So your guns keep you safe?

[Alawen]

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/

Apparently they really pry them from your cold dead hands.

[Andrew Jackson]

Why do you hate freedom?

[Eccezan]

Why do you hate freedom?

[Andrew Jackson]

Read this "news" story-- sucked see Trayvon

[Alawen]

Read this "news" story-- sucked see Trayvon

Sorry, didn't mean to shit up your world view with, you know, scientific evidence.

[Andrew Jackson]

Sorry, didn't mean to shit up your world view with, you know, anecdotal evidence

[Hitchens]

"If an armed citizenry becomes a danger to itself, the purpose of arming them for safety is pointless." - Andrew Jackson

[Alawen]

Evolution is just a theory, bro. They should teach creationism in schools. I mean intelligent design.

[Tecmos Deception]

You anti-gun folk can't simultaneously believe that guns are inherently evil unless you're also willing to accept that owning a gun makes me invincible, k?

[Tecmos Deception]

Err... remove "simultaenously" from that.

[Daldolma]

Don't have time to read the whole study atm but did they account for the fact that a large number of urban shootings are perpetrated by gang members against other gang members -- most of whom are armed? Whether or not an average American is safer for owning a gun is hardly impacted by whether or not rival gangs are shooting each other at high rates.

We're not talking apples to apples if they're including gang or organized crime related violence. But the findings might be interesting if they managed to limit samples to home intrusions, for instance.

[Arclyte]

Yes, let's ignore common sense and every other piece of evidence and claim that bowing to the wishes of your attacker is better than being able to defend yourself.

What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns

The source of information is Philadelphia? LOL. A fair and unbiased case study to be sure.

[Arclyte]

I think I've said this somewhere else but it bears repeating:

There is no such thing as effective gun control. That ship sailed a long time ago. Everyone deep down knows that, but politicians, both liberal and conservative, use guns to scare voters--which is useful for getting votes, so this debate will never go away.

But by all means, keep slamming your head into that wall.

[Daldolma]

Yes, let's ignore common sense and every other piece of evidence and claim that bowing to the wishes of your attacker is better than being able to defend yourself.

It's not common sense. I could easily imagine a scenario in which, statistically speaking, you would be less likely to be shot and/or killed if you do not own a gun. Your chances of avoiding physical harm may be better if you are forced to avoid confrontation and/or adhere to criminal demands. When both parties have guns, violence may erupt where it may not have been necessary.

But that's just one possibility. I don't know. I'd like to see a truly representative study, but it'd be very hard to get that type of data. The problem is that a) reports of successful gun defense are not objective. People report successfully defending themselves when they shoot a round into the sky to scare away thieves that may or may not exist. Also, plenty of successful defenses are never reported at all. And b) particularly in urban environments, many people that own and carry guns are a self-selected collection of people more prone to being victims of gun violence. Some old lady living in a high rise with a doorman isn't exactly equivalent to a 19-year old youth involved in the drug trade. Whether or not that 19 year old is carrying a gun, he's at far greater risk of being shot.

It's mostly irrelevant, though. We're decades away from a serious discussion about limiting the right to own a gun at all. At best (or worst), we may be able to pass legislation limiting a person's ability to buy weapons with the capacity to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

[Tarathiel]

swords are considered "arms" too, whose to say the founding fathers weren't talking about swords? lots of motherfuckers carried swords back then.

[Tarathiel]

guns are for pussies anyways

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T6-fskZimu4?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T6-fskZimu4?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Twoberries]

55 Percent of Gun Deaths in America are Suicide - NOT ENOUGH!

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Oh fuck! unfortunately at that rate it's still gonna take a while. Keep it up though, thx.

[Alawen]

I think I've said this somewhere else but it bears repeating:

There is no such thing as effective gun control. That ship sailed a long time ago. Everyone deep down knows that, but politicians, both liberal and conservative, use guns to scare voters--which is useful for getting votes, so this debate will never go away.

But by all means, keep slamming your head into that wall.

I completely agree if you mean that there is no such thing as effective gun control except in every other developed country.

[Arclyte]

I hear Breivik only stopped killing people because he got tired of it

C/D?

[Orruar]

Read the article. The selection bias is astounding. How many of those shot do you think were gangbangers getting into a gang war? It's Philidelphia. I'd say about 98%. No wonder they found so many of the people being shot had a gun on them.

[Twoberries]

Read the article. The selection bias is astounding. How many of those shot do you think were gangbangers getting into a gang war? It's Philidelphia. I'd say about 98%. No wonder they found so many of the people being shot had a gun on them.

Statistics say that more gun related deaths in the States are from suicide. No wonder they found so many of the people being shot had a gun on them. Duh!

[Orruar]

Statistics say that more gun related deaths in the States are from suicide. No wonder they found so many of the people being shot had a gun on them. Duh!

The article is only about incidents of assault, not of suicide. Try and keep up.

[Alawen]

Read the article. The selection bias is astounding. How many of those shot do you think were gangbangers getting into a gang war? It's Philidelphia. I'd say about 98%. No wonder they found so many of the people being shot had a gun on them.

And if it wasn't Philadelphia, it would be Los Angeles or New York City or Chicago or Miami or Baltimore or Cleveland or San Diego. None of the statistics from those places would count, either. Your gut reactions are much more viable.

[Hasbinlulz]

I always go to "what american people think of as common sense" as my main source for academic papers.

[Arclyte]

And if it wasn't Philadelphia, it would be Los Angeles or New York City or Chicago or Miami or Baltimore or Cleveland or San Diego. None of the statistics from those places would count, either. Your gut reactions are much more viable.

This "study" is from 2009. There's a reason I've never heard of or seen it referenced before now, and it has everything to do with it being clearly politically biased.

Taking data on gun crime from OG thug *****s in downton Philly, and then making sweeping statements to the tune of "successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns" is so biased and flat out wrong, it's laughable.

With that said I leave you with this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/ArclytePS/RETARD_zpsa192631c.jpg

[Arclyte]

ITT: Bullets become more deadly when you are armed, and attackers are more likely to kill you when you have a means to defend yourself

The mind of an ignorant, brainwashed college kid.

[Alawen]

There is no conspiracy here. Every other developed country has much more restrictive gun laws. Here's the data on deaths, which we've seen before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Simply put, when you have a bunch of cowboys running around with guns, people die. I don't have a particular horse in this race, the facts are just brutally obvious at this point. I have very little hope that this country will ever do anything to curtail gun violence. We clearly love gangs and war and killing each other.

Hilarious for you to connect "ignorant" and "college".

[Jacquouille]

I'm open to discussion.

Can a pro gun tell me, how, adding guns in schools will keep the kids safer?

[Arclyte]

I don't think there's any real answer to that. Obviously no one wants weapons anywhere near a school. On one side you have the bleeding hearts living in another dimension claiming no one should own weapons, and on the other you have the nutjobs who want every principle, teacher and janitor packing glocks.

It's a real shit state of affair, and I think it simply comes down to weak morality in our (the US) society, and I believe it's been on a steady decline since the late 60's. You can come up with all the laws in the world and it won't change people being shitheads. Until this changes I don't see things getting any better.

[Daldolma]

The pro gun argument can't stem from an evaluation of overall safety. It's ludicrous. On a macro level, the widespread availability of guns in the US leads to significantly more gun violence.

It has to stem from a fundamental right to defend yourself. The argument has to be that, even if gun availability increases the rate of gun violence nationwide, an individual has a fundamental right to protect himself and his family, and ownership of a gun is a logical and reasonably necessary extension of that right.

There's no reasonable argument for a lot of the more advanced weaponry available to citizens. It's the product of a well-funded lobby and a deification of the Founding Fathers. There is no fundamental right to shoot a hundred rounds per minute and own enough ammunition to decimate small towns.

[Strifer]

"If an armed citizenry becomes a danger to itself, the purpose of arming them for safety is pointless." - Andrew Jackson

http://i.imgur.com/CicwM.jpg

[Andrew Jackson]

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

[Jimes]

so if I'm being assaulted, I'm actually safer if I don't have a gun to protect myself? fucking derp.

[Feeder]

You can ban all the guns you want. You can try to fight guns all you want. People kill people, not guns, and no matter how many of them are banned or how many laws in place two things WILL continue to happen:

1. People WILL buy guns.
2. Kids and other people WILL die to some of these guns. P E R I O D.

Want an example? See the war on drugs. Real successful l0l.

[nilbog]

My gun keeps me safer than my sword.

I was raised around guns. They are a tool. Some might say a tool of death, and I wouldn't disagree. But just like a sword is used to cut, a gun is used to shoot.

If somehow all guns and the technology used to make them were to vanish, I'd be cool with that. Since that won't happen, I won't put myself at a disadvantage of not having one.

[Massive Marc]

ID RATHER HAVE IT AND NOT NEED IT THEN NEED IT AND NOT HAVE IT.

[Lazortag]

You can ban all the guns you want. You can try to fight guns all you want. People kill people, not guns, and no matter how many of them are banned or how many laws in place two things WILL continue to happen:

1. People WILL buy guns.
2. Kids and other people WILL die to some of these guns. P E R I O D.

Want an example? See the war on drugs. Real successful l0l.

Platitudes and horrible analogies typically don't make good arguments. Not being able to legally buy a gun is a significant deterrent to buying a gun by other means. Not everyone has connections to the black market or wants to even be associated with those sorts of people.

Also, unlike drugs, you can't as easily make a functional firearm in your own basement. Your analogy is weak because drug dealers actually benefit from prohibition, since they can make these substances themselves and sell them without competition or regulation from the government. Basically the only reason you would want to buy drugs from a sketchy dealer if drugs were legal, is if you were underage or had some other attribute that would disqualify you from buying drugs from a licensed seller. In that case you still probably wouldn't assume the risk since the price would be markedly higher and the drugs would be much less safe. With guns though, black markets still persist even when they're legal, because people want to circumvent background checks and make it easier to murder people without the bullet being traced to a registered weapon. Also, it's easier for illegitimate sellers to obtain guns to sell in the first place if they're legal, since (a) they can steal them from legitimate owners, and (b) they can get somebody else to buy it for them legally. If there's no avenue by which you can buy guns legally, you actually hurt the black market for guns a lot more. The opposite is true of drugs.

Even if criminals could still obtain guns illegally, this would mostly affect premeditated crimes. Cases where people are shot accidentally or out of impulse wouldn't happen nearly as often. These kinds of gun crimes are likely in the majority in the US, and there are FBI statistics supporting this. You can try to make whatever logical inferences, analogies, and thought experiments you want, but all of the empirical evidence shows that more accessibility to guns leads to more violent crime.

[Andrew Jackson]

Actually every study shows more guns less crime. CA has highest amount of homicide and most gun control.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

[Andrew Jackson]

If we didn't need guns we also wouldn't need locks on our doors.

[Hasbinlulz]

..or just buy a gun.

[Andrew Jackson]

A. Your not trained to wield a gun, B. Your a terrible shot. C. Your a terrible shot.

If you want to wield a gun, Join a military, and pray they give you an assignment where you use it. 95% of the world arent responsible and patient enough to wield a gun.

You're* terrible. When I was 12 years old at Boy Scout camp we were shooting clay pigeons with a 20 gauge. Shooting even a moving target is not all its hyped up to be.

http://i.imgur.com/rDKLK.jpg

[leezard]

I appreciate your ardor, but facts is facts, and she shot this dummy multiple times. He was in no way as prepared, (coldly) rational or intelligent as the kid from last week. However, that really changes very little about the point you are trying to make. How many people heard about this? I live in S.A. area, and it was not that big of a story. But here is what I wonder: ( Gun owner btw, shotty and 22. No handguns, cant see a reason for one my 12 gauge defender will suffice for home protection more than any pistol ever will) This was a sherrif deputy. This was someone, who even if gun control was to be put in place, would most likely still be allowed to carry a weapon.

How does this truly affect the current debate? Pretty much not at all.

Pending investigation last I checked, but the rifle was not a legal weapon. This was not white suburban teen xanax angst. There are more illegal, modified ak's in S.A. then you probably want to think about. And gun control will NOT remove those weapons. Alot of unregistered weapons travel the I-35 corridor, and a staggering amount of them were distributed by the fucking government. They preach gun control friends, not to make you safe but to keep them safe. From you. You may not, will not, choose not to believe this, but until OUR government in USA stops arming criminals and other countries, perhaps they need to STFU about gun bans, because they are putting AUTOMATIC weapons, RPG's, .50 cal fully auto army issue weapons into the hands of the drug cartels in mexico. Some of those are getting used here.

[Raavak]

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-fX6BE5ZKzsd3VJSHJGUDdaaDQ

[Andrew Jackson]

I appreciate your ardor, but facts is facts, and she shot this dummy multiple times. He was in no way as prepared, (coldly) rational or intelligent as the kid from last week. However, that really changes very little about the point you are trying to make. How many people heard about this? I live in S.A. area, and it was not that big of a story. But here is what I wonder: ( Gun owner btw, shotty and 22. No handguns, cant see a reason for one my 12 gauge defender will suffice for home protection more than any pistol ever will) This was a sherrif deputy. This was someone, who even if gun control was to be put in place, would most likely still be allowed to carry a weapon.

