Some Say:" Guns Don't Kill People do" But Aren't Guns Weapons Created To Kill?
The reason they say that is because a gun without a person behind it will not kill a person. People supply the motives and the finger to fire a weapon. If you buy a gun nowadays and follow proper protocol then the likelihood of something happening is quite low. Some states make you conceal the weapon without the clip in. Some make you conceal the clip a certain feet away from the gun in metal reinforced safe or container, etc. Obviously, it is people who choose to break the rules, it is their choice to buy a weapon for the intent to kill, and it is ultimately them who fire the weapon.
When people make that statement they're really saying if you leave a gun laying on a table it will not kill anyone. It's not a living animal.
It's the (person) who determines if a gun will be used for going to a target practice facility, hunt for food, used for self-defense in the event their home is broken into, or to commit murder.
The primary reason I suspect guns were invented was to offer people protection from their enemies and hunt food. However a lot of things end up being used for unintended purposes.
A lot of murders are also committed by people using knives!
I'm fairly certain when the Wright Brothers were trying to build airplanes they had no thought about them one day being used to drop nuclear bombs, or have machine guns and missiles attached to them. They simply just wanted to experience flying like a bird.
It's the human's intent that determines how an object is used.
Honestly, one of the dumbest statements ever uttered. It is most often stated in the context that we should do nothing about regulating guns. The stupidity of that argument is that it works perfectly in reverse as well: guns don't defend people, people do, therefore we should make no special effort to defend access to them.
Of course if you say this to a gun lover, they will start twitching and probably launch into an irate tirade about needing their guns for self-defense. Ask them why and they'll tell you because it is exceptionally good at what it does. Oh, so a gun doesn't kill people, it just let's them do it really, really well. Yes, that was the point all along, I'm glad we agree. Now can we be adults and establish reasonable regulations for this particularly effective and dangerous tool, just as we do for every other dangerous tool.
I'm happen to like guns and no I'm not twitching or irate tirade either. That is how you feel but you really should ask others how they feel. Your wrong I disagree with your statement. My guns aren't for self defense, try hunting. Women do hunt.
Hunt all you want, with a registered weapon, having passed background/mental health checks, proper training, and weapons that you keep properly stored, etc.
Below you state "2/3 murders are by firearms". I respectfully disagree, as these facts are not true, at least in the US. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co … than-rifle
That article is referring to rifles and shotguns, not all firearms. While blunt weapons were used in 496 murders, handguns were used in 6,220.
Yes...handguns are used more often by murderers. Yet it is the "assault" rifle that is irrationally attacked with regularity as though it was somehow a greater menace. Which demonstrates the irrational emotional response.
Assault weapons are gone after because it is the only thing that can generate enough mass to move policy. But let's not pretend that the entire debate isn't poisoned by irrationalism, with at least as much of that coming from the pro-gun side.
That's not really accurate. My 30.06 hunting rifle is a more powerful weapon than my bushmaster AR15. Most hunting rifles generate more power than those classified as assault rifles.
I was mostly agreeing with you. People want something done, but most policy options don't have a chance. The angst about assault weapons (even if it is irrational) is the only thing that seems to draw enough support, so that's what we end up with.
But an extremely small fraction of gun violence is committed by people who buy guns legally. Criminals will never abide by any law we make. That's essentially what makes them criminals. Making it harder for innocent people is not sensible.
Firearms are a controllable commodity. There is no reason we can't restrict flows we don't want and expand flows we do. It is bizarre how many people act as if there is nothing at all we can do. It is defeatist and lacks imagination.
Not when it comes to criminals it's not. You can make a gun with some household materials if you wanted to. Kids in my neighborhood made ZIP guns all the time with staplers and pipe. Controlling guns is like controlling alcohol during prohibition.
Criminals having zipguns rather than real guns isn't a good thing to you? Zipguns might be like alcohol. Real guns are not.
Zip Guns are just one way. The point is that criminals will manufacture if need be just like they did alcohol and they do drugs. Since when do criminals obey the law. The only people who get affected are law abiding citizens. Chicago is a classic ex
Chicago restricted the flow of guns to lawful citizens without having any way to restrict flow to those who shouldn't have them which is the exact opposite of anything I have said.
