More people have died from hammers and clubs then rifles.. [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

knickballer

01-07-2013, 03:18 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.
Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.
The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional. We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters' tools and a caveman's stick.
And it seems fairly obvious that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.

Should we ban hammers as well now?

Jailblazers7

01-07-2013, 03:25 PM

Can firearms be used to build houses?

longhornfan1234

01-07-2013, 03:30 PM

boozehound

01-07-2013, 03:40 PM

this is sheer ignorance and about 3 weeks behind schedule. Guns are a tool, whose purpose is to kill. Hammers are a tool, whose purpose is to nail. Using a hammer to kill is a misuse of the tool. Using a gun to kill is the intended use of the tool.

Besides, I notice you/they neglect to account for handguns.

Finally, no one is seriously considering a ban on guns, even ASSAULT rifles. Actual solutions are more akin to a car (annual registration, tests, insurance, etc). Yet the nutters act like that is completely out of line with an amendment that specifies gun ownership as well-regulated. You idiots are nuts. From, a reasonable gun owner.

kNIOKAS

01-07-2013, 04:11 PM

Yeah average people praise the logic type of thinking but they get so selective with that...
Now what I need is another fool handling a new weapon who can shoot shitloads of ammo and blow up things from distance yapping "oh this will help to save a few lifes"... Like you point at a person, press the trigger and he is miracally saved and protected. :banghead:

RaininThrees

01-07-2013, 04:15 PM

Can firearms be used to build houses?

/thread

nathanjizzle

01-07-2013, 04:40 PM

Should we ban hammers as well now?

typical inbred cliche statement.

no, because hammers are produced and used for carpentry and mechanics. and if you compare how many people own a hammer and the homicide rate for it too rifle owners and the homicide rate for that, then it is not really comparable. adding rifles are made for killing, and hammers are for carpentry and mechanics.

pls stop these idiotic threads.

red1

01-07-2013, 04:44 PM

Can't compare a hammer with an assault rifle. I can't walk into a room and spray everyone up with a hammer but I can def do that with an ar15

pauk

01-07-2013, 04:45 PM

Rifles? That doesnt include pistols, revolvers (maybe not even smgs, lmgs etc.) or?

Anyways, a guy (with a screw loose) killing somebody with a hammer/club did that with exactly that intention, if he had access to a firearm he would most definitely use it... and i guess some maybe like variety believe it or not and choose hammer/club by fun factor :P (im sure a crazy guy like that has access to some firearms)....

bmulls

01-07-2013, 05:04 PM

typical inbred cliche statement.

no, because hammers are produced and used for carpentry and mechanics. and if you compare how many people own a hammer and the homicide rate for it too rifle owners and the homicide rate for that, then it is not really comparable. adding rifles are made for killing, and hammers are for carpentry and mechanics.

pls stop these idiotic threads.

Rifles are produced to shoot targets and kill animals. Rifles are not produced to commit murder. Murder is an improper use of a rifle.

The statement is very valid, you are simply arguing semantics.

Hilarious how you phagg0ts mock people when they blame video games, but when they blame guns you don't bat an eye.

knickballer

01-07-2013, 05:44 PM

typical inbred cliche statement.

no, because hammers are produced and used for carpentry and mechanics. and if you compare how many people own a hammer and the homicide rate for it too rifle owners and the homicide rate for that, then it is not really comparable. adding rifles are made for killing, and hammers are for carpentry and mechanics.

pls stop these idiotic threads.

lulz, why you mad tho?

I was being half sarcastic first of all and no shit I don't want a ban on hammers :oldlol:

Some people fail to see that people will murder with just about anything they have. I'm not even pro-gun btw either

rezznor

01-07-2013, 05:46 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

Should we ban hammers as well now?
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2012/11/30/12/anigif_enhanced-buzz-25783-1354297328-4.gif

rezznor

01-07-2013, 05:47 PM

lulz, why you mad tho?

I was being half sarcastic first of all and no shit I don't want a ban on hammers :oldlol:

Some people fail to see that people will murder with just about anything they have. I'm not even pro-gun btw either
can you massacre 20 people at one time with a hammer?

