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 2
Yamato

Guns Do Not Kill People

322 posts in this topic

We already have that type of gun control. I dislike the idea that "gun control" as envisioned by some means assuming that no one (except the government, ha ha) is trustworthy to own a gun...kinda like, guilty of insanity until proven innocent type of mentality.

This wasn't exactly what I was looking for, but:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/338239/aquino-shoots-down-gun-ban

I would like to know how many lives are saved each year by legitimate self-defense against home invaders and others, and how many people killed by guns are criminals killed by police, but I know you'll never get those statistics from the media.

Not only are prescription drugs implicated in some (if not most) of the shootings, they are deadly in their own right:

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/12/20/2451315/drug-overdose-deaths-up-296-percent.html

No one seems to worry about prescription drugs, even though for some ailments placebos are shown to be just as effective.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they have these laws in place? Guns don't kill people right? These laws are in place because despite how much people cry out that they don't want gun control because "guns don't kill people", they themselves want to prevent guns from ending up in those peoples hands. This is done by controlling guns. The argument "guns don't kill people" is thus worthless as an argument against gun control.

I'm not sure that it's worthless, Stellar. Finishing the "argument" which is just a catch phrase, it's "People kill people." Sometimes people kill people because they're disarmed and vulnerable, like in Columbine, Aurora and Newtown. A more sensible response to these kinds of tragedies (if these tragedies are why we want to legislate) is to have armed security guards at our schools.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have that type of gun control. I dislike the idea that "gun control" as envisioned by some means assuming that no one (except the government, ha ha) is trustworthy to own a gun...kinda like, guilty of insanity until proven innocent type of mentality.

This wasn't exactly what I was looking for, but:

http://newsinfo.inqu...ts-down-gun-ban

I would like to know how many lives are saved each year by legitimate self-defense against home invaders and others, and how many people killed by guns are criminals killed by police, but I know you'll never get those statistics from the media.

Not only are prescription drugs implicated in some (if not most) of the shootings, they are deadly in their own right:

http://www.kentucky....96-percent.html

No one seems to worry about prescription drugs, even though for some ailments placebos are shown to be just as effective.

x2

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that it's worthless, Stellar. Finishing the "argument" which is just a catch phrase, it's "People kill people." Sometimes people kill people because they're disarmed and vulnerable, like in Columbine, Aurora and Newtown. A more sensible response to these kinds of tragedies (if these tragedies are why we want to legislate) is to have armed security guards at our schools.

But it is worthless. Its nothing more than a meaningless slogan.

People use the slogan to send the message that guns should not be controlled, as they're inanimate objects and they themselves do not kill. Since the objects themselves don't kill, its not guns that need controlling. Well, the same people putting forth that slogan as an argument insist that lunatics and psychopath should be prevented from obtaining weapons, which is gun control in and of itself, indicating that gun control does infact serve a use in some capacity, despite their "guns don't kill people" "argument".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is worthless. Its nothing more than a meaningless slogan.

People use the slogan to send the message that guns should not be controlled, as they're inanimate objects and they themselves do not kill. Since the objects themselves don't kill, its not guns that need controlling. Well, the same people putting forth that slogan as an argument insist that lunatics and psychopath should be prevented from obtaining weapons, which is gun control in and of itself, indicating that gun control does infact serve a use in some capacity, despite their "guns don't kill people" "argument".

If the slogan is meaningless then your comment is really lame. First off, the slogan is just over used. But in regards to your reply, yes of course that is gun control but it’s gun control that deals with the problem and not just the symtoms.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the slogan is meaningless then your comment is really lame. First off, the slogan is just over used. But in regards to your reply, yes of course that is gun control but it's gun control that deals with the problem and not just the symtoms.

So you're saying that controlling an inanimate object does, in certain cases, help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns do not kill people, but in the wrong hands THEY DO KILL, So does a hammer, a knife, a car, a brick etc etc etc, lots of dangerous objects out there when used by an even more dangerous HUMAN BEING.

We need to stop the ***** footing about with the "human rights" brigade and start taking note when the signs are there that they are potentially extremely dangerous instead of saying " a bit of medication will sort them out" and allow them back on the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that controlling an inanimate object does, in certain cases, help?

No. I get the feeling that you seem to think that people are against “gun control” and they are not. Gun control in itself is useless; it’s really an oxymoron. What they object to are the reasons behind implementation of gun control, whether intentional or not. “Gun control” makes it sound as if government is looking out for the people but in reality, it is government infringing on the people’s rights. And it’s that that people object to. People’s rights are far more important than their safety.

By keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally instable has a side effect of controlling an inanimate object. That’s an illusion of controlling only the inanimate object if a specific one exists. But this still won’t stop gun crime. People are under the wrong impression that gun control equates to less gun crime. But the more gun laws you have enables an ever growing police state. And again, the bottom line is that gun control does not control guns but infringes on the individual and that’s an area that the government should never be allowed to encroach on. That’s what the Constitution and Bill of Rights was established to do.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is worthless. Its nothing more than a meaningless slogan.

People use the slogan to send the message that guns should not be controlled, as they're inanimate objects and they themselves do not kill. Since the objects themselves don't kill, its not guns that need controlling. Well, the same people putting forth that slogan as an argument insist that lunatics and psychopath should be prevented from obtaining weapons, which is gun control in and of itself, indicating that gun control does infact serve a use in some capacity, despite their "guns don't kill people" "argument".

