Yes, Spirit used a gun which is why the anti-gun Left is having a conniption over it. If he drove his family into a lake, the same people wouldn't have a problem. They might say, "To bad, so sad", but that's it. This is the hypocrisy of the anti-gun Left. They don't care about the lives of those dead, they only care about banning guns.
Well, that's the way statistical predictions are done. Take away the drug related crimes and the ones committed by people that have been in prison, and the so-called danger of guns in the home goes away. The problem isn't the guns. The problem is the people with a propensity towards violence and crime. Spirit had both of those risk factors in his home. In other words, stay away from illicit drugs and criminals, and your chance of being shot is extremely low.
Can and will you gun violence apologists EVER stop using the "if" bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? It gets tiresome.
"IF" one removed all those making minimum wage from wage calculations, the average wage would go up. But you see, that would be cooking the books to make an invalid conclusion. You're basically employing the same tactics.
Poison, guns and hanging are equally effective (80-90%) when it comes to suicide. The suicide situation in Australia did not change after the gun ban for that reason. Suicide and homicide are not the same. The motivations, approaches to prevention and treatment, and impact on society are very different. Suicide is a personal act and a mental illness, homicide is violence against society. Think of it like this - nobody is afraid to go into the ghetto because someone might commit suicide. Suicide and homicide are combined only to make the banner argument look better.
When you anti-gunners stop being hypocritical about why you want to ban guns, then, yes, I would stop using the "if" word.
In all of the arguments I see coming from the antis, what I see is a tiny little kid, laying on the floor, kicking and screaming. What they're bawling about is the way of the world. On that, I agree with them. The way of the world is not fair, or right, or reasonable. In the process of growing up and coming to terms with life in the world, we come to realize that the way of the world refuses to respond to our objections. This trumps the whole "if" issue. The world is arranged so that if one person wants to kill, he will find a way. At that point in his derangement, he doesn't care if he has to use a gun or a gallon of gas. We see it happen in every way. Blaming the gun can't help you to grow up and understand this.
I was using the same techniques that Kellerman used to derive the idea that guns are more likely to be used against the household of the gun owner, etc. He did an analysis with about 30 factors. He took out the factors that he thought were irrelevant, and then got that nonsensical number of 5 times as likely........ The thing is, if you keep using his technique, the inevitable result is that illicit drug use is the major component of danger of murder in a household. People not involved in drug use or with criminals are very unlikely to be shot by guns in the home.
Because contemporary liberals that we see today want to impose their vision, their will onto society no matter where they are at.
I don't believe that happens. Most people who advocate for sensible gun control laws are horrified by how much more gun violence exists in this country than in other industrialized nations. They are trying to save lives while preserving the rights guaranteed in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure there are some who maybe work for a gun control group who ratchet up scary statistics in order to raise more money (the same tactics the NRA uses, that is), but they are a minority.
Fixed that for you. Then there is England where this stuff is foisted as a credible solution. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/may/27/health.politics
yes but they dont have guns and since robbers here are heroin addicts they tend to be fairly weaklings.
Robbers implies that they are using violence. Are the heroin addicts using violence in their theft? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/rob#rob__4
threaten to yes, one thing you can predict from a heroin addict is that one punch would likely floor him.
robbers in Britain all don't have guns and are all heroin addicts? wow, that's one of the stupidest things I've read so far.
Agree with the mental health part. A common theme among all these shootings is that people knew that the person was unstable but no one could do anything about it because you can't force someone to accept medical care unless they are an imminent danger to others and themselves. The person I most blame for the Sandy Hook shooting was the mom who knew her son was bonkers and still took him to the range and showed him how to use the guns. I would say that the families of these nutjobs should be held liable and spend the rest of their lives in destitute poverty with all their property being given to the victims families. I am sick and tired of dumbass moms convinced that their children couldn't possibly do anything bad.
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html The analogy is not absurd. Anyone who drives impaired is doing so intentionally.
Agreed. As for Mrs. Lanza, I don't blame her. She was limited by the same system which you previously mentioned. It's not like she knew her son was dangerous. If she did, then why was she the first victim?