How does this truly affect the current debate? Pretty much not at all.

I'd argue it is very relevant to the debate. The liberals are always like "Even if you had concealed carry, you wouldn't be able to stop them!!!!!!! JUST WAIT YOUR TURN TO DIE!"

This isn't bignewsworthy because it was ended swiftly, and the news is about sensationalism and this does not bode well with their liberal media agenda.


But wait did you really say your .22 pistol will suffice compared to the 12 gauge???

[Hitchens]

(AP) Washington, DC: President Barack Obama has signed the first Executive Order banning the manufacture and sale of firearms in the United States. Republican and NRA responses expected within the hour. Developing...

[leezard]

No, AJ, I did not. I said my 12 gauge will suffice. .22 is a rifle I mainly use for small game, feral hogs etc. I do like me some rabbit stew. I personally don't see a reason to own a handgun. Granted, I do not have concealed permit either and have never needed one out in the world. I did have a single intruder incident. The mossberg was not fired, but it certainly changed my would be burglar's mind.

Yes, it generated very little media coverage because the only person shot was the would be. Had he managed to pop ten people, you bet your ass it would have made the big time news. My point is about it changing the debate very little is simply, this was a sherriff deputy. A peace officer, not a standard citizen, and as such would be more help to the gun ban side. Had she been random_lady01 with a concealed permit it would be a much stronger argument towards keeping gun control limited. As it is, she was a cop and cops, well, carry guns. Still will even if a crackdown happens.

[Hitchens]

Naez is trolling you.

[Hailto]

.22 is a rifle I mainly use for small game, feral hogs etc.

All credibility lost, no one kills feral hogs with a .22, are you fucking serious?

[Llodd]

Actually every study shows more guns less crime. CA has highest amount of homicide and most gun control.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

So to recap.

CA has the most gun control (I have no idea)

CA also has the most homicide and total guns. (oibviously incredible gun control)

Troll or idiot?

[Andrew Jackson]

So to recap.

CA has the most gun control (I have no idea)

CA also has the most homicide and total guns. (oibviously incredible gun control)

Troll or idiot?

CA does have the most gun control, per the Brady campaign's own website where it scores in the high 80's. Utah as a counterexample, scores a 0.

I don't know if CA has the most total guns, I'd doubt it in favour of the midwest. But it does have the highest amount of firearm homicides, as I showed in the FBI fact sheet.

[Humerox]

I don't care what anyone says...Australia had 11 mass gun slayings in the decade before they implemented strict gun-control, and 0...count them...0 since.

REAL gun laws are required, not just jokes that are ineffective. We need to look at Australia's policy pretty hard. I'm a firm second-amendment believer, but I don't think our right extends to semi-automatic handguns or assault rifles. They make mass killing easy and efficient...and we as civilians need them as much as we do bazookas and tanks.

If you're concerned about repelling a tyrannical dictator that would decide to send the most powerful military in history against you...well, the opportunity for civilians in America to be able to defend against that is ancient history.

[leezard]

All credibility lost, no one kills feral hogs with a .22, are you fucking serious?

Yours, anyway.

You apparently know very little about guns. And had we been discussing virtues of different calibers, guns we like, and geeking out about chrome .45's then I probably would have given more info, like the fact it is a .22 mag rifle, and that the hogs are trapped first. Alot of folks here use a .25 caliber pistol for this, but the .22 mag does just fine.

[Hailto]

Yours, anyway.

You apparently know very little about guns. And had we been discussing virtues of different calibers, guns we like, and geeking out about chrome .45's then I probably would have given more info, like the fact it is a .22 mag rifle, and that the hogs are trapped first. Alot of folks here use a .25 caliber pistol for this, but the .22 mag does just fine.

Yeah, i should have innately known you were talking about shooting trapped hogs, if i had more gun knowledge i would also gain esp.

[Humerox]

Anyone hunting wild hogs with a .22 mag has a lot more balls than I do. Make sure your buddy with the big gun is near so you can hide behind him when you screw up and piss off the wrong pig.

Just sayin~

[Humerox]

Damn...should have read the rest of the post.
:eek:

[Andrew Jackson]

If you're concerned about repelling a tyrannical dictator that would decide to send the most powerful military in history against you...well, the opportunity for civilians in America to be able to defend against that is ancient history.

You're trolling.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=52283&

[leezard]

It's ok to admit you jumped the gun..

[Humerox]

Actually, I'm not. :)

[Humerox]

It's ok to admit you jumped the gun..
Nice one, lol

[Humerox]

You're trolling.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=52283&

Well...then we'd have to talk about the will of the average American nowadays...but yeah, I get your point, lol...

[leezard]

Anyone hunting wild hogs with a .22 mag has a lot more balls than I do. Make sure your buddy with the big gun is near so you can hide behind him when you screw up and piss off the wrong pig.

Just sayin~

I agree lol. If I was to hunt them, I would use a shotgun, or maybe a 380.

And Hailto, I did not expect you to know this. I also did not think we were talking about hunting so I did not elaborate.

As for the teen angst virgin, sorry trapping feral pigs upsets you. If you understood life outside your classroom, perhaps you would understand why it is done. For what it is worth, I abhor "deer hunting". Feeding a deer for a year, then shooting it is butchering, not hunting.

[Raavak]

The guys I know who have hunted feral pigs were using like 357 magnums and 44 magnums, and still have stories of being chased by the mean suckers if they only wounded them.

[Humerox]

You guys are probably not in disagreement in principle...seems like you're just talking about different things. Trapping and killing feral pigs is srs biz.

Feral Hogs. (http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/publication/32954-feral-hogs/feral_hogs.pdf) Using a .22 mag on 'em is probably pretty efficient for that I'd imagine.

[vaylorie]

I don't care what anyone says...Australia had 11 mass gun slayings in the decade before they implemented strict gun-control, and 0...count them...0 since.

REAL gun laws are required, not just jokes that are ineffective. We need to look at Australia's policy pretty hard. I'm a firm second-amendment believer, but I don't think our right extends to semi-automatic handguns or assault rifles. They make mass killing easy and efficient...and we as civilians need them as much as we do bazookas and tanks.

This stuff about Australia is a joke. You read a website and 'trust' what they say without fact. Mass killings still happen in Australia and crazy people are still crazy with or without guns. (Childers Fire / Monash Shooting / Melbourne killings / Snowtown / etc.). I don't care to own a semi-automatic weapon but it won't solve the problem. Handguns are involved in about 20 times as many murders than rifles are. My problem is that when we ban assault weapons, it won't solve the problem, then they will want your handguns. All the time, the real problem is that some people are just fucking crazy or snap. If they can't kill someone with a gun, then they will do what Timothy McVeigh did and make a bomb, or just run people down with their car, etc. The tool the crazy person uses to be crazy isn't the problem.

If you're concerned about repelling a tyrannical dictator that would decide to send the most powerful military in history against you...well, the opportunity for civilians in America to be able to defend against that is ancient history.
The point of having a people with arms is that the largest standing army in the country will be the free people and not the military. If an entire populace, freely armed, did want to rebel or overthrow tyranny, it would be possible even if the government has more firepower. I realize you will come back with 'well they will just nuke them' or use drones' etc. I get it and still believe that a population, freely armed would persevere. (Especially when the 'army' you are against is made up of the people that are rebelling, very few in the armed forces would execute against American citizens in this situation).

[Humerox]

This stuff about Australia is a joke. You read a website and 'trust' what they say without fact. Mass killings still happen in Australia and crazy people are still crazy with or without guns. (Childers Fire / Monash Shooting / Melbourne killings / Snowtown / etc.). I don't care to own a semi-automatic weapon but it won't solve the problem. Handguns are involved in about 20 times as many murders than rifles are. My problem is that when we ban assault weapons, it won't solve the problem, then they will want your handguns. All the time, the real problem is that some people are just fucking crazy or snap. If they can't kill someone with a gun, then they will do what Timothy McVeigh did and make a bomb, or just run people down with their car, etc. The tool the crazy person uses to be crazy isn't the problem.


The point of having a people with arms is that the largest standing army in the country will be the free people and not the military. If an entire populace, freely armed, did want to rebel or overthrow tyranny, it would be possible even if the government has more firepower. I realize you will come back with 'well they will just nuke them' or use drones' etc. I get it and still believe that a population, freely armed would persevere. (Especially when the 'army' you are against is made up of the people that are rebelling, very few in the armed forces would execute against American citizens in this situation).

Having lived in Australia (I drove road trains there for a while), I beg to differ. But maybe Rueters (http://uk.reuters.com/video/2012/12/19/australia-tough-gun-laws-stopped-mass-mu?videoId=239986628&videoChannel=117759) can help with this.

As a veteran of the US Army I can say two things:

1) We will never have to worry about our armed services killing the populace.
2) If I were proven wrong - although I would love to believe what you said is true - civilians wouldn't stand a chance. Red Dawn is Hollywood.

[Humerox]

Oh...and let's take the Monash Shooting for an example.

Read the wiki on it. He killed 2 students and wounded 5 others. He had a crapload of handguns, no doubt. But read a bit.

When Xiang stopped shooting and moved to switch weapons, Lee Gordon-Brown, the injured lecturer, grabbed Xiang's hands as he reached into his jacket. Gordon-Brown and a student in the room, Alastair Boast, a trained wing chun practitioner, tackled him.

Now consider this. Had Xiang been armed with semi-automatic handguns and assault rifles...what do you think would have happened? We don't really know, but it's probably true that he wouldn't have been stopped, and the 2 dead would have been at least 7.

I'm not a crazed anti-gun advocate. I really believe if we do it right and not half-assed...we can stop mass killing in this country. Will we stop gun violence or gun deaths? Hell, no. But if we can save one innocent from a senseless mass killing it's our duty to try. Those kids in CT should be celebrating Christmas this year instead of lying in the ground because of fanatical pro-gun advocacy. We can HAVE guns...just get rid of the ones we don't need.

[Goofier]

Red Dawn is Hollywood.

So was Revolution.

[Humerox]

So was Revolution.

Sly, and averting the point...but we both know Hollywood can address both fact and fiction. You know what I was saying. :)

[Goofier]

Sly, and averting the point...but we both know Hollywood can address both fact and fiction. You know what I was saying. :)

Yeah :)

There is a sort of truth to it, though, and very much of a comparison. Just not entirely worth anything at the moment.

[Hitchens]

If the battle is between a bunch of grabass rednecks with retail shotguns and a drone, my money will be on the drone.

[Humerox]

Yeah :)

There is a sort of truth to it, though, and very much of a comparison. Just not entirely worth anything at the moment.

I think I get ya, though.

Which, btw is what's great about America. If we debate intelligently and objectively we can understand different points of view and:

Compromise.

Peace for now, folks...

[Goofier]

I think I get ya, though.

Which, btw is what's great about America. If we debate intelligently and objectively we can understand different points of view and:

Compromise.

Peace for now, folks...

Absolutely!

And here's one of my pieces :D

[Hasbinlulz]

If you don't know what "semi-automatic" means, you shouldn't use that phrase when speaking.

[Arclyte]

the opportunity for civilians in America to be able to defend against that is ancient history

...meanwhile a bunch of untrained cavemen have fought the strongest military in history to a stalemate for over 11 years with AK47s, RPGs and improvised explosives.

You are wrong. Flat out.

[Hitchens]

...meanwhile a bunch of untrained cavemen have fought the strongest military in history to a stalemate for over 11 years with AK47s, RPGs and improvised explosives.

You are wrong. Flat out.

Pretty significant cultural differences between Joe American and Joe Mujahideen.

[Clark]

guns are for pussies anyways

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T6-fskZimu4?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T6-fskZimu4?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

:cool:

[hatelore]

Absolutely!

And here's one of my pieces :D

Those are decent, that is a Walthers/Smith&Wesson make. I prefer the older Walthers ppk's. Thats Jame bond's gun and the one hitler used on himself. Its a good gun, but a few of them had recalls for faulty safety's.

[Andrew Jackson]

We have armed guards in courthouses, airports, and banks. Yet our most precious treasure, OUR CHILDREN, are left unprotected.

[Humerox]

...meanwhile a bunch of untrained cavemen have fought the strongest military in history to a stalemate for over 11 years with AK47s, RPGs and improvised explosives.

You are wrong. Flat out.

The Afghans ain't wrapped up in Dancing with the Stars and they don't care if McDonald's is open or not. The average American wouldn't last 10 days in a cave before he was begging to suck **ck for a french fry.

Hitchens nailed it, bro. Wake up.

[Arclyte]

lol, so, your argument against the 2nd amendment is that Americans are too fat and unmotivated to use their guns?

speak for yourself, tubs

[Andrew Jackson]

Ill show you the difference between a country boy and a city slicker

[Arclyte]

andy gonna remove the hippies like he removed the indians

[Humerox]

lol, so, your argument against the 2nd amendment is that Americans are too fat and unmotivated to use their guns?

speak for yourself, tubs

Show me somewhere where I said I was against the second amendment, lol.

