Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

1303133353678

Comments

  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    DS1119 wrote:
    Same reason they have all of the other rights in this country. :lol:
    am i reading it correctly that you think that people on the terror watch list and convicted felons should be able to purchase guns without limitations?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,025
    DS1119 wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:


    Ask Eddie Vedder about this. I seem to remember reading about and seeing a clip in a movie about a certain whacko who wanted to drive their truck through his front door. The driver didn't have a gun. :lol:
    Eddie also wrote Glorified G and Lukin.


    What he wrote doesn't change the facts of what happened. :?
    I didn't say it did.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    DS1119 wrote:
    Cool thanks for doing the legwork ;) I really don't know the numbers and I'd be interested in seeing them. I'm a numbers geek, so I like to see what the stats are in peer reviewed journals.


    Well the number for a 30 year period for automobiles from 1980 to 2010 is 1,697,722 souls lost. Should I even continue? :lol:

    Good enough?

    http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/fire ... #table-tab


    Well there you go. :lol: The chart also doesn't take into account illegal and legally obtained weapons. :lol: Clearly just on a numbers game the cars are a much bigger problem...and gun control is all about saving lives right? :lol: So lets go after the bigger problem first. Look at all of the lives that would be saved just by banning cars. Get your bikes ready people! :lol:
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    DS1119 wrote:
    Same reason they have all of the other rights in this country. :lol:
    am i reading it correctly that you think that people on the terror watch list and convicted felons should be able to purchase guns without limitations?


    I think people in this country have equal rights until proven wrong.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    What?


    Love affair with deadly weapons? :lol:
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    edited August 2012
    DS1119 wrote:

    You have looked at murder rtaes across the World right b.ased on population? The US is at the lower end of that actually...well below countries that don't allow LEGALLY POSSESSED FIREARMS! :lol: :fp:

    Umm... not sure where you get your info from. Here is a link to a table from the UNODC (though in an article from the Guardian). Whilst you are correct in saying that the US may not be at the top (check out the countries before and after), it is the first western country on the list far 'ahead' from others. US 5 per 100.000, next 'western' country Luxembourg at 2.5, Canada at 1.8 and Australia at 1.2. Also look at the map - see which countries have the same colour (therefore similar homicide rates) to the US. Eye-opening, isn't it?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... rate-unodc
    Post edited by redrock on
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    DS1119 wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    Same reason they have all of the other rights in this country. :lol:
    am i reading it correctly that you think that people on the terror watch list and convicted felons should be able to purchase guns without limitations?


    I think people in this country have equal rights until proven wrong.
    so if you are not allowed to get on a commercial airline you should be able to purchase not just one gun, but many guns??

    and if you are a conviced felon, which are usually violent crimes, you should be able to purchase guns??
    as a felon you can not vote, but you should be able to buy guns???
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,025
    DS1119 wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    What?


    Love affair with deadly weapons? :lol:
    Well, yeah. All the gun shows with people practically drooling over them, Walls full of them at Wal-Mart, a popular activity in Vegas is to go and play with automatic weapons, the NRA has actual political pull, lots of gun-filled Hollywood flicks, spirited rallies to fight for no regulation or support politicians who stand with the NRA (complete with people proudly carrying guns in large crowds), etc etc ... America does seem pretty in love with guns to me! You really don't think so?
    With a sizable opposition, obviously.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • ZosoZoso Posts: 6,425
    pro gun supporters on this thread are mostly posting 'facts' about gun control and mass shootings with a severe lack of evidence or links that says lapse gun control leads to less murders. Where else in the western world has their been the amount of mass murders via guns and and many murders relating to shootings?

    Someone on this thread keeps saying what they are saying is 'common' sense'.. I wish people were more careful about telling others what they are saying is 'common sense' especially when other countries with just as much a violent history and violent weapon access (both legal and illegal) have AN EXTREMELY smaller percentage of deaths caused by guns. I think the pro gun culture and the twisted opinion that they have the 'right' to bear arms is a major reason why mass shootings keep happening..

