20% of US citizens have a family member killed by a gun.

[HealthAndHappiness]

Exactly. How many of the world's population live under tyranny or in fear of government because their family members don't have free access to guns? Far more than 20%. The statistics can be built to provide the answer that is looked for.

How many people who died under state brutality (e.g. Communism) in the 20th century would have survived, had they simply had free access to guns? Probably upward of 80%, because Communists are cowards, and many know where they're headed when they die. As such, they're always trying to ban guns so those who they abuse can't fight back and send them to an early Judgement.

There are literally hundreds of millions of regrets right now from just the past century alone. I had the honor of conversation with the producer of a documentary on that subject. He would agree with you wholeheartedly.

Through social engineering that has been tested throughout history by the devil's who inspire the mass murder, it is down to a science. By the grace of God we are not conquered from without. It is looking like the enemy has been inside the gates by way of a Trojan Horse for quite a long time though.
They have begun to implement that scientific murder without a shot fired, BUT......they DID use a shot.

 

[Gideon300]

2020 US gun deaths: 45,222
2020 US abortions: 620,327

a 7:100 ratio, btw.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm

The disparity does not make gun deaths acceptable.

 

[Gideon300]

Exactly. How many of the world's population live under tyranny or in fear of government because their family members don't have free access to guns? Far more than 20%. The statistics can be built to provide the answer that is looked for.

How many people who died under state brutality (e.g. Communism) in the 20th century would have survived, had they simply had free access to guns? Probably upward of 80%, because Communists are cowards, and many know where they're headed when they die. As such, they're always trying to ban guns so those who they abuse can't fight back and send them to an early Judgement.

Your argument is absurd. The state has far more access to military hardware than the population generally. Until Americans have a Bradley in their garage, body armour, anti tank weapons, surface to air missiles, 50 cal machine gun, a dictatorial government will win hands down. Civilians also need to know how to use such weapons. Easier said than done.

I can buy a gun if I choose. The type of weapon is restricted. I must have a background check.

 

[ZNP]

The disparity does not make gun deaths acceptable.

Why? The term "gun death" is not "homicide". We recently had a trans person break into a school and shoot people and this trans person was killed by the police. Why is that "gun death" not acceptable?

The reason they use vague terms like "gun death" instead of homicide is because many of the deaths are not homicides and they are trying to inflate the numbers.

Most of the shootings in this country take place in cities where guns are illegal and where the person with the gun would never have gotten it legally. These are criminals, there are already plenty of laws making that gun and that shooting illegal, but that hasn't stopped them. All that more laws would do would be to take the guns away from the law abiding citizens and make things even more dangerous for them.

Why is it unacceptable for someone to defend their home from a violent criminal breaking in or a rapist?

Yes, people make mistakes and when they do they will probably be found guilty by a court of law and go to prison. But with felons being released onto the streets, rioting and looting going up through the roof, it seems absurd to tell citizens who have owned guns for their entire life and have no criminal record that this is no longer acceptable.

What I would like to know is how many gun homicides are there in the US in a single year where the shooter owned the gun legally and where a proposed law would actually have prevented that homicide? I suspect that number is less than 100 a year and maybe even less than that.

I am not interested in hunting accidents any more than I am interested in car accidents. In my experience people come up with terms like "gun deaths" to hide the fact that the real number is so small that even they know it destroys their argument.

 

[Gideon300]

Why? The term "gun death" is not "homicide". We recently had a trans person break into a school and shoot people and this trans person was killed by the police. Why is that "gun death" not acceptable?

The reason they use vague terms like "gun death" instead of homicide is because many of the deaths are not homicides and they are trying to inflate the numbers.

Most of the shootings in this country take place in cities where guns are illegal and where the person with the gun would never have gotten it legally. These are criminals, there are already plenty of laws making that gun and that shooting illegal, but that hasn't stopped them. All that more laws would do would be to take the guns away from the law abiding citizens and make things even more dangerous for them.

Why is it unacceptable for someone to defend their home from a violent criminal breaking in or a rapist?

Yes, people make mistakes and when they do they will probably be found guilty by a court of law and go to prison. But with felons being released onto the streets, rioting and looting going up through the roof, it seems absurd to tell citizens who have owned guns for their entire life and have no criminal record that this is no longer acceptable.

What I would like to know is how many gun homicides are there in the US in a single year where the shooter owned the gun legally and where a proposed law would actually have prevented that homicide? I suspect that number is less than 100 a year and maybe even less than that.

I am not interested in hunting accidents any more than I am interested in car accidents. In my experience people come up with terms like "gun deaths" to hide the fact that the real number is so small that even they know it destroys their argument.

Is 160 mass shootings not enough for you?

