Firearms BULLSHIT on TV

[freakazoid]

:: Preface...

Firearms BULLSHIT on TV -
A recent study by the Media Research Center shows that television
news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumber those opposing such
laws by a ratio of ten to one. When it comes to guns and gun laws, we
are hearing only one side of the story.

:: Facts...

CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS (CCW) STATISTICS

Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely
limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-
defense.

(FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

- The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the
restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the
less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).

- The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states
(10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less
restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

- The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states
(289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states
(183.1 per 100,000).

- The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the
restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less
restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000).

Using the most recent FBI data (1992), homicide trends in the 17 states
with less restrictive CCW laws compare favorably against national trends,
and almost all CCW permittees are law-abiding.

- Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen
21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87
- 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only
17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed
crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present
(not necessarily used).

- Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were
convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or
possession of a firearm.

Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times
annually.

- By contrast, there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed
annually with firearms of all types. Seventy percent of
violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, including
repeat offenders, many of whom the courts place on probation
after conviction, and felons that are paroled before serving
their full time behind bars.

- Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

- 99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal
shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain
"studies" that are used to claim that guns are more often
misused than used for self-protection.
- Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice,
34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed
citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear
their would-be victims were armed.

OTHER CCW FACTS

With adoption of CCW by Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming in early 1994,
19 states have CCW laws requiring the issuance of permits to carry
concealed firearms for self-defense to citizens who meet fair and
reasonable state standards. Vermont, which ranks near the bottom in
violent crime rates year-in and year-out, allows firearms to be carried
concealed without a permit.

In recent years NRA successfully fought for the adoption of favorable
CCW laws now on the books in Florida (1987), Idaho (1990, amended 1991),
Mississippi (1990), Montana (1991), and Oregon (1990). In recent
legislative sessions, proposals for similar CCW laws have progressed in
Alaska, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas.

Anti-gun forces oppose CCW with a variety of arguments, ranging from
deliberate misrepresentations of commonly available crime data to "studies"
pretending to show that private ownership of firearms leads to death and
injury rather than providing protection to the owner.

1. Firearms ownership opponents claim that "violent crime" went up in
Florida since that state enacted CCW legislation in 1987, a misleading
statement for multiple reasons:

- Florida's homicide rate has declined 21% since adopting CCW in 1987.

- No comparison of aggravated assault, robbery, and rape (99.3% of
Florida violent crimes) beginning before 1988 is valid, according to the
Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement. In 1988, Florida changed its method of
compiling crime statistics.

- In Florida, as in the U.S., more than 70% of violent crimes do not
involve guns. Violent crime rates, therefore, don't necessarily reflect
violent gun-related crime trends. According to the most recent FBI Uniform
Crime Reports (1992), nationwide firearms were used in the four violent
crimes that make up the total "Violent Crime" category, as follows:
Aggravated Assault (58% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 25%; Robbery
(35% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 41%; Rapes (6% of violent
crimes) -- firearms used in an estimated 5%-10% (survey data); and Homicides
(1% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 68%.

In Florida: Aggravated Assaults (64% of violent crimes) -- firearms
used in 25%; Robberies (30% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 37%;
Rapes (4% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in an estimated 5%-10%
(survey data); and Homicides (0.7% of violent crimes) -- firearms used
in 61%.

2. Anti-gunners cite "studies" they claim show that firearms kept at home
are "43 times more likely" to be used to kill family members than be used
for self-defense. (Other "studies" claim different ratios.) The 43:1 claim,
based upon a small-scale study of Kings County (Seattle) and Shelby County
(Memphis), is a fraud, because it counts as self-defense gun uses only those
cases in which criminals were killed in the defender's home. Approximately
99.9% of all defensive gun uses are not fatal shootings, however - criminals
are usually frightened off, held at bay, or non-fatally wounded. Also, many
defensive firearms uses occur away from home. Further, suicides were counted
as "family member killings" in the "study," elevating that number more than
500%. Unfortunately, some of these "studies" are funded with taxpayer
dollars, through grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
a division of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.

[Ausinus]

We have strict gun control here in washington, and have a very low crime rate to a more liberal state such as Michigan.

[freakazoid]

We have strict gun control here in washington, and have a very low crime rate to a more liberal state such as Michigan.

You also have a very low population compared to other larger states and do not have the same problems that other more populated states have such as inner city gangs in Los Angeles. And, I am not so sure your crime rate is that low. Would have to look into it.

[Ausinus]

Only 25 homicides in Seattle per 100,000 compared to 354 per 100,000 in Detroit. Our crime rate is only 4.3 compared to Dallas' 16.4 and Detroits 39.9

So then it can be said that gun control is not connected to a rise in homicides.

[freakazoid]

Only 25 homicides in Seattle per 100,000 compared to 354 per 100,000 in Detroit. Our crime rate is only 4.3 compared to Dallas' 16.4 and Detroits 39.9

So then it can be said that gun control is not connected to a rise in homicides.
Interesting that you should mention Detroit...Detroit has VERY strict gun control and a VERY high murder rate. In fact, one of the highest along with two other cities with strict gun control...New York and Washington, DC...So much for gun control, which does not EVER equal "crime control." It equals people control.

[Ausinus]

However that fact that the rates are inconsistent shows that there is little to no correllation. You can attribute those rates to social factors such as socioeconomic status. In fact the rates of violent crime have decreased in recent years.

[freakazoid]

Only 25 homicides in Seattle per 100,000 compared to 354 per 100,000 in Detroit. Our crime rate is only 4.3 compared to Dallas' 16.4 and Detroits 39.9

So then it can be said that gun control is not connected to a rise in homicides.

RE: " So then it can be said that gun control is not connected to a rise in homicides"

Maybe not in your area, but crime rates decreased in Florida when laws were passed giving people the right to carry concealed firearms in public. Funny that.

[Ausinus]

The fact that the rates are inconsistent between cities with high and low gun control shows that there is little to no correllation. You can attribute those rates to social factors such as socioeconomic status. In fact the overall rates of violent crime have decreased in recent years.

[freakazoid]

However that fact that the rates are inconsistent shows that there is little to no correllation. You can attribute those rates to social factors such as socioeconomic status. In fact the rates of violent crime have decreased in recent years.

If you don't want to own a gun, then don't. But, keep your hands (and laws) off mine. I like mine.

