So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[2aguy]

There is no accurate tracking of Homicides by firearm in this country.

How is the FBI number inaccurate?

He bought the propaganda from the gun grabbers that there is no gun research because of the rascally republicans....he doesn't understand the CDC and the FBI chart homicides all on their own....

 

[2aguy]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

i would like to pick apart every one of your idiotic proposals, but for now i will concentrate on just the most stupid one,
#3 Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
then we need to make automobile makers liable, knife makers, ball bats, pens and pencils, scissors, medicines, poisons etc. in fact any thing that can be used as a potential weapon.

... and with a garden fork

Well no.

Unlike that list of products you provided, none are used for the specific purpose of killing human beings. Guns, however, are used to kill human beings.

Additionally, the manufacturers of the products you mention are liable in many cases if their product harms or kills a human being.

That unique property of a firearm adds a great deal of danger to the public. The "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution, includes keeping American citizens relatively safe, both from foreign and domestic threats.

We have a pretty big problem in this country with firearms. That would place the solution in either the public and/or private realms. Right now? Neither is doing much of anything and the current situation is entirely unacceptable.

So unless gun manufacturers enact some sort of protocol that minimizes the risk to human beings, they should be held responsible if their product does harm.

Simple enough.

You forgot that guns are used for self defense. You're not living in reality.

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

Actually, guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food.....and most guns save lives without ever firing a shot...since most self defense use by civilians has the criminal running away or being captured...or injured...only rarely do civilians have to kill violent, sociopath attackers......

Most police never fire their weapons, but the presence of those weapons saves lives and deters bad guys....and most soldiers never fire their weapons....so no....guns do not have to kill to serve their primary purpose, saving the life of the user.

 

[idb]

i would like to pick apart every one of your idiotic proposals, but for now i will concentrate on just the most stupid one,
#3 Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
then we need to make automobile makers liable, knife makers, ball bats, pens and pencils, scissors, medicines, poisons etc. in fact any thing that can be used as a potential weapon.

... and with a garden fork

Well no.

Unlike that list of products you provided, none are used for the specific purpose of killing human beings. Guns, however, are used to kill human beings.

Additionally, the manufacturers of the products you mention are liable in many cases if their product harms or kills a human being.

That unique property of a firearm adds a great deal of danger to the public. The "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution, includes keeping American citizens relatively safe, both from foreign and domestic threats.

We have a pretty big problem in this country with firearms. That would place the solution in either the public and/or private realms. Right now? Neither is doing much of anything and the current situation is entirely unacceptable.

So unless gun manufacturers enact some sort of protocol that minimizes the risk to human beings, they should be held responsible if their product does harm.

Simple enough.

You forgot that guns are used for self defense. You're not living in reality.

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

Actually, guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food.....and most guns save lives without ever firing a shot...since most self defense use by civilians has the criminal running away or being captured...or injured...only rarely do civilians have to kill violent, sociopath attackers......

Most police never fire their weapons, but the presence of those weapons saves lives and deters bad guys....and most soldiers never fire their weapons....so no....guns do not have to kill to serve their primary purpose, saving the life of the user.

guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food

How do you know that?
The earliest gun I can find mention of was a military weapon.

 

[2aguy]

Well no.

Unlike that list of products you provided, none are used for the specific purpose of killing human beings. Guns, however, are used to kill human beings.

Additionally, the manufacturers of the products you mention are liable in many cases if their product harms or kills a human being.

That unique property of a firearm adds a great deal of danger to the public. The "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution, includes keeping American citizens relatively safe, both from foreign and domestic threats.

We have a pretty big problem in this country with firearms. That would place the solution in either the public and/or private realms. Right now? Neither is doing much of anything and the current situation is entirely unacceptable.

So unless gun manufacturers enact some sort of protocol that minimizes the risk to human beings, they should be held responsible if their product does harm.

Simple enough.

You forgot that guns are used for self defense. You're not living in reality.

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

Actually, guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food.....and most guns save lives without ever firing a shot...since most self defense use by civilians has the criminal running away or being captured...or injured...only rarely do civilians have to kill violent, sociopath attackers......

Most police never fire their weapons, but the presence of those weapons saves lives and deters bad guys....and most soldiers never fire their weapons....so no....guns do not have to kill to serve their primary purpose, saving the life of the user.

guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food

How do you know that?
The earliest gun I can find mention of was a military weapon.

If it was a military weapon it was meant to save the life of the soldier using it.

 

[idb]

You forgot that guns are used for self defense. You're not living in reality.

