More guns = more gun deaths

originally posted by: skunkape23

Ban rocks? Ban pointed sticks?

This has been a major issue for years now. (Sorry. Couldn't help it).

a reply to: Harpua

...and whose criteria are we going to use to decide if one is "mentally healthy" enough to be able to purchase a gun?

What criteria, for that matter. Who? Some petty little bureaucrat with an ax to grind with the world, or just some in it? Some doctor with more degrees than years of experience with the real world?

Or better yet... Congressmen who are, as we all should know, for sale to the highest bidder?

I have never shot anyone, now WHY would I give someone my gun? Just plain common sense here. What if I need it, like say my wife is being raped or something? Liberals are idiots to think anyone should give up a means of self defense. Seems to be a complete detachment from reality or common sense.

a reply to: Harpua

Its true but is also basic math. Unfort, for basic math folks, we have a constitution and bill of rights and really a long history of salvaging the right to arms for the common man from the hands of "power".


Putting armed folks in schools not only protects what means the most to us. but also is preserving and exercising a right, and for the reasons intended in the right, ect. Think of the folks that died for that right on battle fields throughout rather. many more dead on the historical world picture due to being over powered by tyrants to cast this right off easy.

a reply to: bulwarkz

Sorry we have something else, already government controlled, that takes the number one slot for deaths among children.

In 2016, there were approximately:
40,000 motor vehicle-related deaths
39,000 people firearm-related deaths
64,000 people drug overdose-related deaths

The latest provisional data from the CDC indicates that between June 2016 and June 2017, drug overdoses killed more than 66,000 people in the U.S. This marks a 16 percent increase from the previous 12-month period.

Imagine the numbers after the government take complete control of the guns.

We Asked, You Answered: Did Guns, Car Crashes or Drug Overdoses Kill More People in 2017?

originally posted by: Harpua
We here in the US have 42% of the worlds guns. We also have about 4X the amount of mass shootings (more than 4 people shot during the event). I am honestly aghast at the amount of people who refuse to recognize the correlation. Yes, there are probably other factors (pharmaceuticals, mental health, a culture of fear of "other"), but ignoring these statistics must obviously create some major cognitive dissonance among those of you who refuse to believe more guns equals more gun deaths.

Obviously, if you have more things that are capable of causing a given issue in a given country, you will probably have more of that happening. So, for example, if you have more people in your country and you have rather loose alcohol laws, you will have more issues with alcohol related problems. Drunk driving, drunks murdering people, drunks abusing people and so forth.

You do not ban alcohol to prevent this (even though alcohol has no other purpose besides making people drunk). You have no real choice other than to make it against the law to do bad things with alcohol. Meaning that you react to individual instances of alcohol-related crime as you encounter them. If you're going to have alcohol, you have to expect a certain amount of bad alcohol-related things will happen. You must be willing to accept that people do get hurt and killed in an environment in which there is very little stopping morons from doing what morons do. This is literally the price of freedom. And really, as much noise as they have made about it, relatively few people actually die by firearm despite the fact that we have bazillions of guns and a lot of idiots and a culture that has had it's collective brain marinating in violent entertainment for decades. Really, it's surprising that the stats are as low as they are. And it is worth pointing out that all of this violent entertainment (most of it) has been churned out by an industry that is overwhelmingly liberal and has exercised the hell out of it's right to free speech. To the point of promoting pointless violence in very imprudent ways. Almost always with guns. If you watch anything that's been made in Hollywood over the past decades you will probably see someone get shot or murdered in some fashion. Look at the video games people play. Can you honestly say these things have no impact or relevance on this?

So, back to the alcohol analogy. I'll make no bones about it. I don't drink. I have never been a drinker. I think drinking is stupid and wasteful and pointless and completely unnecessary. There is no doubt that drugs and alcohol have caused an unbelievable amount of pain, suffering and carnage of all kinds in every single country on the face of the planet.

