What is meant when people say 'guns don't kill people; people do'?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,332
6,617
113
Sorry, but I disagree with you conclusions...
Again, requiring payment for liability insurance is ok with something that is not an inalienable right....
I would love to see the line item on an insurance policy that insures against stupid or inflammatory/offensive speech. It may exist, but I'd still like to see it...
My company "insures" against my saying anything "bad" by telling me that my employment will be terminated if I do so... I don't have to pay anything for it, though.

I'm pretty sure the cost of a beer in a bar is higher to cover the bar's profit and overhead, which certainly includes insurance.
Not quite the same as my having to go pay for a personal liability policy if I want to drink a beer in a bar.... you are reaching.....
and that argument is moot, anyway, because I could just drink at home.
Guns are not an inalienable right, a well regulated militia is. There is nothing well regulated by someone who is able to kill 21 people and have no liability to pay for what he did.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,332
6,617
113
So, how do you figure that licenseing/insuring/registering a fire arm would stop anyone from killing others, just wonderingj? Thanks.

And, BTW, I personally have no real answer to the terrible amount of murders in the USA, whether it be by gun or other means.
When we required liability insurance for cars accidents went down. Why is that? Well the insurance companies had a vested interest in lowering the cost and amount of accidents. They lobbied for laws like seat belts, and air bags, and a whole long list of other things. They rated cars on their safety, etc.

How an insurance agency can reduce the killings


The insurance companies would bring that same approach to bear on guns.

1. How many kids are accidentally shot in the house? They will make having a gun safe a big savings item and in that way more people will have them, use them and that will help.

2. They will give discounts to people who take gun safety classes and who knows out of thousands of people that may also reduce the people who are shot.

3. They will deny insurance to gang bangers so if they are ever caught with a gun it will be unlicensed, uninsured, and those two offenses alone allow the police to hold these guys for weeks while they investigate if this gun has been involved in any crimes.

4. If someone like this shooter in Texas or the guy who shot up the Batman movie buys 3,000 rounds of ammo and two expensive guns the insurance agency will be notified immediately. They have powerful computers, algorithms and AI which would figure out immediately we have a red flag. These things generally take a few weeks before an event. They could put their investigators on it immediately to check social media and see if this guy has posted anything. An event like we saw in Texas could cost them $50 million so as the red flags keep popping up the urgency to investigate and hopefully prevent such a thing would justify any expense. They might question people at school and neighbors who say this guy is trouble. Within 24 hours they might realize he has made 83k worth of purchases with seemingly no income. If you have a company with all the resources in the world, $50 million worth of motivation to prevent a killing, and three or four red flags they might even hire a private eye to watch this kid around the clock. One of the very big common factors in all these shootings is that the people post stuff on the internet or their friends, neighbors or classmates know they are trouble. Imagine if you gave that school a 30 minute warning to go into complete lockdown. The Super discovers one door has been sabotaged, he gets a lock and chain and locks it from within. The kid is not getting in the building. Not only so but two police in a police car meet him as he drives up to the school with the private eye following.

But all of that is window dressing. Here is the biggest advantage

5. The vast majority of gun violence is in the five or six biggest cities in the country. Police could shut this down very quickly if they had a little help. Right now every gun has an identifying mark they leave on the bullet and on the shell casing. Police find shell casings and bullets at a crime scene they can immediately, within an hour or two, get that ID on the gun. However, they are not allowed to have a digitized record of all guns, so they then have to compare that ID with millions and millions of IDs on paper. It is impossible. However, if every gun were insured all the insurance companies would have a digitized record. The police could send out this ID to all insurance companies who would then have to check their records to answer the subpoena and then send back the information. Since the guns are tracked from manufacture the trail will probably lead to a store that sold a hundred guns to a mule. Gangs hire guys without criminal records to drive somewhere, buy all their guns and then come back. This would lead the police to the mule. He would probably argue that the gun was stolen from him. However, if fifty guns he bought from this store all ended up in the hands of gang members who committed crimes he could be tried as an accomplice. The police can now shut down this store and the mule, shutting off the supply of guns to the gang. If guns become scarce they won't throw them away and thus when the police arrest gang members with guns it won't just be unlicensed and uninsured it will put them as being involved in those crimes.