    Pro gun supporters blame the shooters mental illness when in not all cases are these people mentally ill.. they blame the family when most of the time they come from regular families in suburban neighborhoods and lastly the blame liberals because we are against arming every citizen lol.. it's madness. it's got to stop how many deaths can occur before people start taking notice?
    I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you

    Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl

    I love you forever and forever :)

    Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
  • ComeToTXComeToTX Austin Posts: 7,875
    Zoso wrote:
    pro gun supporters on this thread are mostly posting 'facts' about gun control and mass shootings with a severe lack of evidence or links that says lapse gun control leads to less murders. Where else in the western world has their been the amount of mass murders via guns and and many murders relating to shootings?

    Someone on this thread keeps saying what they are saying is 'common' sense'.. I wish people were more careful about telling others what they are saying is 'common sense' especially when other countries with just as much a violent history and violent weapon access (both legal and illegal) have AN EXTREMELY smaller percentage of deaths caused by guns. I think the pro gun culture and the twisted opinion that they have the 'right' to bear arms is a major reason why mass shootings keep happening..

    Pro gun supporters blame the shooters mental illness when in not all cases are these people mentally ill.. they blame the family when most of the time they come from regular families in suburban neighborhoods and lastly the blame liberals because we are against arming every citizen lol.. it's madness. it's got to stop how many deaths can occur before people start taking notice?

    I asked your last question earlier in the thread and I was serious. What would it take? A thousand kids in school? What if during Monday night football a guy pulls a ak out and takes out 100 innocent people. Would that be enough? Insanity.
    This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
  • ZosoZoso Posts: 6,425
    ComeToTX wrote:
    Zoso wrote:
    pro gun supporters on this thread are mostly posting 'facts' about gun control and mass shootings with a severe lack of evidence or links that says lapse gun control leads to less murders. Where else in the western world has their been the amount of mass murders via guns and and many murders relating to shootings?

    Someone on this thread keeps saying what they are saying is 'common' sense'.. I wish people were more careful about telling others what they are saying is 'common sense' especially when other countries with just as much a violent history and violent weapon access (both legal and illegal) have AN EXTREMELY smaller percentage of deaths caused by guns. I think the pro gun culture and the twisted opinion that they have the 'right' to bear arms is a major reason why mass shootings keep happening..

    Pro gun supporters blame the shooters mental illness when in not all cases are these people mentally ill.. they blame the family when most of the time they come from regular families in suburban neighborhoods and lastly the blame liberals because we are against arming every citizen lol.. it's madness. it's got to stop how many deaths can occur before people start taking notice?

    I asked your last question earlier in the thread and I was serious. What would it take? A thousand kids in school? What if during Monday night football a guy pulls a ak out and takes out 100 innocent people. Would that be enough? Insanity.

    I think people who inherently believe that guns are the answer to protect will always find another reason or excuse on why a mass murder occured where it has something to do with bad apples, bad parenting, obama, liberals, mental illness, illegal weapons, violent past... some people don't see anti gun laws that are actually working in other similar countries working in america for some reason or another and I don't understand. weapons that are used in mass shooting SHOULDN'T be in the hands of the common person.. I personally don't think you should be able to apply for a gun license for the reason of self defense.. that is the first thing that needs to be changed. the whole gun loving mindset in america has to be changed before their can be change.
    I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you

    Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl

    I love you forever and forever :)

    Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    DS1119 wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    Same reason they have all of the other rights in this country. :lol:
    am i reading it correctly that you think that people on the terror watch list and convicted felons should be able to purchase guns without limitations?


    I think people in this country have equal rights until proven wrong.

    But haven't these already been 'proven wrong' (well, at least the convicted felons)?
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    Zoso wrote:
    Someone on this thread keeps saying what they are saying is 'common' sense'.. I wish people were more careful about telling others what they are saying is 'common sense'
    Also, considering that it has been shown that three quarters of the guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally - one would assume by 'responsible, law abiding citizens' as those are supposedly the only people that can purchase guns legally - it would also be useful to refrain using those terms in comparison to the 'bad guys'. Especially when one cannot define what this responsible, law abiding citizen is (it has already been questioned whether keeping a loaded weapon is being 'responsible' as we all know that gun and ammo should be kept separately under lock and key).

