Some perspective on mass shootings. CARS kill 100 americans every DAY

[JakeStarkey]

as much "authority" as you, bub. Your argument is not relevant. Tough.

Of course it is you just want to ignore it because the padded numbers work in your favor

Your comment exemplifies your failure: you don't comprehend the issue.

prove to me the suicide rate will go down with gun control

You can't because it won't people who want to kill themselves will with or without a gun

The suicide rate is not the issue, although you would like it to be, because you have nothing else.

then why do you use it in your gun control arguments

There is a difference between gun deaths and gun crime but you don't seem to understand that

I don't. The death numbers, in cars and guns, are what they are. The OP tries to make a difference, and like you, fails.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of course it is you just want to ignore it because the padded numbers work in your favor

Your comment exemplifies your failure: you don't comprehend the issue.

prove to me the suicide rate will go down with gun control

You can't because it won't people who want to kill themselves will with or without a gun

The suicide rate is not the issue, although you would like it to be, because you have nothing else.

then why do you use it in your gun control arguments

There is a difference between gun deaths and gun crime but you don't seem to understand that

I don't. The death numbers, in cars and guns, are what they are. The OP tries to make a difference, and like you, fails.

When using numbers to push an agenda the categories matter

Even an Idiot like you should know that

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your comment exemplifies your failure: you don't comprehend the issue.

prove to me the suicide rate will go down with gun control

You can't because it won't people who want to kill themselves will with or without a gun

The suicide rate is not the issue, although you would like it to be, because you have nothing else.

then why do you use it in your gun control arguments

There is a difference between gun deaths and gun crime but you don't seem to understand that

I don't. The death numbers, in cars and guns, are what they are. The OP tries to make a difference, and like you, fails.

When using numbers to push an agenda the categories matter

Even an Idiot like you should know that

You can't get around the numbers. It is what it is. People use guns to kill, podjo. Auto deaths are almost always unintentional accidents.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You can't get around the numbers. It is what it is. People use guns to kill, podjo. Auto deaths are almost always unintentional accidents.

How many times must the board explain this to you?. Car crashes are unintentional but they're not accidents. Nearly every car crash is some idiot's fault. THINK

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can't get around the numbers. It is what it is. People use guns to kill, podjo. Auto deaths are almost always unintentional accidents.

How many times must the board explain this to you?. Car crashes are unintentional but they're not accidents. Nearly every car crash is some idiot's fault. THINK

You are a wack in NYC, not the Board, dear. Accidents are accidents if they are not intentional. An accident is not judgment free, as you seem to think.

 

[regent]

False analogy.
But so far it seems few if any gun-people have compared the number of deaths in hospitals to be greater than the number of deaths caused by guns; probably won't be long however.

 

[hadit]

False analogy.
But so far it seems few if any gun-people have compared the number of deaths in hospitals to be greater than the number of deaths caused by guns; probably won't be long however.

By far, MOST of the people who enter hospitals come out alive and healthier than they went in. By far, MOST of the people who ride in a car come out alive and unharmed at the end of the trip. By far, MOST people who own guns or come into the proximity of guns are not harmed at all. In each case, the offending object is seen as having more positive effects than negative. Hospitals treat sick people, cars move people around, and guns protect people.

Now, there does seem to be an abject fear of feral guns out roaming the streets just looking for people to kill. How else to explain, "Guns are to blame"? Maybe the feral guns are just worried about the little pistols at home and had a few too many shots of oil at the gun bar. Heard a few too many wild-eyed gun grabbers going off about how guns are such a threat and off go a couple of AK's with some loose screws in the stock.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonetheless, hadit, we have far too many mass shootings, and all of our guns in the hands of good people out there have had very little positive influence on it.

 

[regent]

False analogy.
But so far it seems few if any gun-people have compared the number of deaths in hospitals to be greater than the number of deaths caused by guns; probably won't be long however.

By far, MOST of the people who enter hospitals come out alive and healthier than they went in. By far, MOST of the people who ride in a car come out alive and unharmed at the end of the trip. By far, MOST people who own guns or come into the proximity of guns are not harmed at all. In each case, the offending object is seen as having more positive effects than negative. Hospitals treat sick people, cars move people around, and guns protect people.

Now, there does seem to be an abject fear of feral guns out roaming the streets just looking for people to kill. How else to explain, "Guns are to blame"? Maybe the feral guns are just worried about the little pistols at home and had a few too many shots of oil at the gun bar. Heard a few too many wild-eyed gun grabbers going off about how guns are such a threat and off go a couple of AK's with some loose screws in the stock.

Yes, there are different goals of hospitals and guns, just as a different goal with autos and guns. If we could figure out a way for only law abiding gun owners, that are mentally competent and remain mentally competent to have guns it would be much easier to write a law, but....

 

[hadit]

False analogy.
But so far it seems few if any gun-people have compared the number of deaths in hospitals to be greater than the number of deaths caused by guns; probably won't be long however.

By far, MOST of the people who enter hospitals come out alive and healthier than they went in. By far, MOST of the people who ride in a car come out alive and unharmed at the end of the trip. By far, MOST people who own guns or come into the proximity of guns are not harmed at all. In each case, the offending object is seen as having more positive effects than negative. Hospitals treat sick people, cars move people around, and guns protect people.

