Is a murder victim killed with a weapon other than a gun, less tragic than one killed by a gun?

Is no one going to take a stab at this(pun intended)?

Perhaps it’s because the ratio of firearms murders compared to knives in the US is about 100:16. Source

So for every 100 news stories about guns there should be about 16 on knives. That’s about what I see. A mass shooting occurs about once every 2 weeks, I know the media doesn’t cover most of them.

So you are saying there are more gun murders than any other type of murder in your country?
and even the media doesn’t report all of them?
But does it make those other murders less tragic, or just less news worthy ?

@SQUEEKY2 I honestly don’t have the statistics on media coverage of shootings vs. knifing, but I suspect that they’re being covered in roughly the same proportion that they occur (i.e. maybe 1 in 100 shootings get covered and also 1 in 100 knifing get covered). In other words, they’re being covered the same amount proportionately to the frequency with which they occur.

That’s a guess and I don’t have evidence to support that claim.

Who cares, my question is are they less tragic because they where murdered with a weapon other than a firearm?

@SQUEEKY2: “So why do the ones killed by guns get so much media coverage compared to the ones killed by other means?”

Murders by guns get very little media coverage in the US.

Murders of kids and teachers in schools get quite a bit of coverage.

Murder is a murder..There can’t be a comparison which was more or less tragic. You’re ending someone’s life for any reason with any means will be tragic for the person being killed and his/her family. Gun cases will get more attention because of no of people being affected by it and power of destruction of the weapon.

Thank you @imrainmaker .
You answered my question.

^My pleasure!

No. A killing may be a lot more gruesome without using a gun.
Some people make such a big deal out of people being shot with a AR-15, imagine what the carnage would look like if they were shot with a shotgun at point-blank range??
Or all of the blood that would spew if the heads were simply lopped off??
Good question!

Well vivisection is not a pleasant way to go. So manner of death counts. If I wasn’t immortal then I would choose death by old age surrounded by family and friends .

Short answer is no.

I guess I’d rather get shot to death, than be strangled by piano wire, or die of cancer…

But those options all suck…

The level of “tragedy,” IMO, would vary by each case. Even different victims, from the same event, could be seen as different levels of tragedy. For instance, a really old/sick person, would be probably viewed as less tragic, than a child…

Very subjective.

No. I’d love to see more outrage for the deaths of children by their own parents, and children raped to death by insane perverts. I have little interest in ANY outrage that doesnt protect the most helpless, our children and the abuse to our elderly. The rest is just political chatter imo.

@SQUEEKY2 I keep telling you, but you have an idea that it is false:

GUNS are designed for killing. They have no other intended design.

And don’t give me all of your target practice and skeet shooting reasons guns aren’t designed to kill. Skeet shooting and target shooting are practicing to kill things. If you want to shoot targets, get a bow and arrow.

The number of gun deaths is so high that it isn’t a tragedy anymore, it is more of a “meh.” A lot more people get upset over someone being bludgeoned.

It isn’t that a gun death is more tragic, it is a matter of the huge numbers of dead and injured after a mass shooting. There was a shooter at Central Michigan University the other day. Once it was realized he only killed two people and the lockdown was over, it fell off the radar.

^Killing is oversimplifying. Some need to kill to eat, or protect themselves. That’s what guns are designed for.

I shoot skeet now and then. I have zero intentions of ever shooting any animal.

@MrGrimm888 ”...or protect themselves.” The use of a gun to protect oneself is to do so by killing the threatening thing.

Well @zenvelo I think firearms have evolved past just a weapon to kill people, you haven’t.
Bows and arrows where invented to kill as well, so where Javelins ,axes and so on.

You are going to blow the chance at any real firearm laws because like the NRA you gun haters want to much,the NRA wants nothing time to wake up and realize a great number of people would never hurt another person with their firearms.
Time to come out of your corner and meet the other side in the middle so real good can get done.
Or stay in your corner dig your heals in and keep screaming guns kill and no one should have them,see how far that gets ya , oh and that is what the NRA hopes you exactly do.,

@Zenvelo If protecting yourself is wrong, then leave your doors unlocked tonight, along with your vehicles. That makes no sense in rural America.

Of course not. The tragedy of 9/11, the mourning, the agony is felt just as strongly for those who lose a single person in a car accident.

@zenvelo . Incorrect. Your logic isn’t flawed. Just your understanding of how firearms offer protection. They are most often used as a deterrent. When I used to live out in the “country,” I’d fire a warning shot if someone was snooping in my yard. Thy didn’t know that I wasn’t shooting at them. So. They don’t come back. When I wasn’t there, my Mom was safer because the local criminals knew that I had a gun, and would use it. Without harming anyone, the property could be made more secure, thanks to a gun.

When I’ve lived in more urban areas, I would rack my pump action shotgun, before opening the door to an unknown person in the night. I establish a don’t fuck with me, my family, or my stuff, if needed in a bad neighborhood. Racking that Mossberg 500 gets people’s attention. They don’t even have to speak my language. Hearing that sound, puts fear in the hearts of most men. I don’t have to fire it. I have had to be hostile, in several places I’ve lived. If I had just a bat, or knife, I’d have been overrun, and killed.

