Remember: Guns Dont Kill People, People Kill People

[Parche]

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
That is all
:hi:

[dmallind]

1. For sarcasm that's pretty true

I mean I'm pretty sure I'd have heard of any event of a gun spontaneously leaping into the air and beating people over the head until they die.

Guns make it easier for people to kill people - just like poison and knives and baseball bats do - but they all do absolutely zero killing without human agency.

[unpossibles]

3. I've seen stories of dogs accidentally shooting people with guns. I'm sure monkeys could do it also

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dog+shoots+man&btnG=Google+Search

[dmallind]

4. Sure and I've seen stories of brakes failing with fatal results - do brakes kill people? NT

[spanone]

6. bad breaks kill people, yes

[dmallind]

8. OK I gotta ask

was that sly humor or just bad spelling and logic?

Bad breaks (as in bad luck) does kill a lot of people. Bad brakes don't really kill people - they are the result of bad luck (or poor maintenance) just like that dog treading on the trigger is bad luck (or the result of poor gun safety on the part of the human who left a loaded gun with no safety engaged where it could be trodden on).

The gun itself still didn't kill anyone. Only poor safety attitude and poor luck.

[spanone]

25. you got it

[LanternWaste]

26. Usually it's the actual bullet

"The gun itself still didn't kill anyone."

You're right. Usually it's the actual bullet that turns muscle tissue and organs into hamburger meat rather than the gun.

[dmallind]

30. Well they don't jump up on their own either do they

Tends to have to be that idiot pulling the trigger before a bullet would do anything other than give someone a mildly irritating sensation falling on their toe.

[LanternWaste]

31. t's not the weapon that does injury, it's the bullet

I'm simply stating that it's not the weapon that does injury, it's the bullet.

When I worked in a ER, we had "GSWs" and "PWs" (gun shot wounds and projectile wounds), but we never admitted a person due to 'gun shot wound from another person' or 'projectile wound from a bad guy'.




Really? Bullets don't jump up and down on their own? Really? Did you come to this conclusion of both intellectual depth and breadth on your own or did you read it one a nifty web-site? Good Lord...

[dmallind]

36. My god that's news!

I never knew guns worked by firing bullets rather than clubbing people over the head! Your vastly superior intellect is astounding! And of course the patois of a medical facility MUST be the relevant criterion to decide moral agency as it's such a relevant argument. I mean because they are called gun shot wounds or projectile wounds in hospitals it muct be the fault of the gun or the projectile not the person who pulled the trigger. And of course when someone is garotted it's the rope's fault. When they are stabbed it's the knife we should hold responsible! Yes I see it all clearly now - your ever so convincing and persuasive juvenile ad hominem attack has caused me to see the error of my ways. How stupid I was not to see that the tool is independently culpable all along.

[LanternWaste]

46. "How stupid I was not to see that..."

"How stupid I was not to see that..." it's the bullets that cause damage-- not the gun, not the person. Easy stuff, really.

[zanne]

43. Your logic is silly.

You're saying that bad brakes can kill people, so what's wrong with guns killing people, too. Yeah, that makes alot of sense.:sarcasm:

[madinmaryland]

19. Wasn't there a monkey running the NRA?

[unpossibles]

21. no wonder he was so sore about those damn dirty apes!

they blew it up!

[Winterblues]

10. I can give you countless stories of accidental discharge but why bother

More people die or are wounded from accidental discharge than from actual murder. It certainle was not the person's intention to discharge their gun but it went off none the less and someone died or was injured..I guess you could say the same about traffic deaths. Traffic doesn't kill people it is people that kill people..Why should someone be forced to get a driver's license? Why should they have to prove they can operate a motor vehicle safely? Are cars more dangerous than guns?

[Dimensio0]

12. In most states, a licence is only required for operating a motor vehicle on a public road.

Similarly, in most states, a permit is only required for carrying a firearm when in public.

[Winterblues]

13. Are you saying permits are needed to carry a hunting rifle on public lands?

Never has been in my state unless you are considering a hunting license as a permit to carry a gun. I guess I also have a permit to carry a fishing pole onto public lands as well.

[Dimensio0]

20. You have established a valid counterpoint.

Do you believe that licensing should be required for the carrying of hunting firearms when hunting? If so, what do you believe that such licensing would accomplish and how would such a licensing system be implemented?