Despite this, I believe (within some reason) people should be able to choose what they put into their bodies and I think we just have to try and educate people and convince them to do things as responsibly as possible under the circumstances. I think we have to inform people and only react punitively when someone actually does something wrong. You cannot react to potential. The potential for everything that can happen is already there. It's all around you. Literally anything that could happen might happen at any given moment. You can try and take some preventative measures but it would be insane to go too crazy trying to completely idiot proof the entire world and the future. There would be no joy and no peace and not nearly as much comfort and security as you think there would be if we were always trying to prevent people from doing the worst thing they could possibly do by reacting to things that never happened. If that makes sense.

Let's say you're afraid that your neighbor is going to punch you in the face because he likes to watch boxing. I suppose that's a reasonable fear but he hasn't actually done it (probably never will). Even if he threatens to do it. Which I will obviously admit is wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean he's going to.

Unfortunately, there's just a certain amount of chaos in nature. I would rather live in a free society and take some chances.

I am sure many of you will stick by your fear that the government is coming for your guns

That doesn't appear to be an unreasonable fear, considering that's what this is all about. If we're having a discussion about banning something or taking someone's rights away, it's rather absurd to say that it isn't what it is.

and that its a constitutional freedom, but regardless...

Yes. Believe it or not, the law is built on top of the Constitution. From where does the law derive it's power if it disregards the documents it's based upon? It's funny you chose to use the word "regardless" there.

America's unhealthy obsession with firearms is a deadly one.

Frankly, the people who seem to be unhealthily obsessed with firearms at the moment are people like you.

originally posted by: Harpua

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: Harpua


More automobiles = More automobile deaths!!!!

BAN CARS!!!

Close... actually, require seatbelts, require a license, require safety standards etc.

Driving a car also is not a right...

Guess we should require people to get a license to post on the internet. Oh wait that would infringe on their 1st amendment rights.

originally posted by: uninspired

originally posted by: Harpua

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: Harpua


More automobiles = More automobile deaths!!!!

BAN CARS!!!

Close... actually, require seatbelts, require a license, require safety standards etc.

Driving a car also is not a right...

Guess we should require people to get a license to post on the internet. Oh wait that would infringe on their 1st amendment rights.

The anti-gunners are actually against both the first and second amendments because if you're going to cancel someone's second amendment because of something they said or because you think their thoughts or opinions aren't normal, you might as well cancel the first amendment too. If you can't say anything without wondering if they're going to put you on a list of bad people so they can take away your rights, you're losing your right to free speech as well.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: uninspired

originally posted by: Harpua

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: Harpua


More automobiles = More automobile deaths!!!!

BAN CARS!!!

Close... actually, require seatbelts, require a license, require safety standards etc.

Driving a car also is not a right...

Guess we should require people to get a license to post on the internet. Oh wait that would infringe on their 1st amendment rights.

The anti-gunners are actually against both the first and second amendments because if you're going to cancel someone's second amendment because of something they said or because you think their thoughts or opinions aren't normal, you might as well cancel the first amendment too. If you can't say anything without wondering if they're going to put you on a list of bad people so they can take away your rights, you're losing your right to free speech as well.

Do you have a right to threaten to shoot people?

More swimming pools equal more drownings... What the hell is your point?

originally posted by: EternalSolace
More swimming pools equal more drownings... What the hell is your point?

According to gun advocates more swimming pools = less drownings.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: EternalSolace
More swimming pools equal more drownings... What the hell is your point?

According to gun advocates more swimming pools = less drownings.

According to gun control advocates... ban water.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Really. Ban water. That's one hell of an escalation, where can we go from here?

Odd random thought, just woke up still drinking my caffeine...

If we have 42% of the worlds guns in our country, in the hands of citizens it strikes me as our death toll is actually quite low when you consider the staggering amount of firearms in the nation.

we are a country of 330+ million people, with over 300+ million (legal) guns and we have (depending on where you look) 36k deaths due to a firearm a year and the majority of those deaths are suicides.

I don't care about other nations, they don't have our population or the sheer volume of firearms available as other nations so it seems to me just focusing on the deaths is only looking at one part of the equation.

