In the United States, Knives, Fists, and Feet are More Dangerous Than Rifles

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: AmericanRealist

OH PLEASE! I cannot stand it when idiots use this stance.


There is not a significant rise in the deaths of fist / feet / knives / cars / slow cookers / ovens / tree branch fallings, etc.

There have been 16 MASSACRES in the past 8 yrs and this trend is rising significantly!!!

We need to do something about it. Next massacre could be in YOUR city, open your eyes!

Crazy people have access to guns, we MUST restrict this!!!!

If you cannot agree on this then sorry, I cannot help the ignorant and thick skulled. Just don't twist murder weapons to try and prove a useless point...

OMG!

Way to panic and prove the point!

No, there is no "massive increase" in gun deaths, and the stats provided prove this. You want to ignore cases like the Boston bombing, or 9/11, and focus only on guns, and that's /falling for the agenda.

No, crazy people are already restricted from having guns. In places with a lot of gun ownership, you see a lot less of this sort of thing, too. You don't see flash mobs in high gun ownership places. In Texas, the Walmart case was stopped before anyone else besides the gunman was hurt. Case after case, people with legal guns stop crime.

But, hey, scream and yell about taking away rights, so that only the authorities can be armed. After all, we cal always trust anyone in authority. That never goes wrong......oh, wait......

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: khnum

I know bc there are so many ignorant Americans who only care about themselves...not in my city...out of site out of mind.

Until their son or daughter gets killed in a massacre by a semi-automatic rifle by a crazy person...ooooh, how would you feel then?

Impossible for you to know...bc you are too stupid and thick skulled!!!

You don't speak for me. I am very pro-gun, and I DO have family in Florida. In fact, when I first heard of the shooting, I was mistakenly told it was in the town where they live. You'd better believe I worried, till I contacted the, learned they were alright, and also about the location error. Doesn't mean I want to ban guns, though. Do you blame all Muslims for the attack? If not, stop blaming all gun ownership.

HEY I have a great idea...

Let's make killing another person illegal...

Oh wait, is that already a thing?

There IS a massive increase in mass slaughterings with guns.

Look, I knew I was going to get alotta pushback in this thread, for many of us, gun regulation is a no brainer, but I just didn't understand why some were so adamant and seemed so blind to it, now I know why...

NRA makes a play on factoids to make it look like guns are not as dangerous as they really are, and some actually believe it. Ignorance, low information, cherry picking facts to support what you want for yourself.

The NRA does not care about you or who gets killed with guns, they just care about money and will manipulate in any way possible to decrease regulation to keep their pockets cushioned.

a reply to: veracity

When was the last time an NRA member committed a violent crime with a gun, much less went on a mass murder spree? It would seem lately that, that type of violence is the domain of leftists.

Since guns are so dangerous, as you say, what are your purposed new gun laws? Lay out the proposals, let's see whatcha got, I personally am interested in hearing that. Generally speaking, anti gunners spew out propaganda and emotional arguments and make broad claims. What specifically would YOU like to see as new gun laws? As a law biding gun owner, I am willing to listen to your proposals with an open mind.

a reply to: veracity

Hi, I'm glad you're back.

I am looking for a link with data for me to examine and all I am seeing are buzzwords and more emotional appeals.

You complain about,"a play on factoids to make it look like guns are not as dangerous as they really are," and yet offer no facts, data, or other objective information for us to examine, and yet you blithely state, " Ignorance, low information, cherry picking facts to support ..."

You know what's dangerous?

Human nature.

Or hell, just nature.

Think a 'gator-free zone' sign would have helped?

We humans have been figuring out new and better ways to kill each other (and food, too; grocery stores are a relatively new phenomena) since before we had words to describe such actions and tools used to accomplish them; remember, even though we think, reason (supposedly), and articulate ourselves we are still animals beneath our civilized exteriors.

It's what we do in response to the causes of violence, rather than how that violence was effected, that matters most and lift us above mindless killing.

originally posted by: veracity
There IS a massive increase in mass slaughterings with guns.

Prove it.

originally posted by: veracity
Look, I knew I was going to get alotta pushback in this thread, for many of us, gun regulation is a no brainer, but I just didn't understand why some were so adamant and seemed so blind to it, now I know why...