Now, there does seem to be an abject fear of feral guns out roaming the streets just looking for people to kill. How else to explain, "Guns are to blame"? Maybe the feral guns are just worried about the little pistols at home and had a few too many shots of oil at the gun bar. Heard a few too many wild-eyed gun grabbers going off about how guns are such a threat and off go a couple of AK's with some loose screws in the stock.

Yes, there are different goals of hospitals and guns, just as a different goal with autos and guns. If we could figure out a way for only law abiding gun owners, that are mentally competent and remain mentally competent to have guns it would be much easier to write a law, but....

Guns are dangerous. That's why I don't have any in my house. Guns are also fun to shoot, which is why I go to the range every now and then. Freedom is messy, dangerous, chaotic, and wonderful. I prefer it, along with its risks, to a totalitarian nanny state that prevents me from doing things I enjoy because they're "dangerous".

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's fine, hadit. However, I think had the terrorists struck such a target in gun-rich Utah or Texas the results would not have been different. Joe Citizens are not John Rambos.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

That's fine, hadit. However, I think had the terrorists struck such a target in gun-rich Utah or Texas the results would not have been different. Joe Citizens are not John Rambos.

That's idiotic beyond words. If someone is shooting at you and you have a gun, then you are gonna shoot back. THINK

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's fine, hadit. However, I think had the terrorists struck such a target in gun-rich Utah or Texas the results would not have been different. Joe Citizens are not John Rambos.

That's idiotic beyond words. If someone is shooting at you and you have a gun, then you are gonna shoot back. THINK

I did not say the citizens would not shoot but Joe Citizen is not John Rambo. You don't think, shootspeeders.

 

[hadit]

That's fine, hadit. However, I think had the terrorists struck such a target in gun-rich Utah or Texas the results would not have been different. Joe Citizens are not John Rambos.

They don't have to be, and having armed civilians won't prevent a killer from STARTING a rampage. That's not the point. What they CAN do, however, is STOP the rampage and REDUCE the number of dead. When a killer opens fire in a gun-free zone and kills 15 people over the course of 5 minutes, would it not be preferable for an armed civilian to shoot back after the first couple of shots were fired and save a dozen or more lives? I do believe that armed civilians can reduce the number of lives lost to mass killers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then let's license drivers , require insurance and register cars

Wait..... We already do that

Why not for guns

And the far left shows that do not understand the Constitution..

You post the same three lines, and nothing else, over and over again. Is there a point to that? You've been doing it now for years.

 

[Kosh]

Then let's license drivers , require insurance and register cars

Wait..... We already do that

Why not for guns

And the far left shows that do not understand the Constitution..

You post the same three lines, and nothing else, over and over again. Is there a point to that? You've been doing it now for years.

The irony impaired far left drone and their comments, they post the same debunked religious dogma over and over and do not expect to be called out on it..

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's fine, hadit. However, I think had the terrorists struck such a target in gun-rich Utah or Texas the results would not have been different. Joe Citizens are not John Rambos.

They don't have to be, and having armed civilians won't prevent a killer from STARTING a rampage. That's not the point. What they CAN do, however, is STOP the rampage and REDUCE the number of dead. When a killer opens fire in a gun-free zone and kills 15 people over the course of 5 minutes, would it not be preferable for an armed civilian to shoot back after the first couple of shots were fired and save a dozen or more lives? I do believe that armed civilians can reduce the number of lives lost to mass killers.

What percent of the population are carrying in places where carrying weapons is allowed?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then let's license drivers , require insurance and register cars

Wait..... We already do that

Why not for guns

And the far left shows that do not understand the Constitution..

You post the same three lines, and nothing else, over and over again. Is there a point to that? You've been doing it now for years.

The irony impaired far left drone and their comments, they post the same debunked religious dogma over and over and do not expect to be called out on it..

You're not calling anyone out. You're just chattering like a monkey. You never even attempt a debate with anyone.

Why?

 

[Kosh]

Then let's license drivers , require insurance and register cars

Wait..... We already do that

Why not for guns

And the far left shows that do not understand the Constitution..

You post the same three lines, and nothing else, over and over again. Is there a point to that? You've been doing it now for years.

The irony impaired far left drone and their comments, they post the same debunked religious dogma over and over and do not expect to be called out on it..

You're not calling anyone out. You're just chattering like a monkey. You never even attempt a debate with anyone.

Why?

Even more irony impairment from a far left drone!

They see them posting their debunked religious dogma as a "debate". They run their narratives without question or hesitation..

Dealing with the far left drones is like dealing with two year olds..

 

[ShootSpeeders]

They don't have to be, and having armed civilians won't prevent a killer from STARTING a rampage. That's not the point. What they CAN do, however, is STOP the rampage and REDUCE the number of dead. When a killer opens fire in a gun-free zone and kills 15 people over the course of 5 minutes, would it not be preferable for an armed civilian to shoot back after the first couple of shots were fired and save a dozen or more lives? I do believe that armed civilians can reduce the number of lives lost to mass killers.

Actually armed civilians WILL prevent a killer from starting a rampage. Mass killers prefer gun-free zones 76 to 1.