BGriffin's Dad

01-07-2013, 05:53 PM

can you massacre 20 people at one time with a hammer?

yeah, some ukranian kids did not too long ago

BMOGEFan

01-07-2013, 05:53 PM

Rifles are produced to shoot targets and kill animals. Rifles are not produced to commit murder. Murder is an improper use of a rifle.

The statement is very valid, you are simply arguing semantics.

Hilarious how you phagg0ts mock people when they blame video games, but when they blame guns you don't bat an eye.

I'm a gun advocate, but comparing a hammer to a rifle is like comparing jordan to lebron.

one is used for killing, the other is a tool.

I still dont' think that guns are the cause of deaths because many people I know are very responsible gun owners. They should not be punished because one freak job slaughtered a school.

I also don't believe movies and video games are the cause of gun murders. I really think its attributable to mental health and poor parenting.

rezznor

01-07-2013, 05:57 PM

yeah, some ukranian kids did not too long ago
i said at one time, not serial killer style like those kids did

red1

01-07-2013, 05:58 PM

yeah, some ukranian kids did not too long ago
:coleman:

red1

01-07-2013, 05:58 PM

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2012/11/30/12/anigif_enhanced-buzz-25783-1354297328-4.gif
:lol

Rifles are produced to shoot targets and kill animals. Rifles are not produced to commit murder. Murder is an improper use of a rifle.

The statement is very valid, you are simply arguing semantics.

Hilarious how you phagg0ts mock people when they blame video games, but when they blame guns you don't bat an eye.
you really comparing videogames to assault rifles? cmon son :roll:

BMOGEFan

01-07-2013, 06:01 PM

:lol

you really comparing videogames to assault rifles? cmon son :roll:

You don't know how to read. He's saying people always blame video games because of gun violence...which really isn't the case.

red1

01-07-2013, 06:04 PM

You don't know how to read. He's saying people always blame video games because of gun violence...which really isn't the case.
Stop msging me f*gg*t. Just because I call you a cheap b*tch doesnt mean I am automatically your friend.

And my point was that blaming GUN violence on GUNS and blaming gun violence on videogames are two different things.

boozehound

01-07-2013, 07:07 PM

Rifles are produced to shoot targets and kill animals. Rifles are not produced to commit murder. Murder is an improper use of a rifle.

The statement is very valid, you are simply arguing semantics.

Hilarious how you phagg0ts mock people when they blame video games, but when they blame guns you don't bat an eye.
not all killing of humans is murder. and, yes, ASSAULT rifles were designed and produced to kill people. Denying this is so far from reality that its impossible to have a discussion.

also, why do they call it target PRACTICE, if that is the end intent of the gun?

bmulls

01-07-2013, 07:33 PM

not all killing of humans is murder. and, yes, ASSAULT rifles were designed and produced to kill people. Denying this is so far from reality that its impossible to have a discussion.

also, why do they call it target PRACTICE, if that is the end intent of the gun?

Are you fcking serious :facepalm

Target shooting is an Olympic sport for fcks sake. It is fun. People enjoy it.

And assault rifles are already banned you stupid fckwit. They have been banned since 1985. A black semi automatic rifle dressed up to look like a military weapon wasn't designed to MURDER anybody. They will be used for their INTENDED PURPOSE, to hunt animals and shoot targets 99.9999999999% of the time. Murder is an improper use of a gun.

Period.

This is the only argument you idiots have to hang your hats on and it's pure semantics.

http://www.lolbrary.com/*******/807/deal-with-it-3807.jpg

bmulls

01-07-2013, 07:39 PM

I'm a gun advocate, but comparing a hammer to a rifle is like comparing jordan to lebron.

one is used for killing, the other is a tool.

I still dont' think that guns are the cause of deaths because many people I know are very responsible gun owners. They should not be punished because one freak job slaughtered a school.

I also don't believe movies and video games are the cause of gun murders. I really think its attributable to mental health and poor parenting.

A gun is also a tool. It shoots a projectile, that is it. Whether or not that projectile is aimed at a person, a deer or a paper target is up to the person pulling the trigger. Whether or not a hammer is aimed at a nail or the back of a person's head is up to the person wielding the hammer.

This isn't that difficult to understand.

