GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Cynical Ninja]

Yeah we've seen it in here time and time again when someone picks great big holes in every post you make on a certain subject better to do your impression of the three wise monkeys and pretend it never happened.

Everyone can see it did though its recorded forever for posterity.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Thorough Background checks are a must, no short cuts, deviations of laws, no politics, no exceptions. However, background checks are only the beginning. Types of weapons is paramount. IMHO.


IMHO. Military mass assault type weapons are used in Military "warfare", so as to make one solider be able to kill as many of the enemy as possible. Logical rational.

The second amendment allows "civilians" to own weapons, if they were: six shot handgun, bolt action rifle, shotgun, no problem. The problem comes when "civilians" want and get mass assault weapons.

Many won't like this, but even a 9 mm with a15 up to 30 shot magazine could be considered a mass assault weapon.

Because there never is a time that comes when the killing of as many civilians is required, is there?
When a nut job gets/has a mass assault weapon, the consequence turns into a Batman movie massacre & or Newtown massacre. (Recient) (Unfortunately, there are many nut jobs out there, so don't make assult weapons easily available)

And there [bold underlined portion of your post] is the biggest problem cars. Gun owners know that once we give in there is no telling what will be next. Its the old give them a inch and they will take a mile. So because of that gun enthusiasts resist every law change, gun ban, background check that is proposed.

Look at it from our eyes. In the 30's we gave up full auto firearms like the tommy gun. Then in the late 60's guns we required to have a serial number and dealers are required to keep paperwork on every firearm sold.. Then in the late 80's the Brady bunch rammed the N.I.C.S system down our throat. Theeeen in the early 90's we choked on the "assault" weapons ban. It was just on big game of give and take. We gave and the gun grabbers took. None of the new rules did any good, but it did make the gun grabbers feel good. There are still full auto firearms on the market [Now full auto can be owned but only if the government gets their cash kickback, I mean tax stamp money. ] You can bypass the serial number law by simply building your own firearm and it is perfectly legal. The feds don't bother prosecuting those who violate the background check laws. And that "assault" weapons ban, well that did nothing to curb the number of semi auto rifles or their hi capacity magazines, in fact it was proven to be so useless that it was not reinstated and has ben shot down whenever it gets brought up.

I feel EVERY firearm law currently on the books should be stricken from the records and then and only then could we sit down and come up with a set of rules that might just work.

As far as the modern sporting rifles that every gun grabber loves to refer to as a "assault" weapon goes. As a competition shooter I do have a use for firearms that hold 15-30 rounds of ammo. As in many things in life, bigger is better and more is faster.
Lets look at this subject as if it was a auto discussion. Just because the speed limits are 65-70 mph and when those limits are exceeded there is a higher chance of fatality if a accident happens [plus many innocent people are at greater risk] should we ban or restrict all the cars that can exceed 70 mph? I don't think so myself. Just because the car has a larger engine and can do 140 mph does not mean that the operator will do it. Yes there will always be those people that will break the law and endanger those around them, but that does not mean that everyone that drives should be punished. Some people just like those fast cars because of their looks and would never risk breaking the law. Others, well they would break the law and risk others lives if they owned a Yugo.

(Just got back from getting my haircut, wow it's short!)


Yes F. U. Daa, you certainly do make many good valid points, and I agree with many of them. However, it seems like for every responsible gun enthusiast such as yourself, there are unfortunately many others who are not as responsible. I don't know how the problem can be solved, seems like there is no logical fix, that would appease all.

I don't see it that way at all. Yes there what I would call a Lot of irresponsible gun owners as evidenced by the number of killings accidental and illegal. However I will point out again that something under 1% of the gun crimes and accidents involve Licensed (and therefore responsible) gun owners. I can only think of a few (less than 5) incidences here in S Fla in the last few years that fit. Z is yet to be determined.
What I do see and the national statistics bear this out is that there are Millions of gun owners in this country, thats a 1 and 9 zeros, 270 million guns. Some portion of those are owned by criminals, haven't found a number on that yet. In 2008 there were some 11000 gun murders in the US.If the percentage of Licensed gun owners involved is 1% of that (not saying it is) then the number would be 110, I don't think its anywhere close to that.
All that said, its not the guns that are the problem, its the criminals.
With 45% of households owning firearms I think your statement should have read "For every irresponsible gun owner there are thousands of responsible owners"

[Maggot]

What the Gun shy people say is that if nobody had them then the nuts would not get them so easily from the responsible ones. The thinking is flawed. Where does personal responsibility come into play? Blame the individual not the collective.