[Ausinus]

Look im not saying that you shouldnt own a gun. In fact in many cases guns are safer than motorcycles :D. However, I do believe that some, not many, but some restrictions, should be applied, if only to prevent people with mental health problems from owning one and the sale of assault weapons.

[freakazoid]

Look im not saying that you shouldnt own a gun. In fact in many cases guns are safer than motorcycles :D. However, I do believe that some, not many, but some restrictions, should be applied, if only to prevent people with mental health problems from owning one and the sale of assault weapons.

There are already enough (if not more than we need) gun laws to do the job. We don't need anymore.

[Ausinus]

I honestly think that they need to do some more studies on the matter first. I mean, apart from the mental issue the rates of crime are inconsistent based on how stringent gun control is. SO they cant just slap more gun control laws on without evidence that gun availability definitley increases crime. I would focus more on the socioeconomic factors.

[freakazoid]

I honestly think that they need to do some more studies on the matter first. I mean, apart from the mental issue the rates of crime are inconsistent based on how stringent gun control is. SO they cant just slap more gun control laws on without evidence that gun availability definitley increases crime. I would focus more on the socioeconomic factors.

It seems to me that gun control nuts, no matter how much time is spent studying the issue, always conclude the we need to disarm the public. That is their standard answer, and its wrong.

[theicidal maniac]

Why aren't weapon manufacturers held responsible for the deaths their products cause? Well I guess it's because GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL PEOPLE!! Plain and simple. When a toy manufacturer makes a product that chokes babies, they are penalized. When a cars faulty engineering causes injury or death, the manufacturer is penalized. Even the tobacco industry paid out a ton of cash to cancer victims. WHY NOT GUN MAKERS?

[General Septem]

I want to live in Vermont. Guns are entirely unrestricted there (for non-prohibited persons) - they even permit open carry, and all without a licence.

Damn, if I lived in Vermont, I'd carry three guns. And maybe a switchblade or two. :D

[theicidal maniac]

I want to live in Vermont. Guns are entirely unrestricted there (for non-prohibited persons) - they even permit open carry, and all without a licence.

Damn, if I lived in Vermont, I'd carry three guns. And maybe a switchblade or two. :D

Well, you'd HAVE TO I reckon, because it'd be a state full of gun-toting hillbillies. You wouldn't be safe WITHOUT one. You'd see some slack-jawed, half-retarded inbred ozark boy wearing overalls and it wouldn't be like you are thinking "NAH...they wouldn't give HIM a gun," cuz guess what...they would.

Carrying a gun openly kind of let's you act however you want I guess....Al CApone said, "You can get a lot more done with a kind word and a gun, then with a kind word alone."

[hitekredneck]

Why aren't weapon manufacturers held responsible for the deaths their products cause? Well I guess it's because GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL PEOPLE!! Plain and simple. When a toy manufacturer makes a product that chokes babies, they are penalized. When a cars faulty engineering causes injury or death, the manufacturer is penalized. Even the tobacco industry paid out a ton of cash to cancer victims. WHY NOT GUN MAKERS?

this has to be the stupidest argument i've seen and for some reason people just don't understand. first, GUNS ARE NOT MADE TO KILL PEOPLE!!! guns are made to send a projectile at a high rate of speed toward a target. they do exactly as designed. using your argument, when a drunk uses a car to kill innocent people, is the auto manufaturer responsible in any way for the travesty? are knife manufacturers responsible for the many people stabbed in world every day? your arguments of toys and cars are directed toward faulty design or engineering and have absolutely no place in this discussion as firearms do as they are designed.:mad:

[something]

this has to be the stupidest argument i've seen and for some reason people just don't understand. first, GUNS ARE NOT MADE TO KILL PEOPLE!!! guns are made to send a projectile at a high rate of speed toward a target. they do exactly as designed. using your argument, when a drunk uses a car to kill innocent people, is the auto manufaturer responsible in any way for the travesty? are knife manufacturers responsible for the many people stabbed in world every day? your arguments of toys and cars are directed toward faulty design or engineering and have absolutely no place in this discussion as firearms do as they are designed.:mad:

I think his argument is that guns are Only made to kill people. But that isn't true either. Guns can be used in self defens, and doesn't necceserely have to kill. An guns can also be made to hunt animals, or just shoot calming medicine.

[hitekredneck]

I think his argument is that guns are Only made to kill people. But that isn't true either. Guns can be used in self defens, and doesn't necceserely have to kill. An guns can also be made to hunt animals, or just shoot calming medicine.
that's exactly my point...too many people mistakenly use that same argument in this debate without realizing that it has no truth

[Ausinus]

You cant modify a glock to shoot tranqs, or a colt, or a beretta. Plus unless you hunt for food, then you shouldnt hunt at all.

[hitekredneck]

You cant modify a glock to shoot tranqs, or a colt, or a beretta. Plus unless you hunt for food, then you shouldnt hunt at all.
i also hunt for game management

[General Septem]

You cant modify a glock to shoot tranqs, or a colt, or a beretta. Plus unless you hunt for food, then you shouldnt hunt at all.

No, but they can fire a variety of less-lethal ammunition, as well as regular bullets that aren't aimed for vital areas.

[something]

You cant modify a glock to shoot tranqs, or a colt, or a beretta. Plus unless you hunt for food, then you shouldnt hunt at all.

I've been watching news report, and they obviusly hunt moose in Scandivia without eating it. And it's not sport, it's becouse the mooses are so many upthere, that they are really big problem when they eat grass and trees in peoples gardens, and thats when they hunt them. Could you imagen what they would do if they didn't hunt them?

[Ape-Shit]

They would starve to death. That's why they kill them. Its the only Humane thing to do.

Sorry....I should have Quoted Something.

[something]

They would starve to death. That's why they kill them. Its the only Humane thing to do.

Sorry....I should have Quoted Something.

The problem is, they don't starve to death. They can eat a lot of things in the woods, but if there's food on the gardens too, is it like good to eat there too. And they eat them when they shoot them anyway.

[Ape-Shit]

The problem is, they don't starve to death. They can eat a lot of things in the woods, but if there's food on the gardens too, is it like good to eat there too. And they eat them when they shoot them anyway.

Please forgive me. I must have been confused, you did say moose. Some time ago I saw a documentary on Carabou. Due to heavy snows and no food people were shooting them out of mercy.

