How many innocent lives are your guns worth?

[ASMALLVOICE]

Guns have and will always be here. You take 300+ million people in this country and we lose more people on the highway than we will ever lose from gunfire, whether intentionally done or by accident.
The percentages of what we are discussing are so miniscule in comparison to daily deaths from everything else that the only reason this is debated with so much intensity is because the main stain media keeps hyping all this gun violence constantly. If they would report everything that kills people verbatim, we would forget about gun violence in a huge hurry.

More people are killed daily from under maintained 18 wheelers than gun fire. What about sickness, diseases, abortions, suicide and any other of the 1000's of ways there are to be dispatched?
If they started harping on semi truck incidents like they are gun violence, we would be bashing the truck drivers instead of gun owners and lobbyists, sad but true.

Know Guns = Know Peace
No Guns = No Peace

Asmallvoice

 

[Dr Kynes]

Boy, 15 slain by Nunchuks!

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1808234.boy_15_killed_with_nunchucks_at_halloween_party/

we must do something to curb this rash of ninja violence!

in britain, where gunsa are essentially banned, an MDK'er was able to MDK a lad with his Assault Nunchuks.

despite being ALREADY illegal, we need to do more.

Thats right, new legislation demanding 30 years at hard labour for anyone who possesses uses or manufactures Nunchuks.

we must reduce the number of Assault Chucks in the Nunchuk magazine to no more than ONE.

This will ensure that never again will britain be ripped apart by the spectre of ninja crime

if a ninja is going to commit a crime, he had best separate hus Nunchucks into two, reducing them to the safer, and more "common sense" weapon, the Chuk.

if somebody is gonna get beat to death in britain, let the killer do it with a good british Stick, not those dangerous and evil oriental Weapons Of Death.

Nunchuks.

along with switchblades they are the MOST regulated and banned "weapons" on the planet.

theres more laws banning rice flails than there are prohibiting the private construction and ownership of nuclear devices.

and in the entire history of the interwebs this is the FIRST case of "death By Nunchuk" i have been able to find.

how many innocent lives are your Nunchuk Rights worth?

 

[Canna Connoiseur]

Either way you look at it people will die. I hear that more people die every year from pen caps than guns. I am sure like 90% of those fatalities are children. Outlaw pen caps!!!

Stats please? And again with the comparison - it goes something like this.


the improper use of X causes death, therefore X should be outlawed - as though somewhere there is a thread of reason in the comparison.

It was supposed to show a comparison between guns and other things that kill people. And make it seem stupid to outlaw one over another. And how stupid it sounds to outlaw pen caps. I think the exact figure is only 100 deaths for pen caps though. Look it up. I am not citing my resources. It is an easy search. So you are right but like wtf who cares about statistics when statistics don't matter.

 

[CrescentFresh]

Except that magazine restrictions are not infringements on the right to keep and bear.

except they are. it's not the governments job to tell me how many bullets i can shoot out of one magazine

 

[Doer]

Except that magazine restrictions are not infringements on the right to keep and bear.

Just be reasonable we want to screw gun owners not Jews

Be reasonable

 

[st0wandgrow]

How would you implement gun control? You could be a pioneer in actually explaining logistics if you can pull it off.

OK

First, let me say that I have no interest in punishing lawful gun owners. Second, I don't feel that there is any legislation that could be passed that would prevent a nutter like Adam Lanza from shooting up a school.

So, IMO, there should be a mandatory screening process any time a person buys/acquires/takes possession of a gun. No exceptions. Criteria needs to be set in place as to who is, and who isn't allowed to own a firearm (ie someone convicted of a violent felony). There should also be mandatory training involved if you wish to carry your gun, with mandatory classes to be taken every year or so. If people want to carry in public, they should be able to show some proficiency in the use of that gun, and an understanding of the laws. There should also be a registration process for all firearms. I understand the slippery slope involved in this, but the goal here should be to weed out the criminals, not punish the law abiding gun owners. Sentences should be EXTREMELY stiff for anyone caught with a gun that does not belong to them. Straight to prison, minimum mandatory 5 year sentence just for possession of the gun. This to me is where legislation could have the biggest positive impact. Perhaps a young kid will think twice about carrying around a stolen gun if he knows the severity of the penalty.

