Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

so, um... guns


  • Please log in to reply
264 replies to this topic

#51 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,795 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 02:02 PM

I purchased a gun safe for that reason. also to avoid having them stolen and fall into unwanted hands. having anything stolen sucks but to have someone else injured from one of my guns because I didn't secure it properly, I'm certain I wouldn't handle that very well at all.


Question - can you get it out of the safe quickly enough if you needed to? Say, someone was breaking in to your house? I've wondered how that would work.

#52 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,537 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 02:07 PM

Question - can you get it out of the safe quickly enough if you needed to? Say, someone was breaking in to your house? I've wondered how that would work.


if someone broke into my house, I would sooner go after a kitchen knife or 2x4 before going after a gun, but again, this is not the reason I have them. I have a large safe that is on the other end of the house in the basement though. they do make biometric safes (large and small) that you could keep close to your bed or wherever that all you need to do it touch a pad (fingerprint ID) and it opens. In that case, you could leave it loaded, in a safe and be armed in a matter of seconds.

#53 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 02:13 PM

They also make trigger locks that can be removed quickly if you have a self defense arm that is not safed (not personally recommended with children in the house.)

#54 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,236 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 09:01 PM

This thread seemed like an apt place to share this:

Jason Alexander, the actor famous for playing George on “Seinfeld,” posted a long argument for a ban on assault-style weapons on Twitter Sunday.


"I’d like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday’s victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason – true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I’m no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution – if you’re in a well-regulated militia. Let’s see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

“A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment – are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority – the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I’m hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right – these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn’t see it should…

a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem. But if they try it with anyone else – it’s going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a “militia”. They don’t. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who? From anyone who doesn’t think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn’t believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning – I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn’t have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources – sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. “Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar – plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out.”

But that won’t happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don’t kill – people do. Well if that’s correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes — a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don’t agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I’ll say it plainly – if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to “pry it from my cold, dead hand”, then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I’m an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless."

Jason Alexander

http://ontd-politica...om/9867948.html

#55 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,236 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 09:13 PM

Question - can you get it out of the safe quickly enough if you needed to? Say, someone was breaking in to your house? I've wondered how that would work.


Or if you're asleep? Or in the shower? Or baking a cake in the kitchen? Or playing ping-pong with your niece and nephew? Or digging into a big bowl of popcorn just after sitting down to watch a movie with your SO?

How is your gun going to keep you safe from a home intruder in any of these instances?

Oh, right. You keep your gun with you always. Locked and loaded, ready to go. Right there on the edge of the ping-pong table, right there by the cake bowl, right there in the soap dish, and under your pillow when you go to bed at night. You've got it there right by the big bowl of popcorn b/c you shoot best with butter-greased fingers. You keep it right beside the lube in your bedside table for those more intimate moments.

This is why the argument of gun ownership ensuring you safety makes me :rotf: - in most instances, with people I know who own guns, the guns are NOT readily accessible (thank christ) and wouldn't help in a home invasion scenario.

#56 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 09:25 PM

So instead, just have no gun and ask the perp to be nice and not shoot you or rob you. That seems like a better plan to me. Those perps, always looking out for their victims.

#57 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,236 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 09:28 PM

Sorry, never encountered a "perp" yet. And yes, I know someone who has, who actually shot said perp right between the eyes (Oh, El Paso! :lol:) and I have a uncle who keeps a loaded gun in every room of the house (oh, Florida! :lol:) and we had a gun in Toronto (it was my roommate's) and a gun in Texas (a huge Colt that was my bf's dad's from when he was a cop in San Antonio) and ya know what, no, I still don't see any need to own a gun or any way it would keep me any safer than I am right now, sitting here unarmed. :)

Tyler did mention that he wanted to get a rifle earlier this year, and I was all "what the fuck for?" and he said "to protect us" and I said "to protect us from what" and well, you know... What's the answer to that? I think he said from crazy people. That we're in America now, and there are crazy fucks all over the place with guns. But guess what? The rifle isn't going to be hanging out with us when we watch movies, or in the car with us when we go shopping, or beside the bed when we sleep.