Don’t get me wrong, I am very happy that some people don’t know what it’s like to live in an impoverished area. But they don’t understand that firearms don’t have to kill, to deter crime. An armed guard’s presence, will usually drop a crime rate in a given location…

In some cities, they reduced crime rates by putting “a cop on every corner.” Criminals are more afraid of a Cop’s .40 Cal, than the Cop’s badge…
Sadly, some US citizens do not feel adequately protected from their environment. Those people comprise most gun owners. A pistol in the closet, or shotgun under the bed keeps the criminals at bay.

The day the government bans a lot of weapons, they better be able to GUARANTEE that me/my family will be 100% safe from other people with guns. Until then, there is NO discussion about taking all wespons.

And that’s what I have been getting at. If circumstances were different, I would not mind banning lots of guns. When I sold guns, I KNOW that I helped lots of victims of crimes sleep better, and have better chances of living, because of firearms.

I personally spoke to many women, whom acquired concealed weapons permits after being raped. They told me that they would have never been able to go outside again, if not for the comfort their concealed weapon gave them. Most were, I felt, pretty responsible gun owners. They weren’t looking to kill anyone. They just didn’t want to be a victim again. Some of these women reclaimed their lives, because they can carry a subcompact. 380 in their purse.

There are many positive things that firearms can provide, without hurting anyone…

VERY TRUE @MrGrimm888 !
But sadly all that simply falls on deaf ears when it come to gun haters, wether protection,fun,hunting, sport,or investment,they still believe no guns equals a brighter safer world, heck we will all hold huge block parties, in the country they will have barn building get togethers.
Gun haters see ANYONE wanting to own a gun baaaaaaad , for any reason.
Sadly it’s because of these types of people very little will get done in your country when it comes to any real firearm laws, and that is what the NRA is counting on .Sad,just plain sad.

^Maybe. We’ll see. I’m a pessimist, but this is the closest I’ve seen my country to making real change. As we’ve opined, there will need to be educated discussion, and compromise, to get any real change.

If you’re an anti gun person, you should support any changes. But we have to get the ball rolling. I am afraid that the “B” word (ban) makes lots of gun supporters stop listening right away. That won’t help.

Exactly stop the B word and work for real change but they don’t get it, sad I don’t think they ever will.

^They’re smart, passionate people. Some just don’t understand a few things. There is potential for both sides to make headway.

Let’s hope so,we just need to take (Passion) out of it and install reasonable, and sensible and get to work.

Maybe try to remove it from decision making, but keep it otherwise. If they are passionate, maybe they will research the things they don’t understand, and then maybe make better recommendations than me….

I feel like some are sounding like I would, in a debate about hair curlers. I just don’t know much about hair curlers, or the culture surrounding them. So. I wouldn’t be the best person to speak on any haircurler related issues…

@MrGrimm Nail on the head. That’s whats upsetting many of us. I don’t drink hardly at all, but just because drunk drivers kill people doesn’t mean I’m looking to make alcohol illegal. Many of us do consider guns necessary for sentimental reasons, or for a hobby, etc.. It is part of our culture.

I wish gun haters would realize that instead of spewing guns are meant to kill and no one should have them type thing.

No @SQUEEKY2 there really is no difference. Dead is dead. If you look at the media following the Parkland incident you would believe that there are nuts out there with AR-15s shooting up thousands of people. Yet statistically, knives and cutting objects kill about 5x more people that rifles. Yet you hear nothing about it. The people are still dead, their friends and families are still devastated, but it doesn’t support a political agenda so you don’t hear about it.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

I agree @seawulf575 ,while we all think there is a need for better gun control in the states, the gun haters are using this latest shooting, as their soap box to scream no one should have them type thing.

There has to be sensible firearm laws that work,and still allow those that want to use their firearms to do so.

It’s the MASS MURDERS that are sensationalized SQUEEK. And for the very few who manage to pull it off with a car or whatever, the gnashing of teeth is every bit as frantic. But I ask you one again, what’s the most efficient method for achieving mass murder, and wouldn’t you expect the numbers of killings utilizing that method to reflect that fact?

@stanleybmanly a bomb is the most efficient means of mass murder. A van on a crowded street seems to work amazingly well as well. And as we have all seen, flying an airplane into a skyscraper tops them all. And if you look at the stats I posted, it is handguns that are the gun of choice, when a gun is used. But what do we hear about today? Those evil AR-15s. You know..l.the assault weapons! In other words, it is sensationalized and takes away from the real problems. Is making a bomb illegal? Yep. Can you blow one up at say…the Boston Marathon? No…it’s against the law. Is it illegal to drive over people with a van? Yep. Is it legal to hijack a plane and fly it into a building? Not a chance. Yet people do these things. It isn’t that pressure cookers or vans or airplanes should be outlawed…they really didn’t kill anyone. It was the people behind those objects, using them for the purpose of killing others that is the problem.

