The solution to the gun problem

[phins_4_ever]

Yeah, guns in the house are terrible

Honestly, how mentally numb can one be? Nobody is talking about taking all guns away or outlawing guns. The concept of gun laws can not be that hard to comprehend.

[MoFinz]

Honestly, how mentally numb can one be? Nobody is talking about taking all guns away or outlawing guns. The concept of gun laws can not be that hard to comprehend.

Lets not be disinengenuous. You and i both know it wont stop at "High Powered Assault Style Weapons". Once you start down this slippery slope, you've lost all control to people that will exploit the momentum they gain with a weapons ban of any kind.

Or do you conveniently ignore that Cho killed all those people at Va Tech with handguns? Anyone that villifies semi automatic weapons is ignorant of the reality of modern firearms and is only buying into the media and political hype. The fact is that in Newtown and Aurora, the shooters are the problem, not the weapon. They could easily have killed as many and possibly more with 2 glocks.

I know some things are hard for you to believe (like what Viagra was developed for and what it became LOL), but just because YOU lack the capacity to grasp a concept does not make the concept any less valid.

[MoFinz]

[phinfan3411]

Some lady got killed on her way to soccer practice ???

No way...

[Statler Waldorf]

A gaggle of numb-nuts….lol

[GoFins!]

I posted this story because it is irony at its best. Here is that McDonalds-fed, gun-toting momma becoming the symbol of the 2nd Amendment. A hero to all gun lovers. A hero to the industry. Because she feels so much safer and because she can carry that gun around. Though she wasn't killed at a soccer game or in a grocery store but at home. And not by an intruder but by her own husband who is probably, according to you, a 'stupid ******'. The 2nd amendment she was hailing so much failed her. It cost her life.

The Second Amendment did not cost her her life. It provided her with a means to defend herself against a larger and stronger attacker who likely could have killed her in a multitude of ways. However, she wasn't killed by an intruder or anyone she thought she'd need to defend herself against. She might not have even had any suspicion that her husband was going to attempt to kill her. Was she even armed when murdered?

He could have smothered her with a pillow while she'll slept, and for your side to not be hypocritical you'd have to speak out about the need for pillow control.

It is not about not allowing or prohibiting guns. It is not about eliminating gun related deaths. It is about reducing the possibility of gun related incidents. Just like any other industry where the actions of 'stupid *******' can cause harm and death regulations have to be put in place.

Not all "gun related incidents" are negative. When the mother shot the intruder 5 times that is a good thing.

But, the fact that we only hear knee-jerk reactions about negative gun related incidents and never car/baseball bat/hammer related incidents creates questions about the motivation, or agenda, that fuels the hypocrisy.

[Spesh]

Lets not be disinengenuous. You and i both know it wont stop at "High Powered Assault Style Weapons". Once you start down this slippery slope, you've lost all control to people that will exploit the momentum they gain with a weapons ban of any kind.

Or do you conveniently ignore that Cho killed all those people at Va Tech with handguns? Anyone that villifies semi automatic weapons is ignorant of the reality of modern firearms and is only buying into the media and political hype. The fact is that in Newtown and Aurora, the shooters are the problem, not the weapon. They could easily have killed as many and possibly more with 2 glocks.

I know some things are hard for you to believe (like what Viagra was developed for and what it became LOL), but just because YOU lack the capacity to grasp a concept does not make the concept any less valid.

Are you under the assumption that you can own any weapon you want?

And we are all aware that lumps of metal are, by their very nature, not malicious. Im fairly certain Skynet hasnt rebelled. Yet.

[phinfan3411]

Thanks. That's more real world than plenty of threads posted here and elsewhere recently. You can sense how desperate the gun owners are when suddenly they care about Britain, and are scrambling for numbers. As Piers Morgan correctly signed off to one of them last night, "You're no friend of mine."

I damn sure know how to define a bullet ridden body. That's a murder, a senseless murder, and in this case a batch of them, ones that would not have happened minus the 24/7/365 devastating and disgraceful realities of gun ownership.