Needless to say, there is no rifle here.

When we move farther out into the woods, I could see it. Hell, I've had coyotes attack my dog, it would have come in handy then, but the hockey stick actually worked just as well if not better at getting those brutes off our dog.

#58 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 09:32 PM

Cool story, bro.

#59 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,236 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 09:34 PM

:thumbup:

#60 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 10:03 PM

Has anyone mentioned the fact that guns do not make safer households? (edit: yes Lola, ty) People with guns are more likely to be injured by guns. Your money would be better spent on a security system.

The idea of a 75% armed movie theater being any safer is mind numbingly ridiculous. You really think all the good guys would have stood up in the dark and made clear shots at the 1 bad guy? No. There would have been misunderstandings who was the aggressor, tons of people killed and injured in the cross fire.

I live in a shitty neighborhood. A few weeks before vibes there was the first fatal shooting of the summer. We were just talking about how it had been a pretty calm summer too. I was hoping it was just fire crackers when I first heard it, but really the sound is pretty unmistakable. clack clack clack, what the fuck. More than once tough guys/girls have unloaded in the air during a fight outside the bar right outside my house. Being on the third floor this makes me a little nervous. I'd feel safer knowing less people around here carried guns even if that means laws restricting their sales. Yes some people are responsible with guns. awesome, thankyou. But the assholes down the street selling crack and assholes trying to rob them are not.

Also, even a modified AR-15 with 100 round clip will not save you against a tyrannical American government. That is also a ridiculous scenario. Predator drone'd.

#61 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 10:45 PM

So then, lets bow down and give them up.

I did not say JUST gun carriers, I referred to properly trained carriers. So I dont think wild shooting int he dark is really the true unfold there. Just being around and knowing the sound of guns gives an edge to when they are fired off. I know the difference, perhaps not all.

It's about familiarity, safety, knowledge and empowerment. Not half cocked wild west movie personifications of delusion.

#62 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,795 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:06 AM

I'm not sure I see any delusion here. There are hundreds of reports of injuries/deaths due to some of the things discussed here, crimes of alcohol/passion/rage and unintentional shootings. Almost exclusively with legal, registered firearms. Certainly there are a lot of irresponsible, careless and not-too-bright gun owners out there, based on this.

Maybe we've reached an oversaturation point? Do we really need more and more, deadlier and deadlier guns out there? How many does one person need? How about AP ammo? .50 cal needed to make people feel "safe"?

I'm just not comfortable with where we are and are going. I think it's high time to examine the regulations. Which is tough since the NRA basically owns most of congress.

#63 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,537 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:17 AM

Couple things on that.

AP ammo is illegal aside from law enforcement and military. If civilians have it, guess where its coming from?

AR platform guns are no new things. They look bad ass but guns of this capability has been around for 50-60 years. The AK is most produced platform gun in the history of the world because of its reliability. Since pre Vietnam and is still being made today. The calibers they are offered in (5.56/7.62 NATO which are the same as .223/.308) have been around for longer.

The only advances in guns have been in sporting calibers (.204 & .264 for example), sniper rounds such as the .50 caliber and gas exchange technology in the bolt of semi and auto loaders.

My point is, the guns really haven't changed much. Society has. You're going after the wrong problem because where do you draw that line on guns. They all can kill and that is the debate IMO, either you're for them or against them.

Also, I'd like to say that I don't support the nra. Although they do stand on the same side of the fence as me , they're a bit too fanatical for me and often lack compassion.

