Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Dredimus

Gun Laws Vs. Homicides By State

107 posts in this topic

who said anything about government treatment? One aspect of gun control would be all purchasers checked against a no-guns list - maintained by government but reported by health professionals.

Who said anything about government? Where do you think gun control comes from? Do you even know what you're asking for? Again, who determines what "even marginally unhinged" means? You? Government? WHO???

When the government proves itself the least bit capable of treating mental illness with parity to physical illness your argument will just begin to make some sense. When the government proves itself the least bit responsible for the use of its own guns, your bottomless vessel of trust will just begin to be deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the Swiss government says it's okay, 420,000 full-auto assault rifles in a nation the size of Switzerland (how many millions of assault rifles would that be for the US, anyone care to extrapolate?) is just fine. Hypocritically, the US government can't say it's okay (see the 2nd Amendment), and has to ban these guns for Americans.

The anti-gun spin machine changes its argument every time another point is made ruining their next false pretense for their statist prohibition. Now we're back to a lack of training, as if that's what mattered in the wake of Sandy Hook. Maybe they think American humans are less responsible than their Swiss counterparts. Maybe they don't care what outlying factoid someone clings hold of to support their prohibitionist world where only rapists, burglars and murderers carry guns, just so long as they agree with getting rid of peoples' rights. Throw as much anti-gun crap on the wall as you can find, deny reality, and see what sticks. Herp dee derp.

Edited by Yamato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not "a" military. The US military. Those places are not the US where we spend more on the military than nearly all countries on earth combined. Certainly in backward 3rd world countries, citizens with handguns can challenge a military.

You mean like Afghanistan where the Insurgents have been going for over a decade and all they got is small arms and home made explosives? Against the US Military... spending a half trillion over that timespan.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the government forcing people to do something makes everything okay? Is it the lack of training that's really at issue here now? What is the real basis for correctness here anyway?

In my eyes, yes, the difference would be the training. The Constitution provides for people who are trained to bear arms. Even if that is a 2 week course for everyone. I'd like people who are gun owners to be responsible, and to do that they have to be trained in laws and usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like Afghanistan where the Insurgents have been going for over a decade and all they got is small arms and home made explosives? Against the US Military... spending a half trillion over that timespan.

You mean the same people the US sold weapons to and trained for years to fight the soviets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screen+Shot+2012-12-15+at+5.01.49+PM.png

The number for Kentucky caught my eye.

Just curious if there is any data on if there are more deaths by firearms in Kentucky also?

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my eyes, yes, the difference would be the training. The Constitution provides for people who are trained to bear arms. Even if that is a 2 week course for everyone. I'd like people who are gun owners to be responsible, and to do that they have to be trained in laws and usage.

It still does nothing as to what the constitution intened gun rights to be. It`s being abused and plays no part in todays world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the same people the US sold weapons to and trained for years to fight the soviets.

Yeah them. The point not being that they are trained. Or, were trained 20 years ago. But that they are still resisting using only small arms. Heavy weapons, tanks, aircraft, naval units... are not needed to resist an occupying military. This would apply to the US civilian population just as well as to the Afghans.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It still does nothing as to what the constitution intened gun rights to be. It`s being abused and plays no part in todays world.

The Constitution intended that there be privately owned firearms to be used for defense of the nation by trained militiamen. That is basically what I was saying would need to happen for me to promote/stand behind widespread gun ownership of military weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Constitution intended that there be privately owned firearms to be used for defense of the nation by trained militiamen. That is basically what I was saying would need to happen for me to promote/stand behind widespread gun ownership of military weapons.

I agree with gun ownership in the us however it has failed as you have failed to use the right for what it was intended. Your government has already been taken over by the banks the very reason for the 2nd amendment. Its to late for it to be relivant anymore. Act now or that right will be history.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The day after the us turned it`s banking system over to the fedral reserve was the day the second amendment should have kicked in. Thats when your government screwed you.

Edited by The Silver Thong
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and No. The Declaration of Independence IMO spells out better then the 2nd Amendment about under what circumstances it should "kick in". Although its always active I understand what your hinting at.

DoI Link provided:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and No. The Declaration of Independence IMO spells out better then the 2nd Amendment about under what circumstances it should "kick in". Although its always active I understand what your hinting at.

DoI Link provided:http://www.archives....transcript.html

Yes and now what the US faught for is back in the bank of London. Its a waste of 200 years. If the 2 nd admendment were to be uses today it would mean killing all the politicians and heads of the banking system. Can Americans do that, no. The game is over and the banks yet again win. Theres a famouse quote out there that says I care not of your government but give me control of the banks and I shall rule. Rothchilds or some other d bag said it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a famouse quote out there that says I care not of your government but give me control of the banks and I shall rule. Rothchilds or some other d bag said it.

hahha...... that was funny

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahha...... that was funny

Im a bit rusty lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twist a lot?

But I am not surprised.

And here you have the data on background checks performed by state, as I said Alaska has less handguns:

Screen+Shot+2012-12-15+at+5.01.49+PM.png

In fact, in California ten times as many handguns were purchased than in Alaska.

