Gun Watch

Someone who has more time than I do, needs to develop these arguments that, one of the biggest things that divides the US is where we come down on the question, “do guns kill people, or do people kill people?”

In the Iraq war, while we should be satisfied that we removed from power a man who misused WMD’s consistently for years, the people who believe in gun control, and getting all the guns off the street, see what we did in Iraq as a dismal failure because we didn’t find the weapons. I don’t hear anyone in the administration making these arguments. WMD’s don’t kill people, people kill people.

While our domestic security depends on screening people and “racial profiling” the people who are getting on airplanes; instead they want to focus on the weapons people are carrying onto the airplane. Box cutters don’t kill people, people kill people.

We should be stopping people “racial profiling” who are entering the country who are likely to hurt us; but instead they want to focus on examining all of the cargo that is entering the country, looking for weapons.

Should our efforts be focused on the people who are misusing the weapons, or on the weapons?

I think the underlying difference in all of these arguments, and I’m sure other situations of which I’m unaware, is the question, “do guns kill people or do people kill people?”

Someone who has more time than I do, needs to develop these arguments that, one of the biggest things that divides the US is where we come down on the question, “do guns kill people, or do people kill people?”

In the Iraq war, while we should be satisfied that we removed from power a man who misused WMD’s consistently for years, the people who believe in gun control, and getting all the guns off the street, see what we did in Iraq as a dismal failure because we didn’t find the weapons. I don’t hear anyone in the administration making these arguments. WMD’s don’t kill people, people kill people.

While our domestic security depends on screening people and “racial profiling” the people who are getting on airplanes; instead they want to focus on the weapons people are carrying onto the airplane. Box cutters don’t kill people, people kill people.

We should be stopping people “racial profiling” who are entering the country who are likely to hurt us; but instead they want to focus on examining all of the cargo that is entering the country, looking for weapons.

Should our efforts be focused on the people who are misusing the weapons, or on the weapons?

I think the underlying difference in all of these arguments, and I’m sure other situations of which I’m unaware, is the question, “do guns kill people or do people kill people?”

Someone who has more time than I do, needs to develop these arguments that, one of the biggest things that divides the US is where we come down on the question, “do guns kill people, or do people kill people?”

In the Iraq war, while we should be satisfied that we removed from power a man who misused WMD’s consistently for years, the people who believe in gun control, and getting all the guns off the street, see what we did in Iraq as a dismal failure because we didn’t find the weapons. I don’t hear anyone in the administration making these arguments. WMD’s don’t kill people, people kill people.

While our domestic security depends on screening people and “racial profiling” the people who are getting on airplanes; instead they want to focus on the weapons people are carrying onto the airplane. Box cutters don’t kill people, people kill people.

We should be stopping people “racial profiling” who are entering the country who are likely to hurt us; but instead they want to focus on examining all of the cargo that is entering the country, looking for weapons.

Should our efforts be focused on the people who are misusing the weapons, or on the weapons?

I think the underlying difference in all of these arguments, and I’m sure other situations of which I’m unaware, is the question, “do guns kill people or do people kill people?”

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is merely a catchy phrase used by the gun rights crowd for years.
Over the years we found that the data supports this catch phrase and it’s really true.

Suddenly a study sponsored by some think tank or liberal university is published purporting to show that when a man is in possesion of a firearm, his testosterone levels are elevated. Tthus proving that “guns kill people”. Never mind the social mores or individual inhibitions that might motivate a man to manage his elevated testosterone levels and act appropriately.

What about Saddam’s WMDs that we did find? Several hundred shells with possibly degraded Sarin and Mustard gas. Liberals tell us that they don’t count because they are old and possibly degraded.
Let’s say you’re a cop. You walk up on some guy that has a gun in his hand. He’s waving the gun around and talking big. You tell him to drop the gun. He continues making noise and pointing the gun at people. He even points the gun at you, the cop.
Do you:
A) Ask him to drop the weapon again?
B) Wonder if maybe the gun isn’t loaded?
C) Drop him in his tracks?
If you answered A or B, then you will probably end up dead.
If you answered A or B, then you are probably not qualified to protect yourself or the public.

