FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles

No, no...not the actual FACTS!!

We need hysterical, Leftninny emotionalism to address the issue...

 

How many times is this BS argument of " something else kills as well dont touch my M60 "going to come up?

It remains a BS argument its not because there are bigger criminals out there you can arrest the smaller ones. If there is any legislation that can REDUCE the number of people killed WITHOUT an even bigger impact elsewhere there should be at least a discussion about it.

But as usual conservative/gun owners dont even want to start a conversation. Stick head in the sands and repeat "x kills more, leave me and my guns alone"

 

So what? The so what is very simple, these children were killen en masse in a public space in a few minutes.

Individual parental murders using intruments than can sometimes be used as weapons are an entirely different order in difficulty in detection and prevention. Like cars, hammers are not weapons per se, guns however are. Moreover it is quite possible to substantially reduce the possibility of these incidents occurring.

Until you can somehow get around those simple realities thats why your thread is a nonsense and as such your argument is over.

 

No. This piece is deceptive, because it's only about rifles, not all guns. Most gun crime by far involves handguns.

Additionally, over half of the murders committed in this country are committed using some form of gun. Nevermind the suicides and accidents..

 

You're only interested in a mix of right-wing bluster and pseudo-facts to back it up with.

 

Actually child homicide and accidental injury by firearms is so prevalent in America that the American College of Paediatricians has issued a statement saying that the safest house is one without guns

This is the size of the problem in America

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/15/peds.2012-2481.full.pdf

 

Yeah I know! The so called "facts" had been massaged more than a politician in a brothel

 

Hmmm perhaps youre right Don, but have you really thought about this?

After all, even more dangerous than fists, brains were used in each of these instances to commit murder! Yes brains!
Perhaps the most dangerous instrument on the planet?!

Yes lets ban brains, I know youre with me on that point Don because its clear that except for when youre out getting the groceries you already keep yours safely locked up in a cupboard where your wife can keep an eye on it for you.

Happy new year,

 

Don't worry the right banned brains years ago!! Just have to read some of the responses on this board LOLS!!

 

I disagree that this is a fair comparison. Urban areas would be significantly more violent than country areas even with CCW permits in place. You could get everything you want as far as politics goes in a city and it'd still have terrible levels of gun violence. Cities are densely populated with completely different cultural norms. It's a bad inference. Stop making it.

Perhaps, but you're making the exact same error gun control advocates do. Literally the same one. You would sacrifice the liberty and responsible (constitutional) government that comes with the abolition of the death penalty for the vague statistical benefits gained. Please be principled.

Mostly agree. The freedom to own and carry weapons is a testament to the greatness of America. You come at it from the wrong angle though. Gun control is not bad because it causes societal problems and supposedly increases gun violence (I don't know or care if it does). Gun control is bad because it is coercion and thus a violation of personal liberty. That's it. The only reason that matters. Everything else is just a bonus. If you think otherwise then you agree with gun control advocates in principle, and merely have a disagreement of fact.

That makes you just as responsible.

 

But what degree of control is unacceptable - would you for example accept laws that mandated safety measures? Would you accept tighter tracking and monitoring of gun ownership?

 

For the third time... we are talking about rifles... not even specific to what you people keep incorrectly calling "assault rifles". You want to ban a weapon with a lower incident rate than a hammer... because...

I await any logical conclusion to that sentence.

You see... many many many more people are killed with handguns. I guess they will be next.

Yeah... since the 50s... and yet... we still have drunk driving. Puzzling isn't it?

All of the damage was done with the bushmaster except the suicide.

No... all reports said some sort of "long gun", which was the shotgun, was found in the car. The bushmaster was always on him. 4 guns total.

The shotgun would probably have been much worse.

No.

 

Ayuh,.... I believe the current definition of assault rifles, makes 'em,.... Guns....

 

democracies? Socialists? anyone here see the contradiction inthat statement?

 

define assault rifle with current specifications. Rifles aren't guns?
What are assault knives? Assault baseball bats?

 

Come on dude. You are above that hyperbole, aren't you?. The argument is good or bad, practical or impractical, works or doesn't. It isn't "insane".

 

Nope, because democracy and socialism are two systems that fall into two totally separate catagories. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

aye, they are...you're the one that put them together, not me..maybe you just don't know what you're carrying on about

 

Good God!! We need the gov't to put safety locks around the hands of parents.

 

That's because it's not the guns, it's the people...

 

Like what? What do you want the gov't to do to stop parents from murdering their children with their hands or household tools?

Shall we form a new federal dept? Can I be the administrator of the budget, so that I can enrich myself and my friends? That's what expanding gov't is all about after all.

Think of all the underemployed people with sociology graduate degrees that we can employ and set up with pensions.


[video=youtube;vofWkCJvbDo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vofWkCJvbDo[/video]

 

Well, to add to the evidence that you don't know the difference between a political system and an econimic system; you make the above statement.
Democracies can and do use socialism all the time. They use it to regulate the other component in the economic spectrum, which is capitalism.

 

I started the conversation, and no liberal here is wiling to admit that their social policy has decayed the culture. Look in the mirror, my friend, when you want to talk about not having a discussion.

 

So what? The Bow is originally a weapon, yet we enjoy archery.

People find guns to be useful. They use them to protect themselves from criminals and tyrants. The first thing tyrants want to do is seize and ban the weapons of their victims.

Did you know that when Japan conquered Okinawa, they banned the Okinawans from owning swords? That's why Karate uses non-traditional weapons that Okinawan farmers had.

Besides, people use firearms for recreation. I target shoot. My friends hunt. Target shooting has been a fun sport for hundreds of years and archery is a sport practiced for thousands of years.

Liberals fear armed people because the thought of people willing to defend themselves makes their personal inadequacy manifest. What is a man or woman, if they are unwilling to defend themselves or their loved ones? And, secondly, the thought of armed "others" puts them in fear that the "others" make not allow themselves to be enslaved by a soft tyranny. Liberals could easily become the Tories of their day.

 

The hot topic is an assault rifle ban.