I guess, that when I'm sitting on my shoulders I should get up every now and then just to see things clearly.:D

[something]

aha, well, ok:D

[theicidal maniac]

this has to be the stupidest argument i've seen and for some reason people just don't understand. first, GUNS ARE NOT MADE TO KILL PEOPLE!!! guns are made to send a projectile at a high rate of speed toward a target. they do exactly as designed. using your argument, when a drunk uses a car to kill innocent people, is the auto manufaturer responsible in any way for the travesty? are knife manufacturers responsible for the many people stabbed in world every day? your arguments of toys and cars are directed toward faulty design or engineering and have absolutely no place in this discussion as firearms do as they are designed.:mad:

GUNS WERE INVENTED TO KILL HUMAN BEINGS. THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THEIR CREATION. You think they were made to shoot TARGETS? You think that THAT'S why we have guns? You are an idiot. TARGETS WERE INVENTED TO SHOOT AT, not vice versa. Sure that started with bow & arrow and spears, but the point is, WEAPONS CAME FIRST, targets were made as a way to train a person to be DEADLY with the weapon. The only "targets" that guns are intended to hit are living things. Target shooting came long after ward....why do you think they make HUMAN-SHAPED targets?

[something]

GUNS WERE INVENTED TO KILL HUMAN BEINGS. THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THEIR CREATION. You think they were made to shoot TARGETS? You think that THAT'S why we have guns? You are an idiot. TARGETS WERE INVENTED TO SHOOT AT, not vice versa. Sure that started with bow & arrow and spears, but the point is, WEAPONS CAME FIRST, targets were made as a way to train a person to be DEADLY with the weapon. The only "targets" that guns are intended to hit are living things. Target shooting came long after ward....why do you think they make HUMAN-SHAPED targets?

Yes, they are made to kill human beings, but that doesn't mean you have to use them for that. You can use it in self defence to just hurt som one, it doesn't have to kill.

[theicidal maniac]

I've been watching news report, and they obviusly hunt moose in Scandivia without eating it. And it's not sport, it's becouse the mooses are so many upthere, that they are really big problem when they eat grass and trees in peoples gardens, and thats when they hunt them. Could you imagen what they would do if they didn't hunt them?

Yeah...the population would level off because there isn't enough food to support all of the animals. If they are so desperate that they are actually going into human territory for survival, then it's already starting to happen. And eventually the animals will be wiped out when their food source is destroyed by the urban sprawl. No grazing animal can take over an area, that's not how the biosphere works...unless of course, you shot and killed all of the animals that PREY on the moose.

[freakazoid]

Yes, they are made to kill human beings, but that doesn't mean you have to use them for that. You can use it in self defence to just hurt som one, it doesn't have to kill.

They were also created to protect human beings. Funny, the loonie left always seems to leave that point out.

[theicidal maniac]

They were also created to protect human beings. Funny, the loonie left always seems to leave that point out.

Protect people how? By...hmmmm...oh yeah, by KILLING THE PEOPLE who threaten your safety. They are made for killing people that is the plain and simple truth. I'm not saying that there are no scenarios in which you would need to kill someone to protect yourself. In fact, I think there are a great many killings which are perfectly justified. However, you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself if bad guys didn't have guns. SO WHY THE HELL DO THEY KEEP MAKING MORE GUNS! You bust a crook, you take his gun away, and that very same day some gun manufacturer makes about a thousand new guns. And you guys wanna protect his right to get more guns when he is released, and not require guns to be registered, so he can steal a gun from pretty much anybody, and nobody will ever know about it until he uses that gun. Privacy and freedom are great, but our right to privacy and freedom is in jeopardy when someone with a gun can just shoot any of us as he pleases with no system in place to ensure or at the very least promote responsibility. WHO...in the military do they give you a gun OFF THE BOOKS? or do they try to keep track of weapons?

[who897]

Protect people how? By...hmmmm...oh yeah, by KILLING THE PEOPLE who threaten your safety. They are made for killing people that is the plain and simple truth. I'm not saying that there are no scenarios in which you would need to kill someone to protect yourself. In fact, I think there are a great many killings which are perfectly justified. However, you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself if bad guys didn't have guns. SO WHY THE HELL DO THEY KEEP MAKING MORE GUNS! You bust a crook, you take his gun away, and that very same day some gun manufacturer makes about a thousand new guns. And you guys wanna protect his right to get more guns when he is released, and not require guns to be registered, so he can steal a gun from pretty much anybody, and nobody will ever know about it until he uses that gun. Privacy and freedom are great, but our right to privacy and freedom is in jeopardy when someone with a gun can just shoot any of us as he pleases with no system in place to ensure or at the very least promote responsibility. WHO...in the military do they give you a gun OFF THE BOOKS? or do they try to keep track of weapons?


I can't speak for the military, I can only speak on how the CG does things. First off though in the military you waive certain rights, mostly all the bill of rights to an extent, so keep that in mind. In the CG we are not issued personal weapons, we do not have service weapons. All personel that will handle any weapon are put through training and re-certified yearly to handle said weapon. For the most part the only time that any member carries a weapon is during boardings of other vessels. All weapons are inspected prior to distribution and collection. All ammo is counted, if missing a nice long form will be waiting for the GM's and the member. Accidental discharge is akin to blasphamy in the middle ages...just don't do it or someone's head is gonna roll.

May seem like a good system but, I don't necissarily agree w/ it. I don't like being an easy target since I wear a uniform and have no way provided to me to protect myself, property, public, family and friends...this is where my personally purchased weapon comes into play.

The military has an image to preserve, and the wanton issuence of weapons could result in some tragity that the military wishes to not be party to. Also, the military and civilian are completely seperate entities in a society, this comparison on how things are is ill advised and completely irresponsible. I would not have you see the things I have seen, do the things that I have done...unless you willingly gave up your freedoms to protect and defend something greater then yourselves.

Viva Captain Morgan and Coke.

[something]

Yeah...the population would level off because there isn't enough food to support all of the animals. If they are so desperate that they are actually going into human territory for survival, then it's already starting to happen. And eventually the animals will be wiped out when their food source is destroyed by the urban sprawl. No grazing animal can take over an area, that's not how the biosphere works...unless of course, you shot and killed all of the animals that PREY on the moose.

