The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 16    Average: 3/5]
65 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8798
Rating: 3
Category:
Date: 03/07/13 09:50 AM

65 Responses to US Murder Stats By Weapon 2007-2011 [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of OpsAss13
    OpsAss13 Male 30-39
    514 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 9:37 pm
    Link: US Murder Stats By Weapon 2007-2011 - Where is the ban on blunt objects?
  2. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 9:58 am
    ???????

    The figures show firearms as by far and away the leading cause. Blunt objects are waaaaay down in the numbers.

    So why on earth are you pointing them out, as if it`s some strange hypocrisy that we`re focussing on guns?
  3. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 10:15 am

  4. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 10:17 am
    Really, this again? Re-runs of IAB`s greatest partisan hits?
  5. Profile photo of Denogginizer
    Denogginizer Male 30-39
    821 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 10:19 am
    Nice, numbers down accross the board. The stats on explosives are kind of erratic.
  6. Profile photo of LandoGriffin
    LandoGriffin Male 30-39
    3844 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 10:25 am
    We`ve been over this before. Guns don`t kill people, people do. And people could kill each other with a variety of methods if guns are not available. But these statistics say if a person is going to try to kill someone, having a gun makes the likelihood of succeeding in killing much greater, since guns are, in fact, made to kill things efficiently. So, guns don`t kill people, but they make killing people a whole lot easier and more efficient.

    Also it is pretty hard to kill multiple victims very quickly with any weapon other than guns. You never hear about a mass stabbing or mass bludgeoning, although you do hear of mass shootings. And, I do occasionally hear about a random bludgeoning murder, but there is rarely more than one victim.

    But, I have absolutely no opinion about gun control, and sometimes I think I`m the only one who doesn`t care one way or the other.
  7. Profile photo of SPrinkZ
    SPrinkZ Male 18-29
    2279 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 10:26 am
    I think the poster is a retard.
  8. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36679 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 10:37 am

    See, we`re not so bad. Numbers are down across the board!
    It`s CNN FOX & other shows that pass for "news" that make it sound like we live in the wild west.

    Things are looking good. We don`t need more restrictions.
  9. Profile photo of oobaka
    oobaka Male 40-49
    985 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 10:45 am
    I knew someone would be happy that the numbers were lower...BUT you STILL have over 12 000 murders in one year.
  10. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 11:18 am
    Those `scary` assault rifles account for fewer murders than people getting killed with knives or clubs or fists.

    Overall though, the rates are going down across the board after the assault weapons ban has expired.
  11. Profile photo of EVILLECUTTER
    EVILLECUTTER Male 18-29
    244 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 11:44 am
    speaking of blunt objects does anyone have a lighter?
  12. Profile photo of inversegrav
    inversegrav Male 30-39
    770 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    for a poulation of over 300 million 12 thousand murders is not too bad.
    I always thought the problem was we dont have enough cold weather. Canada is very peaceful. But it is also very cold for most of the year. As the temperature goes up so do people`s temper.

    of course i`m just saying random stuff to see my post get longer cause i am very bored right now so I could be completely off base with that theory.
  13. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7562 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 12:17 pm
    okay- so a thousand people die by `other means`- given the list is quite comprehensive I want to know more than that!!
  14. Profile photo of djwajda
    djwajda Male 40-49
    885 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 12:23 pm
    @Lando

    Couldn`t agree more. Only thing I`d disagree with is the mass stabbing statement. Check out the story from China. Mass school stabbings spanning from 2010-12. 25 dead, over 115 injured. The last one just happened to occur mere hours before Newtown.

    Funny thing is, China plans on having security in all schools by the end of this year.
  15. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 12:43 pm
    "Those `scary` assault rifles account for fewer murders than people getting killed with knives or clubs or fists."

    I`m going to asume you meant blunt objects instead of just clubs since the category is not broken out.
  16. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    The Feds are not going to take your semi-automatic riffles or any other guns. There is no way a bill would pass the current House with that included, and when Democrats controlled the House there were no bills submitted to take you guns away. These are just scare tactics used by the gun lobbyist to make Obama out to be a boogeyman, but more import these are scare tactics used to sell more guns. It is working amazingly well - guns are flying off the shelves.
  17. Profile photo of jbwhite
    jbwhite Male 18-29
    1292 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    do one for 2001... include planes as a weapon
  18. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    The current bills the Democrats are working on does include taking guns away but that is the bargaining piece. They know that would never pass the House so they will "reluctantly" concede to get the other parts of the bill they really want like background checks for all applicants. Working with congress is like working with children - you don`t start the bargaining with what you want to end up with.
  19. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 1:52 pm
    The Feds are not going to take your semi-automatic riffles or any other guns.

