I don't know why people who don't feel the need or desire to own guns suddenly qualify as hippies.
I mean, I know my fencing coach didn't really like to keep a gun in his shop... but he could still shatter a cinder block at fifty paces with his tomahawk.
I like how you link to a Reddit which links to Wikipedia, which says things like:
"Kleck has claimed in his own national survey [...] that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns. However, surveys that ask both about defensive gun use and criminal gun use find that more people report being victims of gun crimes than having used a gun in self defense. [...] In a largely approving review of Kleck's book [...] Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States."
"A University of Pennsylvania study, for example, found that people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to get shot than unarmed people."
"A study by Arthur Kellermann found that keeping a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide."
"Gun control advocates claim that the strongest evidence linking availability of guns to injury and mortality rates comes in studies of domestic violence[.] [...] In response to public suggestions by some advocates of firearms for home defense, that homeowners were at high risk of injury from home invasions and would be wise to acquire a firearm for purposes of protection, Kellermann [...] found that the risk of a homicide was in fact slightly higher in homes where a handgun was present, rather than lower. From the details of the homicides he concluded that the risk of a crime of passion or other domestic dispute ending in a fatal injury was much higher when a gun was readily available[.]"
Also, poor gun safety by parents leads to children accidentally killing each other/themselves.
Also, poor gun safety by parents leads to children accidentally killing each other/themselves.
Oh, I know all about this. My grandma almost killed her friend by accident when she was a kid. They were playing firing squad and she thought the gun was unloaded. But her dad always told her never to point a gun at anyone so she pointed slightly above her friend and shot a hole through the wall instead.
They were playing firing squad and she thought the gun was unloaded. But her dad always told her never to point a gun at anyone so she pointed slightly above her friend and shot a hole through the wall instead.
Yep, first rule of gun safety: There's no such thing as an unloaded gun.
"Kleck has claimed in his own national survey [...] that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns. However, surveys that ask both about defensive gun use and criminal gun use find that more people report being victims of gun crimes than having used a gun in self defense. [...] In a largely approving review of Kleck's book [...] Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States."
"A University of Pennsylvania study, for example, found that people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to get shot than unarmed people."
Probably because most people, when it comes down to it, have reservations about using lethal force to defend themselves. I am completely without these reservations and kind of fail to comprehend them. Why wouldn't and shouldn't you be willing to kill someone who attacks you? Shoot first, goddammit. Fuck, even the Dalai Lama - whom I normally loathe to cite - says it's a good idea.
"A study by Arthur Kellermann found that keeping a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide."
Has it ever occured to you that there may be other factors than just having the gun around? Perhaps the owner would have owned knives if guns weren't there.
Anyway, none of these things really provide much evidence for gun control being a good idea, especially since the page already says those laws don't work.
Has it ever occured to you that there may be other factors than just having the gun around? Perhaps the owner would have owned knives if guns weren't there.
I'm afraid that the knife argument in the gun debate is a bit silly. Then someone always mentions that you never hear about a toddler getting killed in a drive-by knifing, and then the first person says that we would hear about it if there weren't any guns.
Let’s just get this straight: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. They just use guns as an instrument. A gun itself is not an evil thing, it is the intentions of the user that can be evil (murder, robbery, etc.).
Actually, I think you'll find that bullets kill people.
Kiss my ass, Icedhope. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Also, you, sir, have lost what little of my respect there was left to lose.
You misinterpret my sarcasm. I'm against all weapons. I support people having and owning them and I support people doing what they want with them.
I've just seen what weapons can do and that sir is not a pretty thing. Have you ever seen what barret can do to somebody at fifty yards? Or What 40mm MGL can do? I have it's not pretty.
That’s not what you said earlier, if i’m not mistaken. You said you hated Comrade Pants for being a “peace-loving hippie.” I was proven mistaken, as were you. So don’t be a hypocrite.
Yeah, that was a joke. As you were told akready by puzzlebox it's well known that Pants loves guns.
That’s not what you said earlier, if i’m not mistaken. You said you hated Comrade Pants for being a “peace-loving hippie.” I was proven mistaken, as were you. So don’t be a hypocrite.
In this thread alone you've berated 3 different people without understanding the full story. Remember that some folks in this community have been chatting here for years and that you may be missing some subtext.
