You Don't Need Guns To Kill Lots Of People There Are Plenty Of Options Available

[Red Green]

Everytime one of these mass shootings takes place the Anti-Gun lobby steps into action almost immediately

Well you dont even need a gun kill lots of people just ask these whackjobs

9/11 islamic terrorists used everyday box cutters and fists to hijack several passenger jets and kill over 3 thousand people

In april of 1995 Timothy Mcveigh parked a rented Moving Van stuffed with fertilizer and diesel fuel with a detonator underneath the Alfred Murrah Fedral Building in Oklahoma City killing 168 people at the time the worst act of terrorism on american soil

Jeffery Dahmer lured his victims to his apartment where he drugged them then dismembered the bodies 17 known victims probably more

John Wayne Gacy didnt use a gun killed 33 teenage boys luring them with money booze and dope


Theodore Kaczynski better known as the UNABOMBER only successfully murdered 3 victims but his clandestine homemade bombs maimed dozens and nearly tookdown an American Airlines flight in 1979 had the trigger been made better

You see GUNS ARENT NECESSARY TO KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE

A WHACKJOB WILL FIGURE SOMETHING OUT

[Chloe]

Everytime one of these mass shootings takes place the Anti-Gun lobby steps into action almost immediately

Well you dont even need a gun kill lots of people just ask these whackjobs

9/11 islamic terrorists used everyday box cutters and fists to hijack several passenger jets and kill over 3 thousand people

In april of 1995 Timothy Mcveigh parked a rented Moving Van stuffed with fertilizer and diesel fuel with a detonator underneath the Alfred Murrah Fedral Building in Oklahoma City killing 168 people at the time the worst act of terrorism on american soil

Jeffery Dahmer lured his victims to his apartment where he drugged them then dismembered the bodies 17 known victims probably more

John Wayne Gacy didnt use a gun killed 33 teenage boys luring them with money booze and dope


Theodore Kaczynski better known as the UNABOMBER only successfully murdered 3 victims but his clandestine homemade bombs maimed dozens and nearly tookdown an American Airlines flight in 1979 had the trigger been made better

You see GUNS ARENT NECESSARY TO KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE

A WHACKJOB WILL FIGURE SOMETHING OUT

Would more guns have stopped those crimes?

[Red Green]

Would more guns have stopped those crimes?

:lame:

Cmon is that all you got honestly I would expect more from you.

[Chloe]

:lame:

Cmon is that all you got honestly I would expect more from you.

Fair enough.

If someone is dedicated to murdering someone, committing a crime, stealing, fighting, raping, bombing, or any other violent act they will do it regardless of the surroundings. My point was that regardless if people have guns everywhere a dedicated murderer will still murder.

[Chloe]

Sorry I know that I usually will have more of a real opinion but there has just been soooo many gun related topics on here in the last few days I am getting a little drained and frustrated with the topic.

[Red Green]

sorry i know that i usually will have more of a real opinion but there has just been soooo many gun related topics on here in the last few days i am getting a little drained and frustrated with the topic.

agree 100%

you ain't lying

[Red Green]

Gosh wheres all the ban gun people I assume Ive made a rather compelling case in that some of the worst mass murderers ever didnt even fire a shot

[zelmo1234]

Had there been armed sky marshals on the planes on 911 it would have stopped the terrorist in there tracks. So we would have had a total of 19 dealths that day, instead of 2500? the others it would not have stopped.

[RollingWave]

Yes you can kill someone without guns, that doesn't mean you don't try to limit the ease of someone doing so. like no sane person would suggest deregulating fragmentation grenades for "home protection"

There's got to be a logical balance point between duty and rights in any country, that point may different between different country, but when the balance is poor shit will happen, and at least IMHO, in the US nowadays, the balance isn't good, there is a lot of talk of rights and little talk of duty.

Duty without Rights is Tyranny, Rights without Duty is Anarchy.

[ptif219]

Next they will want to ban cars

http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Chinese-man-drives-car-into-students-injuring-13-4144574.php

[Carygrant]

Why aren't there any number of Americans who do understand fundamentals ?
What has brought about this national blindness and character weakness ?
We all recognise that America is sick and ill . But along with handling the symptoms , we need people who can remedy the causes of how a nation derails itself and then goes into flat denial .

[Peter1469]

Right. We have too many leftists that want to increase the power of the federal government.

[bladimz]

Everytime one of these mass shootings takes place the Anti-Gun lobby steps into action almost immediately..............