[Humerox]

We have armed guards in courthouses, airports, and banks. Yet our most precious treasure, OUR CHILDREN, are left unprotected.

There was an armed guard AT Columbine.

After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."

Within a couple minutes after that plea for help:

Deputy Paul Smoker, a motorcycle patrolman who was near the school writing a speeding ticket. When he heard a dispatch of a woman injured at the high school, he responded. He, too, fired at Harris but didn't stop him.

Result - 15 dead, 23 wounded. Your turn.

[Andrew Jackson]

Yea those pussies were not heroes

[Humerox]

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

;)

[Andrew Jackson]

All teachers and faculty need to be armed, and a school cop who isn't a vagina like on Columbine.

[Goofier]

Those are decent, that is a Walthers/Smith&Wesson make. I prefer the older Walthers ppk's. Thats Jame bond's gun and the one hitler used on himself. Its a good gun, but a few of them had recalls for faulty safety's.

Yeah, I know, should have bought one years ago when I wanted to.
Now the new PPK's pretty much all suck.
The PPS, though, being 9 or .40 is pretty awesome for what it is.

[Hitchens]

lol, so, your argument against the 2nd amendment is that Americans are too fat and unmotivated to use their guns?

speak for yourself, tubs

http://i45.tinypic.com/f1jf9w.jpg

[Andrew Jackson]

hitchens post history:

http://i45.tinypic.com/f1jf9w.jpg

[hatelore]

Yeah, I know, should have bought one years ago when I wanted to.
Now the new PPK's pretty much all suck.
The PPS, though, being 9 or .40 is pretty awesome for what it is.

Yeah i miss my old ppk, it fit the hand perfectly. And with ++p ammunition the 380 wasn't such a bad round. Very accurate little guns.

[Humerox]

All teachers and faculty need to be armed, and a school cop who isn't a vagina like on Columbine.

Yeah...until one of them inner-city kids slap the donkeyshit out of their teacher, appropriate the gun, and use it to play tag with the classroom.

Imagine the uproar when that happens.

See...I know yer trolling but there are some batshit crazy people out there that actually believe what you said.

[Arclyte]

If the battle is between a bunch of grabass rednecks with retail shotguns and a drone, my money will be on the drone.

...meanwhile a bunch of untrained cavemen have fought the strongest military in history to a stalemate for over 11 years with AK47s, RPGs and improvised explosives.

You are wrong. Flat out.

Pretty significant cultural differences between Joe American and Joe Mujahideen.

The Afghans ain't wrapped up in Dancing with the Stars and they don't care if McDonald's is open or not. The average American wouldn't last 10 days in a cave before he was begging to suck **ck for a french fry.

Hitchens nailed it, bro. Wake up.

lol, so, your argument against the 2nd amendment is that Americans are too fat and unmotivated to use their guns?

speak for yourself, tubs

=

http://i45.tinypic.com/f1jf9w.jpg

?

[Humerox]

I think he meant the part where you said I was against the second amendment, bro.

Classic straw man.

;)

[Humerox]

He missed one, tho...I'm so good I got a 2 fer 1 post deal!

http://i558.photobucket.com/albums/ss30/Trve_photos/adhominem.jpg

[Humerox]

@Arclyte...

Going back and reading through your posts proves to me that you're an intelligent person, so here's some clarification on my position:

I'm not anti-gun at all. It's a matter of what guns are available to the general public. In the matter of mass-killings...they CAN be stopped. Australia has proven that. The problem with US gun control laws is that they've been enacted and not enforced. You can't half-ass proper legislation, or you wind up in the predicament we're in.

Will gun-control eliminate gun violence? No. Can it prevent the next mass murder of innocents in the country? Likely, yes. The problem here is that if we do nothing, we change nothing...and things have to change.

Assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns have no place in our current society. Single action handguns and rifles are fine. The Supreme Court upheld our individual right to bear arms, but like any other right it's not absolute. It must be balanced against the harm it can cause. The old argument about free speech and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is a cliche, but it still serves as a good example in the case up balancing free speech against harmful action, and proves that the right of free speech is not absolute. The same de facto rule applies to the second amendment.

Maybe someday you'll change your mind. Probably not...but maybe. ;)

[Sly]

Death by auto 2000-2010 there were and avg of 40k deaths in auto accidents--ban cars

Death by medecine--This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be 2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year.
The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US.
These are CDC numbers---ban medical procedures

We can go on and on about the things we need to ban or restrict trying to ' protect' everyone, why not just every stay in their homes with police posted at our doors.
We either take on the challenge of living as free responsible individuals or we cower in fear and stay in our homes under the false sense of being protected by mommy govt.

For those who do not like firearms or fear them, don't own them but dont take away or restrict my right to own them for my own protection.
I wouldnt try to have your right to free speech restricted simply because I dont like or agree with what you say

[Goofier]

Yeah i miss my old ppk, it fit the hand perfectly. And with ++p ammunition the 380 wasn't such a bad round. Very accurate little guns.

Got some Buffalo Bore .380 right here :)

[Hitchens]

Arclyte,

Americans are not too "fat and unmotivated" to use their guns. Americans, for the most part at least, simply have different values than Mujahideen. I don't really consider this to be a negative thing. I would certainly prefer my culture to theirs.

[Llodd]

CA does have the most gun control, per the Brady campaign's own website where it scores in the high 80's. Utah as a counterexample, scores a 0.

I don't know if CA has the most total guns, I'd doubt it in favour of the midwest. But it does have the highest amount of firearm homicides, as I showed in the FBI fact sheet.

Leaning towards idiot.

That FBI fact sheet you so obviously haven't even looked at properly, lists the total firearms (per state) in the next column to total homicides (per state)..

So CA, who has the highest gun control, has the highest murders and highest total number of guns.

Tells you alot about the supposed 'gun control' and how highly it rates.

ie - it's pathetic and non existant.

I wont even try to draw conclusions about the state with the highest total guns having the highest total murders as that wouldn't fit in with the crazy talk around here.

[Lexical]

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wBwGEdHJsKE?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wBwGEdHJsKE?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Andrew Jackson]

Llodd clearly trollign no one can be that stupid

[Andrew Jackson]

Unless he really believes a state like Alabama only has 135 total firearms, lol

[Hasbinlulz]

FUCK FACTS WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?

[Humerox]

Unless he really believes a state like Alabama only has 135 total firearms, lol

I think it means out of the 199 murders in AL in 2010, 135 were committed by the (total) of 112 handguns, 0 rifle and 23 shotguns. 23 were by knives, 24 were "other" weapons, and 17 were by hands, fists, and feet.

;)

[Andrew Jackson]

yes that's exactly what it means. He thinks thats the amount of privately owned firearms lol

[Llodd]

you know when you just go bluegh ,..

[Tasslehofp99]

I think this argument comes down to one question: should america remain a "free" country...or does america become a place where your rights are continually taken away? Regardless of how many die to gun violence or in what situation it happens, If gun laws become more strict then alcohol, tobacco, and and religion should all be illegal. Those things cause more death then guns ever will, forever. I hate freedom hating liberals as much as I hate bible thumping conservatives but come on we have bigger issues in america, quit crying about gun control.

[Swish]

Q: How many NRA members does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: More guns

[Tarathiel]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/188790_10151156229391487_711336981_n.jpg

[dredge]

My solution involves a little bit of everything. I'm not against the idea of guards in schools, but it would have be done right. By that I mean every person in there would have to be well trained. There is no point in just putting some old retired dude in a school. It would involve reviving the mental health system to provide for more rigorous evaluation and make intervention easier when the family will not act. It would involve more restrictive sales of ammo to legal gun owners. It would require mandatory gun safety classes to be a legal owner. It would outlaw sales of weapons that have no purpose other than as mass killing machines. I would also be for moving firearm jurisdiction from the ATF to the FTC. That's it. And I'm not suggesting that all violence would magically disappear. My goal is simply to reduce the numbers and limit the potential carnage from any single event. Notice I didn't mention denying anyone the right to own and carry handguns, rifles or shotguns. Only the most radical lefty thinks that makes any sense. And all of the above costs money. Will people pay higher taxes after tax revolts cutting teacher salaries and police layoffs? I think it's time to quit guarding Afghanistan and every other Western hating nation and start protecting our own.

[Humerox]

Regardless of how many die to gun violence or in what situation it happens...

You realize that your words may be construed as a fanaticism, right?

Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby.

Most gun control advocates are looking for real solutions to our problem. Gun control isn't a dirty word anymore...even though there are fanatics on both sides. The Aussies got it right.


Aussies Urge America (http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/australians-urge-u-s-to-look-at-their-gun-laws)

[Andrew Jackson]

confiscate guns? civil war 2, especially in this political climate with 2 ongoing revolutions
(occupy tyranny)

so just keep guns out of schools? we tried that, see what happens.

arm the faculty

[Andrew Jackson]

It would require mandatory gun safety classes to be a legal owner. It would outlaw sales of weapons that have no purpose other than as mass killing machines. I would also be for moving firearm jurisdiction from the ATF to the FTC. That's it. And I'm not suggesting that all violence would magically disappear. My goal is simply to reduce the numbers and limit the potential carnage from any single event. Notice I didn't mention denying anyone the right to own and carry handguns, rifles or shotguns. Only the most radical lefty thinks that makes any sense

To legally own a gun in most states is a pain in the ass already. There are gun show loopholes but even if you buy a handgun in CA through the loophole, if you don't have the handgun owners safety certificate you are already committing a felony by owning it.

Hard to draw the line on a gun that's 'only' purpose is to mass kill, since all guns are designed to kill in general. All an assault weapon is (by the medias definition) is a magazine fed semiautomatic rifle thats 'scary' looking. They most commonly used legitimately for hunting and home defense. Hunting rifles even generally come in a larger caliber, but don't have pistol grips and other 'evil features' (legal term).

[Sly]

The Top Five Causes Of Unintentional Deat and Injury involving children worldwide:

1. Car Accidents: Kill 260,000 children a year and injure about 10 million children. They are the leading cause of death among children and a leading cause of child disability.
 

2. Drowning: Kills more than 175,000 children annually. Up to 3 million children each year survive a drowning incident. Due to brain damage in some survivors, nonfatal drowning has the highest average lifetime health and economic impact of any type of child injury. 
 

3. Burns: Fire-related burns kill nearly 96,000 children a year. 

4. Falls: Nearly 47,000 children fall to their deaths every year, but hundreds of thousands more children sustain serious injuries from a fall. 
 

5. Poisoning: More than 45,000 children die each year from unintended poisoning.






Source: World Health Organization and UNICEF

March 18, 2009 WASHINGTON, D.C. - Each year, unintentional poisonings from consumer products commonly found in the home kill about 30,000 children and prompt more than 2 million calls to the nation's poison control centers. More than 90% of these calls involve poisonings in the home. On average, each year an estimated 80,000 children are treated in hospital emergency departments for unintentional poisonings.

I don't see the anyone jumping on the badwagon to ban cars, water, fire, falls or products with poisonous contents...look at how many lives you can save!!!!!!!

Some other interesting stats for you about those mass shooters-

They were wearing pants-Ban pants
They wore shirts-Ban shirts
They wore socks-Ban socks
They breathe oxygen-Ban it
And finally...........They were all Human------Ban Humans!!!

[Tarathiel]

The Top Five Causes Of Unintentional Deat and Injury involving children worldwide:

1. Car Accidents: Kill 260,000 children a year and injure about 10 million children. They are the leading cause of death among children and a leading cause of child disability.
 

2. Drowning: Kills more than 175,000 children annually. Up to 3 million children each year survive a drowning incident. Due to brain damage in some survivors, nonfatal drowning has the highest average lifetime health and economic impact of any type of child injury. 
 

3. Burns: Fire-related burns kill nearly 96,000 children a year. 

4. Falls: Nearly 47,000 children fall to their deaths every year, but hundreds of thousands more children sustain serious injuries from a fall. 
 

5. Poisoning: More than 45,000 children die each year from unintended poisoning.






Source: World Health Organization and UNICEF

March 18, 2009 WASHINGTON, D.C. - Each year, unintentional poisonings from consumer products commonly found in the home kill about 30,000 children and prompt more than 2 million calls to the nation's poison control centers. More than 90% of these calls involve poisonings in the home. On average, each year an estimated 80,000 children are treated in hospital emergency departments for unintentional poisonings.

I don't see the anyone jumping on the badwagon to ban cars, water, fire, falls or products with poisonous contents...look at how many lives you can save!!!!!!!

