That is true across ages, economic and other social demographics. Guns kill people, people using guns kill people, and fewer people would kill people WITHOUT the availability of so many guns.
From CBS8 / WAKA news:
Murder Suicide Investigation Underway In GeorgianaThe rest of us deserve to be FREE of gun violence! People with guns - legal guns and illegal guns - cross the line of their rights to trampling our rights, OUR FREEDOM, every time one of these shootings occur. And these shootings occur far more often than any defensive gun use. It's time to regulate, control, limit according to the reality, not the gun loons fantasies. It's time for us to be really free - free of GUN VIOLENCE and the oppression of guns.
From the CBS 8 South Alabama Newsroom -- A love triangle ends tragically in Georgiana. The Butler Co. Sheriff says two men are dead and one woman was severely beaten.
It all started around 11:00 Wednesday morning when authorities arrived to a home on Rocky Lane in Georgiana. Sheriff Kenny Harden says inside they found 55-year-old Edna Crenshaw brutally beaten and 76-year-old Willie Hall shot and killed. Harden says moments later, they discovered Fred Walton shot and killed on his own front lawn across town.
At this point, authorities believe Walton took his own life, after leaving Crenshaw's home but the case is still under investigation.
Family members tells us Hall and Crenshaw were married but had been separated. They tell us Walton was Crenshaw's boyfriend.
"It is just unbelievable because he's not a person that would of did something like this. He's always been a good person," says Laquita Pate.
"You never know what to say about something like this I mean you lose a friend. It's sad anytime something like this happens, I don't care who it is. We've got families that are hurt on both sides. We've got two people that have been killed and one who has been beaten so a lot of families have been touched by this," says Harden.
Authorities say Crenshaw suffered head wounds and was air lifted to Baptist Medical Center South in Montgomery.
The argument about dealing with these crimes AFTERWARDS is too little too late, it is inadequate and it steals OUR FREEDOM, it makes us unsafe.
I can USE the CAPS LOCK key just AS well as you CAN, but that doesn't do anything to make a point.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for you to explain how your proposals for control will work, if we value property rights and the right of the individual to make choices. I don't see how you can identify in advance people who will commit murder. The only way to stop gun murder in advance is to eliminate all guns. That's impossible, but it's also unacceptable. You blithely believe that you can transform America into Europe in one easy step. That's not going to happen.
Our death rate from gun violence, our injury rate from gun violence, our suicide rate from gun violence is what is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteI don't suggest we eliminate All guns, but we don't need the number we have, and clearly we don't need as many people having guns as we have either.
We also have far too little checking of who gets guns, in private transfers - like YOUR failure to do a check.
When those failures improve, then we will see fewer people being shot, fewer people being victims.
Those people have rights, and those rights also matter. I'd argue they matter a whole helluva lot more than your gun fetish / gun fantasies.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou worry about suicides, but in general, it is the right of the individual to make that choice. Murder isn't a right, and children should be prevented from suicide, but an adult has the right to make that decision.
You have not answered my question about how my rifle trade created any possibility for a problem. It was a one-for-one trade. There was no net gain or loss in the number of weapons that either party owned. You also haven't told me how I was supposed to do a background check. Nor have you answered how you'd get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns in America.
Keep trying, and we'll keep denying your attempts.
So DG will eliminate just the right amount of guns to reduce the death and injury rate.
ReplyDeleteHow low of a rate is acceptable?
Why is any rate above 0 acceptable (if it is)?
How would allowing some guns to remain guarantee that the death or injury rate is not above 0?
DG wrote:You have not answered my question about how my rifle trade created any possibility for a problem. It was a one-for-one trade.
ReplyDelete2 ways.
You don't know where the weapon you received in trade came from, if it was legit or stolen.
You don't know if the weapon you traded was turned over to people who were not drug users, dangerously mentally ill, felons, or intending to transfer that weapon to a prohibited person, here or in another country..
Since there is no registry, there is no holding anyone accountable for where weapons go.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThe point that I keep making is that the elderly couple had a rifle already. They may have sold mine to a criminal, but I didn't add to their total number. It was a one-for-one trade--status quo.
But if people really are as likely to be criminals as you suggest, you should understand why we want to carry a handgun. With all of those vicious AARP ganstas running around, we need to protect ourselves.
Anonymous, Half you guys need to be disarmed. That's my guess.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the violent crime rate would remain exactly the same if that ever came to pass.
Don't lie now, I've got special soft ware installed to detect it.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteAnd just how would you disarm half of us? This is where fantasy is most obvious in your thinking. Do you really believe that Americans would stand in line to cooperate with that level of government intrusion? Or do you anticipate a program of confiscation? If so, the rate of violence in this country certainly wouldn't go down. It would show a huge spike.
Democommie at this point will jump in and shout that we really aren't law abiding after all, but when a government takes it upon itself to violate the rights of its citizens, the law ceases to mean anything.
I don't see anyone going door to door confiscating weapons.
ReplyDeleteAttrition would work slowly but effectively, and you would have to decide if you wished to be a criminal or not.
There is already a reason to be concerned with you pro gun nuts, being violent, and dangerous, so your statement is nothing new. Kind of a yawn really; same old same old ignore and violate anything with which you disagree(many, not all).
So, nobody knocking on your door, no 'gun police'........but you could face the same penalties as other law breakers at some point, including for illegal carry.
And now the tech is becoming a reality to detect that carry. I don't see it having a private application, but it could be useful for law enforcement.
Although some hosts from time to time do need to be aware of rude behavior by their guests in that regard I suppose.
Mikeb - how do you guarantee that you take away the right half of the guns so that gun violence is eliminated? If gun violence will not be 100% eliminated by your proposal, then why is your proposal acceptable? Why are you willing to live with some gun violence if your goal is to eliminate gun violence? You claim you don't want to take away all of the guns from the public, but that is the only way to completely eliminate gun violence isn't it?
ReplyDeleteEliminating 100% of anything is not reasonable. I never said that, but if a solid improvement where to be had, I'd be happy. Wouldn't you?
DeleteI repeat, nobody is talking about completely eliminating guns, except you.
In other words, we keep telling you that we know what your real goal is, just in case you thought that you could get away with denying it.
DeleteGreg, by insisting that you know my real intentions and that they are far worse than what I say, you're making it more justified and reasonable to argue with me. That's why you do it, to argue against what I actually do say would make you look foolish because what I really do say makes sense.
DeleteDog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou just illustrated my point about you. Apparently, you have no concerns with regard to law enforcement using devices that violate our privacy--it ain't illegal search and seizure if it's done across the street, I suppose, in your view. We know that you care about religious rights and voting rights, but guns and privacy are of no value? Do you have no redline beyond which the government cannot go? Is there no point at which you would resist? Enjoy your chains.