2011
32,000 gun deaths
- 20,000 by suicide
- 8,900 by gang-related
- 1,000 by accident
= 2,200 Gun Homicides Per Year Beyond Gangs
2,200 is hardly an epidemic.
1,000 people a year die falling down the stairs.
2200 snowflake liberals get their heads stuck in mason jars and suffocate every year too, but no one calls for banning those
shareDoes the 2200 include accidents and justifiable homicides? If so, then the shootings targeted by gun control measures are fewer still.
Entropy ain't what it used to be.
Good way to pick at the statistics. A total of 478,400 crimes were committed with a firearm that year in which someone was injured. That, of course, doesn't include data regarding accidental death or suicide nor gun crime in which no one was shot. Now that isn't to say guns should be banned. No one wants to ban firearms completely. If you could take your head out of your ass for two seconds you would learn that gun control and banning guns are not synonymous. If it were easier to get a driver's license than a firearm then maybe we wouldn't have a problem. Now while we're on the topic of statistics - if you want to blast a film that deals with gun control issues because you don't think the statistics related to gun death are high enough then you better start blasting film that deal with terrorism because more people a year are killed by gun violence than terrorist acts. Yet somehow the same people who want absolutely no limits regarding gun ownership are the same ones who want to refuse refugee entry into the country because they 'might be dangerous.' Just think about that. Don't feel the need to come swinging back with some 'you're a libtard' retort. Just. Think. Do I wanna get rid of guns? No, so don't assume I do. Just think.
shareless than 100 people are killed in america by terrorism a country of 330 mil , why worry about terrorism
shareEstimated rates of defensive gun uses per year run as high as 4.7 million.
Most estimates are in the half million to two million range.
Entropy ain't what it used to be.
Look, let's dispense with that crap. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. An outright ban is the end game. Like anything else, our rights will be chipped away a little at a time. When the left is actually honest about this issue, as Diane Feinstein has been in interviews, an outright ban is exactly what they want but they know they won't get it in one fell swoop. So they settle for incremental infringements. Hoping to slowly boil the frog in the pot.
shareThe majority of said crimes took place in large, majority-black cities where the city has already banned guns.
Yeah, double-banning guns is really gonna help.
Kind of like a "double secret probation" measure? lol!!!
sharethey get them from nearby gun-friendly states (e.g. most Chicago gang's guns come from Indiana. That's the facts). If all states and areas had the same tough gun laws and penalites for committing a gun crime then violence would go down. Not eliminated, but it would save lives.
shareSo if we just outright ban guns there will be no guns, just like we do with heroin, cocaine, etc.,?
The black market will always exist. Criminals will always have access to guns. Even if guns were banned in all 50 states, it would still be incredibly easy to smuggle them in from Mexico AND Canada. If we did what you suggest the only result would be making crime easier for criminals to get away with.
It would make law-abiding citizens incredibly easy targets.
Thank God, Odin, Zeus, Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Krishna, and Xenu that people like you are the minority.
Didn't say ban guns.
And by your logic we shouldn't have any laws. Cause bad guys will just break them anyway.
Why does the right not care how many innocent people die every year just so everyone can have a gun and those who profit from it and use it to remain in power.
shareThe murder rate would increase if we banned guns. You know, like it did in those big cities I mentioned earlier that DID ban guns and have sky high murder rates.
Stop pretending you have the moral high ground on this issue because you don't. Even more importantly, stop being arrogant and demonizing people for not disagreeing with your flimsy position.
Literally everybody in my neighborhood has at least one gun. Some have many more, like myself. There has never been a single shooting or any type of violent crime here. That includes home invasions. Why aren't we targeted? Because we have the means to protect ourselves.
**** you for suggesting we are bad people for defending our families and property.
Furthermore, if you see some innocent person getting attacked in the street, what the hell can you do about it? I can stop that crime because I have a gun. You can't do anything at all.
The murder rate would increase if we banned guns.
It's still freedom to have sane gun control laws. Read my post above.
What about the freedom of those innocents that die? What about their freedom?
Why can't we debate things on merits.
Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean there can be sane responsible limits.
Like just show you can own one responsibly.
And be able to electronically track ammo purchases.
It would save lives and no infringe on any law abiding responsible persons rights to own guns.
The electronic part is so when someone buys large amounts at different dealers ina short time throws a red flag. So maybe the freedom of 50 innocent folks or 20 6 years olds freedoms aren't extinguished.
