Gun sales soar after Colorado shooting

reply to post by acmpnsfal
your point ??

Pay close attention here, a gun is a weapon, its only purpose for being created is to inflict harm. A car is a vehicle, its only purpose for being created is to get people from point A to point B.

in case you missed elementary school, a tool, is a tool, is a tool.
they can both be used for the SAME purpose.

no, you don't. but that's another topic for another thread.
you can be coerced into doing such but it is not a lawful requirement.

i've never had a car "officially" inspected in my lifetime.
you're supposed to register a gun with the State as well, what's your point?

hmmmm, drunk drivers NOT going Kamikazi ??
in which (if any) State, i bet you can't name 2 of them.

no offense here, but your logic is as circular as the NO CARRY zone in a CCW state.

care to qualify this statement with some proof ?

Most states do not require you to register your gun or to obtain a gun license

that'd be NOT true.
a few states, not many.

gun owners have already compromised their right, yet, you want more? why?
how 'bout we ask you to compromise your speech?
or perhaps your ability to walk ... you do have 2 knees, right?
or regulate your time for you.
this is the equivalent of what you're asking ... to voluntarily surrender our RIGHT.

but, if you already have a driver license and don't use the roads for commercial activity, then you've already been groomed to do just that.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by TKDRL

 

Eh, well if less than one percent of the population is using a weapon that causes the majority of murders in the country clearly something needs to be done. A good number of gun homocides are gang related but certainly not all. Most accidental deaths by guns do not happen in cities and a lot of people still die from that. You could also factor in suicides and the number of deaths would be even higher. Anyway, you cant give me a justification for why anyone needs a gun for protection. Simple answer, they dont.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

so, where were you when i needed to discharge my firearm and disable an intruder?
since, i'm one in a million (or so), why shouldn't i have the ability to exercise my right to defend myself and others ??

in case it need be said, the intruder was not armed with a gun but she was armed all the same.
are you of the impression that i should be morbidly/fatally wounded because you don't want me to have a gun ?

I know where I was. I was in a far safer country which has rational gun laws that prevent guns beings so common the likelihood of being threatened by one is normal, apparently.

Your reasoning would be better if you didn't have non-Americans here, because it's front page news if something is murdered with a firearm here. Your gun-death rate is close to to the road deaths, many 100's of times higher. This is impossible to ignore.

So yeah, where was I?
I was more than 100 x safer because the laws here prevent gun crime. Those laws include me, so I don't mind not owning one, (though I can if get a permit).

Why is this so hard to understand?

Again, I'm not against gun ownership, just the BS excuses.

reply to post by Honor93


You say that 'a tool is a tool is a tool'.

So it's just a tool and nothing more.. move along nothing to see here.

If it is just a tool why are you arguing for the sake a mere tool? Perhaps you are a tool too. Is that why?

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
LOL, did you seriously just say that guns kill less people than hospitals and medicine? I understand why you fear the regulations I mentioned. Your head clearly is not screwed on that tight.

edit on 25-7-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)

really ?? perhaps you should consider this ... in 2007, the US recorded roughly 13,500 deaths by firearm (after excluding accidents and suicides)
in the same year ... hospital deaths/preventable totalled ... 90,000
i think that's roughly 6x as many, but you keep believing it's the guns that are gonna get ya.

medicalmalpractice.levinperconti.com...
A more recent study from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) found that 90,000 patients die each year as a result of preventable medical harm in hospital.
-- snip --
In other words, this 90,000 figure is not some number plucked out of the sky based only on counting up infections — it systematically accounts only for those infections which should not have occurred had care standards been met.

yep, increasing "standards", that's the right answer

reply to post by bowtomonkey


Probably because it is a useful tool we use? I would defend my right to use every single tool I use. Especially guns. They put food on my table, and keep me safe at night. Protect us from coyotes, wolverines, bobcats, bears, wolves. To hell with people like you who would limit, even more, my right to a tool I need.

reply to post by TKDRL

The intent of hospitals and medicine is to heal people. So those numbers mean absolutely nothing. If you pulled those numbers for a century ago they would be a lot higher. When someone is buying a gun their intent is not to heal the sick. Its a moot point.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


Are you really so frikken dense you don't get it? TOOLS MADE TO SAVE LIVES KILL MORE THAN THE DEATH DEALERS YOU ARE SO SCARED OF! You have a society induced phobia of a tool, and don't even realize it. It is not a "moot point", it makes it even more ironic.

reply to post by bowtomonkey
hmmm, where did you read that i was threatened by one ?
on the contrary, i was saved by one (mine).

you're dowright lying ... see Wiki for proof otherwise.

i'd like to know where that "here" is ... that place where "laws" prevent gun crime.
i've never read or heard about such a place. where would that be ??

oh, so you have guns in your "here" but no gun crime?
do you really expect ANYONE to believe that?

if you're not against gun ownership, then why are you addressing my example of exercising MY right ?? what's your problem with me or others like me ?

reply to post by Honor93

If the intruder was not armed with a gun, why do you need one? You can actually go to jail for shooting and intruder in your home if they only have a bat. You would have to prove that your life was in danger and you were justified in shooting. How did people keep their families safe before guns came about? Why not buy a taser? Why not invest in a home security system?

reply to post by acmpnsfal


Only if you live in a retarded society, like wherever the hell it is you are from....

Originally posted by bowtomonkey
reply to post by Honor93

 

You say that 'a tool is a tool is a tool'.

So it's just a tool and nothing more.. move along nothing to see here.

