You are assuming gun owners are idiots. Most people I know with guns are very safe and practice shooting at the range. Its personal responsibility. Most states require training classes before you can get your license so people DO get proper training.
The training is a joke. You basically go pay someone to give you permission to buy a gun. And even then it's only required in SOME states.
There are more stories of accidental gun injuries then there are of people stopping criminals with guns.
The training is a joke. You basically go pay someone to give you permission to buy a gun. And even then it's only required in SOME states.
There are more stories of accidental gun injuries then there are of people stopping criminals with guns.
Just because you're an idiot an accidentally shoot yourself doesn't mean that I will.
Same as..just because you eat at McDonalds every day doesn't mean that I will. Its all about personal responsibility and the majority of gun owners are very responsible people.
Unlike a gun a spoon PRIMARY use of function isn't to kill. It's utterly stupid to compare a knife, spoon, a car, a fucking plane, or any other tool with multiple functions to a gun because a gun's PRIMARY function is to KILL. You could use a knife to kill someone but knives are versatile tool and they have other functions besides killing and gutting things. A guns first and really only function is to kill. So the saying a gun doesn't kill people is stupid and asinine.
The arguments in the thread before you were about assault rifles and mass murderers. Just because one rich guy happens to be insane doesn't mean that 99.9% of the others are. He also didn't commit mass murder. He committed a single murder which he could have carried out with a knife or by choking someone so gun control is irrelevant.
is it worth the risk if one out of 1000 'rich guys' happens to be crazy? if there's a million millionaires (there's way more), that means 1000 of them could be crazy and very well armed
how do you feel about citizens owning grenades? they're not so 'expensive' that the average person couldn't afford a few
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Unlike a gun a spoon PRIMARY use of function isn't to kill. It's utterly stupid to compare a knife, spoon, a car, a fucking plane, or any other tool with multiple functions to a gun because a gun's PRIMARY function is to KILL. You could use a knife to kill someone but knives are versatile tool and they have other functions besides killing and gutting things. A guns first and really only function is to kill. So the saying a gun doesn't kill people is stupid and asinine.
A knife's original function was to KILL animals. Yes a gun CAN kill people. But it needs a catalyst. A gun itself cannot do anything. You can drop it from 1000ft and it wont kill anyone. The only way it kills is is a PERSON pulls the trigger. That means the PERSON is the one doing the killing. A gun is just a tool. A Person that wants to kill will find any tool needed that will get the job done. If a person wants to kill with no guns around, they will stab you. Or they will take a rock and beat you until you're dead. My argument is that being armed means you can PROTECT yourself against the crazy people whos INTENT is to kill you.
And as PolitiFact also noted, a National Academies of Sciences report in 2005 said current crime data doesn't allow policymakers to draw a conclusion one way or the other.
"The evidence to date does not adequately indicate either the sign or the magnitude of a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates," reads one conclusion in the report.
Is Hilton right?
About the numbers, yes. Violent crime has dropped during the same time period North Carolina has allowed citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits. However, that drop in crime is part of a national trend, and there's not good evidence that expanding concealed weapons laws has contributed to that drop in crime.
How about this. America has one of the highest concentrations of gun owners, and we also have one of the highest rates of gun violence. Shouldn't we have one of the lowest?
is it worth the risk if one out of 1000 'rich guys' happens to be crazy? if there's a million millionaires (there's way more), that means 1000 of them could be crazy and very well armed
how do you feel about citizens owning grenades? they're not so 'expensive' that the average person couldn't afford a few
Hand grenades are not guns so I won't argue this point.
These insane rich guys you speak of are the dictators like Egypt. They tried to kill their own people and the people rose up with the use of guns and protected themselves.
Just because you're an idiot an accidentally shoot yourself doesn't mean that I will.
Same as..just because you eat at McDonalds every day doesn't mean that I will. Its all about personal responsibility and the majority of gun owners are very responsible people.
Just because you are responsible and can handle a gun, doesn't mean that everybody is.
Like I said I don't advocate banning guns. But our current gun laws and regulations are a joke, and they need to be changed
How about this. America has one of the highest concentrations of gun owners, and we also have one of the highest rates of gun violence. Shouldn't we have one of the lowest?
Most of the gun violence is in liberal states with very tight gun controls such as CA, NY, MA. People are not armed here. In NH, which has very lax gun controls, there isn't as much violence. I wonder why....
A knife's original function was to KILL animals. Yes a gun CAN kill people. But it needs a catalyst. A gun itself cannot do anything. You can drop it from 1000ft and it wont kill anyone. The only way it kills is is a PERSON pulls the trigger. That means the PERSON is the one doing the killing. A gun is just a tool. A Person that wants to kill will find any tool needed that will get the job done. If a person wants to kill with no guns around, they will stab you. Or they will take a rock and beat you until you're dead. My argument is that being armed means you can PROTECT yourself against the crazy people whos INTENT is to kill you.
The difference is a guns sole purpose is to kill
If you use a gun correctly you are killing something. You'd have to use a rock or any other tool incorrectly in order to kill someone.
Most of the gun violence is in liberal states with very tight gun controls such as CA, NY, MA. People are not armed here. In NH, which has very lax gun controls, there isn't as much violence. I wonder why....
2. The South is the most violent region in the United States.
In a subsequent post, Healy drilled further into the numbers and looked at deaths due to assault in different regions of the country. Just as the United States is a clear outlier in the international context, the South is a clear outlier in the national context:
Quote:
5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:
“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”
Hand grenades are not guns so I won't argue this point.
well you made the argument that people should be able to have whatever weapon they can afford. how do you feel about m240's, larger mounted .50 cal machine guns, or something like a gau-8? should a citizen be able to purchase those?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A knife's original function was to KILL animals. Yes a gun CAN kill people. But it needs a catalyst. A gun itself cannot do anything. You can drop it from 1000ft and it wont kill anyone. The only way it kills is is a PERSON pulls the trigger. That means the PERSON is the one doing the killing. A gun is just a tool. A Person that wants to kill will find any tool needed that will get the job done. If a person wants to kill with no guns around, they will stab you. Or they will take a rock and beat you until you're dead. My argument is that being armed means you can PROTECT yourself against the crazy people whos INTENT is to kill you.
My argument is primarily that the main function of a gun is to kill. Notice how i use the word "function". I am fully recognizing that a gun is a tool whose primary use is to kill. You are ignoring why and how guns are used not me. Guns were created to kill, to dispatch adversaries as quickly and efficiently as possible. A rock has no function it's literally part of the earth, thus it is not comparable to a gun. No matter how you flip it the guns primary function is to kill, it's really that simple.
I believe Americans should have guns. I have no problem with it. My problem is how is easy it is to get one. It was more difficult to get my military records from the VA than it was to get my first gun. As long as someone doesn't have a criminal record and they're of age any Tom, ****, and Jane can get a gun. That's the problem.
400Daps
Link?