You have nothing real to worry about if it's about guns not being controlled because they are controlled. My argument isn't trying to sell guns, it's trying to get people like you to agree with me that guns need to be controlled in the hands of governments as well as they need to be controlled with civilians. How ignorant of all history are we to completely ignore the most heinous and lethal gun taking nutjobs and the hundreds of millions of dead bodies that result? Your message is that it can't happen here. That in the face of all that global golden arches planting, in the face of all these violent wars resulting in the deaths of millions in the Middle East and SE Asia that we're somehow in this cocoon of ultimate safety from our government and thus we should bend over and surrender our ability to fight back. It's people like you who would make the Jewish underground necessary because the Nazis already took the guns and people needed to sneak them back in. The presumption that well it was just a .22 caliber or the guns were really small, or the capacity was low, so therefore a Jew can have one, is preposterous.

You need to make the argument that the animate US government is somehow different than all the rest and trustworthy before you pull these worthless arguments against inanimate objects. Before you tell anyone this fantasy that guns are for killing animals and not self defense. None of you liberty haters have even begun to do so.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns do kill people. They also wound and maim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My argument isn't trying to sell guns, it's trying to get people like you to agree with me that guns need to be controlled in the hands of governments as well as they need to be controlled with civilians.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can only give you 1 likey but would give you a whole lot more if allowed. I have been saying this myself for a long time. hence my signature.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns do kill people. They also wound and maim.

Really now? Okay then accepting that rhetoric, guns also defend people. Guns also save lives. Guns also enforce the law.

Julie Borowski is right. Guns are inanimate, neutral, and not the problem. People are the problem. And more government time-wasting line-drawing by bureaucrats who have no knowledge of what causes Newtowns is not the solution.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This atmosphere of paranoia today boils down to ignorant bureaucrats copping out and blaming the gun because it's too difficult to undress the problem for what it really is. Government isn't interested in doing what's best for the American people because they don't care about you or I. There's no love between us. They're interested in responding to emotional reactions, and creating emotional reactions, and winning elections. They're interested in doing what's irresponsible and lazy, not what's hard. It's too hard to admit that outcasts kill people. It's too hard to admit that bad parenting kills people. That mental illness kills people. That prescription drugs kill people. So they sweep all that latent potential to actually prevent the next tragedy under the rug and pump their silly rhetoric about guns, guns, guns, guns, guns. I could say it's a lack of intelligence but it's a lot worse than that.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really now? Okay then accepting that rhetoric, guns also defend people. Guns also save lives. Guns also enforce the law.

Julie Borowski is right. Guns are inanimate, neutral, and not the problem. People are the problem. And more government time-wasting line-drawing by bureaucrats who have no knowledge of what causes Newtowns is not the solution.

Can we ban people then?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we ban people then?

Is "ban" the right verb to use over this issue?

We can prevent the problem -violent murderous behavior- by learning what the causes of it are and addressing those. George Carlin has it pegged pretty accurately as it relates to a government's foreign policy.

Julie Borowski described it well in the OP video as it relates to individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we ban people then?

we ban crimes, we jail\execute criminals.

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we ban crimes, we jail\execute criminals.

We wish we could ban crime, just like some of us wish we could ban guns. To "ban" is the wrong verb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We wish we could ban crime, just like some of us wish we could ban guns. To "ban" is the wrong verb.

but we do, ban=illegal, crime by definition is illegal thus banned.

any ban doesn't make things disappear, they only make it illegal

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but we do, ban=illegal, crime by definition is illegal thus banned.

any ban doesn't make things disappear, they only make it illegal

No, we refer to the dictionary: 2a: To prohibit by legal means.

That is, To prevent from doing something by legal means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prohibit

That's exactly making that thing disappear, and it's the fake and/or wannabe goal of the people you're arguing with.

Government isn't going to prevent crime from happening, guns from happening, drugs from happening, or anything else from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I'm just so much more into the psychological health of modern society as opposed to guns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's talk about what we CAN and SHOULD do, and discuss why we should/shouldn't have guns and act like something is going to change! Let's pretend we can do something to stop people killing people without taking away something we reeeeeally like.

I think the best thing to do would be to keep the large guns on farms and firing ranges, and small handguns unloaded in a desk or something. I mean, really. What do you even need a gun for? Self protection? I've never needed a gun and I live in a suburb where all the wogs are angry and get guns on the black market.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's talk about what we CAN and SHOULD do, and discuss why we should/shouldn't have guns and act like something is going to change! Let's pretend we can do something to stop people killing people without taking away something we reeeeeally like.

I think the best thing to do would be to keep the large guns on farms and firing ranges, and small handguns unloaded in a desk or something. I mean, really. What do you even need a gun for? Self protection? I've never needed a gun and I live in a suburb where all the wogs are angry and get guns on the black market.

I feel the same way. Guns serve absolutely no civilian purpose at all. The GOV loves every single one of us.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if someone wants to go on a killer crazy rampage then they are going to do it wether guns are legal or not. As is stands guns might be legal, but shooting people with them isnt, but it doesnt seem to be stopping people. Banning the gun isn't going to stop criminals using them, it's only going to stop non criminals.

To quote Prince Philip, If a guy walks into a school and starts smashing the kids heads in with a cricket bat, are you going to ban cricket?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the same way. Guns serve absolutely no civilian purpose at all. The GOV loves every single one of us.

Before you continue, I am not an American and therefor I am not deathly afraid the government is going to bust down my door and rape my family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you continue, I am not an American and therefor I am not deathly afraid the government is going to bust down my door and rape my family.

It’s nice to know you currently feel that way. And it may never happen in your lifetime but maybe in your children’s lifetime. One day the government will come knocking as all governments do. When given more and more power, that is the primary reason for the existence of government. Instead of minding its own business and just run the government, it must harass the people to protect itself from them. Most of the time, it’s done with carrots but ever increasingly it’s done by force to some level. Either way, it is enslavement.

1 person likes this

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.