Gun control in america - flip you, liberatarians.

[raddaman0628]

[quoteost_uid0="kester-"][quoteost_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

[Zpower]

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....

[Virtual Fighter]

Uh, I would prefer neither, but atleast if they didn't ban guns I would have a chance of shooting the person dead before they shot/stabbed me.

I've given the evidence. 0.004% of gun realted deaths are because of a justifiable pretection.

So really, how many people are being protected? Slim to none.

Guns are not protecting us, they're killing 31,000 a year.

Yeah, prove oopsies.
And you said more times then none these guns were used towards others then target practice. Protection doesn't necessarily mean towards others. Protection could be an animal. And "towards others" doesn't

necessarily mean protection it could mean revenge.

ANIMALS?

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.

Well, I believe it's a bad assertion to say that if we delete guns from America it will work this time. Like Nerco said they tried to ban drugs and such from America but don't you still here about people smuggling

drugs from Columbia, Mexico and Cuba. Laws rarely stop people from getting what they want to get and for you to ask that all guns to be banned is really stupid because what if this law were to go through and

everyone were to get rid of their guns but the bad people. Now, what would protect those good people without guns from those bad people with guns.

Pfftt.. you justify the 31,000 people to "If we get rid of them... bad stuff will happen?"

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.

I said and all the other countries that hate the USA. And that's a lot. Let's replace Iraq with N. Korea. Is that a better example for you? N. Korea may not be very big but when teamed with Japan or even China

what's stoping them from invading the US. China is one friggin 3rd of the world population. And N. Korea and Japan have the technology to blow us up. Not to mention Japan has been building subs since their contract

from wwII is almost up. Don't even tell me something like "China would never harm us." N. Korea has China wrapped around it's little finger and if they wanted to team up with N. Korea they would especially if

forced.

What is this, the red scare?

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?

1. What makes you think people will give up all their guns?

what makes you pull over?
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.

2. What makes you think people will stop making homemade guns as they do homemade bombs?

How many homemade bombs have done any damage in the 230 history of the united states of america?

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.

3. What makes you think that people won't buy guns illegally?

What stops the sky from falllng?

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.

Ok, let's get even more specific with the probelm at hand. Ok, you get rid of guns...what's stoping kinds from still watching shows like RAW and attempting the moves. So because this is killing people also

would you get rid of wrestling? How about football? I hear lots of people die from that and when kids attempt the tackles people also die. And oh no Timmy witnesses a Ninja show. Timmy decides to take a bucher knife

and attempt the throwing knifes move. Ok sure banning guns may lower the death rate by a lot but what is stopping kids from modeling after another bad violent behavior such as the knife throwing act. Kids will always

model themselves after another person. It's what they do. It is up to the parent to teach them not to touch this and to keep the gun away from the child and have a gun lock on it at all times. To do this Bush should

pass a law like Clinton wanted to give a gun lock with each gun sale. I don't think we should ban guns but maybe make it more strict to get one.

Give me some facts and statistics of "this mane people die from wrestling accidents each year, these many from being a ninja, thse many from playing football", and then well talk.

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.

No problemo. Did we not try to ban drugs? And you still see people doing/selling drugs?
Don't you see people still smoking under 18 and drinking under 21?

But you have to admit, millions of pounds of drugs are siezed. I treid to research a percentage but couldn't find anything. but hey, that's more thna you've done.

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.

Because they never had the thing to begin with.

What are you, a racist?

To start without something is easier than to try to take away something that has been with us fro more than century. And damn right we fear each other.

Don't give me that bullpoop. In china, they had guns all over the place.

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.


========================================

Witout guns.........

1.Suicides.. Theres always that cliff...

So? I don't care if people want to kill themselves, let them. They're not harming me.

2.Homicides... Theres always that Bomb to exlpode or poisonous gas to spray....

# of poisonous "gasses" let out in america:

0.

Number of gombs:

1.

If we get these types of number, we have nothing to worry about.

3.Genocides... Theres always that Gas Chamber... or as stated that Bomb to explode....

Has there been a genocide in america? No.

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.....

Yeah, what country is that?

Because america has mroe death by guns than ever country combined.

5. Theres always that inventor.... to invent a new way to kill people faster and more efficient than guns could ever do....

-_-

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.

[Zpower]

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.

[~Mastermax~]

guns don't kill people, the idiot behind the trigger kills people

[Angel-Eyes]

[quoteost_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.......

[Virtual Fighter]

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.

[Angel-Eyes]

well once you eliminate guns.....the list will just shift up one and people would use the 2nd hightest weapon to kill people

[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.

[Angel-Eyes]

[quoteost_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.