But that's all that happens when you restrict the flow of guns. You can't restrict criminals because they laugh at whatever laws you pass. What do you think MS-13 is going to do say "Ohh...they're serious this time"
Obviously porous borders (e.g. Chicago, border with Mexico) limits the effectiveness of restrictions, but that is a separate issue.
It also's limited the effectiveness with prohibition and the war on drugs. That's why laws can generally only be reactive. Otherwise we could just make murder in general illegal regardless of the method. Oh wait, did that already. Didn't work either.
I'm talking about commodity regulation, not mind control.
Alcohol and Drugs are commodities that have been made illegal. Because people want to get them, they do. The only people who obey such laws are the good guys. Limiting firearm access only limits the law abiding citizen.
Now you are going in circles. Real firearms are not like alcohol and drugs, and we absolutely can tinker with the market to manipulate supply and access. It has nothing to do with obeying laws.
They're exactly the same.People buy heroin because they want it. No matter how dangerous it is, they acquire it and flout the law. Even make narcotics out of Sudafed.The same is true with criminals and guns. Restrictive laws are ignored by criminals
People buy heroin because they need it, so there is no rational decision involved, real firearms require sophisticated manufacturing/materials, which means centralized, fixed production nodes, etc. Apples and oranges.
Counterfeit money requires sophisticated technology. So should I assume criminals don't do that because it is illegal. And people selling heroin are rarely heroin addicts any more than Myer Lansky was a severe alcoholic during prohibition.
No, you should assume that there will be few, if any, garage printing shops that can come close to matching the real thing. A gun purchase is more rational than an addiction purchase and will respond more readily to price/access changes.
According to the OECD those garages are about 220 million in currency in the US alone and another 200 billion in global counterfeited goods. I am not talking about addiction. I am talking about sellers who laugh at the laws you assume they will obey
I have very clearly stated that I am in no way talking about anyone obeying laws or not obeying laws. Since you obviously have no interest in my actual argument, I am done with this conversation. You can argue with your imagination.
You don't have an argument. You want to restrict the flow of guns. A consensus of studies show it accomplishes nothing but restrict law abiding citizens. Because criminals don't follow the law no matter what the area of illegal activity.
I have an argument, you just continue to ignore it and invent an imaginary one. E.g. "restrict the flow of guns" is not something I ever said. I don't need to be here for you to argue with an imaginary argument.
You comments above implied we are lacking regulation in line 2. Which is hardly the case. New regulations mean further restriction to those of us who are not criminals and limiting/slowing access to innocent people.
"... restrict flows we don't want and expand flows we do."
Which can only be done when the people we "don't want" operate within the bounds of the regulations established. Which of course never happens...because they don't care what laws/regs are passed and simply ignore them operating in the black market.
Formal and informal markets are linked. Touch one, you touch the other. Is that even arguable? You are still for some reason continuing to talk about mind control.
When someone wishes to subvert the law they will, regardless of any linkage. Markets exist for anything in which there is a willing buyer. Firearms are no exception. Nothing will ever change that. Mind control has nothing to do with the topic.
Enact formal market policies that limits informal commodity availability which increases price and reduces access. It isn't about changing the interest of possession (mind control) , it is about making it more difficult and expensive.
There are no such feasible policies. Making a product more expensive makes it more profitable to sell in the black market which just attracts more illegal activity. Precisely what happened during prohibition.If there is demand there will be a seller
I would tend to agree, but would still argue that because guns are a rational purchase (unlike booze/drugs), that at some price point, you will lose a lot of buyers and keep the illegal market (and associated illegal activity) small.
Booze was a rational purpose during prohibition. Most people buying it were not addicted. They just wanted a drink. Which is why I favor legalizing drugs and crushing the profit margin in the black market. Let people poison themselves if they want.
Absent a comparative market analysis of behavioral purchases for the two commodities, I can't really argue my point, I guess. As far as legalizing drugs I totally agree.
I don't think such analysis is necessary. No matter the product/service, as long as there is demand, there will be a supplier. Manipulating prices will only help those in the black market.If you want to stop drug abuse you educate on the demand side
I agree with the statement that people are responsible for gun deaths, not the inanimate object. But the argument always tends to devolve when other comparisons are made. Like blaming spoons for making people fat or saying that someone can be killed with a knife just as much as a gun. The difference between a spoon, a knife, and a gun, is that one can kill quickly, easily and in large quantities.
