Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
F3SS

Guns save lives thread

2,946 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beckys_Mom

We had a nartional buy back in 1997 after a massacre in 1996 at Port Arthur ( http://en.wikipedia....acre_(Australia)) Where 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. There were protests saying 'our rights are being taken away' etc. But the changes worked, and worked well. We can still own a gun, if you're a farmer, or on a rural property where it's needed, want to be a part of a gun club, fine. Just pass background checks and have a safe place to store them... It's really not hard if you're not a criminal. And the only thing that changed apart from 'our rights been taken away' was no more massacres, lowered homicides and suicides... But heaven forbid that happening anywhere else.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to add the quote of the previous post i was replying to.

The same could not be applied to the US, there are far too many guns in the country ( hundreds of millions ) the government simply look at it as costly for a national buy back..Not everyone will want to sell their guns...

Either way, I cannot see gun crime ending in the US if the government did mange to strip them of their weapons and their rights... A country like America is already too violent as it is, I cannot imagine what would break out if the government did try to take action...

Just because change worked in your own country it doesn't mean the same would work out well in the US ...

Edited by Beckys_Mom
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

In Australia, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2010: 2361213

....

1979: 685

Well as you can see It's bacically halved the rate since it was enacted.

Thanks!

Annual gun deaths were down, but the suicide rate was basically the same.

Do you suspect that if guns were taken away that gun deaths would drop from 32,000 to 16,000? Is even 16,000 too much? I think that even if deaths cut in half, as happened in Australia, few anti-gun people would be happy to stay at that level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

The same could not be applied to the US, there is far too many guns in the country ( hundreds of millions ) the government simply look at it as costly for a national buy back.....

Supposedly the number of civilian guns in the US is 270 million to 310 million.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

At, what... $100 a gun, that is going to be 30 Billion dollars that would need to be spent. Though I am sure that President Obama would have no trouble just tacking that onto the National Debt.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I point you to all the wild second amendment rhetoric about the ability to bring down a despotic government. Its not a small issue and is a distraction from making democracy work.

Br Cornelius

It is democracy at work if the people vote to change or keep their guns. Taking guns away for the publics own good is a form of Despotism.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

I'm pretty sure our US murder rates have been cut nearly in half since 1990 and to be further at odds with Odds Australia's murder rates were steadily declining for around 20 years before the koombya buy back in '97 and when you look at the numbers it doesn't seem that banning guns made a drastic difference because the numbers declined after '97 as consistently as they already had been for years. So Australia was already doing something else right or society was already civilizing or something but point is the gun ban didn't seem to make much difference when looking at the past and continuing trend of declining murder rates.

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Fess, why do you debase the stronger position here by groveling with statistics? The 2nd Amendment not applying to Australia, the UK etc doesn't mean it doesn't apply to the US. People should cite efforts to amend the Constitution in the way outlined by the rule of law, or admit what they really are, wannabe outlaws playing with rhetoric anonymously on a message board.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Supposedly the number of civilian guns in the US is 270 million to 310 million.

http://www.gunpolicy...n/united-states

At, what... $100 a gun, that is going to be 30 Billion dollars that would need to be spent. Though I am sure that President Obama would have no trouble just tacking that onto the National Debt.

I doubt he would do it, and if he did, then be it on his head.. That would be a very stupid move..

If they did spend over 30 billion dollars, how on earth do they make that up again?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Fess, why do you debase the stronger position here by groveling with statistics? The 2nd Amendment not applying to Australia, the UK etc doesn't mean it doesn't apply to the US. People should cite efforts to amend the Constitution in the way outlined by the rule of law, or admit what they really are, wannabe outlaws playing with rhetoric anonymously on a message board.

Umm... I don't know. I tried keeping this thread on topic. It's not even supposed to be a debate thread but it got high jacked by the high and mighties. Excuse me if I fell into the trap. I'm only human.

I doubt he would do it, and if he did, then be it on his head.. That would be a very stupid move..

If they did spend over 30 billion dollars, how on earth do they make that up again?

Lololololololol!!!! Make it up? Ha! When do they ever?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Lololololololol!!!! Make it up? Ha! When do they ever?

Ha ha there ya have it. ...Aint gonna happen :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gummug

http://americangunfacts.com/

It's all been said before but some people are so bent on hating everything about the United States that they won't listen.

