Some facts about guns in the US

[iceaura]

As for the drowned baby, the world is full of stupid people.

There isn't a parent in the world who hasn't lost track of a child long enough for that child to drown in a pool. Get rid of the pools, and no more drowning in them. What kind of irresponsible people would take that kind of risk for such a trivial benefit as a pool provides? And it's often a neighbor kid, too - completely innocent, their own parents had better sense.

Fortunately for the aquatic recreation industry, the nannystaters like to swim themselves. As with motorcycle helmets not spreading to car drivers, and locking up firearms not extending to locking up medicines, and stop and frisk not extending to Wall Street pedestrians, personal vulnerability to the losses and hassles of these kinds of laws p;its them in different light.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

The difference is that swimming pools, automobiles, and all the other everyday dangers you run into, have a legitimate purpose. They all provide a service so it becomes a cost-benefit analysis: is the benefit worth the cost?

Of course it is. In the USA we simply could not get along without cars. This country was not built around public transportation routes. Sure, we can get along without swimming pools, but the actual risk of drowning in a pool is about the same as being killed by lightning or bees.

so please show the cost benefit analysis that shows the support for your conjectures.
and as long as you live in a highly populated area with criminals and crime, then you also have those dangers to address too as "other everyday dangers that you will run into" to put into your cost benefit analysis.

and you are a bit off on your speculations of pool vs guns.
according to this 2008 article which is relevant: http://www.smartparentshealthykids.com/blog/?p=11

you can see that the author is first not a gun nut, so this is not some pro-gun article for you to make unsupported conjecture about. This is about child safety.
the information is readily available for fact checking as well... all links are working when I checked them
it states something different that what you are saying

There are an estimated 44 million households in the U.S. with firearms, and thus letting your child play at little Timmy’s house gives him about a 1 in ten million chance of dying there from an accidental gunshot wound (roughly the same risk as being struck by lightning). This is undeniably tragic for those 5 kids and their families each year – but not quite the public health epidemic you might think.

it goes on to show this

In the U.S. about 18.5 million American own or have access to a swimming pool. Crunch the numbers for a swimming pool and you get about a one in 100,000 chance of dying in a swimming pool.

Again, if you do the math and let little Johnny go over to little Billy’s house to swim, he is roughly 100 times more likely to have a fatal accident vs. letting him go over to little Timmy’s house, where dad has a gun.

These numbers change drastically when the child has training in how to swim and safety around water... but it also changes when children have safety training around firearms. Safety is the key... IOW - your kids are more likely to drown in the neighbors pool than be shot by your gun at home.

This information is also supported by this post. http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php
I would take you directly to the source, but in this case, the information is already laid out and the sources are listed for checking the facts, so the work is done for me. And it pretty much reinforces what is posted above.

This is an older piece of information, but still cogent and pretty much shows that you are trying to unnaturally inflate the possibility of death by firearm for your own purposes.

and again, all those numbers also change drastically with safety training, responsibility and respect.

start teaching that to kids early and things can only improve

But guns have no legitimate purpose.

personal conjecture not supported by facts based upon flawed logic as well as personal issues therefore irrelevant, and can be summarily dismissed as being pointless
skip the emo

All they do is make pathetic little men like George Zimmerman and Adam Lanza feel like heroes.

personal conjecture based upon flawed logic as well as personal issues therefore irrelevant, and can be summarily dismissed as being pointless

projection and transference of your personal issues is for another thread

Sure, the gun nuts insist that their guns are for "protection," but they carefully ignore the statistics telling us that each one of those fucking goddamned guns is five times as likely to kill the owner, a member of his family, a friend, a confused stranger, or someone who is the target of his gun after it's stolen or wrestled out of his hands by a criminal.

ok... first: post the source
second: does the source differentiate between trained users and the level of training each user has?
or is it a general number without reference to training or level of training?
Thanks for showing this

I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that it's reasonable to possess an object that is more likely to kill him or his family than a burglar, an assailant or a rabid cougar.

it is no different than your owning a car and cell phone.
training, safety and proficiency make all the difference.

you are choosing not to understand based upon personal issues.

Gun nuts are simply wired wrong. Their logic circuits are defective. I don't trust them.

personal conjecture based upon flawed logic as well as personal issues therefore irrelevant, and can be summarily dismissed as being pointless

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

No
However, My uncle Fuzzy had a fireman friend named Marty who had a cancerous growth on the tip of his penis. The doctors had to cut off an inch or 2. His wife took to calling him Stumpy.

Different "Stumpy" here?

ROTFLMFAO
Was he military too?

