rushmc 23 #26 January 3, 2009 QuoteQuote What object causes most deaths at the hands of criminals? Objects don't cause anything. Ok, what (object/tool) is used by more criminals to kill or murder?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 January 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote What object causes most deaths at the hands of criminals? Objects don't cause anything.Nail on head Those can cause brain damage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #29 January 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote What object causes most deaths at the hands of criminals? Objects don't cause anything. Ok, what (object/tool) is used by more criminals to kill or murder? Swimming pools? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #30 January 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote What object causes most deaths at the hands of criminals? Objects don't cause anything. Ok, what (object/tool) is used by more criminals to kill or murder? Swimming pools? I know there are those out here who know the answers. Problem is (for those who might know) is what causes more deaths is not linked to a political agenda now is it! Come on, somebody can google it or find out another way very fast. I know you can. (hint) it aint guns"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #31 January 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What object causes most deaths at the hands of criminals? Objects don't cause anything. Ok, what (object/tool) is used by more criminals to kill or murder? Swimming pools? I know there are those out here who know the answers. Problem is (for those who might know) is what causes more deaths is not linked to a political agenda now is it! Come on, somebody can google it or find out another way very fast. I know you can. (hint) it aint guns The US Dept. of Justice knows. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 January 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What object causes most deaths at the hands of criminals? Objects don't cause anything. Ok, what (object/tool) is used by more criminals to kill or murder? Swimming pools? I know there are those out here who know the answers. Problem is (for those who might know) is what causes more deaths is not linked to a political agenda now is it! Come on, somebody can google it or find out another way very fast. I know you can. (hint) it aint guns The US Dept. of Justice knows. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm You are half way there."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #33 January 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What object causes most deaths at the hands of criminals? Objects don't cause anything. Ok, what (object/tool) is used by more criminals to kill or murder? Swimming pools? I know there are those out here who know the answers. Problem is (for those who might know) is what causes more deaths is not linked to a political agenda now is it! Come on, somebody can google it or find out another way very fast. I know you can. (hint) it aint guns The US Dept. of Justice knows. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm How about his stat Of all the deaths you show in the link provided. How many are drug related? You know, dealer on dealer?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #34 January 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteI don't know what the heck country comparisons have to do with anything. OK, why did you bring up England then? Because I was giving some highlights to demonstrate that knife murders are a serious problem. It was not to start a debate about comparing the two nations. QuoteI think you've answered that for us. Knives, gasoline and swimming pools combined are small potatoes in the criminal enterprise when compared with guns. Right, so nobody cares. Only guns are important to regulate to try and stop misuse. And if guns were suddenly eliminated as a major tool for murder, and knives took the #1 spot instead, would the Brady Campaign switch gears to advocate for knife registration and control? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #35 January 4, 2009 QuoteThis thread is about a criminal act. Please try to stick to the topic. What object causes most deaths at the hands of criminals? Answer: Criminals. If you remove one object from the hands of a criminal, he'll just use some other object. The problem is not the objects, but the criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #36 January 4, 2009 Quote .... It was not to start a debate about comparing the two nations. .... Of course not, no! Never. When bringing up the UK permanently from your side, it's never to start a debate about "comparing" anything.... never. Ever. Bwahahahaha - JR, lying in his own pocket dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #37 January 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteThis thread is about a criminal act. Please try to stick to the topic. What object causes most deaths at the hands of criminals? Answer: Criminals. If you remove one object from the hands of a criminal, he'll just use some other object. The problem is not the objects, but the criminals. Some objects are better design to kill or threaten, depending on the object regulations are required to prevent them falling into the wrong hands and prevent accidents, you can't rob a bank with a swimming pool. Hand over the money or I'll drown you in this pool. Guns are not gasoline, they require different precautions. It is stupid to compare them. It almost as stupid as comparing guns with swimming pools. As you said, criminals are the problem, how do you propose preventing guns falling into criminal hands, they are the weapon of choice of criminals, you NRA types go out of your way to oppose legislation that might do this and come up with absurd examples (like this thread) for reasons why they should not be regulated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 851 #38 January 4, 2009 But they are regulated. That's usually the point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #39 January 4, 2009 QuoteBut they are regulated. That's usually the point. You don't think any more can be done to reduce the number of guns in criminal hands? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 January 4, 2009 Quote As you said, criminals are the problem, how do you propose preventing guns falling into criminal hands, they are the weapon of choice of criminals, you NRA types go out of your way to oppose legislation that might do this and come up with absurd examples (like this thread) for reasons why they should not be regulated. The opposition is to legislation that takes guns out of the hands of citizens, while doing nothing about criminal possession. We might have more faith if existing laws (Brady checks in particular) were actually enforced. When prosecutions for that are a fraction of one percent, it indicates to us that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is actually a secondary concern. The more cynical see the failure as deliberate, in order to support even more onerous legislation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #41 January 5, 2009 QuoteQuote As you said, criminals are the problem, how do you propose preventing guns falling into criminal hands, they are the weapon of choice of criminals, you NRA types go out of your way to oppose legislation that might do this and come up with absurd examples (like this thread) for reasons why they should not be regulated. The opposition is to legislation that takes guns out of the hands of citizens, while doing nothing about criminal possession. We might have more faith if existing laws (Brady checks in particular) were actually enforced. When prosecutions for that are a fraction of one percent, it indicates to us that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is actually a secondary concern. The more cynical see the failure as deliberate, in order to support even more onerous legislation. How about getting rid of Tiahrt? which prevents access to federal gun data, should not affect law abiding citizen gun ownership? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 851 #42 January 5, 2009 Until we're able to reudce the criminal element and the thoughts they have to be criminals...I'm quite doubtful. Cameras seem to have worked wonders in England for crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #43 January 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't know what the heck country comparisons have to do with anything. OK, why did you bring up England then? Because I was giving some highlights to demonstrate that knife murders are a serious problem. It was not to start a debate about comparing the two nations. Oh gimme a break. You don't really expect anyone to buy that, do you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 January 5, 2009 QuoteQuote The opposition is to legislation that takes guns out of the hands of citizens, while doing nothing about criminal possession. We might have more faith if existing laws (Brady checks in particular) were actually enforced. When prosecutions for that are a fraction of one percent, it indicates to us that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is actually a secondary concern. The more cynical see the failure as deliberate, in order to support even more onerous legislation. How about getting rid of Tiahrt? which prevents access to federal gun data, should not affect law abiding citizen gun ownership? So again, something that infringes on the rights of citizens, has been abused in the past, and does nothing against criminals. Sure! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #45 January 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote The opposition is to legislation that takes guns out of the hands of citizens, while doing nothing about criminal possession. We might have more faith if existing laws (Brady checks in particular) were actually enforced. When prosecutions for that are a fraction of one percent, it indicates to us that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is actually a secondary concern. The more cynical see the failure as deliberate, in order to support even more onerous legislation. How about getting rid of Tiahrt? which prevents access to federal gun data, should not affect law abiding citizen gun ownership? So again, something that infringes on the rights of citizens, has been abused in the past, and does nothing against criminals. Sure! Care to explain? Why should one type of government information be immune to freedom of information? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 January 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The opposition is to legislation that takes guns out of the hands of citizens, while doing nothing about criminal possession. We might have more faith if existing laws (Brady checks in particular) were actually enforced. When prosecutions for that are a fraction of one percent, it indicates to us that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is actually a secondary concern. The more cynical see the failure as deliberate, in order to support even more onerous legislation. How about getting rid of Tiahrt? which prevents access to federal gun data, should not affect law abiding citizen gun ownership? So again, something that infringes on the rights of citizens, has been abused in the past, and does nothing against criminals. Sure! Care to explain? Why should one type of government information be immune to freedom of information? So, you have no problems with your tax returns or medical records being available online?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #47 January 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The opposition is to legislation that takes guns out of the hands of citizens, while doing nothing about criminal possession. We might have more faith if existing laws (Brady checks in particular) were actually enforced. When prosecutions for that are a fraction of one percent, it indicates to us that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is actually a secondary concern. The more cynical see the failure as deliberate, in order to support even more onerous legislation. How about getting rid of Tiahrt? which prevents access to federal gun data, should not affect law abiding citizen gun ownership? So again, something that infringes on the rights of citizens, has been abused in the past, and does nothing against criminals. Sure! Care to explain? Why should one type of government information be immune to freedom of information? So, you have no problems with your tax returns or medical records being available online? Try sticking to the point, the government does not have my medical records, I go to private doctors and if releasing my tax records could be used to fight crime then I'd strongly consider it. You should run for office, you answer questions with another, typical polititian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 January 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The opposition is to legislation that takes guns out of the hands of citizens, while doing nothing about criminal possession. We might have more faith if existing laws (Brady checks in particular) were actually enforced. When prosecutions for that are a fraction of one percent, it indicates to us that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is actually a secondary concern. The more cynical see the failure as deliberate, in order to support even more onerous legislation. How about getting rid of Tiahrt? which prevents access to federal gun data, should not affect law abiding citizen gun ownership? So again, something that infringes on the rights of citizens, has been abused in the past, and does nothing against criminals. Sure! Care to explain? Why should one type of government information be immune to freedom of information? So, you have no problems with your tax returns or medical records being available online? Try sticking to the point, the government does not have my medical records, I go to private doctors and if releasing my tax records could be used to fight crime then I'd strongly consider it. You should run for office, you answer questions with another, typical polititian. HIPAA - look it up. There are laws to protect your private info. Here's a tissue.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #49 January 5, 2009 QuoteAs you said, criminals are the problem, how do you propose preventing guns falling into criminal hands, they are the weapon of choice of criminals, you NRA types go out of your way to oppose legislation that might do this and come up with absurd examples (like this thread) for reasons why they should not be regulated. The underlined portion of your quote is where you go awry. You're assuming that there is some magic regulation out there which will prevent criminals from getting guns. Well, we've got 20,000 such regulations already on the books, and none of them are working. The history of the world shows that no such regulation will accomplish that. The NRA types are just practical enough to recognize this basic truth, and are not willing to trade away all their freedoms in a vain attempt to continue trying this failed strategy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HellFreak 0 #50 January 5, 2009 +1 Two words that get you in trouble, ALWAYS and NEVER Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
