Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

so, um... guns


  • Please log in to reply
264 replies to this topic

#101 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:50 PM

The keeandbeararms link has literally hundreds of stories of homeowners vs. intruders, etc...



#102 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,255 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:57 PM

I can get more if you like.



No thanks.
I'm not arguing the fact that this does happen on occasion.
I know it does. I've seen these people hailed in the media as local heroes by defending their homes with firearms.
I just don't believe that all these stories are squelched by the media in order to make people believe they should disarm themselves.
One of your links was even from a main stream media site.

#103 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:01 PM

A local media site. However, you'll notice that the last weeks shooting is literally smeared all over every single news outlet and it will be for weeks, even months to come.

#104 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,617 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:03 PM

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


I pigeon holed myself with dead kids. Perhaps should have read 'gun mishap' stories as 'gun hero' ones


For the record, I am OK with trained owners legally owning hand guns, shot guns and hunting rifles. When it comes to 30 round banana clips, hollow point bullets, AK-47s, etc... that I think lines should be drawn

#105 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:07 PM

I got an idea... let's make it harder for women to abort unwanted children.

#106 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,255 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:08 PM

A local media site. However, you'll notice that the last weeks shooting is literally smeared all over every single news outlet and it will be for weeks, even months to come.



With that many people dead and wounded I would expect nothing less.
Also, if a homeowner shot and killed a large group of people breaking into the home I would expect the same widespread coverage.

#107 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:11 PM

OK, then. I'll just ask. Is the government for more gun controls or less? Is the Clinton UN regualtion iniative favorable in government (which means the UN, or is it NATO? Same thing, really...will have the final say on our amendment 2) or unfavorable?

Does the government regularly advocate for citizen gun rights or against them?

#108 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:19 PM

another thing,

nobody is trying to take away your "guns"

hunting rifles, and even handguns can be useful or necessary if you're a hunter or live in a dangerous area.

But, what is the problem with taking away ASSAULT WEAPONS.

How many lives were saved because a person was carrying an assault weapon?

I guess if you're expecting gangs of starving marauders to come in the night, then an assault weapon might be necessary... the rest of us who live in reality don't need them.

Join the militia if you want to play with weapons of mass killing.

#109 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:26 PM

There are already controls on assault rifles. The AWB in 94 adn in 89 a host of semi-automatic rifles were banned. So im not really sure what more controls you want to put in place. If people have them, guess where they got them?

Same goes for AP bullets and a host of other "military" grade weaponry. I think before we start talking about further weapon bans, we might need to take the time to familiarize ourselves with the current laws and the firearms in question.

#110 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,617 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:27 PM

OK, then. I'll just ask. Is the government for more gun controls or less? Is the Clinton UN regualtion iniative favorable in government (which means the UN, or is it NATO? Same thing, really...will have the final say on our amendment 2) or unfavorable?

Does the government regularly advocate for citizen gun rights or against them?


the gov't wants to nanny our everything, even the size of a large soda to when and where people can dance (thanks mayor bloomingasshatburg).

Question: Why would someone in the USA need an AK-47 w/ a 30 round banana clip containing hollow point bullets instead of a hunting rifle, shotgun or handgun? What scenarios?

#111 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:33 PM

Does it have to be a case of "needing"

If by some chance the shit hits the fan they just might want the extra fire power to defend themselves and their family

#112 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,376 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:39 PM

Question: Why would someone in the USA need an AK-47 w/ a 30 round banana clip containing hollow point bullets instead of a hunting rifle, shotgun or handgun? What scenarios?


IMO it's a much broader debate. an AK-47 is a semi-automatic rifle and there is not a whole lot that distinguishes it from other SARs other than it's history and availability. So, if you make an AK-47 illegal, why is a ruger mini-14 or a winchester model 100 or a remington model 7400 legal? or do you mean, why are semi-automatic rifles legal?

IMO there is no reason for a 30 round clip, but also know that a clip is just a piece of bent up metal, a spring and a plate. making them illegal will not make them go away.

#113 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:16 PM

Does it have to be a case of "needing"

If by some chance the shit hits the fan they just might want the extra fire power to defend themselves and their family


uhh.. yeah... not a good enough reason...

if you think you could use an assault weapon capable of killing 60 people per minute, then you're exactly the type of person who shouldn't have one...

"to protect your family" -- give me a break... get a dog.

#114 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,617 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:18 PM

Does it have to be a case of "needing"

If by some chance the shit hits the fan they just might want the extra fire power to defend themselves and their family


It seems like the folks with that kind of fire power are the ones who fling poo into the fan of civilization rather than defending their own.