But how do we deal with those people?
The anti-gunners shout guns are meant to kill people and have no other purpose thus no one should have guns,I strongly disagree with that but they keep shouting it over and over.

A firearm works well to commit mass murder but as @seawulf575 pointed so do other things, such as vehicles,airplanes,bombs.

Actually I am going to side with @seawulf575 on this WHY can’t we focus on the people doing these horrible crimes instead of just whatever tool they choose to use?

A freedom only lasts until it is misused. Then it gets taken away. Guns rights included. Freedom is granted if everyone is responsible. Shooting innocents proves that the citizens need more restrictions and can be earned back after a time. Just not now.

@seawulf575 of course handguns are responsible for most of the gunplay and outnumber military grade rifles in the civilian population thus far. And that’s why you truly should be frightened. The country has been saturated with handguns for decades and your stats reflect EXACTLY that. Now what do you suppose will happen as the assault rifle numbers climb in this society? It is a silly argument to pretend that we are in for an epidemic of automobile, bomb or hijacked plane mass murders. This discussion is about automatic rifles because those are the “tools” consistently used for slaughtering people. They are the weapon of choice for would be mass killers EXACTLY for the same reason the army prefers them. I want you to look at the following statement and tell me if you think it is an anti gun remark. “There can be no mass shootings without firearms”.

Again, I DO NOT take an anti gun position. But I can tell you without hesitation that there will be no reduction in the accelerating firearms deaths minus stringent regulation of the weaponry and rigid control of those wielding them. And it is NOW too late to achieve either. Things are going to get worse —a WHOLE LOT worse. And we should brace ouselves.

What is the answer then @stanleybmanly ?
Simply trying to take them away from people that already have them accomplishes little to nothing except make those people want to hide them.
I have no problem with a ban on the sale of any new rifles,in order to slow the ever increasing numbers into the private market.
Again I have no problem with banning high capacity magazines.
I have no problem with requiring gun owners to have a firearms license.
I think mandatory safe storage is a good idea as well.
I have a huge problem with any talk of a ban on firearms that are already in private hands.
So what is the solution?
Maybe just make sure you always have plenty of cover when the rounds start flying ,sorry that wasn’t funny.
What is the solution that doesn’t punish the law abiding firearm owner and yet cuts down on these types of mass shootings?

@stanleybmanly I think you may be missing my point as well. Look at Europe if you want to see how the fools will behave. If they can’t get guns, they will use vans. And they are very effective. They don’t even waste their own vehicle…they rent. Look at what we have seen in this country. Columbine happened and they used bombs as well as handguns, and shortly after that there was a huge uptick in kids attempting to bring bombs to school. The issue isn’t the bomb or the gun. It is the people and what is setting them off. What are the influences in our society that are making it seem a good thing? What are the influences that are making it seem like there is no down side?

That’s my point. The current regulations, it can be argued, almost certainly deter some killings though there is no proof nor possibility of determining how many. And your European example of vans and bombs substituted for missing firearms is valid ONLY if you can demonstrate an epidemic of bombings and van rampage on a scale to match our gunplay pandemic, and that clearly is NOT happening. The argument that the level of killings would remain the same if firearms were eliminated is flawed on its face. There is nothing peculiar about Americans that motivates our stupendous slaughter stats. And your own statement on the uptick in bombing attempts beautifully illustrates the truth of the matter. They were all FAILED attempts. They failed not only because (compared to guns) bombs require some expertise. There is the additional impediment in the fact that there is NOT a surplus of 300 million bombs in the country. There is just no escaping the fact that our shooting scorecard is directly and demonstrably tied to the numbers of available firearms. It’s the numbers and the numbers alone which guarantee that killing in America is easy.

^Killing is never easy. Just saying….

great strives have been realized toward rendering killing as easy as possible, and nothing can compare with firearms development in the pursuit of that goal.

@stanleybmanly You make an assumption about current regulations detering some killings. There is no proof of that at all. And the argument is really that they don’t deter any killings.
When someone wants to kill someone else, do you really believe they care about a gun control law? I give you Parkland FL as the most recent example. The kid bought the gun legally. And you don’t have to have ” an epidemic of bombings and van rampage on a scale to match our gunplay pandemic” to see that it is changing. You are seeing the beginnings. As for the bombs, I will tell you it isn’t that hard to do a research on the internet to find a recipe for making bombs. They doesn’t have to be a surplus sitting around. Knives are used to kill a bunch of people each year as well. And the point is that these things have been used in lieu of guns to kill others. And all of this still begs the question of why people do these things. That is what needs to be addressed. What is it about our society that makes them want to shoot up some public venue? That is the question you are avoiding.