No, that was not my point. The problem was that mooses eat everywhere, when it still is plenty of food in the forests, but no one trains them to stop eat in the gardens, or the harvest fields, so it's neccesery to shoot them.
However, after shooting them they do eat them. And there's no animal that prey on the moose, atleast not that live where the real problem with the mose are.

[General Septem]

I can't speak for the military, I can only speak on how the CG does things. First off though in the military you waive certain rights, mostly all the bill of rights to an extent, so keep that in mind. In the CG we are not issued personal weapons, we do not have service weapons. All personel that will handle any weapon are put through training and re-certified yearly to handle said weapon. For the most part the only time that any member carries a weapon is during boardings of other vessels. All weapons are inspected prior to distribution and collection. All ammo is counted, if missing a nice long form will be waiting for the GM's and the member. Accidental discharge is akin to blasphamy in the middle ages...just don't do it or someone's head is gonna roll.

May seem like a good system but, I don't necissarily agree w/ it. I don't like being an easy target since I wear a uniform and have no way provided to me to protect myself, property, public, family and friends...this is where my personally purchased weapon comes into play.

The military has an image to preserve, and the wanton issuence of weapons could result in some tragity that the military wishes to not be party to. Also, the military and civilian are completely seperate entities in a society, this comparison on how things are is ill advised and completely irresponsible. I would not have you see the things I have seen, do the things that I have done...unless you willingly gave up your freedoms to protect and defend something greater then yourselves.

Viva Captain Morgan and Coke.

That would have to be the single deepest, most coherent and well thought out post I've seen you make. Good job. :D

[who897]

That would have to be the single deepest, most coherent and well thought out post I've seen you make. Good job. :D

Captain Morgan was my wing man :D

[hitekredneck]

Protect people how? By...hmmmm...oh yeah, by KILLING THE PEOPLE who threaten your safety. They are made for killing people that is the plain and simple truth. I'm not saying that there are no scenarios in which you would need to kill someone to protect yourself. In fact, I think there are a great many killings which are perfectly justified. However, you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself if bad guys didn't have guns. SO WHY THE HELL DO THEY KEEP MAKING MORE GUNS! You bust a crook, you take his gun away, and that very same day some gun manufacturer makes about a thousand new guns. And you guys wanna protect his right to get more guns when he is released, and not require guns to be registered, so he can steal a gun from pretty much anybody, and nobody will ever know about it until he uses that gun. Privacy and freedom are great, but our right to privacy and freedom is in jeopardy when someone with a gun can just shoot any of us as he pleases with no system in place to ensure or at the very least promote responsibility. WHO...in the military do they give you a gun OFF THE BOOKS? or do they try to keep track of weapons?
ok...answer me this, nimrod....say that ya take all the guns and get rid of em, do you seriously believe that the criminal element would just go away?...i can see em getting different weapons...knives, clubs chains, swords etc which are MUCH more brutal than a firearm. again, if you don't like guns, don't get em...but leave mine the hell alone!!!
and are you also wanting to outlaw knives, cars, clubs, crowbars etc that people have been known to use as weapons?

[who897]

ok...answer me this, nimrod....say that ya take all the guns and get rid of em, do you seriously believe that the criminal element would just go away?...i can see em getting different weapons...knives, clubs chains, swords etc which are MUCH more brutal than a firearm. again, if you don't like guns, don't get em...but leave mine the hell alone!!!
and are you also wanting to outlaw knives, cars, clubs, crowbars etc that people have been known to use as weapons?

To quote Papa Roach "My words are the weapons I use to murder you with"

[hitekredneck]

To quote Papa Roach "My words are the weapons I use to murder you with"
think my fav song of theirs is stand alone

[who897]

Not to be rude...wait what the hell am I talking about, I don't think the conversation was about what your favorite band or song was.

[freakazoid]

Protect people how? By...hmmmm...oh yeah, by KILLING THE PEOPLE who threaten your safety. They are made for killing people that is the plain and simple truth. I'm not saying that there are no scenarios in which you would need to kill someone to protect yourself. In fact, I think there are a great many killings which are perfectly justified. However, you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself if bad guys didn't have guns. SO WHY THE HELL DO THEY KEEP MAKING MORE GUNS! You bust a crook, you take his gun away, and that very same day some gun manufacturer makes about a thousand new guns. And you guys wanna protect his right to get more guns when he is released, and not require guns to be registered, so he can steal a gun from pretty much anybody, and nobody will ever know about it until he uses that gun. Privacy and freedom are great, but our right to privacy and freedom is in jeopardy when someone with a gun can just shoot any of us as he pleases with no system in place to ensure or at the very least promote responsibility. WHO...in the military do they give you a gun OFF THE BOOKS? or do they try to keep track of weapons?

I am not even going to waste my time answering your comment. It's stupidity is axiomatic. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif Sorry if that bothers you.

[who897]

I am not even going to waste my time answering your comment. It's stupidity is axiomatic. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif Sorry if that bothers you.

Not to take sides but a self evident truth does not one make stupid! The only stupid question would be the question not asked! Our news, media, politics, and society need to be questioned, and if they aren't are we not just as guilty for the incorrectness they permeate? Since we did not question! Through our continued uncertainty we can set things proper for a time. Until that time that circumstances will allow, the termination of such proper stances shall be dissolved to allow another way to resolve problems within the news, media, politics and society!

[theicidal maniac]

ok...answer me this, nimrod....say that ya take all the guns and get rid of em, do you seriously believe that the criminal element would just go away?...i can see em getting different weapons...knives, clubs chains, swords etc which are MUCH more brutal than a firearm. again, if you don't like guns, don't get em...but leave mine the hell alone!!!
and are you also wanting to outlaw knives, cars, clubs, crowbars etc that people have been known to use as weapons?

Of course there would still be criminals you fucking dolt. But they wouldn't be able to shoot you with a gun, which is far more deadly than a crowbar, because IT SHOOTS PROJECTILES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO KILL AND MAME. But I'm not even saying GET RID OF ALL GUNS...that's not even possible. But there is no reason that there should be as many as there are, and if there are so many than we should be keeping tabs on them, the way we keep tabs on pedophiles and other abhorant dangers to societal welfare.

People get killed by guns, and that deserves to be looked into, and prevented if possible.

[theicidal maniac]

I am not even going to waste my time answering your comment. It's stupidity is axiomatic. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif Sorry if that bothers you.

Oh freak, you're such an atavism.

