The Inescapable Reality of Murder and guns [W:176]

1) Guns DO NOT cause murder. It doesn't matter how many statistics are put up, this is simply a fact. Tools cannot cause murder. It doesn't have the ability to make that decision.

Now. Are you going to say...of course not. But HAVING a gun...no. Sorry. Owning a gun does not make you commit murder. How do we know this? How many owners of firearms are out there? And how many murders? Divide the murders by the number of owners and multiply by 100. You get what? .02%? So you are telling me that because .02% of a group commit a specific act with a specific tool, that that tool what caused the act? Even that 99.98% of the rest of the group did not? I know. Clunky. But you get the point?

And finally. Is that just completely off base? Is it access that causes murders? We actually live in the United States. YOU can go buy a gun. If it were access...why do we have so few murders? We have 310 million of people who have access? Why don't we have more murders? Hell. Why haven't you gone out and killed someone yet?

blackjack50 said:

1) Guns DO NOT cause murder. It doesn't matter how many statistics are put up, this is simply a fact. Tools cannot cause murder. It doesn't have the ability to make that decision.

Now. Are you going to say...of course not. But HAVING a gun...no. Sorry. Owning a gun does not make you commit murder. How do we know this? How many owners of firearms are out there? And how many murders? Divide the murders by the number of owners and multiply by 100. You get what? .02%? So you are telling me that because .02% of a group commit a specific act with a specific tool, that that tool what caused the act? Even that 99.98% of the rest of the group did not? I know. Clunky. But you get the point?

And finally. Is that just completely off base? Is it access that causes murders? We actually live in the United States. YOU can go buy a gun. If it were access...why do we have so few murders? We have 310 million of people who have access? Why don't we have more murders? Hell. Why haven't you gone out and killed someone yet?

Click to expand...

Well Done:applaud

blackjack50 said:

1) Guns DO NOT cause murder. It doesn't matter how many statistics are put up, this is simply a fact. Tools cannot cause murder. It doesn't have the ability to make that decision.

Now. Are you going to say...of course not. But HAVING a gun...no. Sorry. Owning a gun does not make you commit murder. How do we know this? How many owners of firearms are out there? And how many murders? Divide the murders by the number of owners and multiply by 100. You get what? .02%? So you are telling me that because .02% of a group commit a specific act with a specific tool, that that tool what caused the act? Even that 99.98% of the rest of the group did not? I know. Clunky. But you get the point?

And finally. Is that just completely off base? Is it access that causes murders? We actually live in the United States. YOU can go buy a gun. If it were access...why do we have so few murders? We have 310 million of people who have access? Why don't we have more murders? Hell. Why haven't you gone out and killed someone yet?

Click to expand...

Nicely argued. :applaud

I wonder, what the answer back might be.

blackjack50 said:

1) Guns DO NOT cause murder. It doesn't matter how many statistics are put up, this is simply a fact. Tools cannot cause murder. It doesn't have the ability to make that decision.

Now. Are you going to say...of course not. But HAVING a gun...no. Sorry. Owning a gun does not make you commit murder. How do we know this? How many owners of firearms are out there? And how many murders? Divide the murders by the number of owners and multiply by 100. You get what? .02%? So you are telling me that because .02% of a group commit a specific act with a specific tool, that that tool what caused the act? Even that 99.98% of the rest of the group did not? I know. Clunky. But you get the point?

And finally. Is that just completely off base? Is it access that causes murders? We actually live in the United States. YOU can go buy a gun. If it were access...why do we have so few murders? We have 310 million of people who have access? Why don't we have more murders? Hell. Why haven't you gone out and killed someone yet?

Click to expand...

Guns don't kill people. I agree. But killing 4 people without one is much more complicated. Thus the need for legislation aiming to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of potentialy dangerous people. Grenades don't kill people either, why can't you buy one ?

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Some "tools" (a lot of guns are not used as tools, but as toys) are too dangerous to be available to the public.

Owning a gun does not make you a murderer, but a murderer with a gun can satisfy his desire to kill by simply squeezing a trigger. When a teenager shoots up a school, are we supposed to just sigh and go : "Well, **** happens" ? Shouldn't we find ways to reduce access of lethal weapons to unstable people ? The answer is, for me, obvious.