No, you clearly don't know why. Gun regulations only work for those who obey the law. They never have, and never will, keep criminals from getting guns.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

there is an increase, although it is neither massive nor significant, until Obama came to power. Probably because he works with the people who orders these hits in an effort to achieve the UN's goal of global disarmament.

In the spirit of honesty and serious dialogue, I found some data on Mother JonesI did a quick copy-pasta of some of the data. I did not include injured only killed. Then I added them up by years a president actually took control (Jan 1 following election year)
1982 8
1984 28
1986 15
1987 6
1988 7
1989 6
1990 10
1991 35
1992 9
1993 23
1994 5
1995 6
1996 6
1997 9
1998 14
1999 42
2000 7
2001 5
2003 7
2004 5
2005 17
2006 15
2007 54
2008 18
2009 29
2010 9
2011 19
2012 72
2013 35
2014 14
2015 26
2016

clinton 112 (assault weapons ban)
bush 128 (ban expired)
obama 193 (false flags at least 3 times)

There really is no clear pattern, and the lives lost vary greatly from year to year.
Overall handguns did most the killing. I cannot go to each article they sourced right now, but at first glance it appears that high capacity semi-auto rifles were still categorized when found but now used.
Its no surprise that a horribly divisive president who steps on the majority to further the cause of super minorities (literally fractions of our population) would create an environment where people hate each other enough to kill in order to further a UN disarmament agenda, as well as Soro's anti capitalist agendas.

Fact that many or most of these took place in gun free zones also tells me, there should be NO MORE GUN FREE ZONES IN AMERICA.

Obama/Clinton/Feinstein/Soros probably still have some more false flags up their sleeves before year end no doubt.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

well, crap, using that logic nuclear weapons aren't dangerous at all!!
so why do we go through the hassle of bombing villages into dust to keep them out of the hands of countries we don't like???

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

No, you clearly don't know why. Gun regulations only work for those who obey the law. They never have, and never will, keep criminals from getting guns.

Except for in every other country with stricter gun regulations.

But nevermind, I'm not sticking around to watch you folk explode over the premise of this thread which was constructed using weasel-logic.

Obvious echo chamber.

And no, I am not an "anti-gunner", I just can't stand the enormous erection you people all get for eachother when this topic comes up, even if the things you're saying aren't true at all you won't even correct eachother.

It hurts our cause of protecting the 2nd amendment a lot more than it helps it when you use lies so frequently in your arguments.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: AmericanRealist

Crazy people have access to guns, we MUST restrict this!!!!

Alright, let's say that the government should ban access to guns. Let's look at the success of government bans. I'll state the case with just one word:

DRUGS.

While we're at it, let's just say that the decision goes to a vote to ban guns from "crazy" people, and according to the government in power, "crazy" includes anyone who ever voted for a democratic party candidate and let's say the measure passes 51 to 49 percent.

Now you have a war on your hands between the government and almost half of the population to enforce a law which would lead to one political party being armed, and the other defenseless.

But you might say that isn't democracy, right?

So if you can't force your bleeping opinions onto half the world in your idea of democracy, why are you trying to do the same thing to others and call it freedom with a straight face?

originally posted by: povray

Alright, let's say that the government should ban access to guns. Let's look at the success of government bans. I'll state the case with just one word:

DRUGS.

While we're at it, let's just say that the decision goes to a vote to ban guns from "crazy" people, and according to the government in power, "crazy" includes anyone who ever voted for a democratic party candidate and let's say the measure passes 51 to 49 percent.

Congratulations,

A straw-man, a false equivalence, and a slippery slope fallacy.

All wrapped up tenderly in your nirvana fallacy.

Good thing you're going pro-gun with it; enjoy the stars.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

God data there, and while there isn't a clear pattern, there are some interesting trends, perhaps.

It's clear that these cases are used for an agenda, and that agenda isn't good for anyone!! I think you are right about the rest of the year as well. Actually surprised we haven't seen more already.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

No, you clearly don't know why. Gun regulations only work for those who obey the law. They never have, and never will, keep criminals from getting guns.

Except for in every other country with stricter gun regulations.

You mean like the case in the UK? Oh, wait......

originally posted by: DeadFoot
But nevermind, I'm not sticking around to watch you folk explode over the premise of this thread which was constructed using weasel-logic.

the people that understand the premise aren't the ones "exploding". But, hey, feel free to not stick around. Or free to stay.

originally posted by: DeadFoot
And no, I am not an "anti-gunner", I just can't stand the enormous erection you people all get for eachother when this topic comes up, even if the things you're saying aren't true at all you won't even correct eachother.]

