Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Guns don't kill people.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:01 PM
Original message
Guns don't kill people.
Armed right-wing nutcases loaded with hate messages kill people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. I always say, "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people."
:hi:

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
45. Just ban the ammo. There. Problem solved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Like banning film would solve child pornography?
*snort*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pyrzqxgl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah! But guns are the tools they use most often to do the deed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Unarmed right-wing nutcases loaded with hate messages
are relatively harmless.

Nice try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ernesto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. ever hear of a "Drive-by knifing"? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ineeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I also never heard of a knife
taking out twenty or thirty victims in seconds, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Hang around the Guns forum for a while
and you'll find out how common items like cellphones can become lethal weapons in moments. Really.

The military seems to be sticking with guns for now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. they're strange in the gungeon that way.
On the one hand, they can come up with plenty of "weapons" they claim are just as dangerous as guns, but if you ever advise them to carry one of these weapons rather than a gun, then they argue guns are the best for protecting themselves.

Gun advocates are immune to rational thought, just as much as the right wing is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
37. It makes sense if you understand you're discussing different applications
There are plenty of implements that can be as dangerous as firearms for offensive purposes, i.e. attacking an unarmed and unsuspecting victim, even multiple such victims. For example, you can plow a truck into a crowd, jump out and set about stabbing people with a knife, which is what the perpetrator of the Akihabara massacre in Tokyo in 2008 did, resulting in 7 dead and 10 wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre). Or you could drive a shovel loader through a bunch of shopfronts and vehicles on the road, like a guy in Hebei province, China, last August, resulting in 17 dead and 20 wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebei_tractor_rampage).

But if you're faced with a mugger or burglar wielding a blade, bludgeon or firearm, chances are you're not going to have a running two-ton truck or shovel loader available with which to try and run him over. And there's a very good chance that a guy who repeatedly makes use of a blade or bludgeon or even his hands and feet to threaten and even attack others is going to be more proficient in the use of such implements than someone who's only interested in defending himself, which places the defender at a severe disadvantage to the assailant.

Hence, the disparity between the firearm (and particularly the handgun) being more suitable than other weapons for defensive purposes, while not being hugely better suited for offensive purposes.

It makes perfect sense, but admittedly only if you're willing to actually put some thought into the question, and you've never shown much of a propensity to do that, now, have you, provis?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. Firearms aren't hugely better suited for offensive purposes, eh?
Tell the military, they could probably save a lot of money by conducting offensive operations with shovel loaders.

The examples you cite are a drop in the bucket compared to the number of offensive, deliberate murders that happen every day of the year in the US - with handguns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-11 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. Another in a long line of Wilful Failures to Comprehend
"I.e." is short for "id est," Latin for "that is." You might reasonably argue that it's a bit poncy to use "i.e." when you could say "that is," but blame my classical education. By adding the passage "i.e. attacking an unarmed and unsuspecting victim, even multiple such victims" after the words "offensive purposes," I indicated that I meant the offensive purposes described, not offensive purposes in general.

When the armed forces find themselves faced exclusively by unarmed and suspecting non-combatants, then they could do their jobs quite effectively with weapons other than firearms. The members of the First Crusade were quite capable of massacring the population of Jerusalem without firearms, and Rwandan genocide in 1994 was performed mostly with machetes. The death toll on that one was at least 800,000 by the way, so the U.S. has a few decades to be before it catches up even in absolute numbers, let alone murder rate. Of course, the Rwandan genocide was a committed by a large number of people, but then, so are homicides in the U.S. A very small number of the latter are mass shootings by a single perpetrator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. I'm impressed. No, really...
but if you think a child's knowledge of Latin is enough to qualify your argument, you're in bad shape (I guess my kid has a "classical education" too, but he doesn't share your arrogance).

I digress. Bringing the First Crusade up in a discussion about the dangers of handguns is such unresisting imbecility I can't even comment on it, so I'll move on to your other straw man, the Rwandan Genocide, in which machetes were used not for their effectiveness - as you disingenuously imply - but because they were cheaper and more available.

I will boldly speculate that not one Hutu laid down an AK-47 to pick up a machete, and substituting Glock 19s would make no appreciable difference. So if you contend it's as easy to kill someone with a machete as it is with a Glock 19, we're back in First Crusade Land, the land of Addict Reasoning.