[hitekredneck]

Of course there would still be criminals you fucking dolt. But they wouldn't be able to shoot you with a gun, which is far more deadly than a crowbar, because IT SHOOTS PROJECTILES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO KILL AND MAME. But I'm not even saying GET RID OF ALL GUNS...that's not even possible. But there is no reason that there should be as many as there are, and if there are so many than we should be keeping tabs on them, the way we keep tabs on pedophiles and other abhorant dangers to societal welfare.

People get killed by guns, and that deserves to be looked into, and prevented if possible.
dead is dead...whether by gun or any other instrument. at least a gun's quick

[something]

dead is dead...whether by gun or any other instrument. at least a gun's quick

Yeah, Just becose something is dangerous is there no reason to forbid them.

[who897]

People get killed by lightening, why not just ban that also.

[something]

People get killed by lightening, why not just ban that also.

Exactly.:D

[hitekredneck]

women are more dangerous than any gun....

[who897]

It's like kinetic and potential energy. Guns are potential energy, they need the human element to make them kinetic energy. So, let's ban that which makes it kinetic, the people! I'm sure Aus could come up with some law banning people. :D

[Ausinus]

It's like kinetic and potential energy. Guns are potential energy, they need the human element to make them kinetic energy. So, let's ban that which makes it kinetic, the people! I'm sure Aus could come up with some law banning people. :D

Why thank you. :D

[theicidal maniac]

Yeah, Just becose something is dangerous is there no reason to forbid them.


Because those things weren't invented to kill humans. Lightning, for example, was not invented to kill humans. We shouldn't be condoning things that were invented to destroy our species, and we definitely shouldn't be ensuring every redneck idiots right to own them. That is terribly irresponsible.



dead is dead...whether by gun or any other instrument. at least a gun's quick

What a lovely philosophy. But yeah, dead is dead. Shot and killed by your neighbor is dead. You send your kid to school, and some other kid shows up with dad's gun and kills your kid...DEAD....yeah why bother to try to prevent these things. Great point, bravo.

[who897]

Because those things weren't invented to kill humans. Lightning, for example, was not invented to kill humans. We shouldn't be condoning things that were invented to destroy our species, and we definitely shouldn't be ensuring every redneck idiots right to own them. That is terribly irresponsible.
What a lovely philosophy. But yeah, dead is dead. Shot and killed by your neighbor is dead. You send your kid to school, and some other kid shows up with dad's gun and kills your kid...DEAD....yeah why bother to try to prevent these things. Great point, bravo.

Could we not use lightning to kill humans though...a big enough Tesla coil. An ax was invented to kill people, but it is also good for cutting down tree's. Should we put restrictions on those also? If you are creative enough just about anything can become a weapon. Regardless of which instrument that is used, if someone wishes to take another's life, there is really very little anyone can do about it.
Parents don't discipline their children enough nowadays. Kid's don't know how to take set backs and disappointment very well. Perhaps this is why a minority of the kids do stupid things when they feel slighted.

[theicidal maniac]

Could we not use lightning to kill humans though...a big enough Tesla coil. An ax was invented to kill people, but it is also good for cutting down tree's. Should we put restrictions on those also? If you are creative enough just about anything can become a weapon. Regardless of which instrument that is used, if someone wishes to take another's life, there is really very little anyone can do about it.
Parents don't discipline their children enough nowadays. Kid's don't know how to take set backs and disappointment very well. Perhaps this is why a minority of the kids do stupid things when they feel slighted.

Axes were not invented to kill people. The wedge was used as a tool far before it was used as a weapon. But, yeah, a lightning gun would be super-sweet! That doesn't mean I will fight for my neighbors right to own one. That's irresponsible.

[who897]

The act of fighting for someones right to own a weapon is not irresponsible. The act of idiots with weapons is. As an adult you should be responsible enough to own a weapon. There are far more deadlier things then weapons, like an idiot that votes without knowing who or what they are voting for!

[theicidal maniac]

The act of fighting for someones right to own a weapon is not irresponsible. The act of idiots with weapons is. As an adult you should be responsible enough to own a weapon. There are far more deadlier things then weapons, like an idiot that votes without knowing who or what they are voting for!

Ah, touche! But idiots who vote according to unverifiable religious beliefs aside, fighting for the right to have a weapon? what is a weapon? something you fight with. So it's fighting for the right to fight. Killing for the right to kill. There must be people who you see who you KNOW should not own a gun. So why should we let them have one in an unregulated manner. Guns should be regulated, because they are objects of death. In Alaska, there is no 5 day waiting period for a gun, and that place is full of inbred hillbillies, who can go buy a gun RIGHT NOW, which is not so good if they are REALLY ANGRY RIGHT NOW. In some areas of the state, more than half of all adult men have killed another person, whether out of anger or self defense doesn't matter...cause it's pretty tough to "accidentally" beat someone to death with a fish, or "accidentally" repeatedly stab someone, or "accidentally" choke the life out of a human. But you can just shoot someone cold blood and claim that it was an accident, and who will really know, except you and the dead guy?

[who897]

Ah, touche! But idiots who vote according to unverifiable religious beliefs aside, fighting for the right to have a weapon? what is a weapon? something you fight with. So it's fighting for the right to fight. Killing for the right to kill. There must be people who you see who you KNOW should not own a gun. So why should we let them have one in an unregulated manner. Guns should be regulated, because they are objects of death. In Alaska, there is no 5 day waiting period for a gun, and that place is full of inbred hillbillies, who can go buy a gun RIGHT NOW, which is not so good if they are REALLY ANGRY RIGHT NOW. In some areas of the state, more than half of all adult men have killed another person, whether out of anger or self defense doesn't matter...cause it's pretty tough to "accidentally" beat someone to death with a fish, or "accidentally" repeatedly stab someone, or "accidentally" choke the life out of a human. But you can just shoot someone cold blood and claim that it was an accident, and who will really know, except you and the dead guy?

weapon (n.) An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
We are fighting for an ability, not an act. I for one can not say who should and shouldn't have a weapon. I can say that everyone should have the ability to own one.

[something]

weapon (n.) An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
We are fighting for an ability, not an act. I for one can not say who should and shouldn't have a weapon. I can say that everyone should have the ability to own one.

I would give my car for owning a gun:D

[theicidal maniac]

weapon (n.) An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
We are fighting for an ability, not an act. I for one can not say who should and shouldn't have a weapon. I can say that everyone should have the ability to own one.

