OMG, Cars kill people, we got to ban them

[OutdoorX]

Haven't you guys learned anything? Straight up banning is so 1993.

Nowadays if the Government doesn't like anything they just tax it to death until it becomes too unaffordable.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

Haven't you guys learned anything? Straight up banning is so 1993.

Nowadays if the Government doesn't like anything they just tax it to death until it becomes too unaffordable.

That has always been one of the purposes taxation serves.

[Calhexas]

Just wondering if you had something on the thread topic to say here or if you just woke up and wanted to ramble aimlessly??

I believe my point was made earlier...and hadn't just woke up, I was getting home from work.

Yes , anyone can put on any belt and a gi of their choosing
That had nothing to do with my point.

I understand that...I just thought it was funny you'd point out something like belt color. The fact is, I don't really think a lot of these commercial martial arts "schools" really make people anymore dangerous than a couple self-defense vids on youtube would.

I disagree totally.
Martial arts training (atleast from any teacher I had) is all about defending yourself WHEN ALL OTHER OPTIONS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.
IMHO this closer to the opposite behavior many gun owners exhibit

I know what martial arts teachers are preaching to their students...the only thing is, this isn't feudal Japan. How many people do you actually think follow the whole "credo" that these schools have?

Seems to me like most people will avoid a fight as much as they can anyways. *******s in general are the ones who try to get into them, or are ready to throw down as soon as one presents itself. This is regardless of any MA training they've had. The only difference is, *******s with MA/MMA training seem much more likely than anyone to jump into some ****.

[xXBiggieXx2]

"Neither were invented to kill people."



Lol wut, so guns weren't meant to kill people in wars? Damn, why'd they continually make them deadlier and deadlier through the years then, if they weren't meant to kill anything Your argument would be valid if they started putting train grills on the front of cars to make killing pedestrians easier. Hunting for food is obsolete, we have grocery stores now, if you hunt for food it's pure choice and completely unnecessary. Protection IS a good reason though, However in the act of protecting yourself with a gun something/somebody could be killed very easily by virtue of escalation or a lapse in judgment. The reason a gun offers protection is because it's a DEADLY weapon, that will either stop an unarmed person in their tracks or level the playing field with an armed one (Never really good)


Saying that guns weren't made to kill is like saying food isn't meant to be eaten.

[Stizzel]

"Neither were invented to kill people."



Lol wut, so guns weren't meant to kill people in wars? Damn, why'd they continually make them deadlier and deadlier through the years then, if they weren't meant to kill anything Your argument would be valid if they started putting train grills on the front of cars to make killing pedestrians easier. Hunting for food is obsolete, we have grocery stores now, if you hunt for food it's pure choice and completely unnecessary. Protection IS a good reason though, However in the act of protecting yourself with a gun something/somebody could be killed very easily by virtue of escalation or a lapse in judgment. The reason a gun offers protection is because it's a DEADLY weapon, that will either stop an unarmed person in their tracks or level the playing field with an armed one (Never really good)


Saying that guns weren't made to kill is like saying food isn't meant to be eaten.

Did you ever stop and think how many people's lives have been saved by guns?

[Calhexas]

Did you ever stop and think how many people's lives have been saved by guns?

And exactly how many is that?

[Weightaholic]

Not really...

We "keep" cars because their benefits far outweigh their drawbacks.

The same can be said for guns - their defensive use to deter/prevent/stop crimes far outweighs their drawbacks when used improperly or illegally.

Guns are frequently "used" without a shot being fired, and without any injury or death - because often the simple presence of a firearm is enough to prevent a crime before it starts, or halt a crime in progress.

That may be so, but when drawing an analogy such as this one, the subject should be as close to possible to the subject of guns, yet also so ridiculous that it makes people think. You seem to be under the impression that I'm opposing the point of the argument here; I'm not. I'm opposing the analogy.

Knives is a great choice to make. They are used to stab, and to cut, and to saw. That's all they do, yet are enormously helpful. All these things are though, if you do to someone else, deleterious to their health.

Cars is so outlandish, it's preposterous. I realise that's the purpose of the argument - to illustrate a point through the use of absurdity - but feel that the argument could be better sustained by not going so far afield.

[nutsy54]

And exactly how many is that?

