|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 28 2012 08:52 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:50 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't think anyone on either side of the isle would have anything against background checks, or raising red flags for someone who starts buying mass amounts of ammo in bulk.
Also find it interesting that instead of police or authorities not being suspicious of his purchases or ramblings, a gun club the shooter tried to join was and prevented his joining. Define "mass amount of ammo". Many gun enthusiasts will disagree on what this amount is and whether it should even raise a red flag. The guy who went on the shooting rampage didn't even use a fraction of what he bought to do the damage he did. http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/Read! Everyone READ! NOW! READ IT! I dare you! I triple dare you! Use literateness now! Read! I will bug everyone till they read!
I read it. It's a dumb article that discredits valid points by distorting the logic or ignoring the reasoning behind why people repeatedly state these reasons against gun control.
|
By bulk I mean seveal thousand(granted different rounds per box is different in # sometimes by huge variants). But 6000 rounds of ammo is what(boxes)?
Unless the US Navy is putting in an order I would think a red flag should be raised when that much is being ordered by a single person.
|
On July 28 2012 08:39 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:37 Moonling wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:08 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 07:03 sereniity wrote:On July 28 2012 06:39 Millitron wrote:On July 27 2012 07:06 Silidons wrote:On July 27 2012 01:35 ImAbstracT wrote:
[quote]
Besides to protect themselves from the criminals who have semi-automatic rifles.
It all depends what your view of rights and liberties are. I believe every American has the right to own whatever firearm they choose, until they do something stupid enough to lose that right. It seems the majority of people here think no one has the right to own a gun, it is a privileged the state should be able to give and take at will.
Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.
Alexander Hope bahahahah protect ourselves from the criminals with semi-automatic rifles... the reason people want to take guns away is to save human lives because every single study has shown that an increase in gun regulation leads to less people dying every year. you think owning your gun is worth even 1 dead person? you sound like you follow alex jones... the reason people want to take alcohol away is to save human lives because every single study has shown that an increase in alcohol regulation leads to less people dying every year. you think owning your alcohol is worth even 1 dead person? you sound like you follow alex jones... There's a difference in drinking yourself to death and people shooting other people to death. Plenty of drunks crash their cars into innocent people. Plenty of drunks get violent and kill innocent people. I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used far more often on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Target shooting= practice shooting your gun to hunt with? Target shooting= fun Target shooting= hobby Don't be so ignorant, obviously you have never held a gun in your life Lol - I have held a gun so it would appear that you are the ignorant one ^_^. And what exactly do you do when you hunt? Wound the animals and watch them suffer? You sick freak. But seriously. Hunting = killing. Edit: You're avoiding the point. Guns are made for killing - alcohol and cars are not. You can't really compare them.
i tend to agree, but i have never owned a gun in my own household.
my thoughts are that... isn't there a way to lower the immediate lethality of a gun?
we have things like tasers, alternative ammo, pepper spray,
given the damage that a gun usually inflicts, is it necessary to shoot to 'kill' over hampering the intruder down?
|
On July 28 2012 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
By bulk I mean seveal thousand(granted different rounds per box is different in # sometimes by huge variants). But 6000 rounds of ammo is what(boxes)?
Unless the US Navy is putting in an order I would think a red flag should be raised when that much is being ordered by a single person.
But why? The only hope someone has to actually be able to use that amount of ammo for the purpose of killing others is with multiple fully-automatic firearms and more ammo than a single person could carry on their persona with an exorbitant amount of magazines or a belt-fed machine gun which still would only hold a few hundred at a time.
I really don't see the problem or why someone buying even 10k should be flagged for any reason. It's unreasonable to assume anyone could even come close to using a fraction of that in a mass shooting.
To the post above: The gun is used as self-defense as a LETHAL tool. You're supposed to exhaust every other option through a mental checklist of sorts to determine that you absolutely HAVE to deploy the use of the gun. You aren't shooting to maim or injure when you fire the trigger. It is to neutralize the threat with deadly force and will result in the serious bodily harm or death to the aggressor. In the case of home defense, less-lethal ammunition isn't viable as few are even capable of properly deploying it. The most reliable thing you can use to defend yourself is a firearm and it's proper use as deadly force in a defense scenario is based on legislation describing when you are legally allowed to use it. Lowering the lethality of a firearm intended for deadly force is the worst possible option when people are relying on it's intended purpose for defense of themselves or others.
|
On July 28 2012 08:54 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:46 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:42 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:08 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 07:03 sereniity wrote:On July 28 2012 06:39 Millitron wrote:On July 27 2012 07:06 Silidons wrote:
[quote]
bahahahah
protect ourselves from the criminals with semi-automatic rifles...
the reason people want to take guns away is to save human lives because every single study has shown that an increase in gun regulation leads to less people dying every year. you think owning your gun is worth even 1 dead person? you sound like you follow alex jones... the reason people want to take alcohol away is to save human lives because every single study has shown that an increase in alcohol regulation leads to less people dying every year. you think owning your alcohol is worth even 1 dead person? you sound like you follow alex jones... There's a difference in drinking yourself to death and people shooting other people to death. Plenty of drunks crash their cars into innocent people. Plenty of drunks get violent and kill innocent people. I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Here's the thing though; my gun is a pretty tiny .22 caliber rifle, and all my ammo has low powder loads. I'd have to land a one-in-a-million shot to kill someone. If I shot someone who was wearing a leather jacket, I doubt it'd break the skin, and even if it did, it wouldn't even need stitches. If I was practicing to kill, wouldn't I practice with a weapon that could actually do damage? I don't shoot because I'm practicing to take a life, I do it because its pretty fun. Awesome! It sounds like you are a responsible gun owner who genuinely enjoys target shooting! Right on. Guns still = weapons. Cars still = transportation and alcohol still = drinky drinky. But I'm not the only responsible gun owner. The media makes it sound like we're a minority, but we're actually the vast majority. You never hear about all the gun owners who go through their lives day to day without incident. You only hear about the ones screw up. For the vast majority of gun owners, guns provide a fun past-time that they can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. For the vast majority of alcohol enthusiasts, alcohol provides a fun past-time that they can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others.