I don't think video games are responsible either. I think the notion is laughable. I also think it's equally laughable to blame the tool used to commit the crime. Guns are not sentient. They do not cause murder. They do not shoot themselves.

My point was the nerds on ISH love video games, so the idea that video games cause violence is a joke to them. However very few of them have ever shot a gun (or seen a v@gina for that matter), so they have no problem toeing the Liberal party line and blaming guns.

red1

01-07-2013, 07:43 PM

Stop shooting deer bro. Let the poor deer die of old age

miller-time

01-07-2013, 07:49 PM

Target shooting is an Olympic sport for fcks sake. It is fun. People enjoy it.

But at what point does your enjoyment no longer supersede social problems? Why not shoot bows and arrows or photos? You can tinker with that equipment all day too.

I understand the enjoyment you get out of the gun, and I'm not totally adverse to guns, I just don't think that having them so readily accessible because you find enjoyment out of them is worth it.

boozehound

01-07-2013, 07:49 PM

Are you fcking serious :facepalm

Target shooting is an Olympic sport for fcks sake. It is fun. People enjoy it.

And assault rifles are already banned you stupid fckwit. They have been banned since 1985. A black semi automatic rifle dressed up to look like a military weapon wasn't designed to MURDER anybody. They will be used for their INTENDED PURPOSE, to hunt animals and shoot targets 99.9999999999% of the time. Murder is an improper use of a gun.

Period.

This is the only argument you idiots have to hang your hats on and it's pure semantics.

http://www.lolbrary.com/*******/807/deal-with-it-3807.jpg
the ban on assault rifles expired. Do you mean automatic rifles? You should look at how assault rifles are defined by the US govt. They are clearly widely available for purchase. SMH at you suggesting a semi-auto AR15 isnt an assault rifle. So, these guns were designed for target practice huh? You really need to get a more realistic perspective on this.

red1

01-07-2013, 07:50 PM

Your argument is f*cking retarded btw. The gun being sentient has nothing to do with anyting. The point is that society shouldnt have weapons lying around for individuals to commit mass damage with. Humans are not robots with complete control over our emotions, having automatic rifles around is a recipe for disaster. All it takes is one irresponsible lady with an unstable son for some f*cked up shit to go down.

miller-time

01-07-2013, 07:51 PM

the ban on assault rifles expired. Do you mean automatic rifles? You should look at how assault rifles are defined by the US govt. They are clearly widely available for purchase. SMH at you suggesting a semi-auto AR15 isnt an assault rifle. So, these guns were designed for target practice huh? You really need to get a more realistic perspective on this.

I might be wrong, but I think "assault rifles" are the same thing as automatic rifles, and "assault weapons" covers things like semi-automatic rifles.

boozehound

01-07-2013, 07:54 PM

I might be wrong, but I think "assault rifles" are the same thing as automatic rifles, and "assault weapons" covers things like semi-automatic rifles.
right, my bad. assault weapons vs title II weapons. Regardless the definition was really dumb to begin with.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

The point is that these weapons are rarely used in hunting. They are used in home defense or other interactions with humans at gunpoint, or to play soldier down on the target range.

brantonli

01-07-2013, 08:00 PM

red1

01-07-2013, 08:02 PM

I still find it idiotic how the richest and most advanced country in the world still feels the need to cling to guns and insist that its for their own protection, when the rest of the world seems to get along alright without them. This isn't going to be a popular post with bmulls lol but I think all guns should be banned, and screw the 2nd amendment. Your enjoyment is never, EVER above the death of somebody else.
bro you need to be more respectfull towards bmull's need to shoot deer

miller-time

01-07-2013, 08:03 PM

I still find it idiotic how the richest and most advanced country in the world still feels the need to cling to guns and insist that its for their own protection, when the rest of the world seems to get along alright without them. This isn't going to be a popular post with bmulls lol but I think all guns should be banned, and screw the 2nd amendment. Your enjoyment is never, EVER above the death of somebody else.

My problem with that is that it sets a precedent. I don't think you can just go out and obliterate any of the amendments. That is kind of the problem with having a Bill of Rights though. Once you give rights it is hard to take them away. It is a catch 22.

red1

01-07-2013, 08:05 PM

Listen if shooting deer is that important to you than get the proper license and go to a hunting range. Sure it is a little inconvenient but it will create a more stable society

Nanners

01-07-2013, 08:15 PM

You lose credibility citing Breibart.

