40 Reasons for Gun Control

Originally posted by WCOMtrader
As for the firepower in question:

Picture this scenario, Im sitting home on a Tuesday night writting my post as I hear a commotion outside my house. I see three vans with muslim extremist attacking my neigborhood (and you know that could easily happen, I live in NY). They decide to run into my house and kill me/keep me hostage. If I have a 9mm I kill one or two. The other twenty will overpowerme finnally.

But what if, I had my fully-automatic machine gun with enough rounds to.... well enough rounds to kill three vans full of muslim terrorists. You better believe it. Fire untill I run out of ammo. Maybe if that wont save me from all of them, but I could take out at least 10.

Now lets say I had several grenades. I throw a few down the stairs and blow the brains out of the first f*ckr*rs. The rest I take out with my machine gun.

And if I had a bazooka, and saw them coming, I could fire straight out of the window taking out the better half.

And I am not bringing up an impossible situation. All it takes is 20 muslim f*cks to get together rent 3 vans from Uhaul and come down my street.

THAT IS WHY YOU MAY NEED FIREPOWER!!!!!!!!!

Have you seen the movie, "Commando," with Arnold? Do you remember where he keeps his guns? yes... that would be nice:cool:
 
Originally posted by OPTIONAL777


If there were a non-lethal weapon, that would stop someone trying to harm you, your person, your family, or your home, would you surrender your gun in exchange for non lethal force?

If the issue is stopping an attacker, is the goal to simply stop them, or to perhaps kill them?

The only good bad guy... is a dead bad guy

I would say no to the non-lethal weapons also. What if there's someone on PCP that's trying to harm/kill you? A 9mm won't do anything. Heck, my 45 probably won't do anything. A shotgun might do... but you can't carry those unless you saw off the end... but that's illegal.

Bad people just tend to do bad things. I think something needs to be done to deter criminals. They get away with things so easily. I read this article in one of this gun magazine. Cops are basically losing their job and pension fund by doing their job. I mean a cop looks for people doing crimes. Cops would bust criminals while in the act, but the criminals would sue because the cops were racist. Many cops were losing their job and pension fund by catching black people committing crimes. So next time they see someone suspicious, and black, they'll just turn the other way.

sucks don't it?
 
U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths




BY CHELSEA J. CARTER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS



ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.

The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.

The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.

``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''

The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income.

The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.

Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons.

The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.


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




Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries

This report presents the findings of this analysis, which indicate that the United States has the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among industrialized countries.


00001168.gif


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




HARVARD School of Public Health

PRESS RELEASES

American Females at Highest Risk for Murder

70% Of All Women Killed in Industrialized Nations Are American

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 4 p.m. EST

Boston, MA—A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) finds that among high income nations, the United States has the highest rate of female homicide victimization.

The United States accounts for 32% of the female population among 25 high income countries, but 70% of all female homicides, and 84% of all female firearm homicides. Some 4,000 American females are murdered each year.

A female in the United States is 3 times more likely to be murdered than a female in Canada, 5 times more likely to be murdered than a female in Germany, and 8 times more likely to be murdered than a female in England and Wales. The US female homicide victimization rate is 5 times that of all the other high income countries combined. The firearm homicide rate for US females is 11 times higher than that in the other high income countries. (see table at end of release)

David Hemenway, PhD , director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at HSPH, and lead author of the study, said: “The difference in female homicide victimization rates between the US and these other industrialized nations is very large and is closely tied to levels of gun ownership. The relationship cannot be explained by differences in urbanization or income inequality.”
 
Originally posted by Snake Plisken
people like rs7 get killed every year because they try to defend themselves with a tiny gun. They want to be nice and shoot the attacker in the leg, attacker gets pissed, grabs your little gun, blows your head off or cuts your throat.


Regarding the police, sure, sometimes they will use non lethal force if they can. But they tend to show up with m-16s and sniper rifles too.