[Duchess]

When our very lives are at the mercy of psychopaths, and we as a society decide to say, 'our personal liberties are more important than ensuring public safety', then I know it's just a numbers game as to who the next innocents mowed down will be.

Mind you, we've made sacrifices in our personal liberties when it comes to flying for instance.

If nothing changed after Newtown, it'll NEVER change.

Sacrifice all your personal liberties you want, it's still not safe to fly. Any time someone boards a plane you are doing nothing more than playing the odds.

Why should people who do the right thing pay for those that don't? So you'll be comfortable? I'm not speaking to you directly, that's a general you.

I don't like guns, I don't own one, I don't carry one but I do target practice every few weeks because that's the price I pay for them being in my home. I don't ever want to have to shoot anyone.

[Cynical Ninja]

Sacrifice all your personal liberties you want, it's still not safe to fly. Any time someone boards a plane you are doing nothing more than playing the odds.

I would say those “odds” have improved significantly since before 9/11. Many potential terrorists have been stopped from committing acts of terrorism thanks to the new improved security since ⁹⁄₁₁ the shoe bomber being just one example.

[Cynical Ninja]

There were 12,000 gun murders in the US in 2008 in Japan there were 11 gun murders in 2008.

Japan have extremely strict gun control laws.

But that's just a coincidence right?

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-...uns-2012-7

[Carsman]

Thread title says it all. "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?"

Answer: No guns don't kill people, "people" kill people.

People kill people, using cars, bats, knives, axes, poison, bare hands, rope, whatever, and even guns.

Only guns in the hands of the wrong "people" can kill people randomly, quickly, far away, and in large numbers.


It is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
By not knowing who are the wrong people, till it's too late. Background check is a stab at trying to weed out the wrong people. It is far from the answer.

[Jimbone]

Sacrifice all your personal liberties you want, it's still not safe to fly. Any time someone boards a plane you are doing nothing more than playing the odds.

I would say those “odds” have improved significantly since before 9/11. Many potential terrorists have been stopped from committing acts of terrorism thanks to the new improved security since ⁹⁄₁₁ the shoe bomber being just one example.

Ummm, the shoe AND underwear bombers both got on the plane with their devices.

They were unsuccessful because their devices malfunctioned, not because they were stopped due to increased security.

[sally]

It is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

They could have kept a gun out of George Zimmerman's hands had there been a law that you can't legally obtain a gun with a record of assaulting a police officer and being accused of domestic violence.

[username]

I just heard about this on the radio. Peachy...

So you’ve got the urge to send some rounds downrange, but you can’t shoot and don’t want to take the time to learn? Well, have I got the weapon for you! Meet the brand-new TrackingPoint weapons system, a so-called smart rifle that uses advanced sensing and imaging technology to turn any wealthy dilettante into an expert sharpshooter. Here’s NPR’s Matthew Dewey:

The rifle's scope features a sophisticated color graphics display. The shooter locks a laser on the target by pushing a small button by the trigger. It's like a video game. But here's where it's different: You pull the trigger but the gun decides when to shoot. It fires only when the weapon has been pointed in exactly the right place, taking into account dozens of variables, including wind, shake and distance to the target.
The rifle also incorporates technology that lets you record every shot and post that recording to YouTube or Facebook. It’s not clear whether the rifle also captions the recording for you, but, if not, here’s one you can use: “I used a real-life cheat code to make this tremendously difficult shot! Please shower me with your scorn, because I deserve it.”