It's still freedom to have sane gun control laws.
What about the freedom of those innocents that die?
Why can't we debate things on merits.
Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean there can be sane responsible limits.
Like just show you can own one responsibly.
The electronic part is so when someone buys large amounts at different dealers ina short time throws a red flag.
You still haven't spelled out at all nor has any in the gun lobby how any of the things I mentioned infringes on the rights of lawful gun ownership?
By law abiding citizens.
Anyone that can bring forth s rationale argument that one shouldn't show they can responsibly operate and own a deadly weapon then I'll change my mind. I have an open mind. We don't let folks drive a car til they can show they can. Somewhat anyway. We don't let anyone prescribe drugs. It's a deadly weapon that kills more family members than home invaders. And the weapon of choice for all mass killings. We can do both. We can make it easy for law abiding folks to buy all the guns they want. And take measures to make the ownership more safe and keep them out of hands if those that shouldn't have them.
And yes people always adapt. But we always try to not make it easier. It's a constant. Battle. I never said these are perfect solutions or will end all deaths. But it will save some and we will never know about the massacres it prevented. Because they never will have happened.
The guy in the movie is who I want owning a gun. Someone not as responsible would more than likely have killed the girl and other innocents in the process.
I want people that can operate one safely and calmly. Not someone that has a room full of weapons and ammo and is a ticking time bomb. Or someone who had 3 guns in the home with a toddler and doesn't keep them locked up. Or unloaded even.
I respect the constitution. The constitution also says something about life and liberty. We can protect innocent lives and give folks the unfettered right to own guns as long as they are law abiding and live by the rules of a civilized society.
Yes folks have different. Views. But er should be able to debate all the merits. Just as I outlined mine. It is rare for someone from the pro gun side to do at all. To even engage in any debate is almost unheard of
When is the last time someone tried to kill a roomful of people with a toddler being used as the weapon?
Having kids irresponsibly is bad and a drain. But not directly deadly to innocent folks.
But the same folks who are pro gun are anti planned parenthood. So the promote more and more babies by irresponsible parents. So see now my head is starting to spin. My brain will explode if I think about it too much.
Praise Jesus
the answer might be that some feel that freedom is as precious as safety, or even more so.
At least I explain my position.
Again. Since you can't read. The cities they have tough gun laws are surrounded by states and local areas that have lax gun laws. They get their guns from there. It's a fact. The guns in Chicago come mostly from neighboring Indiana.
And more family members and children are killed by guns in the home than invaders. Cause they don't invade when you're home.
And for the 37364737th fucjing time. I don't want to an guns!!!!! I just want everyone that owns one show that you can operate one safely and responsibly so you don't kill your wife or your toddler doesn't get into it and so you don't kill innocent folks when you're defending your home. And keep those that shouldn't have them from getting them. Why is that such a bad position to have? Why does it always go to-"you're not banning my guns!!!!"
No one ever suggested that. Why can't we just have sane control of such a deadly dangerous weapon?
Why can't we have rationale debate on th subject?
And I could do something if I saw an innocent being attacked. And i have.
And I never said I wanted to take your gun or support any law that does. Have I?!!??
Just answer that question and pm me and I'll send you a check for $500. Just honestly answer that one question.
Have I or any democrat ever once mentioned banning guns from law abiding citizens????
Answer that and I'll send you the check tomorrow and a merry Christmas card with it.
these stats are plain as day, right in front of you.
why are so many resources and time spent on the possibility of a statistically insignificant reduction in deaths?
There has to be a better explanation for this strange gun obsession the left has.
As has been said many times before, gun control isn't about guns it's about control. In America we are citizens, most other places the residents are subjects. When our first rulers demeaned, abused, and marginalized us we took up arms and kicked the bloody Brits out. It's no mistake that the first two amendments to our Constitution honor free speech and the means to arm and protect ourselves. And it's also no mistake that the progressive left's wet dream is to censor our speech and disarm the public, controlling communications and making us dependent on government for protection are both powerful steps towards domination of the people.
sharethe CTRL LEFT
shareWith the shenanigans they're pulling lately, it's no wonder they want a disarmed populace. We're on the brink of civil war if this electoral vote goes south for Trump, which will likely end up in Martial Law. It's easier to round up citizens for the Fema camps if they're armed with baseball bats and slingshots, but a heavily armed populace will resist, which keeps these a55holes in check.
share