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.

 

Comparing gun deaths to car deaths..etc

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
All you gun freaks always use the same old argument when it comes to why people want guns banned. You "well cars and etc...kill people too, why not ban them too?"

Simple answer...guns are made specifically to end life...the others are not.

SEE THE DIFFERENCE.

Also people who have had someone taken away by guns...since they are made to specifically to end life...should sue the gun makers.

And for you " my cold dead hands" people...easier said than done. It is wasier to braver on the internet...have someone knock on your door fully armed prepared to take your gun....trust me it will be much more different.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Also statistics lie. Take gun deaths and deaths from motor vehicles. How many times a day do you drive/take a bus/taxi etc? Compare that to gun ownership and the amount of "use" the gun gets. If you compare ownership levels as well as usage levels - guns would kill a thousand times more than vehicles.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 


Do statistics matter?

What does the Constitution say about about it?

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, unless statistics say that guns are bad for some peoples health.

or

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.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
All you gun freaks always use the same old argument when it comes to why people want guns banned. You "well cars and etc...kill people too, why not ban them too?"

Simple answer...guns are made specifically to end life...the others are not.

SEE THE DIFFERENCE.

Also people who have had someone taken away by guns...since they are made to specifically to end life...should sue the gun makers.

And for you " my cold dead hands" people...easier said than done. It is wasier to braver on the internet...have someone knock on your door fully armed prepared to take your gun....trust me it will be much more different.


Actually, guns are made to fire bullets. Bullets are made to strike a target. People decide if that target is a living thing or not.

And I am definitely one of those cold dead hands people. Come try and take my guns. Find out if I'm willing to defend myself.

Much more different



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
have someone knock on your door fully armed prepared to take your gun....trust me it will be much more different.


Trust you?
Do you have some inside knowledge?
Will you be coming for someones guns?
Will you be the one to attempt to disarm them?
Will YOU have a gun?

By the way,
The implied insult of a label, i.e. gun freaks, instantly labels you in the minds of the reader.

The car argument is actually quite valid.
You don't actually buy a car to kill with it but people do it all of the time. Ergo, they assume responsibility for the fact that they are operating a potentially deadly and dangerous weapon. This is why you must be licensed to drive.

The fact that gun owners are statistically much more responsible with their deadly weapons than car owners are should be enough for a rational person to grasp.

I guess if you hate the idea of another person owning a gun enough then you can ignore statistics to your liking.

My deadly weapons of choice are .223 caliber, .40 caliber , 12 gauge and Ford f-150 crew cab.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 


Indeed. Perhaps cars are not meant to kill people.

But if wreckless use of something decides that something it should be regulated, banned, ect. Then most certainly cars can fall quite well.

In the realm of statistics, cars are much higher in the rate of deaths than guns. Guns being truley meant to kill people. Cars meant to transport people. But cars kill more people.

So really you just want to ban intent.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesickoAll you gun freaks always use the same old argument when it comes to why people want guns banned. You "well cars and etc...kill people too, why not ban them too?"

Simple answer...guns are made specifically to end life...the others are not.


Since you have started the thread by name calling, I'm guessing you are not all that open to real discussion so I'll skip any reference to the pesky constitution that guarantees the people the right to guns.

That and the purpose of guns is also to protect life, ones property, to hunt and feed ones family etc. Guns, in the in the view of our founders, is to defend liberty and to protect the people from the government itself should they become tyrants again.


Originally posted by kerazeesicko Also people who have had someone taken away by guns...since they are made to specifically to end life...should sue the gun makers.


This litigiousness is what is killing the nation not guns; guns do not shoot themselves in a murder any more than a knife wields itself in a stabbing or a phone or a computer in fraud. The people who commit the crimes do so of their own choice and are the only ones culpable.


Originally posted by kerazeesicko And for you " my cold dead hands" people...easier said than done. It is wasier to braver on the internet...have someone knock on your door fully armed prepared to take your gun....trust me it will be much more different.


Rural America is a great place to live.

I doubt very seriously any of the LEOs where I live would go along with such an order; I Turkey hunt with the county sheriff and veteran who is an oath keeper as are most of the police and local deputies.

The military would also likely not agree to confiscate weapons from the public for the same reasons. Go to oath keepers and see how many Special Forces people there are on the rolls.

