Guns used in 67% of murders in US

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


Not all guns are assault weapons so not all guns would be included in the ban. Also, the bill, as written, will not pass. It's a starting point for negotiation.

But, if you want to "play that game", it can be played. I don't really enjoy it and find it rather useless, but here's an example for you:

If you want to go by the "letter of the law" then you can carry all the black powder muzzle loaded weapons you want since those were the guns in operation at the time of the writing. I'm being very generous in allowing you to continue with more modern firearms, just not all the guns that have the soul purpose of killing and no other use whatsoever


Now what purpose does that serve? Absolutely none. Compromises will be made by both sides and hopefully they'll come out with something all of us can live with. I stress LIVE with.




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by tpsreporter

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by tpsreporter

Originally posted by kthxbai

A book doesn't fire a projectile or multiple projectiles. A book also serves as a source of learning.
I have no issue with the soccer mom having a .380 to protect her, however, I do have an issue with semi-automatic firearms being available to anyone and everyone that wants one. This isn't about banning all firearms, it's about limiting what firearms are available to the general public.


There are several books that have been the source of significant levels of death and murder.

I'll give just one example. It's called "Mein Kampf"


It still didn't fire projectiles


Still killed millions of people.


No, it influenced the killing, but didn't carry out the action. They didn't kill people by hitting them over the head with the book. ...that I'm aware of anyway.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


Not all guns are assault weapons so not all guns would be included in the ban. Also, the bill, as written, will not pass. It's a starting point for negotiation.

But, if you want to "play that game", it can be played. I don't really enjoy it and find it rather useless, but here's an example for you:

If you want to go by the "letter of the law" then you can carry all the black powder muzzle loaded weapons you want since those were the guns in operation at the time of the writing. I'm being very generous in allowing you to continue with more modern firearms, just not all the guns that have the soul purpose of killing and no other use whatsoever


Now what purpose does that serve? Absolutely none. Compromises will be made by both sides and hopefully they'll come out with something all of us can live with. I stress LIVE with.


It doesn't matter what types of guns were used at the time of writing. The letter of the law did not specify the type of guns, it simply said "arms" and arms means the kind of weapon a soldier would carry, thus the kind of weapons our soldiers carry, thus the same assault weapons you're saying are bad.

I haven't met a gun owner yet who has killed anyone. So what are they doing with their guns if they aren't killing people? You said thats their only purpose and yet all these people, they seem to be finding all these other legal, safe, non killing things to do with their guns.

But back to the real point, the 2nd amendment protects the people from infringement, there is no argument that can justify why an assault weapons ban is not an infringement. They are arms, and the people have a right to own them.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I decided to throw in my two cents worth. First, I completely understand the workings of the liberal mind, and that it is wrong. You can post carefully selected statistics all day long, and may even convince some simple minded people you are right. But you are still wrong.

First, by getting rid of all the guns possible, there probably will be less gun deaths, but this is where your logic stops. How many of these killings will be caused by other means? Yeah, a guy with a knive/ect might not be able to kill as many as with a gun, but the dead will still be dead. Look at ALL the statistics. How about Chicago? Gun control and very high gun related deaths. It is impossible to get rid of guns completely. Why do countries with gun control still have gun deaths?

You also refuse to even glance at the stats of how many crimes were prevented by lawful carrying of firearms. Actually compare these numbers and you will conclude there were less deaths because of people having guns than not.

Why do these crimes happen in gun free zones?

I remember reading several years ago that one of the leading causes of injury of children three and under was shopping carts. There will never be anything mentioned about getting rid of them.

I find it ironic that these psychos don't use gasoline. You could kill hundreds of people everyday with gas and it would never be banned.

Also, what about repeat offenders? How many rapes, robberies, and deaths are caused by those who have already proved that they are criminals? Make the time worse than the crime and these numbers will decrease.

What about abortion? Twenty children shot with a gun is a tragedy but it's ok for tens of thousands to be ripped out of the womb. It's also ok for the government to kill thousands of innocents in the 'war against terror.' Where's the outcry on this? Why does this not make sense to you?

If you profess to be a christian, then you must face the truth. GOD gave dominion of this planet to satan. Evil will always be here until He changes it.

This country was founded on Christianity/judaen principals. And now that we've allowed God to be removed from society we're amazed that bad things happen. Even if you don't believe in Christianity, it's still a good policy to 'do unto others'....



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


You aren't a soldier, you don't need it, and, when the law passes, you won't have it.

The end.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by tpsreporter

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by tpsreporter

Originally posted by kthxbai

A book doesn't fire a projectile or multiple projectiles. A book also serves as a source of learning.
I have no issue with the soccer mom having a .380 to protect her, however, I do have an issue with semi-automatic firearms being available to anyone and everyone that wants one. This isn't about banning all firearms, it's about limiting what firearms are available to the general public.