    Maybe someone would like to take up this challenge and finally give everyone here an answer. What is a 'responsible, law abiding citizen' that can obtain a gun legally? What makes him/her more responsible than others? How is one 'responsible'? Do all 'responsible' owners have full training (physical and psychological) on gun use? Is the rest of the family 'safety trained'? How is one 'responsible' (say with gun storage) but still be prepared for the unexpected in case of a home intrusion of any kind (ie having the time to unlock cabinet where gun is stored - maybe in a different room - go to the second cabinet with ammo and get that, load gun, etc.)? Difficult, isn't it? Therefore if one cannot store guns safely without compromising his/her 'home defense', one is no longer 'responsible'? I guess law abiding is easier to define - would be one that would never break any laws whatsoever - does this person really exist?

    Not being flippant or anything, just trying to understand what some people mean when they use certain terms.
  • ZosoZoso Posts: 6,425
    why give everyone the benefit of the doubt and their right to bear arms when you know it's going to happen again????

    Same rule as the DUI issue.. It's illegal to drink and drive because it's a death awaiting to happen... why isn't their an amendement that says 'have the right to drink and drive'.. well because it's too dangerous..

    it's also too dangerous to own dangerous weapons especially with minimal laws and control. I guess my overall point is the right to bear arms is more important then human life in america.. the idea that the evil government would take my gun away is more alarming then more deaths... it's insane I can't even comprehend.
    I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you

    Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl

    I love you forever and forever :)

    Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
  • ZosoZoso Posts: 6,425
    redrock wrote:
    Zoso wrote:
    Someone on this thread keeps saying what they are saying is 'common' sense'.. I wish people were more careful about telling others what they are saying is 'common sense'
    Also, considering that it has been shown that three quarters of the guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally - one would assume by 'responsible, law abiding citizens' as those are supposedly the only people that can purchase guns legally - it would also be useful to refrain using those terms in comparison to the 'bad guys'. Especially when one cannot define what this responsible, law abiding citizen is (it has already been questioned whether keeping a loaded weapon is being 'responsible' as we all know that gun and ammo should be kept separately under lock and key).

    Maybe someone would like to take up this challenge and finally give everyone here an answer. What is a 'responsible, law abiding citizen' that can obtain a gun legally? What makes him/her more responsible than others? How is one 'responsible'? Do all 'responsible' owners have full training (physical and psychological) on gun use? Is the rest of the family 'safety trained'? How is one 'responsible' (say with gun storage) but still be prepared for the unexpected in case of a home intrusion of any kind (ie having the time to unlock cabinet where gun is stored - maybe in a different room - go to the second cabinet with ammo and get that, load gun, etc.)? Difficult, isn't it? Therefore if one cannot store guns safely without compromising his/her 'home defense', one is no longer 'responsible'? I guess law abiding is easier to define - would be one that would never break any laws whatsoever - does this person really exist?

    Not being flippant or anything, just trying to understand what some people mean when they use certain terms.

    I don't think training has anything to do with this as anyone can snap at any time and if they have access to guns or other weapons they will use it. Known crim's are hardly ever reponsible for the mass murders as it's normally the pissed off worker who got fired, or the college student that is failing.
    I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you

    Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl

    I love you forever and forever :)

    Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
  • ZosoZoso Posts: 6,425
    redrock wrote:
    Zoso wrote:
    Someone on this thread keeps saying what they are saying is 'common' sense'.. I wish people were more careful about telling others what they are saying is 'common sense'
    Also, considering that it has been shown that three quarters of the guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally - one would assume by 'responsible, law abiding citizens' as those are supposedly the only people that can purchase guns legally - it would also be useful to refrain using those terms in comparison to the 'bad guys'. Especially when one cannot define what this responsible, law abiding citizen is (it has already been questioned whether keeping a loaded weapon is being 'responsible' as we all know that gun and ammo should be kept separately under lock and key).

    Maybe someone would like to take up this challenge and finally give everyone here an answer. What is a 'responsible, law abiding citizen' that can obtain a gun legally? What makes him/her more responsible than others? How is one 'responsible'? Do all 'responsible' owners have full training (physical and psychological) on gun use? Is the rest of the family 'safety trained'? How is one 'responsible' (say with gun storage) but still be prepared for the unexpected in case of a home intrusion of any kind (ie having the time to unlock cabinet where gun is stored - maybe in a different room - go to the second cabinet with ammo and get that, load gun, etc.)? Difficult, isn't it? Therefore if one cannot store guns safely without compromising his/her 'home defense', one is no longer 'responsible'? I guess law abiding is easier to define - would be one that would never break any laws whatsoever - does this person really exist?

