Myth #1 - please. I have never not once seen a gun kill a person without being manipulated by another person hereafter known as the shooter.
Myth #2 – so what.
Myth #3 – Hattiesburg MS, the asst principal used a personal firearm to stop a school shooting. The mall shooting in Oregon an armed bystander was seen by the shooter and the shooter retreated to commit suicide. The armed bystander did not shoot because he was not sure the background was clear of innocent people. Good discipline on his part.
Myth#4 – depends on many factors. The mother in Atlanta that shot a home invader seemed to do OK.
Myth #5 – depends on many factors. Too many instances to name, but I may look some up tomorrow.
Myth#6 – see myth#4
Myth #7 – and cartoon network. This is a stupid myth.
Myth#8 – well, we used to have a problem in this country with drunk drivers. No one seriously discussed banning cars or alcohol. What did happen was that law enforcement and the courts got serious about discouraging drunk drivers and punishing them when caught whether they caused injury or not. New York has serious laws that put a felon in prison for a looong time if they are caught with a firearm. Chicago does not. Chicago has 3X the shootings New York does.
More people die of natural causes than from people with a gun. Yet, the blind politicians are not trying to ban natural causes. This is documented on the CDC's website (2011 National Vital Statistics Report). The finalized 2012 report will be available on the web this coming fall.
More people die from diseases than from people with a gun. This is documented in the same report. Yet, the insane politicians are not trying to do away with diseases.
Drivers of cars kill more people each year than people with guns. This is documented in the same report. Yet, where is the outcry in Washington for car control?
Also documented in the report, Obesity kills more people than guns. Yet, those same ignorant people in Washington are not moving to do away with forks, spoons, and knives.
If you are going to quote statistics from the CDC, be sure to put your figures in perspective.
There are three things in this country that stand between me and the government. They are needed in order to protect the liberties our founding fathers wanted for me. The ballot box, the United States Supreme Court, and any legal weapons I legally have in my possession.
I wished we lived in a world without some weapons. However, we don't. As long as evil minded people have them, I should have the same ability to defend myself and my loved ones...until the police arrive.
In the early days of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Facist Italy the leaders took control of the media before going after weapons. The same is happening here and now.
Why is the novel and Broadway play "Les Miserables" popular these days? Maybe it has to do with the similarities in events and time.
Why do we continue this foolish debate on line? It's like debating abortion - or a woman's right to choose. What you call it pretty much establishes which side you're on. And in my many years, I have never known anyone whose beliefs on this issue were changed through reasoned argument.
Walkie, your examples are a foolish attempt to marginalize the discussion. I have heard not one word from any politician about doing away with guns. And whenever the argument arises about "taking my guns" you may rest assured discussion will deteriorate from that point.
Fly, statistics mean nothing in this thread or the overall argument. For every stat you cite, someone (see Charlie's response to Myth # 3) will counter with an anecdote - never mind it may be the only one nationwide in a year.
I support full background checks for all purchasers of firearms but I do not see how this will ever expand to the person to person sale. I support restricted sales of "assault" weapons. And regardless of the NRA's attempt to rebrand them as "sporting" rifles, that's what they are. Designed for the military originally and with the express purpose of rapid fire with minimal reloading. I support limited magazine capacity.
But, I also support severe penalties for anyone using a stolen or illegally purchased firearm in the commission of a crime - including a mandatory death penalty for homicide (along with whomever sold the weapon illegally). Use special courts, tribunals, or whatever device needed and enforce the laws. Sounds Draconian but it offsets the "only the criminals will have guns".
Those are my views. I won't change them and I shan't debate them because you won't change my mind and I certainly doubt my ability to change anyone else's strongly held views.
no gun has EVER jumped up, loaded itself, and shot anyone. EVER!!
and thats no myth fly.........
im thinking it would also be safe to say the state with the most cyanide would have more cyanide poisoning deaths than a state where there was no cyanide. makes alot of sence dont it fly? again, thats no myth fly......
i have heard that spoons make some people fat and hammers kill even more lets ban those too.
and if guns don't make women safer ask the lady up near atlanta what she thought about that the day she used hers protecting her twins
Bryant, I completely agree that no online debate will change your mind but just in case let me say one thing. Assault Rifles are fully automatic/select fire weapons designed for the military and for the most part illegal for the public to own. Assault style rifles are cosmetically similar to Assault Rifles but are semi-auto only. Only able to fire one round per trigger pull. Even if you are for banning high capacity magazines you must admit that cosmetic features are no reason to ban a firearm.
Gun nut, Bryant - no, I don't care to ban rifles based on cosmetics. If you care to own a Bushmaster, fine. But I do support limited magazine capacity for any rifle that is not a rimfire and all pistols. I also support limited magazine capacity for shotguns.
And I grew up on the banks of the Oconee River and remember shooting a friend's father's M-1 carbine with a 30 round "banana" clip. Got the ammo from National Buard surplus. Never thought twice about it - but America and people were different in those days.
You nailed it right there... "America and PEOPLE (emphasis added) were different in those days.
The issue is NOT the gun, it is PEOPLE!!!
another strike against Myth #4
Charlie, I'd be hesitant to post an initial report. The next one could say, "The home invaded was a known location for drug dealing..." and so it goes.
Good book from many years ago addressed the myriad gun "control" issues. The name was something like "The Gun That Won The West, Killed Your Neighbor, " or something along that line. I think it's out of print since I coud not find anytthing on it. But it was excellent in pointing out the need to restrict access and how improbable it was that we could do it. And it pointed out how Saturday night specials could be as deadly as high end, high powered firearms. (Kind of blows my rimfire mag capacity stance.) I liked it because for any position the author presented a counter.
This is a very emotional and polarized issue.
I did hesitate, but Fly set the bar pretty low... "Keeping a gun at home makes you safer."
If you are doing something illegal at home, keeping a gun at home will make you safer in case you need to defend yourself.
Even if you are NOT doing something illegal at home, keeping a gun at home will make you safer in case you need to defend yourself.
Yes for all points there are counterpoints. Makes for a long tedious debate.
I am not really this radical, but "they" can have my guns when I am done with them, when they pry them from my cold dead hands. Molon Labe!
I feel much safer having a gun in my home. Whether I am safer or not depends on the circumstances. But, I will always have a gun in my home (until I'm in that nice little assisted living place).
I have limited magazine capacity and can't aim for squat. But the noise will raise the dead and scatter the intruders - although why they would trouble is beyond me.
To anyone that feels they need to use and assault weapon for hunting, might I suggest getting a real hunting rifle and spend some time at the range and learn how to shoot properly. The rounds fired from an assault weapon are designed to tumble through a body and will render the meat inedible. That is a waste of time, money and good meat.
Some would disagree in large to what you are saying SC. Hollow points and ballistic tip bullets should not tumble with any of your assault weapons. Most bullet tumble is not a desirable effect. It has more to do with the bullet not gun. Im pretty sure most assault weapons and bullets were not designed to tumble. This is a myth that came along with the m-16 in Vietnam. But bullets have been designed to tumble, a round that has an air space placed within the bullet such that it begins to tumble after it strikes its intended victim. I believe Russia started this.