Gun Slayings

medicineman

medicineman

New Member
medicineman said:
Tell me, what does an educated person do if an intruder with a gun stomps in your front door, say, "hold it there buddy, I'm educated"? Take the guns away from the legal owners and the crooks will own The suburbs. With a response time of 5-15 minutes, the perps will be long gone with your cash and your daughters before the cops show up. Get real Man. BTW, I'm no nazi fuck.
Click to expand...
......................
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
dutchthreat said:
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html fact
Click to expand...
Ahh, deflection. It is entirely inappropriate to link to a website with the implication of 'do your own research' when asked a direct question of you personally.

It appears that in spite of criticizing Lott's research as invalid, they have no problem claiming the discredited Kellerman study supports their view.
Their answer appears to be to ban guns (although they won't come right out and say it) and use other countries with a vastly different culture surrounding guns and with vastly lower number of guns as 'evidence' of how gun control works. It's interesting they only discuss 'developed' countries even though undeveloped ones have gun laws too. Mexico has a ban on guns, doesn't seem to be stopping the bloodshed down there.

Regardless of the back and forth "statistics" war, there is no logic in banning guns. All the mass shootings occur where guns are already banned (e.g. VT, Columbine, Omaha mall, Utah mall, Amish schoolhouse, Northern IL Univ., the recent nursing home, etc.).

Why don't they occur in police stations or shooting ranges, where everyone is armed all the time? There are large collections of "assault weapons" at these locations just waiting to assault someone, and they're "going off" all day long at the shooting range. According to the gun control lobby, all of us who attend shooting ranges should have killed one another by now--or, at least, our vicious "assault weapons" should have killed us.

Police and the military have huge arsenals, and yet they don't routinely perpetrate mass murders. They have "easy access," as you put it. What's the difference? Are police officers simply of higher moral fiber than us lowly civilians? What a joke. Are their "assault weapons" not working correctly? Don't they know they're just carrying around ticking time bombs on their belts? The numbers game and the anti-gun "logic" would predict that police and military personnel would have the highest rates of violence in society.

What about concealed pistol license holders? They carry guns around all the time. They must be violent, right? Try looking up the statistics from your local county gun board. You'll find that the rates of violent crime among concealed pistol license holders are FAR lower than that of the rest of society. You're SAFER with a concealed pistol license holder than with your next door neighbor.

The U.S. DOJ, FBI, CDC, and NIH have been unable to prove a link between gun control and violent crime. The Supreme Court realizes the futility of it, as well. It's nothing more than passing laws to affect those who don't abide by them. That will never make sense or work. Cite all the statistics you like.

History has numerous examples of what happens when citizens are forcibly disarmed by their government. Hitler's gun control laws worked wonders, and we have a literal translation of a large portion of one of them in effect in the U.S.--the Gun Control Act of 1968. Thomas Dodd (Chris Dodd's father) was on the Nuremberg trials and acquired some of Hitler's belongings. He had the Library of Congress translate one of Hitler's gun control laws into English, and it was later introduced into Congress and passed after RFK was shot. Illogical gun-control laws always follow shootings.

When only the government and criminals have guns, where does that leave us? The ironic thing is that gun control laws are enforced by men with guns.
 
D

dutchthreat

New Member
mindphuk said:
So what do you propose we should do about this violence? There are already almost 20,000 gun laws on the books already, do you think that maybe we can enforce those and get rid of stupid, useless ones like gun-free zones?

Do you realize that the the Pittsburgh shooter Richard Poplawski was dishonorably discharged from the military? This means that it was illegal for him to own firearm based on federal law and he would not be able to pass the NICS background check and every 4473 form mentions dishonorable discharge from the military as precluding firearms ownership. Once again, failed gun control laws didn't stop him. Yet the gun control lobby calls for more tried-and-failed laws like this. So if all of those laws already on the books would not stop a crazy person from illegally obtaining guns, please tell me what new law would have worked?

There are more than 250 million guns in public circulation in the U.S. They cannot be wished away. Even if the U.S. government banned gun ownership and stopped all gun manufacturing and importation, it would still need to confiscate all those weapons. Doing so would require wholesale violations of Fourth Amendment rights. The probability of getting rid of guns in America, therefore, is practically zero.
Click to expand...
Where is the question? What crazy law would have worked? Ban guns, your caught with one, life time sentence.
 
M

max420thc

Well-Known Member
that will be the day they ban guns.
maybe you will volunteer to go out and collect them up?
i doubt you get to far
 
M

max420thc

Well-Known Member
our government ignores and shits on the constitution anyway
why worry about changing it when you can just wipe your ass with the most sacred document ever written next to the bible and perhapps magna carta
 
Drgreenz

Drgreenz

Well-Known Member
dutchthreat said:
Can the bill of rights be changed?
Click to expand...
not legally the bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) is suppose to be unchanging.
and for your 31,000 deaths in 05. according to statistics, 56% of all US gun deaths were suicide so they are null that leaves you with only 13,640 not 31,000 please try to at least use truthfull statistics.
so of the 306,163,179 people in the us at this moment you have a 1/22,445 chance to be killed by a gun
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
dutchthreat said:
31 000 deaths caused by guns. Suicide or not.
Click to expand...
In the end, most of the gun deaths were from people who HAD guns (the criminals) against people who did NOT have guns (the victims).

So, in your educated mind, the answer is to make sure the VICTIMS never have a gun? I am trying to understand the logic. It's just a bit difficult to find.

If you coud actually show me some data where the CRIMINALS gave up their guns, I's have a more open mind.

As with Britain and Australia, the criminals NEVER gave up their weapons sir. They don't get them legally so there is no way to trace them. In the end you are left with the posit that the only way is to effectively make guns disappear in their totality..... Does this seem like an achievable goal? Seriously?

I hope this never happens to you, but if you are confronted by an armed intruder in your domicile (which is AGAINST the law by the way), what will you do? What will you do.....


out. :blsmoke:
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
No one gets past a door huh..... I wish I had your imagination. Then I could sleep totally unprepared and still believe i am safe.

Yes the overwhelming statistics of home INVASION is by the owner letting them in... :roll:

out. :blsmoke:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top