Since WHEN is a missile a defensive weapon. Is an ICBM defensive? How about a torpedo? I mean you can make the CLAIM that any weapon is defensive, but what are they defending against? OTHER weapons! If both sides are defensive then there is no fight, and hence, no need for defense. Pre-emptive defense is a form of offense. Your dictionary can make the flowers-and-fairies claim that weapons are for defense, but if that's true, how do people get killed by them ON PURPOSE?

I LOVE, seriously, LOVE shooting guns. I've shot all kinds of guns. AR-15's AK's 30-OTT's Desert Eagles marine-issued tactical pistols, shotguns, 22 rifles and pistols paintball guns even. I LOVE shooting guns. But if I could trade all the good times I've had shooting guns to get back the life of just ONE of the kids killed at Columbine High, I'd do it. Cuz having shot the gun doesn't do me any good...unless I need the skill to DEFEND myself from someone else with a gun.

[Ape-Shit]

women are more dangerous than any gun.... You Got that Shit Right Hitekredneck........!:D

[who897]

Since WHEN is a missile a defensive weapon. Is an ICBM defensive? How about a torpedo? I mean you can make the CLAIM that any weapon is defensive, but what are they defending against? OTHER weapons! If both sides are defensive then there is no fight, and hence, no need for defense. Pre-emptive defense is a form of offense. Your dictionary can make the flowers-and-fairies claim that weapons are for defense, but if that's true, how do people get killed by them ON PURPOSE?

I LOVE, seriously, LOVE shooting guns. I've shot all kinds of guns. AR-15's AK's 30-OTT's Desert Eagles marine-issued tactical pistols, shotguns, 22 rifles and pistols paintball guns even. I LOVE shooting guns. But if I could trade all the good times I've had shooting guns to get back the life of just ONE of the kids killed at Columbine High, I'd do it. Cuz having shot the gun doesn't do me any good...unless I need the skill to DEFEND myself from someone else with a gun.

I could give two shits about the thing that happened in upper white class Columbine. The only thing I feel is from the American I am, that is sorta sad at losing possible folks that could have been in the military defending the country, that's it, nothing more, nothing less. I for one don't take any pleasure in shooting my gun. It's kinda pointless! I mean, really man it's just pulling a trigger, nothing really symbolic there. I do take great pride and pleasure in my job! If I could suggest a book "A throne of thorns" but remember as Americans we are the night watch! Gun's aren't something to be feared, the should be embraced for the what they are a symbol of freedom.

[theicidal maniac]

I could give two shits about the thing that happened in upper white class Columbine. The only thing I feel is from the American I am, that is sorta sad at losing possible folks that could have been in the military defending the country, that's it, nothing more, nothing less. I for one don't take any pleasure in shooting my gun. It's kinda pointless! I mean, really man it's just pulling a trigger, nothing really symbolic there. I do take great pride and pleasure in my job! If I could suggest a book "A throne of thorns" but remember as Americans we are the night watch! Gun's aren't something to be feared, the should be embraced for the what they are a symbol of freedom.

"Defending" the country? But you said that no one could put up a fight against us. If no one's attacked us, who are we defending ourselves against?

[who897]

That's why they wouldn't stand a chance, because we defend ourselves.

[something]

That's why they wouldn't stand a chance, because we defend ourselves.

Ourselfs?:confused:

[General Septem]

Columbine could have been a lot worse. They had propane bombs planted in the cafeteria which would've collapsed the floor and killed hundreds if they'd gone off. They were actually staunch anti-Christians, though, and heavily targeted them in their crusade.

[theicidal maniac]

That's why they wouldn't stand a chance, because we defend ourselves.

Who are we defending ourselves against now? We have a lot of troops deployed, a lot of casualties, who are we defending ourselves against?


Columbine could have been a lot worse. They had propane bombs planted in the cafeteria which would've collapsed the floor and killed hundreds if they'd gone off. They were actually staunch anti-Christians, though, and heavily targeted them in their crusade.

It COULD have been worse, true. It also could never happened at all, but the guns would have to have been controlled. High school kids shouldn't be able to get mac-10's, under ANY circumstance. They are made for the sole purpose killing a lot of humans as quickly as possible.

[who897]

Who are we defending ourselves against now? We have a lot of troops deployed, a lot of casualties, who are we defending ourselves against?

That's completely off topic there bub. If we ran around with as much power as we have without any form of protection don't you think some overly agressive person would want to try and take that from us?




It COULD have been worse, true. It also could never happened at all, but the guns would have to have been controlled. High school kids shouldn't be able to get mac-10's, under ANY circumstance. They are made for the sole purpose killing a lot of humans as quickly as possible.

I will agree with the Mac 10's and what not. I don't think anyone should own assult rifles and machine guns, but a hand gun, shot gun, and a rifle are perfectly acceptable weapons to own!

[theicidal maniac]

That's completely off topic there bub. If we ran around with as much power as we have without any form of protection don't you think some overly agressive person would want to try and take that from us?


On the contrary, it is quite ON POINT. Our power is related, MASSIVELY, to our "protection." AMERICA IS the "overly aggressive person" that you mentioned. And destroying puppet governments that we ourselves set up in the first place is only "protecting" us from our own mistakes, not from evil foreign bad guys.

But anyway, you were talking about how we have to "defend ourselves"
...sorta sad at losing possible folks that could have been in the military defending the country... and I was asking "WHO are we 'defending' ourselves against?" I think that fits the topic.


I will agree with the Mac 10's and what not. I don't think anyone should own assult rifles and machine guns, but a hand gun, shot gun, and a rifle are perfectly acceptable weapons to own!

Oh yeah, for sure. I have no illusions that we could just round up all the guns and then we won't have them anymore. I think I may have been misinterpreted a little. I just think that because of the INHERENT, LIFE-THREATENING dangers that are a PART OF OUR GUN CULTURE, that we should have some sort of way to keep tabs on guns...I'm not looking to put cameras on guns to record every move that the owner makes. I just think that it's painfully obvious that despite all of our ideals about responsible gun ownership and right to bear arms and yada yada we have a shit ton of people out there who do not exemplify those characteristics but DO have guns...people that SHOULD NEVER have gotten guns, and now have to serve life in prison. Whatever we're doing isn't working, we need to be open to other forms of control. Control of the WEAPONS, not the people.

