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

Obama and company's real intention with regard to so-called gun control.
He wants to do away with our Second Amendment right to bear arms, just as King George III attempted to do knowing full well that revolution was coming and on the near horizon.
Like our Founding Fathers,
We the People will ultimately pledge our lives, our sacred honor and what fortunes we have left under this so-called president, to fight for and preserve our great nation.
I read this all the time........so when is this great war on our Government going to start.......?
When they fire the first shot.......?
I know if i fly to the white house & stand outside with my gun in hand,I better have purple hair because know one will stand by me...
They are just going to keep turning up the heat slowly

reply to post by seabag


Your experiment is flawed

Also - goofy

Guns were designed to be used by people

People do kill people - and people with guns can kill more people faster than people can kill people with a potato

Or a knife

Or a baseball bat

Always cracks me up this whole argument - like it's clever

Or perhaps even deep - and very wise

What were guns designed for?

(pretty cat)

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Better get rid of automobiles. Make sure only the government has access to them.

350 people die in my province each year from vehicles. Only a teeny, tiny fraction of that die from guns. Give a person who is drunk or not right a vehicle and a crowd and see how fast people can die.

So what makes guns such a priority. In my mind it is simple. A government doesn't like a public that can defend itself against tyranny. It's the same reason they've made bullet proof vests illegal for the public to buy here and all they do is save lives.

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
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.

Thats cause we where arguing over that " people don't think guns kill by them self, they are aware of that the gun needs a controller" misunderstanding, which Op started with his "joke".

Anyway we understand each other i think, and i would love to participate in other disussions with you any time.

let's call it, unless you have a last word ofcause

Originally posted by alienmma

Why not?

Doesnt the constitution say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"??

I think an organized, law-abiding, local militia should have the right to own some tanks and some heavy machine guns in order to ensure the security of a free state. That is, to protect the people from the possiblity of a tyrannical govt.

edit on 16-2-2013 by Nicks87 because: spelling

That is ridiculous. The Constitution is also a 300 year old document that also labeled Native Americans and African-Americans as property.

There is absolutely no reason for the United States to have local militias. That would be more corrupt than anything, a group of gun-wielding lunatics bent on supposedly serving liberty and justice? No thanks.

Once this country is invaded or has several violent riots a day in several cities throughout the country, then it will be a good idea to carry an arsenal of weapons next to your kids' old toys in the garage.

edit on 16-2-2013 by alienmma because: (no reason given)

Oh yeah? That "old document" also guarantees your right to free speech and freedom of religion (or not to have a religion if you so choose) among other rights that I'm sure you take for granted.

Why not just get rid of the constitution all together? Then the police can kick in your door and bash your brains out with billy clubs (because they wouldnt need guns anymore lol, right?) and arrest you for speaking your opinion or going to/not going to church.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by seabag

 

Your experiment is flawed

Also - goofy

Guns were designed to be used by people

People do kill people - and people with guns can kill more people faster than people can kill people with a potato

Ha ha..
The OP's argument is flawed because at the time of the 'experiment' he was sane.
I suggest a further experiment.
Take two disturbed people with a grudge against the world.
Arm one to the teeth and give the other a toothpick.
Send each into a different room full of people.
Now which room would the OP rather be in?

I rest my case.

Originally posted by Nicks87

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.

Then why didn't you act against the unconstitutional elements of the Patriot Act ? At least we pea-brains did cut off the head of an overbearing monarch.

Originally posted by dainoyfb
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

Better get rid of automobiles. Make sure only the government has access to them.

What an original idea dainoyfb

NOW we're cooking!

:-)

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Take away the right of the Average citizen to own firearms and that would leave them exposed and defenseless against criminals and law enforcement.


Think about it...

What the hell is wrong with the US if you only feel safe from each other armed to the teeth with guns.. You mindset does not help matters... The laws of attraction are at play here.

There is a saying that I'm sure you have heard before.

"A armed society is a polite society."

There are societies out there that are far more polite than ours - and they aren't armed to the teeth

Meanwhile - we're increasingly living in fear of each other - locked up in gated communities - people calling for armed guards everywhere...

Why is that?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by seabag

 

True in this instance you did prove that under those circumstances guns don’t kill people, unless someone was to pick it up and shoot you in the face your hypothesis was always going to be correct.