NOPE... not the same one!
I was called Stumpy by my old Lieutenant
When I went into the Fire Dept, I was a powerlifter and did MMA as well as train in defense courses
I was shaped like a tree stump according to him... my captain ran with it

I was labeled Stumpy...
I've been known as Stumpy for a few decades now... longer than I have been known by my given name.

 

[Bells]

(rounding it off)

@310,000,000 firearms in the us
@14,000 -19,000 accidental shootings per year(say 16,500 average)
roughly: .0001% chance of having an accidental shooting
or
about one accidental shooting for each @19,000 weapons

You will never know the true figures. Any research into the true figures is pretty much not allowed in the US:

More than 100 scientists from universities in the United States lobbied Vice President Joe Biden, asking him to allow the centre for Disease Control and Prevention to once again fund research into the public health impacts of guns. The scientists signed a letter to Biden last week, urging him to consider making “direct investments in unbiased, scientific research and data infrastructure” related to firearm safety.

The CDC isn’t allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association.

As a result of the National Rifle Association’s lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 per cent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters.

Prior to 1996, the centre for Disease Control funded research into the causes of firearm-related deaths. After a series of articles finding that increased prevalence of guns lead to increased incidents of gun violence, Republicans sought to remove all federal funding for research into gun deaths.

In 1996, Republican Rep. Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the CDC budget — the precise amount the CDC spent on gun research in 1995 — at a time when the centre was conducting more studies into gun-related deaths as a “public health phenomenon,” according to The New York Times. The NRA and some pro-gun Congressmen perceived this as more of an attack.

---

Because of the NRA’s successful campaign to eliminate the scientific research into the public health effect of firearms, very few researchers specialize in the field anymore, University of California, Davis, professor Garen Wintemute told Reuters. He said there isn’t enough money to sustain research.

Since there is a lack of funding for independent research, the gun debate has been lacking in unimpeachable statistics that could effect a change in the status quo.

As it stands, the main available statistics regarding the gun debate are raw gun homicide and suicide stats collected through the FBI, international data and data from groups with a direct stake in the gun debate — for instance, pro-gun stats from the NRA and pro-gun control stats from the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.

The scientists writing the letter to Biden wrote that, effectively, the NRA has successfully hamstrung a credible gun control conversation. When the only statistics available are imperfect, it becomes that much easier to disregard them.
​

America.. Land of the free and all that..

Must be really comforting for gun advocates in the US.

 

[Bells]

personal conjecture based upon flawed logic as well as personal issues therefore irrelevant, and can be summarily dismissed as being pointless

That's hysterical!

I don't think he will be too stressed.. Considering your flawed argument in this thread, your running away from the figures you posted and ended up biting you on your own backside, I'm pretty sure that Fraggle will be able to sleep well at night.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

That's hysterical!

I don't think he will be too stressed.. Considering your flawed argument in this thread, your running away from the figures you posted and ended up biting you on your own backside, I'm pretty sure that Fraggle will be able to sleep well at night.

Running away from the figures I posted?
like about undefined/realitycheck?
i know a lot about him...

and as i have stated about those figures regarding "stats of guns being taken from you"
do those stats include trained individuals?
what levels of training are those who's weapons have been taken from them and killed them?
Your "stats" don't call that out...
and how can I be running from any figures if

You will never know the true figures. Any research into the true figures is pretty much not allowed in the US:

this essentially means that you can make up any number you want and it must be true right?


i am not avoiding arguments about figures.
that argument was going nowhere
I was ignoring what I perceived to be a long drawn out discourse with a troll bent on baiting

There was no "bear/brick discussion" with that poster.

I disagree... after you made this comment

I'm saying you're made just as safe from angry bears and wolves and moose by packing bricks as you are by packing a handgun, at least in North America. (Basically, if they give you time to produce and fire a handgun enough times to bring one down, you aren't in danger in the first place. And if you aren't in danger in the first place, hurting them can be radically counterproductive. ).

I started discussing with others in the thread about a bear situation (one that bricks would not help with) it seemed to make you angry with me.
This is when you started directing posts at me, and using my quotes and being a mite aggressive.
case in point

No. I lumped you in with the "provides bs excuses for voting for fuckwits" category, because you did just that - provided a couple of the typical bs excuses for voting for fuckwits that it has been my privilege to listen to every single solitary god blessed electoral season on every job and in every bar conversation in which the subject comes up.

Those are the excuses we get from the gun vote crowd to justify their key role in the election and re-election of Reagan, W&Cheney, Michelle Bachmann, John Kline, Tim Pawlenty, Norm Coleman, Chip Cravaack, ad nausdeum, and I'm just staying local Minnesota - votes and voters I know personally, gun voter influence I know to have been significant in the results. It seems to be even worse elsewhere.

