Did These Guys Get Background Checks...before Killing 9 Year Old...

Another look at gun deaths from 2001...

GunCite-Gun Accidents

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates) (Chart compiled by GunCite. Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84)

Accident TypeAge
0-45-1415-2425-4445-6465-7475+Total
All Automobile9001,50010,50013,3009,2002,7004,90043,000
Falls70702109501,9001,70011,30016,200
Poisoning by solids, liquids60408006,8003,20030050011,700
Pedestrian12503007501,3001,4004508505,300
Drowning4503507001,2506502302703,900
Fires, burns4002602407008005007003,600
Suffocation by ingested object10020302504005002,1003,400
Firearms20601501901103040600
Poisoning by gases, vapors101070120804070400
All other causes7004001,1003,0003,2001,6004,50014,500
TOTAL2,7002,70013,80026,60019,5007,60024,40097,300
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
 
I'm actually with the Wrongpublicans on the issue of background checks before gun purchases--I believe there shouldn't be any, because I believe there shouldn't be any guns to buy. No matter how much we regulate them, they're still dangerous tools of mass murder. The only way to stop the senseless violence guns are used for is to ban them completely.
You know it to be true.
Except in reality.
There, it makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Well, they seem to have caught the gang members who murdered a 9'year old boy...Why did they kill the boy...they were out looking to kill rival gang members and thought he was going to shout a warning...so they shot him 4 times killing him....

Now...these guys are all full time gang members....with prior criminal convictions...in fact....the murderer did 3 1/2 years for a previous gun crime...okay...none of these guys could legally buy a gun, own a gun or carry a gun....they did not register their gun...they did not go through 16 hours of training to get a concealed carry permit...

And they somehow had a gun and used it to slaughter a 9 year old boy...without hesitation, mercy or regret....

so tell me....what law prevented this from happening....?

9-Year-Old Boy Shot And Killed By Gang Member In Chicago Concealed Nation
Antonio Smith, a 9-year-old boy, was shot at least four times by Allmon and died at the hospital. The boy, nor any of his family members, were affiliated with any gangs.

Allmon threw the handgun down a sewer and was later recovered by police during their investigation. The handgun was traced back to two other shootings, one of which was fatal.

Also important to note is that Allmon had been arrested in 2012 on gun charges and served 3 1/2 years for those crimes. He was released just a few weeks before gunning down this innocent 9-year-old boy.

80% or More (Juvi records are not available) of all murderers have records and thus cannot legally own guns
 
exactly how does banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms stop criminals from having them?

You misunderstand. I don't want to do anything to law-abiding citizens, I want to ban guns. All weapons really, and as well as all weapon-like objects, or things that can potentially be used as a weapon. The motivation to use weapons will always be there--violence in manpigs is innate--so we must merely remove the opportunity to act upon their motives by banning all weapons from the United States. Only then can we know peace.
You can't keep criminals from getting them. That's the point.
 
exactly how does banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms stop criminals from having them?

You misunderstand. I don't want to do anything to law-abiding citizens, I want to ban guns. All weapons really, and as well as all weapon-like objects, or things that can potentially be used as a weapon. The motivation to use weapons will always be there--violence in manpigs is innate--so we must merely remove the opportunity to act upon their motives by banning all weapons from the United States. Only then can we know peace.
You can't keep criminals from getting them. That's the point.

Our "keep nukes away from criminals" program has a 100% success rate thus far and is going into its 70th year of complete success. I'd say that yes, we can keep criminals away from weapons--we just have to try hard enough, which is something the Wrongpublicans have absolutely refused to do in the past.
 
Even the Chinese, and Japanese can't keep guns out of the hands of their criminal populations...
 
Our "keep nukes away from criminals" program has a 100% success rate thus far and is going into its 70th year of complete success.
Oh look -- someone using absurdity to marginalize his own argument.
I'd say that yes, we can keep criminals away from weapons--we just have to try hard enough, which is something the Wrongpublicans have absolutely refused to do in the past.
Anyone with any sense whatsoever will refuse to do what's necessary to remove all weapons from the citizenry.
 
exactly how does banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms stop criminals from having them?

You misunderstand. I don't want to do anything to law-abiding citizens, I want to ban guns. All weapons really, and as well as all weapon-like objects, or things that can potentially be used as a weapon. The motivation to use weapons will always be there--violence in manpigs is innate--so we must merely remove the opportunity to act upon their motives by banning all weapons from the United States. Only then can we know peace.
You can't keep criminals from getting them. That's the point.

Our "keep nukes away from criminals" program has a 100% success rate thus far and is going into its 70th year of complete success. I'd say that yes, we can keep criminals away from weapons--we just have to try hard enough, which is something the Wrongpublicans have absolutely refused to do in the past.
Yeah building a nuke is the same as buying a Saturday Night Special on the black market. You are an idiot.
 