Next time try replicating those results by leaving a loaded gun in the cafeteria of a supermax prison and tell my if the results are replicated.

wouldn't that prove criminals kill people, which is pretty self evident

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Nicks87

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.

Then why didn't you act against the unconstitutional elements of the Patriot Act ? At least we pea-brains did cut off the head of an overbearing monarch.

Really? Then why can the queen disolve parliment if and whenever she chooses?

...and what's wrong with the patriot act? It doesnt take any rights away from law-abiding citizens just terrorist cowards and criminals.

reply to post by seabag


Why is this thread still in general conspiracies, it should be in the jokes forum.

As a gun owner, I find this entire "experiment" to be highly irresponsible and missing the point of the matter entirely.

First, what the heck would any sane person be doing letting loaded guns lie around children? And not just leaving them there, but slapping the gun? No accident could ever happen by slapping loaded fire arms around young children, could it? Oh my goodness gracious do I have news for you- It's people like you who are going to get my guns taken away from me!

Secondly, guns killing people is not why we will lose our Second Amendment. We'll lose our right to arms because people are increasingly becoming irresponsible (like you) and immoral. Yes, kitchen knives can be used to kill someone just like a gun, but guess what- you can't take out a dozen people in 30 seconds with a kitchen knife. And I'd sure as heck rather be stabbed with a kitchen knife than shot with a gun.

Society is going to Hell in a Handbasket. Mental illness is rampant and irresponsible behavior is becoming the norm instead of the exception. When it seems like every week there is another mass shooting, then of course the public is going to want something done about it. And it's government's job to keep it's citizens safe.

For too long we have viewed the second amendment as a right and not a privilege. Well guess what? The constitution can be amended and that "right" could be gone in an instant. We have been given tremendous freedoms in America and if we citizens as a whole cannot collectively act in a responsible manner we WILL lose them.

Yes, there are factions in our government that want to disarm the public. And it's irresponsible behavior and flawed reasoning that is making achieving their objective so much easier.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Take away the right of the Average citizen to own firearms and that would leave them exposed and defenseless against criminals and law enforcement.


Think about it...

What the hell is wrong with the US if you only feel safe from each other armed to the teeth with guns.. You mindset does not help matters... The laws of attraction are at play here.

There is a saying that I'm sure you have heard before.

"A armed society is a polite society."

There are societies out there that are far more polite than ours - and they aren't armed to the teeth

Meanwhile - we're increasingly living in fear of each other - locked up in gated communities - people calling for armed guards everywhere...

Why is that?

Because the corrupt govt and corporations make it difficult for some people to make an honest living so they turn to crime. More unemployment/welfare equals more desperate people who turn to criminal behavior because they want the things that others have.

Originally posted by Nicks87

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Nicks87

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.

Then why didn't you act against the unconstitutional elements of the Patriot Act ? At least we pea-brains did cut off the head of an overbearing monarch.

Really? Then why can the queen disolve parliment if and whenever she chooses?

...and what's wrong with the patriot act? It doesnt take any rights away from law-abiding citizens just terrorist cowards and criminals.

You obviously don't know much about British governance. The Queen only dissolves parliament at the request of the Prime Minister.

Well if you are not bothered about constitutional rights being eroded what's the fuss about the 2nd Amendment ?

www.scn.org...

they always seem to exempt themselves - even tho (what congress places on the people shall be placed on them.)
a typical state bill - from the show me state:
Assault weapon does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable;

(2) "Detachable magazine", an ammunition feeding device that can be loaded or unloaded while detached from a firearm and readily inserted into a firearm and includes a magazine that can be detached by merely depressing a button on the firearm either with a finger or by use of a tool or bullet;

(3) "Fixed magazine", an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action;

(4) "Large capacity magazine", any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:

(a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds;

(b) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or

(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

2. No person, corporation or other entity in the state of Missouri may manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell, or transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine.

3. This prohibition shall not apply to:

(1) Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault weapon or large capacity magazine, and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties;

(2) The manufacture of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device by a firearms manufacturer for the purpose of sale to any branch of the armed forces of the United States, or to a law enforcement agency in the state of Missouri for use by that agency or its employees, provided the manufacturer is properly licensed under federal and state laws; or

www.house.mo.gov...

Nice post,
I understand the humor and the spirit with wich it was meant to impart. And I am going to take the liberty of *assuming* that the spirit of this post was intended to be in response to the majority of the simple catch phrase "arguments" from the anti gun lobbiests that have been very prolific in the last few years..