There are several books that have been the source of significant levels of death and murder.

I'll give just one example. It's called "Mein Kampf"


It still didn't fire projectiles


Still killed millions of people.


No, it influenced the killing, but didn't carry out the action. They didn't kill people by hitting them over the head with the book. ...that I'm aware of anyway.


A gun doesn't kill anyone either, if anything the bullet itself does since the gun never touches the person right?

In reality the person holding it (gun) s the one who did the killing

This is why we hold the person responsible for the crime, not the gun, not the bullet.
We don't blame cars for the accidents drunk drivers cause.

Blaming a book for the deaths of millions is the same logic as blaming guns for those who died from them.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


You aren't a soldier, you don't need it, and, when the law passes, you won't have it.

The end.


Why do i need to be a soldier? The 2nd amendment clearly states "the right of the people" and the supreme court has already ruled that means individuals such as myself. Not soldiers, not militia, not police, it means regular average joes.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 



Upon the formation of the country they were but that's no longer the case. You're not on active duty, you are a civilian and not considered military at this time. Furthermore, the POTUS is the Commander in Chief and if we are going to look at all citizens as the military, it is our duty to obey the orders given by our commander in chief. That's not the type of government we have at this time so your argument is flawed.


There is a difference between the military that we have and militias.

The current military that we have breeds hero worship and the "I earned mah rights" fallacy. The people are, and will always be the militia, regardless of what de facto actions have been set in place.

Every American born in the Union was supposed to be a member of one of several militias throughout the states. BECAUSE the defense of your nation, freedom, property, family...is YOUR responsibility. In that way there could be no distinction between the soldier and the citizen, as everyone was responsible for the defense of liberty. By doing this there could be no hero worship and the "I earned mah rights" fallacy evaporates into thin air.

Congress had the power to pull from the several militias the fighting force that they would need when they made a formal declaration of war. Then the President would have troops to command, but not until then. The militias are for the states.

If you want to feel safe, if you want the government to protect you, instead of pulling us all down with you why not petition the fed to build Big Brother Compounds for you and your friends to live in? That way you and your ilk can have your security, and the rest of us can remain in the dangerous realm of freedom.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


It's very clear you only want to twist and distort, not discuss. I won't participate in your game.

If, at any time, you choose to discuss the matter as opposed to twisting, distorting and attacking, let me know. Otherwise, you can argue and bicker with yourself as it serves no purpose and solves no problems.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


Not all guns are assault weapons so not all guns would be included in the ban. Also, the bill, as written, will not pass. It's a starting point for negotiation.

But, if you want to "play that game", it can be played. I don't really enjoy it and find it rather useless, but here's an example for you:

If you want to go by the "letter of the law" then you can carry all the black powder muzzle loaded weapons you want since those were the guns in operation at the time of the writing. I'm being very generous in allowing you to continue with more modern firearms, just not all the guns that have the soul purpose of killing and no other use whatsoever


Now what purpose does that serve? Absolutely none. Compromises will be made by both sides and hopefully they'll come out with something all of us can live with. I stress LIVE with.


The 2nd amendment was written to make “the people” equal to the government

“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”

You see, the 2nd amendment states the reason for the people to bear arms is for the security of the free state! To secure a free state you must be “up with the times”, have accesses to whatever means needed to protect that free state.

The 2nd amendment is there to KILL a tyrannical government!



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


You aren't a soldier, you don't need it, and, when the law passes, you won't have it.

The end.


I'll believe that when I see it. Hate to brake it to you, but maybe 10% of the population with firearms will give them up. The rest? Not a chance in hell. And people are crazy if they think the police or even the US Military will disarm the American public. Maybe a few... but not enough to be effective. Disarmament will never ever happen in this country.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


It's very clear you only want to twist and distort, not discuss. I won't participate in your game.

If, at any time, you choose to discuss the matter as opposed to twisting, distorting and attacking, let me know. Otherwise, you can argue and bicker with yourself as it serves no purpose and solves no problems.



I'm not twisting anything and you know it.

I have said it multiple times now, the courts have already defined the second amendment. So what argument can be made to say an assault weapons ban is not an infringement?

You keep trying to bring up the purposes of guns, the reasons for owning them, saying they are only meant for killing ect.

All that is meaningless since the law is already written and defined.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 



If you want to go by the "letter of the law" then you can carry all the black powder muzzle loaded weapons you want since those were the guns in operation at the time of the writing. I'm being very generous in allowing you to continue with more modern firearms, just not all the guns that have the soul purpose of killing and no other use whatsoever


If they had meant muzzle loaded weapons, they would have said muzzle loaded weapons and not arms. They knew that weaponry would change and advance. Anyone with a pulse could make such a calculation.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
If they had meant muzzle loaded weapons, they would have said muzzle loaded weapons and not arms. They knew that weaponry would change and advance. Anyone with a pulse could make such a calculation.