    Not being flippant or anything, just trying to understand what some people mean when they use certain terms.

    what I'm trying to say is training in gun use isn't going to make them less likely or more likely to participate in a mass shooting..
    I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you

    Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl

    I love you forever and forever :)

    Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
  • eMMIeMMI Posts: 6,262
    Zoso wrote:
    the right to bear arms is more important then human life

    I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Inherently every human being has the right to live, no? How does that right get so blatantly trampled on so often, by the right to bear arms?
    "Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Meanwhile...


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/au ... -terrorism


    Sikh temple shooting: six worshippers killed in act of US 'domestic terrorism'

    Gunman shoots senior figures at Wisconsin temple, killing six and injuring three others, before being shot dead by police


    Matt Williams in New York
    guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 August 2012


    A gunman shot dead six worshippers at a Sikh temple before opening fire on officers in what police described as an act of US "domestic terrorism".

    The attack began shortly before 10.30am local time on Sunday as dozens of people were gathering at a place of worship in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.

    After killing a number of people inside the temple, the gunman then fired on a police officer who was helping a wounded victim outside the building. A second officer fired on the suspect, who died at the scene. The wounded officer – who was shot multiple times – was taken to hospital for surgery. He is expected to survive.

    At a press conference held outside the temple on Sunday, Oak Creek police chief John Edwards said the "heroic actions" of the two officers "stopped this from being worse than it could have been", noting that many people had gathered for worship at the time of the attack.

    Edwards said that authorities were treating the killing as a "domestic terrorism incident", but added that it was too early to suggest a motive. Some Sikh members of the community told the media they feared that it was a hate crime. "We are at the beginning stages of this investigation," Edwards said. The FBI has taken over the criminal inquiry.

    It is thought that around 50 people were in the temple as the shootings took place. Prominent members of the local Sikh community were among those thought to have been injured or killed by the gunman.

    Jatin Der Mangat, 38, of Racine, said his uncle, the temple's president Satwant Singh Kaleka, was one of those wounded, but he didn't know how serious his injuries were. "It was like the heart just sat down," he said. "This shouldn't happen anywhere."

    Sukhwindar Nagr, also of Racine, said he called his brother-in-law's phone and a priest at the temple answered and told him that his brother-in-law had been shot, along with three priests. Children hid in closets in the temple amid fears that the suspect was still on the loose, the priest told Nagr.

    CNN reported that two handguns were recovered by forensic experts at the scene. But initial fears that the gunman may have had an accomplice appear to be unfounded. There are often reports of multiple gunmen at incidents of mass shootings, because of the confusion, large number of witnesses and different perspectives. Police said sweeps of the temple and the surrounding area suggested that the shooting was the act of a lone killer.

    Alongside the six people the suspect shot, three people were injured and taken to a nearby hospital. They were all in critical condition. The officer who was shot by the gunman is among those being treated. "We expect him to recover", Edwards said.

    Police said the unnamed officer was "ambushed" by the gunman as he and a colleague responded to a 911 call alerting authorities to the scene of the shootings. Emergency teams later found the bodies of four victims inside the temple. Three more corpses lay outside the building, including that of the suspect.

    For hours after the initial incident, a cordon was placed around the temple amid fears that a second armed man remained at large. Ambulances and police marksman surrounded the temple. The cordon was raised when police were sure that no other peope were involved.

    Bradley Wentlandt, police chief of the nearby town of Greenfield, confirmed later that there was only one suspect. "There is no evidence of additional shooters at the temple," he said.

    Despite fears that the attack may have had a racist motive, some in the Sikh community cautioned against jumping to conclusions. Sapreet Kaur, executive director of the Sikh Coalition, the largest Sikh American civil rights organisation in the US, said: "There have been multiple hate crime shootings within the Sikh community in recent years and the natural impulse of our community is to unfortunately assume the same in this case.

    "Let's let law enforcement investigate the case and as new facts emerge the dialogue can change," he urged.