Actually you ARE the majority. That's why leaving guns in the hands of the public is even still an option. If the majority of people who owned guns murdered people with them - you would have a Hell of a time making a case for gun ownership at all. Your comparison here is still irrelevant. Allow me to explain.
Beach trips are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others.
Movies are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others.
Eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others.
No shit - people getting careless can hurt themselves or others in any and every circumstance ever in the world ever. In the case of violent shootings though - these people aren't being careless with guns. They're actually being careful. Careful to shoot that guy in the face so he dies. Shooting someone else isn't a failure on the part of you or the gun, if that was your intention. It was a success. Your gun works only if you accurately hit and kill/injure your target. If your gun misfires that doesn't mean you hit something, it means your gun fucked up and didn't hit the intended target, or didn't fire at all.
|
On July 28 2012 08:55 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:52 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:50 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't think anyone on either side of the isle would have anything against background checks, or raising red flags for someone who starts buying mass amounts of ammo in bulk.
Also find it interesting that instead of police or authorities not being suspicious of his purchases or ramblings, a gun club the shooter tried to join was and prevented his joining. Define "mass amount of ammo". Many gun enthusiasts will disagree on what this amount is and whether it should even raise a red flag. The guy who went on the shooting rampage didn't even use a fraction of what he bought to do the damage he did. http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/Read! Everyone READ! NOW! READ IT! I dare you! I triple dare you! Use literateness now! Read! I will bug everyone till they read! I read it. It's a dumb article that discredits valid points by distorting the logic or ignoring the reasoning behind why people repeatedly state these reasons against gun control.
Actually it's a smart article (Read - backs up it's info with sources) that addresses a lot of problems with the arguments against gun control without discrediting the argument as a whole. The guy is saying - if you want to have a conversation about gun control make some good arguments, not some bad ones that don't make sense.
|
On July 28 2012 08:55 nanaoei wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:39 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:37 Moonling wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:08 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 07:03 sereniity wrote:On July 28 2012 06:39 Millitron wrote:On July 27 2012 07:06 Silidons wrote:
[quote]
bahahahah
protect ourselves from the criminals with semi-automatic rifles...
the reason people want to take guns away is to save human lives because every single study has shown that an increase in gun regulation leads to less people dying every year. you think owning your gun is worth even 1 dead person? you sound like you follow alex jones... the reason people want to take alcohol away is to save human lives because every single study has shown that an increase in alcohol regulation leads to less people dying every year. you think owning your alcohol is worth even 1 dead person? you sound like you follow alex jones... There's a difference in drinking yourself to death and people shooting other people to death. Plenty of drunks crash their cars into innocent people. Plenty of drunks get violent and kill innocent people. I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used far more often on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Target shooting= practice shooting your gun to hunt with? Target shooting= fun Target shooting= hobby Don't be so ignorant, obviously you have never held a gun in your life Lol - I have held a gun so it would appear that you are the ignorant one ^_^. And what exactly do you do when you hunt? Wound the animals and watch them suffer? You sick freak. But seriously. Hunting = killing. Edit: You're avoiding the point. Guns are made for killing - alcohol and cars are not. You can't really compare them. i tend to agree, but i have never owned a gun in my own household. my thoughts are that... isn't there a way to lower the immediate lethality of a gun? we have things like tasers, alternative ammo, pepper spray, given the damage that a gun usually inflicts, is it necessary to shoot to 'kill' over hampering the intruder down?
Tasers are perfectly legal, but since they can only fire one shot before you have to reload, if you're in a fight and you miss, thats it for you. Alternative ammo can still be lethal, and also do not guarantee that the target will cease hostilities. Pepper spray has to hit them directly in the face or it won't even faze them, and even then a simple pair of sunglasses and a cloth over their mouth and nose will protect them. Even if you get them square in their face, and its unprotected, that's no guarantee they'll stop either; if the target is tougher than average, or has already been pepper sprayed a few times before, they'll be able to tough it out.
|
On July 28 2012 09:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:55 nanaoei wrote:On July 28 2012 08:39 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:37 Moonling wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:08 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 07:03 sereniity wrote:On July 28 2012 06:39 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
the reason people want to take alcohol away is to save human lives because every single study has shown that an increase in alcohol regulation leads to less people dying every year. you think owning your alcohol is worth even 1 dead person? you sound like you follow alex jones... There's a difference in drinking yourself to death and people shooting other people to death. Plenty of drunks crash their cars into innocent people. Plenty of drunks get violent and kill innocent people. I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used far more often on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Target shooting= practice shooting your gun to hunt with? Target shooting= fun Target shooting= hobby Don't be so ignorant, obviously you have never held a gun in your life Lol - I have held a gun so it would appear that you are the ignorant one ^_^. And what exactly do you do when you hunt? Wound the animals and watch them suffer? You sick freak. But seriously. Hunting = killing. Edit: You're avoiding the point. Guns are made for killing - alcohol and cars are not. You can't really compare them. i tend to agree, but i have never owned a gun in my own household. my thoughts are that... isn't there a way to lower the immediate lethality of a gun? we have things like tasers, alternative ammo, pepper spray, given the damage that a gun usually inflicts, is it necessary to shoot to 'kill' over hampering the intruder down? Tasers are perfectly legal, but since they can only fire one shot before you have to reload, if you're in a fight and you miss, thats it for you. Alternative ammo can still be lethal, and also do not guarantee that the target will cease hostilities. Pepper spray has to hit them directly in the face or it won't even faze them, and even then a simple pair of sunglasses and a cloth over their mouth and nose will protect them. Even if you get them square in their face, and its unprotected, that's no guarantee they'll stop either; if the target is tougher than average, or has already been pepper sprayed a few times before, they'll be able to tough it out.