Documented studies show that Millions of crimes are prevented or stopped due to the defense use of personal firearms each year - the large majority of which don't involve any shots being fired.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
Page 8

[FIVE OAKES]

Are you really going to argue that guns are necessary in modern America so we can hunt for food?

"Hunting for food is obsolete, we have grocery stores now,

I know, right? Why worry about being able to rely on yourself for food. That's sooooooo last century! Hell, if the beef trees ever stop bearing fruit, I'm sure the government will find us a replacement! They always help!

[1devil]

Guns are not made to murder people.


They are intended to make hunting for food easier as well as provide protection. Murder with a gun is EXACTLY the same as dying in a car crash. Neither were invented to kill people.

Correction. Some guns are not made to kill people. Millitary weapons are clearly designed for the purpose of killing people. As such, acess to these kinds of firearms should be limited.

[Onebadgtx]

Correction. Some guns are not made to kill people. Millitary weapons are clearly designed for the purpose of killing people. As such, acess to these kinds of firearms should be limited.

I find that funny considering that Assault Weapons are used in less than 2% of crime.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

On top of this, according to this article below every gun in their study was obtained illegally, so what is the point of more gun control? Restrict yourself and others while criminals still obtain whatever they like?

Said article -
http://www.stoppingpower.net/comment...op_killers.asp

As seen in my sig line - "THERE'S CRIMINALS WITH GUNS OUT THERE........quick let's disarm OURSELVES and make everything better!"

[Calhexas]

Documented studies show that Millions of crimes are prevented or stopped due to the defense use of personal firearms each year - the large majority of which don't involve any shots being fired.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
Page 8

How many documented studies have calculated the number of deaths due to guns?

[89FoxBody]

How many documented studies have calculated the number of deaths due to guns?

Deaths due to guns? Did the gun jump off the table and start dropkicking people while dropping people with shots to the temple?

Newsflash: No gun has ever murdered or otherwise harmed anyone just cause it felt like it. Put a loaded gun on a table and leave it there for 10,000,000 years, and it will have killed absolutely nobody.

Murder is murder, regardless of who commits it using what implement.

Citing statistics like "gun crimes" and "gun deaths" and such is nothing but a strawman anyway, especially in cases of premeditated murder, felony murder (murder that occurs during the commission of a felony), and suicide. Anyone who dies during or as a result of these incidences would most likely have died regardless of the presence of a gun. If someone wants to off someone, they'll figure out how to do it, even if that person is themselves.

Regardless, the studies show that the amount of crimes committed by people in legal possession of a legal gun make up a ridiculously minuscule proportion of total crimes committed.

Murder is already illegal. Making it more illegal isn't going to stop it from happening. How about enforcing the current laws on the books rather than trying to pass punitive laws that accomplish nothing other than to hinder the actions of law-abiding citizens who wouldn't break the law in the first place?

Let's use our brains here, instead of having a knee-jerk emotional reaction to anything that happens and using anecdotes as facts. Ever notice that 99% of the people who make arguments against private gun ownership use nothing but hypothetical situations that never happen, deliberately manipulated statistics, and anecdotes?

The irresponsible use of alcohol and smoking of cigarettes directly cause WAY more deaths than anyone using a gun does in a given year, so why don't we start with banning them first?

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with defending people against petty crime or hunting food anyway. It's naive to think think it's solely about those 2 things. Also, before "that can't happen here," why don't you ask the 70+ people who were at Waco. That's right, you can't, cause the FBI and ATF murdered all of them and destroyed the evidence. Ask Randy Weaver why his son and defenseless wife were sniped by the FBI.

[Onebadgtx]

How many documented studies have calculated the number of deaths due to guns?

First off you are being very vauge. Deaths due to guns while a crime is being comitted or overall? in a certain country only? throughout the world? During peacetime vs. wartime? While preventing a crime? You can see where I am going with this.

Secondly, Earlier in the thread Nutsy provided you with data for crimes prevented. Also know that in MANY cases reports of crimes prevented go either undocumented or unreported - so a realistic number is difficult to attain.

[1devil]

I find that funny considering that Assault Weapons are used in less than 2% of crime.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm



On top of this, according to this article below every gun in their study was obtained illegally, so what is the point of more gun control? Restrict yourself and others while criminals still obtain whatever they like?