Some other interesting stats for you about those mass shooters-

They were wearing pants-Ban pants
They wore shirts-Ban shirts
They wore socks-Ban socks
They breathe oxygen-Ban it
And finally...........They were all Human------Ban Humans!!!

i understand the premise of this argument, but where it fails is that none of the items you mentioned were designed with the sole intent to kill, people dont make cars to kill people, people dont make pools to kill people, however guns are designed with only one purpose, and that is to kill... if you use it for anything else(sport shooting) you are not using it in the matter that it was designed. guns were created to kill.

i know what your next argument is gonna be... "but tarathiel, guns dont kill people, people kill people" this is true, and without guns they will still find other ways to kill. does this mean we shouldnt still look at ways to make owning a gun more difficult for bat shit crazy wierdo's?

please dont take this as a "omg he wants to take our guns away" style post, because its not. i dont think guns should be banned i just think we need to keep better tabs on who should be able to own them, if people want to cry about invasion of privacy or anything else then oh fucking well. id rather invade your privacy and make sure you arent one missed ritalin away from a massacre then protect your right to privacy

[Recycled Children]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/ac698357299915806f5d6f7a362a1631/tumblr_mfe5dt6nqk1qdvzn5o1_400.jpg

http://pitweston.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Regan.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3pvn0U4Df1r54qfqo1_500.jpg

http://www.afn.org/~govern/guncont.jpg

[Tarathiel]

do you really think that if shit hit the fan, and you had to defend yourseylf from the government, that you and your fucking ar-15 would stand a rats chance in hell against the full might of the american military? if so then you are quite delusional and should not be owning a gun in the first place

[Recycled Children]

Liberals know whats best for you and everyone else.

[Tarathiel]

wtf does that even mean? all you got is rhetoric, get back to me when you can form an actual argument or reasoned statement beyond just regurgitating what every billy bob and his inbred cousin have been spouting since the end of the war of northern aggression

[Recycled Children]

do you really think that if shit hit the fan, and you had to defend yourseylf from the government, that you and your fucking ar-15 would stand a rats chance in hell against the full might of the american military? if so then you are quite delusional and should not be owning a gun in the first place

Worked pretty well during the Revolutionary War. Worked pretty well for the Vietcong. Works pretty well for Middle Eastern guerillas (terrorists, depends on who you ask) who continue to kill military personnel with Cold War AK-47s and roadside bombs.

There's strength in numbers my friend and there's more of us than them. But keep up that defeatist attitude and let the government put their boot directly on your throat by giving up the guns. I think most soldiers would recognize that their being ordered to kill the same people the swore to protect and revolt against it.

[Recycled Children]

wtf does that even mean? all you got is rhetoric, get back to me when you can form an actual argument or reasoned statement beyond just regurgitating what every billy bob and his inbred cousin have been spouting since the end of the war of northern aggression

That seem to shut you up real quick. The statement prior to my last response wasn't even directed at you, it was just a general statement about whiny liberals. You just happened to respond before I typed it out. What does it mean? Think about it, ace. I haven't read all your responses and I'm really not going to backlog to read the same bullshit I've been reading on my Facebook feed since Sandy Hook. I'm just going to assume that you're "not in favor of getting rid of all the guns but you don't think people need to own automatic or semi-automatic rifles." WHOA! Big shocker on that opinion. Fact is you want to dictate how, when and what type of gun people own so I'll say it again, Liberals know what's best for you and everyone else.

Disarmament isn't the only issue any of you clowns have stupid fucking opinions on. You're also in favor of a dog shit healthcare system and dumping half your paycheck into lazy people's pockets.wtf does that even mean? all you got is rhetoric, get back to me when you can form an actual argument or reasoned statement beyond just regurgitating what every billy bob and his inbred cousin have been spouting since the end of the war of northern aggression

That seem to shut you up real quick. The statement prior to my last response wasn't even directed at you, it was just a general statement about whiny liberals. You just happened to respond before I typed it out. What does it mean? Think about it, ace. I haven't read all your responses and I'm really not going to backlog to read the same bullshit I've been reading on my Facebook feed since Sandy Hook. I'm just going to assume that you're "not in favor of getting rid of all the guns but you don't think people need to own automatic or semi-automatic rifles." WHOA! Big shocker on that opinion. Fact is you want to dictate how, when and what type of gun people own so I'll say it again, Liberals know what's best for you and everyone else.

Disarmament isn't the only issue you clowns have stupid fucking opinions on. You're also in favor of a dog shit healthcare system and dumping half your paycheck into lazy people's pockets.

[Recycled Children]

Shitty wireless internet. Double posted in a single post. Anyways point made twice.

[Tarathiel]

dude give up the fear mongering campaign, the big bad government isn't going to take your guns away, and like you said, even if they were to try, where would they field the army? i have quite a few family members and friends are have served and are actively serving in the air force, navy, marines, and army. i highly doubt any one of them would turn them weapons on an american civilian or support some move to "take the guns away" for christ's sake most of the people in the military think exactly the way you do

[Tarathiel]

its not about disarming responsible gun owners, its about being a little bit more selective one who we consider "responsible" i cant see why any logical person would see the harm in that. people with a history of mental illness should not have access to guns, and the people that provide that access should be held accountable.

[Arclyte]

do you really think that if shit hit the fan, and you had to defend yourseylf from the government, that you and your fucking ar-15 would stand a rats chance in hell against the full might of the american military? if so then you are quite delusional and should not be owning a gun in the first place

You are retarded

[Andrew Jackson]

its not about disarming responsible gun owners, its about being a little bit more selective one who we consider "responsible" i cant see why any logical person would see the harm in that. people with a history of mental illness should not have access to guns, and the people that provide that access should be held accountable.

problem is dsm is so full of bullshit everyone can be boxed into 2-3 mental illnesses now

[cyryllis]

Most violent crimes involving guns are committed with weapons not owned/registered by the person committing the crime. Not sure how laws keep guns out of the hands of deranged criminals.

Recent local school shooting is just being used by idiots to promote failed logic. The guns used in the Newtown weren't the property of the shooter.

Want to improve your community's safety? Teach proper gun handling and safety measures to everyone. Educate the public instead of trying to fear monger. That alone would prevent more deaths than further restricting gun regulations for responsible adults.

We have plenty of laws already in place. Laws are for honest people- when was the last time there was a drug shortage in the US? Oh yeah, never.

[Andrew Jackson]

http://i.imgur.com/WJ6S8.jpg

[Recycled Children]

its not about disarming responsible gun owners, its about being a little bit more selective one who we consider "responsible" i cant see why any logical person would see the harm in that. people with a history of mental illness should not have access to guns, and the people that provide that access should be held accountable.

What selective measures are going to take for black market sales? All your going to do is hassle responsible gun owners while criminals grab their guns in the seedier part of town that your parents warned about.

dude give up the fear mongering campaign, the big bad government isn't going to take your guns away"

Who's fear mongering? If you've paid any kind of attention to what the federal government has passed since 9/11 you'd realize this country is turning into a fascist police state. Sure shrug off stuff like the NDAA, Patriot Act and the TSA groping kids in the airport. Now they're going to attack guns and knowing this government within the past decade they will probably get it since the Constitution is ancient history and doesn't seem to apply to them anymore.

[Recycled Children]

I will admit I am for firearm education. People should be exposed to guns even at an early age to learn not only how to properly fire a weapon but to respect it as well.

[Andrew Jackson]

I think firearms and hallucinogens should be a mandatory class in middle school

[Tarathiel]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-york-firefighters-shooting/index.html

oh hey look more people dead from gun violence, this time is was a trap set to lure these unsuspecting firefighters to their death

now lets talk about how we need MOAR GUNS and how everyone and their mother should have access to one bcuz "its r rite as 'mericans"

[cyryllis]

You obviously fail at reading comprehension and basic logic

[Tarathiel]

obviously

"The firefighters who responded today were performing a selfless, meaningful service to their community, unaware that a cold-hearted maniac was planning to ambush them and take their lives," said Harold Schaitberger, general president of the Washington-based International Association of Fire Fighters. "Coming on the heels of the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, and on Christmas Eve, this shooting is even harder to comprehend."

[Autotune]

obviously

"The firefighters who responded today were performing a selfless, meaningful service to their community, unaware that a cold-hearted maniac was planning to ambush them and take their lives," said Harold Schaitberger, general president of the Washington-based International Association of Fire Fighters. "Coming on the heels of the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, and on Christmas Eve, this shooting is even harder to comprehend."

I hear that this is some new tactic and has never, ever happened before nor does it happen often.

[cyryllis]

ok, have to add a post to explain the last one, since it is now apparent that you don't even read the articles that you link to and you most likely have the IQ of 60.

QUOTES DIRECTLY FROM YOUR SOURCE:

" A man convicted of killing his grandmother decades ago "

"Authorities do not know how Spengler, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the scene, obtained the weapon he used in Monday's shooting"

"convicted in 1981 of first-degree manslaughter"

Pickering said. "I think there are still people that need to be in institutions that are a danger to themselves or others. And this is a classic example."



So let me get this straight- ex-con already convicted of murder commits a crime with illegally obtained weapon, goes crazy and shoots people.

We have millions of guns in our country in the hands of people who know how to properly handle them. Shootings as sad for everyone involved and bring up a lot of emotions- many of which are misappropriated towards laws.

People simply have a hard time accepting the fact that in a world with billions of people, you are going to have horrible things like this happen. Globalized media has a really great way of making it seem like these things are a common occurrence. I am upset by these events as much as the next guy, but I have the common sense to see how laws only impact people willing to follow them.

[Tarathiel]

snip

oh i read it, and the parts you quoted were the parts that stuck out the most to me, and if you had any reading comprehension skills(like you claim i dont) and paid attention at all to the other points ive made in this thread then you would understand why i found this link to be relevant. there is absolutely no reason on earth why this guy should even have been out of jail, let alone have access to firearms, where the fuck were his probation officers? were they not routinely checking his house to make sure he did not possess these guns? our entire system is one gigantic failure after another. this is just further evidence that our criminal justice system, mental health system, and finally our dependence on firearms is a complete and utter failure. again i must stress, i dont think we should ban all guns, just make it harder for crazy fucks like this guy to get them. if that means keeping them locked up then so fucking be it. if it means that if you have ever had any kind of mental illness you should NEVER have access to a firearm. will this stop sane people from snapping? no. will this stop people from obtaining guns illegally? no..... but its better than just sitting around with our thumbs up our ass waiting for the next fucking massacre to happen

[cyryllis]

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

[Andrew Jackson]

all your link did is prove bad guys are going to obtain illegal weaponry anyway, so why disarm everyone so they can feed on us?

[Sly]

So far none of you who want to restrict or ban firearms to in order to keep us safe and protect our children have said anything about protecting kids from any of the other forms of death I listed in previous posts..is it that you dont care if kids die in auto accidents, botched medical procedures, poisonings, reactions to prescription meds or the decade long wars in 2 countrys?
A child dies in a car wreck, you're ok with that...wouldnt think of making it an issue or speak out about it, never ban those autos
A child gets stabbed to death, fine, ok... sucks but yeah..dont want to ban knives
A child gets shot..Oooohh lord why why whyyyyy...we need the govt to do something, ban those guns...suddenly you care.
Why are you all not blaming the other objects that caused death?

someone gets mauled to death by a yellow lab..ooh my so sad
someone gets mauled to death by a pitbull...God damn those dogs, ban the breed


I Blame the asshole that does the bad deed, not the car or the knife or the 9 iron or the brick..smarten up, people do fucked up things and always will, you are not going to fix it by taking away things or freedoms from the law abiding citizens.

[Recycled Children]

How does punishing the majority for the actions of a few select individuals make any kind of sense to you at all? That logic is on par with "men have dicks, men rape with their dicks, let's cut off all men's dicks to prevent rape."

Do you think logically at all or just have wild emotional reactions like a broad?

[Autotune]

If a Criminal can get it to kill me with easily as he can get his drugs, then I want it legal so I can get it.

Until I can go to Wal-Mart and buy Police officers and Security personnel like I can any Rifle that accepts a detachable magazine for similar prices, I'll not give up any weapon I have.

[Goofier]

If a Criminal can get it to kill me with easily as he can get his drugs, then I want it legal so I can get it.

Until I can go to Wal-Mart and buy Police officers and Security personnel like I can any Rifle that accepts a detachable magazine for similar prices, I'll not give up any weapon I have.

Cops are heavy, too.

[Andrew Jackson]

we need to allow full auto cuz all that will mean is morans will run oom (out of munitions) faster

[Andrew Jackson]

Australia banned guns and went straight to shit

<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p8RDWltHxRc?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p8RDWltHxRc?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[hatelore]

oh i read it, and the parts you quoted were the parts that stuck out the most to me, and if you had any reading comprehension skills(like you claim i dont) and paid attention at all to the other points ive made in this thread then you would understand why i found this link to be relevant. there is absolutely no reason on earth why this guy should even have been out of jail, let alone have access to firearms, where the fuck were his probation officers? were they not routinely checking his house to make sure he did not possess these guns? our entire system is one gigantic failure after another. this is just further evidence that our criminal justice system, mental health system, and finally our dependence on firearms is a complete and utter failure. again i must stress, i dont think we should ban all guns, just make it harder for crazy fucks like this guy to get them. if that means keeping them locked up then so fucking be it. if it means that if you have ever had any kind of mental illness you should NEVER have access to a firearm. will this stop sane people from snapping? no. will this stop people from obtaining guns illegally? no..... but its better than just sitting around with our thumbs up our ass waiting for the next fucking massacre to happen

/qft

[feanan]

No guns makes us safe!

