http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general ...more guns don't always mean more deaths.
Printable View
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general ...more guns don't always mean more deaths.
Per capita... the highest rates of firearms homicides happen in places with the STRICTEST gun laws... hmm...
A rather manipulated number derived at by using city laws and their death rates in states with lax gun laws. PA and IL are great examples where the flow into Philly and Chicago is unfettered by lax state safety requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetts18
If having more guns made people more safe how come the US is the murder capital of the Western World?
Jesus, none of the proposed laws want to take away guns from law abiding citizens, they WOULD have taken guns away from those that would hurt people guns are dangerous!! How many times do some people need to hear it? Common sense gun laws make sense for republicans and democrats, if you don't know that you're a sucker.
Well in all honesty you have to be a bit of sucker to fall for the whole a $1M tax break for Mitt and a $100 tax break for you is a good deal. Or that health care for all is a BAD thing. So it is little wonder in the buffet of bullshit that the right is selling to people to vote against their own economic interests that folks would believe that any gun safety regulation means that the Arab/African President will personally man the dump trucks as they take all guns from lawful gun owners and give them to junkies, scary dark men and fast talking jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
But wait... if the guns are illegal in the places where the crimes happen... then what does it matter where the guns came from to start with??? Didn't the "no guns allowed" signs stop them?Quote:
Originally Posted by fivekatz
A gun is an inanimate object... its people you need to worry about.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
What if I told you that I am FOR the healthcare reform?Quote:
Originally Posted by fivekatz
1.) The whole current gun control debate is being pushed by crime (e.g., Sandy Hook). Suicides shouldn't be included. Why? Lets look at Japan and South Korea: Both countries have very restrictive firearm laws. Both countries have very high suicide rates. I can point out more countries with higher suicide rates than the United States. And, those other countries have restrictive firearm laws. My point is that suicidal people will find ways to kill themselves. Accidents can be fixed with proper education and training.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
2.) James Madison wrote and proposed the Second Amendment to the Constitution. His insight on the Second Amendment is important. The Bill of Rights was to win over the Anti-Federalists. The original Constitution didn't contain a Bill of Rights.
Just for the record, do you admit that guns are dangerous objects, ? just gimme that, come on. Careful, this may be a trick.Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetts18
No. a gun is NOT dangerous, not anymore than a blender, microwave oven, automobile, or chainsaw. Each of these has the power to maim, kill, or destroy if misused or used maliciously, but alone, without human influence, they will sit for a hundred years and never harm a soul.
-Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetts18
Hmmm. A fully automatic assault rifle is no more dangerous than a microwave oven?. Explain that to me again.
Thank fuck I don't live in the States ... :D
Promise me you won't let any kids play at your house!Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetts18
It's tragic how many accidental blender deaths just go unreported in the U.S. everyday. Not only ignored by the media, but even Congress has ignored the problem; they didn't even bother to instruct the CDC not to conduct studies on blender deaths and injuries.
Ok... I want you guys to tell me of one incident where a firearm (of any description, but I love how we've somehow gone back to this supposed "fully automatic assault rifle" that we Americans must surely all have... so let's make it one of those!) got up, walked out of the gun cabinet, loaded itself, and then drove somewhere looking for a target without somebody holding it.
Sweets18... you really are a dunderhead. A gun is designed to kill. That is it's purpose - be in a hunting rifle, a hand gun or a fully automated assault rifle. I wonder why the man who killed all those children in Sandy chose a gun over a microwave. How many people have died deliberately or accidentally as a result of using a microwave in the US in the past 12 months. What a stupid arguing point.
The gun fetish that obsesses so many people in America is a sign of a collective insanity which is perplexing in the light of America's otherwise astonishing record across the board of human achievement.