Well at least we understand this fact. It seems no level of logic can win over those who base their opinions on raw emotion.

I have heard the arguments made that the 2nd amendment refers to militias only, muskets and black powder only, to single bullet guns only ect.

And yet its clear none of that was the purpose behind it. It really just seems that people who are against guns seem to be the ones who know the least about the rights we have and the purposes they serve.

I don't care if someone hates guns, thats fine they can abstain from owning them or from using them. This is exactly why we have a bill of rights, so that someones emotionally charged opinion and pursuit of the banishment of others rights can't succeed. That freedom can be protected with force if need be.

But alas, despise all the constant logical fallacies we are getting in trying to discuss this topic, it seems logic will no prevail. Haters gonna hate as they say.

But i'll raise my glass to you though



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by kthxbai
 



If you want to go by the "letter of the law" then you can carry all the black powder muzzle loaded weapons you want since those were the guns in operation at the time of the writing. I'm being very generous in allowing you to continue with more modern firearms, just not all the guns that have the soul purpose of killing and no other use whatsoever


If they had meant muzzle loaded weapons, they would have said muzzle loaded weapons and not arms. They knew that weaponry would change and advance. Anyone with a pulse could make such a calculation.


The people we are arguing with I doubt have even read the 2nd amendment, studied the constitution, or have read any of the writings of the founders. Its almost pointless to argue with die in the wool authoritarians. Lets face it, the OP and his party are authoritarians, as well as 3/4 of the GOP. They want to tell you how to live. I want to tell them, LEAVE ME BE

DONT TREAD ON ME!!!
edit on 31-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328
With all the arguments lately about gun control, it seems that people are purposely overlooking the fact that guns create a huge amount of suffering and death. 67% of murders in the US are caused by guns.

www.justfacts.com...

That is a staggering figure, over 2/3rds. Then you have to add in the thousands of accidental gun deaths that happen each year, many of which include children. You would think that people concerned about protecting peoples' lives would come to the obvious conclusion that getting rid of guns (or at least cheap and easy access to guns) would do a lot of good and save tons of lives.
edit on 31-12-2012 by CB328 because: typo


By coming on here just "out of the blue", in the favor of gun control as is always your MO, you appear to have an agenda. TPTB have this exact same agenda. I am not suggesting a connection but your actions are! Enough said.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


You are correct, its clear that those debating us here are not versed in the bill of rights or the courts rulings on it. Presenting opinions against facts and now the debate is turned into nonsense.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


We have been indoctrinated and led astray from the original intent of our republic. I still find it ironic that over 200 hundred years later we are having the same squabbles over issues that our forefathers settled.

Our Union was dismantled and turned into an empire that parades around wearing the mask of the republic. Its deplorable. It will be difficult for many in the United States to take back true freedom, as many of us have grown accustomed to being taken care of, coddled, and commanded by those with the "authority" to do so. It is easy to see that true freedom terrifies people.

We have lost our sense of responsibility, and in doing so lost our independence. A republic cannot be strong when its members are dependent.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


edit on 31-12-2012 by ampetti because: withdraw post



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
My biggest fear about an upcoming Gun Ban* is that it will instantly create a large number of criminals out of a large number of law abiding citizens.

The day a gun ban goes into effect is the same day millions of guns are reported "lost".
All those people who have up until this point been obeying the laws and paying their taxes and using their firearms safely and legally without hurting anyone or intending to ever cause harm to anyone, who simply wanted to enjoy their hobby and have the means to defend themselves and their families; will be instantly turned into criminals by the Anti Gun agenda.

The result of such a ban will be that those who have done nothing wrong will become victims of the laws they choose to obey. Laws that are going to be turned against them.


The root fact here, is that the law guaranteeing a right to bear arms is already in place and any law that attempts to take that away is illegal and unjust. The effort to Ban Guns* is more than an effort to make people safe, its an effort to destabilize the Bill of Rights as a whole. It won't be long before the same false promises of safety they used to justify the TSA and it's airport groping's, the same false promises of safety they are using to justify another Gun Ban*, will someday be used to justify the banishment of the free press in favor of state media, to ban free speech in favor of free speech zones and terms (already in place kind of) the banning of Speedy Trails and Trials by Jury in favor of Puppet Courts meant to dehumanize and make examples of people ect.

*A ban of any "gun" is a gun ban. It doesn't matter what type of gun it is, or that it only effects "some" guns, if it is a gun and it is banned, then it is a Gun Ban. Simple as that.
edit on 31-12-2012 by tpsreporter because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join