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

Actually, guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food.....and most guns save lives without ever firing a shot...since most self defense use by civilians has the criminal running away or being captured...or injured...only rarely do civilians have to kill violent, sociopath attackers......

Most police never fire their weapons, but the presence of those weapons saves lives and deters bad guys....and most soldiers never fire their weapons....so no....guns do not have to kill to serve their primary purpose, saving the life of the user.

guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food

How do you know that?
The earliest gun I can find mention of was a military weapon.

If it was a military weapon it was meant to save the life of the soldier using it.

If military weapons are only used for self-defence...why do people get killed during a war?

 

[Campbell]

just what is wrong with the rich getting richer poor mindless moron?'
dont you want to get richer?

I'm rich enough. I worked for the same company 41 years and retired to a brick house on the lake 22 years ago. I paid taxes on my income which in those days was fair. After Reagan the richest quit paying their share. That's when I stopped voting for Republicans. It would have been different if Reagan hadn't gone in debt for what he spent. The absolute effect of what he did....than George W. Bush did the same thing again, was borrow trillions of dollars from foreign banks and funnel it into the pockets of the rich in the form of tax cuts. If you can't see that you've got one helluva perception problem:

..........................Total U S Debt...........................

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[2aguy]

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

Actually, guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food.....and most guns save lives without ever firing a shot...since most self defense use by civilians has the criminal running away or being captured...or injured...only rarely do civilians have to kill violent, sociopath attackers......

Most police never fire their weapons, but the presence of those weapons saves lives and deters bad guys....and most soldiers never fire their weapons....so no....guns do not have to kill to serve their primary purpose, saving the life of the user.

guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food

How do you know that?
The earliest gun I can find mention of was a military weapon.

If it was a military weapon it was meant to save the life of the soldier using it.

If military weapons are only used for self-defence...why do people get killed during a war?

Sometimes to save the life of the user you have to stop the individual attacking him......because sometimes politely asking them to stop just doesn't get the job done.......

And keep in mind...for the old, the weak, women, the injured and the handicapped....as well as the individual against multiple attackers, guns are the best way to stay alive....

 

[2aguy]

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

Actually, guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food.....and most guns save lives without ever firing a shot...since most self defense use by civilians has the criminal running away or being captured...or injured...only rarely do civilians have to kill violent, sociopath attackers......

Most police never fire their weapons, but the presence of those weapons saves lives and deters bad guys....and most soldiers never fire their weapons....so no....guns do not have to kill to serve their primary purpose, saving the life of the user.

guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food

How do you know that?
The earliest gun I can find mention of was a military weapon.

If it was a military weapon it was meant to save the life of the soldier using it.

If military weapons are only used for self-defence...why do people get killed during a war?

And I never said they were only used for self defense...I said they were created to save the life of the user....different things altogether....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

just what is wrong with the rich getting richer poor mindless moron?'
dont you want to get richer?

I'm rich enough. I worked for the same company 41 years and retired to a brick house on the lake 22 years ago. I paid taxes on my income which in those days was fair. After Reagan the richest quit paying their share. That's when I stopped voting for Republicans. It would have been different if Reagan hadn't gone in debt for what he spent. The absolute effect of what he did....than George W. Bush did the same thing again, was borrow trillions of dollars from foreign banks and funnel it into the pockets of the rich in the form of tax cuts. If you can't see that you've got one helluva perception problem:

..........................Total U S Debt...........................

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

The richest quit paying their fair share? Their "fair share" as you call it was 70%. Add state, city and county taxes, government ended up with most all of the money.

But I guess that's fair, huh?

 

[Kosh]

just what is wrong with the rich getting richer poor mindless moron?'
dont you want to get richer?

I'm rich enough. I worked for the same company 41 years and retired to a brick house on the lake 22 years ago. I paid taxes on my income which in those days was fair. After Reagan the richest quit paying their share. That's when I stopped voting for Republicans. It would have been different if Reagan hadn't gone in debt for what he spent. The absolute effect of what he did....than George W. Bush did the same thing again, was borrow trillions of dollars from foreign banks and funnel it into the pockets of the rich in the form of tax cuts. If you can't see that you've got one helluva perception problem:

..........................Total U S Debt...........................

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Even if you taxed the rich at 90% it would still not fix the problem..

So you vote for people that will spend other peoples money without impunity, that is worse than tax cuts..

WE have a spending problem in this country, not a revenue problem..