Sweetts18 -you claim the mantle of history on your 2nd amendment, but you ignore the same history on gun ownership, then and since. The right to bear arms at the time was limited to free men who, in order to bear those arms had to swear an oath of allegiance to the Revoution and enter their name and personal details into a national register before being issued with a Musket or whatever the weapon was in those days. By definition a slave was not entitled to bear arms, as slaves were not considered human beings but 'human property' (of the slave-owners).Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetts18
The right to bear arms became part of the fall-out of the Civil War when freedmen -most of whom had fought on the Union side- were allowed to retain their weapons leading to a backlash in the Southern States where local laws took those guns away.
At its inception in the 19th century, the NRA's primary concern was to improve the marksmanship of its members, and it supported Roosevelt's Gun Control legislation in the 1930s which was initiated to respond to violent crime in the cities.
Interestingly, again, not only did the NRA support gun control in the 1960s, in California the gun control laws that had allowed citizens to walk around with weapons on their hips or in their hands, were tightened when the Black Panther Party used their right to carry weapons to 'monitor' what they claimed was police harassment of the Black community -it was when they walked into the Capitol building fully armed -as they were legally entitled to do- that severe gun laws were passed -and yes, Ronald Reagan was Governor at the time. Gun control laws were tightened in the 1960s because of the Panthers, because of the urban riots -the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with it.
You can follow the history to the present day, how the NRA has only become extreme on gun control since the 1970s/80s and may be part of the broader attack on Civil Rights that has characterised much conservative politics in the USA, trace how many gun control laws were passed out of fear of Black people having the same rights as 'the rest' to bear arms, and all of it is a world away from the precise wording of the 2nd Amendment.
In other words, the gun debate in the USA is a debate about relations among Americans, not about the organisation of Americans against an external enemy. For that, you have an army, a navy, an air force, the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, the National Guard(s) and local policing....
This is one of the most entertaining and interesting articles on the subject:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...f-guns/308608/
Heroin almost never jumps off the counter into a hypodermic needle and into a person’s vein. Cars almost never start themselves up and drive down the street looking for a crowd of pedestrians to mow down.Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetts18
People do accidentally overdose on drugs. People falling asleep or otherwise distracted do mow down crowds of pedestrians while driving. Rifles racked in the back window of a pickup rarely discharge and fire into a nearby house or passing vehicle, but accidents do happen daily. (http://accidentalgunshots.tumblr.com/). Women rarely keep their ammunition in the oven (http://fox59.com/2013/02/21/oven-sho...#axzz2T53rcrRA). Men rarely accidentally kill their sons with firearms (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...1ead38ce7.html), but it happens almost every week; whereas accidental deaths by blender are practically non-existent.
Yet we regulate the use of drugs, cars and guns (...and even blenders have to be UL certified :) ). Why?
Because “person+gun” and “person+heroin” and “person+car” are an inherently dangerous combos and the electric motor in a blender can interfere with your neighbor’s radio reception and wifi.
Sweetts seems to complain that inanimate objects don’t commit crimes or cause accidents so it’s unfair to make laws against them. There are two flaws to this complaint. One: Gun regulations are restrictions placed upon people who would use, buy and sell guns. They are not laws against the guns themselves. Two: Guns are inanimate objects...it’s impossible to treat them fairly or unfairly :) .
Give blenders the vote.
Is there a point to this? All tools are controlled by people. Regulations on sale &/or use are to protect others from misuse by those that have the tool. Gun regulations are to help keep potentially lethal tools out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. It's a real simple concept that isn't prohibited by the Constitution or any SCOTUS rulings.Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetts18
????????? What does that have to do with this?Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetts18
Oh... So "the MAJORITY" is going to take up arms against the democracy they live in... ??? Huh? Why? "the MAJORITY" doesn't know what it wants? You really should rethink this extremely lame argument. The Second Amendment is about keeping the "well regulated militia" armed. It's as much a restriction on States as the Federal Government. We're really not supposed to have a standing army. That's why it has to be refunded every 2 years. That would be in Article I section 8, just in case you missed it Mr Constitutionalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetts18
sssh Hippifred about the standing army!
They buy more guns at a higher mark-up and would put the NRA in a heck of a pickle deciding whether to defend individual gun rights via the militia clause or defending the military industrial defense complex.