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

Originally posted by Hydrawolf
It's too late...Gone too far...It should have been done years ago...You guys are #ed sorry to say...Your toys will be your downfall.

and if you think a firearm is some kind of toy, then you are more deeply disturbed than i thought....

what the hell is wrong with you?

reply to post by seabag



i was thinking if maybe it wouldn't be easier to make murder illegal, this way we'd have no murders, and we'd get to keep our guns. win/win.

then i thought, why not just make ALL crimes illegal!?! this way we have a crime free society!



we should petition this idea to our lord and savior Obama.
He'll become the most loved prez of all times -desu-.

reply to post by cripmeister


You are easy , it's people like you the Protocols describe as easily led .No they were not debunked they were claimed to be a fraud . Read the Talmud and you will see some of the same views of the Gentile . Then also every part of the Protocols has been employed by the Ashkenazi Jews . There are at least 2 types of Jews , same as in the time of Jesus , these are called Ashkenazi Jews . The Shepardic Jews are true Jews .
Read the Protocols and compare what is going on today and who is doing it . Get past the propaganda and decide for yourself . These Globalist Jews are pushing the destruction of Christianity and disarming America because both can stop Globalisation .

reply to post by SimonPeter


b..but but what about our Obama? surely he'll save us. he's HOPE MAN.

if these men at least followed the bible, even if they didn't believe it they'd learn that men don't have dominion over men, only animals, men can lead, but not control, when men try to control other men, you get a revolt of epic proportions, with your pewws and your booms and the other sound effects.

the bible is meant to be used as a guide to have peace on the land

the order goes

GOD
Angels
Men
animals
plants
inanimate objects.

the ones up top have dominion over the Ones below them not above *unless they're of the fallen variety*
Millitary style.

one of the lower rank tried to take over the top and caused this whole mess *Lucifer*
it's he who is causing disorder up in this *****, and his lackeys *the gov officials*

after this meteor scare watch out for *UFOs* oooooooOOOOOOOOOoooo
which is going to be close to the end of times. good luck.

reply to post by Daedalus

let's never forget though....the 2nd amendment isn't just some hand-me-down hunting license...it's far more than that..you can hunt with a bow and arrow...defending your home, property, or person with one is not entirely practical though...

Yes, the defense of our inalienable rights and the Constitution is the most important function of the Second Amendment.

While I was packing my children's lunches for school this morning, listening to the radio, I was treated to the words of our Vice President, Joe Biden.

Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that Americans don't need semi-automatic weapons to protect their homes because a couple of blasts from a shotgun will scare off intruders. "Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun," the vice president encouraged those worried about defending themselves. He was speaking in an online video as part of a Facebook town hall hosted by Parents Magazine on the administration's strategy for reducing gun violence, which he has led at the direction of President Barack Obama. Biden said he keeps two shotguns and shells locked up at home and he's told his wife, Jill, to use them if she needs protection. He presumably was speaking about before he became vice president, a position that gives the couple full-time Secret Service protection. "I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony ... take that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,'" Biden said. "You don't need an AR-15. It's harder to aim, it's harder to use and in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself."

Daily Herald

So, we have the VP saying, 'just fire it outside'. We don't need to have a target.... just blast in a random direction??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????? WTF?????

Note that we have had antigun folks urging unarmed citizens to rush a criminal while they change magazines... and the VPOTUS telling us that two rounds are enough to protect your house without reloading. What? The criminals with an illegal assault weapon won't have an edge after you just blast two shotgun rounds outside 'somewhere'?
He said the noise will scare them away.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by cripmeister

 

Read the Talmud and you will see some of the same views of the Gentile .

I don't have the time sorry. Do you have any quotes or something that might convince me?

reply to post by butcherguy


and if Biden really believes that, then that just serves to clearly demonstrate how completely out of touch he is with reality...

This is what happens when your "elected" representatives come from money, never had to do real work, never had to live in the real world...all they have is their sheltered, secured, unrealistic lives of privilege to draw from, and i'm sorry, but the rest of the world doesn't work that way..

Thats why, in a republic, the elected representatives are supposed to be actually elected, and they're supposed to be regular folk...not these "holier-than-thou because i have money" types who don't know s**t about s**t, and are only in politics to further enrich themselves, and further their own interests..they don't give a s**t about the people, or their rights....

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by butcherguy

 

and if Biden really believes that, then that just serves to clearly demonstrate how completely out of touch he is with reality...

This is what happens when your "elected" representatives come from money, never had to do real work, never had to live in the real world...all they have is their sheltered, secured, unrealistic lives of privilege to draw from, and i'm sorry, but the rest of the world doesn't work that way..

Thats why, in a republic, the elected representatives are supposed to be actually elected, and they're supposed to be regular folk...not these "holier-than-thou because i have money" types who don't know s**t about s**t, and are only in politics to further enrich themselves, and further their own interests..they don't give a s**t about the people, or their rights....

edit on 20-2-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)

I couldn't have said this better myself! Out of the current makeup of congress I would say a little less than a dozen out of the almost 500 are the only ones still in touch with what the common man faces on a day to day basis.

reply to post by Daedalus

lets not forget to mention that he's been drinking the MSM kool-aid, and thinks that they're trying to specifically ban only automatic weapons....

Not what I said. And it's difficult to choose between the MSM kool-aid and the masses of dis-info peddled by the NRA/pro-gun lobby. Many on ATS are drinking the gun lobby koolaid. My responses simply point that out.

