Again....But it's never the guns!

[Cato]

Speaking of cars, why don't be outlaw them as well? Your number for gun fatalities comes out to between 11,000 and 12,000 deaths a year. Cars caused 35,900 deaths in 2009 (over 5,000 of which were merely pedestrians).

Try again after considering the deaths/incident rate. Also, to make it relevant, let's consider how many times a car is intentionally used as a weapon to kill others.

[Annik]

Try again after considering the deaths/incident rate. Also, to make it relevant, let's consider how many times a car is intentionally used as a weapon to kill others.

It's one in every 300 accidents in the year 2009. Shouldn't we be more concerned that these deaths aren't occurring on purpose? What's more dangerous, guns or distracted driving? The point is: Using the argument that Brian used is not effective nor logical. To ban a thing on death rate alone... We'd do away with cigarettes, booze, cars, peanuts (and other things that people tend to be highly allergic to), ect.

[Brian37]

Speaking of cars, why don't be outlaw them as well? Your number for gun fatalities comes out to between 11,000 and 12,000 deaths a year. Cars caused 35,900 deaths in 2009 (over 5,000 of which were merely pedestrians).

Try again after considering the deaths/incident rate. Also, to make it relevant, let's consider how many times a car is intentionally used as a weapon to kill others.

Yep. This is just another distraction. Bad things happen in many parts of life so why do anything. Just had that same stupid argument at another website with another gun nut.

With cars we constantly change laws to improve safety, and even many car companies have invented their own technology without government prompting them.

I don't know how reasonable we can make "WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY"

They still take any suggestion of a policy or law as "THEY'RE ALL FASCISTS".

I love how humans no matter what the topic, can and always have had the ability to try and make the reasonable sound unreasonable.

"You want god off of our money, you fascist pig"

"Do you care to know why?"

"No you fascist commie pig"

"It is divisive and every person has their own version of what a god might be to them, plus it wasn't always there and having it on money does not prevent crime, nor has it always been on our currency"

"YOU ARE A FASCIST PIG YOU GODLESS COMMIE!"

They do this to use it as an excuse to not even try to reduce the gun deaths even more.

[Faith No More]

I wish everyone would be as passionate about mental health issues after tragedies like this as they are about guns. I think society as a whole loses out when we focus on one issue as if it were the only cause.

[Annik]

I wish everyone would be as passionate about mental health issues after tragedies like this as they are about guns. I think society as a whole loses out when we focus on one issue as if it were the only cause.

A three-pronged approach would be best. Improving access and quality of mental health care, psych evaluations and gun safety classes required to purchase a gun and lessening the media attention of the perpetrator of these heinous crimes. Better health care means (in theory, our paperwork keeping skills need to improve) keeping track of those who present dangers to themselves or those around them. Evaluations and safety classes will cut down on gun accidents and perhaps spree killing. Decreasing the media attention would help cut back on copycat events and maybe stop the spree killings from getting worse (the trend is: kill count goes up and the victims/location becomes more shocking). Of course, the decrease in violence will be noted, but it won't disappear. Illegal gun trade is alive and thriving in the US.

[Creed of Heresy]

PLEASE FUCKING STOP THIS PATHETIC TACTIC

This is just code speak for "fear them, they want to take my guns away"

And your position isn't "don't fear them, they want to be the only ones with the guns?" Which position makes more sense, hm? I don't trust the government any further than I can throw the Capitol Building.

You talk of percentages as if a human life is worth nothing. Remember that because by this same time tomorrow 32 more people will have died from everything from suicide, gang violence and domestic murder and accidental gun fire. Multiply that by 365.

Death is a part of life, people die every day, and if I were to get choked up over every single death that ever happened regardless the reason I'd be a broken wreck. Ban all firearms, those statistics will not change. You think not having a gun is going to stop a suicide? You think gangs obey the laws of gun possession to begin with? You think a crazed man/woman who just caught their significant other fucking another man/woman can't just as easily reach for a kitchen knife as for a gun? The only thing that'll be removed is accidental gun fire, possibly, and that can also be easily removed with mandatory education and firearm safety lessons prior to obtaining a license to own, purchase, and maintain firearms. Nothing you have listed can be fixed with a blanket ban.

That's a small number? Play those odds long enough and eventually even you will know someone murdered or affected by a gun death, or even get hurt yourself.

You make the assumption that I have not. Unfortunately for your argument you are desperately wrong in this assumption. Me and a girl I loved very much were caught in a drive-by shooting intended for a group nearby where we were walking. I took several rounds myself, but lived.

She did not.

The men were arrested a year later. The firearms used had been acquired illegally...in Canada.

Now again, you stupidly argue "they want to take away my guns". Canada allows gun ownership too. So please explain to me why they have a lower rate of gun death than we do.

WE DONT want to take away guns from responsible people and idiotic arguments like this are constantly used to prevent any sensible policy that will reduce gun death.

Soooo what you are saying is "increase regulations but do not ban them" right? If so, that's what I just said, why are you arguing?

This is the same lunatic argument Nader had to fight the car companies to get them to adapt safer standards.

"You are for seat belts and speed limits so therefore you are anti car".

I'm not familiar with that so I can't comment on it.

[Cato]

It's one in every 300 accidents in the year 2009. Shouldn't we be more concerned that these deaths aren't occurring on purpose? What's more dangerous, guns or distracted driving? The point is: Using the argument that Brian used is not effective nor logical. To ban a thing on death rate alone... We'd do away with cigarettes, booze, cars, peanuts (and other things that people tend to be highly allergic to), ect.

Cigarettes, booze, cars and peanuts...

Let's say my girlfriend is a first grade teacher. We get the class to go to the local park on a 'field trip' in my bus. We stop, then I break out the keg, 10 cartons of smokes, and 20 bushels of peanuts.

Worst case...the class wakes up the next day with a hangover and terrible cough. Maybe one needs proper medical attantion for a peanut allergy. Me and the teacher go to jail for our transgressions.

Now, how different is this scenario from the effects of some asshole strolling in with a couple guns and a shit load of bullets? Cigarettes, booze, cars and peanuts vs. guns. Give me a fucking break.

[Annik]

Cigarettes causes 443,000 deaths a year (50,000 of those being from second-hand smoke).
Alcohol causes 75,000 deaths a year (50,000 of those from alcohol-related car accidents).
As said previously, 36,000 deaths a year (for 2009) in a year.

And the number listed by Brian for gun deaths was 12,000.

I'm sure none of the car accidents (which would be the most likely of these big killers to harm children) were kids. You're just appealing to emotion at this point. If you read some of my previous posts, you'll know I'm not for everyone and their mother to have 85 guns. However, these kinds of arguments don't stand up.

[Shell B]

The kid with the peanut allergy would be dead by the next morning. Just nitpicking.

[KichigaiNeko]

Ummm we DO realise that breathing causes terminal illness?? The stats are meaningless.

We have had some thoughts here in Oz and can only come to the conclusion that perhaps the 2nd amendment needs amending??

Just a suggestion really.