Pfizer sales rep murder vs concealed carry permit

Fact: Australia doesn't "confiscate" guns, instead people "register" guns. This two words are not synonyms.
Fact: Guns are NOT banned in Australia
Fact: you're an idiot

 

Long guns are banned and the govt had a buyback of them. You are a criminal if you still possess one.

It's irrelevant. Gun restrictions are truly idiotic. There are sufficient criminal laws to cover misuse of a gun. Anti gun laws only harm and disarm the law abiding.

Britain banned all guns yet their homicide rate tripled. And the homicides by gun increased drastically as well.

The countries with the highest homicidevrates have all banned guns. Hitler banned guns. All dictators banned guns. Your dumbass "restrictions" only disarm good people.

Also, 60% of deaths by gun in the US are by suicide. Also foreign countries like Australia don't count gun deaths as homicides unless there was a criminal conviction on the books whereas the US counts everything as a gun homicide. You're comparisons are riddled with true errors. Your statistics are so skewed it's ridiculous and disingenuous.

Fact: you're a FOOL, an asshole and you need serious psychological help.

 

Fat Tony is gunning for you

 

Myth: Hitler disarmed his people. Wrong.

The problem with your logic is that a law on paper doesn't prevent a gun from killing someone. Therefore, we must prevent the gun from even firing. This is done with restrictions or outright ban.

Myth: Australia banned guns. Wrong. The banned AR's, rightly so since it's a military gun.

 

There are sufficient criminal laws to cover misuse of a gun .
No there isn't. when mass shootings happen nearly every day and 10 per 100000 gun deaths per year occur that means these sufficient criminal laws are demonstrably NOT working. That's why something needs to be done. Simple, eh?

 

Glad you finally asked about the proper issue here. It is all about the criminal laws. The major problem which is primarily led by modern liberals/progressives/bleeding hearts is that our enforcement of violent crimes is pathetic at best. I could seriously go into a long diatribe about this and how awful it is, but the gist of it is if we threw away the keys to the jails for many criminals we would have only 1/1000th of the violent crimes we have.

Now for guns, it's simple, misuse one by strict criminal standards and face life in prison with no parole. The same goes for DUIs and many other crimes that literally attempt to kill people unjustifiably.

No need for restrictions. If you leave your gun unlocked for a child to get, then it's life in prison. Get drunk and shoot it in the air where it's populated, it's life in prison. I could go on but you should get my point.

The point is, don't you dare restrict my God given right to protect myself, family and even strangers. If I screw up with my gun/bomb/rpg/grenade/tank then lock me away. The same goes with drugs and anything else I choose to do to myself. Freedom requires personal responsibility. Without it, you should lose your freedom.

Instead you think some up front compromise on our freedoms is the way to go. Nope, it is the wrong way. Just look at what we have now. Violent criminals back on the streets to revictimize good people.

If you truly cared about good personally responsible people, you'd agree with me completely. If not, then your anti gun intentions are evil as I've pointed out in above posts.

 

And yet with death penalty laws on the books people still murder. So I guess that makes sense that gun laws on the books will keep people from killing with guns. Do you even read what you write? We don't want a gun death to occur first before we put someone in prision. While the dumb ass who got drunk and shot up a saloon, which happens to kill my friend, will spend the rest of his life in prison but meanwhile I no longer have a friend who's alive. Had the drunk guy only been allowed to carry a knife I'm pretty sure my 6'3" friend could have handled himself. Great logic there bub. Further reason while I'll be the first guy to sign up and arrive at your house to take away your guns.

 

The same goes for DUIs ...
Because drunks will make a great choice while drunk and refuse too drive . Prison is not a deterrent to crime. We have more laws on the books and more people locked up and yet crime still happens. That's why Obama is going to clean out the prisons. They don't deter.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/report-says-long-sentences-dont-deter-crime-2014-5

Maybe this can help

 

God did not give you a right to bear firearms. It's nowhere to be found in the KJ bible, dumbass.

 

Bottom line is all the gun lovers in the USA won't be going to Heaven when they die. Satan is waiting for them and he has a very special place in Hell where they will spend all eternity in great discomfort.

When you worship guns instead of God, which is what most Americans do, you can bullshit us all you want but you will pay the price when you meet your maker. Your excuses won't cut it. You will pay the price. You will go straight to Hell.

 

You're just another lying Republican. Britain never banned all guns. They banned all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. You can own a gun there but they are strictly licensed. The homicides by gun never increased dramatically. That's complete BS. The last statistics on gun deaths per year that I saw were 22 deaths in Britain versus over 10,000 in the USA. They have no gun massacres in Britain, unlike here in the good old USA where we have gun massacres every week. By why do I bother with presenting facts. Nobody in the USA can hear them. You just like violence and killing.

 

Using the internet to fact check would be too hard. It's easier for me to just google NRA website and cut and paste off their pre-packaged "facts". It makes it easy for me and I don't even have to think since the NRA believes what I do they must be correct.

 

Monday, 16 July, 2001, 04:50 GMT 05:50 UK

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

Handguns were banned following the Dunblane massacre

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.


Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

Smuggling

The campaign's director, David Bredin, said: "It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.

"Policy makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tighter laws but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety."

He said the rise was largely down to successful smuggling of illegal guns into the country.

Weapons have even been disguised as key rings no larger than a matchbox to get them in, he said.

