The attempt to refrain the gun control debate

[ilia25]

Show me a country where guns are banned and then show me the 0 deaths a year due to a ban on guns...

This is not about having 0 death a year. This is about coming down from 27,000 death a year to 2700, or even less.

0.0009 percent of the people are killed a year.....Your own numbers.....27k divided by 300 million.

Not the epidemic you make it out to be.

There are over 200 million guns in this country. That is 0.000135 deaths per gun if we assume that 27k people were killed by guns in this country.

The hysteria is simply amazing.

Thousandths people dying needlessly each year is not a cause for concern?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think you are missing the point. It is not all or nothing. We can't solve the problem completely, but we can make it far less acute by introducing stricter gun controls.

The harder it is to get a gun, the less people would have to die.

or the harder it is to get a gun....the more crimes we'll see being committed with other weapons of choice...knives, grenades, cars, hand to hand violence etc.

That is such a bullshit. Everyone knows that you can kill much more people with guns. People go on killing spree because it is so much easier and cleaner to pull the trigger, than murder a person with a cold weapon.

"Many more people", and more than what, precisely? A bomb? A car? Poison? I don't think so.

People go on shooting sprees because it gives them the best of both nightmarish worlds: the fast, mass killing of a bomb combined with the close-up view of people's terror and death of a knife or club. Nevertheless, only a dumbass thinks it's "bullshit" that people will continue to kill, regardless of the weapon they're forced to use.

Oh, wait, you said that, so I guess it IS thought by a dumbass.

 

[ilia25]

I am as liberal as they come.

However, I am a realist, guns are never going to go away.

I think you are missing the point. It is not all or nothing. We can't solve the problem completely, but we can make it far less acute by introducing stricter gun controls.

The harder it is to get a gun, the less people would have to die.

No, the harder it is to get a gun, the fewer people would be able to protect themselves, and the MORE people would have to die.

We both know this is not true. How many people owe their lives to having a gun? I know that more people are killed by their own guns, than by other's.

1) Why do you actually think it's possible to make guns non-existent and unavailable to people who are inclined to ignore the law in the first place?

I don't. The goal is reducing violent deaths by making guns harder to get and posess.

Why do you think school shootings (or mall shootings, or any place else that bans citizens from arming themselves) are a fault of lax gun control laws, rather than an example of how ******* stupid it is to group vulnerable targets together

Honestly, that is the stupidest thing I heard in my life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I understand how this surge in gun violence has people looking for answers and looking for ways to protect the innocent. I don't think it is a case of "politicizing" a tragedy, I think it is a very normal response.

But until you get the votes to amend the Constitution, it ain't gonna happen.

The sad thing is the number of people who AREN'T thinking about protecting the innocent, but thinking about using the deaths of innocents to advance agendas, and manipulating those who ARE thinking about protecting the innocent (but aren't really bright about how to do it) into going along with them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I understand how this surge in gun violence has people looking for answers and looking for ways to protect the innocent. I don't think it is a case of "politicizing" a tragedy, I think it is a very normal response.

But until you get the votes to amend the Constitution, it ain't gonna happen.

It is going to happen. The question is how many people would have to die before Americans decide that enough is enough.

No, the question is how many people are going to have to die because idiots like you have decided enough self-protection is enough? You'll feel all warm and shiny and happy with yourself, and probably sprain your arm patting yourself on the back for how much "good" you've done, and people all over the country will have to die as helpless victims to pay for your pleasure.

You have no idea how sick many people in this country are getting at having to suffer for your right to be a moron.

 

[ilia25]

or the harder it is to get a gun....the more crimes we'll see being committed with other weapons of choice...knives, grenades, cars, hand to hand violence etc.

That is such a bullshit. Everyone knows that you can kill much more people with guns. People go on killing spree because it is so much easier and cleaner to pull the trigger, than murder a person with a cold weapon.

"Many more people", and more than what, precisely? A bomb? A car? Poison? I don't think so.

I do -- because:

People go on shooting sprees because it gives them the best of both nightmarish worlds: the fast, mass killing of a bomb combined with the close-up view of people's terror and death of a knife or club.

Thank you for making my point. A gun massacre could be way more cool and appealing to many loons than a knife or a bomb.

 

[ilia25]

I understand how this surge in gun violence has people looking for answers and looking for ways to protect the innocent. I don't think it is a case of "politicizing" a tragedy, I think it is a very normal response.

But until you get the votes to amend the Constitution, it ain't gonna happen.

It is going to happen. The question is how many people would have to die before Americans decide that enough is enough.

No, the question is how many people are going to have to die because idiots like you have decided enough self-protection is enough?

Self-protection my ass:
Father’s gun fires, kills 7-year-old son, two days ago.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you for real? There nothing impossible about banning anything shorter than a hunting rifle, all semiautomatics and high-capacity magazines. And making licensing of the rest hard and expensive, so only determined hunters could get it.

Then if you are a homicidal maniac, where would steal your gun from? Police?

He could make his own. A gun does not require a rocket scientist to make.

He could make his own gun -- but would he? How many people, who would kill otherwise, wouldn't bother?

Seriously? You think it's the GUNS that make people crazy and homicidal? If the guns didn't exist, they'd just get a hobby like needlepoint or something?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you for real? There nothing impossible about banning anything shorter than a hunting rifle, all semiautomatics and high-capacity magazines. And making licensing of the rest hard and expensive, so only determined hunters could get it.

Then if you are a homicidal maniac, where would steal your gun from? Police?

Or buy it on the black market. So criminals and maniacs have guns, but the rest of the law abiding citizens are unarmed. Lets make the US one big giant victim zone!! WOOHOO!

Fail.

Most law abiding citizens are unarmed when they are attacked. Those who are, have a better chance of dying by their own guns.

