Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year, study says

[RetiredGySgt]

Turn in the news in any local news channel , shootings everyday....in other parts of the world rarely, and it's clearly an American problem and the world still can't get it.

These are law abiding gun owners citizens in America :
His girlfriend or wife broke up with him, pick a gun kill her and her family and kill himself.
Road rage pick a gun and shoot the asshole.
Got fired go on a shooting spree.
Bullied at school pick your dad's gun and shoot the assholes.
Likes the joker pick a machine gun and play the jokers role, killing dozens.
Don't like black people pick a gun go to their church and shoot them.

In other countries they fist fight because guns are hard to come by, worst case scenario they use an object that's not as lethal as guns.

If you don't get this picture, I don't know what to say.

The percent of murders by firearms compared to our population is so small as to be insignificant. do the math 10000 murders out of 320 million.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I find it fascinating how every time someone mentions "gun control", the RW, having been conditioned by the NRA, like Pavlov's dog, hears, "ban the guns". Yet, I have never heard any serious suggestion from anyone in my life from anybody, advocating banning guns.

Dude, scroll up. Banning guns is exactly the message some have been advocating. The fucking Democrats dance around that message, but it's clearly the intention:

So, you had to reach back to 1995, which was 23 years ago, to post a video about banning assault weapons.....

There are 350,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in America. And you are afraid the Feinstein is going to come to your house some night and demand that you give yours to her?

 

[Divine Wind]

I find it fascinating how every time someone mentions "gun control", the RW, having been conditioned by the NRA, like Pavlov's dog, hears, "ban the guns". Yet, I have never heard any serious suggestion from anyone in my life from anybody, advocating banning guns.

Dude, scroll up. Banning guns is exactly the message some have been advocating. The fucking Democrats dance around that message, but it's clearly the intention:

So, you had to reach back to 1995, which was 23 years ago, to post a video about banning assault weapons.....

There are 350,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in America. And you are afraid the Feinstein is going to come to your house some night and demand that you give yours to her?

Nope, that's just an example of how long the Democrats have been trying to ban guns. They've failed so often that now they are trying to ban them a bit at a time like President Obama's 2013 anti-gun bill. The Republicans use the same tactic in an effort to ban abortion; piece by piece, inch by inch. The Republicans tried to ban abortion outright and failed, so now they are doing it incrementally. The Democrats tried to ban guns outright and failed, so now they are doing it incrementally. Understand now?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I find it fascinating how every time someone mentions "gun control", the RW, having been conditioned by the NRA, like Pavlov's dog, hears, "ban the guns". Yet, I have never heard any serious suggestion from anyone in my life from anybody, advocating banning guns.

Dude, scroll up. Banning guns is exactly the message some have been advocating. The fucking Democrats dance around that message, but it's clearly the intention:

So, you had to reach back to 1995, which was 23 years ago, to post a video about banning assault weapons.....

There are 350,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in America. And you are afraid the Feinstein is going to come to your house some night and demand that you give yours to her?

Nope, that's just an example of how long the Democrats have been trying to ban guns. They've failed so often that now they are trying to ban them a bit at a time like President Obama's 2013 anti-gun bill. The Republicans use the same tactic in an effort to ban abortion; piece by piece, inch by inch. The Republicans tried to ban abortion outright and failed, so now they are doing it incrementally. The Democrats tried to ban guns outright and failed, so now they are doing it incrementally. Understand now?

Yeah, I hear ya, DW. First we want to take away your 100 round ammo drum, and the next thing you know, you will have to hunt elk with a bow and arrow....

 

[2aguy]

Turn in the news in any local news channel , shootings everyday....in other parts of the world rarely, and it's clearly an American problem and the world still can't get it.

These are law abiding gun owners citizens in America :
His girlfriend or wife broke up with him, pick a gun kill her and her family and kill himself.
Road rage pick a gun and shoot the asshole.
Got fired go on a shooting spree.
Bullied at school pick your dad's gun and shoot the assholes.
Likes the joker pick a machine gun and play the jokers role, killing dozens.
Don't like black people pick a gun go to their church and shoot them.

In other countries they fist fight because guns are hard to come by, worst case scenario they use an object that's not as lethal as guns.

If you don't get this picture, I don't know what to say.

You don't know what you are talking about...it would help if you actually knew something about guns and those who use them before you posted....you will have more intelligent posts if you do....

Those who commit murder with a gun......? 90% of them have long criminal histories going back to their teenage years....and long histories of violence or mental illness.