Said article -
http://www.stoppingpower.net/comment...op_killers.asp

As seen in my sig line - "THERE'S CRIMINALS WITH GUNS OUT THERE........quick let's disarm OURSELVES and make everything better!"

Nice hysterical response. Certain weapons are designed specifically to kill people. As such restrictions on access to such weapons should be in place. I'm not advocating restrictions on weapons designed for hunting etc.

Legally allowing certain types of guns to legally be purchased and sold will eventually lead to some of these weapns reaching the black market. It does not take a genius to figure out that limiting legal sales of such weapons will over time limit the number of such guns reaching the black market.

[Calhexas]

Deaths due to guns? Did the gun jump off the table and start dropkicking people while dropping people with shots to the temple?

Newsflash: No gun has ever murdered or otherwise harmed anyone just cause it felt like it. Put a loaded gun on a table and leave it there for 10,000,000 years, and it will have killed absolutely nobody.

Murder is murder, regardless of who commits it using what implement.

Citing statistics like "gun crimes" and "gun deaths" and such is nothing but a strawman anyway, especially in cases of premeditated murder, felony murder (murder that occurs during the commission of a felony), and suicide. Anyone who dies during or as a result of these incidences would most likely have died regardless of the presence of a gun. If someone wants to off someone, they'll figure out how to do it, even if that person is themselves.

Regardless, the studies show that the amount of crimes committed by people in legal possession of a legal gun make up a ridiculously minuscule proportion of total crimes committed.

Murder is already illegal. Making it more illegal isn't going to stop it from happening. How about enforcing the current laws on the books rather than trying to pass punitive laws that accomplish nothing other than to hinder the actions of law-abiding citizens who wouldn't break the law in the first place?

Let's use our brains here, instead of having a knee-jerk emotional reaction to anything that happens and using anecdotes as facts. Ever notice that 99% of the people who make arguments against private gun ownership use nothing but hypothetical situations that never happen, deliberately manipulated statistics, and anecdotes?

The irresponsible use of alcohol and smoking of cigarettes directly cause WAY more deaths than anyone using a gun does in a given year, so why don't we start with banning them first?

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with defending people against petty crime or hunting food anyway. It's naive to think think it's solely about those 2 things. Also, before "that can't happen here," why don't you ask the 70+ people who were at Waco. That's right, you can't, cause the FBI and ATF murdered all of them and destroyed the evidence. Ask Randy Weaver why his son and defenseless wife were sniped by the FBI.

First off you are being very vauge. Deaths due to guns while a crime is being comitted or overall? in a certain country only? throughout the world? During peacetime vs. wartime? While preventing a crime? You can see where I am going with this.

Secondly, Earlier in the thread Nutsy provided you with data for crimes prevented. Also know that in MANY cases reports of crimes prevented go either undocumented or unreported - so a realistic number is difficult to attain.

Deaths in which a gun was the fatal weapon.

And no matter what people say, you can't change the fact that cars, are not manufactured for killing...which is EXACTLY what a gun is made for.

The only reason one needs a gun for protection...is when they face multiple armed attackers, or someone with another gun.

Cars are necessary transportation for millions upon millions. Guns are necessary for military purposes. IMO...outside of that...stab a mother****er.

[SpyderTT]

Deaths in which a gun was the fatal weapon.

And no matter what people say, you can't change the fact that cars, are not manufactured for killing...which is EXACTLY what a gun is made for.

The only reason one needs a gun for protection...is when they face multiple armed attackers, or someone with another gun.

Cars are necessary transportation for millions upon millions. Guns are necessary for military purposes. IMO...outside of that...stab a mother****er.

So you feel that if you find yourself faced with multiple armed attacker, or someone with another gun, only then should you be allowed to call a time out and run to the gun store, wait your 7 days, and return to the situation with your now necessary firearm?

sounds like one hell of a plan.

[Onebadgtx]

Nice hysterical response. Certain weapons are designed specifically to kill people. As such restrictions on access to such weapons should be in place. I'm not advocating restrictions on weapons designed for hunting etc.

Legally allowing certain types of guns to legally be purchased and sold will eventually lead to some of these weapns reaching the black market. It does not take a genius to figure out that limiting legal sales of such weapons will over time limit the number of such guns reaching the black market.