In other words it is a tounge-in-cheek response to the touted "guns kill" statement that is forever flaunted about. so therefore, imho, if your post is being accused of being ignorant, silly, pointless, without merit, etc.. I would suggest that the "guns kill" statement that this original post was in response to, is also just as ignorant, silly, without merit, etc..

In response to the US. needing more gun control laws, there are already over 2000 gun laws on the books.. I know this may sound crazy but, I have a radical idea, how about they just enforce the existing laws, try that for a year or so and then see what the results are, maybe then we will be able to find out if new laws are needed..

As for the argument why does anyone need a gun? That is impossibe to give just one all encompassing answer that would be acceptable to everyone, and in my humble opinion it is not a valid question to be spending time and energy trying to answer. because honestly, today sunday feb.17th, 2013 at 1001hrs eastern US time. I do not believe that most average ordinary US citizens "need" a gun. (yes there are exceptions) But what about in the future? I am not willing to "modify" nor give up any part of my 2nd ammendment right.

Asking for an answer as to why does anyone need a gun, or why would anyone need a certain type of gun, is akin to asking why does anyone need a big house? IE. I have a 5 bedroom 2 1/2 bath house with several acres of land, all the kids are grown, just me and the mrs. in truth I don't "need" this big house, I also have a 425hrspwr car that will exceed the the highest speed limit in this country by well over 100mph. I do not use it for racing, I have no practicle "need" for it.. there are many other examples that could be used to try to illustrate that just because there is no practicle "need"for something, even if it is something potentialy dangerous, that it should be banned because someone does not like it..

And yes, I know, big houses aren't usually blamed for mass killings.. What I am trying to point out is, if you use the "logic" that if you don't have a practicle "need" for something, then you should not be able to have it. most everyone would be living in apartments with bicycles for transportation.. etc..

Again, nice OP. and fortunately for the most part your thread has gotten very good responses from both sides of this issue..

As far as the saying guns don't kill people, people kill people, I've heard people argue it's both. This is true but only one can carry out the action. A gun can't actively fire on it's own. It takes the HUMAN action to kill someone with a gun. So the argument that guns also kill people is mute unless perceiving it as the tool used by HUMAN ACTION. This is precisely why the gun supporting crowd thinks blaming guns is ridiculous. A spoon could also kill someone with HUMAN ACTION. Regardless it always takes the human action to kill someone which is why people kill people not guns.

Originally posted by chrome413
As a gun owner, I find this entire "experiment" to be highly irresponsible and missing the point of the matter entirely.

First, what the heck would any sane person be doing letting loaded guns lie around children? And not just leaving them there, but slapping the gun? No accident could ever happen by slapping loaded fire arms around young children, could it? Oh my goodness gracious do I have news for you- It's people like you who are going to get my guns taken away from me!

Secondly, guns killing people is not why we will lose our Second Amendment. We'll lose our right to arms because people are increasingly becoming irresponsible (like you) and immoral. Yes, kitchen knives can be used to kill someone just like a gun, but guess what- you can't take out a dozen people in 30 seconds with a kitchen knife. And I'd sure as heck rather be stabbed with a kitchen knife than shot with a gun.

Society is going to Hell in a Handbasket. Mental illness is rampant and irresponsible behavior is becoming the norm instead of the exception. When it seems like every week there is another mass shooting, then of course the public is going to want something done about it. And it's government's job to keep it's citizens safe.

For too long we have viewed the second amendment as a right and not a privilege. Well guess what? The constitution can be amended and that "right" could be gone in an instant. We have been given tremendous freedoms in America and if we citizens as a whole cannot collectively act in a responsible manner we WILL lose them.

Yes, there are factions in our government that want to disarm the public. And it's irresponsible behavior and flawed reasoning that is making achieving their objective so much easier.

Gun owner my ass.

"And it's government's job to keep it's citizens safe."

Well, they are not doing a very good job. The average response time for the police is 9 minutes, thats plenty of time for some junkie to stab you and your family, steal your valubles and get away.

People that depend on the govt for anything are weak minded fools.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." quote from Ben Frankiln.

I don't get it.
On the last picture you say there is 5 assault rifles and 1 sub-machine gun.
But I only see 5 assault rifle and a light-machine gun.
Please elaborate on this, at I am highly confused.
In regards to the results, I agree with you. Though it is a simplified and insufficient way, to combat the problem.