You misunderstand my meaning. It is all about intentions. A guy wants a gun to just have one around or to defend his house in the possibility of a robbery, that’s normal. But if a guy wants a gun so he can go blow a guy’s head off or to steal a sh*t load of money, that person is crazy. Guns themselves are just simple tools. It all depends on what the user wishes to do with it.
No, you misunderstand my meaning. It's the physical bullet that causes the wound that can kill a person. The gun is merely the device that launches the projectile.
Catapults don't crush buildings. Giant rocks crush buildings. Also, Godzilla, but that's beside the point.
Actually, that's also a misunderstanding of my meaning. My real meaning is that we're getting so incredibly specific that it hardly seems like a worthy topic of conversation. Really, when we get down to it, the inability to synthesize proteins and ATP (which is a result of oxygen deprivation... which can happen when the avenues of oxygen transport are interrupted) kills people, but that doesn't look nearly as pretty on a billboard.
And my meaning under that is that the slogan is over-used and under-analyzed. In a debate, it is the rhetorical equivalent of quoting the Oscar Meyer song as an argument as to why bologna of one brand is better than any other.
And my meaning under that is that you insulted several of my friends in this thread because you viewed them as being anti-gun. Now, I'm not a gun slinger myself, and I don't particularly care to be one any time soon. And I especially don't want to be one if it means that I am associated with people like you as a result.
I also understand that by saying this, I have done the internet equivalent of wearing this shirt:
And I didn’t even know that Icedhope was a military guy, so please don’t hold that against me.
That's the point though, you can't just dish out abuse because there's always another side.
One of me earliest memory was of a man in a balaclava pointing an assault rifle right in my fathers face through the drivers window of his car. Everyone I know has a family tree with scores of members shot dead or blown to bits. Guns were used by those in authority and those who hated the authority to murder, maim and intimidate for decades. People were shot dead just for speaking their native language or demanding basic civil rights, so in return they shot back, and it was bad for a long time.
Needless to say guns have ruined peoples lives, I think you have to respect and understand that as you wish people to respect your wishes to have one. It's only natural that a lot of people oppose gun ownership, it's up to yourself to be a good ambassador for your cause I guess.
You misinterpret my sarcasm. I'm against all weapons. I support people having and owning them and I support people doing what they want with them.
I've just seen what weapons can do and that sir is not a pretty thing. Have you ever seen what barret can do to somebody at fifty yards? Or What 40mm MGL can do? I have it's not pretty.
Fair enough. You've seen the horrors of war first hand. I imagine this does a lot in shaping your perspective of weapons.
That would be the right to bear single-shot guns with rudimentary rifling and a flintlock mechanism, loaded through the muzzle.
Could work.
Actually, it's just "arms", construed by the courts as an individual right to own firearms. What's the point of being able to own them if you can't own guns on par with criminals and police? Otherwise, there's really no point in owning them as you can't stand up to tyranny.
Seeing as how the founders of our country just got done facing off against the largest Empire in history, I can see how they'd want the people to own military calibre weapons in order to stave off tyranny again if the need arose. It's too bad that time and again, the United States government has proven adept at quashing internal rebellions.
One of me earliest memory was of a man in a balaclava pointing an assault rifle right in my fathers face through the drivers window of his car. Everyone I know has a family tree with scores of members shot dead or blown to bits. Guns were used by those in authority and those who hated the authority to murder, maim and intimidate for decades. People were shot dead just for speaking their native language or demanding basic civil rights, so in return they shot back, and it was bad for a long time.
Needless to say guns have ruined peoples lives, I think you have to respect and understand that as you wish people to respect your wishes to have one. It's only natural that a lot of people oppose gun ownership, it's up to yourself to be a good ambassador for your cause I guess.
Anyhoo, lets let bygones be bygones
This is why I'm all for civilians owning guns. Terrorists/rebels/non-governmental actors have nothing to stop them from maiming populations and governments tend to get carried away when fighting uprisings. The population must arm themselves or else they risk being thrown to the mercies of their armed brethren.
That being said, you have my utmost sympathies. No one should ever have to see that, especially so young. For what it's worth, IRL I always do my utmost to be a model gun owner.
Who here supports the NRA? If not, do NOT respond to this question.
Actually, there's a lot of conjecture that the NRA keeps a lot of stuff illegal in order to maintain a reason for their existence. Think about it: as much influence and money as they have, they could easily overturn the '86 automatic weapons manufacture ban and the ban on Russian and Chinese firearm imports. Easily. Fuck the NRA, they don't give a shit about our gun rights. They only care about getting rich.