The Inescapable Reality of Murder and guns

Cisero said:

Guns don't kill people. I agree. But killing 4 people without one is much more complicated. Thus the need for legislation aiming to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of potentialy dangerous people. Grenades don't kill people either, why can't you buy one ?

Click to expand...

You can. You simply have to have the right license. You don't have a right to grenades either (ordinance).

And finally...so it makes it "easier" to kill? It also makes it easier to defend. Let me ask...how often are people killing 4 or more in a single incident? And since it is so easy why don't more people do it?

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Some "tools" (a lot of guns are not used as tools, but as toys) are too dangerous to be available to the public.

Click to expand...

Really? So those "toys" you are talking about? How many are owned? How many are used to commit murder? Are we talking about weapons that are used significantly less than .02% of the time? How is it "too dangerous" when we as a society have demonstrated that we correctly use them 99.98% of the time?

Owning a gun does not make you a murderer, but a murderer with a gun can satisfy his desire to kill by simply squeezing a trigger.

Click to expand...

Or by stabbing someone. Or by strangling. Furthermore, a little woman who has no desire to BE killed can simply defend herself with the squeeze of a trigger. And since you are concerned about murderers, can you tell me how often a lawful gun owner commits murder? And what % is that's?

When a teenager shoots up a school, are we supposed to just sigh and go : "Well, **** happens" ? Shouldn't we find ways to reduce access of lethal weapons to unstable people ? The answer is, for me, obvious.

Click to expand...

I bolded the only qualification you made that matters. We DO that. Perhaps we could do better? And the current propositions for more control do not do that. They remove the word "unstable." They unfairly punish a group that has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are more than responsible.

If the problem is "unstable" then we should figure out a way to target "unstable."

blackjack50 said:

You can. You simply have to have the right license. You don't have a right to grenades either (ordinance).
And finally...so it makes it "easier" to kill? It also makes it easier to defend. Let me ask...how often are people killing 4 or more in a single incident? And since it is so easy why don't more people do it?

Click to expand...

Because a select few people want to commit murder maybe ? There are countless mass shootings. Granted when you look at a larger scale the numbers look small. However, even if there is a very very very small risk anyone will be involved in a shooting, we still have to do our best to try & prevent them.

Really? So those "toys" you are talking about? How many are owned? How many are used to commit murder? Are we talking about weapons that are used significantly less than .02% of the time? How is it "too dangerous" when we as a society have demonstrated that we correctly use them 99.98% of the time?

Click to expand...

I agree, the numbers are low when put to scale. However, the fact that most gunowners are responsible does not justify a laissez-faire attitude. .02% is still too much.

Or by stabbing someone. Or by strangling.

Click to expand...

I doubt the Paris attacks would have been as successful if the terrorists were armed with knifes.

Furthermore, a little woman who has no desire to BE killed can simply defend herself with the squeeze of a trigger.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm all for guns in the hands of responsible, sane & trained people.

And since you are concerned about murderers, can you tell me how often a lawful gun owner commits murder? And what % is that's?

Click to expand...

I'm not interested in searching for that number, because it doesn't matter if the number is 10%, 1%, 0.1% or 0.001%. No number, no matter how small, can justify a murder that could've been prevented with better BGC.

I bolded the only qualification you made that matters. We DO that. And current propositions do not do that. They remove the word "unstable." They unfairly punish a group that has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are more than responsible.

Click to expand...

How is the group punished ?

If the problem is "unstable" then we should figure out a way to target "unstable."

Click to expand...

I agree. The problem is the unstable, sick people & how they get their hands on firearms.

Cisero said:

Guns don't kill people. I agree. But killing 4 people without one is much more complicated. Thus the need for legislation aiming to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of potentialy dangerous people. Grenades don't kill people either, why can't you buy one ?

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Some "tools" (a lot of guns are not used as tools, but as toys) are too dangerous to be available to the public.