#115 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,939 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:45 PM

I understand this study of Philadelphia may not be generalizable to the entire American population but IMO lends more credibility than anecdotal reports posted above.
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killedPacking heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities. "It affects others a heck of a lot more," he says.
Journal reference: American Journal of Public Health, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

More in depth on the same study: http://phys.org/news173531867.html

#116 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:49 PM

Sure, it lends more credibility to the theory in Philly, PA.

And then of course. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

Interesting read. I'd like to see there methodology and data points.

#117 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:51 PM

It seems like the folks with that kind of fire power are the ones who fling poo into the fan of civilization rather than defending their own.

I'd imagine there are far more heavily armed law abiding people out there that we don't hear about than there are nuts who go off the deep end in a blaze of glory.

#118 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,805 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:54 PM

It seems like the folks with that kind of fire power are the ones who fling poo into the fan of civilization rather than defending their own.


Kind of a broad generalization, there, don't you think?

I may not leave the next part up forever, because it's not the internet's business what I own or don't own. I'll further respectfully ask that no one quote the following:

Many of you have met me in person. I think you have a pretty good idea about who I am, and how I treat people ("Hey Boardies" thread, anyone?).

I own what is effectively an AR15. Effectively, because in the state in which I live, if it said AR15 on it, or had a bayonet lug and/or flash hider on it, I would be a felon. I own it because I believe that an armed populace is the final deterrent to government becoming tyrannical.

I'm curious if anyone here who watched what happened during the Bush years (or the Obama years for that matter) doesn't think we've made moves toward less freedom and more government control?

Personally, I don't really like guns. I practice with them from time to time, but I abhor violence.

I really hope we never get to the point where things are so far gone that the people are compelled to fight to take their freedom back. But I'm far more comfortable living in a society which has the tools to try, if need be, than one which will just roll over and die.

So I own one. And a stack of 30 round magazines.

#119 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,939 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:55 PM

If there were a series of studies showing nearly conclusively that gun ownership was more dangerous than not owning one, would gun owners give up their guns? I don't think so. Gun owners would insist that with their careful handling they personally are safer and the study does not apply to them.

#120 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:59 PM

If there were a series of studies showing conclusively that gun ownership was much safer than not owning, would anti-gun folk buy guns? I don't think so. They would still go on about how they are dangerous and we should all give them up to our loving government for safe keeping because they have us fully protected at all times.

:dunno:

#121 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,939 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:05 PM

The corporatist American government is already tyrannical. It constantly puts the desires of its controlling entities above the health and well being of the general population. The oppression is hidden by a thick layer of Mac sauce, cheap fuel and entertainment media.

Guns will not save us.

Look at what armed people afraid of the government do. It is no defense against tyranny. Just a guaranteed 3 hour chunk of time on cable news featuring helicopter aerials and ass-clown pundits from both sides of the gun control debate.

#122 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:06 PM

Don't tread on me?

#123 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:07 PM

Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils?

#124 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,939 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:08 PM

If there were a series of studies showing conclusively that gun ownership was much safer than not owning, would anti-gun folk buy guns? I don't think so. They would still go on about how they are dangerous and we should all give them up to our loving government for safe keeping because they have us fully protected at all times.

:dunno:


conceded

#125 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,805 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:11 PM

Guns will not save us.


No, but people with the proper tools might...just might...have a chance someday.

I respect the opinions of folks who disagree...

#126 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:17 PM

I think someone with a stockpile of deadly weapons is much more likely to do harm to another person than a person not-so-armed.

You're a lot less likely to go on a shooting spree if you don't own an assault weapon than someone who does.

#127 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:20 PM

what about the law of attraction...

if you want to get philosophical about it... like attracts like. If you're always thinking about guns, you're probably going to want to use them.

#128 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:24 PM

I'm always thinking about eating sushi. I do not always eat sushi.

#129 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:24 PM

No, but people with the proper tools might...just might...have a chance someday.

I respect the opinions of folks who disagree...

Exactly. Hopefully we never reach that point but it's better to have the tools and not need them than need them and not have them.

#130 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,939 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:33 PM

No, but people with the proper tools might...just might...have a chance someday.

I respect the opinions of folks who disagree...


Hopefully the tools will be awareness and social media. No one wants a violent revolution. If we really want to protect our freedoms, we'd be better off securing our right to express ourselves without government/corporate recrimination on the internet.

I always try to respect and understand the other side of any debate. Please don't take my disagreement as disrespect. If I didn't respect you all I wouldn't bother. I try not to argue with ass-clowns on the internet.

Don't tread on me?

They are treading on our faces.

Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils?

We'd all be dead.

I wish I could think of a platitude for "Modern America is scary as shit but please don't own any machines designed for killing large numbers of people quickly because that makes it scarier"

#131 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:34 PM

I agree. Those guns have already been banned. So if someone has one, where did they get it? :lol:

#132 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:35 PM

Could it be the government? :lmao:

#133 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:35 PM

The ironing is absolutely delicious. Right to the stick.