Hows that working out in the UK?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

[Harmonium]

Make guns illegal. Because once it's a crime to own a gun, criminals won't touch them anymore.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/281292_568147283202070_1056030698_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/6996_414018758670426_1687706922_n.jpg

[Harmonium]

You do realize that criminalizing guns will create a flourishing black market for them. Thereby increasing the availability of guns to criminals.

Alcohol prohibition sure didn't work.

Drug prohibition sure isn't working.

But THIS.... this will work, right?

[Faron]

I don't understand why people debate about a ban, because there is about a 0% chance of that happening for a number of reasons.

[Llodd]

You do realize that criminalizing guns will create a flourishing black market for them. Thereby increasing the availability of guns to criminals.

Alcohol prohibition sure didn't work.

Drug prohibition sure isn't working.

But THIS.... this will work, right?

Well that depends on whether you think guns are addictive or not.

[Faron]

Well that depends on whether you think guns are addictive or not.

The point is that it would be an illegal item that people would desire to have, and thus it would be made available one way or another. But again, this is all moot as fuck because it's not going to happen.

[finalgrunt]

Let's try to have a rational view on the subject.

1°) "Guns do not kill, people kill." or "inanimate objects don't kill".

Throw 100 loaded guns in a room filled with 4 years old kids. Wait few hours. Wanna bet they're all safe by the end of the experiment? The thing is, it's not always safe when it can and will be misused.

2°) 2nd amendment. Yes it says the right to the people to bear arms. Let's not go into the "well regulated militia" stuff. If we really want to dig into it, it's written you've got the right to bear. Not to use. Since it was written to prevent a tyranic government to take over its people freedom, you shouldn't be able to use it legally. Because if you use your weapons, it's when the government has gone made. In other words, you can be pretty sure going against your tyranic government won't make you a law abiding citizen. Nowhere the 2nd amendment allows you to use your weapons to defend yourself outside this case. People took the freedom to think so over the years, from a past where there was no police, no army.

3°) Many people abuse the tyranic government excuse to defend the right to own and use guns without any sort of restriction. For example, the funding fathers were pretty clear about their view on a standing army:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.

Yet, I don't see gun owning americans standing up against their own governement for that matter. So either you're ok with an army, and federal police, which means you TRUST your government to take care of your safety, or you don't, and you should be forming a militia. Tyranic governments don't take over a country by force. It's often because a majority of the people backup the tyran when he/she got access to power.

4°) "People can make bombs, when people want to kill, they will kill and find a way". True, banning guns won't stop tragedies. But it will certainly lower the frequency of such slaughters, and overall reduce the casualties. USA are too centered on their own way of living / history, they don't feel like they could learn from other countries history. The fact is, even though there are madmen slaughters in other countries, the amount and figures are way below what the US see on their grounds.

Also when making a bomb, the perpetrator is taking risks. There are chances of blowing self while manufacturing them, or getting noticed when buying them.

After Oklahoma City bombing, measures were taken to try and detect future tragedies like them. Notice how many bombings there are been since. Lastly, people often lose sight of Timothy McVeigh motives. The nutcase was antigovernment, anti gun restriction, and pro militia. It was a terrorist act against the government. Had the militia stuff and government fear theories been less important then, maybe it wouldn't have happened.

5°) "Car kill more people each year, you don't see people willing to ban cars". Yet you accept that there are strong conditions to using a car (license, tests, controls, speed limitation). Because in the wrong hands, a car is a weapon. If you were to accept the same conditions in order to use a gun, you would simply have a Gun Control process. Nothing more, nothing less.

6°) "If you disarm people, only bad guys will have guns". True, if banning is the only thing done. In Australia, they backed up their tough gun control laws with two (controversial when they occured) buybacks sessions. Banning without removing the guns in circulation would indeed be ineffective. That's the very reason some big cities in US, or Mexico has such a large crime rate despite a supposed gun restriction/ban. Easy access / proximity to guns make it easy for everybody, even more criminals to get them. In Europe, getting a gun is not easy. And if you try to get one on the black market, chances are you'll be noticed by some policemen under cover and stop you in your track.

7°) "Ban the guns? Drugs are illegal, see how it worked for that". Yes banning, doesn't mean things will go away. All it means, is that the approach doesn't work on drugs. Then if you follow the logic, why having laws in the first place, because criminals will always break them. That's reverse thinking. Laws give a society grounds to distinguish criminals from others. You can only say you're a law abiding citizen when there is a law. Doesn't mean all laws are good and / or effective. Citizens are responsible in a way to make sure laws are for their own good.

8°) "Removing guns will make violent crime go up". It's true, many violent crimes which usually end up as homicide will switch to other categories. Like rapes which end up as homicides, will likely end up as rape. Not that rape is ok (it's a monstruosity), but some say alive is better than dead.

9°) "People will suicide regardless of gun ban, they'll find a way". It's one thign which has been proven wrong. In Israel, they made their soldiers stop keep their weapons at home, because of the high suicide rate. After they did so, some switched to other methods, but the figures were far much lower. Easy access to a gun, which makes it easy to end your life, means a person with a sudden urge to end his / her life will likely do so. When the same person must find more complicated ways, that makes them think and sometimes (most often actually from studies on the subject), that buys time for the urge to decline, or give them time to ask for help.

10°) "When somebody breaks in my home, I want to have a gun to prevent the bad guy to kill and rape my family". People who tell you this play with your innate feelings to make you crave for security. Fact is, rape still occurs a lot in the states, and is most likely to occur from a person the woman/girl knows. Have you ever tried to check statistics on house breaking which resulted in a family slaughter / rape? These are almost urban legends actually. Also, there are many reported cases of people shooting relatives / neighbors who were sneaking in at night after a late night / or just came to see if everything was fine after hearing some noise. Buying a good alarm system, locking yourself up in your room, and calling the police will be much more effective than trying to gun people in the dark, which could also be armed.

11°) "Had the teachers / principal been armed, the shooter would have been stopped" or "Schools should have an armed cop at the entrance to protect our kids". For columbine, there was an armed guardian, and also an armed cop close enough. Even though the guardian happened to be close by luck (eating in his car), it didn't prevent the slaughter to happen. For the simple reason than when there is a panic among people, they're running everywhere, and identifying and hitting the shooter in such setup is extremly hard. Now imagine if there were teachers running with guns and shooting. What a cop is supposed to do? Shoot that person in case it's the bad person?

Also having guns in school is just begging for accidents. Lastly, the day a teacher or a school guardian goes mad, I don't see how arming people in a school will prevent mass shooting. While having a teacher not able to get access to a gun in the first place could prevent part of the slaughter. Lastly, you will never have people ready everywhere, anytime to protect the civilians, it's an illusion, and would cost a ton of cash anyway. And a person with bad intentions, will likely have the jump on armed people anyway.

12°) Disregard any statistics which would put crime in other equally civilized countries close or on par with the US. Because when it happens, it comes from the NRA lobby which will compare apples and oranges, and have always been proven wrong by a large margin.

Violent crime
The burglary rates of selected developed countries as published by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics

The reported US violent crime rate includes only Aggravated Assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Assault level 1 (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm).[34][35] A government study concluded that direct comparison of the 2 countries' violent crime totals or rates was "inappropriate"

Comparing crimes is not easy, because there are variables like the rate of crimes reported to the police (even though violent crimes are more likely to be reported). And the definition varies between countries. Every single time a strict comparison has been made, the US were way ahead though.

13°) "We've got a culture of violence, and must protect ourselves against it". Doing nothing about it, is what the US have done for the two past centuries. And the culture didn't change, obviously. Changing access to weapons will change your culture. Just read more what happened in other countries, and you'll see where it can go. This is all about global security versus personal security. When everybody focuses on their own security, it seems it bites them in the ass in the end.

14°) "Hitler, Mao and Stalin wanted to get their population without weapons, see what happened". This is indeed the strongest case for weapon bearing. I also believe an armed population is harder to deal with. However, these tyrants gained access to power WITH the population consent. And because many agreed with the racist/ideologist theories, the slaughters eventually occurred. If something similar were to happen in the US, it would become a civil war (like Whites deciding it's time to eradicate the Hispanics, if we go for a good analogy). However, it doesn't mean it would prevent it to happen, would just take longer maybe for the bloodbath reach its peak.

Isolated population is much easier to deal with, armed or not. And with current US density, my guess is a redneck in his farm with his shotgun, would still be downed by a militia at war against that person, by a sniper or whatever. If army means were added, the poor redneck would have his farm blown from so far, there would be nothing to do.

15°) "In the 2 past centuries, US haven't had any tyrannic government or invasion, thanks to guns". Like many other countries actually. US happen to have two oceans on its sides. This in itself is the most advanced form of defense a country can have. When you think how hard it was to make D-Day happen, can you imagine a country sustaining a war over such distance in the US, really? That's just impossible to maintain. US did not have common borders with Germany, or Russia. Therefore, obviously, US remained safe (and had it been the case, a country as vast and developed as the US then would have been safe). This is not disorganized colonies vs the strong British empire anymore. US are more likely to get nuked then invaded, by a very large margin.

16°) "It's always people with mental illness doing the slaughters, get rid of them, and be done with the problem". Most people aren't born with mental illness. Perfectly sane people can go overboard any moment of their life, when they lose someone close, or go through hard times. Or without any reason really. Criminals can be perfectly sane / law abiding citizen up to few hours before their acts. This is not a simple science. Like it's been proven that death sentence doesn't prevent violent crimes from happening, temporary mental disorders which can lead to a first criminal act is not something you can detect. However, agreed, treating people with proven/known mental illnesses/ disorders will likely lower issues in society. But it costs money. And US citizens don't like expenses (well not when the effects might not be immediate / obvious). Socialism yada yada yada.

17°) "Government is pushing an agenda to strip us from our fundamental rights". In my opinion, the damage has already been done, and they don't care about your gun.

Let's see what Jefferson said once:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..."
"The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."


Yet it's the case. And you're not using your guns to get rid of the corrupted bankers / government. What makes you think your people will stand up one day against its government? If nobody moves or does anything, they will get what they want: a modern scheme to steal a people's work and wealth without them noticing. Why would they want anything else? They already got it.

My prayers go to the US, because I don't see anything happening anytime soon (with no central power, my guess is that no strong policy can see light to deal with such controversial matter), and tragedies will keep happening. Good luck with that. But I'm confident to say, the day the US citizens will give up their fears and guns to feel safe, the world will be a much safer place as a whole. And if some people say they would happily give their lives to save those of the poor children who died recently, then I'd take them to their word, and ask them to fight for a gun free world, even if it may cost their individual life, by being unarmed during an assault, until the time comes where even the criminals can't easily get a gun (which is the case, in most countries around the world, at least far enough from the US gun factories).

[Strifer]

You do realize that criminalizing guns will create a flourishing black market for them. Thereby increasing the availability of guns to criminals.

Alcohol prohibition sure didn't work.

Drug prohibition sure isn't working.

But THIS.... this will work, right?


My best friend overdosed on marijuana once, he had a whole five marijuanas and injected two of them directly into his veins. This was after those terrible people looking to destroy our nation made such a terrible substance somewhat legal.

Guns are awful and we should lock away such awful advocates for them such as John Romero, who we all know tried to make us his bitch years ago. He probably was drinking alcohol when he was thinking that, or probably snorted a marijuana or two.

For real all kids need today is church and life jackets, because clearly illegalizing any and all things that could remotely pose a threat to our children by being used in an unsafe and unintelligent manner is exactly what needs to be done. While we're at it lets make sure we ban all video games that show violence because as we all know from multiple cases and very well documented studies, that games that depict simulation of a soldier fighting armed enemies or science fiction heroes battling space creatures for the survival of the human race always undoubtedly leads to school shootings, or at least mall massacres.

Yet of course that is the only wrong media in today's society, not your quarterly released shitty horror film depicting teenagers getting slaughtered, or "romance" novels discussing violent and semi-non-consentual intercourse. No...clearly the only one that is wrong is the one that fifty year old news media execs dont actively use or see.

For real tho, shits crazy. People are going to do awful things with guns regardless especially considering the story of what happened two days ago near Rochester,NY. It's more of our society realizing that there are in fact people whose mental capacities do not warrant the same rights as the general populace. Many people may use guns to hunt, or feel safe to keep a rifle for a worst-case scenario hoping never to have to use it. However it takes an especially fucked up individual to start his house on fire, call the fire in to the fire department and pick off the first responders.

There's no good answer for this situation and as long as we remain delusional there's no real way to completely stop the actions of madmen.