Here in Utah, the state controls Alcohol. If you want booze other than shitty 3.2% Utah beer from the 7-11, you have to go to a STATE OWNED LIQUOR STORE! State owned means not open on holidays or (remember this IS Utah) Sundays. Not open on Xmas. Not open on New Year's. Thanksgiving. The times when you need booze the most! And it's illegal to brew more than 2 gallons of beer at a time, and beer is generally brewed 5 gallons or more at a time, so, effectively it's illegal to make home brew. IT'S A PAIN IN THE ASS!!! That's how it should be for guns. The state should control all guns at a local level. It SHOULD be a pain in the ass to purchase a man-killing-machine.

[General Septem]

I will agree with the Mac 10's and what not. I don't think anyone should own assult rifles and machine guns, but a hand gun, shot gun, and a rifle are perfectly acceptable weapons to own!

Perhaps before a certain age. I think assault rifles and machine guns are perfectly acceptable to own as well. Who's to say nobody needs them?

[theicidal maniac]

Perhaps before a certain age. I think assault rifles and machine guns are perfectly acceptable to own as well. Who's to say nobody needs them?

Well you're right. People that need to kill people might say they NEED them. But then again, as someone else pointed out, they could just use a hammer.

[hitekredneck]

Well you're right. People that need to kill people might say they NEED them. But then again, as someone else pointed out, they could just use a hammer.
while people might not need them, i don't want my right to own them infringed. i DO enjoy going out and "plinking" with all of my firearms, and will hopefully get a class3 collectors license for full automatic so i can continue my antique collection....(i gotta buddy that has an antique thompson)...as for who we need to defend ourselves from...it's only common sense to me that the police aren't always able to arrive in time to keep people safe from dirtbags that not only use guns, but knives, machetes, and garden tools to commit crimes. it's also to protect ourselves from the government(one of the original intentions of the 2nd amendment) tho i know you libs out there think our government is perfect. NOTE: i'm not a republican nor a democrat....i think most politicians are slime that should be sent to the front lines of iraq along with child molesters and rapists for cannon fodder

[something]

while people might not need them, i don't want my right to own them infringed. i DO enjoy going out and "plinking" with all of my firearms, and will hopefully get a class3 collectors license for full automatic so i can continue my antique collection....(i gotta buddy that has an antique thompson)...as for who we need to defend ourselves from...it's only common sense to me that the police aren't always able to arrive in time to keep people safe from dirtbags that not only use guns, but knives, machetes, and garden tools to commit crimes. it's also to protect ourselves from the government(one of the original intentions of the 2nd amendment) tho i know you libs out there think our government is perfect. NOTE: i'm not a republican nor a democrat....i think most politicians are slime that should be sent to the front lines of iraq along with child molesters and rapists for cannon fodder

So wich politicans do you think shouldn't?

[hitekredneck]

So wich politicans do you think shouldn't?
that's a difficult one to answer at best:) any that aren't crooked or hell bent on forcing their views on the rest of us?:confused:

[something]

that's a difficult one to answer at best:) any that aren't crooked or hell bent on forcing their views on the rest of us?:confused:

It'll be hard to find the ones that isn't:D

[hitekredneck]

It'll be hard to find the ones that isn't:D
the problem is we're the ones who put em there...personally, i think most politicians are a couple of steps below a used car salesman

[something]

the problem is we're the ones who put em there...personally, i think most politicians are a couple of steps below a used car salesman

I think that many people that study to be a politician does it to help people, but once they become one they have to fight to keep them self up in system, wich makes them to only think about themself.

[who897]

the problem is we're the ones who put em there...personally, i think most politicians are a couple of steps below a used car salesman


Used car salesman? Well, you already know your gonna get screwed by them! I would have to say lawyers, because they are supposed to help you but end up screwing you all the same! :D

[something]

Used car salesman? Well, you already know your gonna get screwed by them! I would have to say lawyers, because they are supposed to help you but end up screwing you all the same! :D

What a hell was THAT supposed to mean?

[hitekredneck]

Used car salesman? Well, you already know your gonna get screwed by them! I would have to say lawyers, because they are supposed to help you but end up screwing you all the same! :D
the problem is that all politicians (or at least most) are lawyers already...
btw, who, what's the make/model of yer pistol in yer pic?

[who897]

Glock 17 9x19...it's my scare a bear pistol...wont kill them but the load noise might scare em :D

[hitekredneck]

Glock 17 9x19...it's my scare a bear pistol...wont kill them but the load noise might scare em :D
have a glock 22c .40 myself...not too much, but enough...hopefully:D

[hitekredneck]

i call my winchester x-70 7mm mag my anti-lawyer gun ;D

[theicidal maniac]

while people might not need them, i don't want my right to own them infringed. i DO enjoy going out and "plinking" with all of my firearms, and will hopefully get a class3 collectors license for full automatic so i can continue my antique collection....(i gotta buddy that has an antique thompson)...as for who we need to defend ourselves from...it's only common sense to me that the police aren't always able to arrive in time to keep people safe from dirtbags that not only use guns, but knives, machetes, and garden tools to commit crimes. it's also to protect ourselves from the government(one of the original intentions of the 2nd amendment) tho i know you libs out there think our government is perfect. NOTE: i'm not a republican nor a democrat....i think most politicians are slime that should be sent to the front lines of iraq along with child molesters and rapists for cannon fodder

Unfortunately the police really DON'T get their in time, and that's why so many gun owners get killed by their own guns. Also, if you have a gun in the house, and you have children, there is an EVER-PRESENT possibility that they will get into the guns. You can take preventative measures, but the possibility remains. As for protecting yourself from intruders, I don't really think having a gun does anything except make you FEEL safer. If your gun is in a safe, or has a gun lock, you probably won't have time to get it. If it's under your pillow, well, that's just stupid to say that it's some sort of right given from on high.

And as far as our "right to bear arms," it doesn't say anything about every citizen of a 50-state nation owning deadly weapons in case the president gets out of line...that's just a silly argument

Libs don't think the government is perfect...was that a sarcastic joke, i don't get it...

[hitekredneck]

Unfortunately the police really DON'T get their in time, and that's why so many gun owners get killed by their own guns. Also, if you have a gun in the house, and you have children, there is an EVER-PRESENT possibility that they will get into the guns. You can take preventative measures, but the possibility remains. As for protecting yourself from intruders, I don't really think having a gun does anything except make you FEEL safer. If your gun is in a safe, or has a gun lock, you probably won't have time to get it. If it's under your pillow, well, that's just stupid.