#64 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,393 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 05:06 AM

Or if you're asleep? Or in the shower? Or baking a cake in the kitchen? Or playing ping-pong with your niece and nephew? Or digging into a big bowl of popcorn just after sitting down to watch a movie with your SO?


or if you're taking a nice comfortable dump? How bad would that suck? I'll be damned if I'm going down from some whack ass perp while I'm having a constitutional. Perhaps I should modify my toilet plunger around a 12 gauge just to be safe? :dunno:

Perhaps I'll James Bond my tooth brush such that it can fire a blow dart at a perp while keeping my teeth pearly?

yup, it's what the world needs. more weapons; from the civilians on up to big government military, let's make sure we got the biggest baddest weapons around because that's what's going to make the world a safer place and save lives.

but what do I know? I'm just some ignorant idealist hippie who thinks that disarming the world from big government military on down to civilians is the right direction for society to go to move away from violence. Violence will never be eliminated, but I don't think arming ourselves to the teeth, living scared and being afraid of the fringe of society 24/7 is the right direction to go.

#65 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:58 AM

I'm a big fan of perps

#66 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,291 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:51 PM

My point is, the guns really haven't changed much. Society has. You're going after the wrong problem because where do you draw that line on guns. They all can kill and that is the debate IMO, either you're for them or against them.

.



This reminds me of an article I read the other day arguing that it is not guns, but the social upbringing of males in our culture which is responsible for all the violence.






By LINDA ANN SCACCO AND MOLLY TURRO | OTHER OPINION The Hartford Courant
5:24 p.m. EDT, July 23, 2012

After the senseless murders of 12 people in a Colorado movie theater Friday, many commentators pointed at gun control (or the lack thereof) and violence in the media as explanations for this tragic event.
Gun control and media violence are relevant to understanding our violence-ridden culture, but an important variable is missing, which is the apparently not-so-obvious observation that in the majority of these violent acts, the perpetrators are male.
In the United States, more than 90 percent of violence against males and females is committed by males. Males and females have equal access to firearms, but a Gallup Poll in 2005 reported that 47 percent of men own a firearm while only 13 percent of females do. Females, who are quite likely to be victims of violence, are significantly less likely to own a firearm, even for protection.
That males are significantly more likely to commit acts of violence is not mentioned in discussion of this phenomenon. Consider acts of violence or aggression committed by women, whether in film or in reality. Questions typically asked by those seeking answers to such occurrences are "What is going on in the lives of girls that is leading them to act out in a violent manner?" Why is gender always in question when females commit crimes but never in question when males do?
Indeed, when the perpetrator of violence is male, gender is not discussed, blinding us to the larger cultural and institutional forces which shape individuals. Masculinity has become so intertwined with violence that it becomes invisible. Despite the fact that violence is an overwhelmingly male phenomenon, gender is not considered a factor in the causes of violence when it is probably the most salient issue.
So what is happening in the socialization process that encourages boys in our culture to turn to violence? According to Jackson Katz, author of "The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help," the issue is "not just violence in the media but the construction of violent masculinity as a cultural norm." Suggesting that our culture "promotes characteristics such as dominance, power, and control as means of establishing or maintaining manhood." Katz says that masculine identity is equal to power and the ability to "instill fear."
Parents, with implicit and explicit encouragement from the culture, raise boys to be strong, tough, invulnerable and emotionally inexpressive. Anger is the only emotion boys are allowed to feel. Other feelings must be stifled lest a boy be seen as a "sissy" or a "girl." Katz reports that sometimes when boys are victimized by the dominant system of masculinity, they use the too-easily-accessible "great equalizer," a weapon, to exact their revenge. How our culture defines "manhood" plays an important role in the prevalence of male violence in our world.
Our culture needs to examine the role of socialization to more completely understand violent masculinity. Parents and teachers play an important role. Parents, especially fathers, need to explore their assumptions about gender in their child rearing, to be willing to support their sons' full emotional lives, their vulnerability, sensitivity and compassion, and to be aware of the culture's attempts to shame boys into a gender straitjacket. In addition, parents and teachers must encourage boys to challenge stereotypical media images of masculinity.
Organizations and individuals need to work systematically to confront cultures that embrace gender violence, in particular the sports, video game, entertainment and pornography industries. Conversations about sexism, masculinity, and men's violence against women and other men are important throughout life, beginning in childhood. The shootings in Colorado cannot be addressed with just gun control legislation but instead must be examined in light of the more complex and broad cultural institutions that shape our humanity. Enlisting men in the cause is critical.

