-and-a-half amendment, where the right to keep and bear fertilizer shall not be infringed?

Also, here's the reality of the use of non-firearms in murders according to the FBI from 2012-2016:

In those five years, there is an average of 30% of the murders being committed by something other than a firearm. Those things include:

- Bladed weapons
- Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)
- Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) (yes, body parts are considered weapons)
- Poison
- Explosives
- Fire (arson)
- Narcotics
- Drowning
- Strangulation
- Asphyxiation
- Other weapons not stated

So, people do use things other than guns in nearly one out of every three murders. Furthermore, in nations like Australia, where guns 'aren't a problem' because they are basically outlawed save for a few circumstances, gun crime and murders still occur, and murders and violent crime using things like bladed weapons are on the rise ever since the gun ban.

Appreciate you taking the time to look up/list the statistics (thats a huge help). My post I admit is primarily driven by assessments of reducing school 'shootings', so I admit I have a certain angle to my view of the OP (not to imply the other areas being discussed are any less relevant).

My response to the poster was merely adjacent to the 'guns don't kill people line' which is really in my opinion just a semantical oruboros. I wanted to highlight that there has been a reticence to enact legislation (or perhaps more specifically enforce existing legislation) that would prohibit the acquisition of firearms by people that almost all American's can agree probably shouldn't have guns (Criminals, Mental Health Victims, etc).

Lastly, being an aficionado of close combat and bladed weapons, I suppose I have a preference for those avenues of attack over being assaulted by an assailant with a gun (which I feel a lot less able to deal with), so my prerogatives to limit those in the same vein is less than that of what I'm more fearful of.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Wayfarer

If there are so many other easier myriad ways to kill people, why aren't they being used? Remember, the majority of the debate is not repealing the 2nd amendment (most agree this will never happen), but rather that the ease of purchasing guns is orders of magnitude greater than utilizing any other method (many of which again are orders of magnitude more regulated).

After the Oklahoma city bombing, there was immediate legislation to limit/track purchases of large quantities of fertilizer. There has been no such reaction to the plethora of school shootings (for example).

Wait, are you talking about how they infringed on the second-and-a-half amendment, where the right to keep and bear fertilizer shall not be infringed?

Also, here's the reality of the use of non-firearms in murders according to the FBI from 2012-2016:

In those five years, there is an average of 30% of the murders being committed by something other than a firearm. Those things include:

- Bladed weapons
- Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)
- Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) (yes, body parts are considered weapons)
- Poison
- Explosives
- Fire (arson)
- Narcotics
- Drowning
- Strangulation
- Asphyxiation
- Other weapons not stated

So, people do use things other than guns in nearly one out of every three murders. Furthermore, in nations like Australia, where guns 'aren't a problem' because they are basically outlawed save for a few circumstances, gun crime and murders still occur, and murders and violent crime using things like bladed weapons are on the rise ever since the gun ban.

I wanted to highlight that there has been a reticence to enact legislation (or perhaps more specifically enforce existing legislation) that would prohibit the acquisition of firearms by people that almost all American's can agree probably shouldn't have guns (Criminals, Mental Health Victims, etc).

We have such legislation already. One of the big problems is a lot of that information doesn't make it into the database to flag them during the background check. Cruz, for example, assaulted his mother. Under Florida law, that's considered domestic violence. If he had been charged and convicted of that, that conviction would have flagged him when his background check was conducted when he went to purchase his guns, and he would've been declined. There are other failures in the system where people do have convictions and they simply never make it to the database because someone in the chain of bureaucracy #s up. Another recent shooter who had a domestic violence conviction that the Air Force failed to report is an example.

You may be interested to know that in 2016 there was a bill to fix these types of problems with the background check system. It was filibustered by Democrats.

a reply to: Wayfarer

The argument is only based in semantics if we disregard the concept of Personal Responsibility, IMO.

I do agree that the unwillingness to enforce gun laws strictly and forcefully is a problem in America, and I think that it has led to a reduce deterrent for many criminals and murderers.

I'm also a fan of close-combat and blades, but I'm also a fan of carrying a firearm as well, for that improbable but possible instance where I am confronted with a situation where someone has a gun. But the gun is a last resort, as it should always be, and I would rely on my ever-growing skills in hand-to-hand first and foremost (or my ability to run faster than someone else, which is an ever-decreasing skill as I approach 40).

I get the fear--at certain distances, you cannot advance on a gunman before they can shoot, and they are very likely to hit you if they fire, even if they're untrained--but fear cannot be a catalyst to advocate removal or dilution of our rights. I won't bore you with a list of intelligently muttered things by our Founding Fathers on fears versus rights.

Look, I agree that certain portions of society should not be able to access guns--I don't want a 12-year-old to be capable of buying weapons designed to be deadly or to be able to carry them around in public in modern society, but I also don't want rights removed from people without proper due process, and right now, we have about as good a system as I'm willing to support that adjudicates when someone is not allowed to own/purchase/possess weapons because of their own behavior or because they are a thread to themselves or others (mental issues included in that). The NICS Background Check has a pretty thorough list of reasons why someone cannot purchase or possess a firearm, and I will bore you with that:

The federally prohibiting criteria are as follows:

◾A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.

◾Persons who are fugitives from justice.

◾An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.

◾A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

◾A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.

◾A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.

◾A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.

◾A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.

◾The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.

◾A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.

◾A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

With that noted, we do have a problem with reporting some of these things to the NICS system, especially by the military, and that is also something that truly needs to be rectified.

People kill people, some of them do use guns. Some of them use cars, some use drugs. Some of them use knives, some of them use agricultural chemistry.

I think we should look at Pharmacology as a major killer of people and also the fifty thousand approved chemicals used in our food supply. I think we should look at social media as much as gun ownership. When psycopathic people get confidence they are more apt to do something bad.

So where do you start?

originally posted by: angeldoll
Oh yeah you're right. I've never heard of a gun killing any body before.

I mean, a gun killing a person? Who in the world would have such a ridiculous idea?

Amen and thank you for realizing this. No weapon, in the history of the world, has operated autonomously and killed anyone. to date, every death from a firearm wound, was caused by a PERSON, holding the firearm and discharging it, thus killing the other person. It never would have happened, had the person, not been holding the weapon.

I'm glad to see you coming around.