32 people killed every single day

40,000 Third World children starve to death or die from simple preventable diseases each day.

There's something you can solve.... Get to it.

someone from the UK's opinion.

what happens when you ban guns

check out austrailia's figures too. i think they had violent crime go up 65%.
i could be wrong,it may have been home invasions





[edit on 6-11-2008 by Spectre0o0]

[edit on 6-11-2008 by Spectre0o0]

In addition to guns....

I think drinking and driving should be illegal, think of all the lives that would be saved.

In fact, alcohol should be illegal just like it was back in the days of prohibition when Gangsters were virtually eliminated.

While we're at it, drugs should be illegal.

Oh, wait...Now I'm really confused. I have just been informed DUI /DWI and drugs ARE illegal. If this is true, why are people still being killed by drunk drivers?? Why are people still dying because of drugs??

O.K., enough sarcasm. I do not condone drinking and driving or drugs,
I'm just trying to make a point. Take these things away and all were left with are drunk drivin', drug dealing, gun toting criminals!!

What a happy place this would be. Perhaps then we could all get together, hold hands and skip though fields of daisies.

3700 abortions in the US everyday.

Abortion facts

93% percent are because the child is unwanted or inconvenient.

47% are the second or more by the same woman (thats inexcusable)

Originally posted by calihan123
Heres what I dont get. Why do people always think about the possibilities of other countries nuking us, or our own government killing us, or some sort of genocide, and not about the fact that on average, every single day in america 32 people are killed in gun violence. 32 people a day. And we are so concerned with everything BUT what is happening in our own cities. Our own neighboorhoods.

Maybe we should worry a little more about cleaning up the crime in our country before we start thinking about some outrageous nuclear war claims.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by calihan123]

[edit on 5-11-2008 by calihan123]

Are you sure about your stat because the last time I looked, 40,000ish died of firearm deaths/year and 30,000 on the roads? I can't remember the site I quoted but I linked it a while back stating these stats from several years ago and as I'm pretty sure your not getting less gun happy over there the figures are probably higher?

However, when I did quote another stat it was to make people think about what's really going on in yours and every other wealthy country. Think about 250,000 dead (as a min) every year in the US due to using the correct dosage of correctly prescribed drugs! So where should your new presidents next WAR ON ?????? be, Healthcare?

Did you research how many people a day are killed by knife violence in the UK? And if so what is that number and how does it compare per capita to the US? Guns are not the problem. If you honestly look at the places where gun violence is the worst it is Chicago, Los Angeles etc. Alomst everyone of those "paradises" have strict gun laws AND libelral governing bodies.

To be honest if you were really trying to save lives you would outlaw cars or the flu.




Killed in car accidents 42,116*
Killed by the common flu 20,000*
Killed by murders 15,517*
Killed in airline crashes
(of 477m passenger trips) 120 (1)
Killed by lightning strikes 90*

Killed by Anthrax 5


(1) Annual average over 19 year period.
*Average annual totals in United States.

Source:www.unitedjustice.com...

guns dont kill people. its loss of blood, the shut down of organs, and the damage sustained by the carnage of the after effects of bullets blowing chunks out of it .

It's never about "saving lives" with the gun grabbers.

If it were they wouldnt be so split. Handguns, rifles, high cap mags, barrel shrouds, etc...

The gun-grabbers are all split among which stupid thing to ban. Handguns statistically are used in more deaths. But for every gun-grabber that wants handguns out of the picture there's one that wants rifles and there's even one that seems to think people are being cheese-grated to death by barrel shrouds.

The only ones who overlap or show any consistency at all are the all out total gun-banners but such a 'extreme' position turns off an awful lot of people so they hope that this group of idiots over here will ban the handguns and this group of idiots of there will ban the rifles and somewhere in some soccer mom suburb (no doubt in Pelosi's neighborhood) some group of morons will be bending over backwards to stop their chi;children from being cheese-grated to death by barrel shrouds.

The one common uniting factor that these anti-gun people all have in common is a terrifying certainty in their ignorance.

Look out. I might just be sneaking up behind you with a barrel shroud getting ready to throw a bayonet lug at you. Morons.

If it were about saving lives they would lock up violent offenders instead of letting them hangout with their peers and buddies for a couple of years then sending them right back to the hood in which they committed their crimes in the first place.

Originally posted by calihan123

Originally posted by schism85
Have you ever heard of home protection? If someone busts in your house some day with a gun, you will not be singing that same tune.

listen to yourself. if someone comes into your house with a gun...

exactly my point. they wouldnt HAVE a gun if they werent allowed.

Criminals will always have guns. You don’t think gangstas’ (and other criminals) actually go to there local sporting goods store, buy a gun and register it legally, do you? If you have the money, you can get whatever you want. By banning guns all you’re doing is taking them out of the hands of a law abiding citizen, who now has no means to protect himself other than a baseball bat.

reply to post by undinemyth


But they do. They honestly believe that 1) thugs and drug dealers and all murderous criminals are waltzing into their local shop and dropping $500-$700 on a handgun or rifle. And 2) that decreeing it should be so makes it impossible for thugs and murderous scum to physically pick up and hold or use a firearm to commit a crime.