    If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn `em all in, I would have done it. --dianne feinstein
  20. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 2:06 pm
    markust: They already have the authority to do background checks in most states. They`ve stupidly added cosmetic parts of rifles to their assault weapon ban. None of those parts makes a semi-auto rifle function differently.

    This is/was Obama`s attempt at using a horrible tragedy to take guns away from law abiding people and usurp the 2nd amendment.

    Don`t think he`s acting like a dictator? Then why did it take a filibuster from Rand Paul to get an answer from the White House about killing Americans with drones on American soil?

    Obama is a power hungry leftist who doesn`t care who suffers, so long as he can push his socialist agenda forward.
  21. Profile photo of synaw
    synaw Male 18-29
    58 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 2:08 pm
    blunt objects like what? my best guess is, THEY PROBABLY HAVE ALTERNATIVE USES, UNLIKE GUNS. holy poo.
  22. Profile photo of SageBlue
    SageBlue Male 30-39
    70 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm
    More people are killed by hand to hand combat than rifles, shotguns, and other guns combined. Just goes to show that the "war on guns" is a complete joke. What`s next, a ban on feet?
  23. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6765 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm
    SageBlue

    "What`s next, a ban on feet?"

    Well, you let me know when someone uses their feet to kill a room full of random people.
  24. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36679 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
  25. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36679 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
  26. Profile photo of wag117
    wag117 Male 18-29
    3 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    The problem with charts like this: information is able to be interpreted out of context. Either side of an argument can draw information from this chart to support their case. For example.

    If this trend in killing rates continues, by 2015 deaths by explosives will reach 10,080.

    Also, if this trend in killing rates continues, by 2015 gun deaths will have dropped to 10,352.

    This means by 2016 deaths by explosives will surpass death by guns.

    Or.

    by the year 2017, homicides by fire will stop completely, and actually, we`ll reach negative numbers, meaning that fires set to murder people will actually bring 9 people back to life a year.

    Let me state that it`s no one`s business on my stance about gun control (I like my rifles, I hunt, I have no use for assault rifles or handguns, but I don`t demonize people who do like them. I`m sure someone will tell me where I stand eventually.)

    Just don`t use things like this for evidenc
  27. Profile photo of uatme
    uatme Male 18-29
    1074 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 3:10 pm
    We must ban Other!
  28. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6765 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 3:30 pm
    wag117

    "If this trend in killing rates continues, by 2015 deaths by explosives will reach 10,080."

    Wait. What?
    Explosives:
    2007: 1
    2008: 11
    2009: 2
    2010: 4
    2011: 12
    2012: ?
    2013: ?
    2014: ?
    2015: 10,080

    What trend are you seeing that takes deaths by explosives from 12 to 10,080 in 4 years?
  29. Profile photo of Profworm
    Profworm Male 30-39
    395 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 3:36 pm
    This list means nothing. Until we include the data on number of murders by Rube Goldberg type device, all context is lost.
  30. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    Well, you let me know when someone uses their feet to kill a room full of random people.

    It`s ok if people die, just as long as they are killed one at a time. When more than one is killed at the same time in the same place, only then is it a big deal.
  31. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    Funny thing is that rifles are used less than any other type of firearm. The bans and gun control measures proposed are aimed directly at rifles. Cause they`re scary!
  32. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3908 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 5:32 pm
    @turdburglar - EXACTLY! You can show these two M-14`s, which are identical functionally, to someone who knows absolutely nothing about firearms and ask them which one they think should be illegal and I guarantee they`ll say the one with synthetic black stock.



  33. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 6:26 pm

    That`s right. Everybody`s scared of the AR 15, but hardly any of the gun grabbers even know what a mini 14 is. They do the same thing, except one looks scary.
  34. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14625 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 7:45 pm
    Looks like a high score table for degenerates.
  35. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32823 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 7:59 pm
    @HolyGod: He`s extrapolating the data in a sarcastic way:
    2009: 2
    2010: 4 (x2)
    2011: 12 (x3)
    2012: 48 (x4)
    & Etc, until it reaches a rediculous number :-)

    Guns used in crimes in the USA: 600,000
    Guns used in self defence? 2,000,000+

    Anyone who claims guns are "useless" for self defence is lieing, plain and simple.
  36. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 8:52 pm
    "Don`t think he`s acting like a dictator? Then why did it take a filibuster from Rand Paul to get an answer from the White House about killing Americans with drones on American soil?"