I'm actually with the Wrongpublicans on the issue of background checks before gun purchases--I believe there shouldn't be any, because I believe there shouldn't be any guns to buy. No matter how much we regulate them, they're still dangerous tools of mass murder. The only way to stop the senseless violence guns are used for is to ban them completely.

You know it to be true.

Another dumbass response from a dumbass liberal.

There is no way you can ban guns!!!!!
 
I'm actually with the Wrongpublicans on the issue of background checks before gun purchases--I believe there shouldn't be any, because I believe there shouldn't be any guns to buy. No matter how much we regulate them, they're still dangerous tools of mass murder. The only way to stop the senseless violence guns are used for is to ban them completely.

You know it to be true.

There is no way you can ban guns!!!!!

Bullshit, prove it.
 
I'm actually with the Wrongpublicans on the issue of background checks before gun purchases--I believe there shouldn't be any, because I believe there shouldn't be any guns to buy. No matter how much we regulate them, they're still dangerous tools of mass murder. The only way to stop the senseless violence guns are used for is to ban them completely.

You know it to be true.

There is no way you can ban guns!!!!!

Bullshit, prove it.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
 
I'm actually with the Wrongpublicans on the issue of background checks before gun purchases--I believe there shouldn't be any, because I believe there shouldn't be any guns to buy. No matter how much we regulate them, they're still dangerous tools of mass murder. The only way to stop the senseless violence guns are used for is to ban them completely.

You know it to be true.

There is no way you can ban guns!!!!!

Bullshit, prove it.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
More importantly, banning handguns violates the constitution, regardless of scrutiny.
 
I'm actually with the Wrongpublicans on the issue of background checks before gun purchases--I believe there shouldn't be any, because I believe there shouldn't be any guns to buy. No matter how much we regulate them, they're still dangerous tools of mass murder. The only way to stop the senseless violence guns are used for is to ban them completely.

You know it to be true.

There is no way you can ban guns!!!!!

Bullshit, prove it.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

The law would in no way affect "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"; it would be targeted at the arms existing inside of this country, not people using them. The people remain free to keep and bear them as they wish, but the arms themselves are not free to be here.

And before you chime in with your uneducated pseudo-opinion of "hurr durr u cnt regulate a inanimate object"--yes, conservatard, we can do so. We have numerous laws on the books regulating pollution, radiation, hazardous chemicals, etc., and these laws set the precedent for regulating guns as well. The difference being that while one can be charged with dumping radioactive waste illegally, we will not charge anyone with a crime for possessing a gun--we will merely confiscate the illegal weapon, as it is the gun that is committing the crime of existing, not the possessor.

Your world, conservatard? Destroyed.
 
exactly how does banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms stop criminals from having them?

You misunderstand. I don't want to do anything to law-abiding citizens, I want to ban guns. All weapons really, and as well as all weapon-like objects, or things that can potentially be used as a weapon. The motivation to use weapons will always be there--violence in manpigs is innate--so we must merely remove the opportunity to act upon their motives by banning all weapons from the United States. Only then can we know peace.
You can't keep criminals from getting them. That's the point.

Our "keep nukes away from criminals" program has a 100% success rate thus far and is going into its 70th year of complete success. I'd say that yes, we can keep criminals away from weapons--we just have to try hard enough, which is something the Wrongpublicans have absolutely refused to do in the past.
Yeah building a nuke is the same as buying a Saturday Night Special on the black market. You are an idiot.

I didn't say building, but that was a decent enough attempt at strawmanning.

You said that we can't keep criminals from getting guns. I pointed out that we have effectively kept criminals from getting nuclear weapons, and that if we just implemented the same type of strict control policies and took guns as seriously as we take nukes, we could indeed keep them away from criminals. Your response?

You are an idiot.

I think we've all learned something from this one-sided discussion: Rightwingers cannot engage in rational discourse, period. A sad realization, but an important one to make nonetheless.
 
The law would in no way affect "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"; it would be targeted at the arms existing inside of this country, not people using them. The people remain free to keep and bear them as they wish, but the arms themselves are not free to be here.
Clearly, you;re tying to come up with the most absurd argument you can.
From what I've seen, the above is kinda mundane. Try harder.
 
Our "keep nukes away from criminals" program has a 100% success rate thus far and is going into its 70th year of complete success.
Oh look -- someone using absurdity to marginalize his own argument.

Absurdity? How many times in U.S. history have nukes fallen into criminal hands?

I'd say that yes, we can keep criminals away from weapons--we just have to try hard enough, which is something the Wrongpublicans have absolutely refused to do in the past.
Anyone with any sense whatsoever will refuse to do what's necessary to remove all weapons from the citizenry.

What, in your opinion, constitutes "what's necessary to remove all weapons from the citizenry"?
 

Forum List

Back
Top