Anything can be used as a weapon, but the more deadly the weapon, the harder it should be to acquire. Gun regulation is not the same thing as a gun ban. If sensible people can still get guns, then we're not living in a dictatorship. If non-sensible people can get guns then we're living in a much more dangerous country. Bad guys will always find ways to get a gun, but that doesn't mean we should cut out the middle man and just hand them the weapons. If we think North Korea is going to acquire a nuke, we don't just give them one because it's inevitable.
M.T. Dremer and junkseller. I agree
dashingscorpio's argument that planes weren't invented to kill, but are now used to kill is interesting, but the difference is, that guns "were' made to kill and are used to kill justifiably or unjustifiably.
vveasey, I'm not denying that guns were made to kill. I'm just also acknowledging you can't separate the gun from the (user's intention). Mankind has always looked for more effective ways to kill one another. From sling shots and spears to bombs.
That’s true, but when you say or imply that that knives, planes or anything can be used to kill. Don’t you trivialize the deadliness of those weapons that were created specifically, to be deadly weapons used to kill?
Guns were created
vveasey, I'm not trivializing the deadliness of guns. I'm just pointing out the evil in some people's hearts. They'll use anything to turn it into a weapon to kill with. I'm not pro gun but I do acknowledge evil people will always break the law.
Deadly weapons were created to kill because of the evil in some peoples hearts. I'm not pro gun or against guns. You say anything can be used as a weapon. A gun can kill multiple people at a distance.Can a knife, a rock, pencil or a book do that?
Take a look at England where guns are banned. Who has the guns in England? Is the crime rate higher now in England? The police don't have guns but the criminals do in England. Yes the crime rate in England has gone up since the banned of guns.
Mr. Dremer needs to understand that it is ALREADY illegal for certainly classes of people to buy, own, or even be in the same room whit a firearm.
I Deleted someone's answer by accident. If you're reading this please accept my apology and repost your answer .
Guns are created for defense as well as hunting and sport. Guns are inanimate objects, no different than a knife, bow and arrow, pencil, or a car. A gun cannot kill anyone without the use of a person, the same as a knife cannot stab someone to death, and a pencil cannot misspell a word.
There is little credible evidence that more guns equal more violence. The National Academy of Sciences in 2004 issued a 328 page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent research. In short, the panel could find no clear link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.
Violence with guns or any other type of weapon is a cultural problem in a society, not the existence of a weapon. There are places in the world like Switzerland where nearly everyone between 20-30 are required to own a military weapon due to their lack of a standing military defense. And private fire arm ownership is fairly high, yet they show a very low violence rate.
More importantly too many Americans fail to understand the purpose of the second amendment. A key reason for such a constitutional right was the desire for the people to be able to protect themselves from the gov’t, not the other way around. It is check against a potential tyrannical gov't.
Even worse is many of the restrictions make the weapon more dangerous. NY recently passed the Safe Act. Under this stupid rule a weapon with a flash suppressor, collapsable stock or pistol grip is now classified as an assault weapon and banned. Since my bushmaster has a pistol grip, it had to be permanently removed. Firing the weapon now makes it much more difficult to control, and increases the risk of an accident.
Guns will never go away. When i was a kid in NYC, kids in the neighborhood used to make there own zip guns with a piece of pipe and staplers. People that want to hurt people will always find a way. A truck load of fertilizer can be more dangerous than a hand grenade if one wants it to be.
Classic example. Gun as a defender is so vital and important that it needs its own amendment. But to someone concerned about its capacity to harm them, it all of a sudden is just an inanimate object no different from a pencil. Sure.
It needs it's own amd because it is a necessary tool to empower people in the face of tyranny and provide a counterbalance. Free speech need's an amd as well. But when it was the word's of Hitler, it too can be dangerous and used to harm people.
Sure, but when people express concern about it being an effective tool which empowers people to commit crime, then it magically turns into a thing no different than a baseball bat or knife. It can't be both ways.
Nobody saying guns aren't dangerous. Just no more dangerous than a van full of fertilizer which is more easily attained. People express concerns about political speech inciting violence. Do you want to restrict access to that also.
You're dodging the issue. A gun is special or it isn't. Your side only considers it special when it wants to. If it isn't special, then change the 2nd to protect your right to a van full of fertilizer, pencils, and bubblegum.
What's special is the right to protect ourselves from tyranny. The framers just recognized arms as a useful and necessary tool in doing so. If there are nuts out there that try to ban fertilizer than perhaps we'll need an amd for that as well.