[Winterblues]

24. I believe anybody buying a firearm should demonstrate knowledge

on how to safely use, carry, and store it. They should demonstrate knowledge of any applicable laws in their state for ownership of a firearm just as they do with automobiles. Also I believe a registry of guns should be maintained just as is done for automobiles. Is that so very much to ask?

[jmg257]

27. Safety is fine. A gun registry isn't because its only purpose is to allow them to be confiscated.

WHY would they need to know EXACTLY which guns I own? And HOW would they check on that, if it mattered?


ALL the while knowing there are too many real examples of registration leading to confiscation, it makes it a BAD idea.

[zanne]

44. Knowledge is one thing; common sense is another.

In my opinion, not enough gun owners have enough of the latter.

[jmg257]

48. That's great - with all your anger I agree YOU shouldn't own guns. Which has nothing to do with

govt registration of our private property.

You can't handle the responsibility - then YOU make the right choice (just please be careful with really dangerous things like cars, raising kids, swimming pools, poisons, etc.).

We will make OUR own choice too.

[CTyankee]

52. Yep, making "responsible choices" or "healthful choices" in things

like eating granola instead of fast food. Yep, it's just like that with guns. Keep on telling people --like the shooter at NIU perhaps? -- that he really shouldn't be handling firearms -- "that's bad! don't do it!" -- that sure woulda worked for him...:rofl:

[jmg257]

55. Sad to see that tragedy amuses you so - Callous much?

It is NOT my place to tell anyone what they can and can't do (other then my kids). Zanne chooses not to take advantage of the right to arms, I observed that for her it was probably a good idea. And your finding such all-out humour in the murder of others probably shows you shouldn't have one either. Just a suggestion...

That is the thing about unalienable rights and free choice - they can't be infringed unreasonably or carelessly, and especially arbitrarily - i.e. without due process.

[CTyankee]

58. Actually, yes, I have had a family member killed by handgun, so don't even TRY to lecture me!

You've probably seen my posts before because I've told my story so much before. It is my way of "witnessing" truth. So here it is again for your information.

My neice was killed by her stepgrandfather who got drunk and angry, took his handgun (which he kept loaded for protection of his home) and started shooting. He killed her with a clean shot to her right forehead; she was on the phone to 911 but she didn't have a chance. Then he shot her mother and his wife, her grandmother. Besides being shot herself (altho she survived), her mother had the added torture of watching her own daughter slaughtered before her eyes and her own mother (who was dying of cancer) hit with a bullet. He then took his own life.

My neice was 24 years old and had been married 4 months earlier. The pallbearers at her funeral had been ushers at her wedding. My brother, her father, collapsed at the side of her coffin.

The shooter was an older man who had no history of either mental illness or any criminal record. He did, however, have a drinking problem. Hey, no problem, he got a gun and hey, this was Texas (Dallas). And hey, he was exercising his right to own a gun.

And hey, that's my story.

[jmg257]

64. That is a tragic story - my sympathies and my apologies at MY callousness -

it is no excuse, but I was not aware of your circumstances. My fault for not being more understanding of WHY others may feel differently then I do.

[CTyankee]

67. Thank you jmg. I appreciate your post. This happened in 1987, the

night before Father's Day. I had called my parents to wish my Dad a happy Father's Day and my mother answered and told me the news, which they had just heard and were in shock. My brother had been expecting to go to a Father's Day brunch with his daughters. His other daughter went into the ministry of the United Methodist Church, I think in large part because of what happened to her sister. They were both devout Methodists but the tragedy I think spurred her decision. She was asked to help out with her grandmother the night of the tragedy, but had blown it off and perhaps felt guilty that she wasn't there...

I truly don't tell this to make you or anyone else just feel bad. I just tell my story and let everybody make up their own minds about the situation. I'm tired of arguing. My brother died in a nursing home in 2004 of a stroke. He's buried not far from her in the same cemetary. My mother was never the same after she lost him and died 10 months later. I'm tired and I've cried too much over it and so many are now gone anyway. Nothing I seem to do seems to help the situation, so I don't know what to tell you.

[jmg257]

68. Its OK - I don't mind listening. Anyone with family (and I have a huge one) can relate

at least a LITTLE to what you have gone/are going through. It gives me plenty to think about - it WILL help me to always be a little more careful, and a little more thoughtful - and I thank you for that.

