guns health problem?

The Chicago suit and the private suits contend that (1) guns are a public nuisance and (2) gun manufacturers knowingly flood cities with more guns than they could expect to sell to law-abiding citizens, thus aiding criminals to obtain firearms.

The mayors argue that the firearms industry should reimburse their cities for the public health and safety costs associated with treating and preventing firearms injuries.

read more here
www.ncpa.org...

Most criminals buy guns from the black market, becasue it is cheaper, and not registered.

And Illinois sucks, You have to register your firearms. ( I haven't, so I'm committing a felony ). Also, they are about to outlaw any shotgun bigger than .410, and any riffle .50 or bigger, and also any gun that has a "brother" gun that is automatic. **CLICK HERE TO LEARN THE TRUTH**

Did I just step in BS? Posted by Mokou-Royou

I can only agree with this statement.

The people who legally buy firearms are law abiding, responsibly shooters. Those who willfully break the law are *NOT* getting thier firearms through legal means.

As far as the oppressive anti-gun regime of Illinois, I would highly recommend that you move to another, much more realistically minded state.

About 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed each year by armed civilians - about three times the number killed by police.

Another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals are wounded by civilians each year.

Women faced with assault are 2.5 times less likely to suffer serious injury if they respond with a firearm than if they defend themselves with less effective weapons or offer no resistance.

According to the Department of Justice, only one-fifth of the victims who defended themselves with firearms suffered injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than firearms or who had no weapon.

Even using the statistics most favorable to proponents of lawsuits against the gun industry, the benefits to society of defensive gun use are greater than the costs of firearm crimes by at least $90.7 million and perhaps as much as $3.5 billion per year.

Using more reasonable estimates, the benefits of defensive gun use exceed the costs of firearm crimes by as much as $38.9 billion - an amount equal to about $400 per year for every household in America.

Concealed carry laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.

Had liberalized concealed carry laws prevailed throughout the country in any given year, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults.

What more is there to say? The truth speaks.

well holy crap, there is a believer. It is proven, that in switzerland, where by law they must have an automatic firearm in the house at all times. They hav almost no crime. And you can't give that 'different society' bullcrap, because society is just what the citizens make it. I'll tell you, I sure would make the society and citizens safer if I'm carrying concealed. (And I can't move. I just moved here from North Carolina ((very little gun laws.)) And I felt alot safer down there.)

Is it just me and my anti-liberalism, or is the fact that all new gun laws creat felons out of law-abiding citizens?

That is essentially correct: all new gun laws only further restrict those that are law abiding, but do NOTHING to stop crime from occurring.

The BEST laws for actually preventing crime is simply eliminating parole/early release programs, but that will never happen.

I believe that the crime rate is actually being manipulated by the cabal as a psyop. The cabal is very interested in the crime rate being high for 2 reasons: 1, it creates a climate of fear, and 2, it gives the justification for enacting further restrictive laws.

Likewise, new gun legistlation serves 2 purposes. 1, by further ensuring that responsible gun owners are less likely to be able to lawfully defend themselves and thier families, it helps to spread the climate of fear, and emboldens the criminals on the loose. 2, further restrictions on gun control ensures less likelihood of armed resistance to a corrupt government/cabal raid on our constitutional freedoms and rights.

When people ask me "why do you want to own a gun?" My standard response is "why DONT you own a gun?"

Consider that in a supreme court decision in the mid 1990s, it was declared that law enforcement does NOT have a constitutional obligation to protect individuals life, safety, health or property from criminal. They are only required to bring criminals to justice, but do NOT have to prevent them from harming others. In other words, the role of police is constitutionally defined to simply clean up the mess after a crime is committed.

I much prefer the option of being able to protect myself and my family rather than rely on someone else to simply clean up the mess.

How old are you? And why doesn't every-other right minded person see this? The have been smoke-screened by conspiracies. And what is cabal? I've never heard of it.


I liberal is someone who talks to a group of people, and tries to change their minds. When this doesn't work, they try the decieptful path.

A conservative listens to the person, all the while losing count of the amount of incorrect information he his listening to.


I just listen, smack the speaker in the face when they are done, and pour paint thinner in my eyes and ears so they forget the horrific nature of the crap they just were entertained to.

I am older than I would like to admit

I do agree, these are very self evident facts, but the media is controlled, and such facts are often distorted and twisted.

The cabal is a name I came up with, regarding the Illuminati/shadow government that has been around and essentially created/molded/influenced most of American and western European government and culture since the middle ages.

Of course, I would just LOVE to hear from some anti-gunner Sarah Brady people on this issue...