Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
BB, the statement is often made by gun control advocates that guns are made for killing, period. Or, that anything else guns are used for (such as sport/target shooting or preventing a crime simply by showing the gun) are secondary to killing.
However, logical analysis and statistics clearly show this to be opinion, not fact.
In the strictest sense, a gun's primary purpose is to contain and direct the lethal explosion of ammunition away from the operator. Take away the design and purpose of the firing chamber, and you would not have a gun, both by definition and function. And, it is not the firing chamber that kills, it is in fact a life saver. It is the bullet that kills.
Yes, you have heard me correctly. Guns save lives, not kill. PERIOD.
And another fact, they save many many more lives than the ammunition kills. This is because the gun inherently saves lives every time the trigger is pulled, and the ammunition only kills when the operator effectively points the business end of the gun at something living.
Additionally, even when the besiness end of the gun is pointed at another human being. The vast majority are would be criminals that do not get shot by the operator. Yes, like it or not, most prevented crimes - over 200,000 per year in the US - involving a firearm, the gun is shown but not fired.
Conclusion: The only possible way a gun could be built for the sole purpose of killing, is if the gun was intended to be a blunt force weapon designed to smash and bash.
However, logical analysis and statistics clearly show this to be opinion, not fact.
In the strictest sense, a gun's primary purpose is to contain and direct the lethal explosion of ammunition away from the operator. Take away the design and purpose of the firing chamber, and you would not have a gun, both by definition and function. And, it is not the firing chamber that kills, it is in fact a life saver. It is the bullet that kills.
Yes, you have heard me correctly. Guns save lives, not kill. PERIOD.
And another fact, they save many many more lives than the ammunition kills. This is because the gun inherently saves lives every time the trigger is pulled, and the ammunition only kills when the operator effectively points the business end of the gun at something living.
Additionally, even when the besiness end of the gun is pointed at another human being. The vast majority are would be criminals that do not get shot by the operator. Yes, like it or not, most prevented crimes - over 200,000 per year in the US - involving a firearm, the gun is shown but not fired.
Conclusion: The only possible way a gun could be built for the sole purpose of killing, is if the gun was intended to be a blunt force weapon designed to smash and bash.
Attachments
-
hammer gun.jpg
Perhaps in Canada, not here in the US. You can believe the propaganda of the NRA, those who do not want any controls on, who or what they shoot, or how many guns they can have with no restrictions on the right to shoot anyone or anything that remotely annoys but in the end......all it does is put the sane, reasonable and the young in a very, very dangerous world.
The voice of reason is lost in the maelstrom of chaos. Go for it. I have had enough of dealing with everyone who is afraid of having their favourite toys restricted to law and order. I will not be forced into living in fear!! Anyone shooting me these days, are shooting one who has already lived life in full. I already know about the death of loved ones, luckily by natural means or accidents, I know many loving and gentle people who do not consider it necessary to ftace violence with anything other than kindness and reason. So, to those who need fear to feel fully alive, that is their problem, not mine.
Oh crap, the times a gun has saved a life can be counted on less than one hand. However, the times one has killed, maimed or subjected whole populations into slavery or worse cannot be counted by the most sophisticated computer known to man.
Have a fear free Christmas andt don't leave your stash of guns where the kids can get at them.
The murder rate in the USA is one half what is was 20 years ago, and the lowest it has been since the 1960s.
Pull your head out of your ar$e and do just a tiny bit of research, instead of making a fool out of yourself spouting nonsense.
FBI Statistics: Major Violent Crime Rate's Dramatic Reduction
Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years - CNN.com
The US Murder Rate Is on Track to Be Lowest in a Century | Mother Jones
So, you've pretty much succeeded. Congratulations.
I'm not a Christian, so the only anything free Christmas I'll have is a Christmas free Christmas. And I never leave my guns where kids can get at them.
Still, I hope you enjoyed hurling that over your shoulder as you ran away.
Hypothetical: I manage to find a gun whose sole purpose is to kill, period. I give it to a police officer. You get attacked by a criminal and call the police. The police arrive. He pulls out the gun to shoot the criminal......