I really hate the "But what if I have to defend myself in a gun fight!" argument. It makes no sense. Firstly - where do you live in the US that you are constantly in a blazing gunfight? Secondly - If you make guns more readily available - no fucking shit criminals are going to have easy ass access to guns. How in the fuck does that help. Let's just make nuclear warheads easy to come by because N. Korea might have one and I sure as hell want to be on even footing if I ever get into a nuclear missile fight.
|
On July 28 2012 09:06 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:55 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:52 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:50 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't think anyone on either side of the isle would have anything against background checks, or raising red flags for someone who starts buying mass amounts of ammo in bulk.
Also find it interesting that instead of police or authorities not being suspicious of his purchases or ramblings, a gun club the shooter tried to join was and prevented his joining. Define "mass amount of ammo". Many gun enthusiasts will disagree on what this amount is and whether it should even raise a red flag. The guy who went on the shooting rampage didn't even use a fraction of what he bought to do the damage he did. http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/Read! Everyone READ! NOW! READ IT! I dare you! I triple dare you! Use literateness now! Read! I will bug everyone till they read! I read it. It's a dumb article that discredits valid points by distorting the logic or ignoring the reasoning behind why people repeatedly state these reasons against gun control. Actually it's a smart article (Read - backs up it's info with sources) that addresses a lot of problems with the arguments against gun control without discrediting the argument as a whole. The guy is saying - if you want to have a conversation about gun control make some good arguments, not some bad ones that don't make sense.
If you had read the part referring to the second amendment and calling it a bad argument because court cases have sided with gun owners on their right to bear arms, you might agree with me.
The second amendment has been interpreted to allow for us to own firearms outside the narrow scope of being in an organized militia. The author of the article is naive enough to believe this judicial decision on the language in the amendment will change as opposed to it being precedent for the future cases involving the second amendment. I, and many others, foresee more rights for gun owners as opposed to more gun control legislation even having a chance at passing to try and antagonize these major court decisions.
It's a dumb article.
|
On July 28 2012 09:26 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:06 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:55 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:52 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:50 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't think anyone on either side of the isle would have anything against background checks, or raising red flags for someone who starts buying mass amounts of ammo in bulk.
Also find it interesting that instead of police or authorities not being suspicious of his purchases or ramblings, a gun club the shooter tried to join was and prevented his joining. Define "mass amount of ammo". Many gun enthusiasts will disagree on what this amount is and whether it should even raise a red flag. The guy who went on the shooting rampage didn't even use a fraction of what he bought to do the damage he did. http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/Read! Everyone READ! NOW! READ IT! I dare you! I triple dare you! Use literateness now! Read! I will bug everyone till they read! I read it. It's a dumb article that discredits valid points by distorting the logic or ignoring the reasoning behind why people repeatedly state these reasons against gun control. Actually it's a smart article (Read - backs up it's info with sources) that addresses a lot of problems with the arguments against gun control without discrediting the argument as a whole. The guy is saying - if you want to have a conversation about gun control make some good arguments, not some bad ones that don't make sense. If you had read the part referring to the second amendment and calling it a bad argument because court cases have sided with gun owners on their right to bear arms, you might agree with me. The second amendment has been interpreted to allow for us to own firearms outside the narrow scope of being in an organized militia. The author of the article is naive enough to believe this judicial decision on the language in the amendment will change as opposed to it being precedent for the future cases involving the second amendment. I, and many others, foresee more rights for gun owners as opposed to more gun control legislation even having a chance at passing to try and antagonize these major court decisions. It's a dumb article.
The article isn't hoping that the judicial decision will change. He points out that the constitution has been amended 27 times in the past and that at least one prominent figure in the drafting of the constitution was in favor of frequently reviewing and revising laws. Combined with that, he points out the drastic technological changes in firearms in the past 200+ years. His argument is that 'because the 2nd amendment says so' is not a good *moral* argument in favor of guns. It says that they are currently allowed, but the conversation on "should they be?" is a completely separate issue that should not be confused with "are they?".
|
On July 28 2012 09:04 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:54 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:46 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:42 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:08 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 07:03 sereniity wrote:On July 28 2012 06:39 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
the reason people want to take alcohol away is to save human lives because every single study has shown that an increase in alcohol regulation leads to less people dying every year. you think owning your alcohol is worth even 1 dead person? you sound like you follow alex jones... There's a difference in drinking yourself to death and people shooting other people to death. Plenty of drunks crash their cars into innocent people. Plenty of drunks get violent and kill innocent people. I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Here's the thing though; my gun is a pretty tiny .22 caliber rifle, and all my ammo has low powder loads. I'd have to land a one-in-a-million shot to kill someone. If I shot someone who was wearing a leather jacket, I doubt it'd break the skin, and even if it did, it wouldn't even need stitches. If I was practicing to kill, wouldn't I practice with a weapon that could actually do damage? I don't shoot because I'm practicing to take a life, I do it because its pretty fun. Awesome! It sounds like you are a responsible gun owner who genuinely enjoys target shooting! Right on. Guns still = weapons. Cars still = transportation and alcohol still = drinky drinky. But I'm not the only responsible gun owner. The media makes it sound like we're a minority, but we're actually the vast majority. You never hear about all the gun owners who go through their lives day to day without incident. You only hear about the ones screw up. For the vast majority of gun owners, guns provide a fun past-time that they can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. For the vast majority of alcohol enthusiasts, alcohol provides a fun past-time that they can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Actually you ARE the majority. That's why leaving guns in the hands of the public is even still an option. If the majority of people who owned guns murdered people with them - you would have a Hell of a time making a case for gun ownership at all. Your comparison here is still irrelevant. Allow me to explain. Beach trips are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Movies are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. No shit - people getting careless can hurt themselves or others in any and every circumstance ever in the world ever. In the case of violent shootings though - these people aren't being careless with guns. They're actually being care ful. Careful to shoot that guy in the face so he dies. Shooting someone else isn't a failure on the part of you or the gun, if that was your intention. It was a success. Your gun works only if you accurately hit and kill/injure your target. If your gun misfires that doesn't mean you hit something, it means your gun fucked up and didn't hit the intended target, or didn't fire at all.
