why the left hates guns

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Well, I think that comes from a number of old threads where a number o firearm aficionados have attempted to relativise the effectiveness (and even the intended purpose of design of) guns to suggest that they are no more or less dangerous than anything found in the home and whether or not their designed purpose is as weapons.

I'm not talking about screwdrivers and crowbars here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then give us the long, difficult one. As I said above. You will NOT answer the question.

Why? It's not as if you are really interested - because if you were, you could find these things out yourself.

You just want to make a case that guns make society safer without actually proving that this is indeed the case, or how it actually works.

I'm not talking about screwdrivers and crowbars here.

I'm sure - but if you take the Virginia Tech / Columbine / Dunblane type situation. There are few ways to rack up a bodycount like that without the use of firearms.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

If those things get you on a list... but getting a gun doesn't.... then isn't the gun more efficient?

I guess if your looking at it from an "under the radar" point of view

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

There are many things more efficient than a gun...and we can all get a hold of them. I would mention a few but I'd rather not end up on some stupid list.

I actually am quite comfortable with the efficiency of firearms for killing people. That is why I carry one, practice with it, and shoot it damn good, actually. It is not for stirring martinis at cocktail parties. It is for killing someone that threatens me or my family. If necessary, I would even use it to kill someone that was obviously seeking to harm someone other than my family. I do not believe in "shoot and release". If put in that situation (and it is the second to last situation I would ever desire) I would intend to keep shooting until I was satisfied the person threatening me or my family was undeniably DEAD. I carry eough ammunition to make sure I can fdo that beyond the capability of modern medicine to patch things up. Since the law allows, I carry it with me at all times. I do not know when someone would threaten me or my family and I do not depend on them to tell me in advance. I carry it loaded with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked the way John Browning designed it 100 years ago. I use a .45 because they do not make a .46. I use really nasty, state of the art, hollow point ammunution designed to maximize wound damage. The ammunition has been tested and is fully reliable in my pistol. It will make really BIG holes in people that threaten me or my family.

I do not apologize for being prepared to kill people that would harm myself or my family. If you or someone else doesn't like it, I do not care. We live in a very safe place because a lot of people do the same as I do.

[slim 1,525]

I'm not talking about screwdrivers and crowbars here.

Are you talking fertilizer and fuel oil?

Perhaps something as simple as Tide and gasoline?

See below.

but if you take the Virginia Tech / Columbine / Dunblane type situation. There are few ways to rack up a bodycount like that without the use of firearms.

A few gas cans and matches could kill more people than those who were "massacred" in your scenarios with guns. Fire is by far the most efficient killer of folks who are locked in buildings yet we don't ban that, do we?

What's ironic is in each scenario you listed, just one armed person could've put a stop to the "tragedy."

[Atencio 43]

If you look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Index you can see that guns really don't appear to change things one way or another in terms of violent crimes. The FBI even mentions as such not indicating firearms as a factor in the volume of crime.

For instance, murder/non-negligent manslaughter/100,000

Restrictive gun laws states

California: 5.8

Illinois: 6.1

States that will allow just about anything including Carrying concealed weapon

Nevada: 6.3

Texas: 5.6

Now what I don't understand is that bad guys don't typically buy guns legally. You can not buy automatic rifles in Mexico but that sure ain't stopping the bad guys from obtaining them. It has not by casual observation shown up above that it matters a whole lot on your chance of getting murdered in a Pro or anti gun state. So why do liberals have their panties in such a bind over firearms? Everyone is harping that murder rates are down? Yet at the same time the assault weapon ban expired and people in most states are free to buy semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Why? It's not as if you are really interested - because if you were, you could find these things out yourself.

You just want to make a case that guns make society safer without actually proving that this is indeed the case, or how it actually works.

I'm sure - but if you take the Virginia Tech / Columbine / Dunblane type situation. There are few ways to rack up a bodycount like that without the use of firearms.

No problem. I do not expect an answer.