[CTyankee]

70. OK, take care. n/t

[jmg257]

14. Do you have the stats on non-fatal accidents (not deaths). Gun accidental deaths = 789 in 2005.

In the mean time, yes, cars are more dangerous - car accidents killed 43,667 that same year.

[CTyankee]

50. I would guess that practically all of the traffic fatalities were not caused by people

deliberately crashing into other cars or pedestrians just to kill or maim them. They are called accidents because they are accidents. You cannot say the same thing about gun fatalities. The shooter at NIU wasn't taking his two guns out for a little cruising around the neighborhood, ya know...

[benEzra]

28. Not the case.

There were 750 accidental gun deaths in 2005 (the lowest rate ever), and around 10,000 murders, IIRC. Some of those 750 are probably murders disguised as accidents, and that figure includes accidents by criminals as well.

[sergeiAK]

73. Cite that

I've only seen stats suggesting that out of ~35k gunshot deaths, ~12k were murders, ~800 accidents, the balance being suicides.

[Deny and Shred]

15. How many die due to stray baseball bats and knives?

Guns increase the likelihood and quantity of innocent people being harmed.

I've heard the argument that the ability to kill quickly from a distance actually encourages violence. It takes more strength and courage to actually stab or bludgeon.

This guy at N. Illinios Univ. was able to shoot how many, a dozen people?
I doubt the number would be near that with knives and bats.

[Dimensio0]

18. Firearms are not the most efficient tool for mass murder.

There are other, more efficient, methods for killing large quantities of individuals in a single event.

The argument that "the ability to kill quickly from a distance encourages violence" is supported by no evidence that I have seen. Thirty-seven states allow civillians to obtain permits to carry concealed deadly weapons on a "shall-issue" basis, and two states allow civillians to carry concealed deadly weapons without a permit, yet there is no evidence that the individuals in those states who are permitted to carry concealed deadly weapons have been, as a group, any more violent than individuals who do not have this ability.

[Paladin]

38. I'm Sure That Will Be Of Great Comfort.....

....to the families who have to bury those NIU students. Your opinion that those kids weren't murdered in the most efficient way possible would be a real picker-upper, for sure.

I noticed you didn't identify those "other, more efficient methods for killing large quantities of individuals in a single event." I wonder why not---certainly not for reasons of good taste. How about describing those methods for us, in detail? I mean, lots of detail. Excruciating, spittle-flecked detail. Carry on....

[Dimensio0]

57. The intention of my statement was not to provide comfort.

The intention of my statement was to respond to a claim that firearms are an efficient tool for committing mass murder. It would appear that you have misunderstood the intent of my statement and you thus mistakenly responded based upon your misunderstanding.

Your request for an explanation of "other, more efficient methods for killing large quantities of individuals in a single event" is curious. It suggests that you are unfamiliar with events in relatively recent history, such as the Oklahoma City bombing, the World Trade Center attacks, the London Underground bombing, the Madrid train bombing or the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. All of those events are attacks carried out without any firearms that resulted in multiple deaths.

[krispos42]

29. Yet the experience in the UK indicates otherwise

In 1989 the British government confiscated all "assault weapons" after a mass shooting by a guy with a clean criminal record and lawful, registered guns.

In 1998 the British government confiscated all handugns after a mass school shcooting by a guy with a clean criminal record and lawful, registered guns.

Their record since:







And to put mass schootings in America in persepctive:

[krispos42]

39. It's counter-intuitive, perhaps, but true

The UK's homicide rate is up considerably after banning and confiscating 'assault weapons' in 1989 and handguns in 1998.

Death via guns is down, but death via non-guns has soared to more than make up for it.


And multiple-victim deaths in this country are very uncommon.




So much so I have to do a second graph to clearly show the bottom.

[benEzra]

61. Except knives kill more people than "assault weapons," other rifles, and shotguns COMBINED.

Guns increase the likelihood and quantity of innocent people being harmed.

I've heard the argument that the ability to kill quickly from a distance actually encourages violence. It takes more strength and courage to actually stab or bludgeon.

Except knives are used to murder more people annually than "assault weapons," other rifles, and shotguns COMBINED, which does undermine that hypothesis somewhat.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Even shoes and bare hands account for far more murders than rifles or shotguns do.

[zanne]

42. Guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people! nt

[spanone]

2. people with guns kill people

[madokie]

5. bad people with problems kill other people with guns

the more I hear about wanting to take the guns out of everydays peoples hands the more it makes me want to go out and buy some. anyways thats what I think

[dmallind]

7. Sure - either an infinitesimal amount of the time or 75% of the time depending on how you look at it

About 75% of the time (in the US - much less most other places) when people kill people they use guns.

