The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.
Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries.
Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.
“There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home,” Hemenway concludes. “For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.”
“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”
Kids that get shot or have access to guns because negligent adults didn't care enough to secure them are terrible, terrible situations. Those "adults" that facilitate availability of guns to little kids all should be arrested and tried, IMO. There is simply no excuse for that kind of oversight.
Keep in mind too, that the 15-24 age demographic is also the age range where someone is likely to commit murder. The average age of gang members is right there, so until we do something to directly reduce or eliminate gang activity in our cities, the murder and gun death rate is likely to remain high for this age group.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
I would speculate that the amount of home invaders- which are very, very few- that are deterred from a gun are not as numerous as the amount of loved ones accidentally shot because someone thought they were a home invader.
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not. Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of. It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.
Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.
You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.
Yeah, that's not very likely, and not much of a deterrent. Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.
This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney. Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.
I'm quoting myself because this is very important it shatters half the myths the gunners perpetuate, thirty bills just shattered the other half.
Not that it matters, lol It's all been shattered and then repeated a dozen times
Federal law supersedes state law last I heard. It is against Federal law to sell guns to felons.
You didn't shatter shit and neither did Thirty.
Do you honestly think new "common sense" gun laws will reduce the types of gun deaths you are referencing in your posts?
I agree that a lot of people that have access to guns shouldn't and that we, as a society, can do much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids. However, where we differ is that I think the changes we need to make begin with the individual, family and community, not the federal government.
Our national gun violence is a reflection of the failure of institutions. Family, school, media and community. Everyone is too concerned about their individual wants, needs and desires to effectively care about what is happening around them.
That needs to change.
Post edited by dudeman on
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not. Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of. It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.
Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.
You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.
Yeah, that's not very likely, and not much of a deterrent. Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.
This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney. Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.
I'm quoting myself because this is very important it shatters half the myths the gunners perpetuate, thirty bills just shattered the other half.
Not that it matters, lol It's all been shattered and then repeated a dozen times
Federal law supersedes state law last I heard. It is against Federal law to sell guns to felons.
You didn't shatter shit and neither did Thirty.
Do you honestly think new "common sense" gun laws will reduce the types of gun deaths you are referencing in your posts?
I agree that a lot of people that have access to guns shouldn't and that we, as a society, can do much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids. However, where we differ is that I think the changes we need to make begin with the individual, family and community, not the federal government.
Our national gun violence is a reflection of the failure of the institutions. Family, school, media and community. Everyone is too concerned about their individual wants, needs and desires to effectively care what is happening around them.
That needs to change.
While some of the things you say are part in parcel... your denial of the very simple, easy to understand part of the equation (more guns equals more deaths) is telling.
You like shooting shit. We get it.
Like I said... don't worry. You'll always be able to shoot shit with a fancy gun. The majority of people simply do not have the capacity to understand or appreciate the situation in a way that would allow them the ability to see the problem for what it really is.
I'm not denying anything. Of course more guns equal more deaths. More motorcycle riders equals more motorcycle accidents.
For me, I don't particularly like "shooting shit". I shoot as a means of developing the proficiency necessary to defend the lives of myself and my family. Best case scenario is that those skills will never be needed.
I'm of the opinion that law abiding citizens of this country should be able to decide for themselves if gun ownership is right for them.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
I'm sorry Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Zuckerberg but I cant afford 19 million a year on Mossad security teams. Please stop trying to take away what some use to protect their families with, who happen to not be billionaires. mil grazi
I would speculate that the amount of home invaders- which are very, very few- that are deterred from a gun are not as numerous as the amount of loved ones accidentally shot because someone thought they were a home invader.
I loved this one. Happened in my area and has been on the news a bit. Thanks to her actions her husband is alive and society has one fewer shitbag to worry about. Kudos to her for taking out the trash.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I would be good with amending laws already on the books to remove the semi truck size holes in them first.
The current laws shouldn't need to be amended, just enforced. If someone sells a gun to someone not legally allowed to own one, they have committed a federal crime. The problem is a lack of investigation.