^^TOTALLY^^

@seawulf575 I stated already that is impossible to prove the extent to which current regulations deter shootings, but only a fool would pretend that the shootings would decrease with their elimination. And whether you know it or not, you are making my argument for me. I agree totally that those committing these crimes clearly don’t care about laws or regulations. It therefore follows that the only obstacle to their intent lies in acquisition of the required weaponry. In other words, the easier it is to acquire a gun, the more people will be shot. I say that it’s a waste of time delving into motives. If your argument is that there is something peculiar to Americans driving them to gunplay, then there can be no stronger argument for depriving them of their guns. The truth is that it is impossible to effectively whittle down the numbers of volunteers eager to shoot up a crowd when guns are available everywhere. Again, the fact that the “kid bought the gun legally” bolsters the argument that the sale of the thing should be illegal to begin with. Sure he might revert to mass knifing, or van murder or even research and carry out the manufacture of a bomb. But you and I both know that that it would be much simpler to borrow, steal or purchase an illicit automatic rifle. They’re now more plentiful than dirt.

There are several things that need to be addressed, sure. But we have to start somewhere. Regulate the guns as tightly as we regulate machine guns here.

”...legal machine guns are very expensive, still require the original 1934 Machine Gun Tax stamp of $200 and the owner or trader must undergo extensive background checks and also permit the federal government to conduct searches…...In fact, fines of up to $250,000 and prison sentences up to 10 years can be instituted to those in possession of an unregistered machine gun.”

Boy. Almost as tough as our drink driving laws finally became, cutting the number of death by drunk drivers in half since 1980.

That could be the top level of a multi tiered firearm license.
If they want to own firearms like the AR15.

@stanleybmanly You say it’s a waste of time delving into their motives and I say that is exactly where we need to delve. We have already seen knives, bombs and vans used to kill lots of people. Those people didn’t need a gun. And the problem is that just because you take away one means of killing someone, there are still plenty more. And the only common theme is the person actually doing the crime and their motives. What is it about today’s world that makes people think it is cool to go on a killing spree?

@Seawulf All this attention. They are infamous. We are creating the next one right now.

@KNOWITALL “Many of us do consider guns necessary for sentimental reasons, or for a hobby, etc.. It is part of our culture.”

That’s one of the stupidest fucking things I’ve ever read. Apply the same reasoning to something else with the potential to be highly lethal to others:

“My friends and I have some historical Ebola strains that we like to keep around for sentimental reasons. It’s a hobby of ours to culture it. Therefore I should be allowed to have it.” I would hope you realize how bad of an idea that is, and that the risks and potential cost to society is not outweighed by my selfish sentiments or hobbies. It’s completely fucking moronic. I’m sure slave owners had sentimental attachments to their slaves: sentimental feelings of “possessions” is insufficient justification for owning things that shouldn’t be owned.

@seawulf575 ” And the problem is that just because you take away one means of killing someone, there are still plenty more.”

Except you make it harder. And now that asshole is running Google searches for “how to build a bomb” or visiting bomb-making websites or is otherwise involved in activities that could reveal his evil intentions ahead of time to authorities. Or he tries to buy a gun through an illegal arms dealer, and maybe that dealer is being watched by the ATF and they can catch the guy before the crime happens. All of these are reasons why banning semiautomatic weapons increases the likelihood that bad people will get caught before they can massacre people. It currently takes very little effort, planning and skill to end the lives of dozens of people using semiautomatic weapons. It boggles the mind the mental gymnastics you guys are willing to go through to pretend that semiauto firearms are basically just feather-dusters and really aren’t any different than kitchen knives.

And no @SQUEEKY2 background checks aren’t going to be enough. I’m very confident that Stephen Paddock would have passed his “top tier” license check with flying colors.

If Paddock had been limited to a bolt-action rifle there would be dozens more people who survived. If he’d driven a van into the crowd there would be dozens more survivors, if he’d built a homemade bomb, there would have been dozens more survivors.

I think these shooters to date are actually pretty bad at killing people. Given access to legally available firepower, I can think of dozens of ways to murder many more people if I was a psycho (I’m not). I mean the highest body count was achieved by a guy buying guns and going to a high vantage over a large crowd and firing. Think about how little skill or planning that takes. But hey, it’s cool, some people have hobbies, so fuck all those victims, right?

Is it the people with a firearm hobbys fault?
Because a lot of people enjoy shooting,and some enjoy it with that rifle,it’s their fault some idiot goes off on a killing spree?

We all feel for the victims of any horrific crime,but why is it the person that has a legal AR15 securely stored,who enjoys shooting wild hogs, and targets why is it his fault some idiot uses that same style rifle in a crime?

Please explain why it’s any law abiding firearms owners fault that a sicko goes on a killing spree?

With that theory,I have seen people texting and driving,using their cell phones dangerously because those people use their cells irresponsibly no one should have a cell phone??
And don’t roll your eyes and scream cell phone were not invented to kill, no but these people using them irresponsibly cause a lot of harm hence no one should have them ,right?