You are correct. Nice job of putting it into words. See where I posted about Thomas Jefferson on the second amendment.
"Arms" are defined a weapons. Guns become the topic or "special" because that's the type of weapon that most people are focused on taking away with little regard for the fact that no credible evidence suggests gun restrictions reduce crime.
junk has problems with the idea of freedom and others being able to freely exercise it outside his narrow understanding.
Jack has problems with lying about people's positions and then insulting them. Most likely because of a complete inability to formulate any cogent and intelligent argument.
I don't think Junk has a problem with freedom. I just don't think he fully appreciates the necessity for the gov't bureaucracy to have a healthy fear of those they govern. I am sure he will disagree with that interpretation of his views.
junk..... why must you be so asinine? Get off of your high horse.
JThomp42, I agree with next to nothing Junkseller says. But try to avoid the personal attacks. It makes for a devolving dialogue. There is plenty of room to go after the merits of his positions instead.
LW, actually I do, I just don't think our guns instill the slightest bit of fear in them, which seems clear considering their actions.
JThomp, Jack has insulted me directly dozens of times and will get nothing but contempt from me. Sorry.
I have to disagree with you there. If they gov't wasn't concerned about it, they wouldn't try to slowly take them away. It's not easy to round up armed populations.
There may be concern, but it would be concern about it being a bit more difficult and costly. That isn't fear, it is an efficiency interest.
Don't think so. Entire govt's have been overthrown by domestically armed populations. Often times it was well deserved. That is as big a fear as the gov't would ever have. If things got bad enough, the US is not immune to revolution.
I think guns and weapons in general are to wound people. But it's the person behind them that can take it too far and use it to kill. Merely hitting someone with a bat won't kill them. However, repeatedly doing this will eventually kill them. It's the person behind the object that kills, not the object itself.
Why didn't those doing all of these rash of mass shootings use a knife or a baseball bat to kill and wound all of those people?
Why didn't Tim McVeigh use an assault weapon ??? Each person uses whatever method of choice their distorted mind takes them towards. There was just a mass stabbing in a school a little more than a month ago. You can only defend against it.
How many mass shootings compared to mass stabbings in the last few years have there been?
Mass shootings or stabbings are both extremely rare. So it's a moot point. There are substantially more cases of people successfully defending themselves with firearms.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_ … mp;page=R1
You brought up mass stabbings
In the last year or so mass shootings have been a lot more common
A lot more common than what Tim Mc did
Actually fertilizer is the most common component in terrorist bombings. But the point is that none of these are common at all as the study linked to demonstrates. In fact they are quite remote. However, self defense with guns is very common.
Guns are very debatable objects.
Some believe they kill, others say its the responsibility on the person holding the gun. Guns aren't always used to kill, it's more of a protection business.
Personally, I don't believe that guns kill, its the person holding the gun. However, the reason to pull the trigger and who the gun is pointed at are both important facts.
The person behind the gun actually does the killing. Actually the right to own a gun is our 2nd amendment, but a person needs to use common sense when handling a deadly weapon. There are many hunters and they rarely kill a person but you have those who try and make it look like an accident. Yes it is a dangerous weapon when a person does not use common sense. How many people are killed with a knife, ax, bat, or any other object, does that make them a deadly weapon also? Check into the statics of what weapons are used to kill the most, you might be amazed.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson 1743 - 1826".
What is supposed to be amazing about deaths by other weapons? 2/3 of murders are by firearms.
I think the point some folks are missing is that even if there were no guns, people would still kill each other. Some people have the facts very wrong as well, an FBI report in 2013 showed more murders are committed using weapons other than guns.
2007-2011: 68,720 murders; 46,313 by firearms. That is 67%. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … ta-table-8
And the Incidents in which guns are used in self-defense are estimates to be between 50k-3 million times annually depending on the method. That's a lot more potential victims. A murderer will use whatever method available.
So what you are saying once again is that guns are special. That's the point. Or are you going to equally say that potential victims should just use whatever method is available to them? As if it were an insignificant distinction?
I agree Annie, the human pulling the trigger could be a killer, a hunter, a competitive shooter or a law abiding citizen who wants to be able to protect themselves from the lawless. Lawless gun owners are the ones people should focus on.