Owning a gun does not make you a murderer, but a murderer with a gun can satisfy his desire to kill by simply squeezing a trigger. When a teenager shoots up a school, are we supposed to just sigh and go : "Well, **** happens" ? Shouldn't we find ways to reduce access of lethal weapons to unstable people ? The answer is, for me, obvious.

Click to expand...

More complicated? The boys in Boston had no problem finding a pressure cooker that could do the job just fine and at a far cheaper price to boot.

Cisero said:

Because a select few people want to commit murder maybe ? There are countless mass shootings. Granted when you look at a larger scale the numbers look small. However, even if there is a very very very small risk anyone will be involved in a shooting, we still have to do our best to try & prevent them.

Click to expand...

The numbers ARE small compared to the larger scale. Now understanding that, let me ask, are you willing to do ALL that is necessary? Why don't we just track everyone's phones? Have mandatory drug and mental health screenings for all citizens? Post up trained and armed security at all potential targets? How much freedom do you want to give up for security?

As you said, a select few people want to commit murder. Let's punish them.

I agree, the numbers are low when put to scale. However, the fact that most gunowners are responsible does not justify a laissez-faire attitude. .02% is still too much.

Click to expand...

Who is being laissez faire? Current laws go unenforced. It seems like the government has the problem. Not us owners. I'm not the problem. Why don't we look at personality disorders? Or our drug laws?

I doubt the Paris attacks would have been as successful if the terrorists were armed with knifes.

Click to expand...

Paris was a disarmed society. And their attacks would have been more successful with bombs or planes. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...

Agreed, I'm all for guns in the hands of responsible, sane & trained people.

Click to expand...

Trained by who? Government training is a joke. Just ask the NYPD about their favorite sport of bystander shooting. Fact is that regular citizens have demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with numbers far exceeding any qualification you might set as far as % is concerned. The general population does not have a problem.

As far as "sane?" Why don't you target those who are not?

I'm not interested in searching for that number, because it doesn't matter if the number is 10%, 1%, 0.1% or 0.001%. No number, no matter how small, can justify a murder that could've been prevented with better BGC.

Click to expand...

Then why not improve our background check system? Or better yet? Why not punish those who fail? Did you know The newtown shooter failed a background check. Do you know what happened after that? NOTHING.

Furthermore...did you know that background checks are usurped by straw purchases? What good are more when the ones used don't do anything?

How is the group punished ?

Click to expand...

You don't consider having an undue burden place on a constitutional right to be punishment?

I

agree. The problem is the unstable, sick people & how they get their hands on firearms.

Click to expand...

So go after the unstable people?

blackjack50 said:

The numbers ARE small compared to the larger scale. Now understanding that, let me ask, are you willing to do ALL that is necessary? Why don't we just track everyone's phones? Have mandatory drug and mental health screenings for all citizens? Post up trained and armed security at all potential targets? How much freedom do you want to give up for security?

As you said, a select few people want to commit murder. Let's punish them.



Who is being laissez faire? Current laws go unenforced. It seems like the government has the problem. Not us owners. I'm not the problem. Why don't we look at personality disorders? Or our drug laws?



Paris was a disarmed society. And their attacks would have been more successful with bombs or planes. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...




Trained by who? Government training is a joke. Just ask the NYPD about their favorite sport of bystander shooting. Fact is that regular citizens have demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with numbers far exceeding any qualification you might set as far as % is concerned. The general population does not have a problem.

As far as "sane?" Why don't you target those who are not?



Then why not improve our background check system? Or better yet? Why not punish those who fail? Did you know The newtown shooter failed a background check. Do you know what happened after that? NOTHING.

Furthermore...did you know that background checks are usurped by straw purchases? What good are more when the ones used don't do anything?




You don't consider having an undue burden place on a constitutional right to be punishment?

I

So go after the unstable people?

Click to expand...

I agree with you pretty much 95%. Of course, the right to privacy & freedom shouldn't be infringed unless we have proof or a valid suspicion of an immediate threat. What can be considered a valid suspicion is a very complex subject that we should address (but not in this thread).

Yes, enforce the laws. Give a better training to gunowners. Go after the unstable people. Better background check & punishement for those who fail (forbiding the person to acquire a gun for a certain amount of time maybe?). Go after the unstable people.