To the tyrant who tries it I say good luck without your best troops.

Besides, they will never make it to my door, I can assure you…

It is hard to take a life, I have done so and it is something I found easy in the context of kill or be killed nature of combat. However, it is quite honestly infinitely easier to deal with in the heat of the moment than it is in my dreams and back at home upon reflection. I don’t recommend it for the faint of heart.

That said I would do it again if threatend or if my family, community or country were.

SEE THE DIFFERENCE?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 



All you gun freaks always use the same old argument when it comes to why people want guns banned. You "well cars and etc...kill people too, why not ban them too?"


Well, all of you anti-right freaks tend to get caught up in the emotional end of things without actually thinking about what you're doing. I lost my grandmother and mother when I was 19, and my father earlier this year (at 21). None of them involved firearms. My girlfriend and I broke up and I had to give away my cat. Don't try to play my heart-strings for a do-what-I-want pass. Nothing irritates me more than people who like to try and use "my dog died" as an excuse to write some kind of law.

I'll rant on this later, and get to the point before I lose too many people.


Simple answer...guns are made specifically to end life...the others are not.


This is incorrect. A 'gun' is designed to accelerate a projectile (often metal and aerodynamically shaped) through a rifled and reinforced tube at high-velocity and accuracy towards a target via pneumatics.

"That target is meant to be a human being!"

Not really. When you purchase a knife, you purchase a utensil designed specifically to cut through a material - often to include flesh. Usually - it's 'dead' flesh of culinary origin and purpose. But the knife doesn't really know or care whether what it is cutting through is alive or not, or if it's human or not.

The first thing you will notice on any instruction manual for any fire-arm is that it recommends taking a safety course and that you -really- shouldn't point it at people, pets, etc.

Many fire-arms in America are made and sold under one of three pretenses - first is for hunting. The purpose of the rifle, by extrapolation, is to feed people, IE - prolong life. We're omnivores, which means part of our diet can/will include meat (vegetarian diets are unsustainable without industrially produced supplements - and therefor meat is pretty much mandatory in our diet) - that means we have to kill something to live - that's just a fact of life you'll have to learn to deal with.

Second, is for defense - again, to prolong life. When someone is coming at you with the intent to kill - it's impractical to expect my barely-100lb Asian friend to fend off a 200lb attacker without some kind of 'equalizer.' Sure - a stun-weapon is probably more practical as a pulled-from-purse scenario than a snub-nose revolver, but both are effective if she's trained in their use. Sure - that may mean she kills the guy - but if I had to make the choice between who lives and who dies - I'd say the unprovoked attempted murder/rape/assault/etc needs to be dismissed over the person just trying to go about their business and trained to use a weapon in defense. Again - death is part of life and its continuation - you either kill the things wanting to kill you or end up dying and letting them take over. Not a whole lot you can do to avoid death, there.

Third, is for show. I want an M-107 .50cal 'sniper' rifle. Why? I like things that make loud noises and put holes in stuff from a long way away. Sure - some survivalist paranoia is involved - I want to be able to put light armored vehicles out of commission if the need to do so ever arises; but, mostly, I just want to be able to take my friends out to a range and make a big boom and stare at the hole left in the metal plate being used as a target.


SEE THE DIFFERENCE.


We do require that people pass a written and observed driving exam. We don't require this for fire-arms, nor do many states actually sponsor a firearm safety course out of their own budget.

Licensing won't help much - just watch what happens when it snows. It's like a damned zombie apocalypse down I-70 with all the abandoned, crashed cars. Every year, people forget how to drive in snow, that driving while sleeping is a bad idea, etc. I don't have any statistics on-hand, but I don't think licensing has really changed the face of automobile accident rates.


Also people who have had someone taken away by guns...since they are made to specifically to end life...should sue the gun makers.


Should we be able to file a lawsuit against people who make walls and bollards designed specifically to stop moving cars? Do you have any idea how many people die because a wall was in the way of their moving vehicle?

Can I file a lawsuit against my mother's doctor because he would not oversee the use of a non-FDA approved drug linked to success in treating her type of cancer, even after exhausting approved drugs? Or who should I be able to sue over that one? Medical boards that would revoke her doctor's license if he did do such a thing? The FDA?