Supposedly, someone with little to no gun experience can hit a target around 500 yards away. Great.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/06...n_gun.html

[Jimbone]

Supposedly, someone with little to no gun experience can hit a target around 500 yards away. Great.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/06...n_gun.html

No gun experience AND $22K for the system.

[sally]

That gun will be perfect for beginners who want to hunt deer and people driving under the expressway bridge.

[username]

Supposedly, someone with little to no gun experience can hit a target around 500 yards away. Great.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/06...n_gun.html

No gun experience AND $22K for the system.

The price is expected to drop. Remington is, I believe, considering a $5000 version.

[Jimbone]

That's still pretty expensive... but there will be a market I guess.

[username]

That's still pretty expensive... but there will be a market I guess.

And the technology will only improve.

[HairOfTheDog]

This is a good example of how guns can be used effectively for self-defense when police can't be there lickity split. Plus, it's a smile maker.



(CBS/AP) STANTON, Calif. - A 72-year-old Southern California woman said Tuesday she doesn't regret shooting at a man trying to break into her home to defend herself and her 85-year-old husband.

Jan Cooper, of Anaheim, fired one shot from her .357 revolver around 12:30 a.m. Sunday as a man attempted to break into her home. In a 911 call, Cooper begged with the dispatcher to send deputies and warned that she had a gun at the ready, as her Rottweiler barked in the background.

Minutes later, a breathless Cooper said the man had come to the back porch and was trying to get in the house through a sliding door.

Through the vertical blinds, Cooper saw his silhouette just inches away through the glass as he began to slide open the door.

"I'm firing!" Cooper shouted to the dispatcher as a loud bang went off.

According to CBS Los Angeles, Cooper said "Back up you son of a *****. Back up! Get out of here! Get the hell out of here! Get your butt out now!" The shouting was recorded on the 911 call.

Cooper's gun, which she has owned for about 20 years, was legally purchased and properly registered, he said.

"Even though that dog was barking, he still was desperate to get in. So who knows what may have happened if she didn't fire that round," Amormino said.

"I am a Christian woman and I'm very proud of it and I don't curse, but after I shot, rage took hold and I just blasted away," she said. "And, in fact, afterwards my husband said, `I've never heard you talk like that!"'

The stunned intruder apologized to Cooper after she fired, she recalled, telling her, "I'm sorry, ma'am. I'm leaving. Please don't shoot." (HOTD: He was arrested and has since pleaded not guilty to burglary charges; has a rap sheet for burglary.)

[Carsman]

It is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

They could have kept a gun out of George Zimmerman's hands had there been a law that you can't legally obtain a gun with a record of assaulting a police officer and being accused of domestic violence.

Clearly, he was/is "one of the wrong people". (Now too late, they know it)

[SIXFOOTERsez]

It is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

They could have kept a gun out of George Zimmerman's hands had there been a law that you can't legally obtain a gun with a record of assaulting a police officer and being accused of domestic violence.

While it may be that Z is the type to never have a weapon, Being accused of a crime is and should be a far and away different thing than Convicted of a crime.
I don't know what happened in either of those 2 incidences, but he can't have been convicted of either one.
Sad but true there are a Lot of people running around out there that were accused of DV by a pissed off, jealous, vindictive or just plain crazy significant other. Damn near happened to me.

Yet another part of out justice system, Innocent until proven guilty

[sally]

Well he was definitely arrested for pushing a cop and the domestic violence against the lady wasn't proven. If he was here from another country and applied for citizenship with that on his record, the assault on a cop would most likely get him booted out and the accusation of violence on the lady alone would be considered someone who doesn't show good moral character and it would take 5-10 years to get a citizenship assuming they have no other incidents during that time period. The same should be held for gun ownership.

[sally]

Sad but true there are a Lot of people running around out there that were accused of DV by a pissed off, jealous, vindictive or just plain crazy significant other. Damn near happened to me.

That's what they all say. If your ass is sitting in jail on a DV or battery, you definitely did something to get there. And on the slim chance you didn't, it's still your own damn fault for putting yourself in the situation in the first place.