Snake

A 9mm is a "tiny" gun? I suggest you read the posts you respond to. Shoot NOT to kill, and it doesn't work...well that's the whole purpose of a 9mm. I KNOW I can get off 5 or 6 rounds from a 9mm before I could get off a second shot with a 44.

The police seldom use M16s or sniper rifles. Never in routine patrols.

9mm's are enough for the police, and were for NATO until very recently.

I guess anything less than a magnum is a tiny gun to you. One question snake....your age?

Anyone who DOESN'T believe in gun control is either a criminal or insane. Would you let a 12 year old drive a 4000 pound automobile? Now there is a weapon that packs a real punch!

If you have nothing to hide, you can get a gun anywhere in the US (unfortunately). If nobody had guns, the world would be a safer place. Is this not clear? See the post above from VVV. Facts are facts.

Peace,
:-)rs7
 
Originally posted by rs7




Would you let a 12 year old drive a 4000 pound automobile?


When I was twelve I drove! I think the age limit on drinking, smoking and driving is insane. If you're tall enough at twelve to reach the pedals and you are responsible - why not?
 
Originally posted by WCOMtrader



When I was twelve I drove! I think the age limit on drinking, smoking and driving is insane. If you're tall enough at twelve to reach the pedals and you are responsible - why not?

Heck, if a toddler can tip a cold one, let him drink till he passes out.

I know a lot of responsible 12 year olds. They would drive a car like they were playing Nintendo.
 
The various university studies being generated to justify gun control are full of holes. Probably the best example is that former professor from Emory who produced a book that puported to "document" that gun ownership was rare in early America. Of course, that flew in the face of what generations had known to be true, but it nevertheless was avidly accepted by liberals eager to eviscerate the Second Amendment. After he had received prestigious awards, further research demonstrated rather conclusively that he had simply made up the evidnece he relied on.

I don't have the details of the studies referred to above, but they don't impress me. I suspect if you compare similar groups in the various countries, homicide rates tend to be similar. We all know where most of the gun crime in the U.S. originates. Funny, you don't hear the liberals arguing that we should adopt the full Japanese criminal justice system, with minimal defendants' rights, or their immigration controls. Just the part liberals like.

Many here express a wish that all firearms coiuld be banned or just made to disappear. Would you really want to live in a world like that? They called one of the original Colts the "Peacemaker" for a reason. No weapons, then the biggest and meanest or most violent rule with no check on them.
 
Originally posted by rs7

Anyone who DOESN'T believe in gun control is either a criminal or insane. Would you let a 12 year old drive a 4000 pound automobile? Now there is a weapon that packs a real punch!


:-)rs7

good point Rs7. Maybe if we taught our kids about gun at an early start we can decrease the amount of accidental deaths. So much emphasis goes into Drivers Ed to teach new drivers how to drive defensively and responsibly. It makes sense to implement this to our children about guns... especially with all the violence on tv.

Andy
 
Originally posted by WCOMtrader



When I was twelve I drove! I think the age limit on drinking, smoking and driving is insane. If you're tall enough at twelve to reach the pedals and you are responsible - why not?


in my opinion... this is difficult because we all mature at different rates. Some people may be mature enough at age 12, but I've also met people in their 30's that are not much better than teenagers.

Some of the countries in Europe have lower drinking ages, and sometimes none. I wonder how their country differs from ours as far as drunk driving accidents.

In Japan their crime is very low. I think it has a lot to do with their culture. If you're basically caught for stealing, you would bring embarrassment to your friends and family, which is much worse than going to jail. It's a bit difficult for us Americans because we have such diversity.

Those that are anti-gun blame guns for all the killing, and those that are pro-gun blame the people for all the killings. Then what can we do to decrease crime and still keep our guns? It would be interesting if we could come up with neat ideas.

Andy
 
Originally posted by Snake Plisken
Bung,

Sorry you didn't like the list. The most interesting part of your post was when you said you didn't read the whole list. Typical Democrat, won't admit when something isn't working, whether it's welfare, education, or crime...

ah yes...makes perfect sense.

I didn't read Mein Kampf either...think I should run right out and pick up a copy??
 
Back
Top