Two questions for gun control people

[missnu01]

I believe the statistic your looking at includes military & police personal involvement... There is a statistic for citizens.. Just goes to show how any statistics can be manipulated.

Neither of the statistics spreadsheets I posted contain military or law enforcement stats...they also do not include justified homicides..it tells you at the bottom of the tables...it tells you how they gathered the statistics...so how about this...you find me a national registry that says baseball bats are used most often in homicides and I will consider myself wrong...

But the FBI and Department of Justice seem to tally guns as being the top killer, at least since 1976...

Here's a graph..might make it easier to understand...I am sure that you know a baseball bat is a blunt object..it's down low near the bottom though so you don't wanna miss it.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

 

[Capvin]

If a ridiculous argument is presented that is against restrictions on guns, I am quick to point it out. So, in the case where an argument that may be in favor of restrictions is put forward, I should be just as fast to object to that if it too is ridiculous. I must say that I do not think that tranquilizer guns are an answer. To make my position very clear, I am a strong advocate of gun ownership by individuals and a believer that the second amendment applies to individuals. That said, where I see most of the gun advocates going wrong in their arguments is their failure to recognize that it is obvious that the second amendment permits some restrictions on the right to own and use firearms. That was obvious back in colonial times where at the time of the writing of the constitution there were permitted restrictions on firearm ownership. That permitted type of restriction continued right up until very modern times when Justice Scalia (one of the most conservative Justices on the Court) said in his opinion in Heller vs. DC that "undoubtedly the second amendment permits some restrictions on firearms". So, all your screaming that the second amendment is the absolute word and can not be restricted in any way is just nonsense. The right to own and use firearms is not one of the inalienable rights granted by God, but was merely a right granted by the Constitution and despite some of your childish previous retorts to that premise, it is an absolute truth.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

As opposed to allowing criminals to keep picking off law abiding citizens like sheep...yes...

So you want women by the thousands to be tranqed an raped an you are going to pay for the equipment for them to do it to get the darts cheaper than lead...

 

[missnu01]

I don't see why you couldn't shoot them with a dart and then kill them afterwards if need be...with a knife or baseball bat...Lol.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I don't see why you couldn't shoot them with a dart and then kill them afterwards if need be...with a knife or baseball bat...Lol.

Waiting on a dart to work would take longer than waiting on a cop to get there.

 

[missnu01]

So you want women by the thousands to be tranqed an raped an you are going to pay for the equipment for them to do it to get the darts cheaper than lead...

You can get raped while at gunpoint...or raped while asleep...the issue being that rapists seem to enjoy the struggle and fear...you know how much a person that is unconscious struggles? Not a whole lot. I personally would prefer to get raped during a time that I don't know what is happening if I have to get raped at all... There are flaws to the tranq idea given...but it isn't my job to figure out how to fix what has been allowed to happen...which is a big weapons free for all all over the country...I understand that the tranq idea would also be very expensive...but the whole point is to make fewer guns available to the low life low rent criminals that will inevitably be killing innocent people with them.

 

[missnu01]

Perhaps...

Maybe just get a large dog to keep predators away...or just deal with predators as part of living in the world in which we live...I can live with the fact that a bear might eat me...that is what nature intended, but the idea that I might go to the movies and get shot just seems out of whack with the world.

 

[Capvin]

We are going from the sublime to the ridiculous....AND Edward, we all know that criminals do not obey the law. That is why they are called criminals. What I am prepared to do is make it harder for them to get their criminal hands on certain weapons. Will some of the more novel criminal still be able to get their hands on them anyway....YES, of course but that does not change the argument on iota. Get used to the FACT that it is permissible to enact certain restrictions on gun use and ownership and some of those restrictions are coming to your town despite the protestations of some ignorant sheriff who has as much meaning and clout as bad gas in a windstorm.

 

[missnu01]

Rubber bullets only...

People don't want guns outlawed because *whine* "only the criminals will have guns and I won't be able to protect myself"...What I am saying is keep your guns, but phase out the lethality capabilities of said guns..by all means protect yourself, but as long as you have killing power, so will the bad guys...so keep the guns and make them non lethal...people would stop shooting up places, because they wouldn't really get what they were after...

 

[missnu01]

We just need a way to get the guns away from the criminals that have them... How do you do that? You render all the guns they have obsolete... by no longer being able to purchase bullets. At least if criminals have to start making their own there will be more chance for innocent people to react and escape before they are just dead.