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

reply to post by cripmeister

NRA talking points

A nice phrase uttered quite often by those that oppose the Second Amendment.

The NRA consists of members, members that pay dues. These dues are used to support the Second Amendment. It isn't like that money came falling from the sky as a gift from Satan.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by mmitsch7

 

GUNS dont Kill people nor do the Operators. Bullets kill people

After 34 pages and hundreds of intelligent responses from ATS members, that’s what you’ve concluded??? Bullets kill people???

Maybe you missed the test in the OP. Are you saying that had I left some bullets on the porch then a mass shooting would have occurred resulting in death??

Inanimate objects don’t kill people. If they did, your t-shirt would have strangled you this morning!

edit on 18-2-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Seabag not entirely true. Have you ever worn a turtle neck? It's like walking around all day being strangled by a really weak person. And mmitsch7 you mean to tell me within my house there are several thousand killer bullets just waiting for the opertunity to strike? I have 5 kids surely one of them would have been sucessfull by now, I mean they have sat in the same spot for years now undisturbed within feet of potential victims!!! end sarcasm.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by cripmeister

 

Oh, you didn't like it?

Well try and shoot down this one...it's even better.

Besides her gripes with the Texas CCW laws at the time and the right to bear arms to prevent tyranny idea, her main point seems to be that it doesn't matter how many rounds go in a magazine. There is, according to her experience, no time to rush someone while they insert a new magazine anyway. Am I correct? This begs the question, did her father try to rush the killer while he was reloading? If not then how can she be so confident?

reply to post by jaynkeel

Seabag not entirely true. Have you ever worn a turtle neck? It's like walking around all day being strangled by a really weak person.

I have. You should try wearing some Marine Dress Blues for a while.

I didn't blame the collar though...I blamed my tailor!

In all seriousness, it's funny there are still people who can't see that weapons are tools that cannot and will not not hurt anyone unless in the hands of bad people with bad intentions. Why anyone would go after the objects rather than the perpetrators is beyond me. Maybe if we beat the drum enough times people with feel the rhythm! It's gotta sink in at some point!!

reply to post by cripmeister

Besides her gripes with the Texas CCW laws at the time and the right to bear arms to prevent tyranny idea, her main point seems to be that it doesn't matter how many rounds go in a magazine.

There were many points made…all valid.

Why should it be a felony to carry a gun if you’re a law abiding citizen? Why should we even be required to have a CCW or CHL license??

Why would AR15 style semi-auto rifles NOT be considered reasonable self defense weapons? Both videos provided examples of why they are fantastic for many applications.

Why does it matter how many rounds my magazine holds when I can carry a dozen or more of them and change them quickly?

There is, according to her experience, no time to rush someone while they insert a new magazine anyway. Am I correct? This begs the question, did her father try to rush the killer while he was reloading? If not then how can she be so confident?

I’m a father of 2. I certainly don’t like the odds of “rushing” an armed lunatic who is in the process of killing people. I would much rather pull out my Glock, pop off two rounds to the bad guy's chest and one to the head, and rush my family out of harm’s way. Why in the world would people with the right to keep and bear arms be forced to defend themselves against armed criminals bare handed?? It makes NO SENSE!

reply to post by seabag


I could only wish that in another life I would be so lucky as to wear the uniform of a Marine soldier, it would be an honor and something I regret not doing. I took the entrance exam for the Air Force passed the physical but being young I didn't follow through. Decided to rush into having a family and trying to chase the almighty dollar. And coming from a military family it was something other family members scratched their head on. But if I had one regret in life that would be it, now I am passed the age requirement and fully committed to my kids and s.o. But back on topic yeah good luck waking up some or most for what it's worth......

Originally posted by mmitsch7
GUNS dont Kill people nor do the Operators. Bullets kill people

What...hahaha, how the hell does the bullet come outta the gun if there is no operator.
Lol, you might want to go look in see how a gun works.

reply to post by jaynkeel

I could only wish that in another life I would be so lucky as to wear the uniform of a Marine soldier, it would be an honor and something I regret not doing. I took the entrance exam for the Air Force passed the physical but being young I didn't follow through.

I was almost forced to follow through. My Dad (retired Col) was sick of me and booted me out!!

Decided to rush into having a family and trying to chase the almighty dollar. And coming from a military family it was something other family members scratched their head on. But if I had one regret in life that would be it, now I am passed the age requirement and fully committed to my kids and s.o.

I gave up an 8 year career in the Marines to pursue the same things you did. Chasing money and starting a family became more important. Like the old saying, the grass is always greener on the other side.

No regrets!

But back on topic yeah good luck waking up some or most for what it's worth......

Some people have enough foresight and life experience to know that self reliance and preparedness are ones best defense in a life or death situation. Part of being prepared is having the tools to accomplish the task at hand.

Others rely on the swift response and preparedness of someone else to protect them.

It's an individual choice. Do not infringe on the rights of each individual to make that choice for themselves.

reply to post by seabag


I was thinking more on the lines of improving detection rates as opposed to more officers on the ground.

Originally posted by seabag

There were many points made…all valid.

In your opinion of course.

Why should it be a felony to carry a gun if you’re a law abiding citizen? Why should we even be required to have a CCW or CHL license??

With the right to carry a gun comes great responsibility. Police officers have to meet firearms requalification standards regularly. Do you oppose that too?

