Independent Study Proves Guns Don’t Kill People *Shocking Evidence

reply to post by ahyaprobly

By dumbing the conversation down in this way, you are not promoting constructive dialogue - you are simply solidifying preexisting sentiments.

I disagree.

I disagree that it’s dumbing the conversation down or NOT promoting constructive dialog. There have been 25 pages of dialog so far….that’s 500 replies.

I simply pointed out the FACT that GUNS are not responsible for any death…PEOPLE are responsible. Our FOCUS should not be on any gun regulation but on people and the actions of people. You can’t lock everyone naked in a padded room to protect them from themselves or protect us from them! Regulating guns further is akin to locking us in a padded room and stripping us of our freedom.

Why not focus on enforcing current law and addressing the mental health issues that LEAD to violent crime rather than focusing on the inanimate objects used to commit said crime??

Doesn’t that make more sense? It certainly should!!

reply to post by seabag


You pointed out a fact that needs no pointing out. No one thinks that guns kill people. If they do, they are not worth debating to begin with. The debate should be whether the current proposals (assault weapons ban, mandatory background checks, etc.) are worth consideration.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by ahyaprobly

 

By dumbing the conversation down in this way, you are not promoting constructive dialogue - you are simply solidifying preexisting sentiments.

I disagree.

I disagree that it’s dumbing the conversation down or NOT promoting constructive dialog. There have been 25 pages of dialog so far….that’s 500 replies.

I simply pointed out the FACT that GUNS are not responsible for any death…PEOPLE are responsible. Our FOCUS should not be on any gun regulation but on people and the actions of people. You can’t lock everyone in a padded room naked to protect them from themselves or protect u from them! Regulating guns further is akin to locking us in a padded room and stripping us of our freedom.

Why not focus on enforcing current law and addressing the mental health issues that LEAD to violent crime rather than focusing on the inanimate objects used to commit said crime??

Doesn’t that make more sense? It certainly should!!

edit on 17-2-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

No matter how many times you beat into people's heads, they will always find the need to put SOME amount of blame on something or someone other than themselves. Unfortunately, it is part of the human condition, so there is no way we can get rid of that. I'm amazed one of the most starred posts on this thread is based on the idea that guns initiate violence. Amazing. 90+ people believe that guns are partly to blame because they allow for people to kill. You know what else does? Fists. Forks. Spoons. It's like a clusterf*** of facepalm everytime I come on here and see these types of sentiments.

reply to post by mr10k


I did not put the blame on guns. In fact, I went out of my way to affirm the idea that people kill people. Forks and knives can kill people, but not as quickly or easily as an automatic rifle. Hence the debate.

Originally posted by Konoyaro
Guns will pretty much disappear of themselves when we have no need for them anymore, legislating them away will not take a way crime. When the average human has matured enough to see that crime causing is unnecessary, guns and other self-protection devices will fall out of fashion, naturally, that's the only way it realistically happen, very unlikely though looking at the current world, but perhaps there will be a time...

Baloney. There will always be reasons to own and shoot guns. There are plenty of people that own guns because they enjoy target shooting, hunting, and other recreational uses.

reply to post by seabag


Man thats a nice collection! What kind of guns is that in the 4th picture at the top with the bipod (I think that's what it's called)?

Well played NWO, you have successfully brainwashed a significant portion of this generation. This wouldn't even be a discussion 25 years ago. Fact of the matter is, I don't need the 2nd amendment, nor a politician to tell me that I have the "right" to protect myself and family. Self preservation is instinctual and can't be legislated. Back to the OPs point which still isn't registering with some; the gun itself is morally neutral. I know people that have dozens of guns, and have never killed anyone. Owning/possessing guns is not the problem. The mainstream media is using stats from a specific demographic to bolster their case, at the same time ignoring the fact that the said demographic has a serious murder problem.

Originally posted by ahyaprobly
reply to post by seabag

 

You pointed out a fact that needs no pointing out. No one thinks that guns kill people. If they do, they are not worth debating to begin with. The debate should be whether the current proposals (assault weapons ban, mandatory background checks, etc.) are worth consideration.