But of the approximately 70 million gunowners in the US, a tiny tiny fraction of them kill anyone.

So to be honest the real answer is "very very few people with guns kill people, but people who kill people like to use guns a lot".

Which is of course an indication that guns are an effective and available tool for killing people, and not much else. Can't think of too many people who would argue that they are not.

[Xenotime]

35. Yup. that's all they are good for.

[jmg257]

9. My guns must be broken then, they have never killed anyone...hmmm...

[Raejeanowl]

11. You've Gotta Rent This Movie

I'm a Jeff Daniels buff, and I watched his straight to video "flop" from 1999 last night, entitled "It's The Rage" a.k.a. "All The Rage."

It's a brilliant sleeper on this very subject, with fantastic performances by Gary Sinise, Andre Braugher, Joan Allen, David Schwimmer, Josh Brolin, and Daniels.

[Vickers]

16. We should just shitcan the whole Bill of Rights!

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:


That is all...I'll hear from YOU!

:hi:

[LeftyMom]

41. If you'd like to participate in the "well regulated militia"

feel free to look up the national guard recruiter in your local phone book. They have lots of guns you can play with on the weekend, plus tanks and other cool shit.

[Pavulon]

49. Then can we keep M4's at home...The swiss do?

That would put plenty of machine guns into private homes..

[LeftyMom]

74. Considering the track record of Americans and weaponry

apparently most of us can't be trusted with any projectile weapon more harmful than a rubber band shooter.

Anyhow, I'm not sure who you plan on repelling? The Swiss have the Italians on one side and the Germans on the other, neither have a history of being the best neighbors. Who do you think is going to go marching up your street so that you, oh brave patriot, can pick them off? The Canadians or Mexicans?

I'm sure there's a National Guard Armory near you, and a recruiters office to boot. If you want to embrace your second amendment right to participate in the militia, they'd probably give you a nice signing bonus, and these days they're not turning away much of anybody. Go for it. :patriot:

[mmonk]

17. That's correct. Guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns.

[zbdent]

22. bombs kill people ...

[zbdent]

23. small scared people with big guns kill people ...

[PsN2Wind]

32. As probably one of the few posters on this site

with a degree in Small Arms Technology (Gunsmithing) my take on the gun debate is this. A gun is only an instrument used for directing a projectile or projectiles toward a target, be it paper, game or another person. As an inanimate object it bears no lethality of its own. A gun in the hands of the wrong person is where the problem lies and the problem is admittedly getting worse.
When I went to the Oregon Institute of Technology in the early eighties it was not uncommon to see students walking down the halls with a rifle, shotgun or sidearm and only the most timid felt threatened. There was never an incident there of an accidental or intentional shooting. The guns have changed little but the nature of people certainly has.
Incidentally, the murder rate by guns or other means is horrendous but compared to deaths due to medical misdiagnosis, bungled surgeries and prescribing the wrong medications it pales by comparison and all of those health providers are licensed.

[zanne]

45. I have a degree in Psychology...

Guns are dangerous to humans and animals. People can lose control;add a gun to the equation and you have a tragedy.

[Feron]

51. I have a degree in Psych as well.

And? Saying you have a degree adds nothing to the debate nor does it give you any special cred.

Just because something can be misused does not mean that it should be banned. Lots of things are dangerous if improperly used or handled. I can kill a person with a plastic bag or hang myself with a rope. And a lack of guns won't stop a suicide bomber with a backpack full of explosives.

Instead of banning an object, why not lobby for better mental care and services?! Someone willing to lash out with a gun is a person that will use another means if a gun isn't available.

If I'm gung ho about killing another person(s), there's something wrong with me and not the instrument that I use to murder. Bludegoning a person to death with a baseball bat is just as much a murder as shooting a person to death.

Like guns or not, there are legitimate reasons for owning them. And like with abortion, if you don't like them then nobody is forcing you to get one.

There are many reasons why America is so violent, however gun ownership isn't one of them.

[zanne]

54. Guns are used to kill without making physical contact.

Psychologically, it's much easier to kill someone at a distance with a tool that does the killing for you. C'mon; if you were a Psych major, you know that. It's also the quickest way to kill without any thought beforehand.