I read somewhere that out of every ten-thousand or so NICS checks that determine that someone is ineligible to own guns, less than 70 even result in an inquiry. That needed to be addressed like, 10 years ago.
speak the the disbursers of our tax dollars. having adequate funding for personnel to further research or follow up on rhe red flags would help , no?
for the record. ohio has the least restrictive laws on the books. I can buy as many as I want. THEN sell to whomever I want. NO ONE but me and the purchaser would know. I dont need to register said weapons. Simply be able to pass the required checks and go on my merry way. After that sale, who gives a shit where they end up right? after all I followed the law.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I would be good with amending laws already on the books to remove the semi truck size holes in them first.
The current laws shouldn't need to be amended, just enforced. If someone sells a gun to someone not legally allowed to own one, they have committed a federal crime. The problem is a lack of investigation.
I read somewhere that out of every ten-thousand or so NICS checks that determine that someone is ineligible to own guns, less than 70 even result in an inquiry. That needed to be addressed like, 10 years ago.
speak the the disbursers of our tax dollars. having adequate funding for personnel to further research or follow up on rhe red flags would help , no?
for the record. ohio has the least restrictive laws on the books. I can buy as many as I want. THEN sell to whomever I want. NO ONE but me and the purchaser would know. I dont need to register said weapons. Simply be able to pass the required checks and go on my merry way. After that sale, who gives a shit where they end up right? after all I followed the law.
so if you want to feel good about yourself move out of ohio and go to new jersey. we have the 2nd strongest gun laws in the nation. I'm now on a 3 month waiting list to get my new firearms id card because I changed addresses within the same town (you need a firearms id card to purchase handgun ammo, shotguns and rifles. only 1 handgun a month in nj). fucking retarted state but because of our gun laws towns like camden and newark are some of the safest cities in the united states.
I would be good with amending laws already on the books to remove the semi truck size holes in them first.
The current laws shouldn't need to be amended, just enforced. If someone sells a gun to someone not legally allowed to own one, they have committed a federal crime. The problem is a lack of investigation.
I read somewhere that out of every ten-thousand or so NICS checks that determine that someone is ineligible to own guns, less than 70 even result in an inquiry. That needed to be addressed like, 10 years ago.
speak the the disbursers of our tax dollars. having adequate funding for personnel to further research or follow up on rhe red flags would help , no?
for the record. ohio has the least restrictive laws on the books. I can buy as many as I want. THEN sell to whomever I want. NO ONE but me and the purchaser would know. I dont need to register said weapons. Simply be able to pass the required checks and go on my merry way. After that sale, who gives a shit where they end up right? after all I followed the law.
so if you want to feel good about yourself move out of ohio and go to new jersey. we have the 2nd strongest gun laws in the nation. I'm now on a 3 month waiting list to get my new firearms id card because I changed addresses within the same town (you need a firearms id card to purchase handgun ammo, shotguns and rifles. only 1 handgun a month in nj). fucking retarted state but because of our gun laws towns like camden and newark are some of the safest cities in the united states.
good for jersey and its citizens. common sense laws at work.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I would be good with amending laws already on the books to remove the semi truck size holes in them first.
The current laws shouldn't need to be amended, just enforced. If someone sells a gun to someone not legally allowed to own one, they have committed a federal crime. The problem is a lack of investigation.
I read somewhere that out of every ten-thousand or so NICS checks that determine that someone is ineligible to own guns, less than 70 even result in an inquiry. That needed to be addressed like, 10 years ago.
speak the the disbursers of our tax dollars. having adequate funding for personnel to further research or follow up on rhe red flags would help , no?
for the record. ohio has the least restrictive laws on the books. I can buy as many as I want. THEN sell to whomever I want. NO ONE but me and the purchaser would know. I dont need to register said weapons. Simply be able to pass the required checks and go on my merry way. After that sale, who gives a shit where they end up right? after all I followed the law.
so if you want to feel good about yourself move out of ohio and go to new jersey. we have the 2nd strongest gun laws in the nation. I'm now on a 3 month waiting list to get my new firearms id card because I changed addresses within the same town (you need a firearms id card to purchase handgun ammo, shotguns and rifles. only 1 handgun a month in nj). fucking retarted state but because of our gun laws towns like camden and newark are some of the safest cities in the united states.