Anyway, time will tell if I'm living in a world of illusion. Frankly could care less which way it goes but willing to bet you are wrong about how far this will go. Much ado about nothing. Americans will still be able to purchase guns and people will continue to kill people.... even without guns

reply to post by Darkphoenix77


With respect, that link is a pro-gun commentary on the bill. I read it but to be objective I'd need to read a story by someone defending the bill. Funny thing is, in some parts of the commentary the author argues that too many guns are not included in the bill. Kinda argues against himself there. Some of the arguments go along with points made here, that the bill isnt specific enough and this is somehow a grand deception in order to ban all guns. IMO it just points out how incompetent the folks who put it together are. But to each his own when deciding on what the intent of the bill is. Lots of the laws on the books that are open to interpretation. Nothing new there for me.

Thanks for the link anyway. If I find an anti-gun group posting are view I'll be able to compare notes on two biased opinions. My experience is that less than half of each argument is really valid. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by Daedalus

 

lets not forget to mention that he's been drinking the MSM kool-aid, and thinks that they're trying to specifically ban only automatic weapons....

Not what I said. And it's difficult to choose between the MSM kool-aid and the masses of dis-info peddled by the NRA/pro-gun lobby. Many on ATS are drinking the gun lobby koolaid. My responses simply point that out.

Anyway, time will tell if I'm living in a world of illusion. Frankly could care less which way it goes but willing to bet you are wrong about how far this will go. Much ado about nothing. Americans will still be able to purchase guns and people will continue to kill people.... even without guns

edit on 20-2-2013 by Mike.Ockizard because: (no reason given)

how is it, that i can write an entire HUGE post to you, answering questions you asked, and giving you good information, and you see fit to ignore that, and reply to something i said to someone else, about a specific bulls**t claim you made?

And yes, you did say that you believed that the fienstein bill was about automatic weapons...

reply to post by Daedalus


Didnt mean to skip you, just pretty busy and missed it during my last session. Dont take it so hard.

I think my other post speaks to you point about the bill being too general in some cases, your view that the weapons they ban being silly for whatever reason is your opinion and in some cases yoou may be right. But then again the drafters of the bill have their opinion as well. If you want to debate then you'd really need to talk to them as I really dont know what they think.

As for posting without reading the bill, it's pretty common for folks to post without reading the actual bill. A link provided to me (which I asked for BTW) was not the bill but commentary by a pro gun site. So if you want to beat someone up for not reading it you better hammer that person and many others here. I've read many articles about the bill (for and against) as well as the case made by the folks who share your point of view.

Like I said, my intenet is neither to support the bill or argue against it necessarily. I really aimed to point out how extreme each side is in this debate with the truth rreally being somewhere in the middle.

I just dont see why this is such a big deal and I dont think they are trying to take away ALL guns. Further I think its people that kill other people with guns that isthe problem. If you could take away guns from regular people than it would IMO reduce gun violence to some degree. In the end tho people will continue to kill other people but will have to be either more creative in the way to do it. Can we all agree that if you make something more difficult for the average american than they will doi it less? Can we also agree that opening the doors wider so that its easier to obtain guns would be a bad idea? (careful on that last one. slippery slope!!!)

Hope I've made amends...

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Do you practice those patronising comments or do they just come naturally to you?

I don’t think you’re getting my point,

The idea that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is flawed because while yes the individual holding the gun is ultimately responsible for pulling the trigger the existence of the gun gives the individual the means to kill hence the gun is also partly responsible for the death of another as it was the tool used.

Thats like saying that "the fork is partly responsible for my obesity" or "the glass is partly responsible for my alcoholism".

Guns, like forks and glasses, are simply tools. Yes, maybe the most common and efficient tools. But tools none the less.

That being said, would a ban of silverware and/or drinking glasses/cups reduce obesity and alcoholism within a society??

Maybe. But i'm guessing that the difference would be marginal at best.

So, then i guess it all comes down to personal opinion and morals. Would giving up our right to bear arms, and all of it's possible ramifications, be justified in order to save a few lives??

Personally, i'm on the fence about this. But, i am leaning towards "probably not".

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard

it's pretty common for folks to post without reading the actual bill.

Unfortunately, it is common for the legislators to vote on a bill without reading it.

The New York gun ban that was recently passed in a hurry is proof of that.

What New York state legislator wants to admit that they passed a bill limiting a pistol magazine to holding 7 rounds........ and not exempting police officers and active duty military personnel???

reply to post by butcherguy


They were tripping over themselves to get it passed, too.

They were dripping at the mouth like rabid dogs at the opportunity to take away the rights of NY citizens and show their masters at the UN that they are good little slaves.

Anyone who doesn't believe there is an active attempt at disarmament in America is willfully ignorant or worse.

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


You really want me slammed that bad? Why? What did I do to you but post a link? Maybe it wasn't from the best source but I went with what I found at the time.....

Here are a few more, hopefully these ones are not considered so biased.

Indepedent Journal Review

What the bill does:

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:
Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons.

Straight from the Horse's Mouth

I hope these are a little less biased for you.

I knew it. After all that time in the military it finally comes out.
Great post!

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard

 

Unfortunately, it is common for the legislators to vote on a bill without reading it.

So true...

reply to post by Darkphoenix77


Sorry, didnt mean it as a slam but it's pretty common to get links from sites that support others position. I do give you credit for providing information. anti-gun people didnt seem to respond if you didnt notice. You on the other hand did. Thanks!

reply to post by Darkphoenix77


Wow. Quite a different tone. Think I'll look up the actual bill since the links went from extreme pro gun to toned down support for the bill. I still thing the truth is somewhere in between. I'll be back. Thanks for your help.