State of Maryland has the 2nd toughest gun laws in the nation. Background checks, waiting periods, only 1 regulated weapon purchase a month, nearly impossible to get a conceal carry, hi cap magazine ban... But guess what? MD has more gun crimes than states twice its size. Laws mean nothing to law breakers.

Originally posted by nancyliedersdeaddog
reply to post by seabag

 

Man thats a nice collection! What kind of guns is that in the 4th picture at the top with the bipod (I think that's what it's called)?

Kind of looks like a Thompson Sub-Machine gun but now I don't think it is.

I pulled those pictures off the net after a quick Google search for "guns on porch."

This is a satirical thread and certainly not a scientific study of any kind. I wouldn't leave my guns on a porch loaded nor would I post pictures of my collection online.

Originally posted by liverlad
All these people who now defend guns are gonna be frowned upon by people in the future when they look back in history, Just like the ones who thought they had a right to own other people as slaves, people made a fuss about that too when they decided to take that right away, but history has proven that was the right decision.

So will be bringing your current gun laws into the modern age.

Sounds like something Hitler would say. Human nature hasn't changed throughout the ages. Many countries have been foolish enough to give up their guns. Go ahead and frown all you like, I can assure you most Americans will not give up these rights. And sorry to say it, but only a nut case would compare owning a slave to owning a gun!

reply to post by kingofmd

State of Maryland has the 2nd toughest gun laws in the nation. Background checks, waiting periods, only 1 regulated weapon purchase a month, nearly impossible to get a conceal carry, hi cap magazine ban... But guess what? MD has more gun crimes than states twice its size. Laws mean nothing to law breakers.

That’s the cold hard truth that many here purposely ignore because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

Another thing that should be mentioned is that for every story the MSM feeds us on mass shootings there are 10-20 cases of law-abiding citizens using firearms to protect themselves lawfully!

Again….truth that doesn’t fit their narrative.

reply to post by kingofmd


You're taking one state and assuming those numbers would pan out nationally. I am not saying we can legislate away all gun crimes, nor am I saying that legislation is the only front that we need to consider here. Using a state with only 2% of our total population as an example doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.

Originally posted by liverlad

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
reply to post by liverlad

 

What do you not get here. This little experiment was about what would guns do if nobody was around them, meaning no people near the guns. because so many people like to say that guns kill people when in fact they do not people kill people.

People with guns kill people.

As i said before, people are only HALF the problem, the other half is the easy access of deadly killing tools.

I could walk in to your house right now and find at least ten deadly killing tools in each room.

reply to post by seabag


I am amused by the fact that you know nothing about me, and yet lump me into the category of "them". It is this basic mentality of "us" vs. "them" that has caused our political system to stagnate. Note that I have yet to put YOU in a category, as I do not know you.

Originally posted by ahyaprobly
reply to post by mr10k

 

I did not put the blame on guns. In fact, I went out of my way to affirm the idea that people kill people. Forks and knives can kill people, but not as quickly or easily as an automatic rifle. Hence the debate.

I wasn't referring to you directly. I actually didn't see who or what the OP was replying to, I was just addressing the fact that many people seem to still think that weapons play some part in the initiation of violence. That's pretty much saying, put a gun in front of Buddha and at some point he will pull the trigger, just because it's a gun.

Originally posted by ahyaprobly
reply to post by seabag

 

I am amused by the fact that you know nothing about me, and yet lump me into the category of "them". It is this basic mentality of "us" vs. "them" that has caused our political system to stagnate. Note that I have yet to put YOU in a category, as I do not know you.

I made a generalization about much of the anti-gun crowd.

I didn't mention you.

Did my comments hit home?

reply to post by seabag


You were replying to a post which was replying to something I said. The inference was there whether you wanted it to be or not.

reply to post by seabag


Oh yeah, I get it! Guns can't kill people because they're inanimate objects hahahahaa!

That's sooooooooo funny, 50 stars and 13 flags for you sir!

Oooooooo, me belly hurts from laughing so much, you're soooo clever!

reply to post by Alfie1


Here's the problem with the "muzzle loading" argument: if technology is the threshold by which we determine the original intent of the Constitution then Freedom of Speech and Press is null and void for anyhting beyond town criers and print. Afterall, the Founders couldn't have imagined an Internet or television whereby any person could propogate his silly opinions to thousands of people in a second at different parts of the country.

Double

Post