States like mine (Ohio) funnel guns into your cities, NJ and Chicago can make as many restrictions as they wish, it won't stop the flow from the wild west states.
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not. Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of. It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.
Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.
You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.
Yeah, that's not very likely, and not much of a deterrent. Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.
This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney. Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.
I'm quoting myself because this is very important it shatters half the myths the gunners perpetuate, thirty bills just shattered the other half.
Not that it matters, lol It's all been shattered and then repeated a dozen times
Federal law supersedes state law last I heard. It is against Federal law to sell guns to felons.
You didn't shatter shit and neither did Thirty.
Do you honestly think new "common sense" gun laws will reduce the types of gun deaths you are referencing in your posts?
I agree that a lot of people that have access to guns shouldn't and that we, as a society, can do much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids. However, where we differ is that I think the changes we need to make begin with the individual, family and community, not the federal government.
Our national gun violence is a reflection of the failure of institutions. Family, school, media and community. Everyone is too concerned about their individual wants, needs and desires to effectively care about what is happening around them.
That needs to change.
I don't think that's an accurate assessment, Ohio law places no burden of collecting the buyers information, how would one know if they were selling to a felon? I highly doubt there is any superseding, but I might have to look it up.
I would be good with amending laws already on the books to remove the semi truck size holes in them first.
The current laws shouldn't need to be amended, just enforced. If someone sells a gun to someone not legally allowed to own one, they have committed a federal crime. The problem is a lack of investigation.
I read somewhere that out of every ten-thousand or so NICS checks that determine that someone is ineligible to own guns, less than 70 even result in an inquiry. That needed to be addressed like, 10 years ago.
speak the the disbursers of our tax dollars. having adequate funding for personnel to further research or follow up on rhe red flags would help , no?
for the record. ohio has the least restrictive laws on the books. I can buy as many as I want. THEN sell to whomever I want. NO ONE but me and the purchaser would know. I dont need to register said weapons. Simply be able to pass the required checks and go on my merry way. After that sale, who gives a shit where they end up right? after all I followed the law.
so if you want to feel good about yourself move out of ohio and go to new jersey. we have the 2nd strongest gun laws in the nation. I'm now on a 3 month waiting list to get my new firearms id card because I changed addresses within the same town (you need a firearms id card to purchase handgun ammo, shotguns and rifles. only 1 handgun a month in nj). fucking retarted state but because of our gun laws towns like camden and newark are some of the safest cities in the united states.
States like mine (Ohio) funnel guns into your cities, NJ and Chicago can make as many restrictions as they wish, it won't stop the flow from the wild west states.
I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another. According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment. I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
I am against any additional gun restriction or legislation until current laws are enforced. There is no data out there to support that our current laws are being enforced to any degree that is effective. You use alcohol in your example. Alcohol is responsible for a large amount of deaths but alcohol laws are enforced on a consistent basis. If the enforcement of current laws is not adequate then by all means adopt more legislation to attempt to solve the problem. If on the other hand, little to no enforcement of the law is being done, then new laws will accomplish nothing to the problem. Ok.......attack away.
I agree with a lot you said. Many gun laws or unenforced or have loop-holes to get around them. One thing I disagree with is that alcohol laws are being enforced, or being enforced to an extent that is effective at least. I don't think either should be banned, but I have never understood how guns can get so much attention and criticism from politicians and many others, and something that kills even more goes pretty much ignored. I know several people who on their second DUI received a fine and a breathalyzer for their car and that's it. It seems unless you kill someone while under the influence, the penalties are light. Far more people chose to drink and get behind the wheel than chose to be reckless gun owners, and that seems like an imbalance to me that so much more focus is on the other. I've watched most of the democratic debates and guns were a topic at every single one, its even a topic in some of Hillary's commercials. I don't think I've heard any candidate say "lets reduce drinking and driving to save lives."