 

[2aguy]

just what is wrong with the rich getting richer poor mindless moron?'
dont you want to get richer?

I'm rich enough. I worked for the same company 41 years and retired to a brick house on the lake 22 years ago. I paid taxes on my income which in those days was fair. After Reagan the richest quit paying their share. That's when I stopped voting for Republicans. It would have been different if Reagan hadn't gone in debt for what he spent. The absolute effect of what he did....than George W. Bush did the same thing again, was borrow trillions of dollars from foreign banks and funnel it into the pockets of the rich in the form of tax cuts. If you can't see that you've got one helluva perception problem:

..........................Total U S Debt...........................

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Reagan went into debt because tip o'neal lied to him and the democrats wouldn't stop spending money......it isn't that the rich don't pay...it is the greedy politicians spend too much...always has been the problem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

just what is wrong with the rich getting richer poor mindless moron?'
dont you want to get richer?

I'm rich enough. I worked for the same company 41 years and retired to a brick house on the lake 22 years ago. I paid taxes on my income which in those days was fair. After Reagan the richest quit paying their share. That's when I stopped voting for Republicans. It would have been different if Reagan hadn't gone in debt for what he spent. The absolute effect of what he did....than George W. Bush did the same thing again, was borrow trillions of dollars from foreign banks and funnel it into the pockets of the rich in the form of tax cuts. If you can't see that you've got one helluva perception problem:

..........................Total U S Debt...........................

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Even if you taxed the rich at 90% it would still not fix the problem..

So you vote for people that will spend other peoples money without impunity, that is worse than tax cuts..

WE have a spending problem in this country, not a revenue problem..

If the tax rate were 0%, the government would collect 0 dollars.

If the tax rate were 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

 

[Kosh]

just what is wrong with the rich getting richer poor mindless moron?'
dont you want to get richer?

I'm rich enough. I worked for the same company 41 years and retired to a brick house on the lake 22 years ago. I paid taxes on my income which in those days was fair. After Reagan the richest quit paying their share. That's when I stopped voting for Republicans. It would have been different if Reagan hadn't gone in debt for what he spent. The absolute effect of what he did....than George W. Bush did the same thing again, was borrow trillions of dollars from foreign banks and funnel it into the pockets of the rich in the form of tax cuts. If you can't see that you've got one helluva perception problem:

..........................Total U S Debt...........................

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Reagan went into debt because tip o'neal lied to him and the democrats wouldn't stop spending money......it isn't that the rich don't pay...it is the greedy politicians spend too much...always has been the problem.

Not to mention the far left made the Social Security trust fund part of the money they could spend..

 

[idb]

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

Actually, guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food.....and most guns save lives without ever firing a shot...since most self defense use by civilians has the criminal running away or being captured...or injured...only rarely do civilians have to kill violent, sociopath attackers......

Most police never fire their weapons, but the presence of those weapons saves lives and deters bad guys....and most soldiers never fire their weapons....so no....guns do not have to kill to serve their primary purpose, saving the life of the user.

guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food

How do you know that?
The earliest gun I can find mention of was a military weapon.

If it was a military weapon it was meant to save the life of the soldier using it.

If military weapons are only used for self-defence...why do people get killed during a war?

And I never said they were only used for self defense...I said they were created to save the life of the user....different things altogether....

Why would they be needed to save the life of the user then...if both sides were only using them to save their own life there would be no-one shooting at each other.
Are you saying that they were invented by the military to save their soldiers from, I don't know, bear attacks maybe?

 

[2aguy]

Actually, guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food.....and most guns save lives without ever firing a shot...since most self defense use by civilians has the criminal running away or being captured...or injured...only rarely do civilians have to kill violent, sociopath attackers......

Most police never fire their weapons, but the presence of those weapons saves lives and deters bad guys....and most soldiers never fire their weapons....so no....guns do not have to kill to serve their primary purpose, saving the life of the user.

guns were created to save the life of the user from either human or animal attack and to help provide food

How do you know that?
The earliest gun I can find mention of was a military weapon.

If it was a military weapon it was meant to save the life of the soldier using it.

If military weapons are only used for self-defence...why do people get killed during a war?

And I never said they were only used for self defense...I said they were created to save the life of the user....different things altogether....

Why would they be needed to save the life of the user then...if both sides were only using them to save their own life there would be no-one shooting at each other.
Are you saying that they were invented by the military to save their soldiers from, I don't know, bear attacks maybe?

Well..see...in life...some people are bad, some people are good, and the bad guys use things to do bad things...while good guys use them to protect themselves and other innocent people....