And as far as our "right to bear arms," it doesn't say anything about every citizen of a 50-state nation owning deadly weapons in case the president gets out of line...that's just a silly argument

Libs don't think the government is perfect...was that a sarcastic joke, i don't get it...
it was one of the original intentions to keep the populace safe from a tyrannical government, not a crooked president...besides, if we shot every pres that was crooked, we'ld have to elect a new one every six weeks or so:D
my pistol is in small safe, opened by fingerprint technology...it's loaded...my children have continuing education when it comes to my firearms, they know about safety and how to use them....that's the most problematic thing with firearms is lack of education...as for your statement of gun owners getting killed, please show me your evidence...bet i could find some refuting that...

[theicidal maniac]

it was one of the original intentions to keep the populace safe from a tyrannical government, not a crooked president...besides, if we shot every pres that was crooked, we'ld have to elect a new one every six weeks or so:D
my pistol is in small safe, opened by fingerprint technology...it's loaded...my children have continuing education when it comes to my firearms, they know about safety and how to use them....that's the most problematic thing with firearms is lack of education...as for your statement of gun owners getting killed, please show me your evidence...bet i could find some refuting that...

Well I definitely agree about that. Kids are way less likely to kill eachother accidentally if the know about guns and know what they can do. As far the gun owners comment....i need to rephrase that:

According to the US Department of Justice:

On average per year in 1987-92, about 62,200 victims of violent crime, about 1% of all victims of violence, used a firearm to defend themselves.


According to the FBI:
A recent FBI study showed that police officers who are killed in the line of duty rarely even fire a round at their assailant, and frequently the police officer's own firearm is taken from him/her and used against him/her.
suggesting that guns aren't effective as defense, cops always have guns at the ready, and even they don't have time to draw them?! What's more, I think that if you know someone else has a gun (like a cop) you are more likely to shoot them out of fear of being shot.
An FBI study of 51 incidents where 54 police officers were killed found that
85% did not fire their weapon while 20% were killed with their own gun.

According to http://www.bradycampaign.org:
Guns and domestic violence make a deadly combination. Over half of family murders are caused by firearms. Firearms assaults have been found to be 12 times as likely to result in death as non-firearms assaults.

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used, in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to
injure or kill in self-defense.

When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.

For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.

I tried to pick credible resources, if you can refute these please, do. I'm very interested in this topic.

[General Septem]

there is an EVER-PRESENT possibility that they will get into the guns. You can take preventative measures, but the possibility remains.

And what about sharp knives, household chemicals, and taped reruns of the Lawrence Welk show?

[theicidal maniac]

So I guess you still aren't gonna bother with those stats, huh, red?

[who897]

On average per year in 1987-92, about 62,200 victims of violent crime, about 1% of all victims of violence, used a firearm to defend themselves.

Ok, so of the 62,200 how many actually "OWNED" a firearm to defend themselves? Better yet, how many of the violent crimes took place in someone's homes where they generally would have access to their firearms?

[Ape-Shit]

Statistics are find and dandy. But who in the hell wants to become a statistic? I'll keep my gun and take my chances.

A burglar has the opportunity to break in my house and maybe do violent harm. He also has the opportunity to be carried out.:p

[theicidal maniac]

Statistics are find and dandy. But who in the hell wants to become a statistic? I'll keep my gun and take my chances.

A burglar has the opportunity to break in my house and maybe do violent harm. He also has the opportunity to be carried out.:p

You're sort of missing the point...the chances are that YOU will be the one getting carried out.

To WHO...I don't know the answer, but I did post my sources....

[hitekredneck]

You're sort of missing the point...the chances are that YOU will be the one getting carried out.

To WHO...I don't know the answer, but I did post my sources....

sorry, but i don't find brady exactly credible, as they're anti-gun...which brings up my earlier point...you can find stats pointing anywhich way you like...as for myself, i will continue as i have, teaching my kids, grandkids, and mebbe even great grandkids about firearms and how they helped shape and form this country, which i still fully believe is the greatest country in the world...if i seem a lil grouchy at times, i quit smoking and it SUCKS!!! :mad:

[Ape-Shit]

[quote=theicidal maniac;20740]You're sort of missing the point...the chances are that YOU will be the one getting carried out.[quote]

No, Not quite. I may be missing your point and if you or someone else breaks into my house, you may get to see my point. Then carried out in a bag!

I'll take my chances. TY:p

[something]

They say it's 58% chance that you shoot some family member with a gun, compared to 42% that you shoot a theif, rapsit or anyone else, so I guess it's OK for single guys, like me:D

[Ape-Shit]

They always say, but we never really know who they are. Quite frankly, don't really give a rats ass as to who they are.

Gosh, I hope you are not one of those people who believes everything they read in the newspapers?:p

[starry123nights]

They always say, but we never really know who they are. Quite frankly, don't really give a rats ass as to who they are.

Gosh, I hope you are not one of those people who believes everything they read in the newspapers?:p


hahahaha...ape shit. you said rats ass, you must live in the south:D

[Ape-Shit]

Yes I did, didn't I and yes I do.:D

[theicidal maniac]

sorry, but i don't find brady exactly credible, as they're anti-gun...which brings up my earlier point...you can find stats pointing anywhich way you like...as for myself, i will continue as i have, teaching my kids, grandkids, and mebbe even great grandkids about firearms and how they helped shape and form this country, which i still fully believe is the greatest country in the world...if i seem a lil grouchy at times, i quit smoking and it SUCKS!!! :mad:

Yeah that's a really great life strategy; ignore statistics that you don't like and live without warning. You say you have a gun for safety but you ignore the evidence to the contrary. You don't find Brady convincing because he is anti-gun? That's fine, he wasn't the test subject of the study, and he isn't my only source there. It's funny that you asked for stats to debate, then you ignore them. I bring them to your attention again and you say you didn't ignore them, but the record clearly shows that you did. Then I invite you to go back through them and you are like, "well, they're just statistics" - HEY, YOU ASKED FOR THEM.

By the way, good luck quitting. Quitting sucks. I smoked for 10 years, quit, and I feel fucking fantastic for it. Congratulations.