A large percentage, if not a majority, of gun related injuries are NOT from one person purposefully shooting another. They're from people being careless and cleaning loaded weapons, people tripping and landing just right causing the gun to go off, or the weapon experiencing a malfunction and firing unexpectedly.
There's approximately 100,000,000 legally civilian owned firearms in the US. According to this data: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
There's approximately 20,000 deaths a year in which a gun was involved. As you can see, responsible owners like myself are not only the majority, but an extremely vast majority, especially when you consider a large percentage of those deaths were caused by illegal guns, i.e. guns not counted in that figure above.
*Before someone points this out, the accidental deaths are much lower than it may seem I'm saying, but this is because unless you're extremely unlucky, an accidental discharge won't be aimed anywhere near your head/chest. For instance, an accident while cleaning is much more likely to cost you a finger than it is to hit anything vital.
On July 28 2012 09:12 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:08 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:55 nanaoei wrote:On July 28 2012 08:39 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:37 Moonling wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:08 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 07:03 sereniity wrote:
[quote]
There's a difference in drinking yourself to death and people shooting other people to death. Plenty of drunks crash their cars into innocent people. Plenty of drunks get violent and kill innocent people. I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used far more often on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Target shooting= practice shooting your gun to hunt with? Target shooting= fun Target shooting= hobby Don't be so ignorant, obviously you have never held a gun in your life Lol - I have held a gun so it would appear that you are the ignorant one ^_^. And what exactly do you do when you hunt? Wound the animals and watch them suffer? You sick freak. But seriously. Hunting = killing. Edit: You're avoiding the point. Guns are made for killing - alcohol and cars are not. You can't really compare them. i tend to agree, but i have never owned a gun in my own household. my thoughts are that... isn't there a way to lower the immediate lethality of a gun? we have things like tasers, alternative ammo, pepper spray, given the damage that a gun usually inflicts, is it necessary to shoot to 'kill' over hampering the intruder down? Tasers are perfectly legal, but since they can only fire one shot before you have to reload, if you're in a fight and you miss, thats it for you. Alternative ammo can still be lethal, and also do not guarantee that the target will cease hostilities. Pepper spray has to hit them directly in the face or it won't even faze them, and even then a simple pair of sunglasses and a cloth over their mouth and nose will protect them. Even if you get them square in their face, and its unprotected, that's no guarantee they'll stop either; if the target is tougher than average, or has already been pepper sprayed a few times before, they'll be able to tough it out. I really hate the "But what if I have to defend myself in a gun fight!" argument. It makes no sense. Firstly - where do you live in the US that you are constantly in a blazing gunfight? Secondly - If you make guns more readily available - no fucking shit criminals are going to have easy ass access to guns. How in the fuck does that help. Let's just make nuclear warheads easy to come by because N. Korea might have one and I sure as hell want to be on even footing if I ever get into a nuclear missile fight.
I agree that it makes no sense, you'll practically never be in a gunfight, unless you live in Detroit or something, in which case you should move. Since you'll never be in a gunfight, you don't really need machine guns or anything, which is why I'm ok with them being Class 3. The point isn't to defend yourself in a gunfight, its to defend yourself in any lifethreatening situation. As we've already been over, I'm not worried about things like that personally, but I can see why others might be. I just don't want people to think that non-lethals are the end-all be-all for self defense, because they aren't.
My father watches my grandfather's house for him when he's away on vacation. My dad's interrupted at least three burglary attempts. Thankfully, each time he had something big and heavy to brandish, but if they had had a gun, I don't want to even think about what may have happened, since he doesn't have any kind of carry license.
|
On July 28 2012 09:31 visual77 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:26 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 09:06 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:55 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:52 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:50 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't think anyone on either side of the isle would have anything against background checks, or raising red flags for someone who starts buying mass amounts of ammo in bulk.
Also find it interesting that instead of police or authorities not being suspicious of his purchases or ramblings, a gun club the shooter tried to join was and prevented his joining. Define "mass amount of ammo". Many gun enthusiasts will disagree on what this amount is and whether it should even raise a red flag. The guy who went on the shooting rampage didn't even use a fraction of what he bought to do the damage he did. http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/Read! Everyone READ! NOW! READ IT! I dare you! I triple dare you! Use literateness now! Read! I will bug everyone till they read! I read it. It's a dumb article that discredits valid points by distorting the logic or ignoring the reasoning behind why people repeatedly state these reasons against gun control. Actually it's a smart article (Read - backs up it's info with sources) that addresses a lot of problems with the arguments against gun control without discrediting the argument as a whole. The guy is saying - if you want to have a conversation about gun control make some good arguments, not some bad ones that don't make sense. If you had read the part referring to the second amendment and calling it a bad argument because court cases have sided with gun owners on their right to bear arms, you might agree with me. The second amendment has been interpreted to allow for us to own firearms outside the narrow scope of being in an organized militia. The author of the article is naive enough to believe this judicial decision on the language in the amendment will change as opposed to it being precedent for the future cases involving the second amendment. I, and many others, foresee more rights for gun owners as opposed to more gun control legislation even having a chance at passing to try and antagonize these major court decisions. It's a dumb article. The article isn't hoping that the judicial decision will change. He points out that the constitution has been amended 27 times in the past and that at least one prominent figure in the drafting of the constitution was in favor of frequently reviewing and revising laws. Combined with that, he points out the drastic technological changes in firearms in the past 200+ years. His argument is that 'because the 2nd amendment says so' is not a good *moral* argument in favor of guns. It says that they are currently allowed, but the conversation on "should they be?" is a completely separate issue that should not be confused with "are they?".
Why should a moral debate be introduced, or even the possibility of another Constitutional amendment be discussed when the last part of the second amendment states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
|
On July 28 2012 09:04 Arghmyliver wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Actually you ARE the majority. That's why leaving guns in the hands of the public is even still an option. If the majority of people who owned guns murdered people with them - you would have a Hell of a time making a case for gun ownership at all. Your comparison here is still irrelevant. Allow me to explain.
Beach trips are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others.