#67 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:03 PM

This reminds me of an article I read the other day arguing that it is not guns, but the social upbringing of males in our culture which is responsible for all the violence.


Presactly. I will grant that I have a bias toward an armed populace being the backstop against tyrannical government (as an aside, to the folks who say, "what are some rifles gonna do against tanks, planes, etc." I say, we don't know whether liberty would triumph in the end or not, but there are plenty of examples of outgunned fighters winning over superior forces in history).

But I truly believe that what happened in CO, and in other places isn't a gun problem...it's a cultural/societal problem. We live in a culture and with a media which glorifies violence. Which has become hard and uncaring.

If you got rid of all of the guns in existence today, these horrors would still go on. With knives. With cars. With whatever else deeply disturbed and fearful people could find and use as tools to act on their hatred and fear. I'll grant that guns make it easier, and perhaps more extensive when it happens, but they aren't the root problem.

#68 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,537 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:11 PM

Could you imagine banning televisions? Never happen but what a positive imapact that would have on society.

#69 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:16 PM

Could you imagine banning televisions? Never happen but what a positive imapact that would have on society.


TVs and video games...I believe that would make for a far safer, happier society than banning guns would.

#70 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:19 PM

@Jen

Bill Pollack, author of the book Real Boys (excellent book) has spent 20 years at Harvard studying boys. He says it well: When we don't let boys shed tears, they shed bullets. http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0805061835

THE common denominator in all these shootings is that the shooters are male. There is a crisis of masculinity (a tough guise) that forbids boys from expressing emotions in a safe and healthy way. Couple this with working parents, feelings of abandonment, bullying, media violence...

This isn't a gun problem, it's a family problem--it's a lack of love problem.

#71 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:23 PM

A lack of brain power problem.

#72 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:25 PM

I think some of these kids are very smart, TASB

we're talking emotional woundedness, not intellect.

#73 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:27 PM

This isn't a gun problem, it's a family problem--it's a lack of love problem.


I couldn't agree more, both in the micro and macro senses of the words family and love.

#74 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,291 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:30 PM

When we don't let boys shed tears, they shed bullets.



Yup

#75 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:31 PM



#76 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,291 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:35 PM

Interwebz too.
And dare I say it? Porn Posted Image

#77 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:37 PM

Interwebz too.
And dare I say it? Porn Posted Image


Seems to me the problem is pervasive across all media...

#78 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,393 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:39 PM

Seems to me the problem is pervasive across all media...


people still jerk off to magazines?

#79 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,236 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:40 PM

Wait, what kind of guns are we talking about shooting off now? :eek:

#80 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:40 PM

:lol:

100 round magazines?

#81 Lazy Lightning

Lazy Lightning
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,236 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:41 PM

Butter-greased fingers are the preferred trigger fingers for the "lower guns" :lol:

#82 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,291 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:44 PM

:lol: youze guyz

#83 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,537 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:45 PM

:lol:

#84 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:50 PM

Let's see, the US owns more guns per capita than any other nation. The US consistently ranks as having one of the highest rates of gun crimes of any nation in the world. Most nations with higher rates tend to be developing countries, there certainly isn't a 1st world country in the same conversation as the US when it comes to gun crime.

.......and people think more people carrying will somehow reduce the problem? :rollseyes:

Personally, if I were writing the law, handguns would be outlawed for all except law enforcement. No more assault rifles for the general public either.

You want a rifle or a shot gun for hunting? Fine by me. You can use them to protect your home too. I just don't see any need what so ever for people to have handguns or assault rifles.


This is that one out of a hundred times where I couldn't disagree w Dhs more. You're basically asking for the general public to disarm themselves and wait for a cop to come save the day. How ya think that would work out with all the guns on the black market? And how do you think it would work out even if the black market got wiped clean and only cops and military had guns? Cause yknow cops didn't just murder someone in cold blood in Anaheim and shoot up the neighborhood when they protested it.