As I said before, I'm trying to catch up, so sorry for quoting these old posts. Yeah, the US is such a hotbed of violence. It looks like according to these statistics the UK has almost 5 times as much VIOLENT CRIME. As you said, Leah, some people just don't want to listen to facts... :whistle:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gummug

Not originally, but were guns made to hunt for food or to kill an enemy?

Handguns in particular were designed to kill an enemy, but if a lone housewife or an elderly person (or heck anybody for that matter) uses it to protect himself from a potentially violent home invader or robber, I don't have a problem with that...nor, I think, would any freedom-loving person.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol

As I said before, I'm trying to catch up, so sorry for quoting these old posts. Yeah, the US is such a hotbed of violence. It looks like according to these statistics the UK has almost 5 times as much VIOLENT CRIME. As you said, Leah, some people just don't want to listen to facts... :whistle:

You should have caught up better. That 'statistic' as already been explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tata Rompe Pecho

Guns don't save or kill people. They are inanimate objects. If guns save/kill people, then spoons make people fat. Sometimes even morbidly obese!

I am a huge firearms enthusiast, but i'm also a realist. Firearms do not control what they aim at, or when they fire. People do.

I don't need to make some long enlightened post to point this out, so I will leave you with that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Guns don't save or kill people.

If you wanted to attack someone ( IE - mug them ) a gun is pointed right at your head, you are not armed...How keen are you to go ahead with your attack? If you carry on to attack then it's your own funeral..

They are inanimate objects. If guns save/kill people, then spoons make people fat. Sometimes even morbidly obese!

Sure thing..A loaded deadly weapon in someones hands V's a spoon... Yup they both compare..

but i'm also a realist

So I see lol .......

Firearms do not control what they aim at, or when they fire. People do.

Yup, and shampoo would not clean my hair...I do.. :D

Jokes aside.. I will add - Guns can save lives just as much as they can take a life.. It all depends on who's holding the gun and the situation at hand...This is common knowledge..

Edited by Beckys_Mom
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Supposedly the number of civilian guns in the US is 270 million to 310 million.

http://www.gunpolicy...n/united-states

At, what... $100 a gun, that is going to be 30 Billion dollars that would need to be spent. Though I am sure that President Obama would have no trouble just tacking that onto the National Debt.

I doubt he would do it, and if he did, then be it on his head.. That would be a very stupid move..

If they did spend over 30 billion dollars, how on earth do they make that up again?

A quick google search turns up that many pistols are $250 to $500+, and rifles twice that. So assuming a 33/66 spread of rifles to pistols, that would mean with about 300 million guns (at about $500 a gun) the government would need about $150 billion dollars to buy back the guns at fair value. Which is about the yearly national budget of Turkey, Austria or Finland. Chump Change to the boys in DC....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odds

Thanks!

Annual gun deaths were down, but the suicide rate was basically the same.

Do you suspect that if guns were taken away that gun deaths would drop from 32,000 to 16,000? Is even 16,000 too much? I think that even if deaths cut in half, as happened in Australia, few anti-gun people would be happy to stay at that level.

Guns don't need to be taken away, they need to be regulated, have people who need or want them to pass a background check and be asked why they think they need them. What is hard about that? And if the death rate in America dropped from 32 000 to 16 000, then that is a pretty good improvement. That is 16 000 people who would still be with their families today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tata Rompe Pecho

If you wanted to attack someone ( IE - mug them ) a gun is pointed right at your head, you are not armed...How keen are you to go ahead with your attack? If you carry on to attack then it's your own funeral..

Sure thing..A loaded deadly weapon in someones hands V's a spoon... Yup they both compare..

So I see lol .......

Yup, and shampoo would not clean my hair...I do.. :D

Jokes aside.. I will add - Guns can save lives just as much as they can take a life.. It all depends on who's holding the gun and the situation at hand...This is common knowledge..

If I attacked someone that had a gun and they shot me, the gun did not pull it's own trigger. The gun did not save a person, just like a knife or a shovel would not save a person, a person using a tool as a weapon saved themselves.

Actually, yes they do compare. They are both tools, they can both be used as deadly weapons, and they are both inanimate objects. Same applies to a knife, a fork, a shovel, an ice pick, and even a computer... None of these things "do" anything. They are "used" to do actions, they are tools.

Has shampoo ever decided to fly up to head height, flip itself over and plaster itself into your hair? Did you grab the shampoo and put it in your hair? So then who cleaned your hair the tool using itself, or you using the tool?