Municipalities are certainly free to restrict hammers if they choose. No foaming at the mouth nut is screaming that carrying a hammer is a God given inalienable right.

when longhorn is the one to say you lose credibility because your source is too far right wing, you know its time to re-evaluate :oldlol:

Balla_Status

01-07-2013, 08:35 PM

I still find it idiotic how the richest and most advanced country in the world still feels the need to cling to guns and insist that its for their own protection, when the rest of the world seems to get along alright without them. This isn't going to be a popular post with bmulls lol but I think all guns should be banned, and screw the 2nd amendment. Your enjoyment is never, EVER above the death of somebody else.

Really dumb post since criminals don't follow laws. And me enjoying shoot a gun doesn't kill somebody else. Thus the flaw in your argument.

miller-time

01-07-2013, 08:40 PM

Really dumb post since criminals don't follow laws. And me enjoying shoot a gun doesn't kill somebody else. Thus the flaw in your argument.

Criminals are only criminals after they've actually committed a crime, and in some cases (but not all obviously) the simple possession of a gun may be the deciding factor as to whether or not a person will go through with a crime. Some people might be more adverse to breaking and entering, or mugging, or robbing stores if they don't have a gun.

What I'm saying is that for significant crimes, the possession of a gun happens BEFORE they've committed the crime. Not after.

Balla_Status

01-07-2013, 08:44 PM

Criminals are only criminals after they've actually committed a crime, and in some cases (but not all obviously) the simple possession of a gun may be the deciding factor as to whether or not a person will go through with a crime. Some people might be more adverse to breaking and entering, or mugging, or robbing stores if they don't have a gun.

What I'm saying is that for significant crimes, the possession of a gun happens BEFORE they've committed the crime. Not after.

Right but if you make the possession of a gun illegal...just possessing it is illegal.

Either way you can't guarantee the person won't get a gun somehow regardless of what laws you put into place.

miller-time

01-07-2013, 08:53 PM

Either way you can't guarantee the person won't get a gun somehow regardless of what laws you put into place.

I think one problem is that everyone is searching for a solution for today, instead of for tomorrow. Heavily restricting some guns, and banning others won't mean that people can't get a hold of them now, but 30 years down the track - when both the cultural climate has changed and old guns are increasingly harder to come by (also jacking up their price) guns will be less desirable to own and much more difficult for the average person to get their hands on.

Balla_Status

01-07-2013, 08:54 PM

I think one problem is that everyone is searching for a solution for today, instead of for tomorrow. Heavily restricting gun, and banning others won't mean that people can't get a hold of them now, but 30 years down the track - when both the cultural climate has changed and old guns are increasingly harder to come by (also jacking up their price) guns will be less desirable to own and much more difficult for the average person to get their hands on.

So what about the people in between now and then. We're ****ed?

You'd probably be right though.

miller-time

01-07-2013, 08:58 PM

So what about the people in between now and then. We're ****ed?

They're already ****ed. But change isn't instantaneous. You can't have it all. You are essentially giving up some of your perceived and actual rights and security for the future. I've said time and time again, if you want to live in a society you have to give something up.

brantonli

01-07-2013, 08:59 PM

Right but if you make the possession of a gun illegal...just possessing it is illegal.

Either way you can't guarantee the person won't get a gun somehow regardless of what laws you put into place.

Isn't that a rather silly argument? 'Since Law X doesn't guarantee person A can't do Task B, then Law X shouldn't exist' ? Which law on earth DOES guarantee that people can't do Task Whatever then? Obviously you require the enforcement of the law.

It's like saying 'Since laws don't guarantee people won't go out and make explosives, then why have laws against explosive materials?'

note I'm not an american, I'm from asia so my perspective on guns and how commonplace it is in USA is probably different from yours.

flipogb

01-07-2013, 09:03 PM

guns are meant for killing people/animals, has no other use.

hammers and whatever blunt instrument you can find are used for other purposes

brantonli

01-07-2013, 09:07 PM

btw, this article is for gun right advocates (to add another anecdote)

[QUOTE]http://myfox8.com/2013/01/06/ga-mom-shoots-intruder-5-times-saves-children/

Mom hides children, shoots intruder Paul Ali Slater 5 times

LOGANVILLE, Ga.

miller-time

01-07-2013, 09:11 PM

btw, this article is for gun right advocates (to add another anecdote)

Good for her to be able to protect herself, but god damn, the guy survived 5 shots to the head and neck area, got out of hte house, drove the car, crashed it, and was still alive at the hospital?