I didn't find anything "hysterical" about my responce. Maybe you should look up the meaning.... "in a state of uncontrolled panic, anger, or excitement" I didn't find my post to be any of those.

Your post is non-sense and does not respond in any way to the issue at hand. You do not use any numbers or logic in your beliefs. Just how you "feel". If you want to ban guns that kill people you need to ban .38/.357 revolvers and cheap (Sub $200) semi-auto handguns.

Seen here http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf


"Shall not be infringed"

[1devil]

I didn't find anything "hysterical" about my responce. Maybe you should look up the meaning.... "in a state of uncontrolled panic, anger, or excitement" I didn't find my post to be any of those.

Your post is non-sense and does not respond in any way to the issue at hand. You do not use any numbers or logic in your beliefs. Just how you "feel". If you want to ban guns that kill people you need to ban .38/.357 revolvers and cheap (Sub $200) semi-auto handguns.

Seen here http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf


"Shall not be infringed"

Yawn. Hysterical fits because you fixated on the ponts of my post that you did not like and ignored the rest. Question. If assault weapons are designed specifically to kill people, regardless of how many people they actually kill, why would anyone need such a weapon? After all handguns etc are easy to purchase. Once again I'm not anti gun at all. I believe that people have the right to hunt and defend themsleves. I am not anti gun, I am not anti gun, I am not anti gun. Get it????????

[Onebadgtx]

Yawn. Hysterical fits because you fixated on the ponts of my post that you did not like and ignored the rest. Question. If assault weapons are designed specifically to kill people, regardless of how many people they actually kill, why would anyone need such a weapon? After all handguns etc are easy to purchase. Once again I'm not anti gun at all. I believe that people have the right to hunt and defend themsleves. I am not anti gun, I am not anti gun, I am not anti gun. Get it????????

Thats funny because I dont see what other point you were making than the one that I addressed with my post.

Correction. Some guns are not made to kill people. Millitary weapons are clearly designed for the purpose of killing people. As such, acess to these kinds of firearms should be limited.

You are talking about the post above, correct?

If assault weapons are designed specifically to kill people, regardless of how many people they actually kill, why would anyone need such a weapon?

Well, by definition Assualt weapons are fully automatic. If you are referring to the "deemed" assault weapons under the clinton bill, you are essentially talking about almost every semi-automatic firearm produced. So why should I give up my right to own said firearm lawfully, when it will have no effect on a gangbangers ability to attain said weapon, but will not allow me to own it because I choose to abide by the law. I would be disarming myself with no advantages - this was demonstrated with the clinton ban, the crime rate involving assault weapons went nearly uneffected. Lastly, I can own them because I want to - just like you can own a 500 horsepower car if you want to. More people die in car accidents due to stupidity than those killed with LEGALLY owned firearms. Now, if you are going to go on and on about how we need to go after illegally obtained firearms I would not disagree as more than 80 % of crime is comitted with them (in a recent study about assaulted police officers, ONE firearm was found to be obtained legally), but that goal is unrealistic and all that we can do as a nation is protect ourselves against those who want to do us harm and make the penalties for being in posession of an illegally owned firearm that much more strict. Illegally owned firearms will always be available like drugs will, but I would like the oppurtunity to protect myself from those who choose not to abide by the law.

[1devil]

Thats funny because I dont see what other point you were making than the one that I addressed with my post.



You are talking about the post above, correct?


Well, by definition Assualt weapons are fully automatic. If you are referring to the "deemed" assault weapons under the clinton bill, you are essentially talking about almost every semi-automatic firearm produced. So why should I give up my right to own said firearm lawfully, when it will have no effect on a gangbangers ability to attain said weapon, but will not allow me to own it because I choose to abide by the law. I would be disarming myself with no advantages - this was demonstrated with the clinton ban, the crime rate involving assault weapons went nearly uneffected. Lastly, I can own them because I want to - just like you can own a 500 horsepower car if you want to. More people die in car accidents due to stupidity than those killed with LEGALLY owned firearms. Now, if you are going to go on and on about how we need to go after illegally obtained firearms I would not disagree as more than 80 % of crime is comitted with them (in a recent study about assaulted police officers, ONE firearm was found to be obtained legally), but that goal is unrealistic and all that we can do as a nation is protect ourselves against those who want to do us harm and make the penalties for being in posession of an illegally owned firearm that much more strict. Illegally owned firearms will always be available like drugs will, but I would like the oppurtunity to protect myself from those who choose not to abide by the law.