Must feel bad, getting ripped off like that. Especially since they sell your address to about a million spam companies. I made that mistake when I first got into guns. Once you research the realities of the spot guns occupy in American politics, you see how ridiculous they are in their methods and their status.
If they were as necessary as they say they are, all the redneck gun owners would be rebelling. Believe me, the very INSTANT a serious threat to our gun rights materializes, you'll see all the backwoods of America rise up. Trust me on this.
The NRA instead uses fear tactics to dream up threats to our rights and scare impressionable people into joining while using the congressmen they've bought to keep insidious legislation like 922(r) in force so that they have a reason to exist, a lot like how anti-abortion lobbyists will never really overturn Roe v. Wade in its entirety. What use is a lobby if its reason for existing dies out?
No, your NRA dues are just keeping Colt and Remington from producing civilian legal automatics again and keeping $200 Norinco 1911s and $50 Mosins from American shores.
"Thanks to the coward ass bitches my 7 year old got to witness his first shooting Fucking bull shit that society is this way next time use your fucking fist like real men"
Comments
I mean, I know my fencing coach didn't really like to keep a gun in his shop... but he could still shatter a cinder block at fifty paces with his tomahawk.
It's 2012. We have hipsters now.
"Kleck has claimed in his own national survey [...] that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns. However, surveys that ask both about defensive gun use and criminal gun use find that more people report being victims of gun crimes than having used a gun in self defense. [...] In a largely approving review of Kleck's book [...] Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States."
"A University of Pennsylvania study, for example, found that people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to get shot than unarmed people."
"A study by Arthur Kellermann found that keeping a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide."
"Gun control advocates claim that the strongest evidence linking availability of guns to injury and mortality rates comes in studies of domestic violence[.] [...] In response to public suggestions by some advocates of firearms for home defense, that homeowners were at high risk of injury from home invasions and would be wise to acquire a firearm for purposes of protection, Kellermann [...] found that the risk of a homicide was in fact slightly higher in homes where a handgun was present, rather than lower. From the details of the homicides he concluded that the risk of a crime of passion or other domestic dispute ending in a fatal injury was much higher when a gun was readily available[.]"
Also, poor gun safety by parents leads to children accidentally killing each other/themselves.
Oh, I know all about this. My grandma almost killed her friend by accident when she was a kid. They were playing firing squad and she thought the gun was unloaded. But her dad always told her never to point a gun at anyone so she pointed slightly above her friend and shot a hole through the wall instead.
Yep, first rule of gun safety: There's no such thing as an unloaded gun.
So does shitty driving skills and just being an awful parent. Don't pin this on guns, Chyron.
Further...
Ah, yes. Gary Kleck. Here, check this out.
Probably because most people, when it comes down to it, have reservations about using lethal force to defend themselves. I am completely without these reservations and kind of fail to comprehend them. Why wouldn't and shouldn't you be willing to kill someone who attacks you? Shoot first, goddammit. Fuck, even the Dalai Lama - whom I normally loathe to cite - says it's a good idea.
Has it ever occured to you that there may be other factors than just having the gun around? Perhaps the owner would have owned knives if guns weren't there.
Anyway, none of these things really provide much evidence for gun control being a good idea, especially since the page already says those laws don't work.
Oh, and I find it disturbing that gun control in the United States is rooted in racism. That's kind of a thing.
This is absolutely true and I cannot emphasize this enough when letting others handle my guns.
I'm afraid that the knife argument in the gun debate is a bit silly. Then someone always mentions that you never hear about a toddler getting killed in a drive-by knifing, and then the first person says that we would hear about it if there weren't any guns.
Let's just agree that this video is hilarious.
Be quiet. Kurt served in the military he knows what he's talking about.
Actually, I think you'll find that bullets kill people.
Also, you, sir, have lost what little of my respect there was left to lose.
I've just seen what weapons can do and that sir is not a pretty thing. Have you ever seen what barret can do to somebody at fifty yards? Or What 40mm MGL can do? I have it's not pretty.
Yeah, that was a joke. As you were told akready by puzzlebox it's well known that Pants loves guns.
I also think you're very rude.
In this thread alone you've berated 3 different people without understanding the full story. Remember that some folks in this community have been chatting here for years and that you may be missing some subtext.
War never is. Your grandfather has my respects for fighting in WWII.
