Guns don’t keep us safe.

[LilOlLady]

GUNS DON’T KEEP US SAFE.
The shooter’s mother had a stockpile of guns and no one of them keep her from being killed by one of them and 20 others. If she had not had guns in her home she and the other would be alive.
If a shooter get to a classroom with a gun a teacher or a principal could not get to him before he kills some of the children. And a student with a gun can do the same thing. Secure the school and the classrooms. When was the last time some one broke into a prison and killed an inmate or an employee? We do whatever is necessary to keep our children safe but stupidity is not one of them. More children are killed in home by a family member or by accident than by strangers.

GUN CONTROL SAVE LIVES.
Your gun is more likely to kill you or someone you love than an intruder.
Gun Control Misperceptions

Myth: A gun in the home increases personal safety.
Fact: A gun in the home make homicide 2.7 times more likely.

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house.
In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases
A gun in the home increases personal safety

 

[Sherry]

GUNS DON’T KEEP US SAFE.
The shooter’s mother had a stockpile of guns and no one of them keep her from being killed by one of them and 20 others. If she had not had guns in her home she and the other would be alive.
If a shooter get to a classroom with a gun a teacher or a principal could not get to him before he kills some of the children. And a student with a gun can do the same thing. Secure the school and the classrooms. When was the last time some one broke into a prison and killed an inmate or an employee? We do whatever is necessary to keep our children safe but stupidity is not one of them. More children are killed in home by a family member or by accident than by strangers.

With what...rainbows and kittens??

 

[Immanuel]

GUNS DON’T KEEP US SAFE.
The shooter’s mother had a stockpile of guns and no one of them keep her from being killed by one of them and 20 others. If she had not had guns in her home she and the other would be alive.
If a shooter get to a classroom with a gun a teacher or a principal could not get to him before he kills some of the children. And a student with a gun can do the same thing. Secure the school and the classrooms. When was the last time some one broke into a prison and killed an inmate or an employee? We do whatever is necessary to keep our children safe but stupidity is not one of them. More children are killed in home by a family member or by accident than by strangers.

With what...rainbows and kittens??

Witchcraft... hexes and spells, oh my!

That will do the trick.

Immie

 

[Mad Scientist]

I have guns in my house. If my son killed me using one of my guns it wouldn't be because the guns didn't protect me.

It would be because my son went nuts.

And that won't happen anytime soon because he isn't on ANY Prescription Medications.

 

[PaulS1950]

That story of being less safe with a gun in the house has been proven wrong for years. I am surprised that people still use it. There are thousands of crimes stopped each year by homeowners with guns. There are fewer people accidentally killed with guns in the USA than die from bathroom falls. Most of the "kids" (age to 22 years old) that are counted as people killed are crooks killed by police or other gang members.
What has happened in our schools recently is horrifying simply because our children ought to be safe when they are in school. Lets make them safe, put armed security in the schools. If you think that is a dumb idea then tell the president to lose the security guards that he has - they aren't necessary and tell your bank to get rid of their security guards - they aren't necessary. Tell Brady and Kennedy to get rid of their security guards - they aren't necessary. Tell your grocery store that they don't need that security guard and the stadiums where you watch sports that they don't need their guards.
There are more banks in most towns than there are schools, how can it be too expensive to put security in place for our children? Give the kids a chance to grow up and be adults too.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

GUNS DON’T KEEP US SAFE.
The shooter’s mother had a stockpile of guns and no one of them keep her from being killed by one of them and 20 others. If she had not had guns in her home she and the other would be alive.
If a shooter get to a classroom with a gun a teacher or a principal could not get to him before he kills some of the children. And a student with a gun can do the same thing. Secure the school and the classrooms. When was the last time some one broke into a prison and killed an inmate or an employee? We do whatever is necessary to keep our children safe but stupidity is not one of them. More children are killed in home by a family member or by accident than by strangers.

GUN CONTROL SAVE LIVES.
Your gun is more likely to kill you or someone you love than an intruder.
Gun Control Misperceptions

Myth: A gun in the home increases personal safety.
Fact: A gun in the home make homicide 2.7 times more likely.

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house.
In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases
A gun in the home increases personal safety

Prescription Medications has been the leading contributor to mass shootings. So it would appear Prescription Medications is what kills

 

[Katzndogz]

We don't need gun control, but we do need crazy control.

Guns didn't prevent two people from being shoved into the path of oncoming trains. It didn't prevent a crazy from dousing a sleeping woman with alcohol and setting her on fire. One crazy person killed 27 people. The reality is that crazy people kill many many more than that every day.