[Tarathiel]

Let's try to have a rational view on the subject.



whats that?

anyways tho, i agree with everything you have said

[Llodd]

The point is that it would be an illegal item that people would desire to have, and thus it would be made available one way or another. But again, this is all moot as fuck because it's not going to happen.

Plenty of illegal items that people don't desire. Why is the desire of guns so strong.

Has the 2nd ammendment or whatever the hell it is people keep whinging about made a lot of americans addicted to guns ?

[Andrew Jackson]

because we live in a dystopic hellscape with high unemployment and tons of criminals looking to beat down your door kill you rape your wife and steal your tv

[Tarathiel]

because fear mongering

[Andrew Jackson]

how is it fear mongering when home invasions are a literal every day commence occurrence across the entire world and all social classes

[Andrew Jackson]

because you liberals choose to live in a bubble where bad things doesnt happen doesnt mean that they dont. to disarm us is inhumane

[Daldolma]

liberty vs security, age old battle being solved by p99 rnfers

[finalgrunt]

because we live in a dystopic hellscape with high unemployment and tons of criminals looking to beat down your door kill you rape your wife and steal your tv

Urban legends. People who break in, want to steal. They go for empty / vacant houses.
That's why they mostly occur during summer/vacation & day time. They don't want confrontation. They don't want attention. A good security/alarm system is what you want, and good locks for your windows / doors.

If you read the news, you'll find out family slaughters mostly happen when a man in the house goes crazy (elder son, father, grand father) with a gun, hammer, knife. Imo, any good mother should make sure there is no gun around an unstable / depressive husband.

[Daldolma]

Imo, any good mother should make sure there is no gun around an unstable / depressive husband.

govt = big mother?

[Feeder]

You do realize that criminalizing guns will create a flourishing black market for them. Thereby increasing the availability of guns to criminals.

Alcohol prohibition sure didn't work.

Drug prohibition sure isn't working.

But THIS.... this will work, right?

Illegal things make criminals money, banning guns helps this. No one should be so naive as to think the illegality of something can stop it. The problem is sick and fucked up people, usually sodomized by their father from age 3 onwards, kill people. That's the real problem, not guns.

[Andrew Jackson]

the 14th amendment was added explicitly so the newly freed slaves could fall under protection of the 2nd amendment and defend themselves against marauding gangs like the KKK

[Heavydrop]

Illegal things make criminals money, banning guns helps this. No one should be so naive as to think the illegality of something can stop it. The problem is sick and fucked up people, usually sodomized by their father from age 3 onwards, kill people. That's the real problem, not guns.

+a million

[Heavydrop]

Urban legends. People who break in, want to steal. They go for empty / vacant houses.
That's why they mostly occur during summer/vacation & day time. They don't want confrontation. They don't want attention. A good security/alarm system is what you want, and good locks for your windows / doors.

If you read the news, you'll find out family slaughters mostly happen when a man in the house goes crazy (elder son, father, grand father) with a gun, hammer, knife. Imo, any good mother should make sure there is no gun around an unstable / depressive husband.

I've also read plenty of accounts where people break into houses, in broad daylight with people at home so the first part of your "argument" is invalid.

[Andrew Jackson]

burglars are much more brazen when they are armed and know you are not

[Hitchens]

Burglars are a monolithic bloc of people who all have the same motivations, personalities and goals.

When one reduces the world down to absurd and meaningless generalizations to justify dogmatic positions, you are part of the problem.

[Andrew Jackson]

It's easy to generalize when you have a basic understanding of human psychology.

Let me pose this scenario: Johnny Crackhead with his revolver is looking for some dvd players to pawn. He sees Uncle Sam's compound with "Shoot on Sight" and "Beware of Rottweiler" signs right next door to Genny Gunnaphobe's house with a Brady campaign placard in the yard. Which house does Johnny break into for free loot and pussy?

[Hitchens]

It's easy to generalize when you have a basic understanding of human psychology.

Continually suffering from confirmation bias is not a basic understanding of human psychology.

[Andrew Jackson]

To be honest it's not even human psychology, its basic animal instinct

[Splorf22]

AFAIK there is no statistical case that gun control works. Studies like this just show that people in dangerous areas correctly assess this and buy guns to protect themselves. And it doesn't always work.

What I want to see every time there is some sort of gun violence on TV is: did said person come from a broken home/was on/off antidepressants etc.

In any case, gun control laws in a nation with 300 million firearms already are pointless.

[Ahldagor]

let me load my .50cal while that helicoptor shot up my house and that's gotta be a hellfire missile coming towards my house and it's the middle of the night and i didn't even hear the helicoptor's engines or rotors and now there's six inch holes all through my house's roof and my family was just exploded by the bullets and, yeah, that's a hellfire missile i'm fucked but i got to keep my guns to protect myself from a government take over

[Ahldagor]

let me load my .50cal while that helicoptor shot up my house and that's gotta be a hellfire missile coming towards my house and it's the middle of the night and i didn't even hear the helicoptor's engines or rotors and now there's six inch holes all through my house's roof and my family was just exploded by the bullets and, yeah, that's a hellfire missile i'm fucked but i got to keep my guns to protect myself from a government take over

that's about all i could think of while reading this whole thread

[Tecmos Deception]

Idiot.

[Andrew Jackson]

helicopters have to land some time

[Humerox]

helicopters have to land some time

on what's left of my house?

[Ahldagor]

actually it wouldn't be a helicoptor, but a drone. they don't have to land since there's already been successful air to air refueling of drones. unless they need to add more missiles then i guess you could try to keep up with it in your vehicle through hostile territory. http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/tests-show-military-drones-could-refuel-themselves-mid-air-1C6320770

[Andrew Jackson]

drones have worked so well in afghanistan, we won that war 11 years ago

[Humerox]

drones have worked so well in afghanistan, we won that war 11 years ago

haven't really addressed this yet but we gotta keep the fatcat military industrial complex machine oiled...

Lockheed Martin
BAE Systems
Boeing
Northrop Grumman
General Dynamics
Raytheon
EADS
Finmeccanica
L-3 Communications
United Technologies

Just to name a few. Care to take a wild guess as to how many billions in profit they made off the "war effort" in Afghanistan just this year alone?

[Andrew Jackson]

and how many of those would remain operational during an economic collapse zombie apocalypse

[Ahldagor]

haven't really addressed this yet but we gotta keep the fatcat military industrial complex machine oiled...

Lockheed Martin
BAE Systems
Boeing
Northrop Grumman
General Dynamics
Raytheon
EADS
Finmeccanica
L-3 Communications
United Technologies

Just to name a few. Care to take a wild guess as to how many billions in profit they made off the "war effort" in Afghanistan just this year alone?


lotta opium grows there too...cia and vietnam (American Gangster).

[Ahldagor]

drones have worked so well in afghanistan, we won that war 11 years ago

what are we doing to pakistan's tribal areas again?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/drone-wars-secrecy-barack-obama

[Andrew Jackson]

http://i.imgur.com/WJ6S8.jpg

[Goofier]

like whats your favorite gun you own now? I got a glok 22 to play with at the range but I own a few others.

Springfield 1903A3.

[Humerox]

Call the toss there, British.

British called "heads."

It's tails.

You lose the toss, British. The settlers win.

What will you do, settlers?

All right.

The settlers say that during the war they will wear any color clothes that they want to, shoot behind the rocks, trees and everywhere. Says your team must wear red and march in a straight line.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGYoCNU5es

[Andrew Jackson]

yep and that same guerilla technique quagmires us even today

[vaylorie]

Great news gun control enthusiasts! Chicago marks their 500th homicide in 2012. ~90% of which are done with guns. (that's about twice as many people that have been killed in action in Afganistan this year if your counting). Coincidentally, Chicago also has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Chock another one up for the success of oppressive anti-gun policies.

On an unrelated note, an interesting survey of felons in prison back in the 80's showed that ~40% had at one point decided not to commit a crime because they believed the victim might be armed and almost 70% said that they had or knew of someone that was scared off before completing a crime due to the victim having a gun.

[Andrew Jackson]

Huh, so he didn't use an assault rifle after all. He used hand guns. The AR was left in his car. He had tried to buy another rifle and was denied. More lies initially from the liberal media.

[Recycled Children]

This is still going? My god, what munitions (pun intended) do these anti-gun people have left? When are they going to link the video of all those celebrities coming together to tell the American public how to think?

[Harmonium]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/206518_531105066907363_228612999_n.jpg

[Hitchens]

Need more complex topics crammed into catchy slogans and talking points.

[Harmonium]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/735182_270335846427979_1740476988_n.jpg

[Humerox]

According to the 2010 FBI crime data, since 1980, single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent. While that's very good news, there's a new sobering trend: Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 27, including the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

It's not the guns, it's what type of guns they are.

There are no reasons to have assault weapons in civilian hands. None. They will be taken. Reason will prevail this time.

[fishingme]

According to the 2010 FBI crime data, since 1980, single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent. While that's very good news, there's a new sobering trend: Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 27, including the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

It's not the guns, it's what type of guns they are.

There are no reasons to have assault weapons in civilian hands. None. They will be taken. Reason will prevail this time.

You realize that weapons such as the AR-15 have been around since the late 50's early 60's right? which makes what you're saying pretty damn wrong

[Goofier]

It's not the guns, it's what type of guns they are.

There are no reasons to have assault weapons in civilian hands. None. They will be taken. Reason will prevail this time.

Sorry, but it's obligatory, someone has to do it, might as well be me...

Correct, and that's pretty much the law right now.
Individual civilians cannot own modern assault weapons legally, that is without provision for licensed dealers, of course.

Please understand that an assault weapon, by definition, is a select-fire weapon. That is, capable of both semiautomatic, and fully automatic fire.

Adam Lanza, for instance, did not use an assault weapon.

Sorry, but 'reason' better know what it's talking about before it acts without thinking.

[fishingme]

Also, to add. Look at the locations of the mass murders, schools, movie theaters etc etc. What do people do when they hear a gun go off? They either duck or run away, if you want to kill a bunch of people I can assure you that you absolutely do not need a semi-auto to do it. I mean shit, you may as well ban all the chemicals that you practically buy to clean your home because some of them can be used to make IDE's.

[Humerox]

Assault weapon is a term which has been given many different meanings. For example, some pistols are also classified as assault weapons, despite clearly not possessing the cosmetic features of an assault rifle, under both state and Federal laws.Another definition is any of various automatic and semi-automatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge...

blah de fucking blah...

You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about anything other than a single-action non semi-automatic, if you want to get down to brass tacks.

[Goofier]

Assault weapon is a term which has been given many different meanings. For example, some pistols are also classified as assault weapons, despite clearly not possessing the cosmetic features of an assault rifle, under both state and Federal laws.Another definition is any of various automatic and semi-automatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge...

blah de fucking blah...

You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about anything other than a single-action non semi-automatic, if you want to get down to brass tacks.

Yes, but do YOU know what YOU're talking about?
Like someone else pointed out, for instance, the rifle that Lanza used was the same type that's been available to the American public for at least 50 years, and it's a semiautomatic rifle.
One of the big points being that there's nothing new to see here. Absolutely nothing new at all. But a whole lot of people want to knee-jerk like it's the latest fad that just appeared to threaten the tranquility of the Seas of Cheese.

[vaylorie]

This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 27, including the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

It's not the guns, it's what type of guns they are.

According to experts (not you), Mass killings are not increasing in frequency. Here are some notes from the article:

And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.
There is no pattern, there is no increase,
Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.
while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data.


Move past your alarmist mentality and put aside your emotion and fear and deal with facts. I get it, guns scare you, but the facts don't backup your reality. If they take away the guns in will be in spite of reason and not because of it.


Story from the AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html

It's posted by AP and reported by all major news cycles.

[Hasbinlulz]

"mass killings reached their peak in 1929"

does this include or disclude gangland massacres?

[Hasbinlulz]

Also, the fact that something is reported on major news cycles does not make it valid.

[Humerox]

Yes, but do YOU know what YOU're talking about?
Like someone else pointed out, for instance, the rifle that Lanza used was the same type that's been available to the American public for at least 50 years, and it's a semiautomatic rifle.
One of the big points being that there's nothing new to see here. Absolutely nothing new at all. But a whole lot of people want to knee-jerk like it's the latest fad that just appeared to threaten the tranquility of the Seas of Cheese.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. And - sadly - you're absolutely right; there's nothing new to see here. But what's different is that a lot of gun owners - myself included - understand that the Newtown massacre is a tipping point...there's a line to be drawn in the sand. There's nothing "knee-jerk" about any of this; it's that more people who want reasonable gun legislation are going to stay much more vocal about it then ever before.

Gun regulation has never been effected properly. Too many loopholes and "grandfathered" rules existed to make any difference whatsoever. That's going to change. Your right to own a dangerous and unusual weapon doesn't exist, in fact it's precluded by law; however, the NRA has done a great job the last couple of decades in buying political support for a gun-crazy society.

