Alcohol deaths vs. gun deaths

Hugh Freaking Dillon

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

and everyone is law abiding until they commit a crime. so why not take the gun out of the situation? because that would make too much fucking sense.

Take the illegal gun out of the equation is more like it.

and how many of the mass shootings would taking the ILLEGAL guns out of the equation have stopped?

DS1119

Right in your backyard Governor Cuomo. Personally I would like to thank the liberal media for glorifying this horrendous act of illegal gun violence and making citizens react swiftly. The rational citizen realizes this is not a gun issue but a people and criminal issue. Thank you liberal media for trying to push your own political agenda by spreading fear and irrational thought which will backfire (pun inteneded) on you. Until the government concentrates on the problem of illegal guns through security and being proactive...leave the legal weapons alone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

DS1119

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

and everyone is law abiding until they commit a crime. so why not take the gun out of the situation? because that would make too much fucking sense.

Take the illegal gun out of the equation is more like it.

and how many of the mass shootings would taking the ILLEGAL guns out of the equation have stopped?

All of them actually.

gimmesometruth27

DS1119 wrote:

[
Quite the assumptions you're making. I guess countries don't need militaries since we must all be just paranoid. :roll:

i am not making an assumption. how many people on here every day spout off about having to protect themselves from the drempt up bad guy who may or may not ever get on their property?? it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that this is clearly evidence of paranoia.

this has nothing to do with militaries. especially the american military, who is not used for defense at all, ...but that is a topic for another thread..

you can not compare your wanting to keep a gun and the military having guns. that is what the military does. they are supposed to have the arsenals, not the average joe citizen.

DS1119

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

. that is what the military does. they are supposed to have the arsenals, not the average joe citizen.

Our Constitution and the feelings of the majority of US citizens feels quite differently.

gimmesometruth27

DS1119 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

. that is what the military does. they are supposed to have the arsenals, not the average joe citizen.

Our Constitution and the feelings of the majority of US citizens feels quite differently.

the 2nd amendment does not state that you can have an ar-15. what about the well regulated militia part? you gun rights folks always leave that part out.

Flutter Girl

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Flutter Girl wrote:

They had more regulation on so-called 'assault' weapons. They did a study themselves and found the regulation had zero effect. How many times do weapons need to be banned before it sinks in that regulating it doesn't work. It doesn't solve the problem. When are people going to stop "regurgitating" the same old bans that get no results before you wise up and finally start looking for a different option. Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over but expecting different results.

because most rational people understand it's not a singular issue. just bans on guns won't work, absolutely correct. there needs to be a major culture shift, better access to mental health care and de-stigmatization of mental health problems, and several other factors that the pro-gun crowd ignore, and that won't be easy. but saying "ah, it won't work, so let's not bother" is just plain irresponsible and stupid.

In 30 years there have been 61 mass shootings. Not all of them were mentally ill. Just sick. The only thing common among them, as I've said before, is they all had bloodthirst and no empathy for their victims. You are focusing on something responsible for just 61 occurances..30 years. Meanwhile, gang bangers and other similar criminals shoot people everyday and are responsible for the vast majority of the 10,000 annual deaths. Why are you talking about the mentally ill? What they do is a freak occurance. And also as I've said elsewhere. If you want to deal with the real source of gun violence, it's poverty you need to focus on. Not gun ownership. There is no correlation between number of guns and high gun crime. The states with the highest number of gun owners also have the lowest crime rates. The correlation is between poverty and crime. The poorer the area, the higher the crime rate.

DS1119

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

. that is what the military does. they are supposed to have the arsenals, not the average joe citizen.

Our Constitution and the feelings of the majority of US citizens feels quite differently.

the 2nd amendment does not state that you can have an ar-15. what about the well regulated militia part? you gun rights folks always leave that part out.

It also doesn't state that we can't. In a land of the weapons the US government possesses I would think that at least a semiautomatic rifle would give a militia somewhat of a chance.

gimmesometruth27

DS1119 wrote:

It also doesn't state that we can't. In a land of the weapons the US government possesses I would think that at least a semiautomatic rifle would give a militia somewhat of a chance.

who would the militia be fighting against? the us military?? BWAHAHAHA...

DS1119

Flutter Girl wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Flutter Girl wrote:

They had more regulation on so-called 'assault' weapons. They did a study themselves and found the regulation had zero effect. How many times do weapons need to be banned before it sinks in that regulating it doesn't work. It doesn't solve the problem. When are people going to stop "regurgitating" the same old bans that get no results before you wise up and finally start looking for a different option. Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over but expecting different results.

because most rational people understand it's not a singular issue. just bans on guns won't work, absolutely correct. there needs to be a major culture shift, better access to mental health care and de-stigmatization of mental health problems, and several other factors that the pro-gun crowd ignore, and that won't be easy. but saying "ah, it won't work, so let's not bother" is just plain irresponsible and stupid.

In 30 years there have been 61 mass shootings. Not all of them were mentally ill. Just sick. The only thing common among them, as I've said before, is they all had bloodthirst and no empathy for their victims. You are focusing on something responsible for just 61 occurances..30 years. Meanwhile, gang bangers and other similar criminals shoot people everyday and are responsible for the vast majority of the 10,000 annual deaths. Why are you talking about the mentally ill? What they do is a freak occurance. And also as I've said elsewhere. If you want to deal with the real source of gun violence, it's poverty you need to focus on. Not gun ownership. There is no correlation between number of guns and high gun crime. The states with the highest number of gun owners also have the lowest crime rates. The correlation is between poverty and crime. The poorer the area, the higher the crime rate.

