Independent Study Proves Guns Don’t Kill People *Shocking Evidence

Originally posted by IBelieveInAliens
reply to post by seabag

 

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that if guns did not exist, there would be the same amount of lives ended per year? Is that what you're saying? That humans are just as dangerous with or without a gun in their hand? Is that really what you're saying?

Wow, I hadn't thought about it like that, You've really opened my eyes, man. In fact how about we disarm the entire US Army and send them into battle using just their fists? After all, like you say, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Hold on man, slow your roll he wasnt implying we give up our guns, read the posts and you will understand.

Originally posted by IBelieveInAliens
In fact how about we disarm the entire US Army and send them into battle using just their fists? After all, like you say, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Now that is the most common sense idea I've seen in a while. Considering the US military is pretty much all mouth backed with big toys, a beating might be just what they need. Bet they wouldn't still be in Afghanistan if it came down to a punch up between the Taliban and the US military. They'd have been sent back crying like a baby, probably ask Israel to beat them up for em.

reply to post by threewisemonkeys


No our government needs a beating not our soldiers, most of them are just doing there job.
Note: i said most, please dont take it out of context and think i mean all.

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
reply to post by Mianeye

 

ok now look at the post above in the quote, the poster says that the logic of guns dont kill people, people kill people is flawed, because if the trigger is pulled then the gun killed. But if the person didnt pull the trigger no would be shot. Thats the crap im talking about.

nevermind it's not above this post anymore took me awhile to type this anyway its enements post it's like 2 or 3 up above.

edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)

I agree, he put it up like the gun kills people, but still he put a controller behind the gun, and again you know what he means cause he put a controller behind the gun, so he dosn't say "the gun Alone" which you guys are implying, in this case you.

In reality niether the gun or the people behind kill people, it is the heart in the person that stops beating that causing the death, i could go further in to unravel the cause of death, but i simply don't have the knowledge to do so.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by seabag

 

So you left a bunch of loaded guns out in the open where anyone could have picked one up and shot you in the face and because that didn’t happen it proves that guns don’t kill people.....

That was just dangerous it was never going to prove anything, Guns kill people but so do people, it is the person that pulls the trigger but its the gun that pushes that bullet out and into some unfortunate fellows face.

The whole “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is just a gimmick it has no value as a legitimate argument.

I am no gun grabber by any means but dude, seriously, what you done today was just stupid and was never going to prove anything.

why do they allow cars to be made that go over the speed limit?

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
reply to post by threewisemonkeys

 

No our government needs a beating not our soldiers, most of them are just doing there job.
Note: i said most, please dont take it out of context and think i mean all.

Your goverment dosn't need a beating, if they did nothing, then i would be worried.

The regulation might only save one life, but one body alive is better than one body dead, wont you agree?

reply to post by seabag


This is a stupid argument.... of course those guns dont operate by themselves.... they need something to pull the trigger!!

If you left those guns in a school playground or at a baseball game in the car park... I can guarantee that someone will get hurt!!

And btw... why do you have so many guns?

reply to post by Lichter daraus



No need to take anything out of context. The "Superior Defence" or "Just following orders" or "Just doing my job" never has been and never will be a valid defence.

reply to post by Mianeye


but my point is that "people kill people guns don't kill people" is not a flawed statement.
it seems to me that when people say that that's a flawed statement there implying that people don't kill people.

If some kids found those guns laying around, and hurt people or themselves with them, what would be the problem in this situation?

The weapons or the children?

The right statement is: People with guns kill people.

Within virtually living memory of the writing of the 2nd amendment towns like Dodge, Deadwood and Tombstone had strict gun control. When you arrived in town you checked in any firearms and you picked them up when you left.

And there are places now where a gun cannot be carried. Taking your gun back when leaving town is different then confiscated or illegal to own.. You can imagine how it would have gone in Dodge if the gun was never returned.

reply to post by Mianeye


yes I agree with that. but I also think many bodies saved is good too.

Originally posted by liverlad
If some kids found those guns laying around, and hurt people or themselves with them, what would be the problem in this situation?

The weapons or the children?

The right statement is: People with guns kill people.

edit on 17-2-2013 by liverlad because: (no reason given)

No see this statement is flawed, because people dont just use guns to kill.
You grouping everybody that has a gun and saying they will all kill people and that is not true.
not all people with guns kill people.

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
reply to post by Mianeye

 

but my point is that "people kill people guns don't kill people" is not a flawed statement.
it seems to me that when people say that that's a flawed statement there implying that people don't kill people.

edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)

Yes, it is a flawed statement, cause it dosn't exist, cause no one thinks Guns alone kill people.

You could say the same about cars, "cars don't kill people, people kill people", but we allready know that, as usually there is a controller behind the wheel, so it sounds stupid. Even if someone leave the handbreak of when leaving the car, and the car roll downhill smashing in to a person and killing said person, it is not the car killing the person alone, it's the action behind the first mentioned person that caused a freak accident.

Guns DO help me kill people!! They help me kill people that are trying to murder me. They help me kill people that are trying to rape my mother/wife/daughter. They help me kill people that are trying to rob me. And the best one where they don't kill is, they help me keep the govt. off of my butt!

Originally posted by liverlad
If some kids found those guns laying around, and hurt people or themselves with them, what would be the problem in this situation?

The weapons or the children?

The right statement is: People with guns kill people.

edit on 17-2-2013 by liverlad because: (no reason given)

Isnt it clear to you british pea-brains that we dont care about your contrived, ignorant, pedantic comments concerning gun control?

Your tyrannical parliment took your right to bear arms without much resistance so what makes you think that we should listen to anything you have to say about the subject.

Americans dont live in a subservient society like you do. We dont bow to monarchs and we dont put up with tyrannical govts. Our rights are ours to lose and it has nothing to do with what guns do or dont do when a human interacts with them.

reply to post by Mianeye


I don't even know why we are arguing anymore because we both agree that people kill people with guns and other weapons.

Originally posted by YouSir
Ummm.....The "Empire" was created by the extended arm's (as in firearms, ships, cannon), of your political policy and their tool was soldiering. The culture that remained on "that little island" was certainly subjugated, first by the crown and then the bank of england... As for the wild west, neither the criminal element (cowboys) or the "law" (Wyatt Earp's) were practicing constitutionality. The cowboys practiced frontier justice while the marshals enacted blanket measures that affected criminal and non criminal alike......both elements were wrong and unconstitutional as well. As these situations took place after the constitution was enacted.....prior to that of course there was manifest destiny and all that entailed. (oversimplified, I know)

YouSir

The empire was created by courageous and resourceful sailors, soldiers, explorers, administrators etc and they didn't suddenly become so as soon as they left England. Are you seriously saying men like Drake and Nelson were subjugated and emasculated ? The fact is we have never had a gun culture and it has nothing to do with servility. We did cut one King's head off you know.

Whether or not Wyatt Earp and frontier town authorities acted constitutionaly it does seem that they made a sensible practical judgement. With cowboys looking to blow 3 months pay in saloons etc why add guns to the mix ? Let them punch it out and wake up with a hangover as opposed to not waking up at all. The authorities had practical experience of living in a violent society and they obviously thought seperating men from guns was desirable.

reply to post by threewisemonkeys


Why not, because last I heard if they don't follow orders they get into quite a bit of trouble if they decide they wanna go awol they get into a huge amount of trouble.

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by seabag

 

Evidently I think you are arguing the same point as me. Violent crimes with guns happen in every country. But violent crimes with guns are lower in countries without guns...

As previously stated, this is not true in America.

States with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates of violent crime in US.

I think you misunderstood what I said...