Please reply with statistics comparing the number of machete vs. handgun murders in the US. Apples to apples. Or I'm done wasting my time, and not a bit too soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-11 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Sorry, I refuse to prop up the straw man you've made
Please reply with statistics comparing the number of machete vs. handgun murders in the US. Apples to apples.

That would be a reasonable request if I'd been talking about "apples" to begin with. The topic of discussion was whether knives can be as dangerous as firearms in the specific context of an armed assailant attacking multiple unsuspecting defenseless victims. What earthly reason is there to restrict ourselves to U.S. statistics, other than to exclude evidence that works against your argument?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
41. It would be illegal to carry them anyway
After the powers that be were through dealing with the more resolute amongst the switch blade wielding pachukos and tomahawk swinging indians , one could not carry anything . Now , only after much effort ,handguns are pretty much all "they" allow "us" to employ for self defense .

Some might say it was a generous and benevolent gesture on their part , of which we are not truly worthy .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Mass killings with knives occur ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Really? That is your counter? LOL..........
So why do we need CCW if knifes are as effective?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Who said knives are AS effective.
Especially for someone who is older, or smaller, or less strong. However the belief that without guns violence would go down is silly.

Canada has roughly the same % of gunowners as the US with lower crime.
UK and Mexico both have bans on guns and have higher crimes than the US.
US non-gun homicide rate is higher than most countries TOTAL homicide rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
40. A million people in Rwanda would like to say you're full of shit...
except, they were killed with big knives. So they can't.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Or a mass murder using a baseball bat...
I'm ambivalent as hell about the alleged right to bear arms in the cause of personal freedom.

The only freedom I've noticed stemming from unfettered firearm access is the freedom to be gunned down any time, anywhere, by anyone, without notice or explanation.

The NRA teaches us that since people, not guns, are the real problem, we need to keep track of the mentally disturbed, convicted rapists, etc....

What would you suggest, Wayne La P., a better leash law? A scarlet letter? More cops? More prisons? You gonna pay for all this, or am I supposed to do it for you?


I know one true thing: this practice of letting overt lunatics come home from gun shows with enough fire power to level a shopping mall has to stop.


wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. ...with guns.
I mean, hate messages don't have sufficient penetration to go through and though a Congressman's skull, a nine year old girls chest, or a Federal Judges body.

Hate messages we can deal with, but high velocity lead nuggets don't stop until their energy has been used up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. But they sure make it easy!
Even casual. You don't even have to get near somebody to put a hole in their spleen and then watch them bleed to death. Ah yes, easy livin'...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. Guns with big clips kill LOTS of people, quickly.
I don't give a crap what our gungeoneers claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. So you're saying....
...that our "gungeneers", members of Democratic Underground, progressives like to use their guns that carry big clips and kill lots of people? There's the biggest flaw in the anti-gunners argument. They somehow want to equate the irresponsible with the responsible, and it doesn't take much brain power to see just how imbecilic, and rediculous that argument is. Guns are here, they have been here, and they always will be. Noone, including the "above it all" anti-gunners want to see responsible gun ownership come to fruition more than responsible gun owners. This bury your head in the sand and ignore the obvious crap is getting tiresome. No, way beyond tiresome, and the sooner anti-gunners embrace and support responsible gun owners, the sooner the irresponsible, and criminal element is brought under control. We're fighting for the same thing, but fighting against each other as to the means, which only prolongs, and delays the goal we both have. What the fuck is so hard to understand about that? Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. No, they defend large magazines routinely as a right.
Bullshit. Nobody needs 30 rounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. How many rounds do people need?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. In most cases, zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. A more realistic number or is your goal to ban magazines with > 0 rounds?
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 03:54 PM by Statistical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. It's no secret that I hate guns.
Mass killing machines shouldn't be legal, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Good. Better to swing for the Unconstitutional fence, then settle on something realistic. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Nothing I wrote is unconstitutional
I support your right to bear arms, within resonable limits.