#85 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,393 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:04 PM

Do you carry a gun Vic?

If you don't, then why not?

#86 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,393 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:05 PM

Does anyone here carry a gun regularly? If you don't, then why not?

#87 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,291 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:16 PM

Do you carry a gun Vic?



Nah - he's just happy to see us.

#88 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,646 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:23 PM

Or if you're asleep? Or in the shower? Or baking a cake in the kitchen? Or playing ping-pong with your niece and nephew? Or digging into a big bowl of popcorn just after sitting down to watch a movie with your SO?

How is your gun going to keep you safe from a home intruder in any of these instances?

Oh, right. You keep your gun with you always. Locked and loaded, ready to go. Right there on the edge of the ping-pong table, right there by the cake bowl, right there in the soap dish, and under your pillow when you go to bed at night. You've got it there right by the big bowl of popcorn b/c you shoot best with butter-greased fingers. You keep it right beside the lube in your bedside table for those more intimate moments.

This is why the argument of gun ownership ensuring you safety makes me :rotf: - in most instances, with people I know who own guns, the guns are NOT readily accessible (thank christ) and wouldn't help in a home invasion scenario.


plus, how many real life stories do any of us hear about a gun owner thwarting a robbery of his house with his own gun. I would think these would be all over the news if occurring.

The closest we have had was zimmerman in Fla who shot a the other person on the street. Turns our Zimmerman had a gun and the kid didn't...

If the Smoking lobby acted like the NRA, we'd still have smoking on planes, in workplaces, etc...For example, smokers got segregated into their own 'smoking section' at restaurants, and they said "OK", then no smoking on planes "OK", then outside "OK", now there are places that ban smoking out in public places. If instead, the fought tooth and nail at every step (like the NRA when you threaten to take anything away or add restrictions) smokers would still be everywhere...

Guns don't kill people, people kill people (guns just make it easier, faster and possible from a greater distance)

#89 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,537 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:25 PM

Does anyone here carry a gun regularly? If you don't, then why not?


I'll play. No, becuase I live rural with a low crime rate and don't feel the need to protect myself on the reg......

#90 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:25 PM

They occur all the time. But the govt./media hates those stories because they do not get the knee-jerk reaction of take away peoples guns that is loved so much. The govt. WANTS you disarmed. That is fact.

#91 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:29 PM

Do you carry a gun Vic?

If you don't, then why not?


My girlfriend won't let me :lol:

I'm working on it though...went from no chance to about a 5% chance over the last 3 years :lol:

#92 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,291 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:29 PM

They occur all the time. But the govt./media hates those stories because they do not get the knee-jerk reaction of take away peoples guns that is loved so much.



I don't believe that for a second.
Where do you get the idea that this is true?

#93 syd_25

syd_25
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,058 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Ct

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:30 PM

Does anyone here carry a gun regularly? If you don't, then why not?


Because I do not have a carry permit hence it would not be legal. :)

#94 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:31 PM

They occur all the time. But the govt./media hates those stories because they do not get the knee-jerk reaction of take away peoples guns that is loved so much. The govt. WANTS you disarmed. That is fact.


This. 1 million percent this.

#95 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:33 PM

My girlfriend won't let me :lol:

I'm working on it though...went from no chance to about a 5% chance over the last 3 years :lol:


Also, I'm not gay, but I believe gay marriage should be legal.

#96 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:39 PM

I don't believe that for a second.
Where do you get the idea that this is true?


http://www.akdart.com/gun3.html

http://www.king5.com...-146301255.html

http://www.keepandbe...se.asp?CatID=43

#97 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:39 PM

I can get more if you like.

#98 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,646 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:44 PM

I can get more if you like.


I could find just as many on guns in homes that killed kids in those homes :(

#99 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:48 PM

Just as many?

#100 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,537 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:49 PM

I could find just as many on guns in homes that killed kids in those homes :(


yeah, although this does happen due to gun owner irresposibility, I don't think the numbers are comparable.