The fact that the people handing me these excuses, the gun voters that have so damaged American politics these past thirty or forty years, usually have much common cause with the crowd they think they are voting against (which in its own reality fringe probably would be just as damaging if they had as much specific support and effect, but they don't) is why I think we're stuck, for the time being. If thirty years of common cause has culminated in gridlock like this, let it be for a while. Yanking on this shoelace will not untie it.

and now you are saying I misread that TCS at the top? and this is a "tell"?
okee dokee

I hate to bust your bubble, but that directly refutes your comment

which was not personally directed, btw, so taking it personally is what we call in the trade a "tell".

as well as this little ditty

And we see once again - for the fiftieth time or more - the obliviousness of the gridlock guys to their own ignorance, arrogance, and presumption in assigning history and circumstance and opinion and a whole raft of idiotic stereotypical characteristics to people they know nothing about (bad neighborhoods lived in? really?)

And?
now it is a crime to live in those places and actually have some experience there?
I know you likely feel that because this is the internet, everyone is a liar... and that is good caution. But there is no "idiotic stereotypical characteristics" in what I said. only what I have personally experienced.

like it or not

and it is not really important. Now that I know where you are coming from, we can avoid your haughty demeanor, snide innuendo, smug enmity (from lack of experience? what?) and air of superiority and get down to brass tacks.

And yes, I am being acerbic and unpleasant intentionally. It is rather unintelligent to post a reply to TCS and then denigrate me but then backpedal and say... "which was not personally directed, btw, so taking it personally is what we call in the trade a "tell".

If I made a mistake... tell me. I can be man enough to admit my mistakes publicly. And if you don't believe me, ask someone who knows me or visit PO... I have publicly admitted fault a number of times... shouldn't be hard to find. But telling me it is my fault for feeling persecuted and/or offended when you have specifically directed hostility at me is rather ... well... stupid.

Gun ownership is a Constitutional right that needs no justifications, but the continual attempts to deny that it has any are nevertheless threats

Please clarify this: deny that it needs no justification?
what do you specifically mean?

Gun ownership is a Constitutional right that needs no justifications, but the continual attempts to deny that it has any are nevertheless threats- and they close off major avenues of agreement: the laws and enforcement we need would be designed to avoid damaging the legitimate employments of guns. For that, one must recognize them. So no progress in accountability for irresponsible gun ownership lies in that direction.

Yes, you are correct in the last part of that, but you seem to forget that we already have laws that are designed to avoid damaging the legitimate employment of guns while giving a means of promoting safety through responsibility.

I think the problem that you are circling is that you want safety to be mandatory by law and that there should be forced safety courses for gun owners.

and I see a particular fatal flaw in that outlook based upon actual situations and reality: automobiles. We have mandatory licensing requirements etc, but that has not really changed the safety of motoring in the us... the major changes have come from the automakers themselves building in safety to the vehicle.

THIS is something that I can get behind and promote will full vigor. We can make something like that work (perhaps biometric devices that only allow owners to fire weapons).
There are a lot of possibilities, but that will only come when lawmakers stop being retarded about the owners and start telling the makers to change things... pretty much like what happened with automobiles, right?

There might be some people who will disagree that it is a good idea. And they might have a valid argument. I would like to hear some arguments against mandatory safety for the gun makers ... Other than cost. Cost was an issue with automobiles as well, but that is also a fact of life and something that is unavoidable IMHO... so not a real issue.

would you care to give feedback, Iceaura?
or am i permanently on your poopy list?

 

[Bells]

Running away from the figures I posted?
like about undefined/realitycheck?
i know a lot about him...

Why do you keep bringing him up?

The issue we and other internet forums have been having with him go back years. You are very new here. How you believe you know a lot about him and this forum is a tad strange.

and as i have stated about those figures regarding "stats of guns being taken from you"
do those stats include trained individuals?
what levels of training are those who's weapons have been taken from them and killed them?
Your "stats" don't call that out...
and how can I be running from any figures if
this essentially means that you can make up any number you want and it must be true right?


i am not avoiding arguments about figures.
that argument was going nowhere
I was ignoring what I perceived to be a long drawn out discourse with a troll bent on baiting

See, this is interesting. Really interesting.

But what is really interesting is the fact that you have tried to misrepresent figures. Now, there are a few explanations for this. You either have a reading comprehension issue or you did not understand what you were presenting and the misrepresentation you made about what I had linked (which you stated you hadn't read, but just looked at the picture you then went on to misrepresent - you tried to claim it was for a year, when it was clearly for over a 30 year period). Not least of which the fact that you have tried to ignore and blather away the fact that gun violence and gun deaths dropped dramatically with gun restrictions and the facts as linked in studies that I provided, that there is a clear link in more gun deaths and more gun violence the more guns there are. In other words, the more prevalent firearms are, the higher the gun violence and gun death rates will be. And States with gun restrictions have fewer gun related deaths. Gee, what a surprise there.