If it is just a tool why are you arguing for the sake a mere tool? Perhaps you are a tool too. Is that why?

i'm not arguing for a "tool" but my right to utilize that tool in any manner i see fit.
that is my right, your right and every other person's right.

why can't you accept and dismiss it as easily as you would any other tool you don't/choose not to use ?

why would you be in favor of regulating a right anyway ?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by acmpnsfal

 

your point ??

Pay close attention here, a gun is a weapon, its only purpose for being created is to inflict harm. A car is a vehicle, its only purpose for being created is to get people from point A to point B.

in case you missed elementary school, a tool, is a tool, is a tool.
they can both be used for the SAME purpose.

no, you don't. but that's another topic for another thread.
you can be coerced into doing such but it is not a lawful requirement.

i've never had a car "officially" inspected in my lifetime.
you're supposed to register a gun with the State as well, what's your point?

hmmmm, drunk drivers NOT going Kamikazi ??
in which (if any) State, i bet you can't name 2 of them.

no offense here, but your logic is as circular as the NO CARRY zone in a CCW state.

care to qualify this statement with some proof ?

Most states do not require you to register your gun or to obtain a gun license

that'd be NOT true.
a few states, not many.

gun owners have already compromised their right, yet, you want more? why?
how 'bout we ask you to compromise your speech?
or perhaps your ability to walk ... you do have 2 knees, right?
or regulate your time for you.
this is the equivalent of what you're asking ... to voluntarily surrender our RIGHT.

but, if you already have a driver license and don't use the roads for commercial activity, then you've already been groomed to do just that.

I have no clue what you are talking about through most of this. If you look up gun in the dictionary it is defined as a weapon not as a tool. Clearly, when people say tool they mean something you would use to do repair work. Lets not play this stupid game. You dont what? Can be coerced into doing what?

I dont know how you have never had your car officially inspected every state I have been to requires you to have stickers on your windshield proving your car has been inspected. If that is not there you can be fined. Unless you have a buddy that does yours or something.

You do not have to register your gun with the state. Take a peep at this list.List of gun laws by state

Drunk drivers are not going kamikazi their intent is drive to whatever destination, not to intentionally crash into bulidings or cars. Name 2 states that do what?

reply to post by acmpnsfal

so, according to your logic, when a person chooses to get drunk then chooses to drive and subsequently kills someone, it is malicious intent, right ??

so, how many drunks can we prosecute for murder ?
surprisingly though, criminals who kill with guns ARE prosecuted for murder, wonder why that is?

reply to post by magma


Thank God I live in The U.K ! Do away with gun laws, not that they seem to mean much, allow every one to carry weapons of their choice, then if the film is boring you can have a shoot out instead ! Both sides to wave a white flag to announce a popcorn break...I.m being flippant of course.

But where's the logic:in this mentality:

" I've got to buy a gun to defend myself against all those other people who've got guns "

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by acmpnsfal

 

Are you really so frikken dense you don't get it? TOOLS MADE TO SAVE LIVES KILL MORE THAN THE DEATH DEALERS YOU ARE SO SCARED OF! You have a society induced phobia of a tool, and don't even realize it. It is not a "moot point", it makes it even more ironic.

edit on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 01:14:06 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

LOL, no no no. You sir or madam, cannot grasp that the only thing im asking for is better control over who gets guns. Why does that scare you so much? If you are someone who would be able to get a gun either way, why does it bother you?

reply to post by Honor93

Its not malicious intent, they did not intend for anyone to get hurt. Thats why most drunk drivers who are involved in accidents where someone is killed gets charged with involuntary manslaughter.

When someone picks up a gun, their intent is to harm someone. Thats the only thing a gun is useful for lol. Its not that hard or complicated.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


Because I have to jump through so many hoops already that it's ridiculous....
Gee, now why would I object to have even more useless hoops to jump through, that are not even effective at keeping guns out of criminals hands? Not to mention, no one is born nuts, it's not predictable if someone is going to go looneytunes.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by Honor93

 

If the intruder was not armed with a gun, why do you need one? You can actually go to jail for shooting and intruder in your home if they only have a bat. You would have to prove that your life was in danger and you were justified in shooting. How did people keep their families safe before guns came about? Why not buy a taser? Why not invest in a home security system?

not in this state (maybe in other parts of the USA) but that only emphasizes the differences state to state.
if the person wielding that bat means to do me harm, i most certainly can shoot.

State regulations are enacted by the people of that state, as is their right.
Federal regulations as is this Treaty and what Gun Control entails, isn't even within the scope of authority of the Feds.

after being assaulted 4 separate times in about 1 1/2 yrs, i embraced the concept and bought my first gun. within a year of purchase, it became necessary to discharge it in self-defense.

it was 2 yrs ago and no charges were filed.
i chose against filing because i believe she has suffered enough.
no charges were brought against me as that would have been unlawful.

can't answer that question with any absolutes cause i wasn't around then, were you?
Americans have had guns since before the Revolutionary War ... why change it now?
(actually, they had mandatory ownership of guns but that's another topic for another thread)

since that incident, i do possess a taser.
home security is a waste of money ... they cannot do anything for me that i cannot do for myself. and since i don't have a panic room, what's the point?

reply to post by acmpnsfal

When someone picks up a gun, their intent is to harm someone. Thats the only thing a gun is useful for lol.

You have got to be trolling...... You really think everytime someone picks up a gun their intent is to harm someone? Seriously? No one can be that heavily brainwashed......

I realy wonder what it would be like if everyone in that theater pulled their gun at the same time. I wonder if all of them would be aiming at the actual shooter.

In my mind i can just see everyone shooting at everyone, because they have no clue who the actuall shooter is.

The idea that it would be a lot safer if everyone would carry a gun, is a good example of great American thinking and problem solving. No wonder the whole world calls them idiots.