    The same filibuster that your 2008 Presidential candidate John McCain called ridiculous? You must be so proud.

    "All I can say is that I don`t think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people," Sen. John McCain (R), said on the Senate floor.

    "Somehow to allege that the United States of America - our government - will drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda, that that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous," Sen. John McCain (R)
  37. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 8:55 pm
    Or this jab at Rand Paul from Lindsey Graham, "To my Republican colleagues, I don`t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R). "They had a drone program back then. So what is it all of a sudden that this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up? What are we up to here?"
  38. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6765 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 9:50 pm
    2. Intentional murders pose no threat to me or my family. I accept that people will kill. Jealous lovers will kill each other. Gang members will kill each other. Business partners will kill each other. That poses no threat to me or my kids. The only possible threat is large scale random acts like those that can really only be carried out by bombs or guns.
  39. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6765 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 9:51 pm
    turdburglar

    "It`s ok if people die, just as long as they are killed one at a time. When more than one is killed at the same time in the same place, only then is it a big deal."

    Holy s.hit. I`m going to say this for the 100th time even though I feel very repetitive.

    1. You will NEVER be able to stop one person from intentionally killing one person for a reason, which accounts for almost all murders. Get rid of guns they will stab them. Get rid of knives they will use a rock. Get rid of rocks and they will choke them. What gun legislation would do is help reduce "innocent bystanders". Nobody walks into an elementary school with a club or their bare feet and murders a room full of kindergarteners. Nobody does a drive by with a knife and accidentally kills a 9 year old walking to school. Get it?
  40. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6765 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm
    markust123

    Shhhhhhh. Don`t bring quotes and facts into the discussion that will ruin crakr`s fox news / breitbardt / beck / limbaugh circle-jerk of stupidity narrative that he follows like it is falling out of Jesus`s ass.

    Then what is he supposed to do all day while he lives off of government socialism while bitching about government and socialism?
  41. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6765 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 10:20 pm
    Markust

    That is such a great Graham quote. I feel like you could turn that into a Mad Libs for almost everything that the right wingers and tea-baggers are SOOO upset about. (Government bailouts, drones, massive debt, increasing welfare spending, etc, etc, etc)

    To my Republican colleagues, I don`t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was ________. They _________ back then. So what is it all of a sudden that this _________ has gotten every Republican so spun up?
  42. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 11:19 pm
    markust: I was talking about Obama and his gun grabbing agenda, nice try at diverting the topic from Obama`s willingness to ignore the constitution.

    HG: I see that you`re taking the low ground again with personal attacks. You revert to that vapidness like a dog returns to it`s vomit.
  43. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 12:12 am
    "markust: I was talking about Obama and his gun grabbing agenda, nice try at diverting the topic from Obama`s willingness to ignore the constitution."

    Wow, you are the spin master. You are responding to my response of where you, not me, switched things to Rand Paul`s filibuster. Here is what you said, "Don`t think he`s acting like a dictator? Then why did it take a filibuster from Rand Paul to get an answer from the White House about killing Americans with drones on American soil?"

    I was just pointing out through their own quotes, that when two of the most outspoken Republicans against Obama attack a filibuster against Obama you know it was a batsh*t crazy idea. I could smell the stink of this one the moment I laid eyes on it.
  44. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32823 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 12:18 am
    Funny:
    When Democrats "filibuster" it`s:
    The Highest Form Of Patriotism! The Constitution at it`s finest!
    But when Republicans "filibuster" it`s Scandelous! Unpatriotic! IllegaL! Immoral!

