Just to prove gun control nuts are full of shit

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by PHOENIX TRADING, Dec 16, 2012.

  1. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3FV47GWxKz8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


    "A man in China convicted of attacking 32 in a kindergarten with a meat cleaver"
     
  2. wjk

    wjk

  3. ktm

    ktm

    Fascinating. I never heard of this. Thanks for the post.
     
  4. Mav88

    Mav88

    Gun ban people are an emotional, and they hate gun owners anyway since they tend to vote conservative. They have no logical argument.

    A total gun ban will never pass right now in the US, many midwestern swing states like wisconsin, ohio, etc. have high gun ownership rates and you would have to change the constitution. I'm not worried at all.

    The data is clear

    <a href="http://s1274.beta.photobucket.com/user/AlexisNexus/media/GunsvsHomicide2_zps41d18f5c.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y432/AlexisNexus/GunsvsHomicide2_zps41d18f5c.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"/></a>
     
  5. ktm

    ktm

    Very good points indeed.

    That's what is so fascinating about the liberal arguments on so many fronts. It makes you wonder if they are really that intent on hurting the constituencies that are always claiming to protect.

    Making "gun free zones" is actually detrimental because it gathers "gun free" law abiding citizens all in one place - ready to be slaughtered.

    Demanding that minorities have "set asides" to ensure college admission - even to replace non-minorities that are far more qualified. The result? All minorities are looked upon by their peers with the same stigma that questions the means by which they gained admission. Failure rates among minorities that aren't prepared for the rigorous work are exponentially higher than those that qualified based on merit and performance.

    Yet the liberals still insist that these programs are helpful. They are certainly not helping law abiding citizens or minorities. But then it seems that liberal goals are more to feel good about themselves as opposed to helping anyone.
     
  6. Number of people saved from death by handguns and assault weapons.........12 per year

    Number of people killed by handguns and assault weapons......30,000 per year


    It's a good thing we have handguns to keep us safe.
     
  7. Mav88

    Mav88

    they may not be the solution, but they are not the problem either
     
  8. wjk

    wjk

    How many of those deaths are gang related or related to some type of illegal activity? For the most part, law abiding responsible gun owners are not doing the killing. Show me the number of murders that are not gang related, disgruntled ex-employees, mass murders by sick fucks, and domestic dispute.

    Regarding self defense and crime prevention: Number of lives saved cannot be known since ownership itself is a deterrent.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/7589-guns-used-in-self-defense

    "According to the authors of Cato’s recently released study on how often guns are used by citizens to prevent crime, “tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.” In a study of more than 5,000 news reports over an eight-year period, Clayton Cramer and David Burnett showed that the mere presence of an armed citizen thwarts many crimes, even beyond those that are reported by the police and subsequently printed in the newspaper."
     
  9. Mav88

    Mav88

    The salient question to ask is: "does the presence of guns make murder more likely?"

    The answer- see my chart on page 1. The answer is no.

    Once someone decides to kill you, the manner of death is not the issue, yet shallow thinkers want to make it so.

    As shown, the worst mass murders in the USA are not with guns, they are with bombs or by making aircraft into bombs. Tim McVey is exhibit B along with the OP.
     
    #10     Dec 16, 2012