Latest update: 9/16/17
I believe that there is not one of us that does not believe there are far too many people killed by guns. I believe we ALL would like to see the totals decreased significantly. With that in mind, why then would I object to gun control? Let's look at just a few items for some infrequently used, but totally applicable logic.
Those whining or crying or SCREAMING for gun control, do not want gun control, they want PEOPLE control; just as many "leaders" have done throughout history. Guns keep "leaders" from having total control over their subjects (Ref: mid 1930s to 1945, Germany, as but one specific example).
Many who advocate "responsible gun control" do their very best to ignore other causes of death in the United States. A prime example is the automobile. Newsweek tells us that 2015 had over 38,000 auto related deaths. What percentage of the 38K is the gun murder rate? You do the math, the FBI tells us that in 2012 there were 8,855 firearm-related homicides, which does not include suicides. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms deaths by homicide were 11,208, and suicides by gun were 21,175. - - - When statistics are combined improperly, totally valid information can still muddy the water. - - - Do you see how numbers can be easily twisted to create false impressions?
If a carpenter makes an error that causes a death, do you blame his hammer, or his saw? No, you look to the ~person~ that created the problem, not his/her tools. THAT is why so many that whine about "common sense" gun laws are so far off base; they want to blame the tool, and not hold responsible the person that performed the act.
OH! least I forget, in the research I did to compile the information here, I found a laundry list of web sites that omitted facts, ignored context, or just plain out lied. If you are of a mind to, please verify the numbers I present by looking at sites that present information, rather than anti-2A rhetoric.
There are approximately 30,000 gun-related deaths per year.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually but rather is 5,100. Is that still too many for you? Well, first lets look at where those deaths are, across our nation.
Thus we see 35% of all non suicide gun deaths happen in just 6
Four of those cities have very strict gun laws. If it is not the gun laws, what is it then?
Do not forget that criminals do . not . respect gun free zones, or any other gun law.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or less than 75 per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169, while Alabama had 1. Now, who has THE strictest gun laws? California of course, but understand it is not the tool (guns) driving this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Many have speculated, and I tend to agree, a large portion of it comes
from a double whammy of lack of manners AND people that are quick to
anger at the lack of manners in others. Then add in a seeming lack of
intelligence, and you end up with shootings and murders (Ref: Chicago
shooting/murder rate). One dolt "disrespects" another, it progresses
to pushing and shoving, then if either has a weapon, be that a knife,
rock or gun, someone is hurt. If it was not by gun, then one will soon
be involved! Please keep in mind that Chicago has some VERY stringent
gun laws, yet gun crime is plentiful there.
Hummm . . . tough laws yet gun crimes are PLENTIFUL!
NOPE! Tougher gun laws will not cure it!
I find it amazing how many parents there are that can not teach skills they do not have (roll eyes).
MOST of the shootings and killings in places like Chicago are from people that have NO manners.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How does that compare to other sources? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault; all are done by criminals to victims and thinking criminals will suddenly obey laws is ludicrous. They would not be called criminals if they were willing to change.
Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care, suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death! That means you are safer walking the streets of Chicago than you are in a hospital!
Then we find that 610,000 people die per year from heart disease!
Is it time to end fast food?
Or should we ban such things as smoking?
From the CDC: "Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day. On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers." That's more than TEN TIMES the total number (including suicides) of "gun deaths", yet the liberals are not concerned about that! WHAT is it that they want to control?! Not guns, just people; letting them "be happy" keeps them from asking questions.
I'll just bet that we all agree that each of us has the right to Self Defense. WHY then do so many look at it as if owning a gun for that purpose should be considered a crime?
If the Democrats and the anti-2A movement focused their attention on heart disease and malpractice, even a 10% decrease would save more than twice the lives lost each year to . . all . . forms of gun deaths. That is suicide, drugs, gangs, law enforcement and actual accidents.
Simple easily accomplished 10% reductions!
So WHY is there such a focus on guns? Simply that removing guns from the general populace gives control to government. This is not conspiracy theory, rather historical fact! Why then is it impossible for our government to spill over into dictatorship? Our founding fathers wrote into OUR Constitution an item referred to as the Second Amendment. Why did they do that? Any bets on if it was what the British were attempting to do to the original settlers of our nation? The British tried to disarm the populace of the colonies. Why? Because a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the Second Amendment was proudly and boldly included in OUR Constitution. It must never be removed!
Many people call an AR-15 style rifle an "assault weapon". This is a political gimmick designed to create fear in the minds of those with insufficient knowledge (YES, the media is in that group). These guns are not the so called "machine guns", in fact they fire only one round per pull of the trigger just as any self-loading gun does. Unlike what the anti-2A people would have you believe, they are not more powerful than other firearms. In fact, they tend to be of intermediate power levels, insufficient to hunt "big-game", at least per the Colorado State Game and Fish Department!
The vague misnomer "assault weapon" has been used against everything from air-guns to double-barreled shotguns. Many current definitions outlaw guns because they have a feature such as a forward grip, detachable magazine, or flash deflector, none of which will kill anyone.
While it has been reported that almost half of the gun magazines in the US hold more than 10 rounds, citizens choose them for self-defense for the same reason that law enforcement officers do. Violent confrontations are unpredictable and you can not anticipate the number of rounds you might need. Thus defensive gun users can easily need a reserve of ammunition. While armed defenders seldom fire more than 2 shots, reducing reserve capacity to 10 or less rounds will reduce the number of defensive shots available. Fewer shots fired at the attacker reduces the risk of injury to the attacker, and thereby raises the risk of injury to the victim.
Please help me understand why a criminal needs more rights and advantages than his victim!
I just read some material that implies (some would say strongly states) there is racism in establishing gun control. Liberals do not want to consider that aspect, so they ignore it. The racist "logic" says that by increasing the cost of guns, and especially the ammunition, you are in effect creating a racist environment; by excluding those that are financially unable to acquire the guns or ammunition. I'm not sure if that bears watching. By saying that, they are, at least to me, saying that a segment of our population (I'll bet you can guess which one) has so little money they "need" others to pay for their guns (roll eyes). This is the very same segment that has the largest percentage of people in jail, murdered, and shot because of THEIR behavior.
I'm of the opinion that this is but an extension of liberals that are running so quickly in a circle, they are about to put their nose in their own posterior (circular notation?).