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Olympic target pistols are designed for competing in the Olympics. Skeet and Trap shotguns are designed for shooting clay pigeons. Many rifle designs are built for the purpose of long range target shooting.......but I digress. Many guns are designed for the role of killing, be it animals or people. Truthfully, I don't really understand the argument that some people seem to use to justify gun ownership. Guns are dangerous tools that are all capable of injuring and killing people. That seems like a no-brainer, totally obvious fact.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Do you know how rarely "military style assault rifles" are actually used in the commission of crimes? Extremely rarely. Gun violence is overwhelmingly related to handguns. The fixation on "assault weapons" is pretty misplaced. They might look "fancy" or scary, but they account for an incredibly small percentage of weapons used in criminal activity.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
What do you say to the people who have been victimized in their own homes? Those who have had to use guns to protect themselves from real threats? Not imaginary. It happens. The last county I lived in reported eight home invasions every day. You can keep saying that people who own guns for protection are paranoid if it makes you feel better. The fact remains, people are going to victimize and kill each other. I would prefer that law-abiding citizens have the ability and means to defend themselves.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
1. So you agree that even though they make BB guns and rifles for biathlons... that guns are designed to kill and therefore, any comparisons to items designed for other purposes is ridiculous. Good.
2. I agree that handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of crimes committed. This is why... short of exceptions... citizens should not own them. What type of exception do I speak of? Outside of police and security work... I speak to 'need' (for example, a rancher).
Assault rifles simply have no place in mainstream society. The potential risk to schoolrooms filled with children and movie goers should trump a few celebratory 'yes haws' at the landfill. The next mass murder with an AR-15 as the tool of choice is partly on those choosing to defend the right to own such a tool- you can't defend its rightful place, yet point elsewhere when the weapon rears itself performing as it should at the hands of some legal owner that decided to not be responsible anymore.
3. As expressed, a shotgun would be an excellent self defence weapon and wouldn't begrudge anyone of such a tool given they had the proper background credentials.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
There are many points to your statement that are debatable. Guns are not designed to kill, they are designed to accelerate a projectile from zero velocity to a certain velocity in a controllable direction with precision. Intent or negligence of the shooter determines whether to kill or not to kill is the objective. An AR15 round (5.56) is not designed to kill. It was actually designed to maim where are the AK47 round (7.62 x 39) is designed to kill and a .50 caliber was designed to disable equipment. With that said you can take the most powerful round or the least powerful round and depending on shot placement, any one of them can kill. An AR15 is no different than a bolt action .223 hunting rifle except for cosmetics. You can add a a grip for better stabilization, you can mount a flashlight so that you can positively identify your target, you can mount a scope to make sure you hit your target and reduce the likelyhood of collateral damage. Every gun owner wants their gun to be accurate and reliable. If one or both of these are not the case, then that persons life may be in jeopardy if the day comes that they need to use it for self defense. Unfortunately our government has in the modern day has come door to door to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens in a time of lawlessness. There are several reports and videos where cops went door to door confiscating guns against peoples will after hurricane Katrina. Home invasions, happen every day, everywhere. I do not mean to be disrespectful but I would guess that you yourself have never been at home and had someone try to break in your house, or have been robbed, carjacked, or another violent crime. I truly pray that no one ever has to go through those events but if you do, you will wish you had something other than a phone and a wait time for the police. Believe it or not there are intelligent people on both sides of this issue. I personally do respect everyones views even though I come across as a Wayne Lapierre Jr sometimes.
You somewhat contradicted yourself saying guns are not designed to kill, yet then proceed to talk of the rounds they shoot and how they are designed to either maim or kill.