Prove it, and prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?

The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.

Are you for real? There nothing impossible about banning anything shorter than a hunting rifle, all semiautomatics and high-capacity magazines. And making licensing of the rest hard and expensive, so only determined hunters could get it.

Then if you are a homicidal maniac, where would steal your gun from? Police?

Let me see, ban everything but hunting rifles, which would disarm police, and that, somehow, magically protects us from people printing a gun using their computer. Want to explain how that works in your world?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You wana save people it’s time to outlaw sugar, driving, crossing the street until driving is outlawed... Smoking, drinking and hundreds of other things that kill people every year.

Many useful and even life saving things also kill people. But what makes a handgun so useful these days?

That would be saving lives again, dumbass.

I don't know if you're a woman, but I am, and I'd be fascinated if you could name for me one other item that will level the playing field between me and a violent man the way a gun in my hands can.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is not about having 0 death a year. This is about coming down from 27,000 death a year to 2700, or even less.

0.0009 percent of the people are killed a year.....Your own numbers.....27k divided by 300 million.

Not the epidemic you make it out to be.

There are over 200 million guns in this country. That is 0.000135 deaths per gun if we assume that 27k people were killed by guns in this country.

The hysteria is simply amazing.

Thousandths people dying needlessly each year is not a cause for concern?

It's not a cause for making many, MANY more people into victims.

Ever hear the phrase "the cure was worse than the disease"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?

The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.

why did you need another gun thread today? the others weren't enough?

whining pretend libertarian.

Because you are insisting that we need more gun control while simultaneously demanding that anyone who disagrees with you shut the **** up because people got killed. Does that clear up my motives?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am as liberal as they come.

However, I am a realist, guns are never going to go away.

I think you are missing the point. It is not all or nothing. We can't solve the problem completely, but we can make it far less acute by introducing stricter gun controls.

The harder it is to get a gun, the less people would have to die.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?

The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.

Would be better to keep guns from young men under the age of 30. They (young men) seem to have the big problems and all the recent mass killers were under the age of thirty.

If there is not something done, the crazy people with the easy access to weapons where they can kill quickly and easily, those people will define the gun control debate.

Is that what the NRA wants? To allow the crazy people to dictate the gun control debate.
You gun lovers need to come up with some solution or approach to get this situation under better control.

It is you NRAers who are so afraid of control. Yet the easy acces to weapons and the mass killings will be what dictates gun control in the future.

Easy access? What planet do you live on?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you are missing the point. It is not all or nothing. We can't solve the problem completely, but we can make it far less acute by introducing stricter gun controls.

The harder it is to get a gun, the less people would have to die.

or the harder it is to get a gun....the more crimes we'll see being committed with other weapons of choice...knives, grenades, cars, hand to hand violence etc.

That is such a bullshit. Everyone knows that you can kill much more people with guns. People go on killing spree because it is so much easier and cleaner to pull the trigger, than murder a person with a cold weapon.

Funny, I thought the largest mass murder in American history used airplanes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He could make his own gun -- but would he? How many people, who would kill otherwise, wouldn't bother?

Show me a country where guns are banned and then show me the 0 deaths a year due to a ban on guns...

This is not about having 0 death a year. This is about coming down from 27,000 deaths a year to 2700, or even less.

If that is actually your goal you should admit that gun violence went down in Washington DC after the Supreme Court overturned the outright ban on handguns in that city.

Alternatively, you could admit that you don't care how many people die, all you want is to take away guns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is going to happen. The question is how many people would have to die before Americans decide that enough is enough.

No, the question is how many people are going to have to die because idiots like you have decided enough self-protection is enough?

Self-protection my ass:
Father’s gun fires, kills 7-year-old son, two days ago.

Is there a reason you didn't bring up the thread about the shooting in Colorado that turned out to be a bow and arrow?

 

[blackhawk]

Lee Harvey Oswald bought his guns through mail order using a alias if he could do that then what do you think people can get now with the internet ?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think you are missing the point. It is not all or nothing. We can't solve the problem completely, but we can make it far less acute by introducing stricter gun controls.

The harder it is to get a gun, the less people would have to die.

No, the harder it is to get a gun, the fewer people would be able to protect themselves, and the MORE people would have to die.

We both know this is not true. How many people owe their lives to having a gun? I know that more people are killed by their own guns, than by other's.

Obviously, twinkie, we do NOT "both know this is not true", since I just said it. What we both know is that YOU don't believe it, and you think merely stating your opinion as fact makes it so.

According to the National Self Defense Survey, Americans use guns in self-defense 2.5 million times a year. In more than half of those cases, the intended victim was being attacked by 2 or more criminals, making a firearm the only viable means of self-defense.

If you need the math done for you, that would be about 65 lives saved by guns for every 2 lives lost.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

So how about instead of you telling me what you "know", you try learning something REAL. And don't EVER again try to tell me what I know, or that I know something I said to be untrue, jackwad.

1) Why do you actually think it's possible to make guns non-existent and unavailable to people who are inclined to ignore the law in the first place?

I don't. The goal is reducing violent deaths by making guns harder to get and posess.

Which is what I just said: non-existent and unavailable. You think you can make guns not exist in society by passing laws. How's that concept working out with drugs?

Why do you think school shootings (or mall shootings, or any place else that bans citizens from arming themselves) are a fault of lax gun control laws, rather than an example of how ******* stupid it is to group vulnerable targets together

Honestly, that is the stupidest thing I heard in my life.

For someone who is in here arrogantly touting his/her/its opinion as gospel truth, you sure as shit are afraid to answer questions, aren't you? It's like you know your position is indefensible, or something.

You get one more chance to answer up, poltroon, and then I'm going to assume that you surrender and forfeit the argument. So strap on a pair and get in the debate.