    Seriously "libtards"? Get your act together! You`re so hypocritical it`s painful...
  45. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 12:25 am
    Oh Christ I`m in a Troll sandwich. I`m getting the hell out of here. By the way 5Cats, the quotes I posted are from Republicans not Democrats. They are from two of the most outspoken congressmen against Obama. They think the filibuster was "ridiculous" - John McCain`s word.
  46. Profile photo of tommy2X4
    tommy2X4 Male 50-59
    3447 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 3:19 am
    15,000 murders a year? Insignificant percentage to the 300,000,000 people that will have to comply with freedom robbing new legislation.
  47. Profile photo of tommy2X4
    tommy2X4 Male 50-59
    3447 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 3:20 am
    Spoons make me fat.
  48. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 4:01 am
    @tommy2X4

    "Spoons make me fat."

    If you`re fat, the spoon isn`t at fault, your lack of self-control is at fault. But the spoon enables you to give in to your lack of self-control.

    So the answer is that you`re not responsible enough to handle a spoon, so a good way to stop you porking is to take your spoon away. It doesn`t resolve your underlying issue, and it`s not the best fix, but it is still a fix; it stops you being able to make yourself fat.

    Taking guns away doesn`t stop people`s murderous urges...but it does hinder them in acting on them. In my eyes, that`s a good thing.
  49. Profile photo of AvatarJohn
    AvatarJohn Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 6:20 am
    Musuko, the problem with that logic is that the US Constitution doesn`t say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Spoons, shall not be infringed." It says Arms, not Spoons. And for good reason. Time and time again, despotic, tyrannical regimes have disarmed their citizenry in order to cement their ability to oppress and maintain power. The founders understood this and wrote the Consitution to guard the people against the possibility of tyranny and oppression. The amendment is the second one listed in the Bill of Rights because, after free speech, religion, the press, assembly and petition, the right to keep and bear Arms is the next most important right we have to maintain freedom and liberty.
  50. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 6:40 am
    @whodat6484
    Should use the SOCOM for that comparision...
  51. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 6:53 am
    Gambling has been shown to increase crime rates which includes murder. Will you be banning that nation wide too. Tell me what would be considered gambling then scratch tickets, lottery & Keno????

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  52. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 6:54 am
    @Musuko42

    So when will the UK be enacting spoon control. I`m waiting for the day you all have to buy saftey bubbles to live in.
  53. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6765 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 7:47 am
    tommy2x4

    "Spoons make me fat."

    So dumb it barely deserves a response, but OK.

    YOUR spoon makes YOU fat. That is YOUR personal choice affecting only YOU. If guns were only used in suicide I would have nothing to say.

    However, people use their guns to kill OTHER people. Which would be YOUR spoon making ME fat.

    Not to mention the whole "guns are just a tool" argument could be made for anything. Nuclear bombs aren`t bad, the people that blow them up are bad. So by that logic I should be able to have one right?
  54. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6765 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 7:53 am
    5Cats

    "Seriously "libtards"? Get your act together! You`re so hypocritical it`s painful..."

    I love how often you guys argue against things we never say. I hate the filibuster no matter who is doing it. I always have. It is as an antiquated and abused practice and should be eliminated.

    We have lots of problems in this country, problems that need to be solved, and our senate was shut down by a headline hunting self promoter so that he could ask a question nobody was dodging. But hey, he got his right wing hand job for it, so I guess it worked.

  55. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 8:30 am

    HG - As you said, those types of murders make up a very small percentage of homicides. You did nothing to argue against the point I made. As a matter of fact, you supported it!

    That poses no threat to me or my kids. The only possible threat is large scale random acts

    Maybe you should start taking responsibility for your own (and familys) safety. Instead, you would rather have my rights taken. You would rather the government make you feel safe from a threat which is less likely than being struck by lightning! Or best of all...You could accept the fact that the real world can be scary. And that there are better ways to try and prevent those extremely unlikely events. Ways that don`t screw me!
  56. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 8:46 am
    nice try at diverting the topic from Obama`s willingness to ignore the constitution.
    Whatever. Until you`re advocating the return of that right to people who already have it stripped from them you`re just a hypocrite.
  57. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6765 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 9:08 am
    turdburgalar

    "start taking responsibility for your own (and familys) safety."

    How would you like me to make my son safer at school? The mall? The movie theater?

    "you would rather have my rights taken."

    Nope. I have a gun. I would fight hard against guns being taken away. I believe that is a right given to us in the founding of our country.

    "which is less likely than being struck by lightning!"

    No it isn`t. My chance of getting struck by lightning is basically zero. I don`t go out when it is thunder-storming.

    "better ways to try and prevent those extremely unlikely events."

    Glad to hear it. What are they?

