The Chart Anti-Gunners Don't Want You To See

The Chart Anti-Gunners Don't Want You To See

www.shtfplan.com

According to statistics assembled from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Center for Disease Control and the Federal Government, firearms related homicides are minuscule in comparison to other the other “big killers” in the United States.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Whether you are for or against ownership of firearms, the facts are what they are.

I guess the best weapon is one that you never must use. It's a tool for defense or at least it should be.

People who think otherwise probably shouldn't be allowed to own or operate one.

The real problem is: how to you ascertain that someone is fit to handle weapons responsibly and intelligently?

With great power comes great responsibility.

www.shtfplan.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Its just all a social and political ploy, especially this last incident because it involved children. The politicians wasted no time in drawing up anti gun legislation and I wouldnt be surprised if one of the bills isnt named "The Sandy Hook" bill, just like they did with the Brady bill, that gives it a "face" so to speak, makes the legislators look bad if they dont vote for it.

There were less children killed by guns in the US last year than there were killed by Obamas drone strikes in Pakistan alone.

As a gun owner, I had to look at this, and it does add up. Compare the number of shooting deaths on any local news station to all other causes, and its clearly evident what figure you'll get. Its just another example of trying to blame something else instead of the killers themselves. Its happened to video games, movies, etc.. So why not blame the weapons? If the Sandy Hook shooting was done by one guy (which I contest that it wasn't but that's a whole 'nother argument) wielding a knife, and causing the same amount of death, all forms of knives would now be looked on as deadly weapons (Which knives, when used for criminal purposes, have a larger number of instance than firearms).

Just my opinion, its all I can offer.

Here's another chart they don't like:



A bit dated, but as I understand it the trend has continued. Now we don't want to jump to the wrong conlusions here. There may not be a correlation between the two, however, crime is not going up. If guns caused crime, you would expect it to.

Why did the founding fathers guarantee our right to bear arms in the bill of rights?
It wasn't to bequeath a privilege.
It was to defend the people from the government.
Take away the guns and the gun death totals will be a drop in the bucket compared to what will result.

I was almost attacked a few years ago!!

I was walking along in the woods, and was SOOOO
glad i had my pistol on me....

It was a group of 6, different backgrounds and sizes,
But i quickly pulled my pistol and took aim, they did
not back down, so i opened fire and shot each and
every one of them.

It was a massacre, fluids everywhere.....

Let that be a Lesson to other empty Beer cans of all types,
Do Not line up on a fence and look menacing!

*LOL*

But you are right, other than hunting, a gun should be a
weapon you hope you never have to use. (on anyone anyway)

There are many more things out there that are killing us
guns are not something i am worried about.

My personal feelings is open up the laws more,
allow anyone and everyone to carry concealed without
permit's.

The 'bad' guys will think twice before any crime if they have
no clue who is carrying, especially if many are.

I believe that the United States would do well to clarify the second amendment and not include individuals. The state's should be able to maintain their militias in the form of the national guard but average citizens have little use for firearms. In my opinion.

I also believe that the objective of gun-control is limiting something that causes a lot of death in a very short period of time. Heart disease takes years to kill you. Most of those on the list take some amount of time to kill you. We can't eliminate murder but we can drastically reduce it.

We also can't prevent death, we can reduce it (the average life span of an American is almost 80 years now).

I want everyone to see that chart so we can discuss what our goals should be as a society. I've heard the argument that shooting sprees are simply the price we pay for 'freedom.' Frankly, that's a disgusting price that I'm not willing to pay for the 'freedom' of owning a gun.

reply to post by links234


Little use? ? ? Tell that to my freezer.

I totally disagree with that statement...
Spoken like a true anit gun person.

While i agree the murders are sad to see,
limiting guns is never the answer.
Bad guys will as always have them.

ahhh never mind, its a useless discussion,
the anti want to strip all guns, the pro say 'come get em if you dare'

i agree with the latter.

reply to post by severdsoul


The average citizen has no use for a firearm. If you hunt, then you're not average and have every reason to own a firearm. Understand the difference?

reply to post by links234


Taking awhile to kill you? So if I walk up to you and stab you with a knife, in the right place, it wouldn't kill you in less than an hour?

And on the topic of National Guards, to quote the source of this argument "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". In this, the PEOPLE are the MILITIA which is known today as the NATIONAL GUARD.

Originally posted by schuyler
Here's another chart they don't like:

A bit dated, but as I understand it the trend has continued. Now we don't want to jump to the wrong conlusions here. There may not be a correlation between the two, however, crime is not going up. If guns caused crime, you would expect it to.