@stanleybmanly or he just rents a truck and runs a bunch of people over. Yeah, I can see where that would be difficult. And you know there are no books out there that tell how to build a bomb…you can only find that information on the internet. And heaven knows he couldn’t get a hold of a big knife and kill people. And that is the point…there are dozens of ways to kill people. You are totally ignoring the “why” and focusing only on the “how”. The how can change…the why doesn’t.

@Gorillapaws And here we go with low brow verbiage and cussing. Sigh.

Whether we like it or not some people in society feel differently about things. Like SSM, religion, illegal immigrants, book burning, the environment, war, etc…this is just one more subject. Pro gun people who are responsible are no threat, we are actually pretty upset that we are being held responsible in some kind of way for the gun culture of the entire country. Again, my guns haven’t hurt a human ever, and no one I know has evee hurt anyone with their guns. Many of us support changes in the system that will help prevent mass killings.
But feel free to demonize all of us if your critical thinking skills are nonfunctioning today.

@seawulf575 Of course there are plenty of creative ways to kill people. I’m just saying that when it becomes too easy you wind up with statistics like our own. Speculation on what might replace firearms as methods of mass murder is a vacuous exercise, particulary since there isn’t one bit of evidence in less gun happy places that such methods are raging. Are you really telling me that that you believe the elimination of firearms would make no difference in the homicide rate?

NOT one firearm enthusiast is denying there needs to be some real regulations about firearms in the states.
And some components, such as bump stocks, silencers , high capacity mags, but NOT any firearms.need to be banned.
Why is that so hard for the gun haters to understand?
AS much as you want we are NOT!!! going to give up our firearms and take up lawn bowling sorry.

@stanleybmanly of course it would slow it down for awhile, while the nut jobs adapted to other means, then back to the races so to speak.
I get what your saying it’s so easy to acquire a firearm,it makes these freaks quest all that easier.
No one is denying the states needs some real regulation on firearms, but a ban or total elimination will NEVER happen!!
PUSH for some real regulations and you all stand together, and something good should get done, scream ban, and all you do is divide head to your separate corners and little if nothing is done, choice is yours.

@stanleybmanly I guess first you would have to identify how many people are murdered by gun. It is around 9,000 per year, most of which are by gangs. So putting more restrictions on guns really isn’t going to slow them down much, and I’m pretty certain they would find other ways to kill people. You might see a small dip, but then it would go back up and might even go up higher. We have seen that when someone really wants a large body count, they pick a gun-free zone. If the entire country is a gun free zone, then any thought the gangs might have about potentially getting shot back at would be gone. Even if they used bats or knives…their numbers could easily be used to push their body count back up.

@gorillapaws . “If he’d built a homemade bomb, there would be dozens more survivors.” Talk about baseless claims.

Comparing firearms to ebola? Wow….... Yes indeed, there are “nuts” on both sides of the argument.

You say you’re not a “psycho.” I’m no longer sure…

Fellas we really have no disagreement on the probable futility in clamping down on gun ownership. I reach the same conclusions as yourselves, but for different reasons. Our dispute is over exactly what’s driving the mass murder show in the United States. My position is that regardless of whatever motivates individuals to murder one another, it is the glut of high powered automatic weapons which facilitates mass murders reducing the matter to one of simplicity for lunatics, simpletons, 6 year olds — it doesn’t matter. And make no mistake Squeek, our gun bonanza assures the show will eventually be running in a theater near you, just as it has already converted the bulk of impoverished Latin America into a free fire zone. The whole world knows where the guns are cheap and OH SO PLENTIFUL.

^Well. We’re not Yemen. Guns are indeed in circulation, but there is SOME oversight. It just needs to be looked at, and tightened. A lot.

As I’ve said before, the time to ban any weapons, passed about 30 years ago. Our bed was made then, and we’ll have to lay in it…

That’s an astute observation, particularly for handguns, and you only need to extrapolate on the relatively recent addition of post Vietnam era weapons to the pile to understand what the next 30 years will almost certainly bring.

@seawulf575 I would alter your question “what is it about today’s world that makes people think it’s cool to go on a killing spree?” Ask yourself what is it about the United States that makes it so VERY easy to go on a killing spree.

@stanleybmanly you act like this is the most dangerous place in the world. I have thrown out the two extremes for gun control before…Honduras and Switzerland. Both have similar populations. Honduras has strict, no-gun ownership laws. Switzerland has much more lax laws and many people own guns. Yet when you look at the murder rates, Honduras is among the worst in the world and Switzerland is among the best. So it isn’t gun ownership that is the problem. There is something else that drives people to kill others.

@gorillapaws Comparing guns to ebola…
I think guns are very beautiful artistic mechanical works. For example, have you ever really looked at a Smith & Wesson pistol?? I doubt the ebola virus is as artistic in it’s appearance…

EXACTLY ^^^but gun haters fail to see any of that ,they can not fathom that a firearm can be sentimental such as the shotgun I got from my Grandfather after he passed.
That many are handed down generation after generation.

They also fail to see many are very valuable and worth a lot of money.
Many have ornate engraving on them, beautiful wood work and so on.
To them they are nothing more than a killing device that no one should have.