Right now the police are being overwhelmed. They have other tools that would be very helpful in solving gun crimes, but this is the big issue. Fix this problem and people who commit crimes with guns will be caught, prosecuted and taken off the streets and soon felons won't own any guns.

So yes, every now and then we get some guy without a record who shoots a bunch of people, but 90% of the killing is done by felons. Get the guns out of the hands of felons and you will solve 90% of the problem.
 
C

ChristianTonyB

Guest
You wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near my home hornetguy, or anyone else like you for that matter. Certainly not in my army, if you needed to rely on semi-automatic fire to get the job done.

I can’t comprehend that some of you Americans, and some claiming to be Christian, believe it’s good for a modern society as a norm (ie built into a constitution) to allow members of the public to carry semi-automatic or concealed weapons. It's just plainly irrational. I’m neither republican or democrat, or green or any other polarised colour of politics, and I certainly don’t believe any of the conspiracy theories that some have put up on here. Shooting purely for sport is just plainly blood lust at play. If that’s you, then please stay out of my country, and I’ll promise also to never go to yours!
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
Guns are not an inalienable right, a well regulated militia is. There is nothing well regulated by someone who is able to kill 21 people and have no liability to pay for what he did.

There are laws on the books, start there, enforce them.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
You wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near my home hornetguy, or anyone else like you for that matter. Certainly not in my army, if you needed to rely on semi-automatic fire to get the job done.

I can’t comprehend that some of you Americans, and some claiming to be Christian, believe it’s good for a modern society as a norm (ie built into a constitution) to allow members of the public to carry semi-automatic or concealed weapons. It's just plainly irrational. I’m neither republican or democrat, or green or any other polarised colour of politics, and I certainly don’t believe any of the conspiracy theories that some have put up on here. Shooting purely for sport is just plainly blood lust at play. If that’s you, then please stay out of my country, and I’ll promise also to never go to yours!

My husband has his CCW and only has it for our protection. A few Sundays ago a man walked into a church a few towns from us ranting about killing the mayor and out of control. The men were able to subdue him without any issues. But that small town could have been on the news that weekend with a totally different outcome. Criminals will not give up their guns. Gun control is punishing law abiding citizens. If anyone thinks that making that 18 yr old wait for a week to get his guns would have changed anything, you're fooling yourselves.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,075
1,702
113
Guns are not an inalienable right, a well regulated militia is. There is nothing well regulated by someone who is able to kill 21 people and have no liability to pay for what he did.
No, the well regulated militia is the necessity that makes it the right of "the people" being armed...being able to KEEP and BEAR arms.... so that we can HAVE a well regulated militia, if necessary.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,075
1,702
113
You wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near my home hornetguy, or anyone else like you for that matter. Certainly not in my army, if you needed to rely on semi-automatic fire to get the job done.

I can’t comprehend that some of you Americans, and some claiming to be Christian, believe it’s good for a modern society as a norm (ie built into a constitution) to allow members of the public to carry semi-automatic or concealed weapons. It's just plainly irrational. I’m neither republican or democrat, or green or any other polarised colour of politics, and I certainly don’t believe any of the conspiracy theories that some have put up on here. Shooting purely for sport is just plainly blood lust at play. If that’s you, then please stay out of my country, and I’ll promise also to never go to yours!
Well, I don't know what "your" country is, but if I was there, I would abide by its laws. Just like you....

I am less of a threat to you than nearly anybody else is. If I showed up with a baseball bat, would you run, shrieking in terror? You DO know that more than twice as many people are killed every year with blunt instruments like hammers and bats than guns, right?

