First Prev
of 2
Next Last
concerned

Tupper Lake, NY

#1 Dec 18, 2012
dear mr president, on sept 11, 2001 AIRPLANES killed thousands of americans. i know that trying to take away our constitutional right to own firearms is your top concern, but i am very concerned that no one has addressed the very real threat of airplanes. no where in our nations founding was the right to use airplanes important to our leaders. these flying metal beasts have claimed so many lives over the years and yet we have had no knee jerk reaction to ban them! the tragedy friday was terrible, and i know how evil guns can be, but certainly airplanes have produed a much higher body count. please mr president, ban all airplanes soon. imagine how history will always remember the preident who stopped the evil airplanes..... sincerly, a concerned citizen
Act Now

Lynchburg, VA

#2 Dec 18, 2012
That's as funny as Obama's fake tears!
Thanks for that!
Now go join the NRA...they need your support now more than ever. JOIN
concerned

Tupper Lake, NY

#3 Dec 18, 2012
already am a member :)it is as dumb as the laws they want to pass
fatbumm

Ithaca, NY

#4 Dec 18, 2012
Spoons made me fat. Spoons made my family eat more that led to diabetes. Diabetes kill. Please outlaw spoons now!!!!

“I could be wrong.”

Since: Apr 11

The Internet

#5 Dec 18, 2012
concerned wrote:
and yet we have had no knee jerk reaction to ban them!
...so did you just completely forget about the changes to our airlines following 9/11?

We DID change our laws regarding airplanes after 9/11. We instituted new security protocols and created an entire government department (the TSA) to handle it.

Remember the shoe bomber? Security immediately adapted to require passengers to remove their shoes for security checks.

We didn't "ban the airplane," because air transportation is still a very important part of our infrastructure. But we did tighten down security significantly.

And guns still kill FAR more people than airplanes.

9/11 happens? Tighten air security. Shoe bomber? Change security to address shoes. Underwear bomber? Introduce millimeter wave backscatter bodyscanners. Massive school shooting? Do nothing, change no laws, guns are fine, blame the problem on something else.

Every single time we've identified a security risk on an airplane, we have changed the security and the laws to match. Every single time we demonstrate that firearms are capable of ending even more lives than airplanes, we do NOTHING. Why are guns so sacred?

I get that you're trying to make a "common sense" analogy here, but your analogy is really terrible and doesn't hold up.
yeeah!

Ashburn, VA

#6 Dec 18, 2012
Randall Stevens wrote:
...so did you just completely forget about the changes to our airlines following 9/11?

We DID change our laws regarding airplanes after 9/11. We instituted new security protocols and created an entire government department (the TSA) to handle it.

Remember the shoe bomber? Security immediately adapted to require passengers to remove their shoes for security checks.

We didn't "ban the airplane," because air transportation is still a very important part of our infrastructure. But we did tighten down security significantly.

And guns still kill FAR more people than airplanes.

9/11 happens? Tighten air security. Shoe bomber? Change security to address shoes. Underwear bomber? Introduce millimeter wave backscatter bodyscanners. Massive school shooting? Do nothing, change no laws, guns are fine, blame the problem on something else.

Every single time we've identified a security risk on an airplane, we have changed the security and the laws to match. Every single time we demonstrate that firearms are capable of ending even more lives than airplanes, we do NOTHING. Why are guns so sacred?

I get that you're trying to make a "common sense" analogy here, but your analogy is really terrible and doesn't hold up.
your a leftest asswipe Randall and should leave the country if for any reason you believe gun control is the answer! News flash asshole that kid did not own any gun and no gum control law would have prevented him from doing so! Some people are mentally incapable of reason and some are just plain evil. Its a horrible tragedy but all we can do is move on. Guns don't kill people... People kill people! Here's a good idea lets make marijuana illegal that way people won't buy it and smoke it.......... That works wonderfully. The people that want guns to do bad things will get them regardless. Gun control only inhibits the lawful people from defending themselves. you don't see armed nut jobs walking into a police station( rarely) and killing 20 people do ya?? There's a reason for that
NRA Instructor

Ithaca, NY

#7 Dec 18, 2012
Wow, Randall, I have given you more credit than you deserve. I have always read your posts and found them intelligent, right up til now. You apparently do not know about firearms. I will educate you a bit.
1) Firearms are inanimate objects, they are incapable of causing any harm.
2) First you must load a firearm (put a bullet into it) Which requires a HUMAN
3) Then you must chamber the bullet (prepare it to fire) Which requires a HUMAN
4) Then you must align your target (aim) Which requires a HUMAN
5) Then you must pull the trigger (that little thingy that makes the gun go boom) Which, you guessed it, requires a HUMAN