Movies are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others.
Eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others.
No shit - people getting careless can hurt themselves or others in any and every circumstance ever in the world ever. In the case of violent shootings though - these people aren't being careless with guns. They're actually being careful. Careful to shoot that guy in the face so he dies. Shooting someone else isn't a failure on the part of you or the gun, if that was your intention. It was a success. Your gun works only if you accurately hit and kill/injure your target. If your gun misfires that doesn't mean you hit something, it means your gun fucked up and didn't hit the intended target, or didn't fire at all.
Ok, show me the stats that show beach trips, movies and eating peanut butter cause as many unnecessary deaths as alcohol and I will agree with your point of view. The problem is, you can't, because they don't. Alcohol directly causes more deaths than guns, but people argue that fact doesn't matter because 'alcohol isn't designed to kill'. I have asked it and so have others but not one seems to answer why that fact matters. Just because its design isn't to kill, should we ignore that a byproduct of its use is that it does infact kill? Not just the user. Others. Don't bring that argument either.
I think alcohol is a good example as opposed to cars because it serves no other purpose than personal enjoyment. It has no other function. If lives matter most, shouldn't we compare the effects on lives lost between the two equally?
|
Here's an excerpt from an article from the Daily Mail, describing how a Colorado gun club owner flat out rejected Holmes' membership application.
Suspected mass-murderer James Holmes was rejected from joining a Colorado gun club just weeks before his horrific shooting spree, because the message on his answering machine was 'bizarre and freaky'.
The 24-year-old who killed 12 people and injured scores more when he opened fire at a midnight screening of 'The Dark Knight Rises' on Friday, applied for membership to the Lead Valley Range in Byers on June 25 but owner Glenn Rotkovich banned the man from the club after being unnerved by his 'incoherent, rambling' message.
'I called to see if he could come down for an orientation and I got his answering machine and the message was just bizarre, freaky,' Mr Rotkovich told MailOnline.
'I thought it was weird and strange. I called a couple more times and then decided not to call again because of the nature of his answering message.
'I gave my staff his name - James Holmes - and told everyone here to get me if he shows up at the range. I wanted to know who he was before we considered doing anything with him, let alone make him a member. He was flagged.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177323/Colorado-gun-club-owner-Glenn-Rotkovich-rejected-James-Holmes-just-WEEKS-shooting-spree-freaky-answering-message.html
For all those that say that the massacre couldn't been thwarted, I submit this as a evidence that it possibly could have -- or at the very least, not been committed with legally purchased firearms.
Imagine if Homes had to do an actual exam, be interviewed or meet with a law enforcement offer, and be issued a licence before getting a gun. If this club owner had the presence of mind to flag Holmes, whose to say a gun dealer or instructor couldn't?
Responsible, experienced gun owners are better than anyone at recognizing when someone is a risk to themselves or others with a gun.
--
Earlier, I wrote the best way to protect the right to bear arms is to promote initiatives that prevent their abuse -- not to ignore or discount the abuse all together. Latest polls seem to indicate that most gun owners agree with me.
Most polls underscore the political stagnation, so it is refreshing, or at least different, when the firm headed by Republican pollster Frank Luntz weighs into the discussion with some fascinating new data: a survey of more than 900 gun owners shows strong support for regulations that balance rights and responsibilities, according to Lowell Baker, president of Luntz’s firm. Roughly half of those polled are members of the NRA, and over half of them think that everyone who wants to buy a gun should complete a background check; most think (incorrectly) that’s already the law.*
Three out of four gun owners think people on the terrorist watch list should not be allowed access to guns. More than two thirds think the police should be alerted if a gun is lost or stolen. Eight out of 10 say that a concealed weapon permit should only be issued to people who complete a training course. Seven in 10 say to get a concealed carry permit, you should be 21 years of age; 78 percent say a concealed carry permit should not be granted to anybody with a violent misdemeanor. And 82 percent favor a criminal background check.
“They’re trying to tell us through the survey that with rights come responsibilities,” says Baker. “It pisses them off when someone else abuses that right.” Granted, these are very minimal requirements–how could anybody support access to guns for people on the no-fly list? Perhaps not surprisingly, the NRA leadership does, even if a majority of its membership doesn’t, and that’s the bottom line in Luntz’s survey–that the NRA doesn’t necessarily speak for its 4 million members. Invoking the turns of phrase that are Luntz’s signature, Baker said the survey reveals “a new silent majority” neither red nor blue that resides in the middle of the electorate, where a conversation can be started around the theme, “Rights are protected and responsibilities are respected.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/27/gun-owners-say-they-want-more-controls-a-gop-pollster-says.html
*While most states require a gun retailer perform a criminal background check on people interested in purchasing a gun, there is serious loophole that allows gun collectors and resellers to sell guns without a background check online at at gun shows. An study (albeit an old one) estimated that 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/
|
On July 28 2012 09:31 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:04 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:54 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:46 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:42 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:08 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 07:03 sereniity wrote:
[quote]