.......guess what happens.......
OMG!!! CARNAGE! THE COP DIES, THE CRIMINAL DIES,and YOU DIE!
Why? Because the gun designer designed it for the sole purpose of killing. Therefore, the firing chamber was built to break apart like a hand grenade.......It doesn't save your life. And it doesn't save the police officers life.
Fortunately, this is only a hypothetical written in BByrd's altered reality. In the REAL WORLD, the gun is designed to save lives.
People like her have a complete lack of common sense when it comes to their pet ideology.......
Silly person I am not a Christian either.....The criminals around here do not use guns, no dead police men, no dead me.
On the other hand, I have had a couple of dumb neighbours. One would get drunk and fire his gun at the moon every so often. That didn't seem to satisfy him enough so he started sitting at the end of his long driveway and when he saw a car coming would drive out into the oncoming lane. Usually he just scared hell out the other driver. One night he misjudged and ran into the local taxi.
Now on the other side, this guy liked to shoot across the highway at anything that moved. It didn't seem to matter to him that he was firing onto my land. One day he spent a few bullets trying to hit my son's dog. He failed to notice my son, 10 at the time was also there. That man got an earful believe me. I had no more problems. You see people with guns sometimes do not follow sensible rules.
I have lived in the real world, it appears your fantasy world is rather different from my reality. Since I intend to live until civilization begins to badly regress to the cave man era, I hope your posts as well as those of a couple of others are not the harbringers of such an event.
Too bad that guy didn't own a gun that was designed with the sole purpose of killing. It would have exploded in his hands days or months befores you decided to protect your son.
Talk about facetious and more than a little callous, the guy was firing a rifle which is designed to kill, it was lucky his aim was bad and my boy had enough sense to beat it home immediately. People are not always reasonable.
Hubby saw him hit his son in the face when the kid let the gas overflow on the tractor he was filling. Of course the boy was too short to see into the gas tank. That boy spent a lot of time training and eventually beat the crap out of papa. Too bad he was killed in prison before he was 25. I still believe" Violence begets violence." It's too bad the wrong person reaps the results.
You know there are more ways the scales are balanced than can be imagined. I sure hope there is such a thing as karma because some have a vicious streak that comes down through the generations. I try to live my life as though every hurt I cause will be returned two fold.
I have a pet ideology??? Have you looked in the mirror recently. You might find someone who feels protection of self is more important than anything that may happen to others. Why are all gun lovers afraid to the point, they feel they need deadly protection??
I have stated my views many times over and yet it is still twisted out of shape. I believe guns must be treated with respect, registered, and locked out of reach of children. They are not to be thought of as necessary to impose one will on anyone!! If one hunts, and needs the meat fine. Just follow the rules......but wait in the US they have rules like stand your ground.....it means you can shoot the neighbour's boy for playing his music too loud after you have asked them to turn it down...... or maybe a salesman pissed you off and you get away with killing them because you feel threatened . Too bad the boy or the salesman didn't know you felt so threatened and are too dead to explain.
bbyrd, is it possible that you feel guilty about negligently ignoring a crazy asz man with a gun until your son almost got killed, and now you want to satisfy your guilt by over reacting with sane lawful people?
Gun control is important if you're going to own one, very long, never point your at your head, never play with your gun, clean your gun once a month not every evening, you'll fu ck up the finish.
Never play with the gun and your cat at the same time.
Your gun will not stop the truck, do not fantasize about your gun on the highway.
There's no reason to regulate automobiles either. A complete waste of time.
Never play with the gun and your cat at the same time.
Your gun will not stop the truck, do not fantasize about your gun on the highway.
There's no reason to regulate automobiles either. A complete waste of time.
Guilty?? Everyone with a loaded gun at hand and a gut full of alcohol is crazy. So no ,I do not feel guilty. I was brought up by normal people. When I moved to the farm I figured all people with hunting rifles were sane. They were not, even back in 1965. I had not a clue about people like that.......so I naturally feel very strongly about the rules when weapons are sold.