You want something to throw back at you - that's it, right there. All the doctor was allowed to do was watch her die or lose his license for grasping at straws she was willing to grasp at. That is something worth being upset over - a medical professional is not allowed to use his/her experience and training to resolve a patient's problem. I harbor no illusions that my mother may still be alive if the laws/regulations were different. I do, however, see it to be a serious obstruction to healthcare.


And for you " my cold dead hands" people...easier said than done. It is wasier to braver on the internet...have someone knock on your door fully armed prepared to take your gun....trust me it will be much more different.


Are you planning to dress up in battle-rattle and go collect fire-arms?

Didn't think so.

Do you think most of the soldiers are going to listen to you when you try and say "go collect those guys' firearms?"

Bird is the word - that's what WE will give you - combined with various other crass gestures and language affiliated with the military climate.

You realize that less than 2% of the population is eligible for military service, and less than 1% is currently in service within the military. We're not mentally deficient enough to believe we stand a chance against the 50% of the population that is armed.


Take gun deaths and deaths from motor vehicles. How many times a day do you drive/take a bus/taxi etc? Compare that to gun ownership and the amount of "use" the gun gets. If you compare ownership levels as well as usage levels - guns would kill a thousand times more than vehicles.


This grossly underestimates firearm use in America. However, I can adjust this statistic and ask you how often vehicles are used in conjunction with any firearm-related incident. There would be fewer hunting incidents if people didn't have vehicles to drive to where they hunt, now would there? There would be fewer robberies at gun-point if there wasn't a vehicle to speed away in. How many impulsive murders would be made using firearms if someone had to lug that 15lb weapon and ammo across town on their back? Wouldn't that also increase the chances that law-enforcement could see something was out-of-whack and respond before an incident occurred?

By time you broke down automobile statistics and firearm statistics, I'm sure you would find no conclusive difference, or that firearms were far less dangerous than driving. I'm trying to track down statistics and/or estimates of gun use versus car use - but I can assure you that every time someone has gotten into a car and turned it on today, someone has shot at least one round off somewhere in the U.S. Probably two.

The difference between a car and a firearm is that a firearm is rather obviously dangerous. The more you use it, the more aware you become of how destructive it can be (usually). This is inverted for most drivers and vehicles. When you first start out - you're relatively timid - maybe even frightened of the destructive potential of the vehicle. Over time, you become more accustomed to driving and lax proper procedure to the point of causing an unsafe condition resulting in an accident.

This is why people act, every year, like it's the first time they've ever driven on snow. Sure - you'll have the batches of people who have never driven on snow - but it's mostly 'experienced' drivers who have grown overconfident in their abilities while neglecting to respect the power entrusted to them.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
You want to ban guns because you believe it will save lives, right?

So your goal is to avoid deaths?

If that's your goal then the cause should be irrelevant. You would grab a "cause of" list and start at the top.

Since gun deaths are pretty far down on that list why go after them? You're letting many many many more go on dying everyday.

Leads me to believe you don't care about saving anyones life. So what's the real motive?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I have a nice little arsenal of "guns" and the bullets to go with them. None of those bullets have hit anything but paper and the occasional tin can. It would seem that guns have other uses.

It is the wielder of an object who decides how to employ that object. A #2 pencil is made for writing but is quite an effective tool to strike the jugular as well. The argument does not hold water, it never has, it never will. If a man wishes to take the life of another man be it monetary gain or mailice he will find a way and I'm just thankful I live in a country that allows me to effectively protect myself and those under my charge from just such a threat. I intend to keep it that way.
edit on 11-1-2011 by WWJFKD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
...guns are made specifically to end life...


At near 50 years of age, I have owned firearms for about 40 of them. I have fired countless thousands of rounds of ammunition, in a variety of calibers and configurations. Handguns, rifles, shotguns... single shot, bolt action, lever action, semi-auto, full auto. Hunting weapons, self-defense weapons and yes, even those scary "assault weapons".

But, you now what? Not a single one of those rounds was directed toward a human being. Not a single person was endangered by shooting. I consider myself very fortunate that in my 15 years of law enforcement, I never had to use deadly force, even though the tools were on my waist every single day.

It is estimated there are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. That makes for a whole lot of firearms not being used to "end life".



