How many shootings in the U.S. per year is too many?

[John_Gault]

These men were moral absolutists, they believed that christian moral laws were universal. They were just too ignorant to realize that an African man was a human being.

If only you could have been born then... I am telling you, you could have set those ignorant cow ****ers straight!

Does your all-knowing arrogance know no bounds?

 

[DeeJayH]

This thread is about what people think is too much with regard to gun violence not control of guns or your right have guns.

IMVHO, you probably should have left out the 'cold dead hands' quote than
mmm, maybe, you think

 

[RightinNYC]

Some would argue that pornography is not free speech probably including the founding fathers right?

What does that have to do with my post? Do you understand my point?

(And to answer your question: Sure, some might agree, which is why many types of speech are subject to balancing tests)

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Well? How many?

Statistics, Facts and Quotes

FACT:In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S:


12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2008.

I think both your question and answers on this topic are a bit dishonest and extreme. I think it's obvious that nobody in this country (even hardcore gun people) celebrates gun deaths. This is the same kind of twisted logic that was used in the Bowling For Columbine movie (which was entertaining regardless). I think like Michael Moore you are trying to show some sort of a correlation between people who love guns and gun deaths in this country, as indicated by your "from my cold dead hands" answer option. I think the issue is far more complicated than that.

 

[Saboteur]

I think both your question and answers on this topic are a bit dishonest and extreme. I think it's obvious that nobody in this country (even hardcore gun people) celebrates gun deaths. This is the same kind of twisted logic that was used in the Bowling For Columbine movie (which was entertaining regardless). I think like Michael Moore you are trying to show some sort of a correlation between people who love guns and gun deaths in this country, as indicated by your "from my cold dead hands" answer option. I think the issue is far more complicated than that.

I think you should read more posts in this thread.

 

[Saboteur]

What does that have to do with my post? Do you understand my point?

(And to answer your question: Sure, some might agree, which is why many types of speech are subject to balancing tests)

What does free speech have to do with gun control or what you think is too much for shooting deaths?

Just want to get this back on topic. You were first to respond here and immeadiatly assumed it was about gun control, it is not. And so I entertained you all while you thought I took it seriously while really I'm laughing the whole time.

You really think what anyone here says to me on this little pustule of a website next to the asshole of the internet makes a difference?

Obviously not because if you did you'd be on topic.

 

[Saboteur]

Yes. You were whining.

:2bigcry:


None of that negates anything I said.
Its telling that you think that questioning your arguments and your knowledge of the subject as 'harassment'.


You believe that guns are for killing.
While they can be used for that, and that's why we have a right to own and use them, only the patently (or wilfully) ignorant believe that all they do is kill.
Never mind that killing people is a legitimate and legal use for a gun.


Denial -- it's the first step. Good to see you're making progress.

Wow you even answered your own post for me.

 

[Saboteur]

If only you could have been born then... I am telling you, you could have set those ignorant cow ****ers straight!

Does your all-knowing arrogance know no bounds?

No I guess not. TOT was a good teacher.

 

[RightinNYC]

What does free speech have to do with gun control or what you think is too much for shooting deaths?

It's an analogy designed to explain to you why your interpretation of the Second Amendment was misguided. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on that.

 

[Bodi]

Quite right.



Why interesting? It's a pretty simple concept. The gun was made to kill. The same as the Bow and Arrow. The same as the Spear. And men have used all these items through history to hunt for food. Everything has a negative. I believe I've already stated all of this. But if we are to condemn the gun because it is used to kill people, then why don't we condemn the Bow & Arrow, Spear, etc.? Hell, the slingshot sends a projectile down range as well. And when it comes to killing, Caan didn't need anything beyond his fists to off Abel.

I think if there's anything history has taught us it is that man is determined to kill man. No matter the tool and no matter the lack there of.

Interesting because I have no idea what the other uses could be, I guess there is target shooting, but that is not an original intention. I can honestly only think of those two uses. Are there others?

Originally Posted by GySgt
A gun is a gun and it has many uses. It's the idiot behind the gun that decides.

...And if Bow's and Arrows start to be used to kill people on any scale beyond isolated incidents, I will certainly condemn them as well.

If we ban those, then I am sure that rocks would be next.

 

[Panther]

I love guys like you that think you have a magic moral compass that would allow you to cast off your upbringing and the norm of society regardless of the fact that you weren't there... If only you could have been born 200 years ago and informed our fore fathers of the err of their ways.:roll:

If he can prove he isn't currently sleeping with livestock, I'm willing to accept his word that he wouldn't have 200 years ago either.

 

[Goobieman]

Just want to get this back on topic. You were first to respond here and immeadiatly assumed it was about gun control, it is not.

Ok then.. what is it about?

 

[Saboteur]

It's an analogy designed to explain to you why your interpretation of the Second Amendment was misguided. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on that.

Oh, I got it. I know full well now that the 2nd amendment is meant to mean the individual. Thanks.

 

[Panther]

Bottom Line: As long as there continues to be violent crime in this country, we aren't shooting enough people.

 

[Tucker Case]

After doing more research, I would like to change my answer that I gave. I now realize that 46,342 shootings per year is too many.

46,341 is OK, though. Do the math yourself.

 

[Panther]

The Justice Department estimates approximately 700,000 gang members in the US. Many say that estimate is as much as 200,000 low.

So at a minimum we need at least 700,000 shootings if we want to eliminate a major part of the problem. Of course, that's assuming we want to take of that part within a year. If we want to make it a 10 year plan, then the absolute minimum should be 70,000.

Either way, the only appropriate answer from the options given, would be the final one.

 

[Goobieman]

Originally Posted by Saboteur
Just want to get this back on topic. You were first to respond here and immeadiatly assumed it was about gun control, it is not.

Ok then.. what is it about?
:waiting:

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Ok then.. what is it about?
:waiting:

I've been wondering the same thing.

 

[Tucker Case]

The Justice Department estimates approximately 700,000 gang members in the US. Many say that estimate is as much as 200,000 low.

So at a minimum we need at least 700,000 shootings if we want to eliminate a major part of the problem. Of course, that's assuming we want to take of that part within a year. If we want to make it a 10 year plan, then the absolute minimum should be 70,000.

Either way, the only appropriate answer from the options given, would be the final one.

My calculations assumes that approximately 34% of all gangbangers would die from grief.

 

[Goobieman]

I've been wondering the same thing.

Oh, and where is CapC?
Why isnt he exposing the camouflage around Sab's thread so we can actually discuss what he want to discuss, rather than watching him try to spin things for a dozed or so of pages?

 

[Tucker Case]

Oh, and where is CapC?
Why isnt he exposing the camouflage around Sab's thread so we can actually discuss what he want to discuss, rather than watching him try to spin things for a dozed or so of pages?

Probably not necessary since it is clear that saboteur is not as skilled at setting logical traps as others around here are.

Perhaps his trap was sabotaged?

 

[Goobieman]

Perhaps his trap was sabotaged?

Well played, pirate.

 

[Saboteur]

Probably not necessary since it is clear that saboteur is not as skilled at setting logical traps as others around here are.

Perhaps his trap was sabotaged?

Allright I admit that the 'out of my cold dead hand' option was over the top.

Glad to see you voted 1 was too many.

 

[Saboteur]

Ok then.. what is it about?
:waiting:

Goobieman, Without the hyperbole, I'll ask you one to one.

How many shootings in the U.S. per year is too many?

 

[Saboteur]

Oh, and where is CapC?
Why isnt he exposing the camouflage around Sab's thread so we can actually discuss what he want to discuss, rather than watching him try to spin things for a dozed or so of pages?

Captain courtious doesn't like me either