You don't consider having an undue burden place on a constitutional right to be punishment?

Click to expand...

Justifying your sanity & good intentions in order to obtain a weapon designed to harm/kill is, IMO, not a punishement but a logical requirement.

Casper said:

More complicated? The boys in Boston had no problem finding a pressure cooker that could do the job just fine and at a far cheaper price to boot.

Click to expand...

So why aren't more people using bombs ?

Cisero said:

So why aren't more people using bombs ?

Click to expand...

They aren't? Why would criminals use bombs they already have guns and your laws mean Nothing to them, if you did not know that.

Casper said:

They aren't? Why would criminals use bombs they already have guns and your laws mean Nothing to them, if you did not know that.

Click to expand...

"Criminals don't obey the law" is pretty much the stupidest argument in existence. What is the purpose of a law if "criminals don't obey the law" ? Think about it for a little, tiny moment.

Cisero said:

"Criminals don't obey the law" is pretty much the stupidest argument in existence. What is the purpose of a law if "criminals don't obey the law" ? Think about it for a little, tiny moment.

Click to expand...

It is called dealing with Reality. We already have laws against what criminals do, your brand of gun laws would change nothing with them but would only punish those that obey the law, think about that.

Cisero said:

I agree with you pretty much 95%. Of course, the right to privacy & freedom shouldn't be infringed unless we have proof or a valid suspicion of an immediate threat. What can be considered a valid suspicion is a very complex subject that we should address (but not in this thread).

Yes, enforce the laws. Give a better training to gunowners. Go after the unstable people. Better background check & punishement for those who fail (forbiding the person to acquire a gun for a certain amount of time maybe?). Go after the unstable people.

Click to expand...

I am a firm believer in making training available, but not mandatory. I personally would not seek out additional training unless it is to improve certain abilities I have. I don't need a safety course. That was my father and his rigid discipline on the topic. But some people might. And that is great.

What we could use is a targeted license change where all information on the driver's license is visible. You can't buy a gun? Show it in the license. as for better BGCs, we have a great system, and we need better detection methods.

Justifying your sanity & good intentions in order to obtain a weapon designed to harm/kill is, IMO, not a punishement but a logical requirement.

Click to expand...

Why should I have to justify my sanity? Why shouldn't the burden be on the government to prove my insanity? It is this way with every other issue. Innocent until proven guilty.

blackjack50 said:

1) Guns DO NOT cause murder. It doesn't matter how many statistics are put up, this is simply a fact. Tools cannot cause murder. It doesn't have the ability to make that decision.

Now. Are you going to say...of course not. But HAVING a gun...no. Sorry. Owning a gun does not make you commit murder. How do we know this? How many owners of firearms are out there? And how many murders? Divide the murders by the number of owners and multiply by 100. You get what? .02%? So you are telling me that because .02% of a group commit a specific act with a specific tool, that that tool what caused the act? Even that 99.98% of the rest of the group did not? I know. Clunky. But you get the point?

And finally. Is that just completely off base? Is it access that causes murders? We actually live in the United States. YOU can go buy a gun. If it were access...why do we have so few murders? We have 310 million of people who have access? Why don't we have more murders? Hell. Why haven't you gone out and killed someone yet?

Click to expand...

If you saw a group of ten year olds out in a nearby field running around shooting at each other with real guns what would you do?

blackjack50 said:

1) Guns DO NOT cause murder. It doesn't matter how many statistics are put up, this is simply a fact. Tools cannot cause murder. It doesn't have the ability to make that decision.

Now. Are you going to say...of course not. But HAVING a gun...no. Sorry. Owning a gun does not make you commit murder. How do we know this? How many owners of firearms are out there? And how many murders? Divide the murders by the number of owners and multiply by 100. You get what? .02%? So you are telling me that because .02% of a group commit a specific act with a specific tool, that that tool what caused the act? Even that 99.98% of the rest of the group did not? I know. Clunky. But you get the point?

And finally. Is that just completely off base? Is it access that causes murders? We actually live in the United States. YOU can go buy a gun. If it were access...why do we have so few murders? We have 310 million of people who have access? Why don't we have more murders? Hell. Why haven't you gone out and killed someone yet?