Or I could be sleep deprived...

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: EternalSolace
More swimming pools equal more drownings... What the hell is your point?

According to gun advocates more swimming pools = less drownings.

According to gun control advocates... ban water.

You must just be dense.
The meme is that swimming pools kill way more children than guns. Not water you dolt. So in essence the gungrabbing lunatics would be in context, banning water. You simply twisted your logic into transference

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: uninspired

originally posted by: Harpua

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: Harpua


More automobiles = More automobile deaths!!!!

BAN CARS!!!

Close... actually, require seatbelts, require a license, require safety standards etc.

Driving a car also is not a right...

Guess we should require people to get a license to post on the internet. Oh wait that would infringe on their 1st amendment rights.

The anti-gunners are actually against both the first and second amendments because if you're going to cancel someone's second amendment because of something they said or because you think their thoughts or opinions aren't normal, you might as well cancel the first amendment too. If you can't say anything without wondering if they're going to put you on a list of bad people so they can take away your rights, you're losing your right to free speech as well.

Actually they fully intend to remove the 1st amendment. The 2nd amendment stops that from happening.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: uninspired

originally posted by: Harpua

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: Harpua


More automobiles = More automobile deaths!!!!

BAN CARS!!!

Close... actually, require seatbelts, require a license, require safety standards etc.

Driving a car also is not a right...

Guess we should require people to get a license to post on the internet. Oh wait that would infringe on their 1st amendment rights.

The anti-gunners are actually against both the first and second amendments because if you're going to cancel someone's second amendment because of something they said or because you think their thoughts or opinions aren't normal, you might as well cancel the first amendment too. If you can't say anything without wondering if they're going to put you on a list of bad people so they can take away your rights, you're losing your right to free speech as well.

Do you have a right to threaten to shoot people?

Do you know what a strawman is? Sure you do.

Obviously, this "debate" is a little more complicated than that. You and I both know that eventually it will get to the point to where anything you say or do will be regarded as "suspicious" if people don't like it. If you watch the news coverage following each and every one of these incidents you'll see where they dig into the most mundane details of the lives of the shooters looking for "clues".

The most frequently repeated "clue" is someone who doesn't talk much or isn't very friendly. Really? That's a sign that someone is going to be a psycho killer someday? There are millions and millions of people like that. Just people who like to be alone. That's not a crime. Yet.

Give them the ability to start picking people apart based on stupid things like that and you're going to see a witch hunt. It never fails.

So the question isn't "Do people have the right to threaten to shoot people?" No, obviously they don't. A specific threat like that is specific but in these cases there are not always specific threats. So, what happens when there's a mass shooting and there was no specific threat but the guy was "just weird"? Well, suddenly, just being "weird" is going to be enough to arouse suspicion. Do you have any idea how many people there are who are "just a little weird" who will never hurt anyone?

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Yeah it's a slippery slope, we don't seem all that far away from a 1984 type environment where Kids keep their parents in line through spying on them and reporting any discrepancy to the authorities. People already are suspicious of their neighbors, I don't like where this is headed.

a reply to: fleabit

One real quick question, are you playing with a full deck?


The point is, the argument that guns are made to kill and therefore should be banned is ridiculous. Take away guns, and guess what happens? People find the next best way to kill someone, that removes them from the immediacy of killing as much as possible. Knives...ick.... you get blood on you!

Well, now automobiles are being used to kill. Hmmm. No blood if you do it right (on you at least), AND you can drive away!!!


The simple fact is, a gun is a tool. Tools have intended purposes. Tools can be used for alternative purposes as well.

Tools do not kill people. People kill people. It takes a willing person to gain access to a gun (legally or not) and kill (legally or not).

Just like someone who decides to drive through a crowd in a Ford F250. That car did not kill. It has no will of it's own. It relies on the will of the person using it. Just like guns.



Ciao.... and hey, I'm trying to be positive.... here's a FULL deck of cards for you to play with