#134 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:39 PM

I agree. Those guns have already been banned. So if someone has one, where did they get it? :lol:


why do you keep saying that assault weapons are banned? This joker just bought his guns legally within the past 3 months.

I think the assault weapons ban you speak of is expired.

And, if you're always thinking about sushi, then I'll bet that you eat it once in a while.

#135 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:41 PM

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote."

http://en.wikipedia....ult_Weapons_Ban

it would be nice if we could be on the same page regarding simple common facts.

I know, 2004 was about the time you drank the kool-aid and have tuned out of reality since then.

#136 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:44 PM

Correct! The ban of 94 reached sunset in 04. Coincidentally,

In March 2004, Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, criticized the soon-to-expire ban by stating, "The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s,MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other 'assault weapons'. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994.

Which is what our last crazy fella had. An "AR-15", not an AR-15. These can be modified regardless. So can lots of other guns. Lets just call it a ban altogether and stop throwing around the "Assault weapon" slogan.

#137 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:47 PM

ok, so to answer your question... where do psychologically unstable people buy assault weapons... uh.. the gun store!

was that supposed to be a trick question or something?

#138 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:49 PM

I would prefer you do not own a gun, no.

#139 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:49 PM

so, my question to you is... why do you keep saying that assault weapons are banned?

#140 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,805 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:55 PM

You're a lot less likely to go on a shooting spree if you don't own an assault weapon than someone who does.


But if you're someone who's prone to go on a shooting spree, I think you're someone who's prone to go on a killing spree, and there are plenty of other means besides guns with which to do that, no?

Hopefully the tools will be awareness and social media. No one wants a violent revolution. If we really want to protect our freedoms, we'd be better off securing our right to express ourselves without government/corporate recrimination on the internet.

I always try to respect and understand the other side of any debate. Please don't take my disagreement as disrespect. If I didn't respect you all I wouldn't bother. I try not to argue with ass-clowns on the internet.



Didn't for a second think you were being disrespectful. I appreciate your reasoned approach to this issue. We've, I think, clearly both thought about it, and don't happen to agree. I'm cool with that. :)

And I couldn't agree more...I hope there's a nonviolent solution to our problems...as I wrote, I abhor violence. I was fortunate enough to have an incredible friend and partner at Seaside on Saturday wrap her arms around me as I shed tears over the senselessness of what happened in Colorado.

If there's a way to make the world and our society better without bloodshed, I'll be there. But if that fails, I find a bit of comfort in knowing there's one last option, as awful as it is to contemplate.

#141 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,376 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:59 PM

assault weapons were banned until 2004 when the legislation ran out and not renewed. I believe the govt definition of an assault weapon is if it has the ability to affix a bayonet, then it is an assault weapon.

#142 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:59 PM

That's a valid question. "assault weapons" are banned if we're referring to the machine gun variety. Assault are still semi-automatic. Do you know what semi-automatic means?

A wealth of US federal firearm laws here.

http://en.wikipedia....al_Firearms_Act

#143 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:18 PM

yeah I know what semi-automatic means and the difference between it and fully automatic.

And I also know that some semi-automatic weapons can easily be converted to fully automatic.

But why are you questioning me on this. I already stated that a machine capable of killing 60 people per minute is more than an average citizen needs.

Do you know anyone that can fire a shotgun 60 rounds per minute? Seriously dude... what is the point of all this?

#144 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:20 PM

you're trying to convince... who I don't know... that assault weapons are already banned and I'd like to know whether you were just unaware that you were misinformed, or you were lying.

#145 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:26 PM

Im lying. "Assault weapons" of the semi-automatic highly jammable variety are not banned. Fully automatic "mow 60 rounds out per second variety are federally banned.

I can make a 22 rifle three round burst with a 30 round magazine. Is there a point to what you're saying? That is my question. You keep saying assault weapons like it means something. It's an arbitrarily decided grouping on weapons. This ban on guns is never going to work anyway. but be my guest! Push the legislation.

#146 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,376 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:37 PM

Well, according to wiki, I am wrong.

#147 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:39 PM

if you forge your own assault weapon, that doesn't make it any more legal.

but there are legal definitions. If you want the legal definition then look it up.

My own personal definition is a weapon designed to kill more than 6 people... that would allow for the good old 6 shooter but not your forged assault rifle.

I'm sure we can compromise and draw the line in the sand somewhere... but the point is that it shouldn't be capable of easily picking off large numbers of people.

#148 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:45 PM

I can do that with a .22.

So really the compromise is give the guns to govt. who is the largest arms dealer on planet earth. This sounds really good.

#149 PeaceFrog

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

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:52 PM

what's your compromise, take them away from the Government, too?

#150 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:57 PM

If they want us disarmed, yes.