http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cause+of+death You need to climb out of the bubble and get aquatinted with forensic pathology. There are proximal COD ( cause of death) which could be the gunshot wound and bullet and the discriptive damage it cased. Intermediate (COD) which includes the instrument ( weapons ) used to discharge the bullet. And anyother underlying cause or manner of death including discription of general homicide or accident. In this chain of causal factors, the gun, the bullets and the wounds they cause, are all aptly discribed as intermediate and proximaty causes of death That it was an accident, even from a dropped or accidental discharge or deliberate, is an underlying cause. The primary and inertermediate causes are the GUN and the wounds it causes. If the underlying cause of death cannot be terminal, it is noted and further investigation maybe needed. Get with program. If you were in the military or worked in a morgue, you wouldn't be constantly insisting that guns don't cause death. If you beat someone senseless with a gun butt, it's a primary or intermediate cause but use in a different manner. But the gun was still used to cause the death. Guns cause death ! People use guns and the are the underlying but not the proximal cause of death when using a gun. They are heinous because you can use them to cause death from a distance through the discharge of a bullet. It is more sane to aptly discribe guns as a cause of death then to remain in the bubble and deny it.
Don't tell the internet about poison being regulated, since you can just have it shipped to your house. I love that you're grasping at straws though and trying to equate gun regulations to gasoline pump regulations, along with the rest of your useless drivel. I'll allow the readers to draw their own conclusions on your argument, it's so ridiculous I don't have a week to explain why. You could have said "the sky is blue" and you would have had a better response.
I can't believe you wasted so much time on a post that means nothing as it relates to gun violence. Many homicides are committed with knives, bats, other inanimate objects. None of these objects commit murder. People commit murder using objects. I've never seen an object go on trial for murder. Guns are harmless without an operator.
I can't believe you continually claim that guns don't cause death. I can't believe you have never followed a murder trial by firearm. The aqusition of the gun used, how it was used and how it was desposed of are all essential parts of a murder trial. Because, contrary to what you say, fewer gun crimes would occur with fewer guns available to criminals. The insane argument that criminals would use another method just as easy, is completely refuted by YOUR ownership of a gun. You know how easily it contributes to homocide and is the leading primary cause or homocide Deaths. That you say it relates nothing to gun violence makes me question your relationship to police. Ask them if guns contribute anything to gun violence. You continually make up phrases to convolute your original false assertions. Guns cause death, they are not tried for murder. Don't confuse the two ideas. Guns give easier opportunity to commit gun violence. If you don't think it's true, trade your gun in for a knife and a bat. Stand by your wrong conclusions. Teach self defense with club.....
******************************************************* All completely false in nature, as a Police Officer, a Detective, I learned there is Violence and Victims, gun violence does not exist...... so it is you that are wrong Dagosa.....
Opportunity. Guns provide opportunity for gun violence. Without guns, there would be less opportunity for gun violence. A knife can not allow mass murder as easily as a gun. We regulate cars to minimize death and injury with cars. We do the same with guns. That you as an instructor don't agree that proper training and regulation is essential for the proper use of a firearm by qualified people, to maximize the effect and minimize the accidents and unintended use maks me doubt your authenticity.
Saying you were a policeman doesn't make you right. It's just an opinion. The wrong one. Violence with a gun is gun violence. . I invite you to replace your gun with a knife or club if you think a person can kill just as easily with another weapon and violence is just violence. Gun violence that is crminal is separate from other crimes and has separate laws and prosecutorial procedures. But then, you knew that as a cop, right ? Guess not...according to you, gun violence does no exist. Cop ? The more you say, the less believable it becomes....or the worse training you had. You did have a few law classes didn't you ?
********************************************************* Murder is still Murder regardless if a firearm is used or not. I have seen people murdered with a 16 ounce carpenter's hammer, just as dead as if a pistol had been used, the charge is still Murder, same as if a firearm had been used instead. Since firearms are not always the sole instrument of violence, the crime is violence, the instrument may be any type, the term "Gun Violence" is a Political Term......
Now you're changing the argument. I agree that guns provide opportunity for gun violence. That's different than when you refuted that people kill people, not guns. I know hundreds of NRA certified instructor all over the country and I don't know one that believes that firearms should be further regulated. We all know that if anti gun folks got UBCs passed, that they wouldn't stop there and would push for further restrictions. The majority of anti gunners have a vision of a gun free America in generations to come and won't stop until they achieve their goal. Give em an inch and they will take a mile.
