20 victims reported at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 342,000,000 as of September 2025. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to just 5,100 in a very large country. Still too many? Well, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (an increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have the strictest gun laws in the country, so it is not the lack of gun control laws that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California (with strict gun and ammunition laws) had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course. It not guns causing the CA deaths. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminal wills obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose; primarily fentanyl from China
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
The taking away of guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." How do you feel about the current administration running our country?

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

Mike drop

Don't drop Mike. The Trumpers put him through enough when they tried to kill him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 342,000,000 as of September 2025. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to just 5,100 in a very large country. Still too many? Well, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (an increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have the strictest gun laws in the country, so it is not the lack of gun control laws that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California (with strict gun and ammunition laws) had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course. It not guns causing the CA deaths. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminal wills obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose; primarily fentanyl from China
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
The taking away of guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." How do you feel about the current administration running our country?

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

So, it's not worth it to save children from gun violence because when they're old they're probably going to die of heart disease?

You might want to iterate on that argument a few times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 342,000,000 as of September 2025. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to just 5,100 in a very large country. Still too many? Well, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (an increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have the strictest gun laws in the country, so it is not the lack of gun control laws that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California (with strict gun and ammunition laws) had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course. It not guns causing the CA deaths. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminal wills obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose; primarily fentanyl from China
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
The taking away of guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." How do you feel about the current administration running our country?

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

Good post that relies on facts and not propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

People/governments/political parties who want to disarm or even restrict other people's ability to self defense, always have sinister motives. That is without exception as history has taught us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 342,000,000 as of September 2025. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to just 5,100 in a very large country. Still too many? Well, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (an increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have the strictest gun laws in the country, so it is not the lack of gun control laws that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California (with strict gun and ammunition laws) had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course. It not guns causing the CA deaths. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminal wills obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose; primarily fentanyl from China
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
The taking away of guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." How do you feel about the current administration running our country?

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

Good post that relies on facts and not propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

People/governments/political parties who want to disarm or even restrict other people's ability to self defense, always have sinister motives. That is without exception as history has taught us.

This thread got surprisingly long before Poe's Law caught up to it. But I always knew it would get there.

Thanks, PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 342,000,000 as of September 2025. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to just 5,100 in a very large country. Still too many? Well, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (an increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have the strictest gun laws in the country, so it is not the lack of gun control laws that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California (with strict gun and ammunition laws) had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course. It not guns causing the CA deaths. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminal wills obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose; primarily fentanyl from China
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
The taking away of guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." How do you feel about the current administration running our country?

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

Good post that relies on facts and not propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

People/governments/political parties who want to disarm or even restrict other people's ability to self defense, always have sinister motives. That is without exception as history has taught us.

Your thesis is nothing BUT propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

Let me destroy your entire premise with one single reference. Quakers. Quakers are not allowed to own guns and yet nobody has any sinister motives against Quakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors.

710,000 people die per year from heart disease.

That first figure is laughably low. It's been around 500,000-750,000 annual preventable deaths due to medical errors for decades. If some source it trying to say it's only 200,000/year now, they are LYING.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 342,000,000 as of September 2025. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to just 5,100 in a very large country. Still too many? Well, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (an increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have the strictest gun laws in the country, so it is not the lack of gun control laws that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California (with strict gun and ammunition laws) had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course. It not guns causing the CA deaths. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminal wills obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose; primarily fentanyl from China
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
The taking away of guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." How do you feel about the current administration running our country?

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

Good post that relies on facts and not propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

People/governments/political parties who want to disarm or even restrict other people's ability to self defense, always have sinister motives. That is without exception as history has taught us.

Your thesis is nothing BUT propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

Let me destroy your entire premise with one single reference. Quakers. Quakers are not allowed to own guns and yet nobody has any sinister motives against Quakers.

So the PP is suggesting that Quakers must have sinister motives.

Look at this one picture and see if you can still tell me they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 342,000,000 as of September 2025. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to just 5,100 in a very large country. Still too many? Well, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (an increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have the strictest gun laws in the country, so it is not the lack of gun control laws that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California (with strict gun and ammunition laws) had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course. It not guns causing the CA deaths. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminal wills obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose; primarily fentanyl from China
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
The taking away of guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." How do you feel about the current administration running our country?

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

Good post that relies on facts and not propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

People/governments/political parties who want to disarm or even restrict other people's ability to self defense, always have sinister motives. That is without exception as history has taught us.

Your thesis is nothing BUT propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

Let me destroy your entire premise with one single reference. Quakers. Quakers are not allowed to own guns and yet nobody has any sinister motives against Quakers.

The hell are you even talking about?? You destroyed nothing but your own credibility at being sane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 342,000,000 as of September 2025. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to just 5,100 in a very large country. Still too many? Well, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (an increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have the strictest gun laws in the country, so it is not the lack of gun control laws that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California (with strict gun and ammunition laws) had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course. It not guns causing the CA deaths. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminal wills obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose; primarily fentanyl from China
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
The taking away of guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." How do you feel about the current administration running our country?

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

Good post that relies on facts and not propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

People/governments/political parties who want to disarm or even restrict other people's ability to self defense, always have sinister motives. That is without exception as history has taught us.