But what is absolutely interesting, in a perverse way, is the way in which you tried to make the argument that Americans should not rely on the police and that they should use guns because they need them for every contingency - which is frankly an absurd argument in and of itself. However what was most absurd was your argument that Australia had two mass killings after gun restrictions were in place.. Over a period of nearly 20 years and your attempt to blather that this was apparently a clear indication that gun restrictions did not work here (despite the obscenely low gun related deaths in Australia compared to the obscenely high figures in the US that you are trying to ignore). You appear to be dishonest enough to try to make such an argument despite the clear and distinct fact that more guns have resulted in more deaths in the US and the fact that gun restrictions have seen a drop in gun violence and gun deaths where they were applied in the US.

Not to mention all of your repeated talk of responsibility when you post in a very violent way (such as your "Killary" comments) with distinct language that is often used by gun advocates to promote the image of killing people like Hilary Clinton and at times, they directly threaten her (and by using terms like "Killary", you aren't that far behind). So I wonder, how responsible are you?

You are certainly free to run and hide from the very figures you posted which clearly show how wrong you are. That is your choice. But seeing how you are misrepresenting the arguments presented by others here, even those who are gun rights advocates, I don't hold my breath for much honesty from you in any regard.

 

[Write4U]

I don't quite understand the entire argument on both sides. One side believes personal guns should be strictly regulated and certain weapons should be outlawed, while the other side argues as if anyone is trying to outlaw all guns completely.

Both sides need to calm down and look at this issue from a narrower. more realistic viewpoint.

Is anyone here arguing to outlaw all guns?
Is anyone here arguing that the BOR allows a person to buy a fully automatic large caliber mounted machine gun or a truck mounted auto-cannon, or a tank? How about a mortar? How about explosive ammo? How about small guided missiles?

If not, then let us discuss at what point a "personal" gun for hunting, target shooting, or self defense, becomes a weapon of mass destruction which has no practical use for any of these activities, but is specifically designed for warfare and mass killing. IMO, there has to be a common sense restriction on heavy military weapons at some point.

IMO, this would be more productive than this clash of totally opposing views, which does not exist in reality.

 

[iceaura]

Now that I know where you are coming from,

No, you don't. At least, unless you're just pulling my chain by pretending to get everything wrong.

If I made a mistake... tell me.

Already did. Several times. Doesn't do any good - you can't get that straight either. It's hopeless - you've got a set of presumptions, and that's what you read.

For example:

now it is a crime to live in those places and actually have some experience there?

I said nothing even remotely like that.

What I said was: It's an arrogant and oblivious mistake to presume other people haven't, when you don't know jack shit about their lives. Which you did. Do you realize how much of your posting here consists of making assertions about other people's lives and opinions and so forth in complete ignorance? What are the odds you'll be on target, by luck, do you think?

Like this:

I think the problem that you are circling is that you want safety to be mandatory by law and that there should be forced safety courses for gun owners.

No. I want a couple of laws passed that ensure accountability for irresponsible gun ownership that affects people, and I want the current laws tweaked and enforced reasonably - the consensus of most people in the US, the community standard that merely remains to be enacted. That's it. And this

We have mandatory licensing requirements etc, but that has not really changed the safety of motoring in the us.

overlooks the fact that accountability for irresponsible car management is defined and enforced in great detail - from speed laws to DWI to lights and brakes - and the safety gain is obvious.

I started discussing with others in the thread about a bear situation (one that bricks would not help with) it seemed to make you angry with me.

No, it didn't "seem" like anything of the kind. You got the brick business wrong, in a particularly revealing way - another tell, btw - because you didn't pay attention to what I actually posted. But you keep bringing the fool tangent up, it's important to you, so:

What I posted was that I have no real objection to guys packing handguns on canoe camping trips (as long as I don't have to carry them) - they're useless weight, but the exercise is beneficial and they do little harm (I don't camp with anyone who would just shoot things because the gun was available, although that type is common. As a rule those guys won't go anywhere or do anything without a gas engine and beer anyway). The fantasy of fighting off angry wolves and bears is mildly amusing, but generally harmless - it might occasionally lead to a mama bear getting shot for her threat display, but the odds are low and there are plenty of bears (and if she takes her pain out on the shooter, well karma's a bitch). Where you get the notion that I'm angry about something there I have no idea, but the source is your imagination - and that's the first I've "discussed" this matter you keep bringing up for some reason. Enough already - it's only tangently relevant to the thread.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Why do you keep bringing him up?