There's a difference in drinking yourself to death and people shooting other people to death. Plenty of drunks crash their cars into innocent people. Plenty of drunks get violent and kill innocent people. I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Here's the thing though; my gun is a pretty tiny .22 caliber rifle, and all my ammo has low powder loads. I'd have to land a one-in-a-million shot to kill someone. If I shot someone who was wearing a leather jacket, I doubt it'd break the skin, and even if it did, it wouldn't even need stitches. If I was practicing to kill, wouldn't I practice with a weapon that could actually do damage? I don't shoot because I'm practicing to take a life, I do it because its pretty fun. Awesome! It sounds like you are a responsible gun owner who genuinely enjoys target shooting! Right on. Guns still = weapons. Cars still = transportation and alcohol still = drinky drinky. But I'm not the only responsible gun owner. The media makes it sound like we're a minority, but we're actually the vast majority. You never hear about all the gun owners who go through their lives day to day without incident. You only hear about the ones screw up. For the vast majority of gun owners, guns provide a fun past-time that they can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. For the vast majority of alcohol enthusiasts, alcohol provides a fun past-time that they can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Actually you ARE the majority. That's why leaving guns in the hands of the public is even still an option. If the majority of people who owned guns murdered people with them - you would have a Hell of a time making a case for gun ownership at all. Your comparison here is still irrelevant. Allow me to explain. Beach trips are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Movies are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. No shit - people getting careless can hurt themselves or others in any and every circumstance ever in the world ever. In the case of violent shootings though - these people aren't being careless with guns. They're actually being care ful. Careful to shoot that guy in the face so he dies. Shooting someone else isn't a failure on the part of you or the gun, if that was your intention. It was a success. Your gun works only if you accurately hit and kill/injure your target. If your gun misfires that doesn't mean you hit something, it means your gun fucked up and didn't hit the intended target, or didn't fire at all. A large percentage, if not a majority, of gun related injuries are NOT from one person purposefully shooting another. They're from people being careless and cleaning loaded weapons, people tripping and landing just right causing the gun to go off, or the weapon experiencing a malfunction and firing unexpectedly. There's approximately 100,000,000 legally civilian owned firearms in the US. According to this data: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states There's approximately 20,000 deaths a year in which a gun was involved. As you can see, responsible owners like myself are not only the majority, but an extremely vast majority, especially when you consider a large percentage of those deaths were caused by illegal guns, i.e. guns not counted in that figure above. *Before someone points this out, the accidental deaths are much lower than it may seem I'm saying, but this is because unless you're extremely unlucky, an accidental discharge won't be aimed anywhere near your head/chest. For instance, an accident while cleaning is much more likely to cost you a finger than it is to hit anything vital. Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:12 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 09:08 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:55 nanaoei wrote:On July 28 2012 08:39 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:37 Moonling wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:08 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Plenty of drunks crash their cars into innocent people. Plenty of drunks get violent and kill innocent people. I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used far more often on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Target shooting= practice shooting your gun to hunt with? Target shooting= fun Target shooting= hobby Don't be so ignorant, obviously you have never held a gun in your life Lol - I have held a gun so it would appear that you are the ignorant one ^_^. And what exactly do you do when you hunt? Wound the animals and watch them suffer? You sick freak. But seriously. Hunting = killing. Edit: You're avoiding the point. Guns are made for killing - alcohol and cars are not. You can't really compare them. i tend to agree, but i have never owned a gun in my own household. my thoughts are that... isn't there a way to lower the immediate lethality of a gun? we have things like tasers, alternative ammo, pepper spray, given the damage that a gun usually inflicts, is it necessary to shoot to 'kill' over hampering the intruder down? Tasers are perfectly legal, but since they can only fire one shot before you have to reload, if you're in a fight and you miss, thats it for you. Alternative ammo can still be lethal, and also do not guarantee that the target will cease hostilities. Pepper spray has to hit them directly in the face or it won't even faze them, and even then a simple pair of sunglasses and a cloth over their mouth and nose will protect them. Even if you get them square in their face, and its unprotected, that's no guarantee they'll stop either; if the target is tougher than average, or has already been pepper sprayed a few times before, they'll be able to tough it out. I really hate the "But what if I have to defend myself in a gun fight!" argument. It makes no sense. Firstly - where do you live in the US that you are constantly in a blazing gunfight? Secondly - If you make guns more readily available - no fucking shit criminals are going to have easy ass access to guns. How in the fuck does that help. Let's just make nuclear warheads easy to come by because N. Korea might have one and I sure as hell want to be on even footing if I ever get into a nuclear missile fight. I agree that it makes no sense, you'll practically never be in a gunfight, unless you live in Detroit or something, in which case you should move. Since you'll never be in a gunfight, you don't really need machine guns or anything, which is why I'm ok with them being Class 3. The point isn't to defend yourself in a gunfight, its to defend yourself in any lifethreatening situation. As we've already been over, I'm not worried about things like that personally, but I can see why others might be. I just don't want people to think that non-lethals are the end-all be-all for self defense, because they aren't. My father watches my grandfather's house for him when he's away on vacation. My dad's interrupted at least three burglary attempts. Thankfully, each time he had something big and heavy to brandish, but if they had had a gun, I don't want to even think about what may have happened, since he doesn't have any kind of carry license.
Somone correct me if I'm wrong but you don't need a license to have a gun in your house just on your person, no?