That guns are not the only weapons used to kill others. These also, knifes, bats, hammers, cars, axes, blunt objects. People who use gun illegally the ones doing most of the killing, serial killers, criminals, gang violence, not law abiding citizens.
I am saying that the right of the people to defend themselves is not to be infringed. The method is irrelevant. Guns are only special because that is the method most commonly attacked. If you try to ban a knife I would have a problem with that.
Fair enough, though, I don't think anyone mentioned bans (on this Q&A anyway).
No...but many are after banning guns...or restricting them in an unnecessary fashion from law abiding citizens.
junk wants to tie the limits of freedom based upon the actions of social deviants.
Jack wants to say something original but can't squeeze out anything but the same tiresome turd.
Sure guns are created to kill. But they are also used to defend, warn, hunt and for competition. The important thing many people fail to realize is that a sane, trained and even minimally civilized gun owner will only use theirs when appropriate such as when they are in imminent danger or at a shooting range. This doesn't mean they shouldn't have one on their person or in their home, etc.
The problem is that there are and will ALWAYS be people who do not care about laws and break them. Yet, people want to take away the guns from LAW ABIDING citizens. Why can this not be done with criminals instead of creating unarmed sheep in a fairly or very dangerous world as many people appear set on doing? That, I will never understand. I am a pro-gun lady and always will be. I also agree with the points that LandmarkWealth says here as well.
From my understanding Guns are meant for the purpose of ending pain/discomfort/misery at a much faster rate than that a death can cause. To think that guns were created to Kill would imply you have no belief system, whether it be reincarnation/ghosts, other solar systems, and God.
Guns do not kill people.... people kill people with guns. So, let us take all of the "Legal" guns away from responsible people and put them "illegally" in the hands of people who will kill. No matter if guns are taken away from us, the bad guys will always have them. Guns no more kill than a drunk driver riding a bicycle. But, put that drunk driver in a car.... he is a lethal weapon. So, it is no more feasible to outlaw guns than it is to outlaw cars. Liberal mentality never ceases to amaze me. Oh, and by the way, let us outlaw any blunt, sharp, heavy object that could be used to kill people. Let us outlaw baseball because the bats have been used to kill countless people!
This whole thing is like the chicken vs the egg. If someone wants to kill you. however, they don't need a gun to do it.
I heard an amusing one liner not to long ago. "If guns kill people there should be no survivors from a gun show."
Man is a killer, weather with a gun, knife, poison, or his hands or an atomic bomb. Man then should be criminalized and banned,
Guns are weapons created to kill. They are for killing people or animals. People say they are for defense but they are for offense. Guns don't kill. They are just tools. You could kill someone with a screwdriver. However guns were created to make it easier to kill. Body armor is made for defense. Guns are weapons. They are not very good at protecting people. Their function is to shoot bullets.
You could argue that having the ability to easily kill someone makes you safer. However lots of people have guns in the US. It is not a safe place. I live in Canada. It is a much safer place than the US and most Canadians don't own a gun. I have not seen a gun in over 10 years, except in movies and TV. The places with the most guns tend to have the most crime.
Two things here... one " Guns Don't Kill People do" is correct. If you see a gun across the room on the floor, trust me there is no need to take cover, It will not shoot you.
Two historians typically recognize Chinese fire lances, to be the first guns, they were used for war, not hunting. So yes the first gun was created to kill.
Guns are created for good and bad.. for protection and to kill people.
Guns do, in fact, kill people. That is why people like them. People don't buy guns as fashion accessories, recipe enhancers, animal restraining devices, or home-improvement hardware. They purchase a gun, for its purpose .... in case they ever feel they need it.
Yes, they also purchase them for hunting. They can be a sporting device.
But whether your target is animal or human, a gun is purchased to maim and kill. If you are an enthusiast, sure ... you can put it on display or show it off. If you are a dealer, you can buy and sell them, etc.
But the purpose of a gun is to maim and kill.
Yes. Guns do, in fact, kill people.
Yes, guns do, in fact, kill people.
Your approach in answering this is intriguing, you managed to answer the entire question, at the same time you didn't show any discernable bias to one side or the other of how the statement is used. It sounds like you accept this as a purposeful tool
my guns must be defective. in the decades I've had them even though thousands of bullets have gone thru them not a single thing has been killed. Maybe I can get my money back, eh?