 

[Katzndogz]

GUNS DON’T KEEP US SAFE.
The shooter’s mother had a stockpile of guns and no one of them keep her from being killed by one of them and 20 others. If she had not had guns in her home she and the other would be alive.
If a shooter get to a classroom with a gun a teacher or a principal could not get to him before he kills some of the children. And a student with a gun can do the same thing. Secure the school and the classrooms. When was the last time some one broke into a prison and killed an inmate or an employee? We do whatever is necessary to keep our children safe but stupidity is not one of them. More children are killed in home by a family member or by accident than by strangers.

GUN CONTROL SAVE LIVES.
Your gun is more likely to kill you or someone you love than an intruder.
Gun Control Misperceptions

Myth: A gun in the home increases personal safety.
Fact: A gun in the home make homicide 2.7 times more likely.

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house.
In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases
A gun in the home increases personal safety

Prescription Medications has been the leading contributor to mass shootings. So it would appear Prescription Medications is what kills

Adam Lanza wasn't on medication of any kind.

 

[Warrior102]

GUNS DON’T KEEP US SAFE.

Try breaking into my house in the middle of the night, peckerhead.

 

[emptystep]

GUNS DON’T KEEP US SAFE.
The shooter’s mother had a stockpile of guns and no one of them keep her from being killed by one of them and 20 others. If she had not had guns in her home she and the other would be alive.
If a shooter get to a classroom with a gun a teacher or a principal could not get to him before he kills some of the children. And a student with a gun can do the same thing. Secure the school and the classrooms. When was the last time some one broke into a prison and killed an inmate or an employee? We do whatever is necessary to keep our children safe but stupidity is not one of them. More children are killed in home by a family member or by accident than by strangers.

Prescription Medications has been the leading contributor to mass shootings. So it would appear Prescription Medications is what kills

Adam Lanza wasn't on medication of any kind.

I find that hard to believe. Someone about to be committed was not currently on any medication?

There are at least two problems here. We as a society are going to have to find a way to deal with issues which may make some of the population incredibly rich but harm far too many others.

From School Shootings and Psychiatric Drugs
CCHR's website documents that at least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs, resulting in 109 wounded and 58 killed. It also lists 22 international drug regulatory warnings that have been issued on psychiatric drugs causing side effects of mania, psychosis, aggression, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation, yet there has never been a federal investigation into psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.

Los Angeles, California (PRWEB) December 20, 2012
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a mental health watchdog, is calling for a federal investigation into the link between psychiatric drug use, school shootings and other acts of senseless violence, calling the investigation long overdue, and citing the supporting evidence.

On Dec. 17th, the Los Angeles Times article, "Adam Lanza's family had kept a watchful eye on him," cited sources who say Lanza had been 'medicated' as early as age 10. WFSB Eyewitness News, a Connecticut CBS affiliate, reported on Dec. 19th in the article, "Adam Lanza underwent psych evaluations in years past," that Adam Lanza "had some disorders" and Eyewitness News learned that Lanza "did undergo some sort of psychiatric evaluation sometime within the past few years."

 

[kwc57]

GUNS DON’T KEEP US SAFE.
The shooter’s mother had a stockpile of guns and no one of them keep her from being killed by one of them and 20 others. If she had not had guns in her home she and the other would be alive.
If a shooter get to a classroom with a gun a teacher or a principal could not get to him before he kills some of the children. And a student with a gun can do the same thing. Secure the school and the classrooms. When was the last time some one broke into a prison and killed an inmate or an employee? We do whatever is necessary to keep our children safe but stupidity is not one of them. More children are killed in home by a family member or by accident than by strangers.

GUN CONTROL SAVE LIVES.
Your gun is more likely to kill you or someone you love than an intruder.
Gun Control Misperceptions

Myth: A gun in the home increases personal safety.
Fact: A gun in the home make homicide 2.7 times more likely.

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house.
In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases
A gun in the home increases personal safety

The guns didn't protect her because she was ASLEEP you ignorant douche.

 

[LibertyLemming]

guns don't keep you safe but if you are every being threatened with your life you will quickly call someone with guns (the police) to help you.

 

[Oddball]

Guns don’t keep us safe.

Izzatso?

Then how come there are armed guards with the prez everywhere he goes, outside just about every courtroom, and at the favorite private school of the District of Criminals ruling class elite, Sidewell Friends?

 

[JKVegas]

There are thousands of crimes stopped each year by homeowners with guns.

There are also tens of thousands of murders committed every year that wouldn't be because of the propensity of guns in this country.

That works BOTH ways.