In my eyes the answer is quite simple. It's easy for politicians to push this stuff to make it look like they are actually trying to solve the problem. They aren't and it won't, but it sure makes them look good while trying.

DS1119

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

It also doesn't state that we can't. In a land of the weapons the US government possesses I would think that at least a semiautomatic rifle would give a militia somewhat of a chance.

who would the militia be fighting against? the us military?? BWAHAHAHA...

You obviously have never read the Constitution.

gimmesometruth27

DS1119 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

It also doesn't state that we can't. In a land of the weapons the US government possesses I would think that at least a semiautomatic rifle would give a militia somewhat of a chance.

who would the militia be fighting against? the us military?? BWAHAHAHA...

You obviously have never read the Constitution.

i have a copy of it on my desk right now.

gimmesometruth27

DS1119 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

It also doesn't state that we can't. In a land of the weapons the US government possesses I would think that at least a semiautomatic rifle would give a militia somewhat of a chance.

who would the militia be fighting against? the us military?? BWAHAHAHA...

You obviously have never read the Constitution.

who would the militia be fighting against?

DS1119

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i have a copy of it on my desk right now.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Tyranical government.

Flutter Girl

An AR-15 is just a rifle. It looks scarier, but it's still just a rifle. They had rifle's back in our Founding Fathers' day. It fires the same as the wooden kind. It is not selective fire. It is not fully automatic. It is simply just a rifle. Our Founding Fathers were visionaries, several were even inventors. Do you not think they didn't know guns and rifles would evolve and improve? Or even imagine just how they might evolve..They weren't braindead for Christ's sake.

gimmesometruth27

DS1119 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i have a copy of it on my desk right now.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Tyranical government.

what tyranical government? there is no tyranical government now and there has never been since we defeated the brits. it can be argued that lincoln was a tyrant, but that is debatable.

do you know why states had militias at the time the constitution was written? because we had no standing army and we had to be able to defend ourselves from the people whose land we were stealing...

gimmesometruth27

Flutter Girl wrote:

An AR-15 is just a rifle. It looks scarier, but it's still just a rifle. They had rifle's back in our Founding Fathers' day. It fires the same as the wooden kind. It is not selective fire. It is not fully automatic. It is simply just a rifle. Our Founding Fathers were visionaries, several were even inventors. Do you not think they didn't know guns and rifles would evolve and improve? Or even imagine just how they might evolve..They weren't braindead for Christ's sake.

they could not imagine what we have today. they could not even imagine a locomotive or an airplane, so how can they have imagined an automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine? they could not even imagine more than a single room public school house, let alone a 400 room high school being shot up with military grade weapons.

Flutter Girl

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i have a copy of it on my desk right now.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Tyranical government.

what tyranical government? there is no tyranical government now and there has never been since we defeated the brits. it can be argued that lincoln was a tyrant, but that is debatable.

do you know why states had militias at the time the constitution was written? because we had no standing army and we had to be able to defend ourselves from the people whose land we were stealing...

They also included it because of what the British Government was doing to their own people. Witch hunts, etc..They came from that, it's why many boarded the ships to the new world, to get away from the worst of it..It's not the only thing they included in the Constitution, because of how the British Government treated their own people, either..

And they couldn't imagine it, really? Um..DaVinci dreamed up the helocopter and robot surgery and machine type weapons with heavy caliber..yes, I think the old men back in the day had enough intelligence to dream up such a weapon. DaVinci did..why not other brilliant forward-thinking inventors of the time?

DS1119

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i have a copy of it on my desk right now.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Tyranical government.

what tyranical government? there is no tyranical government now and there has never been since we defeated the brits. it can be argued that lincoln was a tyrant, but that is debatable.

do you know why states had militias at the time the constitution was written? because we had no standing army and we had to be able to defend ourselves from the people whose land we were stealing...

I would differ actually. As long as the government refuses to solve the problem of illegal crime in this country ,and illegal gun ownership in this country, instead of turning it's attention to trying to over regulate the innocent when it comes to protecting themselves I consider that to be tyrannical. Right now it's up to the citizens to defend themselves against criminal activity. Until that problem gets solved and the government lays off of the free and innocent..yep tyrannical.

gimmesometruth27

Flutter Girl wrote:

They also included it because of what the British Government was doing to their own people. Witch hunts, etc..They came from that, it's why many boarded the ships to the new world, to get away from the worst of it..It's not the only thing they included in the Constitution, because of how the British Government treated their own people, either..

And they couldn't imagine it, really? Um..DaVinci dreamed up the helocopter and robot surgery and machine type weapons with heavy caliber..yes, I think the old men back in the day had enough intelligence to dream up such a weapon. DaVinci did..why not other brilliant forward-thinking inventors of the time?

ok i'll ask you then. who would any militia have to fight today? the answer is clearly not the federal government or the us military because it would be waco all over again.

they had a king in britain. he ruled by decree, so things happened as the king wished.

none of davinci's sketched helicopters and stuff ever flew.

i have a hard time believing that 230 plus years ago anyone was imagining the guns we have today. and the right is there to allow people to possess weapons so they can show up as part of the militia when/if ever needed because back then the government did not supply the weapons, and they did not have community armories either.

where are these militas today anyway?