How many innocent lives are your guns worth?

[Winter Woman]

Just for you candon't

The number of physicians in the U.S. is

700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
per year are
120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician
is
0.171

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of
Health and Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:
Guns

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.
is
80,000,000.​

(Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths
per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths
per gun owner
is
.0000188

Statistics courtesy of FBI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately
9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,

BUT

Almost everyone has at least one doctor.
This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as by a gun owner!!!
​

​

Yeah it is cut and paste

 

[ASMALLVOICE]

All this about guns and gun violence is a sad fact of the times we are in, yet noone mentions the fact that smart phones are killing people at an ever increasing rate when those idiots are texting and driving.

A 3 ton automobile or 12 ton 18 wheeler uncontrolled is far more dangerous than most people realize, escpecially the ones doing the texting and driving.

You see don't text and drive campaigns everywhere and it is going to be the number one killer in short order, and that is an undeniable truth.

Peace

Asmallvoice

 

[budlover13]

There is always the car and knife argument from the gun toters. This is not about cars nor knives. Should the government with our help opt to ban all knives it could be done without any legal problem. Same with cars, we could for the sake of lives ban all cars.

Not so with firearms that are the only possession specifically singled out as being protected. But what is of interest to me is the tendancy to avoid the direct question. You say that your kids and your own life is worth more than the lives of an unknown number of others. Now you present a set of givens (I have already said I had). You do not know if you or your family will ever be endangered in such a way as to require your ownership of a firearm. The question remains.


If you knew for certain that surrendering your weapon would save children's lives, how many would it take for you to exchange your glock for a k-cup coffee maker?

So, "How many lives SAVED" is the question I will answer. 1.

 

[Dr Kynes]

i carry a taurus judge

not a bad choice, but it's classed as a "destructive device" (like pipe bombs or firecrackers) in california.

 

[desert dude]

There is always the car and knife argument from the gun toters. This is not about cars nor knives. Should the government with our help opt to ban all knives it could be done without any legal problem. Same with cars, we could for the sake of lives ban all cars.

Not so with firearms that are the only possession specifically singled out as being protected. But what is of interest to me is the tendancy to avoid the direct question. You say that your kids and your own life is worth more than the lives of an unknown number of others. Now you present a set of givens (I have already said I had). You do not know if you or your family will ever be endangered in such a way as to require your ownership of a firearm. The question remains.


If you knew for certain that surrendering your weapon would save children's lives, how many would it take for you to exchange your glock for a k-cup coffee maker?

Canndo, you are not asking a question at all. You are positing an absurdity.

My gun has never harmed anybody. No gun has ever harmed anybody. No hammer has ever smashed a thumb. No broom has ever swept a floor. No truck has ever delivered a parcel. No ambulance has ever saved a life. Each of these things are mere tools in the hands of good men and bad men. Blame or praise the men wielding the tools.

Stop worshiping inanimate objects, it marks you as a superstitious witch doctor worthy of ridicule.

Denying good men the right to own weapons will cost lives and endanger those who abhor weapons.

 

[NLXSK1]

2 words for you : Fuck Off

the tool a sick fucker uses is not the problem. the mentally fucked douche bag piece of shit that wants to harm another for no decent moral reason. Go to any time in human history and you will find murderers and violent personality's. The only thing we can do is identify the scumbag, and drag him to a fence post and cull them from the herd.


We are human, put any more than 2 of us on the planet and theres to many.. as the two famous brothers show us.


pick something else to get all roweled up over... like government corruption.... but i get it... that would be to productive for your efforts. fuckin you liberals make me sick... go around thinking you know how everybody should live.. as long as you make the rules its all good... go fuckin slit your wrists....

At least you didnt tell him to shoot himself ;]

 

[ASMALLVOICE]

What stops bad people with guns is good people with guns.

Peace

Asmallvoice

 

[budlover13]

not a bad choice, but it's classed as a "destructive device" (like pipe bombs or firecrackers) in california.

Seriously? *Makes a call to a buddy who owns one*

 

[cannabineer]

Except that they actually are. The government either has that right now or it can usurp it. There is nothing in the Constitution about magazines and capacity. What the gun toters are failing to grasp is if they don't get on board, if they opt only to be obstinate and claim that theirs is the only right not subject to any limitations, any oversight, any review, anything (contrary to every other right),then their wishes will be swept aside and they will be left with far far less as a whole than if they cooperated and perhaps offered their own suggestions.

I could argue otherwise. If the magazine capacity restriction can be shown to be an infringement of my right to keep&bear arms effectively ...

... and if you'll countenance a moment of slippery slopishness, what is the severest magazine capacity restriction imaginable? One? Zero even? At some point, mag cap restriction ruins the usefulness of the gun. I do not see police held to a mag-cap standard, so it's hard to argue that it is a basic safety issue. Jmo. cn

 

[fb360]

My complements - you are the only one who had the complete balls to come out and say it. It makes no difference. It isn't about the children it is about the right and it being about the right means that the children are collateral damage to that right.

The quicker we agree rather than changing the subject the better.

So the next question is, how many children is your 100 round magazine worth?

Hopefully, quite a few less.

Did you not JUST say that if Adam Lanza had a screwdriver, knife or chainsaw only 2 or 5 or 9 kids would die, making it a success.

Oh yeah, having 9 killed is great success! Let's get rid of guns because it would have saved 15 kids! Screw the other 9, they were assholes anyways! Success!

 

[budlover13]

I could argue otherwise. If the magazine capacity restriction can be shown to be an infringement of my right to keep&bear arms effectively ...