[Goofier]

I know exactly what I'm talking about. And - sadly - you're absolutely right; there's nothing new to see here. But what's different is that a lot of gun owners - myself included - understand that the Newtown massacre is a tipping point...there's a line to be drawn in the sand. There's nothing "knee-jerk" about any of this; it's that more people who want reasonable gun legislation are going to stay much more vocal about it then ever before.

Gun regulation has never been effected properly. Too many loopholes and "grandfathered" rules existed to make any difference whatsoever. That's going to change. Your right to own a dangerous and unusual weapon doesn't exist, in fact it's precluded by law; however, the NRA has done a great job the last couple of decades in buying political support for a gun-crazy society.

Yes, it is a knee-jerk reaction, because there's nothing new here.
It's only a 'tipping point' because you're reacting that way.
My right to own a 'dangerous and unusual' weapon isn't the question here.
The kid used a run-of-the-mill AR. Very common, very legal, and has been for decades.
So I what makes this different? What makes Newtown so fucking special for you?

[Sollannix]

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

I live in Virginia and am a graduate of JMU, so I enjoyed reading what Madison and Jefferson had to say about an armed citizenry. The quotes above reflect the general attitude that the "right to bear arms" was meant as a safeguard for the citizenry against the bizzare tendency governments have to sometimes go rogue and no longer pursue the best interests of their people. That is the real reason they desired an armed citizenry, not so they could have the right to go hunting deer, etc.

I agree that using any data from our cities is a waste of time, the data will be so skewed because of all the gang violence there. The cities in this country have become shitholes...I live about an hour outside of Washington DC.....I can assure you that outside of the heavily policed NE/NW "tourist" sector of our Nation's capital is a dangerous ghetto...Richmond is even worse....

Sollannixx Mezzinwitu

[Humerox]

I really wonder what Madison, Jefferson and the rest would have thought about people being mowed down in elementary schools and movie theaters. They could not have conceived of it, and nothing they wrote or said can do anything to change it.

That's up to us.

[Goofier]

I really wonder what Madison, Jefferson and the rest would have thought about people being mowed down in elementary schools and movie theaters. They could not have conceived of it, and nothing they wrote or said can do anything to change it.

That's up to us.

So it's about the kids then, and not the guns?

[Humerox]

It's about nuts with easy access to assault-style weapons that mow kids down like bowling pins, among other things.

I'm not saying gun legislation is a panacea for gun violence. That's never been my position, nor will it ever be. It has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that proper gun legislation can remove the threat of mass gun killings. This we've seen in both Australia and Scotland.

The ready availability of assault-style weapons in this country is ludicrous. While it may be argued that it's not just the guns, the fact remains that stricter gun legislation is a good first step in addressing the problem. This alone will not save us, and any fool that argues otherwise is exactly that.

Just as any fool that argues that there is no causal relationship between assault-style weapons and mass murder in the US is also exactly that.

We are the only industrialized country in the world that still has this problem. The United States is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined.

Talk about people with their heads in the sand. We are an easily frightened people and it is easy to manipulate us with fear. What are we so afraid of that we need to have 300 million guns in our homes? Who do we think is going to hurt us? Why are most of these guns in white suburban and rural homes?

[Humerox]

Yes, it is a knee-jerk reaction, because there's nothing new here.
It's only a 'tipping point' because you're reacting that way.
My right to own a 'dangerous and unusual' weapon isn't the question here.
The kid used a run-of-the-mill AR. Very common, very legal, and has been for decades.
So I what makes this different? What makes Newtown so fucking special for you?

If you can't see a clear answer to that there's no sense in debating the issue with you.

[Goofier]

Talk about people with their heads in the sand. We are an easily frightened people and it is easy to manipulate us with fear. What are we so afraid of that we need to have 300 million guns in our homes? Who do we think is going to hurt us? Why are most of these guns in white suburban and rural homes?

Can't be about fun, huh? Has to be 100% paranoid nutbags?

[Goofier]

If you can't see a clear answer to that there's no sense in debating the issue with you.

Oh quit being melodramatic, you're making my point for me.
And my point is, if you can't actually articulate what you're talking about, you don't know what you're talking about.
The question pending being:
Why this incident? You used the term 'tipping point'. Why now?

[Goofier]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/67336_10151317770384310_1467390493_n.jpg

Doesn't sound like it was quite that simple, but way to go, sarge.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Breakup-sparked-theater-shootout-4123414.php

[Humerox]

Oh quit being melodramatic, you're making my point for me.
And my point is, if you can't actually articulate what you're talking about, you don't know what you're talking about.
The question pending being:
Why this incident? You used the term 'tipping point'. Why now?

Your being obtuse certainly doesn't do you any favors. I've articulated my position rather well. On the other hand, you haven't articulated any position at all except that maybe your belief in second amendment coverage is so sacrosanct there's no room for legitimate legislation...and even this you've implied, rather than state directly.

If in your mind the murder of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown isn't a tipping point for a call to action, what would be? If one of the children was yours, maybe?

[Goofier]

Your being obtuse certainly doesn't do you any favors. I've articulated my position rather well. On the other hand, you haven't articulated any position at all except that maybe your belief in second amendment coverage is so sacrosanct there's no room for legitimate legislation...and even this you've implied, rather than state directly.

If in your mind the murder of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown isn't a tipping point for a call to action, what would be? If one of the children was yours, maybe?

Okay, first of all, calm the fuck down and drop the internet-forum, win-by-insult attitude. I realize this is a volatile subject, but this also ain't that.

I've been trying to articulate, but it's difficult with you dodging. I asked you to articulate, and the results are as expected: It's not the guns, it's the kids. At least that seems to be what you're saying, and if not, please clarify. I see your outrage, but my point (and several others) is that the gun is not the issue here, it's the outrage at the deaths of the children, with the emotion being taken out on the guns.

After all, it's easy.

Heck, not a single gun was used in 9/11, but thousands were killed. No background checks to get on a plane, no denial of flight if you've been committed to a mental facility or have a domestic violence conviction.

And not a single bullet was fired in Oklahoma, but look at all the orphans created in an instant. Look at the day-care that the asshole KNEW was in the building. No background check needed to rent a U-Haul, and still easy to get nitrogen-based fertilizers and diesel fuel.

Again, I understand your outrage, my point is your focus is misplaced.
It's not the guns, it's the nuts.
It's not the guns, it's the kids.

You want a hypothetical?
Okay, how 'bout we change the laws because not 20 kids, but thousands of kids every single year get killed, and we need to stop it.
Time to institute background checks on driver licenses.
Let's have fingerprinting for buying alcohol.
Let's license reproduction, and if you have any history of a domestic violence conviction, you're denied.

[Goofier]

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hxRlpRcorEU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hxRlpRcorEU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Fucking awesome video.

[Humerox]

Okay, first of all, calm the fuck down and drop the internet-forum, win-by-insult attitude. I realize this is a volatile subject, but this also ain't that.

I've been trying to articulate, but it's difficult with you dodging. I asked you to articulate, and the results are as expected: It's not the guns, it's the kids. At least that seems to be what you're saying, and if not, please clarify. I see your outrage, but my point (and several others) is that the gun is not the issue here, it's the outrage at the deaths of the children, with the emotion being taken out on the guns.

After all, it's easy.

Heck, not a single gun was used in 9/11, but thousands were killed. No background checks to get on a plane, no denial of flight if you've been committed to a mental facility or have a domestic violence conviction.

And not a single bullet was fired in Oklahoma, but look at all the orphans created in an instant. Look at the day-care that the asshole KNEW was in the building. No background check needed to rent a U-Haul, and still easy to get nitrogen-based fertilizers and diesel fuel.

Again, I understand your outrage, my point is your focus is misplaced.
It's not the guns, it's the nuts.
It's not the guns, it's the kids.

You want a hypothetical?
Okay, how 'bout we change the laws because not 20 kids, but thousands of kids every single year get killed, and we need to stop it.
Time to institute background checks on driver licenses.
Let's have fingerprinting for buying alcohol.
Let's license reproduction, and if you have any history of a domestic violence conviction, you're denied.

Automobiles aren't designed specifically to kill people, and a lot of legislation has been passed to increase safety. The same degree of scrutiny isn't to be applied to weapons that are designed to kill people really fast and in great number?

That's about the only part of your list I think is worth addressing. I understood the fact that you wanted to make it seem that my issue was the kids and not the guns, which - however ludicrous - would seem valid to some. The issue isn't about the kids. The kids are the straw that breaks the camel's back.

The issue with people talking about guns is the pro- "everything" gun lobby points to everything except guns. It's not that simple. People should NOT assume that I'm anti-gun because I'm against easily available high-powered weaponry that's used to kill elementary school children en-masse.

Bringing up Australia and Scotland as examples of legislation used to stop that type of killing has been ignored...likely because it's fact. I'm talking about stopping a particular type of murder that has affected other countries, and has been stopped in those countries. We need to do it here.

Common sense should dictate the actions taken. Gun legislation has never worked because it was enacted but not enforced, it never took into consideration or exempted what is currently owned in the US...there has never been a serious effort to establish standardized gun laws across the country. Why? Because gun legislation advocates are much less vocal and are much less likely to devolve into wild-eyed cavemen if told they have to be more responsible in society.

Extremist gun-rights activists miss that part. We are as responsible as a society as we are as individuals when it comes to this issue.

[Goofier]

Automobiles aren't designed specifically to kill people, and a lot of legislation has been passed to increase safety. The same degree of scrutiny isn't to be applied to weapons that are designed to kill people really fast and in great number?

That's about the only part of your list I think is worth addressing. I understood the fact that you wanted to make it seem that my issue was the kids and not the guns, which - however ludicrous - would seem valid to some. The issue isn't about the kids. The kids are the straw that breaks the camel's back.

The issue with people talking about guns is the pro- "everything" gun lobby points to everything except guns. It's not that simple. People should NOT assume that I'm anti-gun because I'm against easily available high-powered weaponry that's used to kill elementary school children en-masse.

Bringing up Australia and Scotland as examples of legislation used to stop that type of killing has been ignored...likely because it's fact. I'm talking about stopping a particular type of murder that has affected other countries, and has been stopped in those countries. We need to do it here.

Common sense should dictate the actions taken. Gun legislation has never worked because it was enacted but not enforced, it never took into consideration or exempted what is currently owned in the US...there has never been a serious effort to establish standardized gun laws across the country. Why? Because gun legislation advocates are much less vocal and are much less likely to devolve into wild-eyed cavemen if told they have to be more responsible in society.

Extremist gun-rights activists miss that part. We are as responsible as a society as we are as individuals when it comes to this issue.

Why does it matter that automobiles aren't specifically designed to kill people? They sure seem to do a pretty good job of it. Why do you get to pick what gets applied to what? Oh, right, moral outrage > all, so therefore my point is invalid. Way to go, you win at teh intarwebs!

I asked you to cut the message-board attitude, and this is what I get. My point is invalid 'cause you say so. Ah, well, the proverbial horse to water...

Please note that I asked and tried to clarify, I did not try to make your point the kids and not the guns. I'm trying to figure it out 'cause you can't just fucking say it, and yes that's how ludicrous it is and why I'm trying to figure out if that's what the fuck you're saying or not. Sorry, I'm trying to figure it out 'cause I'd rather not just dismiss your points out of sheer moral outrage.

And here's the big point: It IS that simple, but not for the reasons you think. It IS that simple because these easily-available, high-powered weapons are the very same ones that have been available for decades, and you don't make driving illegal or restrict it further simply because one 80-year-old man drives through a farmer's market.

I know it's not the same thing, but it is, and that's on you if you refuse to see it. We'll win the vote on it, don't bet against it.

And the neighbors are starting to show up, so fuck it all for now, happy new year :)

[Humerox]

Happy New Year to you as well.

:)

[vaylorie]

:)

You smile as they take away your freedoms and then thank them for doing it. How pathetic.

[Harmonium]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/227182_149423575205935_1991103987_n.jpg

[Humerox]

You smile as they take away your freedoms and then thank them for doing it. How pathetic.

Are you high? Patriot Act, NDAA, ACTA...there's a host of others. All of which I've fought against. Get off your high horse and take off the rose-colored glasses....if you believe you're "free" you're sadly mistaken.

Do I think my any of my "freedoms" are in danger by properly legislating firearms? No.

This is all I need for home protection...there's no sense in anything more for self-defense.

http://www.westernshootinghorse.com/jcontent/images/resized/images/stories/wsh-aug-sept-2011/colt-new-frontier_300_200.jpg

[Tokage Sohei]

Just because you feel safe with 6 shots doesn't mean I do. Multiple intruders or assailants is a very real possibility and individuals under the effects of various substances have been shot multiple times with little immediate effect on stopping the threat they pose. Do I expect to ever have to use my firearms for such a situation? Nope. But I can't help but go back to the age old "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it..."