She didn't answer the door? So he thought no one was home... Burglars aren't looking to rape and kill you, they want your stuff. And they like to take it without any interruptions.

brantonli

01-07-2013, 09:16 PM

She didn't answer the door? So he thought no one was home... Burglars aren't looking to rape and kill you, they want your stuff. And they like to take it without any interruptions.

Agreed. Although one would've thought that if the mum and 2 kids were in the house, then the lights must be on (so must be a pretty dumb burglar). I reckon the moment he found the three people hiding in the closet he would've tried to run for it, rather than do anything dangerous to them. Sucks to be him either way.

miller-time

01-07-2013, 09:23 PM

Agreed. Although one would've thought that if the mum and 2 kids were in the house, then the lights must be on (so must be a pretty dumb burglar). I reckon the moment he found the three people hiding in the closet he would've tried to run for it, rather than do anything dangerous to them. Sucks to be him either way.

It was 1pm, so no lights probably.

miller-time

01-07-2013, 09:26 PM

I love the last line

[quote]The victim

DFish

01-07-2013, 09:30 PM

Yeah, poor criminals. We shouldn't obstruct their right to break and enter.

miller-time

01-07-2013, 09:36 PM

Yeah, poor criminals. We shouldn't obstruct their right to break and enter.

I don't think breaking and entering should be met with death. If he were there to commit murder or rape or even assault I think it'd be an acceptable outcome. But simply stealing stuff doesn't warrant being shot in the face.

I'd rather just give someone money rather than have to shoot them. I don't want that on my conscience.

Balla_Status

01-07-2013, 11:46 PM

She didn't answer the door? So he thought no one was home... Burglars aren't looking to rape and kill you, they want your stuff. And they like to take it without any interruptions.

Has there ever been instances where burglars have injured/raped/killed the person of which they're burglaring?

Balla_Status

01-07-2013, 11:48 PM

I don't think breaking and entering should be met with death. If he were there to commit murder or rape or even assault I think it'd be an acceptable outcome. But simply stealing stuff doesn't warrant being shot in the face.

I'd rather just give someone money rather than have to shoot them. I don't want that on my conscience.

Yeah...I'm sure the dude is willing to have a conversation right there about what his intentions are.

"Hey man, so is it cool if I steal your stuff?"

"Yeah dude, go right ahead. Take everything in my house man. I'll just sit here and chill."

knickballer

01-07-2013, 11:55 PM

She didn't answer the door? So he thought no one was home... Burglars aren't looking to rape and kill you, they want your stuff. And they like to take it without any interruptions.

wait wut?

Don't tell me your defending the burglar for ****s sake.. That burglar made attempt to steal and I'm sure he would have had no problem in doing something more serious if one of the kids perhaps saw him.

I can't believe you act like the guy is innocent lol. Just give him a slap on the wrist and everything is fine!

shlver

01-07-2013, 11:55 PM

I love the last line

That is so messed up. It isn't responsible to shoot an unarmed man who was probably looking for a couple of hundred dollars in the face. The fact he was incessantly ringing the door bell means that he was definitely making sure no one was home.
How does she know the burglar was unarmed? She was hiding in the closet wasn't she?

miller-time

01-08-2013, 12:00 AM

Has there ever been instances where burglars have injured/raped/killed the person of which they're burglaring?

Sure, but statistically it would be rare. Plus a certain amount of injuries and deaths would be attributable to the fact that home owners arm themselves (leading burglars to also carrying weapons).

Yeah...I'm sure the dude is willing to have a conversation right there about what his intentions are.

"Hey man, so is it cool if I steal your stuff?"

"Yeah dude, go right ahead. Take everything in my house man. I'll just sit here and chill."