I agree wholeheartedly, but even the most careful people makes mistakes but there are less of them with Canada's laws as they stand now .......I do not want banish guns..... I simply do not want Canada's control over them to weaken. I read that many here feel we should go the way of the US. That is not just horrifying but ridiculous. Even here a full 80% want more control over who ends up with a gun, legally or illegally. It should not be "Well the criminals can get them so we should all be allowed to do the same". What a stupid attitude.
You Ignore the statistics that Colpy and others have posted that refute your assertions.....instead answer questions with obscure meandering drawn out anecdotes
Last edited:
SO you are good with criminals having guns but the rest of us shouldn't? Gotcha.
When you get a grip on those gun owners with criminal intent come talk gun control to the rest of us.
Google" How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research"
"The scientists signed a letter to Biden last week, urging him to consider making "direct investments in unbiased, scientific research and data infrastructure" related to firearm safety.
The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association.
As a result of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters.
Prior to 1996, the Center for Disease Control funded research into the causes of firearm-related deaths. After a series of articles finding that increased prevalence of guns lead to increased incidents of gun violence, Republicans sought to remove all federal funding for research into gun deaths.
In 1996, Republican Rep. Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the CDC budget — the precise amount the CDC spent on gun research in 1995"
And you might at the same time read about how one of their top lawyers got away with murder when he was 17.
You keep telling me about all the stats say this and that, but there are no legitimate stats being done in the US. Furthermore, I done suppose you have noticed that every different agency quoted has a different stat for the same periods and areas!! So when the funding into gun violence is reinstated (Obama has that on his to do list, and I hope he manages it) then you can start talking about how I ignore gun violence. I don't.......I just know what there are no reliable one available. Get your heads out of your butts and investigate a bit more.
Read more: How The NRA Kills Gun Violence Research - Business Insider
I'll make this short so you understand.....You simply don't believe any stats that don't support you ideology....and the NRA is not the ones producing the stats>
And if you dig long enough on the net you will no doubt find people who think like you.
And if you dig long enough on the net you will no doubt find people who think like you.
Sigh.
The federally-funded CDC is not permitted to do gun control research.
That does NOT prevent private institutions or the Department of Justice doing that kind of work, and they do.
The FBI comes out with a standard report every year that minutely describes crime in the USA.....including homicide and the weapons used therein. Guess what? The murder rate has dropped 50% in the last 20 years, and is at its lowest rate in a half century......this while the USA loosens gun control regulations.
You can't deal with that, except to ignore it, which leads to my accusation that you are not dealing with reality.
BTW, the reason the NRA campaigned to have CDC's funding for gun control investigation cut off was that Dr. Kellerman, a researcher funded by the CDC, produced numerous reports that were nothing but anti-gun propaganda, in which he fudged the numbers, adjusting his stats to fit his desire for more gun control. His flawed (lying) statistics were widely touted, and still are out there in the public forum, despite having proven to be entirely FALSE.
For instance, ever hear the line "You are 43 times more apt to use a gun kept for self-defense on a friend or family member than in self-defense" That is Kellerman, who came to that conclusion by including all persons known to the shooter as "friends and family" In other words, if two drug dealers get in a turf war, and one kills the other, he just killed a "friend". He also eliminated from his study any areas that did not comply with his wants. In addition, he did not include defensive uses in which no one died.....that make up over 95% of such uses.
The removal of CDC funds was a punishment for producing anti-gun propaganda instead of research.
You need to get your ducklings in a row before you challenge me on this subject.
You do not have a clue.
Want research??
How about the Harvard Journal of Law & Public PolicyGood enough for you??
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.” Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists – Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser – in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland’s murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study’s authors write in the report:
If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct – that “gun don’t kill people, people do” – the study also shows that Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression.
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive :: The American Civil Rights Union
There are many many more pieces of research out there, done by extremely reputable researchers (NOT Kellerman) and financed through reputable organizations.
As I know you can not be convinced, I will leave it to you to do your own research, as I am not wasting any more time.