Let's face the facts here... criminals don't care about the laws. Any gun related legislation primarily effects the law abiding citizens who use their firearms for recreation and/or personal protection and have no dark intent behind their ownership. For those of you who have never purchased a firearm... here's a copy of the FEDERAL form the BATFE requires be completed for the sale of any firearm by a licensed dealer: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf -- If you take a look at the question 11 and its sub-questions you'll see the list of automatic disqualifiers for the purchase... answer "no" to a or "yes" to any of b-k and you're not able to complete the purchase/sale. After this form is completed the dealer then calls in all of the information and gets either a "Proceed", "Hold", or "No" on the sale as a final check via federal databases. During a private sale (possible only with residents of the same state -- if from different states the transaction must be middle-manned by a licensed FFL), the seller attests that to the best of their knowledge the buyer is legally able to make the purchase and the seller attests the same. If any of these conditions are not met, you're looking at an illegal transaction which is beyond the scope of "legal gun ownership". Basically, my point here is that a vast majority of gun owners have to hold themselves to a higher standard than non-gun owners or else they put their legal ownership at risk.

[Hasbinlulz]

standard not high enough

[Hasbinlulz]

YOU ARE NOT A WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA

[Tokage Sohei]

standard not high enough

I'm sorry, but you don't get to arbitrarily determine that the standard is or isn't high enough. We'll just have to go back to that document that states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

YOU ARE NOT A WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA

Without an armed citizenry, it wouldn't be possible to form said militia if the need were to arise.

[Humerox]

Just because you feel safe with 6 shots doesn't mean I do. Multiple intruders or assailants is a very real possibility and individuals under the effects of various substances have been shot multiple times with little immediate effect on stopping the threat they pose. Do I expect to ever have to use my firearms for such a situation? Nope. But I can't help but go back to the age old "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it..."

Let's face the facts here... criminals don't care about the laws. Any gun related legislation primarily effects the law abiding citizens who use their firearms for recreation and/or personal protection and have no dark intent behind their ownership. For those of you who have never purchased a firearm... here's a copy of the FEDERAL form the BATFE requires be completed for the sale of any firearm by a licensed dealer: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf -- If you take a look at the question 11 and its sub-questions you'll see the list of automatic disqualifiers for the purchase... answer "no" to a or "yes" to any of b-k and you're not able to complete the purchase/sale. After this form is completed the dealer then calls in all of the information and gets either a "Proceed", "Hold", or "No" on the sale as a final check via federal databases. During a private sale (possible only with residents of the same state -- if from different states the transaction must be middle-manned by a licensed FFL), the seller attests that to the best of their knowledge the buyer is legally able to make the purchase and the seller attests the same. If any of these conditions are not met, you're looking at an illegal transaction which is beyond the scope of "legal gun ownership". Basically, my point here is that a vast majority of gun owners have to hold themselves to a higher standard than non-gun owners or else they put their legal ownership at risk.

It's entirely possible the Crypts and the Bloods are going to invade your home because they saw you buy a coffee a Starbucks and figured anyone with the disposable income to pay that much for coffee should be robbed.

It's possible the apocalypse will happen tomorrow and you'll have to play Mad Max .

Look...I understand your argument but the foundation is weak. If you really need something like this:

http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/ak47_3.jpg

to feel safe I really feel sorry for ya. I'd move if I were you.

Besides, the next mass murder by an assault-style weapon can be prevented. But it probably won't be because people like to have AK's instead of reasonable firearms and if it ever comes time to use them 50% of the owners will probably shoot their own damn selves because they're idiots.

[Hasbinlulz]

I'm sorry, but you don't get to arbitrarily determine that the standard is or isn't high enough.
Actually, I absolutely do. An equal amount of arbitrary decision-making power as every other idiot within these borders. That's the problem with democracy - idiots get to decide literally EVERYTHING.

[Humerox]

IWithout an armed citizenry, it wouldn't be possible to form said militia if the need were to arise.

Oh no you didn't, lol. Think HARD about this before I have to knock the sails out of it.

[Tokage Sohei]

It's entirely possible the Crypts and the Bloods are going to invade your home because they saw you buy a coffee a Starbucks and figured anyone with the disposable income to pay that much for coffee should be robbed.

It's possible the apocalypse will happen tomorrow and you'll have to play Mad Max .

Look...I understand your argument but the foundation is weak. If you really need something like this:

http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/ak47_3.jpg

to feel safe I really feel sorry for ya. I'd move if I were you.

Besides, the next mass murder by an assault-style weapon can be prevented. But it probably won't be because people like to have AK's instead of reasonable firearms and if it ever comes time to use them 50% of the owners will probably shoot their own damn selves because they're idiots.

Self-defense was only part of my post. I'm a law-obiding, responsible, gun owner who has firearms for both self-defense and recreation. I don't own an AK-style rifle, but I do own AR-type rifles and they are a lot of fun to shoot. The flexible platform allows for various configurations to be had with shared parts/easy maintenance. That being said, if I'm in my home I'm grabbing my shotgun (1st choice by far) or AR (distant second choice simply due to much higher chance of over penetration) before my handguns are touched because they are far better options for defense. My handguns are for the range and for carry.

I would love to believe that murder or mass murder could be so simply prevented, but I simply don't believe that's the case. As for the "reasonable firearms" comment... you have your definition of "reasonable" and I have mine. There's a wide spectrum of what people believe is "reasonable", and any discussion involving it is bound to lead to some slippery slope or another so I'll simply leave it be.

[Tokage Sohei]

Actually, I absolutely do. An equal amount of arbitrary decision-making power as every other idiot within these borders. That's the problem with democracy - idiots get to decide literally EVERYTHING.

Not to nitpick, but this is a republic, not a democracy. There is a difference and it does play a major role in your argument.

Oh no you didn't, lol. Think HARD about this before I have to knock the sails out of it.

I've said what I've said. I'll freely admit it was much more of a devil's advocate response from me, but the notion stands. I wouldn't bother posting if I didn't think I'd get at least a modicum of intelligent discourse out of it ;)

[Hasbinlulz]

Not to nitpick, but this is a republic, not a democracy. There is a difference and it does play a major role in your argument.
Actually we're neither. We're at best a heavily modified representative republic as you say, but more likely a unique government form euphemized as "American Democracy." That being said, many decisions DO in fact get made by masses of idiots.

[Hasbinlulz]

The USA bears as much resemblance to the republic of plato as a model-T does to a smart car.

[Harmonium]

Actually, I absolutely do. An equal amount of arbitrary decision-making power as every other idiot within these borders. That's the problem with democracy - idiots get to decide literally EVERYTHING.

I'm glad I have never been a citizen in a democracy. If you happen to be a citizen of the USA then apparently, you don't even know what kind of government you have.

In the Constitutional Republic, the individual is protected. It is designed so that the majority cannot take away the rights set forth in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment isn't even about shooting sports, hunting, or self defense. Those are all respectable uses of firearms, but its not what the Second Amendment is for.

The Second Amendment is primarily about the citizens being able to protect themselves from the government.

Our Republic adopted an elaborate system of Checks and Balances to keep the kind of power that would require altering the Constitution from aggregating.

The citizens inalienable right to bear arms is the FINAL - LAST check and balance. The one that any sane man can only hope and pray never need use.


Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. – Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun owners than in one of disarmed citizens – even if you don't own a gun yourself. – Harry Browne

Switzerland is a land where crime is virtually unknown, yet most Swiss males are required by law to keep in their homes what amounts to a portable, personal machine gun. –Tom Clancy

Those who beat their swords into plough shares shall plough for those who don't. – Anonymous

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. – John F. Kennedy

When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet.
– Lyle Myhr

[Andrew Jackson]

america is a dictatorship

[Humerox]

Not to nitpick, but this is a republic, not a democracy. There is a difference and it does play a major role in your argument.



I've said what I've said. I'll freely admit it was much more of a devil's advocate response from me, but the notion stands. I wouldn't bother posting if I didn't think I'd get at least a modicum of intelligent discourse out of it ;)

Many states have have militias already:

State defense forces (SDF) (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States.[1] State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.

Militias don't depend upon privately armed citizens anyway. The weapons are organized and stockpiled. People that are truly worried about federal tyranny should be advocates for their own state militias, or if they live in a state without one they should be advocating for the establishment of one.

[Hitchens]

Paranoid personality types do what paranoid personality types do.

[Andrew Jackson]

The national guard is not militia, its the standing army the founding fathers did not want.

[Humerox]

I never said a word about the National Guard.

;)

[Hitchens]

Not sure beliefs that were penned in an agrarian society should be dogmatically applied to an urban one.

Just sayin'.

[Humerox]

Man...how much you wanna bet agrarian and dogmatically are going to have a sudden Google surge...

:p

[Tokage Sohei]

Many states have have militias already:

State defense forces (SDF) (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States.[1] State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.

Militias don't depend upon privately armed citizens anyway. The weapons are organized and stockpiled. People that are truly worried about federal tyranny should be advocates for their own state militias, or if they live in a state without one they should be advocating for the establishment of one.

State government is no less prone to tyranny than the federal government. I don't consider myself one of the tin-foil hat wearing types that expects collapse around every corner, but if one accepts the 2nd amendment as a protection from a tyrannical government, then protection from the state government must be considered as well and a state run militia does not provide such protection.

[Humerox]

I've pretty much argued myself out on this issue. I'll work on advocating stricter gun legislation, and you guys can keep advocating against people like me.

If the price we have to pay to maintain the status quo is Newtown and the 60 other massacres in the US in the last 30 years...God help us all.

[Hasbinlulz]

I'm glad I have never been a citizen in a democracy. If you happen to be a citizen of the USA then apparently, you don't even know what kind of government you have.

In the Constitutional Republic, the individual is protected. It is designed so that the majority cannot take away the rights set forth in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment isn't even about shooting sports, hunting, or self defense. Those are all respectable uses of firearms, but its not what the Second Amendment is for.

The Second Amendment is primarily about the citizens being able to protect themselves from the government.

Our Republic adopted an elaborate system of Checks and Balances to keep the kind of power that would require altering the Constitution from aggregating.

The citizens inalienable right to bear arms is the FINAL - LAST check and balance. The one that any sane man can only hope and pray never need use.


Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. – Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun owners than in one of disarmed citizens – even if you don't own a gun yourself. – Harry Browne

Switzerland is a land where crime is virtually unknown, yet most Swiss males are required by law to keep in their homes what amounts to a portable, personal machine gun. –Tom Clancy

Those who beat their swords into plough shares shall plough for those who don't. – Anonymous

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. – John F. Kennedy

When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet.
– Lyle Myhr
Tl;dr.

[Tecmos Deception]

I'm glad I have never been a citizen in a democracy. If you happen to be a citizen of the USA then apparently, you don't even know what kind of government you have.

In the Constitutional Republic, the individual is protected. It is designed so that the majority cannot take away the rights set forth in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment isn't even about shooting sports, hunting, or self defense. Those are all respectable uses of firearms, but its not what the Second Amendment is for.

The Second Amendment is primarily about the citizens being able to protect themselves from the government.

Our Republic adopted an elaborate system of Checks and Balances to keep the kind of power that would require altering the Constitution from aggregating.

The citizens inalienable right to bear arms is the FINAL - LAST check and balance. The one that any sane man can only hope and pray never need use.


Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. – Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun owners than in one of disarmed citizens – even if you don't own a gun yourself. – Harry Browne

Switzerland is a land where crime is virtually unknown, yet most Swiss males are required by law to keep in their homes what amounts to a portable, personal machine gun. –Tom Clancy

Those who beat their swords into plough shares shall plough for those who don't. – Anonymous

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. – John F. Kennedy

When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet.
– Lyle Myhr

Long, but I read it twice and enjoyed doing so!

[Arclyte]

I've pretty much argued myself out on this issue. I'll work on advocating stricter gun legislation, and you guys can keep advocating against people like me.

If the price we have to pay to maintain the status quo is Newtown and the 60 other massacres in the US in the last 30 years...God help us all.

lol, cut the bullshit, you don't advocate anything and I doubt you even care

You and Hitchens should ask yourselves why you've really been arguing about guns for 25 pages, and try not to lie to yourself or it won't work.

In the meantime, I will be enjoying my right to keep and maintain weapons. Not because I'm paranoid or because I need them to "hunt" (I don't), but because I like having them, and I don't live in some delusional limp-wristed nanny state.

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1057/garands1.jpg

In summation: eat a dick

[Littlegyno 9.0]

lol, cut the bullshit, you don't advocate anything and I doubt you even care

You and Hitchens should ask yourselves why you've really been arguing about guns for 25 pages, and try not to lie to yourself or it won't work.

In the meantime, I will be enjoying my right to keep and maintain weapons. Not because I'm paranoid or because I need them to "hunt" (I don't), but because I like having them, and I don't live in some delusional limp-wristed nanny state.

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1057/garands1.jpg

In summation: eat a dick

Are those M1's or M14s?

[Arclyte]

M1 garands

[Hitchens]

You and Hitchens should ask yourselves why you've really been arguing about guns for 25 pages, and try not to lie to yourself or it won't work.

I have 0.84 posts per day. How did I get blamed for a 25 page thread?