This is dumb. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. I submit to you a test. Take any gun, anyone you want, and put it anywhere, see if the gun kills someone. I am willing to bet it wont. In fact I would stake money on it.
I totally agree with Jravity1 and Jack Burton.
I imagine they have a few uses besides killing, such as making your friendly neighborhood home-invasion rapist think twice about his actions. And we should remember that tired adage can be just as easily used for knives, vehicles, poison, pitch forks, ropes, exposed light sockets, even Colonel Mustard in the billiard room with the wrench-type scenario.
I know that it is the person holding the gun who kills, but if guns and knives had not been not created then how many killings would there be now compared to the amount with the guns and knives? What weapons would they use? If you say cars, how could they use cars on a 5th floor?
Hunting is still killing. There are people who have made certain animals extinct because of them. Eventually we may make all animals extinct. So I do not think guns should be used for hunting either.
Whatever you say, back it up.
Look at the percentage of innocent people killed by drunk drivers every year. And use your common sense.
Subtract the people killed by guns and knives from the total of the three, and then we will work on getting rid of alcohol. My common sense says that alcohol never should have been legalized.
People kill people. For example, people throw others off cliffs, balconies, stairs, rooftops, they strangle, gang jump, pummel and use any and everything that is not bolted down. Guns are a great deterrent and lifesaver.
Express10, 1 bullet can kill 2, maybe more people at once, and fast. Can the others?
The question is whether people or guns kill, it is clearly the person and not the object. I can push several people off a cliff, down a flight of stairs, off a roof or into the traffic. I agree fully with JThomp42.
Certain people may be able to fight you back, and also more likely to survive. Usually it is very rare for someone to survive a bullet, never mind fight back - I said that it is very rare I did not say that it is impossible.
The 1st Americans hunted giant sloths, mammoths and many other large animals to extinction 10,000 years ago with spears.
Good, then you won't mind trading in your guns and American flag panties for a spear and loincloth since they are just as effective.
People kill people,we have this hatret tht kept on growing to an extent that we dicided to invert weapons to kill our fellow beings easier and faster
"Created to kill"
Motive? If so, whose?
With a knife I can stab someone, or I can peel fruits and prune flowers.
The inanimate object gets its power from the one who uses it. Again, as I have demonstrated, it need not be bad. Actions by themselves have no power. What is of significance is the purity of the intention; sincerity of purpose. Think of an inner power that knows your thoughts and you will realise that the best judge is an internal not an external one.
So the poor gun just sits there, until a good or crazy energy picks it up and acts accordingly. Much peace.
Just like what Augustus Water's said, you'll kill nobody unless ''you'' use that gun's power to kill . Still, everything relies on ''you'' , if you'll shoot it or not.
they are created to protect ourselves and our property simple as that if someone breaks into your home and you use a gun to protect yourself your family and your belongings its not about killing is it its about protection of what you cherish
Yes guns were created to kill. The point is however they do not pull their own trigger.
Prohibitions have always worked out. :'D Just kidding, you must be a troll of an idiot.
The right way to say it is "Guns are created for self-defense." Protecting your self doesn't always mean that you have to kill. If a gun owner practices a responsible gun ownership then he knows that it is used to save lives not to kill.
by Michelle Zunter 2 years ago
More gun violence very close to where I live yesterday. Most weapons, including guns, are available to anyone in this country at any given time. But what about the people who are using the guns? Are they mentally ill? are they psychopaths? Are they terrorists? Are they all of the above? In any...
by Jeff Berndt 6 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to flip-flop on their usual arguments about gun control.The Left usually wants to restrict...
by Thomas Byers 5 years ago
Would You Give Up Your Guns To Protect American Children?Other than guns for hunting and pistols for protection would you have a problem with giving up all military style weapons to protect the children of America. Is there any reason to have military style weapons. Is there any reason for a...
by Debra Allen 5 years ago
What purpose was the first gun made?I am not talking about rifles to kill for diner or meat, but the ones that were made to kill people. Were they made to kill people at all in the first place?
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
Today marks six months since the Sandy Hook shootings. Over 5,000 people have been killed by guns since then. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … oting.htmlWhat are your thoughts?
by LoliHey 2 years ago
Cars kill people, should we ban them too?Forget that the driver may have been drunk, playing with his cell phone, not paying attention, or suffering from road rage. The car killed the person! So...we should just ban these killing machines, right? Keep in mind that although we are...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|