Why would AR15 style semi-auto rifles NOT be considered reasonable self defense weapons? Both videos provided examples of why they are fantastic for many applications.

I won't touch that sorry

Why does it matter how many rounds my magazine holds when I can carry a dozen or more of them and change them quickly?

Because there might be a chance to rush someone while they are changing magazines.

I’m a father of 2. I certainly don’t like the odds of “rushing” an armed lunatic who is in the process of killing people. I would much rather pull out my Glock, pop off two rounds to the bad guy's chest and one to the head, and rush my family out of harm’s way. Why in the world would people with the right to keep and bear arms be forced to defend themselves against armed criminals bare handed?? It makes NO SENSE!

You failed to answer my question about the Luby´s massacre. Did Gratias' father or anyone else try to rush the killer while he was reloading? If not then how can she be so confident in saying that magazine capacity doesn't matter?

reply to post by seabag


Shame on you! You aren't supposed to think independently! Don't you understand? Our big brother knows what is best for us all!!!

An age old argument that will never be understood by those that support getting rid of guns.

reply to post by cripmeister

With the right to carry a gun comes great responsibility. Police officers have to meet firearms requalification standards regularly. Do you oppose that too?

Not at all but I also respect the constitution and last time I checked there was no proficiency test to qualify for 2nd amendment rights.

Because there might be a chance to rush someone while they are changing magazines.

Why should I have to rush someone? Why should criminals be the only ones armed?

You failed to answer my question about the Luby´s massacre. Did Gratias' father or anyone else try to rush the killer while he was reloading? If not then how can she be so confident in saying that magazine capacity doesn't matter?

I believe her father did right before he was shot but I certainly wasn't there.

Regardless, any gun owner proficient with a semi-auto weapon knows how quickly a person can change magazines. Apparently you don't.

reply to post by dariousg

Shame on you! You aren't supposed to think independently! Don't you understand? Our big brother knows what is best for us all!!!

I know, right?

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how all these mass shootings throughout history have occurred since big brother has been on the job this entire time. Why weren't they there to save all of those victims?

An age old argument that will never be understood by those that support getting rid of guns.

Like everything else, if it doesn't affect them directly right now they don't give a crap. It's hard to find a victim of violent crime who shares their beliefs. Why is that, I wonder? It's sad that it may take a violent act against them personally before they wake up and realize that self preservation is important.

reply to post by seabag

Regardless, any gun owner proficient with a semi-auto weapon knows how quickly a person can change magazines. Apparently you don't.

Don't you just love how a person that doesn't want citizens to be armed tell us how unarmed people should jump a criminal while the criminal is changing magazines during a shooting rampage?

reply to post by butcherguy

Don't you just love how a person that doesn't want citizens to be armed tell us how unarmed people should jump a criminal while the criminal is changing magazines during a shooting rampage?

Weird, isn't it? The people who claim to be compassionate and are the first ones to demand equality in almost every aspect of our lives don't want us to have a fighting chance when confronted by a gun-toting lunatic.

They don't want any harm to come to the most evil among us but are more than willing to allow innocent people to die.

No law will EVER prevent bad guys from getting guns. That fact really needs to preface any serious gun control debate otherwise there can be no serious discussion. IMO the only real questions are how do we prevent people from snapping and what can we each do to defend ourselves and others when it happens. Any other approach is ridiculous.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by kdyam

 

you stated that a person is 4.5 time more likely to get shot if they are carrying a gun. What is your basis for this?

Something called science......

Most of us are aware of studies that show that having a firearm in the home increases rather than decreases your chance of violent injury or death — usually through accidents or suicide. I was not aware of this peer-reviewed 2009 study by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine study which concluded that people in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault than those who didn’t have a firearm….

www.forbes.com...

HAHAHA You just gotta love the "science"of statistics, people used to think that smoking was healthy for you at one time.. I mean studies have shown that as well albeit 60 years ago.

reply to post by kdyam

HAHAHA You just gotta love the "science"of statistics, people used to think that smoking was healthy for you at one time.. I mean studies have shown that as well albeit 60 years ago.

HAHA you are dead correct. Some idiots did use to think smoking was healthy for you. Now you have idiots thinking guns are healthy for you instead. I guess some things never change now do they...

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by kdyam

 

HAHAHA You just gotta love the "science"of statistics, people used to think that smoking was healthy for you at one time.. I mean studies have shown that as well albeit 60 years ago.

HAHA you are dead correct. Some idiots did use to think smoking was healthy for you. Now you have idiots thinking guns are healthy for you instead. I guess some things never change now do they...

hahaha, did you know that nicotine isnt actually that bad for you, it's the chemicals they put inside of them.
did you also know that guns aren't bad unless a crazy person is behind the trigger?

I guess some people will never pull their heads out of their butts.

I just don't get it, our right to have guns does not infringe on anybody's right not to have guns why can't well enough to be left alone.

reply to post by Lichter daraus


Nicotine is a very poisonous chemical. Nor do cigarettes just contain nicotine.. Your argument is mute. Try again.. Little harder next time maybe. Sometimes I think I'm so clever, I dont understand the words coming out of my own mouth..

p.s. If you really think nicotine is not that poisonous, try sticking 10 nicotine patches on yourself.. Make sure you write a will, as it will be your demise.. Truth speaks louder than opinion.