I don't own guns, because I don't like them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. That is why I asked what the reasonable limit on number of rounds is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. It's not my call.
I do know that nobody needs to own a 30 round glock, including the police.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badtoworse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I'd be very surprised if 30 rounds is a big factor in the overall scheme of things
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 04:04 PM by badtoworse
Most semi-autos like Glocks have magazines in the 13 - 17 round range. I don't have any stats (maybe someone from the Gungeon does), but I suspect that violent crime involving more rounds than a single, standard magazine can hold is extremely rare, perhaps even more rare than crime involving a rifle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Well that is an honest answer.
So 28 round magazine?

Personally I think there is no need for 30 rnd pistol magazine either (rifles shouldn't be capacity limited). However 10 rnds is too restrictive. If the limit was 20 rnds I think that would be ok. Also whatever limit is placed on us commoners should apply equally to Police. If no civilian can have 21 rnds for self defense then no cop can either.

"GLOCK, GLOCK, GLOCK" Not sure why so many people are focused on the brand. You can get 30 rnd magazines for virtually every brand made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Why "GLOCK, GLOCK, GLOCK?" Because All AK-47, All the Time is boring. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. 30 round magazine
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 07:39 PM by RSillsbee
In 1991 George Hennard drove a pick up truck through the front wall of a Luby's Cafeteria. According to eyewitness Suzanna Gratia Hupp he got out of his truck and very methodically began to walk around the restaurant executing people. One of the first to go was her father who tried to stop him and the last to go was her mother who was attempting to aid her father as he lay dying. Mr. Hennard was armed w/ a Glock 17 and a Ruger P98 he killed 23 people and wounded 20 more.

In her Testimony to congress against the first AWB Mrs. Hupp stated that limiting magazine capacity would have had no effect on the Luby's Massacre because Mr. Hennard changed magazines so quickly no one could have got to him in time to stop him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIeyn0-rdx4 /http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQNS_CmA1wQ&feature=related

A portion of her testimony here. ^

Cho Sung Hui carried two weapons at VTech according to eyewitness accounts every time he ran out of ammunition he simply used one gun to hold off his victims while he reloaded the other he killed 32

Tell me again how 30 round mags (waste of money if I ever saw one)are such horrendous death dealers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #25
38. You know this how, exactly?
Not that I'm a proponent of magazines that are obviously oversized for the weapon in question (like 30+ round mags for Glocks, or 100-round C-Mags http://www.betaco.com/), but I'd like to know whether your "knowledge" is based on actual evidence, or merely on ideology.

Actually, I can think of a situation in which an extended magazine can have legitimate purpose, and that's when confronting a nocturnal housebreaker or two. You're going to want to have to grab as few items as possible, so it helps if your "nightstand" gun already has a light attached and as much ammunition in one magazine as possible, so that you don't have to go fumbling for a flashlight and spare mags in the dark, and then try to find a good place in your dressing gown to stick them. Besides, you're probably going to need your off-hand to hold and operate the phone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. I'll take my right without your "reasonable limits." nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. So, you want to make that a law? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kudzu22 Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
43. Cho Seung-Hui certainly didn't
He used regular 15 round magazines and killed five times as many people as Loughner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badtoworse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. The basic problem is that the antigunners generally deal with the issue on an emotional plane...
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 03:46 PM by badtoworse
... and the progun people generally deal with it on an objective level. It has been my experience that meaningful communication rarely happens in such an environment, regardless of the issue. I don't know how to fix that, but I'm convinced it's the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
29. Amateur driveby flamebait
If you really want to impress someone besides our resident Stalin-cheerleaders then try posting on Free Republic or Stormfront, they'll respond with blood in their eyes. Around here you're just another driveby with 0.1/10 snark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Weak stuff after all the "pro's" we've had to deal with.
Were's a competent Canadian, or a verbose Aussie, when you want some quality, erudite, disingenuous arrogance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Yeah, they did seem to bunch up like it was an end-around. Phzzz. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
35.  Are you sure that he is not a leftwing nut? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. By all reports I've seen, that's exactly what I've gathered. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
36. Nutcases use guns to kill people
unrecommending for unhelpful straw-manification.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
39. Look into my eyes

Flag burning , Marx grooving teabaggers ! Fuck em all !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan 05th 2025, 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC