An Open Letter to Lovers of the Gun

chiefsmom


Here in our Area, we have a private school, that has armed teachers, and the principle.
Guess how many school shootings we have had there?

I give it about five years till there is an accident.

reply to post by nixie_nox


People don't "need" a car to go places, cars just make it easy.

How do I fight a tyranical gubment without a gun?

SuperFrog

network dude

SuperFrog
We are first country to have more guns than total population. (I believe latest numbmers are like 101 gun per 100 people, guess what it was 40 years ago)

Which brings me back to my point. 40 years ago, kids didn't go out and shoot up schools.

Logic, the lost art.

That is exactly what I said, number of guns 40 years ago was not the same as of today. You showed graph that supposed to say my numbers did not make any sense. Remember this post?


Higher numbers correspond to higher crimes, including more mass shooting.

Just look at this number, 5.5 million of guns, 90% sold in states - 4.95 millions of guns - huge industry and someone is profiting a lot, spreading some wealth among politicians that support industry.

Every time there is this debate, I wish USA congress has the same thing as NASCAR racers - showing their donors on their uniforms and car. It would be much easier to know why some politician voted the way they did...

edit on 27-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

I wonder, did they teach you the difference between correlation and causation in university?

When my dad was a kid, he could buy guns from the SEARS catalogue and they were delivered to his doorstep. At 14, he bought a military surplus M1 Carbine, semiautomatic and magazine fed, over the counter at the hardware store. He even brought it to school to show his shop teacher. He saved up money working part time. Yet, with firearms much less regulated and much easier available, we did not have school shootings we do today. We do not have the violence we have today.

macman
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Gun free school zones as well.

I love it when criminals obey laws.

So, we should just eliminate laws then?

This is the most washed out cliché of gun nuts along with "guns don't kill people, people do, derp derp derp".

All guns have been legally manufactured and sold at some point. And many of those people turn around and sell their legally bought firearms in the parking lot.

What is even dumber about this statement is that it is the sheer number of firearms and the ease of purchasing guns that allow criminals to get their hands on them.

Having a pool raises your homeowners insurance. It goes up a lot if you have children. If you have dozens of guns in the home your insurance will increase $0. That is zero. It is not seen as a risk.

nixie_nox

KawRider9
Cars kill waaay more people than guns!

Ban 'em Deano...

Which is why measures for car safety exponentially improve every single year. Which is why there are speed limits, seat belts, and air bags, that are all required.

So the same measures are needed for guns, whose technology have NOT improved, ever, to make them safer.

Besides, this is a silly comparison. People need cars, people don't need guns.

Apparently, you don't know much about guns. Firearm technology has improved quite a bit over the years and they are some of the safest mechanical products out there. You cannot, however, engineer the human out of the equation.

nixie_nox

macman
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Gun free school zones as well.

I love it when criminals obey laws.

So, we should just eliminate laws then?

This is the most washed out cliché of gun nuts along with "guns don't kill people, people do, derp derp derp".

All guns have been legally manufactured and sold at some point. And many of those people turn around and sell their legally bought firearms in the parking lot.

What is even dumber about this statement is that it is the sheer number of firearms and the ease of purchasing guns that allow criminals to get their hands on them.

You can manufacture an effective submachine gun in your garage, so you cannot eliminate firearms through the law.

In addition, your lack of logic is "some people are criminals so the rights of all of the citizens must be curtailed because of those criminal few." Any other rights you'd like to do away with from everyone because a few people abuse them as well?

reply to post by KawRider9


These are the scariest statements of all and exactly the reason that paranoid people who live constantly in fear and insecurity, should not be owning firearms.

If the government really wanted to come for you, you with your ten guns still doesn't have a chance against a drone.

But really, we need weapons to defend ourselves against those who feel they have to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, because they are just bombs waiting to happen.

NavyDoc
Apparently, you don't know much about guns. Firearm technology has improved quite a bit over the years and they are some of the safest mechanical products out there. You cannot, however, engineer the human out of the equation.

But do you believe that guns should be registered into single DB just like cars?

NavyDoc

nixie_nox

KawRider9
Cars kill waaay more people than guns!

Ban 'em Deano...

Which is why measures for car safety exponentially improve every single year. Which is why there are speed limits, seat belts, and air bags, that are all required.

So the same measures are needed for guns, whose technology have NOT improved, ever, to make them safer.

Besides, this is a silly comparison. People need cars, people don't need guns.

Apparently, you don't know much about guns. Firearm technology has improved quite a bit over the years and they are some of the safest mechanical products out there. You cannot, however, engineer the human out of the equation.

You mean we can track and disable guns remotely like we can do with cars? Do they have chips in them so they can be tracked?

reply to post by nixie_nox


Need has nothing to do with constitutional rights. Thankfully so, because debating the definition of 'need' can be tedious when progressives are involved.

With that established, a car is not something you need to survive. You only think so because you cannot imagine life without one. That line of thinking is why things like cell phones, internet access, and birth control are erroneously referred to as 'needs.'

reply to post by nixie_nox


I'm not paranoid at all.

And you really went with the drone route? LMAO! You people are funny.

nixie_nox

NavyDoc

nixie_nox

KawRider9
Cars kill waaay more people than guns!

Ban 'em Deano...

Which is why measures for car safety exponentially improve every single year. Which is why there are speed limits, seat belts, and air bags, that are all required.

So the same measures are needed for guns, whose technology have NOT improved, ever, to make them safer.

Besides, this is a silly comparison. People need cars, people don't need guns.

Apparently, you don't know much about guns. Firearm technology has improved quite a bit over the years and they are some of the safest mechanical products out there. You cannot, however, engineer the human out of the equation.