Outside of that, I don't see much else that would be effective. Limiting the types of guns, and the capacity of the magazines is a bit trivial, imo. I personally don't see the need for a citizen to own an automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, but if the person is a law abiding gun owner, then I feel his/her right to own said weapons outweighs the potential societal benefit of any laws limiting the types of guns he/she could own.

 

[CrescentFresh]

OK

First, let me say that I have no interest in punishing lawful gun owners. Second, I don't feel that there is any legislation that could be passed that would prevent a nutter like Adam Lanza from shooting up a school.

So, IMO, there should be a mandatory screening process any time a person buys/acquires/takes possession of a gun. No exceptions. Criteria needs to be set in place as to who is, and who isn't allowed to own a firearm (ie someone convicted of a violent felony). There should also be mandatory training involved if you wish to carry your gun, with mandatory classes to be taken every year or so. If people want to carry in public, they should be able to show some proficiency in the use of that gun, and an understanding of the laws. There should also be a registration process for all firearms. I understand the slippery slope involved in this, but the goal here should be to weed out the criminals, not punish the law abiding gun owners. Sentences should be EXTREMELY stiff for anyone caught with a gun that does not belong to them. Straight to prison, minimum mandatory 5 year sentence just for possession of the gun. This to me is where legislation could have the biggest positive impact. Perhaps a young kid will think twice about carrying around a stolen gun if he knows the severity of the penalty.

Outside of that, I don't see much else that would be effective. Limiting the types of guns, and the capacity of the magazines is a bit trivial, imo. I personally don't see the need for a citizen to own an automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, but if the person is a law abiding gun owner, then I feel his/her right to own said weapons outweighs the potential societal benefit of any laws limiting the types of guns he/she could own.

geez happy this guy doesn't make drug sentances....... 5 years for an inanimate object....

 

[canndo]

Guns have and will always be here. You take 300+ million people in this country and we lose more people on the highway than we will ever lose from gunfire, whether intentionally done or by accident.
The percentages of what we are discussing are so miniscule in comparison to daily deaths from everything else that the only reason this is debated with so much intensity is because the main stain media keeps hyping all this gun violence constantly. If they would report everything that kills people verbatim, we would forget about gun violence in a huge hurry.

More people are killed daily from under maintained 18 wheelers than gun fire. What about sickness, diseases, abortions, suicide and any other of the 1000's of ways there are to be dispatched?
If they started harping on semi truck incidents like they are gun violence, we would be bashing the truck drivers instead of gun owners and lobbyists, sad but true.

Know Guns = Know Peace
No Guns = No Peace

Asmallvoice

10.1 gun deaths per 100,000 in the U.S. (2009)

11.7 auto related deaths in the U.S. (2009)


Now this would not be an accurate representation for a normal argument EXCEPT that what you said was "by accident or intentionally".

Better update that argument ASMALLVOICE.

 

[st0wandgrow]

geez happy this guy doesn't make drug sentances....... 5 years for an inanimate object....

Drug sentences wouldn't exist if I called the shots. The government has no right telling me what I can ingest. If my actions cause no harm to others, then it should be none of their business.

A gun, by design, is meant to kill another human. A stolen gun is not only designed to kill another another human, but it is now in the hands of someone who has no regard for the law. Straight to prison, imo.

I thought you gun-nuts wanted to punish the "bad guys"??

 

[Mindmelted]

OK

First, let me say that I have no interest in punishing lawful gun owners. Second, I don't feel that there is any legislation that could be passed that would prevent a nutter like Adam Lanza from shooting up a school.