And when muslims in France don't like infidel? They get illegal, fully automatic rifles...even though they are banned...and what do criminals in Europe and Britain do...they get guns and use them to commit robbery and torture...they just don't use them to commit murder.....

Do you realize that gun crime in London is up 42% last year......and that their gun crime rate did not go down after they banned guns...do you realize that? Even anti-gun Australia now has a gun problem....Melbourne, Australia is known as the city of the gun....

Do a little research......it will help....

 

[2aguy]

Turn in the news in any local news channel , shootings everyday....in other parts of the world rarely, and it's clearly an American problem and the world still can't get it.

These are law abiding gun owners citizens in America :
His girlfriend or wife broke up with him, pick a gun kill her and her family and kill himself.
Road rage pick a gun and shoot the asshole.
Got fired go on a shooting spree.
Bullied at school pick your dad's gun and shoot the assholes.
Likes the joker pick a machine gun and play the jokers role, killing dozens.
Don't like black people pick a gun go to their church and shoot them.

In other countries they fist fight because guns are hard to come by, worst case scenario they use an object that's not as lethal as guns.

If you don't get this picture, I don't know what to say.

Yes, you might read about one or two of those a day in a country of 320 million people where everything that happens makes the evening news because of the Internet.

We just don't throw away a Constitutional right because someone commits a crime with a gun.

In Europe they seem to be getting great results killing people by running over people with trucks and vans! Are you advocating that we ban those too?

In Africa, the favorite terrorism weapon seems to be a machete? Should we ban them too?

And illegal, fully automatic rifles....and explosives...and pistols...you can't forget those....

 

[2aguy]

I find it fascinating how every time someone mentions "gun control", the RW, having been conditioned by the NRA, like Pavlov's dog, hears, "ban the guns". Yet, I have never heard any serious suggestion from anyone in my life from anybody, advocating banning guns.

You mean except for democrat party leaders....like obama...who packed the Supreme Court and the lower court with anti-gun judges and justices...you mean except for that? And the latest anti-gun ruling from obama's 4th Circuit Court of appeals which guts the 2nd Amendment if it isn't overturned...you mean except for that?

And then you have the last democrat Presidential Candidate...who planned on using law suits and the courts to pass gun control and gun bans...

You mean except for that...right?

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

 

[2aguy]

I find it fascinating how every time someone mentions "gun control", the RW, having been conditioned by the NRA, like Pavlov's dog, hears, "ban the guns". Yet, I have never heard any serious suggestion from anyone in my life from anybody, advocating banning guns.

Dude, scroll up. Banning guns is exactly the message some have been advocating. The fucking Democrats dance around that message, but it's clearly the intention:

So, you had to reach back to 1995, which was 23 years ago, to post a video about banning assault weapons.....

There are 350,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in America. And you are afraid the Feinstein is going to come to your house some night and demand that you give yours to her?

Nope, that's just an example of how long the Democrats have been trying to ban guns. They've failed so often that now they are trying to ban them a bit at a time like President Obama's 2013 anti-gun bill. The Republicans use the same tactic in an effort to ban abortion; piece by piece, inch by inch. The Republicans tried to ban abortion outright and failed, so now they are doing it incrementally. The Democrats tried to ban guns outright and failed, so now they are doing it incrementally. Understand now?

Yeah, I hear ya, DW. First we want to take away your 100 round ammo drum, and the next thing you know, you will have to hunt elk with a bow and arrow....

They are already banning 15 round magazines, asswipe......which is a back door ban for pistols.....and once they get the 15, they will say that no one needs a 10 round magazine and that a magazine in any gun makes it a killing machine.....

We know how you assholes work.....so we will fight every step of the way....

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Issa]

Fact : the US is one of the worst countries in terms of gun violence.
The other fact: most industrialised countries have far less gun violence.
Could it be because America has the worst education system? (Proof some answers in this very topic)

 

[Skull Pilot]

How many are 17 year old gang bangers?

That 17 year olds end up as "gang bangers" is pretty sad, and a pretty damning indictment of the US, don't you think?

No just the shithole cities they live in

There are no gangs in my county

 

[Skull Pilot]

How many are 17 year old gang bangers?

I've heard of such studies defining “children” to include violent gang members up to 24 years old, in order to pad the numbers.

according to Obamacare you're a child until you're 26

 

[Skull Pilot]

Deceptive headline. It should read:

Humans used guns to kill 1300 kids.

A gun alone has never killed a single person.