If you can't even debate without resorting to sophomoric comments like that, then you clearly can't manage the discussion at all.

originally posted by: DeadFoot
It hurts our cause of protecting the 2nd amendment a lot more than it helps it when you use lies so frequently in your arguments.

"Our cause"? Whose cause? What lies?

On second thought, don't bother. I know what you are doing here, and I am all out of snacks

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

"Our cause" would be ensuring that the 2nd amendment remains as-is.

These statements I'm talking about are when you convince the people you are opposed to that you are stupid and incapable of coming up with a comprehensive argument... so they leave the thread and roll their eyes, assuming they've won and that all "pro-gun" people are just stubborn and dumb-as-hell.

They can be convinced, though, because logic is on our side. But you all chase them away by giving them an excuse to roll their eyes and walk away.

Which is precisely what I will be doing now, because there isn't even a discussion going on in this thread anymore.

You're all just fapping to your own thoughts streaming through someone else's keyboard.

And I'm "sophmoric"? Please. That's not even a word.

Remember to use lube, kids.

Bye.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Awesome post!

Personally, and lately I have been thinking that the most dangerous weapon in America right now is King Obama's own brain. Everything that comes out of his brain as thoughts and whims seem to have a negative, and often deadly impact on somebody somewhere.
If you fire Obama today, and all the heads of his administration including those at the CIA and NSA who are heading and running these secret social engineering campaigns to strip us of our right to self defense and self determination, and replace them with un-corrupted and honest people, you would see an instant stoppage altogether of mass shootings and such right away.

It is becoming quite clear and transparent that there are too many shady connections with these things that leave questions that no officials will try to answer, and nobody in the media dare ask them as well. And we all know why, and that is because it is pointing the finger of great guilt upon our own government.

a reply to: DeadFoot

Since you want to resort to personal attacks, instead of debating, go talk to yourself. You can't even list anything I said that you claim is a "lie", but you can sure toss around labels.

Have fun with that.

No, you clearly don't know why. Gun regulations only work for those who obey the law. They never have, and never will, keep criminals from getting guns.

Since this is the lie we are talking about... I'd say I addressed enough. You're saying "never have, and never will, keep criminals from getting guns", meaning either:

A. All criminals will get guns anyways.

and/or

B. You can't completely eliminate the possibility of people getting guns if they are going to do criminal acts, so why bother

Both of which are just begging for an eye-roll.

You could say something like, "the amount of criminals that would acquire guns despite the regulations (given that they require it for their convictions) would be extraordinarily higher than those who want a gun for their own protection." That would be true.

But the prior argument is certainly not.

And in response to it a citation is delivered to a country with less deaths by use of guns as if it supports the argument when it does quite the opposite.

And now we're already at the point where you're being "personally attacked".

Oh dear, okay.

Enjoy the "discussion".

In the United States, Knives, Fists, and Feet are More Dangerous Than Rifles.

Obviously, they are not more dangerous than guns (including rifles)...

www.gunviolencearchive.org...

Massaging statistics to obfuscate reality just will not do. It is bad form and contemptuous.

a reply to: DeadFoot

Did you say something?

a reply to: elysiumfire

There is no obfuscation of anything. The FBI has the stats listed for how many were killed by rifles. The typical Anti-American communist infiltraitors disguised as Democrats want to ban rifles as a weapon of war. These rifles kill less people every year than hands and feet. They are not even responsible for many of the killings in mass shootings. Those are simple, straightforward facts provided by our national law enforcement branch the FBI.

And when you cross reference CDC data on how people die every year, riding your bicycle is still more dangerous because more people die that way every year than are victimized in a mass shooting.

If we can live with the occasional train derailment, highway pileup, missing or crashed commercial airliner, anti free speech race hate violence from the left, and 300k+ deaths from the voluntary and second hand exposure to tobacco smoke, we can surely live with the infrequent psycho mass killer who rarely ever even uses rifles to kill.

If you want to live in a permeable bubble made up by the imagination that would still allow criminals to freely victimize you in a world without semi-auto rifles, there are crime infested jurisdictions in the USA, Australia and Europe that also can meet that criteria. The rest of us have opted out of the hive mind and still maintain free will and free thought.