[benEzra]

62. Except that knives, bats, and even shoes and bare hands...

kill more people than "assault weapons," rifles, and shotguns. Were the psychological "distance thesis" correct, then one would expect that knives would account for fewer deaths than long guns.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

FWIW, most handgun murders occur within knife range, not at great distance.

[slackmaster]

33. Crazy people with guns kill people

Since there are a lot fewer crazy people than there are guns, it makes a lot more sense to try to control crazy people.

[balantz]

34. Gosh, guns don't even kill guns!

They just lay there!

I watched a gun once, for weeks, and it just lay there, never harmed no-one.

[fascisthunter]

76. That's the Funny Thing about Weapons, Until they are Used

Weapons=designed to kill

Nobody really suggests they kill by themselves. It's an over-used simplistic meme.

[Egalitariat]

37. I worry about the bullets more than the guns****

nm

[ileus]

40. Guns are Mean

[B Calm]

47. I have many guns and none of them have killed a human being.

The right for citizens to own guns is a very liberal idea! Thanks to the liberal gun laws on the books, I happen to own some!! The word LIBERAL means PERSONAL FREEDOM!

[Perry Logan]

53. But guns make killing people childsplay. So to speak.

[aikoaiko]

56. I undestand -- you're upset about the recent mass shootings and perhaps all unjustified shootings

I understand. I am upset, saddened, and angered too.

I understand. Lawful gun owners are generally favor of laws that will help prevent tragedies and illegal use of guns, but not at the expense of being able to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves.

I understand when people say they wish to be free of gun violence. So do I. So do most gun owners.

[CTyankee]

59. It would be nice if we had the same gun violence rate as say, Oslo or Helsinki

or maybe even Paris or Rome. Maybe Florence. Okay, Siena, now that's a nice place. Big campanile (bell tower) with nobody having a rifle up there ready to take a shot at you down on the Campo (piazza)below while you're having your caffe and gelato. I'd take that...

[benEzra]

63. I'd like that too. But banning lawfully owned guns in THIS country won't get you there.

Building a social infrastructure might, though.

[CTyankee]

65. Well, the Italians managed to get it (mostly ).

It would be nice if the pro-gunners and the anti-gunners would get behind this, but that doesn't seem to be happening. What DOES happen, with depressing regularity (as you have probably noticed), is that we have more shootings in colleges or other schools. And then we have this spate of gun related threads with the same arguments. I'm just fed up with this circus here on DU,which is miniature of the circus in our public discourse. And nothing changes....aack!

[benEzra]

69. I agree.

Well, the Italians managed to get it (mostly ).

It would be nice if the pro-gunners and the anti-gunners would get behind this, but that doesn't seem to be happening. What DOES happen, with depressing regularity (as you have probably noticed), is that we have more shootings in colleges or other schools. And then we have this spate of gun related threads with the same arguments. I'm just fed up with this circus here on DU,which is miniature of the circus in our public discourse. And nothing changes....aack!

I agree. I think all of us here agree on the need for far better social infrastructure in this country, and I wish would legislators would focus on that instead of being so wrapped up about the shape of rifle handgrips or whatever.

BTW, Italy still makes some of the finest firearms in the world, and Fabbrica d'Armi Pietro Beretta is the world's oldest family-owned company (established 1526 and still in the Beretta family, believe it or not). Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, and Beretta...what a place...

[CTyankee]

71. Heh, I'll be in Turin in May. You know Turin, where they make the FIAT,

Fabricca Italiana Automobile Torino.

And I will be in Ferrara, Asti and Bologna as well. However, I can assure you I will not be going there to see any mechanical product. I am going for the food, the coffee and the culture.

[benEzra]

72. And some of the best food, coffee, and culture in the world, it is...

I have a strong engineer streak in me, though...

[CTyankee]

75. There is a big FIAT museum in Torino, but the only reason I would go

is if I could get a miniature classic FIAT toy car for my grandson.

On my last trip to Rome, I remember seeing uniformed guards with some pretty mean looking long guns outside the embassies. That was in fall of 06. My guess is that they were carabinieri (Italy's national police). And my Roman friend pointed out a "takedown" of some well dressed character by plainclothes police (I had no idea what he was up to but it looked like something out of one of those international thrillers...)

[LWolf]

60. And people create weapons designed to kill people.

Thus legitimizing the killing of people.

[CTyankee]

66. Hey, stop making sense! It's not allowed! n/t