![]() |
[quote:post_uid0="kester-"][quote:post_uid0="Virtual Fighter"]Hunting is for game, for show. It's not a necessity unless you're stranded in the woods, in which case, why on earth is it you haev a gun?[/quote]
baseball bats are used to kill people, yet we do not ban baseball btw I will pick all the nits that I want[/quote] I don't want to start a debate with u, but I don't think a killer gets a bat and starts going house to house to whack people in thier house. If they ban baseball, y not ban all sports and have everyone having kids and them not having fun kicking a ball or throwing a football. Kids would just play video-games, not having anything to go out and play with, and with all the junk food kids may die at heart attacks and diabetes at a very young age. They say it takes skill to use a bow and arrow anyway, so it would be more fun and challenging. I also tihnk I saw in pbs that horses can actually almost reach 55mph and grass can be replanished faster than gas and its free. Probably a horse is actually cheaper than a car. Btw, little girls would scream in joy for their fathers to buy them a horse lol. Edited By raddaman0628 on 1116130938 |
Witout guns.........
1.Suicides.. Theres always that cliff... 2.Homicides... Theres always that Bomb to exlpode or poisonous gas to spray.... 3.Genocides... Theres always that Gas Chamber... or as stated that Bomb to explode.... 4. Theres always that country that has a huge stock of guns... to supply to a huge line of crimminals waiting to get the upper hand on defenseless people..... 5. Theres always that inventor.... to invent a new way to kill people faster and more efficient than guns could ever do.... ..................... I bet banning guns will only increase the death rate.... No guns no problem... lets just rob this store with bombs and poisonous gas or lets go ninja style and slice some throats... and they thought bullets to the head was bad.... |
Quote:
So really, how many people are being protected? Slim to none. Guns are not protecting us, they're killing 31,000 a year. Quote:
How many tigers have clawed at your door, wantign to eat your family. That's right. None. Give me TEN CASES where a man was attacked by an animal, killed the animal with a gun and lived to tell the tale. Quote:
Laws "rarley" stop things from happening? Give me some facts on drugs and how laws don't prevent them. Because that's what i've been doing, you're just making up situations. Quote:
These people arn't blood thirsty monsters just waiting for the monment we let our gaurd down to get on a boat, go thousands of miles, go to your house, knowck on the door and shoot you. You're a devider, you're trying to build fear against our fellow man. This isn't the reds versus US, this isn't WWIII. And all that bullpoop about China trying to kill us, THEY OUTLAWED GUNS IN CHINA. HOW THE flip CAN 1/3 OF THE POPULATION TRY TO KILL US IF THEY HAVE NO GUNS? Quote:
what makes you take a DUI test? What makes you give up the weed? What takes you to jail? Law enforcement. We have the papers, we know where these guns are, all we need is to go to those houses, take the guns, say good day, nuff said. Quote:
One. Timathy Mcveigh's. Plus, guns are ALOT harder to make than bombs. Give me some toilet paper, an orange and a stick a dinomite and I can make you a bomb. Quote:
We can build all thse bad senerios, or we can face the facts that 31,000 people are dying each year and only 0.004% are justifyable, and we need to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Quote:
Because so far, you're waisting my time. I'm researching, finding facts, finding statistics, and you're doing what, making up "what happens if ninjas attack us" theories? Give me a break. Quote:
Let's say 33% of all drugs are siezed. f this was guns, that means theoretically the death rate would be lowered to 20,000. If we delete all guns and wait untill the start coming in, the death rate might be somewhere around 5,000. It might grow, but it will never reach more than 20,000. Quote:
Quote:
Remmember the communist revolution? killed millions. Remember WWII? Killed even more. But after these lawas were put into place, pratically no deaths. The united states? 31,000 a year. You can make your "what if?" situtations, but lets see you try to "what if" these facts: "CHILDREN & GUNS: A LETHAL COMBINATION In 2000, more than nine young people aged 19 and under were killed a day in gun homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings in the United States[1]. Many more were wounded. The scourge of gun violence frequently attacks the most helpless members of our society - our children. Consider these facts... In 2000, 1,776 children and teenagers were murdered with guns, 1,007 committed suicide with guns, and 193 died in unintentional shootings. A total of 3,042 young people were killed by firearms in the U.S., one every three hours.[2] Each year from 1993 to 1997, gun murders were committed by 1,621 killers under the age of 18.[3] In 2000, 80% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm.[4] During 2000, 62% of all murders of those under age 18 in the U.S. involved firearms. In 1986, guns were involved in 38% of such offenses.[5] Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people 19 and under in the U.S.[6] The rate of firearm death of under 14-years-old is nearly 12 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.[7] For every child killed by a gun, four are wounded.