    Kaur added: "Americans died today in a senseless act of violence and Americans of all faiths should stand in unified support with their Sikh brothers and sisters."

    The incident in Wisconsin comes just 16 days after 12 people were killed and nearly 60 injured in a mass shooting at a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado, during a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises.

    President Barack Obama was informed of the latest atrocity shortly before 1pm ET by homeland security adviser John Brennan. In a statement, the president said he was "deeply saddened". He added: "At this difficult time, the people of Oak Creek must know that the American people have them in our thoughts and prayers, and our hearts go out to the families and friends of those who were killed and wounded."

    Obama's Republican challenger for the White House, Mitt Romney, expressed his condolences to those caught up in America's latest mass shooting.
  • comebackgirlcomebackgirl Posts: 9,885
    DS1119 wrote:
    Cool thanks for doing the legwork ;) I really don't know the numbers and I'd be interested in seeing them. I'm a numbers geek, so I like to see what the stats are in peer reviewed journals.


    Well the number for a 30 year period for automobiles from 1980 to 2010 is 1,697,722 souls lost. Should I even continue? :lol:
    Yes, please. This wasn't really what I was looking for. I really wanted to see a comparison that would back the argument you were making in the other thread, as well as some analysis from peer reviewed journals. Whole numbers don't really lend themselves to an accurate comparison. Thanks, DS
    tumblr_mg4nc33pIX1s1mie8o1_400.gif

    "I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    What?


    Love affair with deadly weapons? :lol:
    Well, yeah. All the gun shows with people practically drooling over them, Walls full of them at Wal-Mart, a popular activity in Vegas is to go and play with automatic weapons, the NRA has actual political pull, lots of gun-filled Hollywood flicks, spirited rallies to fight for no regulation or support politicians who stand with the NRA (complete with people proudly carrying guns in large crowds), etc etc ... America does seem pretty in love with guns to me! You really don't think so?
    With a sizable opposition, obviously.


    I saw a brochure for 2 craft fairs this weekend too. Are we obsessed with yarn and glue or is it the gun shows that only attract media attention? :lol:
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    DS1119 wrote:
    Cool thanks for doing the legwork ;) I really don't know the numbers and I'd be interested in seeing them. I'm a numbers geek, so I like to see what the stats are in peer reviewed journals.


    Well the number for a 30 year period for automobiles from 1980 to 2010 is 1,697,722 souls lost. Should I even continue? :lol:
    Yes, please. This wasn't really what I was looking for. I really wanted to see a comparison that would back the argument you were making in the other thread, as well as some analysis from peer reviewed journals. Whole numbers don't really lend themselves to an accurate comparison. Thanks, DS


    Those numbers are now posted in this thread.
  • comebackgirlcomebackgirl Posts: 9,885
    DS1119 wrote:
    Cool thanks for doing the legwork ;) I really don't know the numbers and I'd be interested in seeing them. I'm a numbers geek, so I like to see what the stats are in peer reviewed journals.


    Well the number for a 30 year period for automobiles from 1980 to 2010 is 1,697,722 souls lost. Should I even continue? :lol:

    Good enough?

    http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/fire ... #table-tab
    Thanks, that's more detailed, but still not quite what I was looking for.
    tumblr_mg4nc33pIX1s1mie8o1_400.gif

    "I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    I just saw that on average 12 people...TWELVE PEOPLE die in this country everyday by drowning. I found my next fight! Ban swimming!! 5000 people annully can be spared their lives if we just shut down the swimmers! :lol: I mean we don't need to swim. We don;t swim to work. We don't swim to get to the store :lol:
  • comebackgirlcomebackgirl Posts: 9,885
    DS1119 wrote:


    Those numbers are now posted in this thread.
    Thanks, I saw that, but it wasn't really what I was looking for. I really am interested to see more of an analysis that compares the actual ownership and usage of cars, vs. the actual ownership and usage of firearms in comparison to the number of deaths, not just the total of deaths caused by each. I'm not sure if such research exists, but if so I'd be interested in seeing it. I also wanted to see if there's any research about the number of guns that are obtained legally that are then used illegally (ie. stolen, obtained from a parent, etc) and preferably from a peer reviewed source and not either the pro or anti gun control side. I've tried to search a little myself, but was hoping someone might have it readily available.
    tumblr_mg4nc33pIX1s1mie8o1_400.gif