Not to get sidetracked... but that's a very unique perspective: guns are made to 'accelerate a projectile from zero velocity to a certain velocity in a controllable direction with precision'. Sorry... but you forgot the ending to your premise: 'and strike an object with the force necessary to bore a hole through it'.
It must be the shits... to live in fear of being attacked and feeling the need to arm yourself for such an event. Seriously.
You somewhat contradicted yourself saying guns are not designed to kill, yet then proceed to talk of the rounds they shoot and how they are designed to either maim or kill.
Not to get sidetracked... but that's a very unique perspective: guns are made to 'accelerate a projectile from zero velocity to a certain velocity in a controllable direction with precision'. Sorry... but you forgot the ending to your premise: 'and strike an object with the force necessary to bore a hole through it'.
It must be the shits... to live in fear of being attacked and feeling the need to arm yourself for such an event. Seriously.
I dont believe its a contradiction. Maiming someone is not killing someone. Shooting to disable equipment is not killing. If the sole purpose was to kill with guns, then there would be no full metal jacket bullets, they all would be hollow point or armor piercing bullets. I served in the military and seen people abroad who do live in fear of being attacked. Im sure for them it is the shits. I choose to not live in fear, but rather be prepared to defend myself, my family, and innocent people from those who wish to do harm. I dont know if I would have the opinions that I do if I had not seen what evil people can perpetuate. Regardless, I do respect your views
You somewhat contradicted yourself saying guns are not designed to kill, yet then proceed to talk of the rounds they shoot and how they are designed to either maim or kill.
Not to get sidetracked... but that's a very unique perspective: guns are made to 'accelerate a projectile from zero velocity to a certain velocity in a controllable direction with precision'. Sorry... but you forgot the ending to your premise: 'and strike an object with the force necessary to bore a hole through it'.
It must be the shits... to live in fear of being attacked and feeling the need to arm yourself for such an event. Seriously.
I dont believe its a contradiction. Maiming someone is not killing someone. Shooting to disable equipment is not killing. If the sole purpose was to kill with guns, then there would be no full metal jacket bullets, they all would be hollow point or armor piercing bullets. I served in the military and seen people abroad who do live in fear of being attacked. Im sure for them it is the shits. I choose to not live in fear, but rather be prepared to defend myself, my family, and innocent people from those who wish to do harm. I dont know if I would have the opinions that I do if I had not seen what evil people can perpetuate. Regardless, I do respect your views
It's all good, man.
You have spoken to perspective and how it is gained. We all are shaped by our experiences and I respect the fact that you have come to yours as I have come to mine.
Debate and discussion is very good for all of us. It's important to remember that the contrary opinion is important and has the potential to make us smarter. The person who offers it is valuable and I do recognize this even though I have a shitty way of showing my appreciation for that person lol!
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
alcohol can be a naturally occuring phenomenon. so am not so sure about "designed" to impair judgement.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I've seen many a monkey eat fermented fruit and feel the effects afterwards.
Animals are pretty smart. Those monkeys likely know they're going to get buzzed slamming back that fruit and do so anyways- looking to get sloppy drunk as a break from the norm.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
Ding ding ding.
Spot on
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
Comments
Kids that get shot or have access to guns because negligent adults didn't care enough to secure them are terrible, terrible situations. Those "adults" that facilitate availability of guns to little kids all should be arrested and tried, IMO. There is simply no excuse for that kind of oversight.
Keep in mind too, that the 15-24 age demographic is also the age range where someone is likely to commit murder. The average age of gang members is right there, so until we do something to directly reduce or eliminate gang activity in our cities, the murder and gun death rate is likely to remain high for this age group.
It happens all the time. Sometimes no shots are fired, sometimes people use guns to protect their kids from vicious dogs.
They don't typically report "Good Guy With Gun Saves The Day" stories on Huffington Post or elsewhere in the mainstream media.
You didn't shatter shit and neither did Thirty.
Do you honestly think new "common sense" gun laws will reduce the types of gun deaths you are referencing in your posts?