[8] From 1990 to 1998, firearms were responsible for 21% of deaths for Caucasian teens ages 13-19 in the United States, 64% of deaths for African-American teens, 46% of Hispanic teens, 24% of Native American/Alaska Native teens, and 35% of Asian/Pacific Islander teens.[9] In a study of inner-city 7-year-olds and their exposure to violence, 75% of them reported hearing gun shots.[10] "The firearm injury epidemic, due largely to handgun injuries, is 10 times larger than the polio epidemic of the first half of this century."[11] ence put a terrible burden on health service providers and governments. When indirect costs of gun violence - loss of productivity, mental health treatment and rehabilitation, legal and judicial costs - are figured in, gun violence costs the US over $100 billion annually. Medical Costs In a recent study, the average costs for treating gunshot wounds were: - $22,400 each for unintentional shootings - $18,400 each for gun-assault injuries - $ 5,400 each for suicides. Over the course of these victims' lives, medical treatment will amount to $1.9 billion.[1] Other Indirect Costs Along with direct medical costs, gun violence involves loss of productivity, mental health care, emergency transport, and insurance administration. A 1997 study estimated direct and indirect medical costs at: - $2.8 million per firearms fatality - $249,000 per hospitalization for gunshot wounds - $ 73,000 per emergency room visit and release for gunshot wounds.[2] With the cost of health skyrocketing, these costs are far higher today. The Los Angeles Times found in a 1994 shooting of a teenage victim who survived as a paraplegic that medical care, disability payments, rehabilitation, police and trial costs amounted to $1,091,768.[3] The Washington Post [4] and U.S. News and World Report [5] have both found total costs in similar cases to exceed $1 million. The Annual Bill To The Nation Annual costs of gun violence in the US have been estimated at between $100 billion [6] and $126 billion.[7] Costs only for young people under the age of 24 have reached $41 billion.[8] Who Pays? Most victims of gun violence are uninsured and the public pays! - Of $4 billion in medical costs in 1995, the public paid about 85 percent.[9] - Of victims hospitalized for gunshot wounds in California in 1996, 81 percent were uninsured.[10] What Can Be Done? Gun violence is aided and abetted by a gun industry that refuses to manufacture safer weapons, markets its product irresponsibly, and knowingly distributes and sells its products to illegal traffickers and potential criminals. In response, 33 cities and counties have brought suits against the industry to compel gun industry reform and reduce the costs to taxpayers of gun violence.[11] Many victims are also turning to courts of law to recover damages for gun industry negligence in marketing, distribution and product design. Surveys show that the public is even willing to pay more in taxes to reduce gun violence. When asked whether they would pay $200 more a year in taxes for programs to reduce gun violence, 64 percent of the respondents said they would.[12] Hey, look at that! It costs america money, too! Wow, it kills people AND makes the country go broke. But nooo... a tiger might go to your house. ======================================== Quote:
Quote:
0. Number of gombs: 1. If we get these types of number, we have nothing to worry about. Quote:
Quote:
Because america has mroe death by guns than ever country combined. Quote:
And banning guns won't stop it, but NOt banning guns won't eigther. The only difference is 31,000 less deaths a year untill then. |
You have very good points ......would gun bans have stopped the Columbine shooting.... Red Lake... and others.... Most likely yes, so we can weigh this out and say yes gun bans would save lives. Though What about 9/11 yah we ban guns off of airplanes... but look what happen the plane still got hijacked.. so theres always other killing scenarios possible... But yes you are correct... banning guns will decrease death tolls.
|
guns don't kill people, the idiot behind the trigger kills people
|
[quote:post_uid0="~Mastermax~"]guns don't kill people, the idiot behind the trigger kills people[/quote]
yes and if you ban guns, then you have to ban everything that can kill a person (i.e knives/rocks/2x4/chains/cans/everything....... |
Again, you guys arn't looking at the facts. 31,000 dead a year and we need to do something.
Give me the statistics of how many people are stabbed per year, are hit by a rock(?), chains, cans, and then we'll stack them up against the 31,000 a year and then we need to prioritize. |
well once you eliminate guns.....the list will just shift up one and people would use the 2nd hightest weapon to kill people
|
Which is a knife, right? It's much harder to kill someone with a knife than it is with a gun.
I can shoot a guy from a mile away with a gun, I have to be at point blank range to stabb someone. And plus, even if they all turn to knives, the obviouse handy cap will lower the death rate and we will still save lives. |
[quote:post_uid0="Virtual Fighter"]Which is a knife, right? It's much harder to kill someone with a knife than it is with a gun.
I can shoot a guy from a mile away with a gun, I have to be at point blank range to stabb someone. And plus, even if they all turn to knives, the obviouse handy cap will lower the death rate and we will still save lives.[/quote] well if eliminating guns means everything that uses gunpowder to shoot a projectile, then cannons are out. but after gunpowder powered weapons, I would say a crossbow. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 0%