You can load a gun and put it on your mantle for hundreds of years. It will never hurt a single person, animal, or unfortunate target. It is the HUMAN behind it. Banning guns will not prevent this type of thing from happening, it will only make it harder for lawful gun owners. And yes they do take steps for people buying guns legally when stuff like this happens. Hence why you have to fill out an application to buy one. Then both you and your gun are registered with the proper authorities. Criminals do not go through this process, that is why they buy them illegally. So making more laws really defeats the purpose doesn't it. While we are banning guns, we should ban cars too, they kill more people everyday than guns.
Jane P

Riverside, RI

#8 Dec 18, 2012
The answer is ban Humans

“I could be wrong.”

Since: Apr 11

The Internet

#9 Dec 18, 2012
My family has owned guns since before I was born. I've received shotguns as christmas gifts. I reload my own ammunition. My favorite shooting sport is skeet, but I don't get to enjoy it very often because it's expensive to get time on a skeet field, so instead I usually just stick to rifle targets.

The airplane analogy was a really bad argument and I wanted to point that out. Calm down.

Also your arguments are still pretty hilariously broken, especially now that you're all super mad that I decided to cast a single voice of dissent. Suddenly I'm an idiot because I disagree with you. Are you that insecure in your argument that you get angry when someone disagrees?
Gun owner and outdoorsman

Gouverneur, NY

#10 Dec 18, 2012
If you're going to say what you want to say, you're going to hear what you don't want to hear. Thank you NRA instructor - you solidified the point of millions of licensed gun owners, sportman and avid collectors. Your point was spot on and shadows the own left by Mr. Stevens. Mr. Stevens your theory on this doesn't sit well. We as a country have prided ourselves on being able to bear arms and legally. Taking it away makes no sense. Today we have many ways to work out disagreements beyond guns. Let's take a chunk of time out of the old west where gun duals and killing each other was the way of the west. We have come a long way by keeping them legal. I don't think you an idiot for casting a vote for something you feel is right...but in this situation I believe you are wrong. Idiot - noboby is calling you an idiot, but you are coming back by calling their arguments hilarious...will open you up for more criticism and finger pointing. When you develop your opinions on the basis of weak evidence, you will have difficulty interpreting subsequent information that contradicts these opinions, even if this new information is obviously more accurate. That is the truth.
Guess what

Fayetteville, NY

#11 Dec 18, 2012
Don't forget about knives, cars, human hands....it's the human that's the issue here not objects!
groovygouvy

United States

#12 Dec 18, 2012
Putting guns laws in place is futile. Look how making heroin, cocaine, LSD, and Meth illegal has worked. And in regards to semi-auto weapons. The Liberal point of view is that semi to full auto cause more damage because the shooter can shoot faster before action can be taken. Well if he would have hid 500 yards away in a ghillie suit with a single shot or bolt action scoped rifle, he could have killed just as many. We cops show up, has more targets. TS not the weapon type but the operator. I can load a gun take it off safe put it in my mouth and nothing will happen. Inamnimate objects don't force humans to do things. Case closed go back to Africa Obama.
Anonymous

Melbourne, FL

#13 Dec 18, 2012
Guns are nothing more than instruments created and designed for the specific purpose of destroying life. Comparing guns to cars is the epitome of willful ignorance. Cars (and planes, knives, and any other object that could be used to kill) serve other purposes and are designed for those purposes. Deaths due to automobiles are overwhelmingly accidental. The same can not be said of guns. Although reducing accidental gun deaths could also be beneficial.

Also, contrary to OP's absurd claim, airplanes have certainly not produced a "much higher body count." It's not even close. Ignoring the 17,352 suicides, there were 12,632 homicides committed using a gun in 2007 in the U.S., and that number has been rising since 1999. Compare that with the 971 deaths that occurred worldwide as a result of airplane accidents that year. Or, since that year was particularly good, compare it to the peak of 4,140 global airplane incident fatalities in 2001. As you know, most of those casualties were on the ground on September 11th.

No one claims that stricter regulation of guns would eliminate murder or gun-related violence completely. Although, it is impossible to dispute the argument that if every gun on earth were destroyed that there would be no gun-related death. Needless to say, realistically, the goal should be to minimize the likelihood of gun violence.