|
On July 28 2012 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:31 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 09:04 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:54 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:46 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:42 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:08 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Plenty of drunks crash their cars into innocent people. Plenty of drunks get violent and kill innocent people. I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Here's the thing though; my gun is a pretty tiny .22 caliber rifle, and all my ammo has low powder loads. I'd have to land a one-in-a-million shot to kill someone. If I shot someone who was wearing a leather jacket, I doubt it'd break the skin, and even if it did, it wouldn't even need stitches. If I was practicing to kill, wouldn't I practice with a weapon that could actually do damage? I don't shoot because I'm practicing to take a life, I do it because its pretty fun. Awesome! It sounds like you are a responsible gun owner who genuinely enjoys target shooting! Right on. Guns still = weapons. Cars still = transportation and alcohol still = drinky drinky. But I'm not the only responsible gun owner. The media makes it sound like we're a minority, but we're actually the vast majority. You never hear about all the gun owners who go through their lives day to day without incident. You only hear about the ones screw up. For the vast majority of gun owners, guns provide a fun past-time that they can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. For the vast majority of alcohol enthusiasts, alcohol provides a fun past-time that they can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Actually you ARE the majority. That's why leaving guns in the hands of the public is even still an option. If the majority of people who owned guns murdered people with them - you would have a Hell of a time making a case for gun ownership at all. Your comparison here is still irrelevant. Allow me to explain. Beach trips are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Movies are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. No shit - people getting careless can hurt themselves or others in any and every circumstance ever in the world ever. In the case of violent shootings though - these people aren't being careless with guns. They're actually being care ful. Careful to shoot that guy in the face so he dies. Shooting someone else isn't a failure on the part of you or the gun, if that was your intention. It was a success. Your gun works only if you accurately hit and kill/injure your target. If your gun misfires that doesn't mean you hit something, it means your gun fucked up and didn't hit the intended target, or didn't fire at all. A large percentage, if not a majority, of gun related injuries are NOT from one person purposefully shooting another. They're from people being careless and cleaning loaded weapons, people tripping and landing just right causing the gun to go off, or the weapon experiencing a malfunction and firing unexpectedly. There's approximately 100,000,000 legally civilian owned firearms in the US. According to this data: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states There's approximately 20,000 deaths a year in which a gun was involved. As you can see, responsible owners like myself are not only the majority, but an extremely vast majority, especially when you consider a large percentage of those deaths were caused by illegal guns, i.e. guns not counted in that figure above. *Before someone points this out, the accidental deaths are much lower than it may seem I'm saying, but this is because unless you're extremely unlucky, an accidental discharge won't be aimed anywhere near your head/chest. For instance, an accident while cleaning is much more likely to cost you a finger than it is to hit anything vital. On July 28 2012 09:12 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 09:08 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:55 nanaoei wrote:On July 28 2012 08:39 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:37 Moonling wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:
[quote]
I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used far more often on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Target shooting= practice shooting your gun to hunt with? Target shooting= fun Target shooting= hobby Don't be so ignorant, obviously you have never held a gun in your life Lol - I have held a gun so it would appear that you are the ignorant one ^_^. And what exactly do you do when you hunt? Wound the animals and watch them suffer? You sick freak. But seriously. Hunting = killing. Edit: You're avoiding the point. Guns are made for killing - alcohol and cars are not. You can't really compare them. i tend to agree, but i have never owned a gun in my own household. my thoughts are that... isn't there a way to lower the immediate lethality of a gun? we have things like tasers, alternative ammo, pepper spray, given the damage that a gun usually inflicts, is it necessary to shoot to 'kill' over hampering the intruder down? Tasers are perfectly legal, but since they can only fire one shot before you have to reload, if you're in a fight and you miss, thats it for you. Alternative ammo can still be lethal, and also do not guarantee that the target will cease hostilities. Pepper spray has to hit them directly in the face or it won't even faze them, and even then a simple pair of sunglasses and a cloth over their mouth and nose will protect them. Even if you get them square in their face, and its unprotected, that's no guarantee they'll stop either; if the target is tougher than average, or has already been pepper sprayed a few times before, they'll be able to tough it out. I really hate the "But what if I have to defend myself in a gun fight!" argument. It makes no sense. Firstly - where do you live in the US that you are constantly in a blazing gunfight? Secondly - If you make guns more readily available - no fucking shit criminals are going to have easy ass access to guns. How in the fuck does that help. Let's just make nuclear warheads easy to come by because N. Korea might have one and I sure as hell want to be on even footing if I ever get into a nuclear missile fight. I agree that it makes no sense, you'll practically never be in a gunfight, unless you live in Detroit or something, in which case you should move. Since you'll never be in a gunfight, you don't really need machine guns or anything, which is why I'm ok with them being Class 3. The point isn't to defend yourself in a gunfight, its to defend yourself in any lifethreatening situation. As we've already been over, I'm not worried about things like that personally, but I can see why others might be. I just don't want people to think that non-lethals are the end-all be-all for self defense, because they aren't. My father watches my grandfather's house for him when he's away on vacation. My dad's interrupted at least three burglary attempts. Thankfully, each time he had something big and heavy to brandish, but if they had had a gun, I don't want to even think about what may have happened, since he doesn't have any kind of carry license. Somone correct me if I'm wrong but you don't need a license to have a gun in your house just on your person, no?
In every state I know the firearm laws for, you do not need a license to have a gun in your house, even if it's on you.
|
On July 28 2012 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:31 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 09:04 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:54 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:46 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:42 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:08 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Plenty of drunks crash their cars into innocent people. Plenty of drunks get violent and kill innocent people. I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Here's the thing though; my gun is a pretty tiny .22 caliber rifle, and all my ammo has low powder loads. I'd have to land a one-in-a-million shot to kill someone. If I shot someone who was wearing a leather jacket, I doubt it'd break the skin, and even if it did, it wouldn't even need stitches. If I was practicing to kill, wouldn't I practice with a weapon that could actually do damage? I don't shoot because I'm practicing to take a life, I do it because its pretty fun. Awesome! It sounds like you are a responsible gun owner who genuinely enjoys target shooting! Right on. Guns still = weapons. Cars still = transportation and alcohol still = drinky drinky. But I'm not the only responsible gun owner. The media makes it sound like we're a minority, but we're actually the vast majority. You never hear about all the gun owners who go through their lives day to day without incident. You only hear about the ones screw up. For the vast majority of gun owners, guns provide a fun past-time that they can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. For the vast majority of alcohol enthusiasts, alcohol provides a fun past-time that they can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Actually you ARE the majority. That's why leaving guns in the hands of the public is even still an