A murder is a murder, whether the victim was a criminal who "deserved" it or not. This is part of the problem which causes our indifference to violence. It's OK for someone who "deserves it" or was "asking for it" to be killed, but not at Sandy Hook. Then it's wrong. If Treyvon Martin was beating the stuffing out of George Zimmerman, it becomes OK for him to die. Over a simple misunderstanding? This is the problem everyone avoids.

I just wish the gun lovers would simply admit that they wish to be able to have the means to kill someone. At least that would be honest.

 

[LibertyLemming]

There are thousands of crimes stopped each year by homeowners with guns.

There are also tens of thousands of murders committed every year that wouldn't be because of the propensity of guns in this country.

That works BOTH ways.

A murder is a murder, whether the victim was a criminal who "deserved" it or not. This is part of the problem which causes our indifference to violence. It's OK for someone who "deserves it" or was "asking for it" to be killed, but not at Sandy Hook. Then it's wrong. If Treyvon Martin was beating the stuffing out of George Zimmerman, it becomes OK for him to die. Over a simple misunderstanding? This is the problem everyone avoids.

I just wish the gun lovers would simply admit that they wish to be able to have the means to kill someone. At least that would be honest.

Sorry but it is bordering on the insane to assume that an 11th law would stop people form breaking the previous 10 that they were already ignoring.

I wish that gun haters would admit that they only want "the trustworthy (LOL) government" and criminals who clearly won't and do not obey the law to have the means to kill someone. At least that would be honest.

Edit: We should clarify our statements by saying "the means to kill someone by pulling a trigger" or something of that nature, since clearly there are millions of ways to kill people without guns.

 

[Oddball]

There are thousands of crimes stopped each year by homeowners with guns.

There are also tens of thousands of murders committed every year that wouldn't be because of the propensity of guns in this country.

That works BOTH ways.

A murder is a murder, whether the victim was a criminal who "deserved" it or not. This is part of the problem which causes our indifference to violence. It's OK for someone who "deserves it" or was "asking for it" to be killed, but not at Sandy Hook. Then it's wrong. If Treyvon Martin was beating the stuffing out of George Zimmerman, it becomes OK for him to die. Over a simple misunderstanding? This is the problem everyone avoids.

I just wish the gun lovers would simply admit that they wish to be able to have the means to kill someone.....At least that would be honest.

Treyvon Martin was beating the stuffing out of George Zimmerman...Over a simple misunderstanding?

I wish the gun grabbers would simply admit that they want everyone to be good little victims. At least that would be honest.

 

[JKVegas]

There are thousands of crimes stopped each year by homeowners with guns.

There are also tens of thousands of murders committed every year that wouldn't be because of the propensity of guns in this country.

That works BOTH ways.

A murder is a murder, whether the victim was a criminal who "deserved" it or not. This is part of the problem which causes our indifference to violence. It's OK for someone who "deserves it" or was "asking for it" to be killed, but not at Sandy Hook. Then it's wrong. If Treyvon Martin was beating the stuffing out of George Zimmerman, it becomes OK for him to die. Over a simple misunderstanding? This is the problem everyone avoids.

I just wish the gun lovers would simply admit that they wish to be able to have the means to kill someone. At least that would be honest.

Sorry but it is bordering on the insane to assume that an 11th law would stop people form breaking the previous 10 that they were already ignoring.

I wish that gun haters would admit that they only want "the trustworthy (LOL) government" and criminals who clearly won't and do not obey the law to have the means to kill someone. At least that would be honest.

Edit: We should clarify our statements by saying "the means to kill someone by pulling a trigger" or something of that nature, since clearly there are millions of ways to kill people without guns.

Your paranoia is justfied about the government, but seriously misplaced. They have wrapped their economic tentacles around our economy, and when they're ready to take over, they won't have to fire a shot. Your guns will be useless. They already are.

You should be worried about how our governments spend over 1/3 of GDP, and what would happen to the economy of the planet if that was reduced by even 10%. The economy is already starting to tank because of the THREAT of spending cuts or higher taxes.

"Deficit reduction"? What a joke.

Most murders are committed by someone who knew the victim. Not strangers.

Columbine was done by two guys who knew their victims. At least knew OF them. So was Sandy Hook - cripes, he STARTED by shooting his own mother. So was VA Tech. They had an armed campus police force there. He KNEW that. Didn't save anyone.

You just want the ability to kill someone else. But it doesn't make you safer. You've had the right to own guns, and the carnage continues. Doesn't stop anyone, does it? As long as it doesn't happen to you - is THAT how it works?

If someone really WANTED to kill you, they could with very little effort. Get a high-powered rifle, get a little training, and that semi-auto handgun you carry is useless. One in the back of the head, you wouldn't even know it.

