Gun deaths in 2016

Those studies are all dated AFTER Obama issued exective orders to allow the CDC to begin studying one of the leading causes of death and injuries to Americans under the age of 44.

 

If you like I can report your post but it wasn't worth wasting their time IMO.

That you continue to use gratuitous ad homs exposes the weakness of your absurd position.

The cost of owning a pet or having an alarm system is far from being so onerous that only the "elite" can afford them because they are "luxuries".

Are 36% of Americans "elitist" because they own a dog?

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Statistics/Pages/Market-research-statistics-US-pet-ownership.aspx

Are 34% of Americans "elitist" because they have an alarm system?

https://www.statista.com/statistics...useholds-that-own-a-home-security-system-usa/

According to you one out of every three of your fellow Americans must be "arrogant" and "elitist"!

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-guns-america-20160622-story.html

http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/11/the-national-rifle-associations-slippery-slope-strategy/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...n-the-NRA-opposes-background-checks-with-poll

 

I think the over riding thing here is that America does appear to be a far more brutal, violent and blood thirsty place to live than the UK.

Being shot in the face.....sorry, that just too Xbox for anyone in the UK to comprehend. We just don't own or use guns like you guys.

Your home is where you should feel safest - The idea of needing to own a gun to feel safe in your own home is an alien concept to us.

 

But what you don't state is that those studies which obama authorized (“Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” published June 2013) concluded that gun control would not improve public safety, that private ownership of firearms reduces crime, that an armed victim of a crime is less likely to be injured than an unarmed person and when the armed person is injured the injuries are less severe than an unarmed person receives.

That's why you never hear about those studies. No big press release, no media circus, just silence.

Gun banners are not interested in the truth or public safety. They hide the truth when it doesn't support their gun ban agenda.

 

The original reasons have not changed one bit: to protect yourself, your family, your neighbor, and your country.

But the reason most proposed on the national stage by the founders of the nation was that an armed citizenry is the most effective check on a tyrannical government. That reason still exists.

 

The DOJ studies were published prior to that act, and certainly began much earlier than their publication date.

 

What makes you think that is some "new" concept? Lol. Good grief!

 

None of the above links answer the question that was presented to you. Pray tell exactly how are terrorists getting into the united states, and thus able to acquire firearms from the private market? How would background checks being mandatory for private firearms transactions actually stop these supposedly known terrorists from gaining access to firearm?

 

More accurately there is no desire on the part of yourself to face the consequences of submitting a false report.

Weaknesses that apparently cannot be demonstrated, only referenced.

Owning a dog is not the same as having one that has been professionally trained to respond only to your commands, and resist its canine impulses in the course of performing its duties. What does such training cost in round monetary figures? How much time must be invested towards achieving such a goal? What does one do during this time when the animal is untrained and undisciplined?

Simply because some individuals can afford to own a dog, or what is passed off as a home security system, does not mean anything in this discussion. It is nothing more than an irrelevant diversion, attempting to steer away from the fact that the position you present is one of arrogance and elitism. It does not take into consideration the economical disadvantages of others who cannot afford the same luxuries.

Regardless of what you claim to the contrary, there are individuals in the united states whose defense budget only allows for the ownership of one firearm, and one box of ammunition. Stop ignoring what are basic facts of your own country.

 

It's part of my home defense plan.
It comes right after I run out of ammo for my other guns, all of which have then been broken over the skulls of my attackers.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for your opinion. Was there anything else?

 

I didn't think it was a new concept like that! I was talking more abut a "tyrannical government" V's "i need to shoot the man who wants to steal my television"

But, I'm a brit so we have entirely different views on guns - To me, the need to own a gun to feel protected in my own home shows a total and utter failure of society....and, its the sign of a weak person or someone who lives in a brutal & violent place.

Vive la difference!

 

You live in a country where someone can break into your house, try to kill you, then sue you for injuries incurred while attacking you.

That is far more insane than owning a gun.

What's more, your countries crime statistics are a smokescreen for hiding actual murders.

In the UK, a dead body is only a murder IF someone is CONVICTED. Yeah, more insanity.

In the UK, if there's a dead body and it's not suicide or accidental...meaning someone killed that person....and no one is convicted of killing that person....it's not counted as a murder.

No one knows what your real murder rate is because of it, though I have read estimates of 2 to 5 times the official rate.

That you're proud of living in a country where you can be jailed for defending yourself is just sad.

 

Well, I now know that you haven't done your homework when it comes to the 2nd. It is clearly stated in the federalist papers that one reason for the 2nd amendment is to defend yourself, your family and your property.

- - - Updated - - -

To me, weakness is someone who would refuse to defend himself/herself,who would prefer to run away. That is the sign of a weak person.

 

I think its safe to assume that if it ever came to that point you'll have bigger things to worry about than a local gang invading your home, like a nuclear fallout and Russians marching down the street.

 

You don't have a plan for that?

 

I got the powder and primers, need more brass and bullets.

 

My plan is to bug out. My house is not a bunker sad to say.

 

That used to be the case but its less so now - The thing is, we're just not as brutal and blood thirsty as America.

 

What are you talking about? People are individuals. You have MUCH group think, and that is just the beginning of your problems. Don't come crying to the United States when you are being attacked by terrorists on a daily basis. We are tired of bailing you out of situations you get yourselves into because of your own stupidity.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm to the point where if a country allows immigrants in from the ME, they deserve all the trouble they get. Hopefully, they leave us out of it.

 

Yeah don't worry the police will protect you.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...mans-kin-after-failure-to-respond-to-999-call

or not.

Or you can listen to your wife get stabbed to death on the phone. Of interesting note in the story is that he tried to break in, the police showed up 30 mins later, made contact, they let him go, then he broke in and murdered her. Great job UK police.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ing-woman-while-her-husband-listened-on-phone

Or you can just have a good 'ole serial rapist running around.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ly-assaulted-stockport-children-heard-screams

I think you know what you can do with your "better than thou" real-crime-statistic-hiding idiocy.

Just remember, don't fight back when someone tries to kill you, you might get sued.

 

And never have been.

 

Everyone knows that it's the rare scenarios when police arrive in time to save a person's life. They usually show up after the fact with the coroner.

 

The London Riots in 2011 is a great example of how the police in the UK respond.

Pull back, wait till it's over, go in and clean up the bodies and use camera footage to make arrests.

You'd think the sheep in the UK would get the clue.

 

Even if such a clue was to be had, what then? Where would it get them?