You mean we can track and disable guns remotely like we can do with cars? Do they have chips in them so they can be tracked?

AH, so you are not talking about "safety" you are talking about tracking. So safety isn't your concern, control is.

NavyDoc

nixie_nox

macman
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Gun free school zones as well.

I love it when criminals obey laws.

So, we should just eliminate laws then?

This is the most washed out cliché of gun nuts along with "guns don't kill people, people do, derp derp derp".

All guns have been legally manufactured and sold at some point. And many of those people turn around and sell their legally bought firearms in the parking lot.

What is even dumber about this statement is that it is the sheer number of firearms and the ease of purchasing guns that allow criminals to get their hands on them.

You can manufacture an effective submachine gun in your garage, so you cannot eliminate firearms through the law.

In addition, your lack of logic is "some people are criminals so the rights of all of the citizens must be curtailed because of those criminal few." Any other rights you'd like to do away with from everyone because a few people abuse them as well?

Which is exactly why more gun regulation is needed, so people cannot part together guns. Thank you for proving my point.

Some people don't drink and drive but that law applies to everybody and they have checkpoints to check everybody. Same with the airport.

The flipside to your argument is: well we can't keep them out of everybody's hands, so we should just let anybody have a gun. And make it as easy as possible for all the crazies and criminals to get them.

Not to mention, these arguments deter from the facts that 15,000 suicides each year are from guns. There are 20,000 gun shot injuries. It Is not just about criminal activity.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Who is living in fear? Who is the one that is paranoid that I have a gun in my house?
I showed you an example on the last page on mass killings without a gun.

reply to post by KawRider9


So you are confessing then that you don't think the government is tyrannical? Or that you think you can fight the entire US army?

Other than that, the rest just says that you don't have an argument.

SuperFrog

NavyDoc
Apparently, you don't know much about guns. Firearm technology has improved quite a bit over the years and they are some of the safest mechanical products out there. You cannot, however, engineer the human out of the equation.

But do you believe that guns should be registered into single DB just like cars?

Registration has not been shown to reduce crime. In fact, a SCOTUS case ruled that a convicted felon cannot be charged with failure to register a firearm as that would fall under "self incrimination." Registration, however, is always a step to confiscation as we now see in CA, NY, MD, CT, MA, etc. Thus, the answer would be no.

Why are cars registered in a database? To recover stolen property easier, not to limit someone's use of a car. Convicted felons can and do legally own cars.

thesaneone

nixie_nox

teslahowitzer
I feel sorry for these people, I really do, but they and you will never dictate policy to me, NEVER. I am 100% behind the 2nd, which, without it, there is no 1st ammendment. You bleeding heart sissies do not get it and never will, and that will never be my problem, never. If you had a clue, in which there are serious doubts, you would put the blame where it REALLY belongs, with the parents of these children, not with a 238 year old document that will domino past your level of comprehension. You can yack all you want and my enlighten the weak minded single celled idiots, but to the awake patriots, we see the bs and call you on it. If these children are homicidal. in the true form, had no access to guns, they would use knives or similar, you gonna call for a ban on knives? baseball bats? and the list goes on and on....there will be no end to this and that needs to be understood. In reality, these two ammendments are the first and second for a real reason, just because you fail to see that for what it is does not make it someone else's problem, want my guns? come get them...

Another weak argument. Name a 25 person killing spree done with a bat.

Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.

It's not a bat but you see where I am going.

And setting fire is illegal too, especially in a Subway.

Other than that once incidence over ten years ago, there is nothing more than 7people stabbed. You can't kill 25 people with a bat.

If bats and knives were such effective killing weapons, it would be the only thing our soldiers would be armed with.

nixie_nox

NavyDoc

nixie_nox

macman
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Gun free school zones as well.

I love it when criminals obey laws.

So, we should just eliminate laws then?

This is the most washed out cliché of gun nuts along with "guns don't kill people, people do, derp derp derp".

All guns have been legally manufactured and sold at some point. And many of those people turn around and sell their legally bought firearms in the parking lot.

What is even dumber about this statement is that it is the sheer number of firearms and the ease of purchasing guns that allow criminals to get their hands on them.

You can manufacture an effective submachine gun in your garage, so you cannot eliminate firearms through the law.

In addition, your lack of logic is "some people are criminals so the rights of all of the citizens must be curtailed because of those criminal few." Any other rights you'd like to do away with from everyone because a few people abuse them as well?

Which is exactly why more gun regulation is needed, so people cannot part together guns. Thank you for proving my point.

Some people don't drink and drive but that law applies to everybody and they have checkpoints to check everybody. Same with the airport.

The flipside to your argument is: well we can't keep them out of everybody's hands, so we should just let anybody have a gun. And make it as easy as possible for all the crazies and criminals to get them.

Not to mention, these arguments deter from the facts that 15,000 suicides each year are from guns. There are 20,000 gun shot injuries. It Is not just about criminal activity.

I didn't prove your point. You said guns are unsafe. I pointed out that they were very safe with strict standards for manufacturing.

Regulation will prevent making your own guns how? Will you register and regulate muffler tubes? Springs? Metal plates? Lathes and drill presses? Coat hangars? What you said makes no sense.

I don't agree with checkpoints. You honestly think that agents of the state should be able to pull you over and check your papers without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion that you have done anything wrong? Wow. So you've no problem with giving up freedom as long as you feel safe.

What do suicides have to do with it? The highest suicide rates in the world are in nations with some of the strongest gun control laws, which indicates that gun bans will have nothing to do with suicide rates, so why even bring them up?

reply to post by nixie_nox


What argument have you proved?
Just more trolling.