|
|
Post by inevitec on Jan 11, 2011 18:34:03 GMT -8
Over one million people have been killed with guns in the United States of America since 1968.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jan 11, 2011 19:10:15 GMT -8
Though that is probably true, do you have a link to the source of your info?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 11, 2011 21:25:01 GMT -8
Though that is probably true, do you have a link to the source of your info? Try your search engine.  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 12, 2011 12:44:01 GMT -8
Over one million people have been killed with guns in the United States of America since 1968. And your point is what? I trust you are not suggesting that all guns be confiscated by the government. And as to your figure, according to Wikipedia, homicides in which guns were used amount to about (I'm eyeballing this figure from the chart I'm linking) 10,000 per year. That's for '76 to '04. That is not too are off the 42 year period you cite. Anyway, the figure for '68 to '04, extrapolating from the aforementioned chart, would be 400,00. Still terrible, but far below the figure you mention. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svgSince banning guns and confiscating those in circulation would be impossible for several reasons, we must look to other remedies. The guy is Tucson is obviously mentally deranged. He never should have had his hands on a firearm. Perhaps he should have been institutionalized. Of course, we all know how difficult it is to do that. There will always be groups (ACLU, etc.) who will oppose involuntary commitment. Such opponents have legitimate concerns, but which is the worse danger, phony commitments by greedy relatives or nut cases getting deadly weapons? Gun violence in America is a huge problem, but it happens elsewhere, even in countries with much stricter laws. Someone on the TV the other night was saying that the two worst cases of mass shootings in the past several years occurred in Germany, and in Germany one must wait a year and and be certified reliable by the shrinks before obtaining a gun permit. Reasonable gun laws should be in effect. Furthermore, greater security for elected officials should be put in place. (Speaking of Tucson, the bozo Sheriff of Pima County, the guy would immediately and irresponsibly blamed the tragedy there on right win politicians and talk show hosts, might have given some thought to having a deputy at the Safeway market to keep an eye on the crowd surrounding the Representative and other dignitaries. One or two people might have been shot, but it's highly likely that the killer would have been taken out before he could continue to kill others.) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jan 12, 2011 17:20:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jan 12, 2011 17:25:27 GMT -8
80% of the gun deaths in the wealthiest nations on earth occur in the United States. Of that group, almost 90% of the women and children killed with firearms were killed in the United States Of America.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aztec89 on Jan 14, 2011 9:01:35 GMT -8
And, over 1.5 million have been killed by cars in that same time. Ban cars?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 14, 2011 9:16:45 GMT -8
And, over 1.5 million have been killed by cars in that same time. Ban cars? Are cars designed to kill? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 14, 2011 12:18:03 GMT -8
And, over 1.5 million have been killed by cars in that same time. Ban cars? Are cars designed to kill? Maybe not, but anything that is designed to go over 100MPH on a road with on coming cars going a like speed seperated by a whiteline might be deemed just that. I think I suggested in another thread that we should restrict gun ownership to only those who can pass a screening. Maybe no history of mental health problems, no history of drug use or alchohol abuse, and things like that would help. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 14, 2011 22:34:53 GMT -8
Are cars designed to kill? Maybe not, but anything that is designed to go over 100MPH on a road with on coming cars going a like speed seperated by a whiteline might be deemed just that. I think I suggested in another thread that we should restrict gun ownership to only those who can pass a screening. Maybe no history of mental health problems, no history of drug use or alchohol abuse, and things like that would help. Maybe not? Of course not. Cars are transportation appliances. That people die while driving is not the reason for cars. To kill things is the only reason for firearms. Does anyone disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 15, 2011 7:45:06 GMT -8
Maybe not, but anything that is designed to go over 100MPH on a road with on coming cars going a like speed separated by a white line might be deemed just that. I think I suggested in another thread that we should restrict gun ownership to only those who can pass a screening. Maybe no history of mental health problems, no history of drug use or alcohol abuse, and things like that would help. Maybe not? Of course not. Cars are transportation appliances. That people die while driving is not the reason for cars. To kill things is the only reason for firearms. Does anyone disagree? Strange argument! Guns are used for many purposes such as hunting and self defense. Of course in the employment there will be killing of innocents fro time to time but that is true of cars as well. When put in the simplistic terms you use it is hard to make an argument and that is your intent. It is not that simple. |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Jan 15, 2011 8:33:03 GMT -8
And, over 1.5 million have been killed by cars in that same time. Ban cars? We work very hard to make cars safer. Do we not templewest? We work very hard to make roads safer. Do we not templewest? We regulate behavior in an automobile, have increasingly strict rules for licensing and harsher penalties for driving impaired. Do we not Templewest? Do we not attempt to recognize the danger of automobiles and regulate them for safety, templewest? If any of that is true, then why in the "F" can't we apply the same logic to devices whose sole purpose is to be used against a human being in order to kill or disable them, templewest? I'll tell you why, templewest. Conservatives have a strange fetish for guns and safety. Until we disengage the sexual component from the conservatives fascination with guns and their abnormal preoccupation with their fear, we will make no progress with weapons in this country. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 15, 2011 8:53:21 GMT -8
Defies logic.  |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Jan 15, 2011 9:04:27 GMT -8
Over one billion people have died of old age since 1978...and your paycheck is being hijacked by the IRS to pay for the current admin's two year vacation and failing attempts to ban old age, ta-boot.