Long rambling post. I'm not reading all of that. Here is the bottom line. people always point out that it's possible for criminals to do just as much damage with non automatic weapons, as they are with fully automatic weapons. As such you should be, to defend yourself very easily against fully automatic weapons with non automatic weapons. The end.

[OddLawnGnome]

I know, right? Why worry about being able to rely on yourself for food. That's sooooooo last century! Hell, if the beef trees ever stop bearing fruit, I'm sure the government will find us a replacement! They always help!

Wait, let me guess. I'm also a Commie-hugging liberal (or is it trees that liberals hug? I don't remember) who wants to take your guns away and give all your money to homeless people.

Amidoinitrite?

[nutsy54]

How many documented studies have calculated the number of deaths due to guns?

No gun, all by itself, has ever killed someone.

That being said, the usage of a gun as the method to kill someone is easily found.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

In 2006, firearms were used in 12,791 homicides. (Table 18, Page 89). Obviously, someone committing murder (a) doesn't care what the gun ownership laws are, and (b) can likely figure out a different way to kill someone if needed.

Firearms caused 642 "Unintentional" deaths. Sometimes called "accidents", more accurately described as "Stupid gun owners".
That same year, "accidents" killed 3,579 in the water, 20,823 due to falls, and 43,664 in cars.

Firearms were also used in 16,883 suicides. As with crimes - those who wish to commit this act will figure out a way to do it, whether or not a gun is readily available.

[Onebadgtx]

Long rambling post. I'm not reading all of that. Here is the bottom line. people always point out that it's possible for criminals to do just as much damage with non automatic weapons, as they are with fully automatic weapons. As such you should be, to defend yourself very easily against fully automatic weapons with non automatic weapons. The end.

My post has nothing to do with that. You liberals are all the same... Who is hysterical now?!?!? LMAO I'm done here - I think I have proved my point that you are grasping at straws.

[89FoxBody]

The only reason one needs a gun for protection...is when they face multiple armed attackers, or someone with another gun.

Oh really? So a 5'4" 120lb woman should be able to fend off a would be rapist that's twice her weight and a foot taller with her bare hands?

[nutsy54]

Oh really? So a 5'4" 120lb woman should be able to fend off a would be rapist that's twice her weight and a foot taller with her bare hands?

Tea.

She simply needs to carry Tea & Crumpets wherever she goes. That way, she can just sit down with her attacker and discuss his feelings over a light snack, thus avoiding the whole situation.

[gjohnson5]

"Shall not be infringed"

Hopefully the USMC officer Candidate school will teach their candidates to read complete sentences....

[Calhexas]

Oh really? So a 5'4" 120lb woman should be able to fend off a would be rapist that's twice her weight and a foot taller with her bare hands?

Mace and/or knife or similar close range weapon.

Guns aren't the only forms of protection in this world.

[Calhexas]

So you feel that if you find yourself faced with multiple armed attacker, or someone with another gun, only then should you be allowed to call a time out and run to the gun store, wait your 7 days, and return to the situation with your now necessary firearm?

sounds like one hell of a plan.

So you feel everyone should be roaming the streets armed to the teeth on the CHANCE that they land in this situation?

Sounds like one hell of a plan.

This isn't the wild west brah.

[gjohnson5]

I know what martial arts teachers are preaching to their students...the only thing is, this isn't feudal Japan. How many people do you actually think follow the whole "credo" that these schools have?

Seems to me like most people will avoid a fight as much as they can anyways. *******s in general are the ones who try to get into them, or are ready to throw down as soon as one presents itself. This is regardless of any MA training they've had. The only difference is, *******s with MA/MMA training seem much more likely than anyone to jump into some ****.

Clearly you completely uneducated about the subject if you think all martial arts is derived from feudal Japan
I didn't study Bushido.....
Secondly philosophies vary from discipline to discipline and from teacher to teacher. It's just plain stupid to suggest that all schools have a similar 'credo' or belief system

Sorry , but you don't know what you're talking about