So, IMO, there should be a mandatory screening process any time a person buys/acquires/takes possession of a gun. No exceptions. Criteria needs to be set in place as to who is, and who isn't allowed to own a firearm (ie someone convicted of a violent felony). There should also be mandatory training involved if you wish to carry your gun, with mandatory classes to be taken every year or so. If people want to carry in public, they should be able to show some proficiency in the use of that gun, and an understanding of the laws. There should also be a registration process for all firearms. I understand the slippery slope involved in this, but the goal here should be to weed out the criminals, not punish the law abiding gun owners. Sentences should be EXTREMELY stiff for anyone caught with a gun that does not belong to them. Straight to prison, minimum mandatory 5 year sentence just for possession of the gun. This to me is where legislation could have the biggest positive impact. Perhaps a young kid will think twice about carrying around a stolen gun if he knows the severity of the penalty.

Outside of that, I don't see much else that would be effective. Limiting the types of guns, and the capacity of the magazines is a bit trivial, imo. I personally don't see the need for a citizen to own an automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, but if the person is a law abiding gun owner, then I feel his/her right to own said weapons outweighs the potential societal benefit of any laws limiting the types of guns he/she could own.

The criminals do not get thier guns the legal way so what the fuck is that going to do!
Nothing but keep guns outta of the good guys hands,Sounds retarded to me.

 

[Mindmelted]

Drug sentences wouldn't exist if I called the shots. The government has no right telling me what I can ingest. If my actions cause no harm to others, then it should be none of their business.

A gun, by design, is meant to kill another human. A stolen gun is not only designed to kill another another human, but it is now in the hands of someone who has no regard for the law. Straight to prison, imo.

I thought you gun-nuts wanted to punish the "bad guys"??

Just like they dont have the right to tell me how many rounds my GUNS can hold.

 

[canndo]

OK

First, let me say that I have no interest in punishing lawful gun owners. Second, I don't feel that there is any legislation that could be passed that would prevent a nutter like Adam Lanza from shooting up a school.

So, IMO, there should be a mandatory screening process any time a person buys/acquires/takes possession of a gun. No exceptions. Criteria needs to be set in place as to who is, and who isn't allowed to own a firearm (ie someone convicted of a violent felony). There should also be mandatory training involved if you wish to carry your gun, with mandatory classes to be taken every year or so. If people want to carry in public, they should be able to show some proficiency in the use of that gun, and an understanding of the laws. There should also be a registration process for all firearms. I understand the slippery slope involved in this, but the goal here should be to weed out the criminals, not punish the law abiding gun owners. Sentences should be EXTREMELY stiff for anyone caught with a gun that does not belong to them. Straight to prison, minimum mandatory 5 year sentence just for possession of the gun. This to me is where legislation could have the biggest positive impact. Perhaps a young kid will think twice about carrying around a stolen gun if he knows the severity of the penalty.

Outside of that, I don't see much else that would be effective. Limiting the types of guns, and the capacity of the magazines is a bit trivial, imo. I personally don't see the need for a citizen to own an automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, but if the person is a law abiding gun owner, then I feel his/her right to own said weapons outweighs the potential societal benefit of any laws limiting the types of guns he/she could own.

State or Federal evaluation? Who develops the criteria? You don't see a host of problems here? Federal intercession at the purchasing level? Or should it be state,suppose the state are different and someone wants to cross state lines with a gun that is legal in one state and illegal in another.

Manditory classes could conflict with the 2nd as an infringement.

On the subject of registration - Why? registration will make it impossible for a citizen to own a weapon without someone knowing he does and that is fraught with problems.

Most of the mass shooters were not criminals but insane people. Now who are you going to get to determine which set of mental disorders are allowable and which are not. What you are in essence saying is that there will be a body of people - likely governmental on some level who will determine who is "eligible" to have their Constitutional rights - and who is not.

 

[CrescentFresh]

Drug sentences wouldn't exist if I called the shots. The government has no right telling me what I can ingest. If my actions cause no harm to others, then it should be none of their business.

A gun, by design, is meant to kill another human. A stolen gun is not only designed to kill another another human, but it is now in the hands of someone who has no regard for the law. Straight to prison, imo.

