The last gun store in San Francisco to close (felons, dangerous)

[Boris347]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

There it is again folks, the persecuted American gun owner. Here I am trying to take away all his guns from him just as the NRA says!

Just the "scary looking" ones...

You folks are a trip....

[Boris347]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

They made conclusions, that having a gun gives victims a better chance of survival and then said they don't have enough data for other questions so they guessed. What they didn't guess on was that having a gun markedly increases your chance of surviving an attack.

The only conclusion one can make is that YES, it does increase chances of survival greatly. The examples are so numerous, that there is no other conclusion that can be made.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Who elected these leaders during the revolutionary war? What military organization was in place leading the milita at the time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...olutionary_War

[FC76-81]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Ah. The ever lame "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. I've been waiting for this.

I'm waiting for the slippery slope/false analogies that follow. Go ahead and compare cars to guns and let's just call it a day, shall we?

How about Ted Bundy? How many did he kill without using a gun? Richard Ramirez is another one. He killed a bundle with a gun, but many others without the use of a gun. He must have just forgot to bring his gun and/or ammo with him on those days so just utilized whatever he had access to at the time, yes?

Case & point: The root cause is people. If someone has the need to kill people, they are going to do it regardless if they have a gun or not. If they don't have a gun, they will just change up the method. These people have a primary objective and that is to kill. If they can't do it with a gun, they change up the method to where they can kill by other means. There will be more and more stories such as Dahmer, Ramirez, and Bundy. When people who have the primary objective to kill lots of people, right now some can gain access to firearms and take out many in a crowd, we see that. When that option of tool (gun) of choice is removed, another method shall follow. Other tools will require the method to be changed up a bit, which will resemble the method in which Dahmer, Ramirez, and Bundy developed. The big issue is people and some who have the desire to kill. Simple as that. Blaming the guns is just plain ignorant.

[ketch89]

Originally Posted by FC76-81

How about Ted Bundy? How many did he kill without using a gun? Richard Ramirez is another one. He killed a bundle with a gun, but many others without the use of a gun. He must have just forgot to bring his gun and/or ammo with him on those days so just utilized whatever he had access to at the time, yes?

Case & point: The root cause is people. If someone has the need to kill people, they are going to do it regardless if they have a gun or not. If they don't have a gun, they will just change up the method. These people have a primary objective and that is to kill. If they can't do it with a gun, they change up the method to where they can kill by other means. There will be more and more stories such as Dahmer, Ramirez, and Bundy. When people who have the primary objective to kill lots of people, right now some can gain access to firearms and take out many in a crowd, we see that. When that option of tool (gun) of choice is removed, another method shall follow. Other tools will require the method to be changed up a bit, which will resemble the method in which Dahmer, Ramirez, and Bundy developed. The big issue is people and some who have the desire to kill. Simple as that. Blaming the guns is just plain ignorant.

You're mentally ill. Seek help.

[FC76-81]

Originally Posted by ketch89

You're mentally ill. Seek help.

Mentally ill because of pointing out cold hard facts with the help of a few examples of mass murderers in history who did most/if not all of their mass killings without the use of firearms?

Mentally ill because of pointing out the fact that large amounts of civilians killed by ISIS in the territories that they are in control of were not shot but killed by way of hanging, drowning, beheading, burned to death and thrown off buildings?

Those are cold hard facts Jack and if you choose to ignore these facts that is entirely up to you.

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by ketch89

You're mentally ill. Seek help.

Nothing admits losing like calling names.

[ketch89]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

Nothing admits losing like calling names.

I've posted all of the relevant facts. More guns = more gun deaths. Stricter gun laws = fewer gun deaths. Period.

[FC76-81]

Originally Posted by ketch89

I've posted all of the relevant facts. More guns = more gun deaths. Stricter gun laws = fewer gun deaths. Period.

So basically while gun deaths might be down because of the said speculated strict gun laws, a spike in hammer, crowbar, knife, etc. related deaths would be perfectly exceptable? Because that's what will happen if guns are harder to get ahold of. People hellbent on killing will simply do so with whatever means they have access to.

On one of my trips to Japan, I was in a city on the day a Japanese guy killed a number of people by running them over with his vehicle and then jumped out and stabbed to death a number of more people. He did all that within a few moments time, and without the use of a gun. I was with a friend of mine looking for a special cable for my video equipment in the same area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by ketch89

I've posted all of the relevant facts. More guns = more gun deaths. Stricter gun laws = fewer gun deaths. Period.

Yeah because that has worked great in Chicago, Oakland, Baltimore etc?