People who cling so irrationally to guns are merely masking their latent blood-lust. The fact that guns have been historically ingrained in American culture is not a valid defense to attempting to change our culture of violence.

I also enjoy the display of ignorance as far as immediately attacking Obama, despite the fact that he has not, as of yet, proposed any significant gun regulation during his entire administration, much less it being his "top concern."
jim

United States

#14 Dec 19, 2012
Drug dealers have a huge amount of people involved. working every day to move those drugs. they are moved from one country to another. one city to another. right under the noses of law enforcement. The goverment has the DEA FBI state and local police. The dealers cant be stopped. then how would a new law help find and stop one crazy person out of millions. that wants to shoot up a public place. i would gladly destroy my guns. if it would stop a mass shooting. but i know it would do no good. if a person is willing to do murder. i dont think he will say to himself. i better not use that thirty round mag. it is against the law. i will have to use a bunch of 5 round mags. if the conn. killer had used a machete there may have been more death. him going from room to room killing with no noise. the people that were saved because they heard gun shots. may also have been killed. if all guns were gone. the wack jobs would just use gasoline or one of the many ways to kill. like when archie bunkers daugther said guns should be outlawed. because people kill themselves with them. archie said would you feel better little girl if they jumped outa windows.
jim

United States

#15 Dec 19, 2012
why not put a police officer in the schools full time. their time there would be more useful than riding around and around. an officer in every school would stop most of the shootings. it would be cheaper than having the whole goverment debate over gun laws for years. plus the officer could have a job to be proud of. give him an office with monitors to watch. it would be a plus if the first responders were already there. I think we could spare one here in gouverneur.
wow

New York, NY

#16 Dec 19, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
Guns are nothing more than instruments created and designed for the specific purpose of destroying life. Comparing guns to cars is the epitome of willful ignorance. Cars (and planes, knives, and any other object that could be used to kill) serve other purposes and are designed for those purposes. Deaths due to automobiles are overwhelmingly accidental. The same can not be said of guns. Although reducing accidental gun deaths could also be beneficial.

Also, contrary to OP's absurd claim, airplanes have certainly not produced a "much higher body count." It's not even close. Ignoring the 17,352 suicides, there were 12,632 homicides committed using a gun in 2007 in the U.S., and that number has been rising since 1999. Compare that with the 971 deaths that occurred worldwide as a result of airplane accidents that year. Or, since that year was particularly good, compare it to the peak of 4,140 global airplane incident fatalities in 2001. As you know, most of those casualties were on the ground on September 11th.

No one claims that stricter regulation of guns would eliminate murder or gun-related violence completely. Although, it is impossible to dispute the argument that if every gun on earth were destroyed that there would be no gun-related death. Needless to say, realistically, the goal should be to minimize the likelihood of gun violence.

People who cling so irrationally to guns are merely masking their latent blood-lust. The fact that guns have been historically ingrained in American culture is not a valid defense to attempting to change our culture of violence.

I also enjoy the display of ignorance as far as immediately attacking Obama, despite the fact that he has not, as of yet, proposed any significant gun regulation during his entire administration, much less it being his "top concern."
hey genius ......... Guns are used for killing animals and providing a food source to humans, as well as self Defense. So don't sit there and attack guns saying they are only for destroying life, because the overwhelming lives taken with guns is for food consumption whether it be killing at slaughter house's or hunting and trapping. I'm sure you've eaten meat in your lifetime and chances are it was harvested using a gun!
Anonymous

Melbourne, FL

#17 Dec 19, 2012
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
hey genius ......... Guns are used for killing animals and providing a food source to humans, as well as self Defense. So don't sit there and attack guns saying they are only for destroying life, because the overwhelming lives taken with guns is for food consumption whether it be killing at slaughter house's or hunting and trapping. I'm sure you've eaten meat in your lifetime and chances are it was harvested using a gun!
Perhaps you can explain to me how killing animals is not, by definition, destroying life. Same goes for self-defense. Is not the goal of using a gun for self-defense to kill the person from whom you are seeking defense? That's the point. Guns are for killing.

I can actually accept hunting as an acceptable use of guns. Although, personally I think that bows and muzzle-loaders are the tools of a true huntsman. But hunting does not serve as justification for military-style rifles nor handguns.

Slaughterhouses generally use captive bolt pistols, not guns. So, no, most of the meat I consume has not been harvested using a gun.

