Shootings and violence

[dfiant]

yeah, kinda expected your next reply to be babble and bs sunshine

[Buffylo]

Yeah, because facts are total bs

[dfiant]

oh ok...i see.

Care to correct me or continue to act like a factless dickhead sunshine

[Buffylo]

Do you want statistics or would you like to stop before I make you look like an ass?

[dfiant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...death_rate

I think I will get in first sunshine

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...ed-states/

Both sources of stats are from the USA itself sunshine

[Pix]

CA has many gun laws, and high gun violence. Until the SCOTUS undid the law, Washington DC had a total ban on carrying concealed weapons while Arlington, which is separated from Washington DC by a bridge, allowed concealed carry, and yet Arlington had a lot less violent crime, including with guns. The state with the least gun control is Vermont and it's also the least violent in the nation, even less violent than many UK & Canadian cities (granted, it IS a rural state). In contrast, Illinois has some of the toughest and is also incredibly violent. In Chicago licensed gun owners (which is very hard to be) can't even take their guns outside, yet Phoenix (with almost no gun control) has half as much gun crime.

And then there's looking at many nations with a lot of gun control that are even more violent than us, such as Mexico and Russia, and also the costs of gun control that was followed by genocide against disarmed populations. Even in America (which also has a history of disarming certain groups to better persecute and sometimes annihilate them) gun control has made massacres worse, especially as the vast majority of them choose to carry out their rampages in Gun Free Zones (gun control).

And the reason CCW became popular was because of a doctor who normally carried a handgun but because the law forbid carrying it where alcohol was served she left it in her car when a madman came through and started shooting. Had she had her gun her parents would likely still be alive, as would so many others...similar to the difference made between the Appalachian School of Law shooting (a handful shot when students ran to their cars, came back, and confronted the shooter, stopping his rampage) to Virginia Tech (same state, about a hundred miles away, IIRC) which was one of the worst school shootings in our history, such is the difference when only a bad guy has a gun because the good guys are obeying bad laws. Other mass shootings have also been stopped by someone with a gun, though because such mass murderers typically target gun free zones it is rare. And when such a mad man is stopped then it's not big news because a good guy with a gun stopped him before it became worthy of a headline.

[Buffylo]

Your point? It completely ignores the fact that cancer, heart disease, automobiles, and medical malpractice kill exponentially more people per year than guns do. Yet we want to dump significantly more money into controling something that, per gun (as opposed to per heart, body, doctor, or car) kills far fewer people? Anyone can take and focus on one set of data and make an argument one way or the other. You fail to look at the whole picture.


Where are our yearly cancer screenings? Yearly heart checks? Zero tolerance for medical malpractice? Crackdown on drunk drivers getting back behind the wheel? Background checks for gun sales through all ffl dealers?


Oh wait, we have one of those already. Its the last one -_-

[dfiant]

Had she had her gun her parents would likely still be alive, as would so many others

if that 18 year old kid couldn't steal 3 semi automatic weapons from his 'law abiding' citizen mother, 20 parents would still have their 6 and 7 year old sons and daughters today.

Gun control isn't about taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizen, it's about law abiding citizens that have guns having the ability to restrict access to their firearms as most 'massacres' are committed by people who steal guns from law abiding citizens.

When people are saying guns controls, why do Americans get all defensive and only seem to hear 'BAN GUNS' when that is not what is being said, if that is what we meant we would be saying 'BAN GUNS' but we are saying controls to prevent semi automatics that fire off multiple rounds with the ability to harm and kill numerous people in seconds.

It's a terrible shame that people seem to think the only way to fight fire is with fire so lets be good people and carry guns so we can shoot bad people with guns when you can change the ways that guns are stored (IE a safe) and prevent the bad guys getting the guns in the first place and perhaps even prevent the shooters from dying by guns.

[dfiant]

Your point? It completely ignores the fact that cancer, heart disease, automobiles, and medical malpractice kill exponentially more people per year than guns do. Yet we want to dump significantly more money into controling something that, per gun (as opposed to per heart, body, doctor, or car) kills far fewer people? Anyone can take and focus on one set of data and make an argument one way or the other. You fail to look at the whole picture.


Where are our yearly cancer screenings? Yearly heart checks? Zero tolerance for medical malpractice? Crackdown on drunk drivers getting back behind the wheel? Background checks for gun sales through all ffl dealers?


Oh wait, we have one of those already. Its the last one -_-

I'm sorry, did the topic of the thread go from 'Guns and violence' to 'Guns, cancer, heart disease, autombiles, malpractice and violence'.

You see my logic is in a thread about guns and violence you discuss guns and violence. If you want to discuss anything else, start a new thread sunshine rather than take this thread off topic.

Yes I have a lot of opinions on cancer research, drink driving, heart checks, but if I was to engage you in anything but guns and violence it would be taking the thread off topic.

Could I suggest you consider a future in politics?

[Buffylo]

The thread topic has nothing to do with it. You are trying to demonize guns and make it out to be that that they (nothing more than mere tools) are a hefty threat to society. When presented examples of more looming threats, you still stand by the line that guns are a detrimental evil that are doing nothing but paving our streets with blood.

The point is, its not the guns that are causing this, it is the people. If we didnt have guns, we would still have prople killing... like the psychopath that pushed the Indian man in front of the subway train, or the man behind the bath school disaster, or Timothy McVeigh...

You are demonizing the wrong thing. Demonizing guns for homicide rates is akin to demonizing the engine construction in a car... that you never change the oil in!

Gun dont kill people, people kill people. Always has been true.