Why are liberals afraid to answer this question?

Jarod said:
Site?
Click to expand...

Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes.1 The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.2

Thankfully, there are effective measures that can help prevent injuries and deaths from alcohol-impaired driving.


How big is the problem?
•In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1
•Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.1
•Of the 211 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2010, over half (131) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.1
•In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.4
•Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol.

And here are the comparison figures, for the same year.

Murdered by a firearm in 2010 / Total = 8,775

By the way; if you look at the table, you'll discover that the numbers have dropped from 2006 to 2010.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
IF YOU HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD FOR DOMESTIC ABUSE, A PAST CONVICTION FOR MURDER TO SOME DEGREE WITH TIME SERVED, OR A FELONY RECORD....THEN A BACKGROUND CHECK WILL PREVENT YOU FROM BUYING A GUN AT ANY TRADE SHOW OR GUN SHOP, AS THERE WILL BE A WAITING PERIOD BEFORE OBTAINING OWNERSHIP.

Got that bunky?
Click to expand...


It's already illegal for them to buy them, so how is this going to stop them from buying them illegally?
Maybe the chronology of the posts will help you arrive at an answer.
Click to expand...

As usual, you're operating on ignorance and ignoring ALL the facts: Pay attention:


To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.

Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.

Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.

Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole


As someone else stated on this thread, it won't stop all illegal sales and criminals obtaining guns...but it's helps.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes.1 The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.2

Thankfully, there are effective measures that can help prevent injuries and deaths from alcohol-impaired driving.


How big is the problem?
•In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1
•Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.1
•Of the 211 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2010, over half (131) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.1
•In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.4
•Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol.

And here are the comparison figures, for the same year.

Murdered by a firearm in 2010 / Total = 8,775

By the way; if you look at the table, you'll discover that the numbers have dropped from 2006 to 2010.
Click to expand...

Im not interested in just those murdered by a firearm, I want to know all of those who are killed by a firearm.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes.1 The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.2

Thankfully, there are effective measures that can help prevent injuries and deaths from alcohol-impaired driving.


How big is the problem?
•In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1
•Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.1
•Of the 211 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2010, over half (131) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.1
•In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.4
•Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol.

And here are the comparison figures, for the same year.

Murdered by a firearm in 2010 / Total = 8,775

By the way; if you look at the table, you'll discover that the numbers have dropped from 2006 to 2010.
Click to expand...


You have deliberately left out accidental deaths and suicides... the number for 2010 is over 33,000. You are pitifully uninformed about the gun death epidemic facing the US.
 
wanderingbear said:
Because when they are caught they will go straight to prison where they will not be bothering anyone for along time.
Click to expand...
No they don't, of the thousands of criminal individuals who have attempted to buy weapons, there have been only a handful of attempts to convict anyone. The problem with Libs giving US direction when it comes to our Second Amendment Rights is that Libs are bleeding hearts who are soft on crime, therefore very few convictions for illegally trying to purchase a firearm, will ever occur. Libs are Pansy Ass Girleymen when it comes to guns, so we will not listen to them. Now if they want to discuss the legalization of pot or Food Stamp distribution, that is a different situation.
 
I don't think any liberals are afraid to answer your question; you probably just despise the answer you have been received.
Background checks make sure that the person isn't an ex-criminal, and it's like a verification that this person is clean and eligible to own a gun of some sort. Mental health tests should be implemented though along with background checks. It's better to be safer than sorry.
 
Walrus said:
I don't think any liberals are afraid to answer your question; you probably just despise the answer you have been received.
Background checks make sure that the person isn't an ex-criminal, and it's like a verification that this person is clean and eligible to own a gun of some sort. Mental health tests should be implemented though along with background checks. It's better to be safer than sorry.
Click to expand...

Since it's better to be "safer than sorry", are you then if favor of all vehicle being equipped with an ignition lockout device?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Why are liberals so scared of having every vehicle equipped with an ignition lockout device?
Click to expand...

Translation: 911 got hammered on the question asked in the OP, so now it's time to change the question.

How about this? Let's make the requirements for owning a gun as strict as owning and driving a car? A written test to acquire a Learners permit. A license to own and operate a gun, which means passing a test proving you can safely operate a weapon. To own a gun, you must register the weapon with the state you live in, show proof of adequate insurance to cover any injury caused, and have the weapon inspected every year.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And the question remains: why are gunners so scared of a background check?
Click to expand...
Why are liberals so scared of having every vehicle equipped with an ignition lockout device?
Click to expand...

See folks, this intellectual coward who disgraces the memory of 911 with his screen name AVOIDS a simple question by trying to juxtapose subjects.....just like he can't honestly deal with this http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...to-answer-this-question&p=1212136#post1212136


From this point on, USFreedom just babbles, bluffs, blusters and lies because it's just too much for him to admit on an anonymous format like this that he's wrong on a point. So unless he's willing to deal with FACTS presented and not childishly act like a discussion is a one way street that he controls, I'll just move on and leave him to his silliness.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top