No, you misunderstand my meaning. It's the physical bullet that causes the wound that can kill a person. The gun is merely the device that launches the projectile.
Catapults don't crush buildings. Giant rocks crush buildings. Also, Godzilla, but that's beside the point.
Actually, that's also a misunderstanding of my meaning. My real meaning is that we're getting so incredibly specific that it hardly seems like a worthy topic of conversation. Really, when we get down to it, the inability to synthesize proteins and ATP (which is a result of oxygen deprivation... which can happen when the avenues of oxygen transport are interrupted) kills people, but that doesn't look nearly as pretty on a billboard.
And my meaning under that is that the slogan is over-used and under-analyzed. In a debate, it is the rhetorical equivalent of quoting the Oscar Meyer song as an argument as to why bologna of one brand is better than any other.
And my meaning under that is that you insulted several of my friends in this thread because you viewed them as being anti-gun. Now, I'm not a gun slinger myself, and I don't particularly care to be one any time soon. And I especially don't want to be one if it means that I am associated with people like you as a result.
I also understand that by saying this, I have done the internet equivalent of wearing this shirt:
That would be the right to bear single-shot guns with rudimentary rifling and a flintlock mechanism, loaded through the muzzle.
Could work.
Actually real good rifleman..could fire off three shots a minute. But now I see what you did there.
That's the point though, you can't just dish out abuse because there's always another side.
One of me earliest memory was of a man in a balaclava pointing an assault rifle right in my fathers face through the drivers window of his car. Everyone I know has a family tree with scores of members shot dead or blown to bits. Guns were used by those in authority and those who hated the authority to murder, maim and intimidate for decades. People were shot dead just for speaking their native language or demanding basic civil rights, so in return they shot back, and it was bad for a long time.
Needless to say guns have ruined peoples lives, I think you have to respect and understand that as you wish people to respect your wishes to have one. It's only natural that a lot of people oppose gun ownership, it's up to yourself to be a good ambassador for your cause I guess.
Anyhoo, lets let bygones be bygones
Fair enough. You've seen the horrors of war first hand. I imagine this does a lot in shaping your perspective of weapons.
Actually, it's just "arms", construed by the courts as an individual right to own firearms. What's the point of being able to own them if you can't own guns on par with criminals and police? Otherwise, there's really no point in owning them as you can't stand up to tyranny.
Seeing as how the founders of our country just got done facing off against the largest Empire in history, I can see how they'd want the people to own military calibre weapons in order to stave off tyranny again if the need arose. It's too bad that time and again, the United States government has proven adept at quashing internal rebellions.
This. I can't give this statement enough air, so the best I can do is quote it and repost it.
This is why I'm all for civilians owning guns. Terrorists/rebels/non-governmental actors have nothing to stop them from maiming populations and governments tend to get carried away when fighting uprisings. The population must arm themselves or else they risk being thrown to the mercies of their armed brethren.
That being said, you have my utmost sympathies. No one should ever have to see that, especially so young. For what it's worth, IRL I always do my utmost to be a model gun owner.
Ok.
Actually, there's a lot of conjecture that the NRA keeps a lot of stuff illegal in order to maintain a reason for their existence. Think about it: as much influence and money as they have, they could easily overturn the '86 automatic weapons manufacture ban and the ban on Russian and Chinese firearm imports. Easily. Fuck the NRA, they don't give a shit about our gun rights. They only care about getting rich.
nop
Must feel bad, getting ripped off like that. Especially since they sell your address to about a million spam companies. I made that mistake when I first got into guns. Once you research the realities of the spot guns occupy in American politics, you see how ridiculous they are in their methods and their status.
If they were as necessary as they say they are, all the redneck gun owners would be rebelling. Believe me, the very INSTANT a serious threat to our gun rights materializes, you'll see all the backwoods of America rise up. Trust me on this.
The NRA instead uses fear tactics to dream up threats to our rights and scare impressionable people into joining while using the congressmen they've bought to keep insidious legislation like 922(r) in force so that they have a reason to exist, a lot like how anti-abortion lobbyists will never really overturn Roe v. Wade in its entirety. What use is a lobby if its reason for existing dies out?
No, your NRA dues are just keeping Colt and Remington from producing civilian legal automatics again and keeping $200 Norinco 1911s and $50 Mosins from American shores.
"Thanks to the coward ass bitches my 7 year old got to witness his first shooting Fucking bull shit that society is this way next time use your fucking fist like real men"