To answer you question, Chas: Guns kill people.
So do knives, spears, sticks, baseball bats, clubs, cars, bodies of water (including pools and mop buckets), motorcycles, airplanes, fists, ropes, electricity, snakes, stingrays, stampeding elephants, old age, etc, etc.

Counterquestion: How many of these things can you use to defend yourself?

Counter-counterquestion: Does it raise your testosterone level to possess these things?

Are you and the people around you safer if you have a gun vs if you don’t have a gun?
(the data supports the hypothesis that more guns in more hands means more safety and less crime.)

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is merely a catchy phrase used by the gun rights crowd for years.
Over the years we found that the data supports this catch phrase and it’s really true.

Suddenly a study sponsored by some think tank or liberal university is published purporting to show that when a man is in possesion of a firearm, his testosterone levels are elevated. Tthus proving that “guns kill people”. Never mind the social mores or individual inhibitions that might motivate a man to manage his elevated testosterone levels and act appropriately.

What about Saddam’s WMDs that we did find? Several hundred shells with possibly degraded Sarin and Mustard gas. Liberals tell us that they don’t count because they are old and possibly degraded.
Let’s say you’re a cop. You walk up on some guy that has a gun in his hand. He’s waving the gun around and talking big. You tell him to drop the gun. He continues making noise and pointing the gun at people. He even points the gun at you, the cop.
Do you:
A) Ask him to drop the weapon again?
B) Wonder if maybe the gun isn’t loaded?
C) Drop him in his tracks?
If you answered A or B, then you will probably end up dead.
If you answered A or B, then you are probably not qualified to protect yourself or the public.

To answer you question, Chas: Guns kill people.
So do knives, spears, sticks, baseball bats, clubs, cars, bodies of water (including pools and mop buckets), motorcycles, airplanes, fists, ropes, electricity, snakes, stingrays, stampeding elephants, old age, etc, etc.

Counterquestion: How many of these things can you use to defend yourself?

Counter-counterquestion: Does it raise your testosterone level to possess these things?

Are you and the people around you safer if you have a gun vs if you don’t have a gun?
(the data supports the hypothesis that more guns in more hands means more safety and less crime.)

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is merely a catchy phrase used by the gun rights crowd for years.
Over the years we found that the data supports this catch phrase and it’s really true.

Suddenly a study sponsored by some think tank or liberal university is published purporting to show that when a man is in possesion of a firearm, his testosterone levels are elevated. Tthus proving that “guns kill people”. Never mind the social mores or individual inhibitions that might motivate a man to manage his elevated testosterone levels and act appropriately.

What about Saddam’s WMDs that we did find? Several hundred shells with possibly degraded Sarin and Mustard gas. Liberals tell us that they don’t count because they are old and possibly degraded.
Let’s say you’re a cop. You walk up on some guy that has a gun in his hand. He’s waving the gun around and talking big. You tell him to drop the gun. He continues making noise and pointing the gun at people. He even points the gun at you, the cop.
Do you:
A) Ask him to drop the weapon again?
B) Wonder if maybe the gun isn’t loaded?
C) Drop him in his tracks?
If you answered A or B, then you will probably end up dead.
If you answered A or B, then you are probably not qualified to protect yourself or the public.

To answer you question, Chas: Guns kill people.
So do knives, spears, sticks, baseball bats, clubs, cars, bodies of water (including pools and mop buckets), motorcycles, airplanes, fists, ropes, electricity, snakes, stingrays, stampeding elephants, old age, etc, etc.

Counterquestion: How many of these things can you use to defend yourself?

Counter-counterquestion: Does it raise your testosterone level to possess these things?

Are you and the people around you safer if you have a gun vs if you don’t have a gun?
(the data supports the hypothesis that more guns in more hands means more safety and less crime.)