Forget about “what drives people to commit mass murders?” You must accept the fact that there will always be SOMEBODY ready to pick up the gauntlet. The question that matters is “what PERMITS people to commit mass murders?”

@kritiper, @SQUEEKY2 You guys really need to learn about logical reasoning. See Reductio Ad Adsurdum to understand how it works.

If you don’t like Ebola, substitute something else that could be used to kill hundreds or more people in the wrong hands (e.g. a shoulder fired-anti-air missile), then decorate it in whatever way you want on it to the point it qualifies as “an object of beauty” and then consider whether those changes are sufficient reason for reversing the civilian ban on owning them. Repeat this process with other reasoning you guys have given (culture, inheritance, fighting a hypothetical tyrannical overtaking of the government, 2nd amendment, etc.). None of those reasons would justify allowing civilians to own stuff that has that degree of lethality (even with a permit and background check).

Ok so lets’s include,vehicles,alcohol,CELL PHONES, and kitchen knives, all these items have proven to be fatal and kill innocent people when used irresponsibly in the wrong hands.

Your ONLY argument is those items were not invented to kill, ah but they do have a degree of lethality when abused hence no one should have them.

Your substituting things like Ebola, and rocket launchers are things the general public could never get a hold of, sad this is the argument your using, the NRA is going to love it, so much for meeting them in the middle.

Your argument ,well if you can own a gun why can’t I have a Bazooka, yours is ridiculous hence mine is ridiculous?
Keep it up, and nothing will get done in the way of any real firearm control,and that’s sad.
But NOTHING is going to justify legal firearm ownership to gun haters regardless of what they say, so march to your corner dig your heels in and keep screaming you will go far.

So I watched your video, and remember I am just a dumb truck driver, when I say there are legal reasons for owning a firearm, you give us then why can’t I own a Bazooka type thing, yours is utterly ridiculous ,making mine ridiculous as well?

@gorillapaws So the fact that automobile deaths equal gun deaths (including suicides) in this country is meaningless? Automobiles obviously have a degree of lethality and they require a permit to operate. In fact you have to prove you can do so safely. So why are there so many automobile deaths? Maybe we should outlaw cars? After all, there are about 310,000,000 automobiles in this country. Imagine if we banned all cars! Yeah, I think that’s it! let’s ban all cars and trucks! Then we can not only stop the automobile deaths but can help towards stopping that evil global warming! We could save the planet!
How about this…I have a right to own a gun. I have a responsibility to take care of that gun and to use it properly. There are laws that define what proper is. Why I want a gun really isn’t your business. It could be because I inherited it, it could be because I want to protect my family from home invaders, it could be because I fear my government, it could be because I am a collector and see beauty in it, it could be because I want to go hunting, it could be all or none of these. The reasons are not the important thing here. My rights are. So until you can tell me a gun control law that would get and keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys (you know…the ones that don’t follow the laws), then stop trying. All you are doing is punishing those that follow the laws.
And speaking of punishing…why aren’t gun control laws and things like permits and background checks and classes considered racist? I mean after all, whenever you talk about Voter ID laws, all I hear is about how racist they are and how it is an unacceptable thing to expect poor people, mainly blacks, to have to pay for the right to vote. Well…don’t they have a right to gun ownership? So why is it that when we talk about adding new hurdles to gun ownership, we aren’t discussing the racist side of things?

@seawulf575 we might as well give up, gun haters are non listeners, right haters as well.
WE can say why we want firearms till we are blue in the face, and it falls on deaf ears.
To them a firearm is nothing more than a death device that NO one should have or own for any reason.
And nothing will justify firearm use and ownership in their eyes.
They give idiot reasons like if you can have a gun then I can have a Bazooka.
or the ebola virus.
I would have liked to think,they could have met the NRA in the middle and come up with some real gun control laws that will keep guns out of the hand that shouldn’t have them yet not for the people who can keep and use them safely ,guess I was wrong.
Sadly like politics the 2 sides are so far apart little or nothing will get done and these horrible mass shooting will just continue.

Let me you tell you why we are doomed. There are presently 120,000 licensed gun dealers in the United States, meaning that there are now more gun shops than Starbucks, McDonalds and supermarkets COMBINED. If you want to read some eye popping revelations google GQ DRAGONMAN

PLEASE DON’T misunderstand @stanleybmanly there is without a problem,and there definitely is a need for stronger regulations.
But regulations that keep firearms out of hands that shouldn’t have them yet doesn’t for people that can keep, and use them safely.