I don't think there is a correlation between the two. The number of households who own guns have been in decline since the late 1970s.



edition.cnn.com...

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by severdsoul

 

The average citizen has no use for a firearm. If you hunt, then you're not average and have every reason to own a firearm. Understand the difference?

I dont hunt and dont currently own a gun, thatll change soon I hope.
Anyway, when I did own guns, I had 1 pistol and about 8 rifles and I enjoyed going to the range on the weekends or out in the country shooting as a hobby, so yes I did have a use for my guns and your arrogance isnt going to tell me that I dont.

Originally posted by FellowTraveller
Taking awhile to kill you? So if I walk up to you and stab you with a knife, in the right place, it wouldn't kill you in less than an hour?

I can run from a knife, I can't run from a bullet.

And on the topic of National Guards, to quote the source of this argument "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". In this, the PEOPLE are the MILITIA which is known today as the NATIONAL GUARD

Until the Heller case in 2008 the concept of an individuals right to bear arms was unheard of. Well, more specifically, until the 1970's when the NRA became more of a lobbying organization than a gun club.

reply to post by Juggernog


Now we can get into a further discussion on the responsible way to house firearms that individuals use for hobbying or for hunting. A locked safe sounds like a reasonable agreement, wouldn't you say?

Reasonable, responsible laws should be considered for gun control. An all out ban on all guns is unreasonable and irresponsible.

When I did have my guns, I kept all of them locked up during the day but I would pull one out before bed time, a 12 gauge pump for home defense.
When I woke up, it went back in the safe.

So, yea. that sounds reasonable.

Originally posted by links234
I believe that the United States would do well to clarify the second amendment and not include individuals. The state's should be able to maintain their militias in the form of the national guard but average citizens have little use for firearms. In my opinion.

The preamble of a "well regulated militia" is always where the anti-gunners will hang their hats. In the terms of the times the "militia" meant every able-bodied male, such as you presently have in Switzerland where the government provides the firearm and tha ammunition--permanently. Nobody gives them back.

"Well regulated" in today's sheeple environment means someone telling you what to do, but in the times 'well regulated" meant "working well," such as in a "well regulated clock," a clock that kept time correctly. In other words, "gun control" means the ability to shoot straight.

the fact is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep a firerarm is an individual right, not a state right, so the argument that it all means the National Guard is rather moot. The Supreme Court disagrees.

I also don't know where most people live, but I get the impression that you average anti-gunner lives in a suburb of cul-de-sacs where everyone is perfect and the Stepford Wives do the grocery shopping. Step outside in Chicago's South Side, a place which has the strictest gun control in America, but the worst record of death by firearm, and report back.

Can you explain that, please? Places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rates. That's a fact. Divide it by city or by state, whatever you want. Red states are pro gun and have the lowest crime rates. Blue states are anti-gun and have the highest crime rates.

All constituents of a member of Congress who is a pro gun control legislator in their district should fax that chart to them.....

I wouldn't hesitate to point out that the "medical errors" category is disturbingly LOW - only the medical errors that are caught are included. For us folks with multiple serious "life threatening" afflictions and multiple medical specialists the risk of undetected medical error is enormous. Your heart doctor doesn't care what you endocrine doctor prescribes, neither does your internal medicine specialist, neurosurgeon, rheumatologist or ENT doc. Drug interactions cause a huge number of deaths every year, not because of detected errors as much as the very narrow field of vision by medical specialists. When it comes to diagnosis, the best I can say is "If the only tool in your box is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"!

ganjoa

Take away the guns and the gun death totals will be a drop in the bucket compared to what will result.




Hardly.
Come to Canada and witness our success.
We don't even have to worry about taking our guns to the amusement parks.

Well, this is just buggering about with statistics to prove no point because people die of something.

What the American’s need to wrestle with is that they have a high murder rate in comparison with other developed nations at 5 per 100,000 citizens. Somewhat lower than Honduras which is over 90 per 100,000 and neighbours Mexico where over 20+ / 100,000 meet their maker early. Compare the rate of the US to the UK and many other developed nations where there is one to two murders per 100,000.

Now, the rate of firearm related homicides runs at about three per 100,000 in the US. It does not take a mathematician to work out that the US homicide rate is mostly caused by firearms and that if they were not in the equation then they would have a murder rate like most other developed nations.

There is a danger that people get too excited about this and perceive the US to be a violent place. It isn’t. If you want to go somewhere violent then try most places in South America, Africa or parts of Asia and Russia. On the basis of the numbers of guns in circulation in the States, the rates of gun crime is pretty low.

Regards