It hardly takes a genius to figure this stuff out.
TRW

Edwards, NY

#18 Dec 19, 2012
guns dont kill unless there is an irresponsable person behind the trigger.... you are not going to keep the guns from being owned by criminals. ppl will get htem no mstter wat. find another way....
justajoe

Ardsley, NY

#19 Dec 19, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps you can explain to me how killing animals is not, by definition, destroying life. Same goes for self-defense. Is not the goal of using a gun for self-defense to kill the person from whom you are seeking defense? That's the point. Guns are for killing.

I can actually accept hunting as an acceptable use of guns. Although, personally I think that bows and muzzle-loaders are the tools of a true huntsman. But hunting does not serve as justification for military-style rifles nor handguns.

Slaughterhouses generally use captive bolt pistols, not guns. So, no, most of the meat I consume has not been harvested using a gun.

It hardly takes a genius to figure this stuff out.
Yup guns are for killing they are also used for incapacitating. Home defense: the sole purpose is not to kill it is to incapacitate and stop an illegal act until police can arrive and take care of the rest. As for guns and hunting they are used for killing.
These are indisputably good reasons to have guns.
As far as military style rifles and hand guns- i am tired of people who do not understand the mechanics of a firearm. Crying about something they dont understand. The scarry bushmaster .223 that you can buy in walmart or dicks, well till last week, is not the machine gun that our military carrys.
It has no burst capability.
It has no full auto capability.
The only reason it even looks like the weapons our military uses is because of the modern materials the rifle is made of.Grandpa carried iron through the woods. It was heavy but because it was tough enough not to explode when you fire thats what they used. The
bushmaster type rifles have hard internal parts and everything elsethat can be is made from aluminum and plastic. That makes it much lighter to carry all day hunting.
It fires one round when the trigger is pulled,and has a removable clip like alot
of other boring looking wood stocked rifles. These clips can hold 5,10, 20, 30 rounds. Depending on what your doing dictates the size you use. Hunting use a 5 rd clip, defending your loved ones as many as i can get. With that Im still probly out gunned. Criminals love the fact that automatic weapons are unlawful to own without a federal permit that costs thousands of dollars. That nearly guarentees the will have superior firepower as they dont follow laws.
As far as a muzzleloader or bow some people hunt things thay dont run away, rather toward you when shot at. I want 4 more chances to kill and skin as opposed to being killed and skinned.
gouvy13642

United States

#20 Dec 19, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
Guns are nothing more than instruments created and designed for the specific purpose of destroying life. Comparing guns to cars is the epitome of willful ignorance. Cars (and planes, knives, and any other object that could be used to kill) serve other purposes and are designed for those purposes. Deaths due to automobiles are overwhelmingly accidental. The same can not be said of guns. Although reducing accidental gun deaths could also be beneficial.
Also, contrary to OP's absurd claim, airplanes have certainly not produced a "much higher body count." It's not even close. Ignoring the 17,352 suicides, there were 12,632 homicides committed using a gun in 2007 in the U.S., and that number has been rising since 1999. Compare that with the 971 deaths that occurred worldwide as a result of airplane accidents that year. Or, since that year was particularly good, compare it to the peak of 4,140 global airplane incident fatalities in 2001. As you know, most of those casualties were on the ground on September 11th.
No one claims that stricter regulation of guns would eliminate murder or gun-related violence completely. Although, it is impossible to dispute the argument that if every gun on earth were destroyed that there would be no gun-related death. Needless to say, realistically, the goal should be to minimize the likelihood of gun violence.
People who cling so irrationally to guns are merely masking their latent blood-lust. The fact that guns have been historically ingrained in American culture is not a valid defense to attempting to change our culture of violence.
I also enjoy the display of ignorance as far as immediately attacking Obama, despite the fact that he has not, as of yet, proposed any significant gun regulation during his entire administration, much less it being his "top concern."
Latent blood lust? Come on. Guns are not soley for taking human lives . There is such thing as recreational target shooting, hunting, competition shooting...etc your obviously a liberal.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gouverneur Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
any gay or bi guys up 2 30 into chubs and that ... (May '14) 4 hr :) 15
kaitlyn redmond (Feb '12) 4 hr :) 4
Her booty thogh ❤❤ 12 hr Kyerstin 14
Emily Dehart.... 15 hr Yuck 10
Brandon Garrett? Wed bobs_burgers 3
Kyerstin Cole/ Skyler Rusin Tue Kyerstin 6
CPS won't do their jobs? Aug 14 StarsAndGripesFor... 1

Gouverneur Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Gouverneur Mortgages