Do We Really Need Guns?

[Roadrunner]

At the current rate, 339,000 Americans will die by guns over the next 10 years. That is roughly equivalent to the current population of Tampa, Florida. Please, don't say, that it's not a problem.

Of course it is a problem.

Mainly, it is a black problem.

Assisted, painless, bloodless suicide would solve the rest of the problem.

 

[BlackSand]

At the current rate, 339,000 Americans will die by guns over the next 10 years. That is roughly equivalent to the current population of Tampa, Florida. Please, don't say, that it's not a problem.

How many of you estimated number are due to criminal activity? There is criminal issue I have yet to have one of my guns jump up and kill anyone. I have many firearms and have yet to have any issues

Either that ... Or PGreen is suggesting 399,000 law abiding citizens go around shooting each other accidentally.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

At the current rate, 339,000 Americans will die by guns over the next 10 years. That is roughly equivalent to the current population of Tampa, Florida. Please, don't say, that it's not a problem.

~300,000,000 guns in the US
8855 gun-related murders (2002)
99.997% of guns were NOT involved in a murder.
Where's the problem?

 

[NoNukes]

One does not need to carry any protection. Harlem and the South Bronx were considered bad neighborhoods.

Yes unfortunately one does need to carry protection. It's not only "bad" neighborhoods that innocent victims are robbed and/or killed.

There are countless examples of how guns have saved lives and if you had your way those same lives that were saved would be six feet under today.

Guns Save Lives - Stories of Self Defense

This from the guy who argues that alcohol and guns are a good mixture.

Liar!

We had that argument, and now you prove me right in denying it.

You are a liar.

You have no memory of the ridiculous things that you post.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes unfortunately one does need to carry protection. It's not only "bad" neighborhoods that innocent victims are robbed and/or killed.

There are countless examples of how guns have saved lives and if you had your way those same lives that were saved would be six feet under today.

Guns Save Lives - Stories of Self Defense

This from the guy who argues that alcohol and guns are a good mixture.

Liar!

We had that argument, and now you prove me right in denying it.

You are a liar.

You have no memory of the ridiculous things that you post.

I have an excellent memory. I have never made the argument that alcohol and guns were a good mixture. You are a liar.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's my first thread here, and I want to start with the issue, that worries me a lot.

Gun owners always claim that they own guns for self protection, even though the guns in their homes impose a much greater risk to their lives than an intruder. They also state they need guns to protect themselves from the government and from tthr police. Oh, seriously? Other argument for guns is hunting. Food production in the US is quite complex and capable of providing all types of foods to all parts of the country. And, if someone is too poor to buy food to eat, they are too poor to buy weapons. So what for?! Explain me, please.

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

Your a fool. I'm supposed to let rattlesnakes, cougars, wolves, and boar, kill my dogs because you're too scared that I might also use my guns to defend myself against criminals? Go away.

 

[BlackSand]

It's my first thread here, and I want to start with the issue, that worries me a lot.

Gun owners always claim that they own guns for self protection, even though the guns in their homes impose a much greater risk to their lives than an intruder. They also state they need guns to protect themselves from the government and from tthr police. Oh, seriously? Other argument for guns is hunting. Food production in the US is quite complex and capable of providing all types of foods to all parts of the country. And, if someone is too poor to buy food to eat, they are too poor to buy weapons. So what for?! Explain me, please.

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

Your a fool. I'm supposed to let rattlesnakes, cougars, wolves, and boar, kill my dogs because you're too scared that I might also use my guns to defend myself against criminals? Go away.

That doesn't even address the population control aspect .... Take for instance the increase in vehicle accidents and property damage associated with deer.

"In 2000, of the 6.1 million lightweight motor vehicle collisions reported in the US, 1 million involved animal-vehicle collisions.[1] Deer–vehicle collisions lead to about 200 human deaths and $1.1 billion in property damage every year.[2] State and federal governments, insurance companies, and drivers spend an addition $3 billion in an effort to reduce and manage the increasing number of deer-vehicle collisions.[3] The term “deer-vehicle collision” is commonly annotated throughout safety agencies as DVC."

As more people stop hunting for food ... The problem will compound.

In 2012 more people were killed in vehicle crashes with deer than were murdered in ... Rhode Island, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Hawaii, Vermont, Alabama and Alaska combined.

.

 

[Pogo]

It's my first thread here, and I want to start with the issue, that worries me a lot.

Gun owners always claim that they own guns for self protection, even though the guns in their homes impose a much greater risk to their lives than an intruder. They also state they need guns to protect themselves from the government and from tthr police. Oh, seriously? Other argument for guns is hunting. Food production in the US is quite complex and capable of providing all types of foods to all parts of the country. And, if someone is too poor to buy food to eat, they are too poor to buy weapons. So what for?! Explain me, please.