I was talking hypothetically not literally. Given the option I would pay them so I wouldn't have to shoot them. I'm not out for blood.

miller-time

01-08-2013, 12:07 AM

I can't believe you act like the guy is innocent lol. Just give him a slap on the wrist and everything is fine!

No he isn't innocent, he should be charged with whatever crimes he has committed. But shooting people over televisions or cash isn't any type of justice.

I can only go off of what I've read so far, and as far as I can infer he was only there to burgle.

Balla_Status

01-08-2013, 12:13 AM

Sure, but statistically it would be rare. Plus a certain amount of injuries and deaths would be attributable to the fact that home owners arm themselves (leading burglars to also carrying weapons).

I was talking hypothetically not literally. Given the option I would pay them so I wouldn't have to shoot them. I'm not out for blood.

lol

bmulls

01-08-2013, 12:14 AM

No he isn't innocent, he should be charged with whatever crimes he has committed. But shooting people over televisions or cash isn't any type of justice.

I can only go off of what I've read so far, and as far as I can infer he was only there to burgle.

You've officially gone off the deep end mate.

miller-time

01-08-2013, 12:15 AM

lol

?

It is only logical. If your target has a weapon then you either need to pick a new target or you need to arm yourself too.

miller-time

01-08-2013, 12:16 AM

You've officially gone off the deep end mate.

How?

shlver

01-08-2013, 12:23 AM

How?
Because you cannot use hindsight to judge her actions. She was hiding from the intruder, not prepared to shoot him in the face as he walked through the door.

miller-time

01-08-2013, 12:26 AM

Because you cannot use hindsight to judge her actions. She was hiding from the intruder, not prepared to shoot him in the face as he walked through the door.

Oh yeah, I was talking more in generalities (in response to owning guns to protect property - which is what the story was used to argue for). By that point, yeah that is probably all she could do (or thought she could do, who knows how he would have reacted if she didn't have the gun).

28renyoy

01-08-2013, 12:35 AM

boozehound

01-08-2013, 01:17 AM

I would argue that in most cases, those killed with guns are those that would be less likely to be killed with hammers.

I'm assuming those killed with hammers/clubs are generally the elderly, young children, those that are on drugs/intoxicated, and hookers. These people would have been killed regardless, hell most of them could have been strangled. Nothing was really going to protect them.

In shootings however, could you imagine the Aurora massacre happening with a guy armed with a hammer?
again, this misleading stat is about rifles, not all guns. so, no shotguns or handguns.

also, there is no doubt that killing with a gun is much more emotionally attached than stabbing or other upclose killing methods. All of the psychology supports this, as do soldier testimonies from the civil war onwards. It was much harder, mentally and emotionally, to bayonet someone than to shoot at them for any distance.

just to follow up on a point that has not really been addressed. I cant even have a dog without having an annual registration/license. Why cant guns be treated the same? I dont see any rational argument where the same steps necessary to own a dog or a car can be considered an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms, as a well regulated militia is necessary to the state.

RoseCity07

01-08-2013, 01:44 AM

This is just a sad attempt to downplay the issue. If you want to know how illogical you sound then we should also outlaw candy bars, natural causes, water, and a million other things.

Candy bars haven't been used to commit mass murder. Guns have. You can't go to a school and murder 25 people with a hammer and clubs. It certainly wouldn't be as easy as using a machine gun.

miller-time

01-08-2013, 07:30 AM

Because you cannot use hindsight to judge her actions. She was hiding from the intruder, not prepared to shoot him in the face as he walked through the door.

Did you have a response to my reply? Usually you are pretty quick to respond, but sometimes you just stop. I'm not sure if that is because you agree? Or you can't be bothered?

I have to admit, I like your posts, but you are a little on the light side of content.

iamgine

01-08-2013, 07:52 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

Should we ban hammers as well now?
That's very misleading statistics since it doesnt take into account the number of people who have guns vs hammer.

macmac

01-08-2013, 08:20 AM

Lol that is possibly the worst article and statistic ever assembled....why hammers and clubs together? Why just rifles? Pick any random two things to prove a retarded point makes no sense...

Baby dolphins and transvestites are more likely to swim for longer periods of time than 36 year old balding men.... Boooom transvestites are in better shape than middle aged men, ban older men from swimming competitions

miller-time

01-08-2013, 08:30 AM