I have to ask liberals this. If a human makes a choice to use a gun to kill someone, why does one blame the gun?

Question is, is a human with a gun more dangerous and more likely to kill children than a person without a gun?

The answer is: no doubt.

Parents are more likely to kill their children than people without kids

Maybe we should ban parents

 

[Bush92]

Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year, study says
Source: CNN

(CNN)Rambunctious third-graders filled a classroom in Seattle on a crisp autumn day. One of the students dropped his backpack, and horror ensued.

That student had brought a parent's gun to school and was carrying it in his backpack. When the bag fell to the floor, the impact caused the gun to fire, sending a bullet straight into another student's abdomen, said Dr. Thomas Weiser, a trauma surgeon at Stanford University Medical Center.

Weiser treated that third-grader's gunshot wound while completing a fellowship at Harborview Medical Center in Washington in 2011.

When the student arrived at the hospital, awake and alert with a bullet hole oozing blood just below her heart, she had a jarring expression of confusion in her brown eyes, Weiser said.

<more>

Read more: Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year - CNN.com

Sad

Abortions kill how many?

 

[Divine Wind]

 

[frigidweirdo]

How many are 17 year old gang bangers?

That 17 year olds end up as "gang bangers" is pretty sad, and a pretty damning indictment of the US, don't you think?

No just the shithole cities they live in

There are no gangs in my county

Back to the "it's not hot in my county, therefore there's no global warming?" sort of shitty argument?

 

[Skull Pilot]

How many are 17 year old gang bangers?

That 17 year olds end up as "gang bangers" is pretty sad, and a pretty damning indictment of the US, don't you think?

No just the shithole cities they live in

There are no gangs in my county

Back to the "it's not hot in my county, therefore there's no global warming?" sort of shitty argument?

You know global warming may actually affect me. I don't think it will be the biblical disaster that you people make it out to be but gang related gun violence in shit hole cities will never affect me where I live so I really don't give a shit about it.

 

[Issa]

You might get shot by your kids your wife, or a road rage, or a fired co-worker, might shoot you for one reason or another it doesn't have to be a gang member.
Last shootings in my area:
Work violence, son killed his dad, man killed his wife.
In other countries they fist fight it at worst. Get the picture?

How many are 17 year old gang bangers?

That 17 year olds end up as "gang bangers" is pretty sad, and a pretty damning indictment of the US, don't you think?

No just the shithole cities they live in

There are no gangs in my county

Back to the "it's not hot in my county, therefore there's no global warming?" sort of shitty argument?

You know global warming may actually affect me. I don't think it will be the biblical disaster that you people make it out to be but gang related gun violence in shit hole cities will never affect me where I live so I really don't give a shit about it.

 

[Papageorgio]

You might get shot by your kids your wife, or a road rage, or a fired co-worker, might shoot you for one reason or another it doesn't have to be a gang member.
Last shootings in my area:
Work violence, son killed his dad, man killed his wife.
In other countries they fist fight it at worst. Get the picture?

Or you might get shot by a Muslim terrorist. You don't even need a gun, they use cars, knives, chop of people's heads off.

Last week in my area three people were killed in an auto accident

You don't need a gun. Get the picture?

 

[Issa]

You will lose bigly....
Getting killed by a terrorist is 1 in 3 billion , getting shot is 1 in 300 .

I've lived in LA for years no one got killed by a terrorist, but hundreds got shot and killed.
Guns make it easier to commit crimes and harm others and it empowers people to do harm, their absence in other countries contribute to the low level of gun violence .
I've lived in countries that are gun free, it's awesome the US should try it... less people injured and dead for sure.

You might get shot by your kids your wife, or a road rage, or a fired co-worker, might shoot you for one reason or another it doesn't have to be a gang member.
Last shootings in my area:
Work violence, son killed his dad, man killed his wife.
In other countries they fist fight it at worst. Get the picture?

Or you might get shot by a Muslim terrorist. You don't even need a gun, they use cars, knives, chop of people's heads off.

Last week in my area three people were killed in an auto accident

You don't need a gun. Get the picture?

You might get shot by your kids your wife, or a road rage, or a fired co-worker, might shoot you for one reason or another it doesn't have to be a gang member.
Last shootings in my area:
Work violence, son killed his dad, man killed his wife.
In other countries they fist fight it at worst. Get the picture?

Or you might get shot by a Muslim terrorist. You don't even need a gun, they use cars, knives, chop of people's heads off.

Last week in my area three people were killed in an auto accident

You don't need a gun. Get the picture?