@stanleybmanly there is one problem with your stats….those that are committing the most gun murders are not going to someone with a FFL. They are getting their guns illegally. Yes, I know…it makes for a scarier thing to quote the number of gun dealers in the US, but that is not where most killers are getting their guns. Let’s start with the facts of gun deaths. There are 11,000 gun deaths per year in this country. And that number is dropping each year. There are about 7,000 other murders (not gun related) each year. Most of those gun homicides are gang related. About 8900 per year. So with 310,000,000 guns legally owned in the US, at worst, only about 2,100 murders are attributed to them. AT worst, 0.00068% of the legal guns are used in murders. Huh. Imagine that. So 120,000 licensed gun dealers in the US are selling guns to legal gun owners and only a very small fraction are actually being used to kill others? Sort of takes the sting out of your stats. Now, that being said, I will get back to establishing the “why” for these gun deaths. 2,100 are too many so why are those dying? And can there be some commonality be found? THAT is what we need to look at.

The commonality is that they all are SHOT! But my point is that when you have 120,000 people licensed to sell firearms, there isn’t a chance in hell of controlling the illicit trade.

Two points: First, it isn’t an illicit trade. Those with FFL go through many hurdles to get that status. Second, you are purposely dodging the issue. Why do people want to kill others? It isn’t because there is a gun at hand. That is a tool. What drives them to want to use that tool?

I definitely had to pass a couple tests, to get my FFL. I took selling pretty seriously too. I asked lots of questions about how the purchaser would use the weapon. If I had the slightest thought that it could be used illegally, I refused the sale. I would even call our other stores, to warn them of a potentially bad buyer.

The car analogy is kind of sensible. I’m sure most of us know someone who died in a car related event. And there is also no doubt, that deaths would decrease, if cars were banned. It would save lots of lives. But is banning cars practical?

@MrGrimm888 You and I know there needs to be some tough sensible gun control laws put in place,problem is both sides are so far apart I highly doubt anything meaningful will get passed,and that is a tragedy in it self.

^Indeed.

@seawulf575 With 120,000 licensees illicit trade not only unavoidable, but required to fuel the undeniably massive trade in illegal arms. WHERE ELLSE can they come from? As for the second point, people being people, there will always be those amongst us with an excuse to murder. And as I keep repeating, the easier it is to kill people, the more of them will surely be killed.

Then @stanleybmanly there is no deterrent except take away the tools to do the job?
Then after firearms are taken away and these idiots adapt to some others means, take that away to? and so and son?
Where does it stop?
Will it ever stop?
But like the illegal drug trade, you can dent it once in awhile but you can never really end it.

@SQUEEKY2 Yep, nothing that can be done. It is just something we have to accept. The media is already moved on from Parkland, gun owners are breathing a sigh of relief. Florida passed and enacted a law that is window dressing.

Time to end this thread.

Why? Because it upsets you?
@MrGrimm888 and I are both firearm enthusiasts and want stronger gun control, but the gun haters want extremes, the NRA wants extremes nobody wants to even try and find a middle ground and now you want it to end?
Maybe you have to realize that to some firearms are more than just a death device, we know there should be tougher laws, we want to keep firearms out of hands that shouldn’t have them, BUT we also want to be able to keep and use our firearms something gun haters have a big problem with.
Show the pro gun side that there is a middle ground and your willing to explore it, or stay in your corner and keep to your extremes ,just an idea.

I don’t know where you people see all these so called “gun haters” who want to ban all guns. Do you have to actively track them down to find them?

@Dutchess_III Most times they are broadcast over the news. For example, after Sandy Hook Dianne Feinstein offered up her “assault weapon” ban. She wanted to ban assault weapons. Sounds good, right? Until you get into the details of what she considered an “assault weapon”. Any rifle that has a pistol handle, any rifle that has a hole for putting your thumb through, any shotguns that can hold more than 5 rounds, any gun (note, not just rifle) that can accept a magazine…you get the idea. Most of the things that were addressed seemed to be cosmetic….they made the gun “look scary”. And when you start looking at how many guns this would eliminate, you find it is most of them. Sound like a gun ban? Yep. And every time some idiot make a public spectacle, someone floats another plan like this. So we don’t have to look very far to see the gun haters that want to ban guns.

And to add to that, then they come up with all semi auto firearms,that would include thousands upon thousands of firearms that never once were intended for anything military like.
or ridiculous things like muzzle velocity, or caliber size.
Sound like the beginning of a ban to me.

And in the end, I still have to ask the tough question: What gun law are you going to pass that will significantly impact the gun death rate? The number of actual law-abiding gun owners…the ones that would actually abide by the new laws…that murder someone is pretty darn small. Yes, there are over 300M guns in this country. Millions and millions of people own guns. Yet the vast majority, something like 99.997% of them are responsible gun owners. They have no desire to harm others. If you actually look at the number of them that got their guns legally it gets even more ridiculous…closer to 99.9998% of gun owners don’t do anything remotely close to illegal with their guns. Meanwhile the criminals who aren’t going to follow the law aren’t going to follow the new laws either. So why is there such a frantic push for new gun control laws instead of looking at other factors that may play a part in the tragedies this country sees?

That argument has only one answer @seawulf575, and that is why make any laws at all because there will be people who will break them. LAWS DO WORK. New drinking and driving laws in the 80’s have cut drunk driving deaths in half.