See, bad guys will use anything they can to hurt other people....including guns...so good guys use their guns to stop them...thereby saving lives.....

 

[idb]

How do you know that?
The earliest gun I can find mention of was a military weapon.

If it was a military weapon it was meant to save the life of the soldier using it.

If military weapons are only used for self-defence...why do people get killed during a war?

And I never said they were only used for self defense...I said they were created to save the life of the user....different things altogether....

Why would they be needed to save the life of the user then...if both sides were only using them to save their own life there would be no-one shooting at each other.
Are you saying that they were invented by the military to save their soldiers from, I don't know, bear attacks maybe?

Well..see...in life...some people are bad, some people are good, and the bad guys use things to do bad things...while good guys use them to protect themselves and other innocent people....

See, bad guys will use anything they can to hurt other people....including guns...so good guys use their guns to stop them...thereby saving lives.....

So were guns invented by the good guys or the bad guys?
That must be the important question to be answered for us to get to the bottom of this.

 

[2aguy]

If it was a military weapon it was meant to save the life of the soldier using it.

If military weapons are only used for self-defence...why do people get killed during a war?

And I never said they were only used for self defense...I said they were created to save the life of the user....different things altogether....

Why would they be needed to save the life of the user then...if both sides were only using them to save their own life there would be no-one shooting at each other.
Are you saying that they were invented by the military to save their soldiers from, I don't know, bear attacks maybe?

Well..see...in life...some people are bad, some people are good, and the bad guys use things to do bad things...while good guys use them to protect themselves and other innocent people....

See, bad guys will use anything they can to hurt other people....including guns...so good guys use their guns to stop them...thereby saving lives.....

So were guns invented by the good guys or the bad guys?
That must be the important question to be answered for us to get to the bottom of this.

It doesn't matter really, in either case it was invented to save the life of the user....right?

 

[idb]

If military weapons are only used for self-defence...why do people get killed during a war?

And I never said they were only used for self defense...I said they were created to save the life of the user....different things altogether....

Why would they be needed to save the life of the user then...if both sides were only using them to save their own life there would be no-one shooting at each other.
Are you saying that they were invented by the military to save their soldiers from, I don't know, bear attacks maybe?

Well..see...in life...some people are bad, some people are good, and the bad guys use things to do bad things...while good guys use them to protect themselves and other innocent people....

See, bad guys will use anything they can to hurt other people....including guns...so good guys use their guns to stop them...thereby saving lives.....

So were guns invented by the good guys or the bad guys?
That must be the important question to be answered for us to get to the bottom of this.

It doesn't matter really, in either case it was invented to save the life of the user....right?

Not if it was invented to take the life of someone else...no.

 

[2aguy]

And I never said they were only used for self defense...I said they were created to save the life of the user....different things altogether....

Why would they be needed to save the life of the user then...if both sides were only using them to save their own life there would be no-one shooting at each other.
Are you saying that they were invented by the military to save their soldiers from, I don't know, bear attacks maybe?

Well..see...in life...some people are bad, some people are good, and the bad guys use things to do bad things...while good guys use them to protect themselves and other innocent people....

See, bad guys will use anything they can to hurt other people....including guns...so good guys use their guns to stop them...thereby saving lives.....

So were guns invented by the good guys or the bad guys?
That must be the important question to be answered for us to get to the bottom of this.

It doesn't matter really, in either case it was invented to save the life of the user....right?

Not if it was invented to take the life of someone else...no.

And taking the life of another often saves the life of the user......so again, guns were created to save the life of the user......

 

[idb]

Why would they be needed to save the life of the user then...if both sides were only using them to save their own life there would be no-one shooting at each other.
Are you saying that they were invented by the military to save their soldiers from, I don't know, bear attacks maybe?

Well..see...in life...some people are bad, some people are good, and the bad guys use things to do bad things...while good guys use them to protect themselves and other innocent people....

See, bad guys will use anything they can to hurt other people....including guns...so good guys use their guns to stop them...thereby saving lives.....

So were guns invented by the good guys or the bad guys?
That must be the important question to be answered for us to get to the bottom of this.

It doesn't matter really, in either case it was invented to save the life of the user....right?

Not if it was invented to take the life of someone else...no.

And taking the life of another often saves the life of the user......so again, guns were created to save the life of the user......

Someone bursts into your house and shoots you as you're reaching for your gun.
They used a firearm to save their life.
Is that a benign use of a gun?
Can they claim self defence?