Other sources of guns include battlefield trophies brought back by soldiers, the illegal conversion of replica firearms including blank firing pistols and the reactivation of weapons which had been deactivated.

Ammunition

Examples of illegally manufactured guns include screwdrivers being adapted to fire off one round, he said.

The Metropolitan Police said its official figures showed a 20% drop in armed robberies of commercial premises between April and July this year, compared with the same period last year.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said that, since April 2001, the Flying Squad has arrested 39 people in connection with 34 armed incidents and seized 52 weapons.

Operation Trident, which investigates "black on black" shootings in the UK, has made more than 300 arrests, recovered 100 firearms and 1,500 rounds of ammunition since it was established a year ago.

The Home Office said measures were being taken to tackle handgun crime, including an intensified effort against illegally smuggled weapons.


Leftarded gun hating liars, pay close attention. This was just quick Google search it's from 2001 and the BBC, a leftarded commie govt run network.

 

I have carried a .380 for years in offices, and I could give a rat's ass about Pfizer's policy!

 

,

You have got to be one of the dumbest mothers out there. You are using 1998 statistics when it's 2015?!?!?!?!

Your quick google search is of an opinion letter written and reprinted in whole on several pro-gun websites and you're citing opinion not facts, you fuck-tard. Let's use real numbers, shall we. There is no 40% increase in gun related deaths. Moreover, when you just throw up raw numbers without a denominator then what you get is meaningless. How many people die when population numbers are controlled for due to migration patterns.

Also your reprinted article left omitted the next line of your article. I'll reprint it again for you.

"Rodgers attributed the widespread availability of handguns to a growing illegal trade in such weapons."
So what good is a ban when you allow news ones in to replace the ones taken off the street. It kinda means that guns are still the problem doesn't it?



_______________________

Take some time and digest these numbers. I'm sure you have a pre-printed opinion article you can throw up that's been passed around several pro-NRA web sites that might say banning guns are bad. But I'd honestly like your take on these raw data points I've provided. i mean, your actual opinion, not some pro-NRA rant.

Rate of All Gun Deaths per 100,000 People
In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2011: 0.24
2010: 0.26
2009: 0.24
2008: 0.28
2007: 0.21
2006: 0.35
2005: 0.27
2004: 0.26
2003: 0.27
2002: 0.28
2001: 0.26
2000: 0.40
1999: 0.36
1998: 0.34
1997: 0.32
1996: 0.42

Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2011/12: 1.04
2010/11: 1.22
2009/10: 1.14
2008/09: 1.24
2007/08: 1.42
2006/07: 1.41
2005/06: 1.38
2004/05: 1.60
2003/04: 1.53
2002/03: 1.87
2001/02: 1.62
2000/01: 1.56
1999/00: 1.42

Tell me again why we aren't banning some guns and placing restrictions? You used an opinion article reprinted on numerous pro-gun web sites as proof that banning guns doesn't work. The problem is - it's still gobble-dee-gook opinion without real facts pertinent to today.

When you look actual facts like rates of gun deaths and any-cause deaths per 100,000 you get a different opinion. I'll also show you the clusterfuck of USA below too. Notice the shear volumes of death in USA relative to the UK. It's insane the amount of gun deaths we have here in the states! Seriously the USA has 10 times the amount of deaths than the UK. Guns are the problem, fuck-nut, no matter how much you put a quaint little opinion page article up to prove otherwise.Oh, and there's another mass shooting today in the USA.


Rate of All Gun Deaths per 100,000 People
In the United States, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2013: 10.64
2012: 10.69
2011: 10.38
2010: 10.26
2009: 10.22
2008: 10.39
2007: 10.37
2006: 10.35
2005: 10.39
2004: 10.10
2003: 10.39
2002: 10.51
2001: 10.38
2000: 10.19
1999: 10.35

Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
In the United States, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2013: 5.10
2012: 5.32
2011: 5.21
2010: 5.27
2009: 5.48
2008: 5.86
2007: 6.10
2006: 6.22
2005: 6.13
2004: 5.93
2003: 6.11
2002: 6.13
2001: 7.13
2000: 5.96
1999: 6.05
1998: 5.19
1997: 6.7
1996: 7.3
1995: 8.1
1993: 9.93

 

It's an opinion fuck-tard. It's not what actually happened. Again you posted pre-printed pro-NRA article. Nice try. next.

 

It's an article published by the BBC you leftarded dumbass. Pay attention instead of being such an angry idiot.

Instead of whining constantly about needing "restrictions", why don't you bless us with your list of Brady loving restrictions you want to blab about?

Go for it moron, we will tear you apart and show how idiotic your feel-good "restrictions" are in reality.

 

It is what happened. Just because you assholes scream it isn't, that doesn't change the truth. Nice try leftard.

 

Firstly, since it's someones interpretation of data, that means it's "opinion". Are you really this woefully ignorant. I don't care if it's reprinted in the Bible or BBC, it's still opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and some are full of shit.

Secondly, it's old data. 15 years too old. I don't make life decisions based on my checking account balance from 15 years ago, so I find the article irrelevant and you probably should too.

Thirdly, the numbers seem to imply that they tripled (I don't even know the veracity) but what was the population at the time? If the population doubled in that town in that year then this means a 50% reduction of events per person and that would be awesome. Since they don't give us the denominator, the number sets from the BBC article are meaningless. This is good science and I suspect you don't work in Pharma or you'd know this. Please tell me I am wrong, do you work as a pharma sales rep?