    "I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319
    DS1119 wrote:
    I just saw that on average 12 people...TWELVE PEOPLE die in this country everyday by drowning. I found my next fight! Ban swimming!! 5000 people annully can be spared their lives if we just shut down the swimmers! :lol: I mean we don't need to swim. We don;t swim to work. We don't swim to get to the store :lol:

    I wouldn't be so gleeful about such a poor comparison. There's no inheirant risk of being hurt or killed by a gunshot if you choose to be in a cafe, or a movie theater, or a temple or anywhere else. There is an inheirant risk if you choose to go swimming. People also choose to climb mountains or go skiing depsite the inheirant risks. They don't need to do these things, but they also don't endanger other peoples' lives by doing so. Guns endanger everyone.
  • ZosoZoso Posts: 6,425
    DS1119 wrote:
    I just saw that on average 12 people...TWELVE PEOPLE die in this country everyday by drowning. I found my next fight! Ban swimming!! 5000 people annully can be spared their lives if we just shut down the swimmers! :lol: I mean we don't need to swim. We don;t swim to work. We don't swim to get to the store :lol:

    really?.. I understand you are lol about this but guns are man made machines that kill.. end of story.
    I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you

    Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl

    I love you forever and forever :)

    Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
  • peacefrompaulpeacefrompaul Posts: 25,293
    DS1119 wrote:


    Those numbers are now posted in this thread.
    Thanks, I saw that, but it wasn't really what I was looking for. I really am interested to see more of an analysis that compares the actual ownership and usage of cars, vs. the actual ownership and usage of firearms in comparison to the number of deaths, not just the total of deaths caused by each. I'm not sure if such research exists, but if so I'd be interested in seeing it. I also wanted to see if there's any research about the number of guns that are obtained legally that are then used illegally (ie. stolen, obtained from a parent, etc) and preferably from a peer reviewed source and not either the pro or anti gun control side. I've tried to search a little myself, but was hoping someone might have it readily available.

    Good luck...
  • comebackgirlcomebackgirl Posts: 9,885
    DS1119 wrote:


    Those numbers are now posted in this thread.
    Thanks, I saw that, but it wasn't really what I was looking for. I really am interested to see more of an analysis that compares the actual ownership and usage of cars, vs. the actual ownership and usage of firearms in comparison to the number of deaths, not just the total of deaths caused by each. I'm not sure if such research exists, but if so I'd be interested in seeing it. I also wanted to see if there's any research about the number of guns that are obtained legally that are then used illegally (ie. stolen, obtained from a parent, etc) and preferably from a peer reviewed source and not either the pro or anti gun control side. I've tried to search a little myself, but was hoping someone might have it readily available.

    Good luck...
    Thanks, haven't found it yet :lol:
    tumblr_mg4nc33pIX1s1mie8o1_400.gif

    "I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,025
    DS1119 wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:


    I saw a brochure for 2 craft fairs this weekend too. Are we obsessed with yarn and glue or is it the gun shows that only attract media attention? :lol:
    If you want to say that Americans are in love crafts, you would probably have a good argument. But there are piles of craft fairs in other places too, and not a ton of gun shows or guns in every mega store. America is the only place where there are oodles of gun shows, people rallying for guns, a rifle association that has political power... is there a crafts association that has clout in Washington that I don't know about? Rallies in support of crafts? Craft-making ranges in Vegas? I don't think so. ;) Come on. You know that Americans love their guns. They love lots of other things too, obviously, but most of the other things don't have an intimate connection to violent death.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    Zoso wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    I just saw that on average 12 people...TWELVE PEOPLE die in this country everyday by drowning. I found my next fight! Ban swimming!! 5000 people annully can be spared their lives if we just shut down the swimmers! :lol: I mean we don't need to swim. We don;t swim to work. We don't swim to get to the store :lol:

    really?.. I understand you are lol about this but guns are man made machines that kill.. end of story.


    Machetes? Who uses machetes these days? :lol: But they are sold worldwide. Didn't someone out of the US just kill 9 people with a machete? :lol:
This discussion has been closed.