Otherwise the numbers thrown out lately are more than laughable. Every country has different tendencies among crime and they are hardly defined or recorded the same way. You'd have to be a successful fool to make a one-on-one comparison. The United Kingdom criteria was changed more than a decade ago to include common assault as a violent crime. That's simple assault, with no injuries, the type of incident that United State numbers do not count among violent crime. The United Kingdom number more than doubles using that change alone. Specifically, it was a 118% bump. The United States requires "aggravated assault" as a violent crime. United Kingdom includes "sexual offences" in broad scope while the United States numbers include only "forcible rape." The United Kingdom figure includes 8% in an "other" category, non specified. The United States doesn't use anything like that, indicating there's more willingness in Britain to include borderline cases as violent crime, ones that don't align perfectly with a category. A full 15% of the United Kingdom number is "harassment," which once again doesn't show up in United States numbers. The way it's being presented by simpletons on right wing websites, and parroted everywhere, you would think that every category is directly parallel, and that every "violent" crime is what we would associate with the term in the United States, some type of dangerous physical act.

There's no doubt some of the disparity is real. The United States ranks low in car theft rate, while the United Kingdom is near the top. But it would hardly sound persuasive on Piers Morgan to rant about car theft when he can counter with bloody bullet ridden bodies. So the desperate right wingers happily lump those incidents as violent crime, and otherwise pretend all is swell. Hand me some more bullets, Martha, I think we're due for some rustling leaves tonight. From the southwest. I can feel it.

As always, situational influence. Don't take everything at face value. Not many of the cable hosts are in tune with it. I deal with it daily.

Your posts have such a aura of arrogance, and hypocrisy it is hard for me to read them without throwing up in my mouth.

You talk about the mean gun owners always messing with the stats??

Like the grabbers are the only ones competent enough to put together a sensible argument, right?

Well, as long as we are on The United Kingdom, why don't we talk about the stat you must have just forgot to mention, huh?

You are advocating for some sort of a ban, and you brought up the UK, so please, tell us how their ban WORKED.

Please show us, oh wise one, I'll make it simple for you, they had a lower murder rate BEFORE their ban, they have a lower murder rate AFTER their ban. The murder rate actually went up after the ban, but then went down to where it was previously, in other words it had NO EFFECT ON THEIR MURDER RATE.

Stop pretending the ban had something to do with them having a lower murder rate.


Edited to add:

It seems you go through all types of statistics to post the things you do, yet you seem to leave some important things out.

Surely you have noted that the US murder rate has dropped 50% in the last two decades, almost like something already was in effect to curb the violence, yet you never mention it...hmmm.

I mean every category, rifle deaths for instance, blunt object, dropping every year, and no mention, again...hmm.

Almost makes it seem like you're an agenda driven hack.

[Dolphins9954]

The UK has a far more violent crime rate than the United States PERIOD. And these numbers are compared by the 2 governments own stats. You can nit-pick the numbers all you want but it's not going to be enough to erase the 3.5x difference in violent crimes. Not to mention that people in the UK can't even walk to the store without 50 cameras watching them. Even with banning guns and big brother watching your every move. They still have more crime and especially violent crime than we do. Doesn't sound like a fair trade off.

And let's stop the BS.

You guys want to ban all guns for the most part. This silly "assault weapons ban" makes no sense in this crusade to end gun violence when they account for less than 3% of all gun crimes. It's like trying to put out a house fire with a glass of water.

[irish fin fan]

The UK has a far more violent crime rate than the United States PERIOD. And these numbers are compared by the 2 governments own stats. You can nit-pick the numbers all you want but it's not going to be enough to erase the 3.5x difference in violent crimes. Not to mention that people in the UK can't even walk to the store without 50 cameras watching them. Even with banning guns and big brother watching your every move. They still have more crime and especially violent crime than we do. Doesn't sound like a fair trade off.

And let's stop the BS.

You guys want to ban all guns for the most part. This silly "assault weapons ban" makes no sense in this crusade to end gun violence when they account for less than 3% of all gun crimes. It's like trying to put out a house fire with a glass of water.

Have you been out for a weekend in the UK? The amount of drunks is unbelievable. Imagine them having access to guns. Pure carnage would result. The UK has a major drinking problem. The violence doesn't surprise me.