................You see GUNS ARENT NECESSARY TO KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE

A WHACKJOB WILL FIGURE SOMETHING OUTYes, you are absolutely correct. People can kill other people with candlestick holders, mantel clocks, bowling balls. But guns are special. They're unique among all the other methods that you mentioned. Guns are the only thing specifically designed to injure or kill a living animal/person. That is their primary purpose. Therefore, it only makes sense to look at guns as a true threat to life, and to regulate them accordingly. Banning guns is an obvious impossibility. Controlling their use is not. I believe that, additionally, ammo control has merit.

[Bigred1cav]

When your fictional murders by other means reach: According to the CDC in 2006, Last up to date numbers, 30,896 total, of which, 642 accidental, 16,883 were Suicide, 12,791 were Homicide, 220 were Undetermined and 360 by Legal intervention. We will be convinced.

[Peter1469]

Now add in the people saved by lawful use of guns.

[Agravan]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. People can kill other people with candlestick holders, mantel clocks, bowling balls. But guns are special. They're unique among all the other methods that you mentioned. Guns are the only thing specifically designed to injure or kill a living animal/person. That is their primary purpose. Therefore, it only makes sense to look at guns as a true threat to life, and to regulate them accordingly. Banning guns is an obvious impossibility. Controlling their use is not. I believe that, additionally, ammo control has merit.

You do know, don't you, that ammo can be reloaded??

[bladimz]

You do know, don't you, that ammo can be reloaded??
<Gosh. I had no idea! Thank god you're here to inform and educate.>
Yeah, i do know that. I've seen it and i've done it. Dad was into all of it, and i was proud of him because he was a responsible, well-trained and safety-minded hunter who made damn sure that none of his boys played games with a gun in their hands.

That said, i find it very unlikely that many people would be interested in learning the fine art of reloading.

[bladimz]

Now add in the people saved by lawful use of guns.
That's kind of a hard statistic to generate with any accuracy at all. How many do you think were saved in 2012?

[zelmo1234]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. People can kill other people with candlestick holders, mantel clocks, bowling balls. But guns are special. They're unique among all the other methods that you mentioned. Guns are the only thing specifically designed to injure or kill a living animal/person. That is their primary purpose. Therefore, it only makes sense to look at guns as a true threat to life, and to regulate them accordingly. Banning guns is an obvious impossibility. Controlling their use is not. I believe that, additionally, ammo control has merit.

Can you expand on your ideas: I would love to know your thoughts on keeping guns and ammo out of the hands of those that own it leagally is going to reduce crime.

Also maybe you could look at it this way Guns are uniquely designed to protect those that would be victoms of violence, not matter the size of the would be attacker. an example is a 6 foot tall body bulider would and could easily over power and have his way with a 5 foot 98 pound woman, but if she has a gun???

To take this protection away from the people would not be wise?

[Professor Peabody]

Deaths per 100,000 population:

Accidents (unintentional injuries) 38.4
Salmonella infections 26
Non-transport accidents 25.7
Whooping cough 15
Drug-induced deaths 12.8
Intentional self-harm (suicide) 12.0
Motor Vehicle Accidents 11.8
Alcohol-induced deaths 8.0
Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 6.1
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms 3.7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

You are 7 times more likely to die of Salmonella from a bad piece of undercooked chicken than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 6.9 times more likely to die of an unintentional accident like slip and fall than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 4 times more likely to die of Whooping Cough than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 3.5 times more likely to die of using drugs than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 3.2 times more likely to die of a Car Accident than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 2.2 times more likely to die of a drinking too much Alcohol than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 1.6 times more likely to die of killing YOURSELF intentionally with a gun than being killed by someone else with a gun.

[zelmo1234]

Yes this is it, for the safty of the public, we must ban Chicken

[Professor Peabody]

Fair enough.

If someone is dedicated to murdering someone, committing a crime, stealing, fighting, raping, bombing, or any other violent act they will do it regardless of the surroundings. My point was that regardless if people have guns everywhere a dedicated murderer will still murder.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html)

As anyone can clearly see European countries that severely limit gun ownership have a much higher violent crime rate than the U.S. The UK has 4.3 times the violent crime rate than the U.S. and Austria has 3.5 the violent crime rate than the U.S. So what conclusion do you draw from the violent crime rates in countries with severe gun restrictions being so very much higher than in the U.S.?

[Professor Peabody]

Why aren't there any number of Americans who do understand fundamentals ?
What has brought about this national blindness and character weakness ?
We all recognise that America is sick and ill . But along with handling the symptoms , we need people who can remedy the causes of how a nation derails itself and then goes into flat denial .

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html)

Can you explain the difference in violent crime rate?