Originally posted by calihan123

Originally posted by schism85
Have you ever heard of home protection? If someone busts in your house some day with a gun, you will not be singing that same tune.

listen to yourself. if someone comes into your house with a gun...

exactly my point. they wouldnt HAVE a gun if they werent allowed.

Saying they wouldnt be breaking into your house with a gun because they wouldnt be allowed to have a gun is simultaneously the most comical and frustrating thing I hear from these fools. Comical because, he isnt allowed to be breaking into your house, is he? Yet he is. Dumbass. And frustrating because through means of blunt trauma or lead poisoning they actually believe the garbage that dribbles from their mouths.


[edit on 6-11-2008 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by calihan123

5 children were killed every day in gun related accidents and suicides committed with a firearm, from 1994-1998.
An average of 5 children were killed every day in gun related accidents and suicides committed with a firearm, from 1994-1998.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Injury Mortality Statistics, 1994-1998
40% of American households with children have guns.

Peter Hart Research Associates Poll, July 1999
22 million children live in homes with at least one firearm.
34% of children in the United States (representing more than 22 million children in 11 million homes) live in homes with at least one firearm. In 69 percent of homes with firearms and children, more than one firearm is present.

www.stophandgunviolence.com...

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


Mod Note (This Appears On Every Post Reply Page): AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts or simple "I agree" posts when replying to threads. If you need to quote a member's post in your reply, please ensure you edit down the quoted amount to the minimum needed to make your point. Overly large quotes or minimal replies are subject to warnings or deletion.


[edit on 5/11/2008 by Mirthful Me]

WOW!!! That Clinton gun-ban really worked out well didn't it??
....not one line.....

Originally posted by undinemyth
5 children were killed every day in gun related accidents and suicides committed with a firearm, from 1994-1998.

The vast majority of those "children" are teenagers killed in disputes with other gun toting teenagers.

49% of the murders in this country are committed by a specific segment of society that accounts for 6% of the population.

If we really want to reduce the murder rate, perhaps we should focus on that 6%.

just curious, do the pro gun element, for want of better words, believe there should be ANY gun control and if so, what?

reply to post by pieman


I believe no. There is no amount of 'safety', real or perceived, that I am willing to trade liberty for. If that means the moron down the street has a gun than fine. That same moron has bleach under the sink a knife in his drawer and a 4x4 in the driveway. Matches in his pocket.

Some retard falling asleep with a candle going concerns me far more than an idiot with a gun.

Originally posted by pieman
just curious, do the pro gun element, for want of better words, believe there should be ANY gun control and if so, what?

You need to realize the NRA is similar to the Pro-Choice movement, or even the people that don't want Breed Specific Legislation (pit bulls bans).

The anti-gun lobbyists want to ban ALL guns, given the choice. So if the NRA gave in to banning some guns without a fight, they just made it easier for the anti-gun lobby to keep pressing on and taking the most basic rights away.

It is a matter of drawing the battle lines as far away as possible and fighting on that front, rather than saying "well i won't mind until the enemy is on my front lawn" and then fighting them 10 feet from your front door.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by Sonya610]

reply to post by pieman


Of course. Regulation of guns and who owns them is extremely important.

Convicted criminals and those who are mentally unstable should not possess guns. And certain guns (fully automatic) really have no place in the civilian world, at least without very strict regulation.

The reason why so many guns owners oppose ANY kind of regulation is that they fear that if they give an inch, the anti-gun groups will take EVERYTHING. The moment the left-wing anti-gun groups begin to stop insisting that "guns kill people" and that "guns should be outlawed", I suspect you will find a large segment of gun owners who are fully in support of careful gun ownership regulation. But not in the face of a howling mob trying to take away our constitutional rights.

reply to post by Sonya610


Christ I hate breed-bans. What is it with these people and 'black.' Black dogs, black guns, black men. They're so terrified.

I wouldnt use a dog to prevent my guns from being taken but I'd use a gun to prevent my dog from being taken.

Originally posted by pieman
just curious, do the pro gun element, for want of better words, believe there should be ANY gun control and if so, what?

We already have gun control laws in place. Countless laws, half of which are not enforced. Instead of enforcing current laws, the anti gun movement wants to keep creating new ones. It is like chasing a fart in a windstorm.

I am all for keeping felons and wing nuts from purchasing guns but don't prevent the law abiding citizens from purchasing them and don't dictate what type of weapon I may or may not purchase. If I want a .50 browning then so be it. I'll pay through the nose for it and fill out an encyclopedia of forms but I can still buy it.

Originally posted by Pyros
reply to post by pieman

 

And certain guns (fully automatic) really have no place in the civilian world, at least without very strict regulation.

Just curious. What do you think is strict regulation?

I know what's involved in getting a fully automatic rifle.

You're required to pay a $200 fee. Of course you need to have the $10,000-$80,000 to buy the firearm in the first place.

Basically. Being rich equates to 'strict regulation.'

Either people dont know this or they just assume that paying that $200 fee involves some magic witch trial process of testing purity. If that were the case than where is the mythical line that allows a person to buy all the semi-auto firearms he wants yet determines the same individual is too dangerous or unfit for full auto?

Pay a fee to Lord Government and they'll decree you safe and worthy of your 2nd Amendment rights. There's a scam if I ever saw one.