I thought you gun-nuts wanted to punish the "bad guys"??

what??? a gun is designed to fire a projectile. A stolen gun is still only designed to fire a projectile. Since i cause no harm to others I should be able to buy guns the way I have been.

 

[st0wandgrow]

The criminals do not get thier guns the legal way so what the fuck is that going to do!
Nothing but keep guns outta of the good guys hands,Sounds retarded to me.

Are you a law abiding gun owner?

If so, how would any of what I proposed negatively affect you? Keep in mind that I have no interest in limiting the types of guns, or how much ammo a law abiding gun owner can have.

 

[canndo]

except they are. it's not the governments job to tell me how many bullets i can shoot out of one magazine

Except that they actually are. The government either has that right now or it can usurp it. There is nothing in the Constitution about magazines and capacity. What the gun toters are failing to grasp is if they don't get on board, if they opt only to be obstinate and claim that theirs is the only right not subject to any limitations, any oversight, any review, anything (contrary to every other right),then their wishes will be swept aside and they will be left with far far less as a whole than if they cooperated and perhaps offered their own suggestions.

 

[CrescentFresh]

Are you a law abiding gun owner?

If so, how would any of what I proposed negatively affect you? Keep in mind that I have no interest in limiting the types of guns, or how much ammo a law abiding gun owner can have.

no I am a criminal because i have to lie about my drug use to buy guns silly

 

[Saltrock]

Boy, 15 slain by Nunchuks!

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1808234.boy_15_killed_with_nunchucks_at_halloween_party/

we must do something to curb this rash of ninja violence!

in britain, where gunsa are essentially banned, an MDK'er was able to MDK a lad with his Assault Nunchuks.

despite being ALREADY illegal, we need to do more.

Thats right, new legislation demanding 30 years at hard labour for anyone who possesses uses or manufactures Nunchuks.

we must reduce the number of Assault Chucks in the Nunchuk magazine to no more than ONE.

This will ensure that never again will britain be ripped apart by the spectre of ninja crime

if a ninja is going to commit a crime, he had best separate hus Nunchucks into two, reducing them to the safer, and more "common sense" weapon, the Chuk.

if somebody is gonna get beat to death in britain, let the killer do it with a good british Stick, not those dangerous and evil oriental Weapons Of Death.

Nunchuks.

along with switchblades they are the MOST regulated and banned "weapons" on the planet.

theres more laws banning rice flails than there are prohibiting the private construction and ownership of nuclear devices.

and in the entire history of the interwebs this is the FIRST case of "death By Nunchuk" i have been able to find.

how many innocent lives are your Nunchuk Rights worth?

Fighting with nunchuks does require close combat. A person has way more of a chance to protect himself against a guy with nunchuks vs a guy standing 10-20-30 ft away with a gun. Guy kills guy with nunchuks or guy kills 26 people with a gun. Hmmm sounds like apples to dingleberries to me.

Peace
Salt

 

[Saltrock]

Fighting with nunchuks does require close combat. A person has way more of a chance to protect himself against a guy with nunchuks vs a guy standing 10-20-30 ft away with a gun. Guy kills guy with nunchuks or guy kills 26 people with a gun. Hmmm sounds like apples to dingleberries to me.

Peace
Salt

 

[CrescentFresh]

Except that they actually are. The government either has that right now or it can usurp it. There is nothing in the Constitution about magazines and capacity. What the gun toters are failing to grasp is if they don't get on board, if they opt only to be obstinate and claim that theirs is the only right not subject to any limitations, any oversight, any review, anything (contrary to every other right),then their wishes will be swept aside and they will be left with far far less as a whole than if they cooperated and perhaps offered their own suggestions.

exactly the founding fathers didn't put anything about capacity into the second amendment so it's unlawful to limit it.

 

[canndo]

Just like they dont have the right to tell me how many rounds my GUNS can hold.

The capacity of many things is regulated for safety, why not magazines? (although the safety would be for others). Nothing in the Constitution about magazine capacity - of course I said that already.