option. If the majority of people who owned guns murdered people with them - you would have a Hell of a time making a case for gun ownership at all. Your comparison here is still irrelevant. Allow me to explain. Beach trips are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Movies are a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. Eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is a fun past-time that people can share with likeminded, responsible friends and family. Occasionally though, people get careless and hurt themselves or others. No shit - people getting careless can hurt themselves or others in any and every circumstance ever in the world ever. In the case of violent shootings though - these people aren't being careless with guns. They're actually being care ful. Careful to shoot that guy in the face so he dies. Shooting someone else isn't a failure on the part of you or the gun, if that was your intention. It was a success. Your gun works only if you accurately hit and kill/injure your target. If your gun misfires that doesn't mean you hit something, it means your gun fucked up and didn't hit the intended target, or didn't fire at all. A large percentage, if not a majority, of gun related injuries are NOT from one person purposefully shooting another. They're from people being careless and cleaning loaded weapons, people tripping and landing just right causing the gun to go off, or the weapon experiencing a malfunction and firing unexpectedly. There's approximately 100,000,000 legally civilian owned firearms in the US. According to this data: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states There's approximately 20,000 deaths a year in which a gun was involved. As you can see, responsible owners like myself are not only the majority, but an extremely vast majority, especially when you consider a large percentage of those deaths were caused by illegal guns, i.e. guns not counted in that figure above. *Before someone points this out, the accidental deaths are much lower than it may seem I'm saying, but this is because unless you're extremely unlucky, an accidental discharge won't be aimed anywhere near your head/chest. For instance, an accident while cleaning is much more likely to cost you a finger than it is to hit anything vital. On July 28 2012 09:12 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 09:08 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:55 nanaoei wrote:On July 28 2012 08:39 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:37 Moonling wrote:On July 28 2012 08:35 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 08:27 Arghmyliver wrote:
[quote]
I think your argument about alcohol is invalid. While alcohol is a poison - so is pretty much every other drug at some dosage. Alcohol is not made to kill things - guns are. As the Cracked article I posted points out - if you misuse alcohol you can die, but if you misuse a gun - nothing dies because making things die is the point of a gun. Alcohol is not for making things die. I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used far more often on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then. Target shooting = practice killing. Target shooting= practice shooting your gun to hunt with? Target shooting= fun Target shooting= hobby Don't be so ignorant, obviously you have never held a gun in your life Lol - I have held a gun so it would appear that you are the ignorant one ^_^. And what exactly do you do when you hunt? Wound the animals and watch them suffer? You sick freak. But seriously. Hunting = killing. Edit: You're avoiding the point. Guns are made for killing - alcohol and cars are not. You can't really compare them. i tend to agree, but i have never owned a gun in my own household. my thoughts are that... isn't there a way to lower the immediate lethality of a gun? we have things like tasers, alternative ammo, pepper spray, given the damage that a gun usually inflicts, is it necessary to shoot to 'kill' over hampering the intruder down? Tasers are perfectly legal, but since they can only fire one shot before you have to reload, if you're in a fight and you miss, thats it for you. Alternative ammo can still be lethal, and also do not guarantee that the target will cease hostilities. Pepper spray has to hit them directly in the face or it won't even faze them, and even then a simple pair of sunglasses and a cloth over their mouth and nose will protect them. Even if you get them square in their face, and its unprotected, that's no guarantee they'll stop either; if the target is tougher than average, or has already been pepper sprayed a few times before, they'll be able to tough it out. I really hate the "But what if I have to defend myself in a gun fight!" argument. It makes no sense. Firstly - where do you live in the US that you are constantly in a blazing gunfight? Secondly - If you make guns more readily available - no fucking shit criminals are going to have easy ass access to guns. How in the fuck does that help. Let's just make nuclear warheads easy to come by because N. Korea might have one and I sure as hell want to be on even footing if I ever get into a nuclear missile fight. I agree that it makes no sense, you'll practically never be in a gunfight, unless you live in Detroit or something, in which case you should move. Since you'll never be in a gunfight, you don't really need machine guns or anything, which is why I'm ok with them being Class 3. The point isn't to defend yourself in a gunfight, its to defend yourself in any lifethreatening situation. As we've already been over, I'm not worried about things like that personally, but I can see why others might be. I just don't want people to think that non-lethals are the end-all be-all for self defense, because they aren't. My father watches my grandfather's house for him when he's away on vacation. My dad's interrupted at least three burglary attempts. Thankfully, each time he had something big and heavy to brandish, but if they had had a gun, I don't want to even think about what may have happened, since he doesn't have any kind of carry license. Somone correct me if I'm wrong but you don't need a license to have a gun in your house just on your person, no?
For most guns I believe thats the case (it varies state-to-state though), the issue here is that my father does not just stay at the house, he goes and checks on it a couple of times a day. He would've had to have the gun with him.
|
On July 28 2012 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In every state I know the firearm laws for, you do not need a license to have a gun in your house, even if it's on you.
It varies. Most states you do not need a licence or permit to purchase or own a gun. Some more relaxed states allow 'open carry'. Some issue licences that allow for concealed carry, but some don't.
Some states in addition have 'Castle' Laws (you're allowed to use deadly force on your property, regardless if an intruder is armed or not) and 'Stand your Ground' Laws (allowed to kill if you believe if your in imminent danger).
On top of federal and state laws, cities have their own by-laws.
In short, it's a mess.
|
On July 28 2012 09:59 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In every state I know the firearm laws for, you do not need a license to have a gun in your house, even if it's on you. It varies. Most states you do not need a licence or permit to purchase or own a gun. Some more relaxed states allow 'open carry'. Some issue licences that allow for concealed carry, but some don't. Some states in addition have 'Castle' Laws (your allowed to use deadly force on your property, regardless if an intruder is armed or not) and 'Stand your Ground' Laws (allowed to kill if you believe if your in imminent danger). On top of federal and state laws, cities have their own by-laws. In short, it's a mess.
Which is why there needs to be a federal law concerning open/conceal carry to allow for all law-abiding citizens to be able to do it and carry national reciprocity. States doing it is just a huge mess.
|
On July 28 2012 10:16 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:59 Defacer wrote:On July 28 2012 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In every state I know the firearm laws for, you do not need a license to have a gun in your house, even if it's on you. It varies. Most states you do not need a licence or permit to purchase or own a gun. Some more relaxed states allow 'open carry'. Some issue licences that allow for concealed carry, but some don't. Some states in addition have 'Castle' Laws (your allowed to use deadly force on your property, regardless if an intruder is armed or not) and 'Stand your Ground' Laws (allowed to kill if you believe if your in imminent danger). On top of federal and state laws, cities have their own by-laws. In short, it's a mess. Which is why there needs to be a federal law concerning open/conceal carry to allow for all law-abiding citizens to be able to do it and carry national reciprocity. States doing it is just a huge mess.
I don't agree really. The way it is now, the States can all choose what's right for themselves. What works for Maine might not work for Oklahoma. The more local government is, the better it represents each individual under it.
Edit: But I'd be up for Federally-mandated background checks for purchasing a firearm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