Click to expand...

Stats are great, aren't they? We have the highest rate of gun violence of any western culture. How's that for a stat?

Cisero said:

Guns don't kill people. I agree. But killing 4 people without one is much more complicated. Thus the need for legislation aiming to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of potentialy dangerous people. Grenades don't kill people either, why can't you buy one ?

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Some "tools" (a lot of guns are not used as tools, but as toys) are too dangerous to be available to the public.

Owning a gun does not make you a murderer, but a murderer with a gun can satisfy his desire to kill by simply squeezing a trigger. When a teenager shoots up a school, are we supposed to just sigh and go : "Well, **** happens" ? Shouldn't we find ways to reduce access of lethal weapons to unstable people ? The answer is, for me, obvious.

Click to expand...

No it's not. Of the top 10 highest body count mass murders, only 3 were committed with guns. Va Tech at 6th is the highest count (32) gun related incident. Other far more deadly weaspons include box cutters, fire, fertilizer, bombs, airplanes.

If you want to make a statement and go down with the ship, choose guns. If your goal is to take out large numbers and get by with it, choose something else.

jimbo said:

No it's not. Of the top 10 highest body count mass murders, only 3 were committed with guns. Va Tech at 6th is the highest count (32) gun related incident. Other far more deadly weaspons include box cutters, fire, fertilizer, bombs, airplanes.

If you want to make a statement and go down with the ship, choose guns. If your goal is to take out large numbers and get by with it, choose something else.

Click to expand...

Does the total of bombs, fertilizers, box cutters, airplanes, etc exceed 30,000 a year? Every year?

domer76 said:

Does the total of bombs, fertilizers, box cutters, airplanes, etc exceed 30,000 a year? Every year?

Click to expand...

That wasn't Ciseros statement.

domer76 said:

Does the total of bombs, fertilizers, box cutters, airplanes, etc exceed 30,000 a year? Every year?

Click to expand...

No, it was yours.

Cisero said:

"Criminals don't obey the law" is pretty much the stupidest argument in existence. What is the purpose of a law if "criminals don't obey the law" ? Think about it for a little, tiny moment.

Click to expand...

the purpose is to incapacitate them when they violate the law

why do Gun banners want to pass laws that only apply to people who are presently NOT causing any problems?

Registration-only impacts people without records

Magazine limits, and specific type gun bans-only impact people who can own guns legally

What sort of laws do you want?

domer76 said:

Stats are great, aren't they? We have the highest rate of gun violence of any western culture. How's that for a stat?

Click to expand...

that's false if you count countries like Russia

BTW why is it that white Americans-who have the highest rate of lawful gun ownership in the free world, don't have any higher rates of gun violence than whites living in countries with silly gun control laws like England?

TurtleDude said:

that's false if you count countries like Russia

BTW why is it that white Americans-who have the highest rate of lawful gun ownership in the free world, don't have any higher rates of gun violence than whites living in countries with silly gun control laws like England?

Click to expand...

Great spin on race. It never ceases to amaze me the hoops gun violence apologists jump through to rationalize their indefensible positions.

domer76 said:

Great spin on race. It never ceases to amaze me the hoops gun violence apologists jump through to rationalize their indefensible positions.

Click to expand...

actually its the Bannites who have indefensible positions. None of the proposed anti gun schemes the Democrats propose has any hope of doing anything to reduce violent crime

and the second amendment is a constitutional right. Sorry, that is a pretty ironclad Defensible position.

and we aren't fooled by the lies that Bannites spew. Its all about pretending to do something about crime without actually upsetting the groups that produce most of our criminals. and its also about harassing people liberals don' t like-Conservative white males who are perceived to be the backbone of the NRA

TurtleDude said:

that's false if you count countries like Russia

BTW why is it that white Americans-who have the highest rate of lawful gun ownership in the free world, don't have any higher rates of gun violence than whites living in countries with silly gun control laws like England?

Click to expand...

That is the big elephant in the room for the liberal gun debate? All of a sudden, it's not about race.