I agree !!!! And as an NRA Certified Instructor, I do not believe firearms should be further regulated....
fbi statistics gun violence https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/school-violence Just go to this link with this title and you will find FBI statistics on gun violence. The bottom link provides a publication from the FBI which specifically refers to gun violence. Now, if you were a cop as you claim, you may have had the opportunity to receive much of your training through the FBI protocols offered to all states through their state police agencies. If you want to minimize the source of training through this organization, just continually take a stance that does not accept gun violence as a ligitimate way of tracking gun related crime and violence statistically. I struggle with you guys who claim you are cops and instructors with relationships to cops, don't see the importance a of being truthful and forthright in your statements. .
You've talked yourself into a hole here, Dagosa. You have proven that it's pointless for us to rephrase intelligent discourse to try and get through to you. The good thing is that it has no adverse effect on anyone but you. BTW- Is American English your first language?
That's not entirely correct, at least in my state. Yes we do have an "add on" charge we can bring, notably a separate charge of "using a firearm in the commission" of the underlying offense. But the crime itself bears no relation to the weapon used, and is treated the same regardless of the type of weapon used. An indictment for murder would read "did unlawfully and feloniously kill and murder John Doe". It will never mention the weapon used because the weapon is irrelevant. The punishment for first degree murder (for example) is 20 years to life regardless of whether it was a handgun or a brick or a car that the killer used. The additional charge for using a firearm carries an additional 3 years. With the exception of the add on charge, gun violence is not prosecuted any differently than violence caused by any other means. You are confusing how trends in violence are tracked by the FBI (age, race, location, weapon used, etc.) with a false belief that the primary offense of murder or wounding is treated differently just beacuse of the type of weapon used. And yes, I have had quite a few law classes in my day. I'm nearing two decades of prosecuting and I have never seen "different prosecutorial procedures" used because the assault, wounding, or murder involved a firearm. But since your the expert why don't you tell me what the different "procedures" are in prosecuting a case simply because a firearm was used?
This is why I refuse to get drawn to far into their nonsense. No matter what you say or the proof you provide, in the end the troll is still a troll. It's like feeding a cat.
"That's not entirely correct, at least in my state. Yes we do have an "add on" charge we can bring, notably a separate charge of "using a firearm in the commission" of the underlying offense" You just back up what I said !!!!! What I said WAS entirely correct. The difference in procedure is the additional charge of using the gun. OJ Simpson was tried for murder. Had it been with a gun, an ADDTIONAL charge would have been added for a gun crime. That is a different procedure. The charges to be brought are all part of the procedure used by the prosecution !!! Look up the meaning of "procedure" in general. There would have been an effort to use the Feds to find out whther the gun was legally or illegally obtained or brought accross state lines prior to the major offense or disposed of after the commission. This effort in general is not followed when a knife is involved. Heck, during a theft investigation in non violent burglaries if arson is involved in our state, it immediately involves a different procedure because the STATE becomes involved in the investigation in arson. If a theft of a firearm is involved, we then make an effort to immediately contact the fed. This is made during the investigation . as there could now be a federal offense involved. Even in this case, when a firearm is involved, DIFFERENT PROCEDURES ARE INVOLVED. Death with a firearm always involves a different procedure, even if it's to add additional charges or determining if the firearm was procured or disposed of in violation of specific federal laws dealing with a firearm and not another regulated weapon. It s especially true with violent crimes !
If you bothered to read my reference, then you would see that officially, guns are an immediate "cause" of death and gun wounds are a primary cause. Guns change the nature and increase the number of homicides and violence. Mass murders are examples of the proclivity of firearms to provide increased opportunities to kill groups of people that cannot be done with most other weapons that are easily attainable by the public at large. That's why guns are regulated but not enough.......
As long as free people can own firearms, criminals will get their hands on them. Guns kill no one unless a human puts bullets in them.
Regulation has never stopped all criminals from getting guns. Regulation does decrease the opportunity and in countries that are more regulated, has decreased the number of gun crimes. George Harrison chose to live in England. He was attacked by a man with a knife. He survived. John Lennon chose to live in a country that provided greater opportunity to get a gun. He was shot and killed. This is anecdotal and proves nothing in total. But, it does illustrate in one case, the difference that opportunity can make. I want a good guy with a gun, defending himself vs a bad guy with a baseball bat.....not a bad guy with a gun. Guns should be restricted only to those qualified which means less opportunity for those who aren't.
With over 320 million guns in America, you can't prevent criminals, or criminals that haven't been caught yet from acquiring a gun. Anyone disqualified from owning firearms just has to know one person without a criminal record.