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Jan 15, 2011 9:12:18 GMT -8
Over one billion people have died of old age since 1978...and your paycheck is being hijacked by the IRS to pay for the current admin's two year vacation and failing attempts to ban old age, ta-boot. HAM So that means we should accept the inevitable, give up and die. Why bother to cure athletes foot? Why go to the doctor? What is the use, we we're dying anyway? Then why all the conservative fear? Why carry a gun in the first place-we are going to die anyway right? I will say that I laughed out loud when I read your post-for more than one reason. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 15, 2011 9:39:06 GMT -8
Maybe not? Of course not. Cars are transportation appliances. That people die while driving is not the reason for cars. To kill things is the only reason for firearms. Does anyone disagree? Strange argument! Guns are used for many purposes such as hunting and self defense. Of course in the employment there will be killing of innocents fro time to time but that is true of cars as well. When put in the simplistic terms you use it is hard to make an argument and that is your intent. It is not that simple. Strange argument? Your next sentence makes my point. Perhaps it is hard for you to make an argument because you case is weak when confronted with logic. |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Jan 15, 2011 9:48:53 GMT -8
I will say that I laughed out loud when I read your post-for more than one reason. WARNING: jocularity can kill you! SB1313 introduced by Cal-comm graduate Juckie the Hut Goldberg, prohibits laughter by anyone over the age of three. The purpose is to prevent death. Since 1974, over 100 people have died suddenly from out bursts of laughter. "This is serious and Cal fans every where need to insure that women and children do not succomb to this killer disease." Did you read the part about how this bill is funded? HAM |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 15, 2011 14:12:50 GMT -8
Strange argument! Guns are used for many purposes such as hunting and self defense. Of course in the employment there will be killing of innocents fro time to time but that is true of cars as well. When put in the simplistic terms you use it is hard to make an argument and that is your intent. It is not that simple. Strange argument? Your next sentence makes my point. Perhaps it is hard for you to make an argument because you case is weak when confronted with logic. We had a Marine killed by a capsized boat while he was carrying a gun. Should we ban the gun or ban the boat or on a long shot should we use common sense? We have the right and in some cases the obligation to carry guns. Should unfortunate accidents or the occasional misuse cause us to ban something? A car in the hands of a drunk or druggie is much more dangerous than a gun in the hands of a sane and sober citizen. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 15, 2011 21:42:31 GMT -8
Strange argument? Your next sentence makes my point. Perhaps it is hard for you to make an argument because you case is weak when confronted with logic. We had a Marine killed by a capsized boat while he was carrying a gun. Should we ban the gun or ban the boat or on a long shot should we use common sense? We have the right and in some cases the obligation to carry guns. Should unfortunate accidents or the occasional misuse cause us to ban something? A car in the hands of a drunk or druggie is much more dangerous than a gun in the hands of a sane and sober citizen. Was the boat designed to kill the Marine? No. If you would pay attention instead of just reflexively arguing you would know that I never said anything about banning guns in general. Guess I should check with Bill to see if I can use the word "general" as it is a military term. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 16, 2011 7:59:48 GMT -8
We had a Marine killed by a capsized boat while he was carrying a gun. Should we ban the gun or ban the boat or on a long shot should we use common sense? We have the right and in some cases the obligation to carry guns. Should unfortunate accidents or the occasional misuse cause us to ban something? A car in the hands of a drunk or druggie is much more dangerous than a gun in the hands of a sane and sober citizen. Was the boat designed to kill the Marine? No. If you would pay attention instead of just reflexively arguing you would know that I never said anything about banning guns in general. Guess I should check with Bill to see if I can use the word "general" as it is a military term. Just what is your point. I advocate keeping all guns out of the hands of those with mental, drug or booze problems. In addition, there should be some limitations on the kinds of weapons we can have. |
|