    "Ways that don`t screw me!"

    I believe in hand guns for protection and hunting rifles / shotguns for hunting. I don`t happen to believe you need 100 round magazines and unregistered weapons. How does anything being proposed right now screw you?
  58. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 10:11 am

    HG - The mall, a theater, your sons school. Irrational fear mongering a bit? You are almost certainly NOT in danger of being killed in a mass shooting. If you are so scared, protect your self...carry a pistol. Fork out some cash and get a security guard or police posted at the school. Support a school levy or bond or something in your community if you are too cheap to pay for your own irrational fear.

    Your chances of being struck by lightning are 0 because you don`t go outside? You are being stupid. It`s a commonly used term for something that is insanely unlikely to happen. In this case though, your chances of being hit by lightning are about the same, if not greater, than being a victim of a mass shooting.

    You want some better ways of avoiding a mass shooting? Focus on mental health options in this country instead of more laws and more govt. control which won`t work. Better yet, drink a beer and forget the whole idea that your life is on the line. You`ll almost
  59. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 10:13 am

    All you have said still shows that, in your mind, it`s ok if people die. As long as they are killed one at a time. When more than one is killed at the same time in the same place, only then is it a big deal.
  60. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6765 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    turdburglar

    "You are almost certainly NOT in danger of being killed in a mass shooting"

    Totally agree with you. Would you also not agree that you would have said the same exact thing to anyone that was killed in the theater massacre the day before it happened?

    9,000 gun deaths out of 300,000,000 people is a miniscule, insignificant number, unless somebody you care about is one of the 9,000. Then I guarantee it would not seem so insignificant.

    "Your chances of being struck by lightning are 0 because you don`t go outside? You are being stupid"

    You seem to be missing my point. I can control my odds of being struck by lightning by adjusting my behavior.

    Statistically speaking you have better odds of getting bit by a shark than you do of being hit with a meteorite. However, if you never go in the ocean than you change those odds. Get it?
  61. Profile photo of Runemang
    Runemang Male 30-39
    2676 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    The origin of the word "infringe", especially 200+ years ago, means "break", not "limit". I wish people would get this straight. I`m not in support of a hugely-limiting law on firearms either, but if you`re allowed a single-shot muzzle-loaded pocket pistol and nothing else, your right to bear arms has not been infringed. Do I think we should be allowed more than that? Yes. Does the Constitution give me the right to own more than that? No. So enough with the constitution class from people that never took one.
  62. Profile photo of comp_wizard
    comp_wizard Male 18-29
    194 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 10:12 pm
    In conclusion, forget assault rifles, ban handguns. I think the best way to prevent gun crime is to require that all civilian weapons be physically too large to ever be carried concealed. After all, no criminal is likely to walk around with a gun in plain sight. It`d be too suspicious.
  63. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 10:47 pm
    HG -
    "9,000 gun deaths out of 300,000,000 people is a miniscule"

    We were talking about mass killings, which is a FAR smaller ratio. Of course if one of those were my family I would care a great deal. Would you care? Really? You might feel sympathetic for a moment, then move on with your life. Most likely you wouldn`t even know, and if you did you wouldn`t care. I don`t blame you.

    Death comes with life. If 5 people die at the same time by the same person or at different times by different people, there is NO DIFFERENCE! You admit and accept that people are murdered one at a time and that is not preventable. Still you support legislation that is brought about, and fueled by emotion from a few mass killings. You support laws restricting weapons that are responsible for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths.
  64. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6765 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 10:55 pm
    turdburglar

    "If 5 people die at the same time by the same person or at different times by different people, there is NO DIFFERENCE!"

    The difference to me is not so much the number, it is whether the person is killing someone that caused it (not saying deserved it) or if they are just randomly killing random people. That is a HUGE difference to me.

    The person with a motive would still kill if they couldn`t get a hold of a gun. The random crazy might not be able to, certainly not that successfully.

    It isn`t that one death is ok but 12 at once isn`t. It is that you can kill one person at a time with basically ANYTHING, so getting rid of guns wouldn`t prevent those. You can`t kill 12 at once with very much except for a gun.

  65. Profile photo of DingDingDong
    DingDingDong Male 30-39
    1511 posts
    March 25, 2013 at 10:59 am
    Drowning deaths in 2011 are 150% of 2010! Ban all swimming pools!

Leave a Reply