Yea, let the carnage continue, and you give your "evil" government even MORE "ammunition" to gain even more control.

 

[LibertyLemming]

There are also tens of thousands of murders committed every year that wouldn't be because of the propensity of guns in this country.

That works BOTH ways.

A murder is a murder, whether the victim was a criminal who "deserved" it or not. This is part of the problem which causes our indifference to violence. It's OK for someone who "deserves it" or was "asking for it" to be killed, but not at Sandy Hook. Then it's wrong. If Treyvon Martin was beating the stuffing out of George Zimmerman, it becomes OK for him to die. Over a simple misunderstanding? This is the problem everyone avoids.

I just wish the gun lovers would simply admit that they wish to be able to have the means to kill someone. At least that would be honest.

Sorry but it is bordering on the insane to assume that an 11th law would stop people form breaking the previous 10 that they were already ignoring.

I wish that gun haters would admit that they only want "the trustworthy (LOL) government" and criminals who clearly won't and do not obey the law to have the means to kill someone. At least that would be honest.

Edit: We should clarify our statements by saying "the means to kill someone by pulling a trigger" or something of that nature, since clearly there are millions of ways to kill people without guns.

Your paranoia is justfied about the government, but seriously misplaced. They have wrapped their economic tentacles around our economy, and when they're ready to take over, they won't have to fire a shot. Your guns will be useless. They already are.

You should be worried about how our governments spend over 1/3 of GDP, and what would happen to the economy of the planet if that was reduced by even 10%. The economy is already starting to tank because of the THREAT of spending cuts or higher taxes.

"Deficit reduction"? What a joke.

Most murders are committed by someone who knew the victim. Not strangers.

Columbine was done by two guys who knew their victims. At least knew OF them. So was Sandy Hook - cripes, he STARTED by shooting his own mother. So was VA Tech. They had an armed campus police force there. He KNEW that. Didn't save anyone.

You just want the ability to kill someone else. But it doesn't make you safer. You've had the right to own guns, and the carnage continues. Doesn't stop anyone, does it? As long as it doesn't happen to you - is THAT how it works?

If someone really WANTED to kill you, they could with very little effort. Get a high-powered rifle, get a little training, and that semi-auto handgun you carry is useless. One in the back of the head, you wouldn't even know it.

Yea, let the carnage continue, and you give your "evil" government even MORE "ammunition" to gain even more control.

I'd rather there be no government. At least I stand a chance against a common thug. I can't combat the police for unjust bullshit like arresting me for not wearing a fucking seatbelt LOL.

The dollar is gonna collapse in my lifetime anyway and will throw a nice kink in the system.

 

[kwc57]

There are thousands of crimes stopped each year by homeowners with guns.

There are also tens of thousands of murders committed every year that wouldn't be because of the propensity of guns in this country.

That works BOTH ways.

A murder is a murder, whether the victim was a criminal who "deserved" it or not. This is part of the problem which causes our indifference to violence. It's OK for someone who "deserves it" or was "asking for it" to be killed, but not at Sandy Hook. Then it's wrong. If Treyvon Martin was beating the stuffing out of George Zimmerman, it becomes OK for him to die. Over a simple misunderstanding? This is the problem everyone avoids.

I just wish the gun lovers would simply admit that they wish to be able to have the means to kill someone. At least that would be honest.

I want the means to defend myself when someone else is trying to kill me. If that means killing them to stop them from killing me, I don't have a problem with that. It isn't my preference, but living over dying tips the scales for me.

 

[JKVegas]

I'd rather there be no government. At least I stand a chance against a common thug. I can't combat the police for unjust bullshit like arresting me for not wearing a fucking seatbelt LOL.

The dollar is gonna collapse in my lifetime anyway and will throw a nice kink in the system.

It already has. They, and every other "democratic" government on this planet, have been spending money they don't have and artificially propping up their currencies to keep their economies afloat.

That is exactly what they want. When money becomes worthless, they will tell us we need a one-world currency in order to reset things, and soon after that, you will have Orwell's vision - it will simply be 75 years later. They will have power over even the super-rich, because money will no longer mean anything.

They will control all finance. You won't be able to buy or sell anything without their permission.

This is what the Nazis ultimately did. People in Germany could have had guns, and it wouldn't have mattered. You had to be a card-carrying Nazi to be able to buy or sell. Or at least ACT like one. Same difference.

The only thing that can prevent this - take back your right to self-determination. Stop voting for people, and demand the right that they start asking YOU what we should do. A real democracy. We don't have that, and never have.