Your ideas of what an "army" needs in the way of weapons is purely ignorance...
 

arthurfleminger

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2021
1,405
778
113
Just something to think about....take out suicide and accidents, and the USA doesn't even rank in the top 10 worldwide for gun related Homicides.... https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
I did a brief scan on your map for gun deaths per year. Great Britain/Canada/Russia all had less than 1,000 gun deaths per year, to include suicides. But the USA had over 40,000, including suicides. You can skew statistics any way you want, but something's obviously out of kilter with the gun deaths in the USA.
 
C

ChristianTonyB

Guest
My husband has his CCW and only has it for our protection. A few Sundays ago a man walked into a church a few towns from us ranting about killing the mayor and out of control. The men were able to subdue him without any issues. But that small town could have been on the news that weekend with a totally different outcome. Criminals will not give up their guns. Gun control is punishing law abiding citizens. If anyone thinks that making that 18 yr old wait for a week to get his guns would have changed anything, you're fooling yourselves.
I understand your perspective KG, but the record from other countries suggest that, unless you are being invaded or in the throws of a civil war, the balance favours control of semi-auto weapons of any kind. Recent history suggests such weapons ought be restricted for use by law enforcement officers and defence personnel only, and then only whilst they are exercising their government appointed duty.

We had one of our Aussie ladies shot by a policeman in the US a while back, because she approached a police car that had responded to her 999 call. One might say that the policeman that shot her was a bit of a cowboy, but he may also have been reacting from fear because anyone, anytime, might pull a gun on them.
Irrespective, it was a tragedy. She could walk up to a police car anytime over here feeling secure that her life would not be at risk. As near as I can tell, most mass shootings in the US have not been perpetrated by convicted criminals, but by members of the public that have an axe to grind, or have become deranged by some political or religious persuasion.
 
C

ChristianTonyB

Guest
Well, I don't know what "your" country is, but if I was there, I would abide by its laws. Just like you....

I am less of a threat to you than nearly anybody else is. If I showed up with a baseball bat, would you run, shrieking in terror? You DO know that more than twice as many people are killed every year with blunt instruments like hammers and bats than guns, right?

Your ideas of what an "army" needs in the way of weapons is purely ignorance...
You turn up at my place at night with a baseball bat, I would simply close the door and ring the police.

How can my thoughts on the military be ignorant. I'm a Vietnam Veteran, and had active service in an infantry battalion. I carried and used an armelite. I had a machine gun (M60) team in my section. The rest of my section were armed with SLRs. We knew how to use them, and did. Single shot and short bursts were generally the order of the day, and we're normally sufficient. I've had bullets whizzing around my ears, and have had mates killed and wounded. I've seen what bullets do to human flesh.

Semi-auto weapons in the hands of the general public is just plain idiocy.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,332
6,617
113
No, the well regulated militia is the necessity that makes it the right of "the people" being armed...being able to KEEP and BEAR arms.... so that we can HAVE a well regulated militia, if necessary.
This doesn't change the fact that the right involves a well regulated militia. There is nothing well regulated about a kid shooting and killing 21 people, dying in the gunfire, and having no liability.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,332
6,617
113
I did a brief scan on your map for gun deaths per year. Great Britain/Canada/Russia all had less than 1,000 gun deaths per year, to include suicides. But the USA had over 40,000, including suicides. You can skew statistics any way you want, but something's obviously out of kilter with the gun deaths in the USA.
St. Louis Mo, murder capital of the US, has 64.54 murders per 100,000 per year.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/66/

If the US were at that rate we would have 225,000 gun murders a year.

12 major cities have just hit homicide records for 2021.

Portland, Tuscon, Alburquerque, St. Paul, Indianapolis, Toledo, Rochester, Philadelphia, Louisville, Columbus, Baton Rogue, and Austin.