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Frankly, "because I can" is enough of a reason for me. Because I want to own a gun. I have only ever used my gun for shooting at targets - paper, plinking at pop cans, watermelons, water balloons - but I enjoy it so I will do it because I can. I have never used my gun to end a life or kill, so it appears that you are mistaken in your premise that guns are specifically made to end lives. Apparently guns can be used for sport, as I use mine, and not just to kill.

No one is forcing you or anyone else to own a gun if you don't want to, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that just because you don't like guns everyone else should give theirs up to accommodate you and make your life more comfortable.

Once, a long time ago and very likely here on ATS, if I remember correctly, I saw the 2nd amendment explained like this: "If it (the 2nd amendment) instead read "Starvation being a terrible scourge upon humanity, the right of the people to eat shall not be infringed." would you seriously assert that only people who were starving had the right to be allowed to eat?" I thought that summed it up rather nicely and that explanation has stuck with me ever since.

The bottom line is that the 2nd amendment protects our right to own weapons. Wanting to ban them violates that right. It doesn't outline only acceptable uses and situations in which our weapons can be used. By protecting that right it allows the owner to choose to what use they put their weapon within the limits of their local laws. Giving mine away to make your life feel safer or more comfortable isn't one of the uses to which I will be putting mine.

Take care,
Cindi



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I am all for a world without the need for firearms.... I just think that if the government wants to disarm its population, it should do the same beforehand. It should start with its nukes.



The amount of deaths related to weapons in civilian circles compared to state-run areas is not even a contest. Governments, though painfully ineffecient in most areas, excel at killing people. In fact, even mass drug war killings are directly related to government action and thier constant escalation of force.

What sense does it make to disarm a population so that the most dangerous organization has a monopoly of the ownership of these weapons. Governments have no business in gun control because they are the worst at controlling thier own guns.

I have the same argument for environmental issues. The government is the worst polluter, what makes anyone think they will responsibly control pollution.

The state is the fox governing the proverbial henhouse.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
I am all for a world without the need for firearms.... I just think that if the government wants to disarm its population, it should do the same beforehand. It should start with its nukes.



The amount of deaths related to weapons in civilian circles compared to state-run areas is not even a contest. Governments, though painfully ineffecient in most areas, excel at killing people. In fact, even mass drug war killings are directly related to government action and thier constant escalation of force.

What sense does it make to disarm a population so that the most dangerous organization has a monopoly of the ownership of these weapons. Governments have no business in gun control because they are the worst at controlling thier own guns.

I have the same argument for environmental issues. The government is the worst polluter, what makes anyone think they will responsibly control pollution.

The state is the fox governing the proverbial henhouse.


Great point!

S



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 


Why do members like you continue to start threads such as this that are obviously designed to incite and then just dissapear??

Not ONE post after the OP..

The point of a discussion thread is to discuss..

Obviously that was NOT your intention..



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Great posts by members who truly understand the responsibility of the weight of owning firearms.

I call a troll post by the OP tho.

Think of it this way tho, the First Amendment gives us free speech, to tell the government and anyone else, We do not appreciate them being tyrants. The 2nd Amendment guarantees us the Rest of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

With out the 2nd, there is no Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Peace, Safety and Vigilance.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
...guns are made specifically to end life...


At near 50 years of age, I have owned firearms for about 40 of them. I have fired countless thousands of rounds of ammunition, in a variety of calibers and configurations. Handguns, rifles, shotguns... single shot, bolt action, lever action, semi-auto, full auto. Hunting weapons, self-defense weapons and yes, even those scary "assault weapons".

But, you now what? Not a single one of those rounds was directed toward a human being. Not a single person was endangered by shooting. I consider myself very fortunate that in my 15 years of law enforcement, I never had to use deadly force, even though the tools were on my waist every single day.

It is estimated there are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. That makes for a whole lot of firearms not being used to "end life".


That's awesome. You can also buy a refrigerator and sink it into your hard to use as a planter, rather than plugging it into the wall to keep your beer cold. You can buy a claw hammer, and use it as nothing more than a back scratcher for fifty years.You could even acquire a car with the sole intent of running people over, if that's your mindset.

However, a refrigerator is designed to chill food products. A hammer is designed for striking things, and a car is designed as transportation.

In a similar vein, a gun is a weapon. The point of a weapon is to kill things. When you go target-shooting, you are engaging in a simulation of killing things. As a member of law enforcement, I'm sure you have training needed to take someone down, and have practiced this skill at least intermittently at the shooting range with silhouette targets.