I agree, firearms are dandy for killing people, which is why I carry one. I use screwdrivers for turning screws and even opening an occasional paint can. For defending my family I choose a really big gun.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A few gas cans and matches could kill more people than those who were "massacred" in your scenarios with guns. Fire is by far the most efficient killer of folks who are locked in buildings yet we don't ban that, do we?

What's ironic is in each scenario you listed, just one armed person could've put a stop to the "tragedy."

How would you ban fire? About as easily as you'd ban water I guess

I just find it interesting that the US leads the field on these types of mass shooting events by quite some margin. The UK has had 3 in the last 20 years. The US seems to have about 3 a year.

[slim 1,525]

So why do liberals have their panties in such a bind over firearms?

Because liberals are really scared when "the people" have the power to take the government into their own hands by force.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If you look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Index you can see that guns really don't appear to change things one way or another in terms of violent crimes. The FBI even mentions as such not indicating firearms as a factor in the volume of crime.

For instance, murder/non-negligent manslaughter/100,000

Restrictive gun laws states

California: 5.8

Illinois: 6.1

States that will allow just about anything including Carrying concealed weapon

Nevada: 6.3

Texas: 5.6

Now what I don't understand is that bad guys don't typically buy guns legally. You can not buy automatic rifles in Mexico but that sure ain't stopping the bad guys from obtaining them. It has not by casual observation shown up above that it matters a whole lot on your chance of getting murdered in a Pro or anti gun state. So why do liberals have their panties in such a bind over firearms? Everyone is harping that murder rates are down? Yet at the same time the assault weapon ban expired and people in most states are free to buy semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Cherry picking statistics doesnt get it. Vermont has NO restrictions on firearms and our homocide rate is 0.0000066(that is FOUR homocides in a population of 600,000) That makes us 924 THOUSAND PERCENT more safe than Illinois.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Because liberals are really scared when "the people" have the power to take the government into their own hands by force.

Another purpose for which firearms have historically proven to be more efficient than screwdrivers for. But for that I would prefer my M1A or AR15A2. Never use a handgun if you have time to get your hands on a good rifle!

[Atencio 43]

Cherry picking statistics doesnt get it. Vermont has NO restrictions on firearms and our homocide rate is 0.0000066(that is FOUR homocides in a population of 600,000) That makes us 924 THOUSAND PERCENT more safe than Illinois.

My point was there is no correlation. Feel free to go through every state and show me there is or show me any other data that there is. Or keep feeling free to talk out of your ####

[slim 1,525]

How would you ban fire? About as easily as you'd ban water I guess

You're asking the wrong question. It shouldn'e be how can you ban fire... it should be WHY would you ban fire?

I just find it interesting that the US leads the field on these types of mass shooting events by quite some margin. The UK has had 3 in the last 20 years.

Are you guys going to ban GPs next? Harold Shipman killed over 100 people. Shouldn't you be working on banning medicine?

I heard they're trying to replace glass mugs at the pubs with plastic since there are too many heads being bashed in. Just think, someday you may not have electricity or cars because people can use those to harm others with as well.

The US seems to have about 3 a year.

Seems.... or does?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Vermont has NO restrictions on firearms and our homocide rate is 0.0000066(that is FOUR homocides in a population of 600,000) That makes us 924 THOUSAND PERCENT more safe than Illinois.

Looks like Vermonters hate the gays too (at least they did four times last year), but not as much as they do in the Land of Lincoln.

[Atencio 43]

You want to kill people you are going to find a way to do it.

http://www.economist.com/node/16113288

ALL month schools in China have been on what the state-controlled press calls a “red alert” for possible attacks on pupils by intruders. In one city police have orders to shoot perpetrators on sight. Yet a spate of mass killings and injuries by knife or hammer-wielding assailants has continued. To the government’s consternation, some Chinese have been wondering aloud whether the country’s repressive politics might be at least partly to blame.

In the latest reported incident, on May 12th, seven children were hacked to death at a rural kindergarten in the northern province of Shaanxi. Eleven other children were injured. It was one of half a dozen such cases at schools across China in less than two months. Three attacks occurred on successive days in late April, when more than 50 children were injured. The previous deadliest killed eight children in the southern province of Fujian on March 23rd. The killer was executed on April 28th.