And I say we need to look at all aspects, on that I agree. But the simplest place to start is a ban on assault style, military style weapons that have no other purpose than murdering humans.

Uber cabs have a lot to do with less DUIs. Just saying that it’s not just laws.

I find 3D printing should be mentioned here. In the near future, any weapons may be possibly made. Bans won’t matter in that case…

@Dutchess_III That is where you lose the support of the firearm community a ban on assault style weapons is just the first of many if past.
Leave the ones already in private hands alone,instead go for a ban on the sale of any new assault style weapons,slow or stop the increasing numbers, second Grandfather the ones already in private hands,meaning people that already own them can keep and use them, and sell them BUT only to people that fall under the grandfather clause, THAT is how you curb the number of assault style weapons coming into private hands ,NOT running to your corner and scream ban them NOW!
A sensible law that doesn’t punish law abiding owners and yet keeps new guns out of hands that shouldn’t have them.
A ban on components is another thing all together, such as ban high capacity magazines new and the ones already in private hands, fine you like to shoot hogs and targets with your assault style weapon, but 10 round mag is fine you do not need a 30plus round mag.
And BUMP STOCKS should just be banned new and in private hands.

Everybody comments on 3D printing a gun ,yeah right while I have no doubt a printer could make something that looked like a gun, guns still require some metal parts such the barrel, springs, firing pin.
Maybe but highly doubt someone could 3d print a functioning firearm without any metal parts anytime soon.
But I could be wrong.

I thought I red an article about a design that needed only one metal part. In other words, it’s a matter of time before that hurdle is cleared. Printing substances that could function similar to metal, is probably not far away.

I’m not saying it’s going to happen tomorrow. I do see it as inevitable though. Eventually.

I could be wrong too though….

@Dutchess_III I would say that we already see that a vast majority of gun owners DO follow the existing laws. And many of them own those hated “assault style” weapons. Heaping on more laws only punishes those that already obey the laws. Here’s a thought…instead of creating new gun laws the criminals won’t follow, why not change the punishments? Automatic death penalty if a gun is used in the commission of a crime? Maybe if you up the ante on the criminals it will deter some.

@Seawulf Agreed.

Death penalties are decided at the state level.

In the case of the Florida shooting: ”...the teen is willing to plead guilty to avoid the death penalty.”
Source

^Trump has been floating the idea of death penalties for drug dealers. I can’t make a link, but it shouldn’t be hard to find of him saying it himself publicly.

I’m not opposed to capital punishment. But we shouldn’t be throwing it around. Slippery, and terrifying slope.

Trump is a fecking moron and someone needs to….. do something.

Yeah, someone should like the American VOTERS! get his ass out of there come 2020 if not sooner!

Any murder is equally tragic, but the liberal media has an anti-gun bias. Tyrants such as Hitler disarm people before they take over. Guns are demonized by the liberal media, as are any supporters of 2nd Amendment rights. Trump’s IQ is genius level.. The liberal media demonizes him, and some mindless puppets believe every lie the liberal media tells. Trump does much better than Hillary or Obama. I am glad that these liberal zombies have no power to remove presidents. Some have been attempting with false charges against him, but flase charges are all they have. All of their ideas are false in fact.

Trump is barely educable. As in he is a high functioning mentally disabled person.

Blindly biased beliefs about Trump are less than worthless. he does better than Obama.

You lost me at “Trump’s IQ is genius level” I pity the sheep…

Intelligent people don’t say things like “bigly,” or “covefe.”

You have proven many times you have no qualifications for judging intelligence. I have read that trump’s IQ is 156, and that is genius indeed. Sheep who are misled by liberal media aree too biased to admit trump does anything well. They hate him and are enraged by his vvery existence, just as liberal media want.

What are YOU talking about? The man is a public fool, parading his ignorance before the world to the bewilderment of all but the knuckle dragging dimwits incapable of abstract thought.

That is all outrageous lies liberal media tell. He has accomplished much, but the liberal media evade it or try to find fault with it. The real dimwits voted for Hillary and Obama.

Then by all means @SimpatichnayaZhopa enlighten us dimwits what has ole orange hair really done for the average working joe?
Please explain clearly after all we are just liberal dimwits.

Unedmployment is lower for one thing.

Yes. Many great Americans had to settle for jobs they are overqualified for. Let’s have a parade!

The liberal media does not admit that trump can do anything right, and it has brainwashed puppets who mindlessly repeat its lies.

The man is little more than an ignorant gangster whose primary achievement prior to taking office was a 30 year career of swindling any and all who crossed his path.

@SimpatichnayaZhopa What “liberal media?” The media that gave Trump $4.96 billion in free media coverage during the election? The media that’s owned by 5 multibillion dollar corporate conglomerates: Comcast, Disney, Time Warner, 21st Century Fox, and National Amusements? The “liberal media” that barely mentioned Bernie Sander’s name at all during the primary aka. “Bernie Blackout.”

Wake up. The media may be “politically correct” but it’s bias is pro-corporate/pro-business 100%.