... and if you'll countenance a moment of slippery slopishness, what is the severest magazine capacity restriction imaginable? One? Zero even? At some point, mag cap restriction ruins the usefulness of the gun. I do not see police held to a mag-cap standard, so it's hard to argue that it is a basic safety issue. Jmo. cn

Agreed. The 2nd is there to fight tyranny. Therefore, I should be able to possess what my potential tyrants possess.

 

[Dr Kynes]

No broom has ever swept a floor.

 

[Winter Woman]

not a bad choice, but it's classed as a "destructive device" (like pipe bombs or firecrackers) in california.

A nut job years ago attacked my brother as he left a restaurant. I was picking him up and saw what was happening. I used my car to back the guy off my brother. The police office told me I could be charged with using my car to protect my brother! He called it a weapon. What you say is very true, I lived it.

 

[NLXSK1]

I could argue otherwise. If the magazine capacity restriction can be shown to be an infringement of my right to keep&bear arms effectively ...

... and if you'll countenance a moment of slippery slopishness, what is the severest magazine capacity restriction imaginable? One? Zero even? At some point, mag cap restriction ruins the usefulness of the gun. I do not see police held to a mag-cap standard, so it's hard to argue that it is a basic safety issue. Jmo. cn

How many bullets were in the gun that Diane Feinstein was admittedly packing when she was the target of a terrorist threat?

She is such a hypocritical partisan whore...

 

[cannabineer]

"State or Federal evaluation? Who develops the criteria?"

The feds on both counts

" Federal intercession at the purchasing level? Or should it be state,suppose the state are different and someone wants to cross state lines with a gun that is legal in one state and illegal in another."

Again, the feds. There would have to be uniformity in the law, which could not be accomplished if left up to the individual states.

"Manditory classes could conflict with the 2nd as an infringement."

Honestly, I don't care. A gun is intended to kill, and should be treated with a level of seriousness and professionalism. As a society we have no issue with taking training to drive a car, so how is owning and operating a gun any less important?

"On the subject of registration - Why? registration will make it impossible for a citizen to own a weapon without someone knowing he does and that is fraught with problems."

I conceded the slippery slope here, but the importance of this is to establish lawful ownership of the gun in order to punish the "bad guy". There would be no way of knowing that a gun is in the wrong hands without a registration process of some sort.

"Most of the mass shooters were not criminals but insane people."

My focus is not on preventing Adam Lanza type incidents. I don't feel that there are any practical measures to prevent something like that. If a nutter is set on shooting up a school, no law on earth will stop that.

"Now who are you going to get to determine which set of mental disorders are allowable and which are not. What you are in essence saying is that there will be a body of people - likely governmental on some level who will determine who is "eligible" to have their Constitutional rights - and who is not"

A persons eligibility will be based upon past behavior. Would you not agree that a person convicted of armed robbery, or rape, or murder, should not be permitted to own a firearm? There would be no "body of people". There would be clear-cut criteria (not unlike what we already have) set forth.

You are laboring under a basic misconception that someone has pointed out but you are ignoring. Guns are not designed to kill but to shoot. The type of gun can be selected for killing tasks, but that is distinct from arguing that it is inherent in the device's design. cn

 

[budlover13]

Grasping at straws, but touché.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Seriously? *Makes a call to a buddy who owns one*

yep. last i heard the taurus judge was prohibited in california.

they claimed it was both a shotgun with a barrel less than eighteen inches, and a rifle turned into a pistol (both illegal under section 10 as destructive devices)

http://www.nvsa.info/?q=node/303

PDF from a law firm regarding why calif calls them a "destructive device"

 

[budlover13]

A nut job years ago attacked my brother as he left a restaurant. I was picking him up and saw what was happening. I used my car to back the guy off my brother. The police office told me I could be charged with using my car to protect my brother! He called it a weapon. What you say is very true, I lived it.

ANYTHING, damn near, can be construed as a deadly weapon dependent on the intent it was used with.

 

[danknuggs419]

I believe all of the recent deaths of shootings barely come close to Timothy McVeigh's slaughter of OK City and many components were household, and all easily attainable. No ban on corn starch?

I believein the constitution and the ideals set within it, what mab knows better howw to prevent tyranny and promote a free life than one who just fought the King's men for it? If it is ever shown that lawmakers can strip one fron us, soon they're no longer untouchable...

People are absolutists on this issue, guns will never be banned just want regularion, but it IS comparable to a vehicle. The arguement being, why is there any need for a civilian to own a car capable of going 200 mph. They have speed limits, why is any car modified to go faster than 85?? And trust mee, just as many auto related deaths and if you add auto deaths by association that number would be shocking....what Liberals fail to see is that? Not everyone is wired the same, not everyone has a socialist mentality, that some still believe in the words of our founding fathers. If the govt were serious, I can only back up gun control on the full scale. That we quit selling firearms to african nations, that the president is not followed by men with clips a civilian cannot own. That our lawmakers walk the same shoes as we the people....

Never happen, never. Democrats/Liberals, whatevrr the term, Regulation is not the answer. Govt was created to oversee, not to regulate.


To anseer the posts original question, I wouldn't give my gun up for anyone. I am a ffee man and will not be regulated into anything. M

 

[budlover13]

yep. last i heard the taurus judge was prohibited in california.

they claimed it was both a shotgun with a barrel less than sixteen inches, and a rifle turned into a pistol (both illegal under section 10 as destructive devices)

There are exemptions that I will have to check on. Know someone who made a pistol out of a 10/22 80% receiver. There's a way around it.