I agree that a lot of people that have access to guns shouldn't and that we, as a society, can do much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids. However, where we differ is that I think the changes we need to make begin with the individual, family and community, not the federal government.
Our national gun violence is a reflection of the failure of institutions. Family, school, media and community. Everyone is too concerned about their individual wants, needs and desires to effectively care about what is happening around them.
That needs to change.
You like shooting shit. We get it.
Like I said... don't worry. You'll always be able to shoot shit with a fancy gun. The majority of people simply do not have the capacity to understand or appreciate the situation in a way that would allow them the ability to see the problem for what it really is.
For me, I don't particularly like "shooting shit". I shoot as a means of developing the proficiency necessary to defend the lives of myself and my family. Best case scenario is that those skills will never be needed.
I'm of the opinion that law abiding citizens of this country should be able to decide for themselves if gun ownership is right for them.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/04/29/zuckerberg-spent-19m-on-personal-security-over-past-three-years.html
http://nypost.com/2013/11/07/bloomberg-giving-nypd-bodyguards-jobs-to-keep-their-mouths-shut/
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/31/bloomberg-leaves-office-today-protected-by-firearms/
for the record. ohio has the least restrictive laws on the books. I can buy as many as I want. THEN sell to whomever I want. NO ONE but me and the purchaser would know. I dont need to register said weapons. Simply be able to pass the required checks and go on my merry way. After that sale, who gives a shit where they end up right? after all I followed the law.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I highly doubt there is any superseding, but I might have to look it up.
I've watched most of the democratic debates and guns were a topic at every single one, its even a topic in some of Hillary's commercials. I don't think I've heard any candidate say "lets reduce drinking and driving to save lives."
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
1. So you agree that even though they make BB guns and rifles for biathlons... that guns are designed to kill and therefore, any comparisons to items designed for other purposes is ridiculous. Good.
2. I agree that handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of crimes committed. This is why... short of exceptions... citizens should not own them. What type of exception do I speak of? Outside of police and security work... I speak to 'need' (for example, a rancher).
Assault rifles simply have no place in mainstream society. The potential risk to schoolrooms filled with children and movie goers should trump a few celebratory 'yes haws' at the landfill. The next mass murder with an AR-15 as the tool of choice is partly on those choosing to defend the right to own such a tool- you can't defend its rightful place, yet point elsewhere when the weapon rears itself performing as it should at the hands of some legal owner that decided to not be responsible anymore.
3. As expressed, a shotgun would be an excellent self defence weapon and wouldn't begrudge anyone of such a tool given they had the proper background credentials.
You somewhat contradicted yourself saying guns are not designed to kill, yet then proceed to talk of the rounds they shoot and how they are designed to either maim or kill.
Not to get sidetracked... but that's a very unique perspective: guns are made to 'accelerate a projectile from zero velocity to a certain velocity in a controllable direction with precision'. Sorry... but you forgot the ending to your premise: 'and strike an object with the force necessary to bore a hole through it'.
It must be the shits... to live in fear of being attacked and feeling the need to arm yourself for such an event. Seriously.
You have spoken to perspective and how it is gained. We all are shaped by our experiences and I respect the fact that you have come to yours as I have come to mine.
Debate and discussion is very good for all of us. It's important to remember that the contrary opinion is important and has the potential to make us smarter. The person who offers it is valuable and I do recognize this even though I have a shitty way of showing my appreciation for that person lol!
As has been stated before, no one is likely to change their mind once they have formed their opinion on this issue.
We can still learn from each other and share information without personal attacks, jabs and douche-baggery, though.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/us/detroit-girl-shoots-herself/
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
A legitimate point.
I've seen many a monkey eat fermented fruit and feel the effects afterwards.
Animals are pretty smart. Those monkeys likely know they're going to get buzzed slamming back that fruit and do so anyways- looking to get sloppy drunk as a break from the norm.
Spot on
we will find a way, we will find our place
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.