Guns can do nothing because they are inanimate. People with guns can save lives, just as people with guns can take lives.

Edited by xFelix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

My shampoo did that once. Freaked me the hell out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I'm pretty sure our US murder rates have been cut nearly in half since 1990 and to be further at odds with Odds Australia's murder rates were steadily declining for around 20 years before the koombya buy back in '97 and when you look at the numbers it doesn't seem that banning guns made a drastic difference because the numbers declined after '97 as consistently as they already had been for years. So Australia was already doing something else right or society was already civilizing or something but point is the gun ban didn't seem to make much difference when looking at the past and continuing trend of declining murder rates.

You should look into why that happened in America, Freakanomics attributes it to the general liberalization of abortion laws. Interesting cause for an interesting problem.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

As I said before, I'm trying to catch up, so sorry for quoting these old posts. Yeah, the US is such a hotbed of violence. It looks like according to these statistics the UK has almost 5 times as much VIOLENT CRIME. As you said, Leah, some people just don't want to listen to facts... :whistle:

If have read this thread why have you missed the fact that the violent crime rates in the USA and Uk are measured completely differently and are in no way directly comparable.

Selective blindness maybe ?

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Guns don't need to be taken away, they need to be regulated, have people who need or want them to pass a background check and be asked why they think they need them. What is hard about that?

Guns are already regulated, Odds. And yes, they don't need to be taken away.

Why I think I need guns: For muggers and rapists outside my home I need a handgun. For burglars and killers inside my home I need a shotgun. For the government goons who come to take those guns away, I need an assault gun.

What's so hard about that? :blink:

Edited by Yamato
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

If I attacked someone that had a gun and they shot me, the gun did not pull it's own trigger. The gun did not save a person, just like a knife or a shovel would not save a person, a person using a tool as a weapon saved themselves.

Look at this quote from my previous post and see if you can tell me what it is I was saying..Take a look -> Guns can save lives just as much as they can take a life.. It all depends on who's holding the gun and the situation at hand.

What do you think I am actually saying from that quote? I'll give you a hint - I underlined it...

Actually, yes they do compare. They are both tools, they can both be used as deadly weapons, and they are both inanimate objects.

Oh yes of course - A spoon can be as deadly as a gun...Absolutely... Just think, Clint Eastwood would have looked really cool and deadly if when facing a bad guy in one of his westerns, he drew his cutlery drawers instead.. Now that would be a deadly showdown..eh xFelix? ....

The name Arthur Spooner would be a man who should be feared lol

I feel so much safer knowing that I have a drawer full of spoons at home...I have a couple of wooden spoons too, I am packed to the hilt lol :lol:

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odds

Guns are already regulated, Odds. And yes, they don't need to be taken away.

Why I think I need guns: For muggers and rapists outside my home I need a handgun. For burglars and killers inside my home I need a shotgun. For the government goons who come to take those guns away, I need an assault gun.

What's so hard about that? :blink:

So you need a handgun, a shotgun and an assault rifle to feel safe? S*** i started to box when i was 15 and i sleep like a baby. And yes make sure to watch out for the government goons coming to your house. Be prepared.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

~snip

.... Just think, Clint Eastwood would have looked really cool and deadly if when facing a bad guy in one of his westerns, ...

~snip

547476_396224320443646_860193063_n.jpg

..... what can I woof for you ma'am ?

`

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gummug

Here's the bottom line people. The good, the bad and the ugly I see all sides to guns but I only see one side concerning the second amendment. It's here, it's right, it's ours and it isn't going anywhere.

And why you so worried about our supposed "gun culture" supposedly influencing other countries? You afraid people might like it? I don't see how given that the rest of the world sees US as barbarians and the rest of the world has 'progressed' beyond such barbarian tactics or so I'm told time and time again.

After all these months this thread has been here going well and on topic you progressive types have to come and shlt all over it pretty much like you do every time you see people enjoying themselves and minding their own business. I don't care though. My opinion on gun rights is the majority opinion in this country and I enjoy seeing you seeing red when freedom prevails.

And sorry Michelle. I can't ignore it.

(still playing catch up) speaking of other countries, I guess this fits into the guns save lives idea, some of these other country paradises that have been mentioned...I would like to post a photo of some of their piles of dead bodies from internal riots and civil wars and post it and say "here is a true paradise" but I'm pretty sure there are forum rules against that...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.