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

Your a fool. I'm supposed to let rattlesnakes, cougars, wolves, and boar, kill my dogs because you're too scared that I might also use my guns to defend myself against criminals? Go away.

That doesn't even address the population control aspect .... Take for instance the increase in vehicle accidents and property damage associated with deer.

"In 2000, of the 6.1 million lightweight motor vehicle collisions reported in the US, 1 million involved animal-vehicle collisions.[1] Deer–vehicle collisions lead to about 200 human deaths and $1.1 billion in property damage every year.[2] State and federal governments, insurance companies, and drivers spend an addition $3 billion in an effort to reduce and manage the increasing number of deer-vehicle collisions.[3] The term “deer-vehicle collision” is commonly annotated throughout safety agencies as DVC."

As more people stop hunting for food ... The problem will compound.

In 2012 more people were killed in vehicle crashes with deer than were murdered in ... Rhode Island, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Hawaii, Vermont, Alabama and Alaska combined.

Those are called "accidents". A term which means they were not deliberately planned (and as a bonus track, also means they're not acts of passion).

You may remember "accidents" from the phrase "accidents and oranges". Which is what you have here.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's my first thread here, and I want to start with the issue, that worries me a lot.

Gun owners always claim that they own guns for self protection, even though the guns in their homes impose a much greater risk to their lives than an intruder. They also state they need guns to protect themselves from the government and from tthr police. Oh, seriously? Other argument for guns is hunting. Food production in the US is quite complex and capable of providing all types of foods to all parts of the country. And, if someone is too poor to buy food to eat, they are too poor to buy weapons. So what for?! Explain me, please.

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

Your a fool. I'm supposed to let rattlesnakes, cougars, wolves, and boar, kill my dogs because you're too scared that I might also use my guns to defend myself against criminals? Go away.

That doesn't even address the population control aspect .... Take for instance the increase in vehicle accidents and property damage associated with deer.

"In 2000, of the 6.1 million lightweight motor vehicle collisions reported in the US, 1 million involved animal-vehicle collisions.[1] Deer–vehicle collisions lead to about 200 human deaths and $1.1 billion in property damage every year.[2] State and federal governments, insurance companies, and drivers spend an addition $3 billion in an effort to reduce and manage the increasing number of deer-vehicle collisions.[3] The term “deer-vehicle collision” is commonly annotated throughout safety agencies as DVC."

As more people stop hunting for food ... The problem will compound.

In 2012 more people were killed in vehicle crashes with deer than were murdered in ... Rhode Island, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Hawaii, Vermont, Alabama and Alaska combined.

.

Ayup if we don't shoot deer & pigs around here we have to hire someone to come do it for us.

 

[Yarddog]

It's my first thread here, and I want to start with the issue, that worries me a lot.

Gun owners always claim that they own guns for self protection, even though the guns in their homes impose a much greater risk to their lives than an intruder. They also state they need guns to protect themselves from the government and from tthr police. Oh, seriously? Other argument for guns is hunting. Food production in the US is quite complex and capable of providing all types of foods to all parts of the country. And, if someone is too poor to buy food to eat, they are too poor to buy weapons. So what for?! Explain me, please.

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

A guy just got helplessly beaten to death with hammers in St Loius MO. until we can outlaw thugs wielding hammers I think its a good idea to
carry a gun if you are trained and law abiding.

 

[BlackSand]

Those are called "accidents". A term which means they were not deliberately planned (and as a bonus track, also means they're not acts of passion).

You may remember "accidents" from the phrase "accidents and oranges". Which is what you have here.

I don't know what you are talking about.

I was referring the assertion made in the OP that hunting isn't necessary because we can get food elsewhere. If you care the suggest that reducing (or routinely harvesting) the population wouldn't save lives and reduce property damage ... You may have to resort to something more than "accidents and oranges".

The side comparison between deaths caused by collisions versus the combined murder rates in 11 states was simply added as perspective in regards to volume.

.

 

[Pogo]

It's my first thread here, and I want to start with the issue, that worries me a lot.

Gun owners always claim that they own guns for self protection, even though the guns in their homes impose a much greater risk to their lives than an intruder. They also state they need guns to protect themselves from the government and from tthr police. Oh, seriously? Other argument for guns is hunting. Food production in the US is quite complex and capable of providing all types of foods to all parts of the country. And, if someone is too poor to buy food to eat, they are too poor to buy weapons. So what for?! Explain me, please.