Chicago leads the nation with the total number of gun homicide

https://abcnews.go.com/US/12-major-us-cities-top-annual-homicide-records/story?id=81466453

What is interesting is that if you take the ten worst cities out of the equation the US looks very good compared to all other nations. You have a tale of two different countries, those in the big cities and those in the more rural areas. It is absurd for NY or LA or Philadelphia or St. Louis to legislate to the rest of the country. Let each city and each state have their own laws based on their situation. NYC is very different from the Adirondacks.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
I understand your perspective KG, but the record from other countries suggest that, unless you are being invaded or in the throws of a civil war, the balance favours control of semi-auto weapons of any kind. Recent history suggests such weapons ought be restricted for use by law enforcement officers and defence personnel only, and then only whilst they are exercising their government appointed duty.

We had one of our Aussie ladies shot by a policeman in the US a while back, because she approached a police car that had responded to her 999 call. One might say that the policeman that shot her was a bit of a cowboy, but he may also have been reacting from fear because anyone, anytime, might pull a gun on them.
Irrespective, it was a tragedy. She could walk up to a police car anytime over here feeling secure that her life would not be at risk. As near as I can tell, most mass shootings in the US have not been perpetrated by convicted criminals, but by members of the public that have an axe to grind, or have become deranged by some political or religious persuasion.

Mind you I am from Canada so I do see things a bit differently. I recall we were at our local capital building and I had my little dog with me. My husband and I and my mother were walking around the building, which is common to do there. Suddenly a man in uniform stepped up to me and I though he was going to say "nice day", it's the south. No, he said " Ma'am you need to get that dog off the property." I asked why and he said dogs go to the bathroom in the grass and then it has to be cleaned up. So my husband started to walk away. And I said "where is the sign that says "no dogs" or that you need to clean up after your dog?" So he got ignorant and said " I said to get the dog off the property!!" So my husband apologized and we left.

Now I had everything I needed to clean up after my pup. And my husband got upset with me and said "You aren't in Canada now, you can't question an officer"!! But for me it was the principle of the thing. So, called the capitol and asked if they could explain exactly where the signs were that dogs were not allowed or that they must be picked up after. They admitted there was no such sign and apologized for the security guard. I went back with my dog again, hoping to see him but never saw him again. My husband is very nervous around police and I told him he has to stop it, you look guilty. I told him he has rights, there is law and they have to follow it the same as we do. But, I'm not from America so I see police differently.

I do agree with the mood of the country though. There is too much rhetoric going on and it's leading to problems. For the president to say there is going to be a revolution over Roe v Wade you're calling for people, especially unstable people, to act out. This has been going on for quite a while in this country and it's part of the issue in certain cases. But these mass shooters are all men. I have to wonder that men are now considered to be toxic if they are not gay or trans hasn't been part of the issue too.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
I did a brief scan on your map for gun deaths per year. Great Britain/Canada/Russia all had less than 1,000 gun deaths per year, to include suicides. But the USA had over 40,000, including suicides. You can skew statistics any way you want, but something's obviously out of kilter with the gun deaths in the USA.

Obviously America is different. They were founded on the right to bear arms. So of course there are more guns and opportunity for misuse of a gun.
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
13,572
9,091
113
I did a brief scan on your map for gun deaths per year. Great Britain/Canada/Russia all had less than 1,000 gun deaths per year, to include suicides. But the USA had over 40,000, including suicides. You can skew statistics any way you want, but something's obviously out of kilter with the gun deaths in the USA.
Untied Stated population: 340 million

Great Britain population: 65 million

Canadian population: 38 million


Certainly not evenly slightly a fair comparison.

The US had a slightly lower suicide rate than Britain or Canada up until fairly recently.
  • The total age-adjusted suicide rate in the United States increased 35.2% from 10.5 per 100,000 in 1999 to 14.2 per 100,000 in 2018, before declining to 13.9 per 100,000 in 2019.



The British suicide rate of 11.2 deaths per 100,000 population recorded by the Office for National Statistics

Suicide is among the leading causes of death in Canada, particularly among men. On average, approximately 4,000 Canadians die by suicide every year — about 11 suicides per 100,000 people in Canada.


And let’s not forget that the primary reason for the 2nd amendment isn’t hunting or even self defense , but to have a well armed militia in the event of an oppressive government.

Guns are how freedom is maintained.