In other words? That gun on your hip is a weapon, designed to put a chunk of lead into another thing's body. You have practiced and trained the skills necessary for delivering that shot fatally, even though you have (thankfully) never had the need to do so.

Yes. Guns are specifically made to end life. It's funny that even while you're trying to deny this, you're also admitting it.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cygnis
Think of it this way tho, the First Amendment gives us free speech, to tell the government and anyone else, We do not appreciate them being tyrants. The 2nd Amendment guarantees us the Rest of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

With out the 2nd, there is no Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Peace, Safety and Vigilance.


Bull. That argument is full of it.

First off, large chunks of the Bill of rights have been negated and legislated away, very often by the same politicians and voters who pound their chests over their rights to own a firearm.

Second, if the US government ever decided, okay, time to mobilize and crack down on everyone... you wouldn't be able to do a single damned thing about it. It'd be like Indians vs. Space Marines, you'd get your face stomped quickly, and efficiently. And you'd probably be billed for it, too.

So, put those together? Gun-rights activists have sold out all the protections on their other rights, in order to preserve one of the two rights that is effectively obsolete.

I presume it's because guns are just sexier than a right to public trial or protections on unenumerated rights.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
...guns are made specifically to end life...


At near 50 years of age, I have owned firearms for about 40 of them. I have fired countless thousands of rounds of ammunition, in a variety of calibers and configurations. Handguns, rifles, shotguns... single shot, bolt action, lever action, semi-auto, full auto. Hunting weapons, self-defense weapons and yes, even those scary "assault weapons".

But, you now what? Not a single one of those rounds was directed toward a human being. Not a single person was endangered by shooting. I consider myself very fortunate that in my 15 years of law enforcement, I never had to use deadly force, even though the tools were on my waist every single day.

It is estimated there are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. That makes for a whole lot of firearms not being used to "end life".


That's awesome. You can also buy a refrigerator and sink it into your hard to use as a planter, rather than plugging it into the wall to keep your beer cold. You can buy a claw hammer, and use it as nothing more than a back scratcher for fifty years.You could even acquire a car with the sole intent of running people over, if that's your mindset.

However, a refrigerator is designed to chill food products. A hammer is designed for striking things, and a car is designed as transportation.

In a similar vein, a gun is a weapon. The point of a weapon is to kill things. When you go target-shooting, you are engaging in a simulation of killing things. As a member of law enforcement, I'm sure you have training needed to take someone down, and have practiced this skill at least intermittently at the shooting range with silhouette targets.

In other words? That gun on your hip is a weapon, designed to put a chunk of lead into another thing's body. You have practiced and trained the skills necessary for delivering that shot fatally, even though you have (thankfully) never had the need to do so.

Yes. Guns are specifically made to end life. It's funny that even while you're trying to deny this, you're also admitting it.



Nice to see a USAer can see that gun are weapons xD.

Gun seem soooo easy acces in USA... Like i said in a other thread, in Canada we got some crime done by gun, but the BIG MAJORITY is done by Knife or bare hand !

So less death ! so that's cool !



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by Cygnis
Think of it this way tho, the First Amendment gives us free speech, to tell the government and anyone else, We do not appreciate them being tyrants. The 2nd Amendment guarantees us the Rest of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

With out the 2nd, there is no Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Peace, Safety and Vigilance.


Bull. That argument is full of it.

First off, large chunks of the Bill of rights have been negated and legislated away, very often by the same politicians and voters who pound their chests over their rights to own a firearm.

Second, if the US government ever decided, okay, time to mobilize and crack down on everyone... you wouldn't be able to do a single damned thing about it. It'd be like Indians vs. Space Marines, you'd get your face stomped quickly, and efficiently. And you'd probably be billed for it, too.

So, put those together? Gun-rights activists have sold out all the protections on their other rights, in order to preserve one of the two rights that is effectively obsolete.

I presume it's because guns are just sexier than a right to public trial or protections on unenumerated rights.


xD If USA govt try to take down his people i would not work in our current socities and world xD. USA would be banned from all international association and maybe start a world war 3 xD ( for saving the USA citizen from your dictature ).

But, REALLLY ? xD that would never happen xD



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join