Your thesis is nothing BUT propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

Let me destroy your entire premise with one single reference. Quakers. Quakers are not allowed to own guns and yet nobody has any sinister motives against Quakers.

So the PP is suggesting that Quakers must have sinister motives.

Look at this one picture and see if you can still tell me they don't.

Funny how socialists removed Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima, Mrs. Buttersworth, and Land O Lakes girl, but that sinister looking fellow is still living large and in charge. Makes you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 342,000,000 as of September 2025. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to just 5,100 in a very large country. Still too many? Well, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (an increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have the strictest gun laws in the country, so it is not the lack of gun control laws that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California (with strict gun and ammunition laws) had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course. It not guns causing the CA deaths. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminal wills obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose; primarily fentanyl from China
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
The taking away of guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." How do you feel about the current administration running our country?

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

Good post that relies on facts and not propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

People/governments/political parties who want to disarm or even restrict other people's ability to self defense, always have sinister motives. That is without exception as history has taught us.

Your thesis is nothing BUT propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

Let me destroy your entire premise with one single reference. Quakers. Quakers are not allowed to own guns and yet nobody has any sinister motives against Quakers.

So the PP is suggesting that Quakers must have sinister motives.

Look at this one picture and see if you can still tell me they don't.

Funny how socialists removed Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima, Mrs. Buttersworth, and Land O Lakes girl, but that sinister looking fellow is still living large and in charge. Makes you think.

The ominous figure looking to take your guns and replace them with oatmeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 342,000,000 as of September 2025. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to just 5,100 in a very large country. Still too many? Well, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (an increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have the strictest gun laws in the country, so it is not the lack of gun control laws that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California (with strict gun and ammunition laws) had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course. It not guns causing the CA deaths. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminal wills obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose; primarily fentanyl from China
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
The taking away of guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." How do you feel about the current administration running our country?

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

Good post that relies on facts and not propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

People/governments/political parties who want to disarm or even restrict other people's ability to self defense, always have sinister motives. That is without exception as history has taught us.

Your thesis is nothing BUT propaganda and emotional hyperbole.

Let me destroy your entire premise with one single reference. Quakers. Quakers are not allowed to own guns and yet nobody has any sinister motives against Quakers.

So the PP is suggesting that Quakers must have sinister motives.

Look at this one picture and see if you can still tell me they don't.

Funny how socialists removed Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima, Mrs. Buttersworth, and Land O Lakes girl, but that sinister looking fellow is still living large and in charge. Makes you think.

The ominous figure looking to take your guns and replace them with oatmeal.

Yeah, can't force people to eat mush if they are armed da comrade?

[Anonymous]

This doesn’t sound like it’s about the kids anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suspect in the Minneapolis, Minnesota, shooting at a Catholic school and church has been identified as Robin Westman, who posted a manifesto on social media just two hours ago, including a video showing the words “kill Donald Trump” written on a gun.

A confirmed white male. I’m not surprised.

STOP MISGENDERING ROBIN!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Senator Kloubichar but it really upset me how she went on the news talking about how this is such a tragedy… lady you are in the ONLY position to change this. And you’re on tv going “wow this is terrible, oh well nothing we can do about it”. Are you for real? DO YOUR JOB.

I think all congress people are gaslighting us.

What are you talking about? Senator Klobuchar would put stronger gun control in place in a nanosecond. It's the crazy Republicans who sit around and squeal like piglets about their precious 2nd amendment when Democrats suggest something as minor as strengthening background checks.

What are YOU talking about? She’s been a senator since 2007. Once Obama took office on 2009, Democrats had the trifecta of power. They controlled both houses. Why didn’t she put stronger gun controls in place 16 years ago?? Think how many lives would’ve been saved.

What are you both talking about? In 1994, President Bill Clinton, and former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden successfully banned assault weapons when the anti-crime law was passed. At the time, there were approximately 400,000 AR-15 weapons in existence.

The House of Representatives flipped to a Republican majority when Republican George W. Bush was elected President. Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse despite promising to re-enact the law if it was passed by Congress. It wasn’t. Yet, he did not invoke EO. Worse than that, he had the power to sign the ban before the 10 year sundown.

W Bush caused the surge of assault rifles when the federal ban expired in 2004.

In 2022, 24.4 million AR-15s and similar assault weapons were in existence. The NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) advocates for keeping guns out of the wrong hands, estimates that there are over 30 million Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), which include AR-15s and AK-platform firearms, in private circulation in the U.S. as of early 2025.

Congress failed Americans by not reinstating the assault weapons ban in 2004. W failed at EVERYTHING— weapons of mass destruction were here in our country, 9 11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine.

Never forget racist Mitch McConnell who swore he’d prevent a 2nd term for Obama who was fiercely focused on passing the affordable care act. Mitch facilitated the current Supreme Court Injustices by manipulating Obama’s appointment.

In this deeply racist country, all roads led to Trump:

"I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."

"I think the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is. I believe that." Donald Trump, entered into the the Congressional Record
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record...tion/article/S6073-2

W, McConnell, and Trump are a scourge on our country. Their fate will not end peacefully in the physical or ethereal worlds.

The link doesn’t work. Unable to verify that Trump actually said that.

[Anonymous]

Dear 2nd Amendment morons that voted for Trump.

In three years from now you will not be owning your guns.

Signed people who know

North Koreans