264 replies to this topic

[TakeAStepBack]

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

[JBetty]

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.

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

[wonka]

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

[PeaceFrog]

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

[JBetty]

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.

[TakeAStepBack]

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?

[PeaceFrog]

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.

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

[wonka]

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?

[Joker]

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

[MeOmYo]

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.

[PeaceFrog]

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.

[wonka]

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.

[Smiles]

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 killed

• 15:26 06 October 2009 by Ewen Callaway
  
• For similar stories, visit the US national issues Topic Guide

Packing 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

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

[Joker]

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.

[Tim the Beek]

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.

[Smiles]

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.

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

[Smiles]

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.

[TakeAStepBack]

Don't tread on me?

[TakeAStepBack]

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

[Smiles]

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.

conceded

[Tim the Beek]

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...

[PeaceFrog]

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.

[PeaceFrog]

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.

[TakeAStepBack]

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

[Joker]

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.

[Smiles]

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"

[TakeAStepBack]

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

[TakeAStepBack]

Could it be the government?

[TakeAStepBack]

The ironing is absolutely delicious. Right to the stick.

[PeaceFrog]

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

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.

[PeaceFrog]

"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.

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

[PeaceFrog]

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?

[TakeAStepBack]

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

[PeaceFrog]

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

[Tim the Beek]

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.

[MeOmYo]

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.

[TakeAStepBack]

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

[PeaceFrog]

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?

[PeaceFrog]

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.

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

[MeOmYo]

Well, according to wiki, I am wrong.

[PeaceFrog]

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.

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

[PeaceFrog]

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

[TakeAStepBack]

If they want us disarmed, yes.