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

A guy just got helplessly beaten to death with hammers in St Loius MO. until we can outlaw thugs wielding hammers I think its a good idea to carry a gun if you are trained and law abiding.

By that logic you must think outlawing guns would be efffective?

 

[Pogo]

Those are called "accidents". A term which means they were not deliberately planned (and as a bonus track, also means they're not acts of passion).

You may remember "accidents" from the phrase "accidents and oranges". Which is what you have here.

I don't know what you are talking about.

I was referring the assertion made in the OP that hunting isn't necessary because we can get food elsewhere. If you care the suggest that reducing (or routine harvesting) the population wouldn't save lives and reduce property damage ... You may have to resort to something more than "accidents and oranges".

The side comparison between deaths caused by collisions versus the combined murder rates in 11 states was simply added as perspective in regards to volume.

I guess I didn't get that you were counting roadkill as a source of venison.

The way I read it, your perspective in regards to volume is comparing apples and oranges -- accidents versus deliberate acts.

 

[Yarddog]

It's my first thread here, and I want to start with the issue, that worries me a lot.

Gun owners always claim that they own guns for self protection, even though the guns in their homes impose a much greater risk to their lives than an intruder. They also state they need guns to protect themselves from the government and from tthr police. Oh, seriously? Other argument for guns is hunting. Food production in the US is quite complex and capable of providing all types of foods to all parts of the country. And, if someone is too poor to buy food to eat, they are too poor to buy weapons. So what for?! Explain me, please.

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

Food production? you mean chicken laden with arsenic and hormones from thier feed, and cattle that are also given hormones that allow them to over eat and get fat, while pumping them with antibiotics to keep them alive? and when you cut them open their liver is like tissue paper?
What if I live in a place where I can hunt fresh deer meat and keep it in a freezer for my family to eat? can we still have that choice?

 

[BlackSand]

Those are called "accidents". A term which means they were not deliberately planned (and as a bonus track, also means they're not acts of passion).

You may remember "accidents" from the phrase "accidents and oranges". Which is what you have here.

I don't know what you are talking about.

I was referring the assertion made in the OP that hunting isn't necessary because we can get food elsewhere. If you care the suggest that reducing (or routine harvesting) the population wouldn't save lives and reduce property damage ... You may have to resort to something more than "accidents and oranges".

The side comparison between deaths caused by collisions versus the combined murder rates in 11 states was simply added as perspective in regards to volume.

I guess I didn't get that you were counting roadkill as a source of venison.

The way I read it, your perspective in regards to volume is comparing apples and oranges -- accidents versus deliberate acts.

I wasn't ... I was suggesting population reduction reduces collision risks.
There states the are hiring hunters to come in and reduce the deer population for that specific purpose.

.

 

[NoNukes]

This from the guy who argues that alcohol and guns are a good mixture.

Liar!

We had that argument, and now you prove me right in denying it.

You are a liar.

You have no memory of the ridiculous things that you post.

I have an excellent memory. I have never made the argument that alcohol and guns were a good mixture. You are a liar.

I said that it was ridiculous and dangerous to pass a law that you were allowed to carry a gun in a bar. You disagreed and said that you and your friends always carry when you go to the bar.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Liar!

We had that argument, and now you prove me right in denying it.

You are a liar.

You have no memory of the ridiculous things that you post.

I have an excellent memory. I have never made the argument that alcohol and guns were a good mixture. You are a liar.

I said that it was ridiculous and dangerous to pass a law that you were allowed to carry a gun in a bar. You disagreed and said that you and your friends always carry when you go to the bar.

just because one goes into a bar

does not mean one drinks alcohol

 

[BlackSand]

The way I read it, your perspective in regards to volume is comparing apples and oranges -- accidents versus deliberate acts.

Nah ... I can actually understand the difference.

I had the murder statistics handy from a discussion earlier ... And when I saw the volume of deaths associated with deer collisions ... I thought it was interesting in comparison ... with simple regards to number.

.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Liar!

We had that argument, and now you prove me right in denying it.

You are a liar.

You have no memory of the ridiculous things that you post.

I have an excellent memory. I have never made the argument that alcohol and guns were a good mixture. You are a liar.

I said that it was ridiculous and dangerous to pass a law that you were allowed to carry a gun in a bar. You disagreed and said that you and your friends always carry when you go to the bar.

Yes I disagreed. Not everyone that goes into a bar drinks to excess. And no, I never said that me and my friends always carry in a bar. It is illegal to carry a firearm in any establishment where alcohol sales constitutes more than half of gross receipts.

 

[BlackSand]

just because one goes into a bar

does not mean one drinks alcohol

And some silly people wonder why bars have parking lots ...

.