California has almost 50 times the number of people. Since Alaska's handgun density is almost 5 times that of California's, it appears to me that handguns aren't the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my eyes, yes, the difference would be the training. The Constitution provides for people who are trained to bear arms. Even if that is a 2 week course for everyone. I'd like people who are gun owners to be responsible, and to do that they have to be trained in laws and usage.

What are you trying to fix? Accidents? It's the wake of Sandy Hook that we have so much noisy disapproval about guns in this country. How is mandatory training of gun owners about laws and usage going to prevent Columbine? It's also ironic for the government to force train our gun owners under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment which is the right to bear arms against the government if necessary. Training and these sensational cases don't seem to be correlated. Some of the most sensational gun homicides were from the hands of trained shooters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number for Kentucky caught my eye.

Just curious if there is any data on if there are more deaths by firearms in Kentucky also?

Kentucky rates somewhere in the middle field, according to Statemaster they are # 17 in the ranking with 13.1 per 100,000.

The amount of guns have little statistical correlation with murders or even crimes. The amount of accidental discharges, deaths and injuries, do. For more detail there is a 7 year old study by the FICAP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you trying to fix? Accidents? It's the wake of Sandy Hook that we have so much noisy disapproval about guns in this country. How is mandatory training of gun owners about laws and usage going to prevent Columbine? It's also ironic for the government to force train our gun owners under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment which is the right to bear arms against the government if necessary. Training and these sensational cases don't seem to be correlated. Some of the most sensational gun homicides were from the hands of trained shooters.

I'm not trying to fix anything. I am just saying that if everyone was trained and armed, that would be the equivalent to Switzerland. WHICH IS WHAT I RESPONDED TO!! You should go over the content and context of a post before going off at the... keyboard.

I did not anywhere say I wanted mandated classes or whatever the F-bomb you're going on about... I was responding to the difference between the US and Switzerland and how if we were to have a Swiss like system here. it would require trained individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont even understand what this topic is suppose to represent. Its a number sheet. Thats all. As if I cared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about government? Where do you think gun control comes from? Do you even know what you're asking for? Again, who determines what "even marginally unhinged" means? You? Government? WHO???

When the government proves itself the least bit capable of treating mental illness with parity to physical illness your argument will just begin to make some sense. When the government proves itself the least bit responsible for the use of its own guns, your bottomless vessel of trust will just begin to be deserved.

sigh. Again "who said anything about government treatment? One aspect of gun control would be all purchasers checked against a no-guns list - maintained by government but reported by health professionals."

YOU said government treatment. And did it again above in your second paragraph. I explained WHO - health professionals. Did you actually read it before you fired off a response or are you just trolling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sigh. Again "who said anything about government treatment? One aspect of gun control would be all purchasers checked against a no-guns list - maintained by government but reported by health professionals."

YOU said government treatment. And did it again above in your second paragraph. I explained WHO - health professionals. Did you actually read it before you fired off a response or are you just trolling?

None of this will change the gun deaths in this country as long as the police are carrying military grade weaponry and using military style tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like Afghanistan where the Insurgents have been going for over a decade and all they got is small arms and home made explosives? Against the US Military... spending a half trillion over that timespan.

pssh. That's no longer a war. It's "going on" because republicans like spending money on defense. It has nothing to do with "going". The US military is just camped out. The "insurgents" have no chance of any political power unless we leave. Which proves my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh. Again "who said anything about government treatment? One aspect of gun control would be all purchasers checked against a no-guns list - maintained by government but reported by health professionals."

YOU said government treatment. And did it again above in your second paragraph. I explained WHO - health professionals. Did you actually read it before you fired off a response or are you just trolling?

Who keeps the list? Who enforces the list? You can't have your idea without government treatment. What you're suggesting is that government get involved in our health care records and our doctors....there are privacy laws in this country did you even know that? If government wants to snoop through your medical records it better have probable cause, it better have a legal grounds to search, it better know what it's looking for, and it better get a search warrant. Read the 4th Amendment already. Now you're killing the 4th just to kill the 2nd. Do you liberal democrats have no end to your liberty killing ways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to fix anything. I am just saying that if everyone was trained and armed, that would be the equivalent to Switzerland. WHICH IS WHAT I RESPONDED TO!! You should go over the content and context of a post before going off at the... keyboard.

I did not anywhere say I wanted mandated classes or whatever the F-bomb you're going on about... I was responding to the difference between the US and Switzerland and how if we were to have a Swiss like system here. it would require trained individuals.

I'm going on about the subject of this thread. The reason I brought up Switzerland before you replied was to compare gun crime which is what we're discussing here. "Being more like Switzerland", yet not having any impact on gun crimes, is irrelevant to the purpose of this discussion. So you think that having millions of full-auto assault rifles in the US is a good idea provided that they're forced to do so by government provided they're also trained by the government. That's fine but I hardly see why that makes a difference in what the F-bomb we're talking about here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.