 

[ZNP]

Is 160 mass shootings not enough for you?

Wow, so instead of answering a very straightforward question let's change the subject. So I take from this you agree with the deceitfulness of the term gun deaths.

Which mass shooting are you talking about because they are not all the same.

There was the one in Las Vegas, very horrific, there was also the school shooting down near the border in Texas recently, also very horrific.

In fact when you look at these mass shootings the primary takeaway I get is that we are not being told the whole story.

Certainly I would think that the people who are using these would be interested to know the whole story so that we could put a stop to them.

But again, "mass shooting" does not mean "school shooting" so you have to be more specific as to what you are talking about. Interestingly, there have been several "mass shootings" and even "potential mass shootings" that were recently stopped by "a good guy with a gun". So then, people who are concerned about a lunatic in the shopping mall or in a school would point out how these were stopped by someone who was there and was legally carrying a gun. Perhaps the best way to stop a "mass shooting" is to make it easier for the masses to defend themselves.

 

[Moses_Young]

Is 160 mass shootings not enough for you?

If you want to do something about mass shootings, stop voting (and propagandising) for those who are instigating the mass shootings. Guns don't cause mass shootings - Communists do, in order to get rid of guns. Start speaking out against the Communist cockroaches behind the transgender sickness, behind the Big Pharma drugs, and behind the vote fraud. Until you do, mass shootings are going to continue.

 

[ZNP]

If you want to do something about mass shootings, stop voting (and propagandising) for those who are instigating the mass shootings. Guns don't cause mass shootings - Communists do, in order to get rid of guns. Start speaking out against the Communist cockroaches behind the transgender sickness, behind the Big Pharma drugs, and behind the vote fraud. Until you do, mass shootings are going to continue.

He can't vote in the US, not a US citizen.

 

[Moses_Young]

He can't vote in the US, not a US citizen.

But propagandising for the Communists is probably even worse than voting for them (especially considering all the vote fraud going on). In my opinion, he is more guilty for mass shootings with his Communist apologetics than all the legal gun owners in America with their guns.

How many more mass shootings will it take until these Commie apologists shut up about gun grabbing and focus on the real killers and their enablers (and sponsors)?

 

[ZNP]

I think it has become abundantly obvious that the mass shootings are used by the politicians to push their agenda of outlawing guns. It has become so brazen and blatant that it is no wonder we have people theorizing some kind of manchurian candidate or MK ultra program to manufacture these killers. In fact, when you look at some of them closely this seems to be the simplest explanation for what happened.

In football you are taught to fight the pressure. If they are trying to push you one way that is definitely the way you don't want to go. These mass shootings are being used by corrupt, evil officials to push the US in one direction and therefore that is definitely not the way I want to go.

 

[Lanolin]

hmm well...most everyone adult in the US would have access to a weapon that could harm if they really wanted to, most people have kitchen knives and forks and scissors and paper cutters at home, and a lot of people still have 'garden' weedkillers and toxic chemical cleaning agents in their laundry cupboard. And stones.

If you drive a car really fast, it can turn into a missile that can kill people as can a plane that can be hijacked with box cutters.

I am bit wary of a hearing about US govts though their presidents tend to always be assasinated by shootings. Quick and easy.

In France, they just used the guillotine saying it was more humane

Englands way of getting rid of despots was burning at the stake or public hanging with a piece of rope. Now they just deport crims to other countries (Australia?)

Romans crucified people using wood and nails.

so anyway...here in NZ we kind of have democracy where you vote people out every three years or you just leave or go live in another country if you dont like the govt. We dont really need to kowtow to the British royal family, we just tolerate their foibles in the tabloids and make fun of them in cartoons.

 

[Lanolin]

If you work for the US govt do you have a background check as well? I thought anyone could join the US army if they wanted to and in the past they actually drafted people. The army/navy/airforce IS part of ghe US govt right? A lot of weapons are actually manufactured in the US, but they tend to go for bombs and kool aid mixed with poison if they dont want to shoot others, or kill people by getting them addicted to drugs.

Guns are just glamourous in the US because of cowboys and westerns, and probably in a battle with 'Indians' were more effective than a bow and arrow.

Jesus said if you live by the sword you die by the sword.

in nz maori, who had a rep for being warriors and were always fighting, were absolutley fascinated with guns (or muskets) when the europeans first came. Before that the weapons they used were heavy stone clubs and wooden sticks (mere and taiaha) so they began to trade to get these wonderful newfangled 'firesticks' hence an arms race known as the 'musket wars' and they ended up nearly wiping each out through tribal warfare.

They had already hinted the moa out of existence and there werent many mammals left in nz to hunt. The european whalers took all the whales with harpoons, and the seals were clubbed to death.