example
you two share some traits IMHO

The issue we and other internet forums have been having with him go back years. You are very new here. How you believe you know a lot about him and this forum is a tad strange.

i said i know about him, that is not strange
i never claimed omniscient knowledge of this forum. Quit putting lies into my mouth, thanks

although I do know quite a bit about him and some interesting tidbits about this forum as well due to recent exposure and experiences- shared on other sites as well as input from other historical arguments etc

See, this is interesting. Really interesting
But what is really interesting is the fact that you have tried to misrepresent figures..

how so?
you keep saying that.

Now, there are a few explanations for this. You either have a reading comprehension issue or you did not understand what you were presenting and the misrepresentation you made about what I had linked (which you stated you hadn't read, but just looked at the picture you then went on to misrepresent - you tried to claim it was for a year, when it was clearly for over a 30 year period).

please link this comment
Be specific about the link and show the quote, please
I can't find the comment where I claim a year but it clearly showed a 30 year period... thanks

Not least of which the fact that you have tried to ignore and blather away the fact that gun violence and gun deaths dropped dramatically with gun restrictions and the facts as linked in studies that I provided, that there is a clear link in more gun deaths and more gun violence the more guns there are. In other words, the more prevalent firearms are, the higher the gun violence and gun death rates will be. And States with gun restrictions have fewer gun related deaths. Gee, what a surprise there.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_brady_bill.html
http://www.guncite.com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf

But what is absolutely interesting, in a perverse way, is the way in which you tried to make the argument that Americans should not rely on the police and that they should use guns because they need them for every contingency - which is frankly an absurd argument in and of itself.

please produce where I have stated this.
I will argue that we need firearms for protection because the police are not always available when you need them
I will argue that it is more cost effective to carry a gun than a cop
I will argue that it is cheaper on taxes to protect yourself
I will argue that police should not be your ONLY options... but never that they should not be relied upon at all.
you are right... it is an absurd argument, and it is also totally fabricated by you as well

Police are a valuable asset, but they are not omnipresent, nor omniscient. You must take consideration for your own safety in the means that you need to based upon your training as well as comfort level (be it firearm, or whatever)

I would never be anti-police, so don't try to put those words in my mouth. (anti corruption or corrupt police, yes, but not anti-police)

However what was most absurd was your argument that Australia had two mass killings after gun restrictions were in place.. Over a period of nearly 20 years and your attempt to blather that this was apparently a clear indication that gun restrictions did not work here (despite the obscenely low gun related deaths in Australia compared to the obscenely high figures in the US that you are trying to ignore).

My assertion was that gun restrictions have not stopped violent crime nor killing or shooting deaths.
there is a difference.
If your gun laws were so effective, how did those mass shootings occur after the enactment of such strict laws?
you keep pestering me on my belief that heavy restrictions will only insure that criminals will have guns... now justify your belief that your blanket gun removal has eliminated mass killings, which was your original comment

So gun restrictions came into place. No one was allowed to own a gun for personal protection. Farmers could own guns and it is restricted in that you have to undergo all sorts of checks. Sports shooters are in the same boats, as are hunters. But people could no longer just walk into a gun store and buy whatever they wanted. And we have yet to have a mass shooting since then. And that was nearly 20 years ago. We don't see it as a right. We see it as an absolute privileged if you happen to need a gun.

now... call me whatever you wish, but when you say "and we have yet to have a mass shooting since then" but it is not true, then you can either call that a mistake (which I pointed out) or you can call it a blatant lie, which I am thinking is more likely the truth of the matter especially concerning your behavior since then.

I like disagreement as it can open the mind to new ideas, and it is good that you don't like guns... that is your prerogative. I tried to point out that the core problem is still not addressed even in your country. Mass killers have still killed with guns (as PROVEN despite your claims) and they have also switched methods to other worse ways. which was MY POINT. (along with the whole fact that the core problem was not addressed)

so... either you made a mistake and can't be adult enough to admit it, or you lied and are trying to backpedal by distraction and denigration?
it is a nasty game... I would rather go on to more productive posts, but since you brought it up...

and let me add a bit about dismissing your links... I said

sorry. But until I can see hard numbers on this, I am dismissing your links other than your studies. I will review those when I have more time... and then compare them to the DOJ statistics.

should I also throw the rest of that conversation in there? it is where you fallaciously claim that I mistook 30 years for one, if I am reading it all correctly.
or is this your assertion of misrepresentation?
be specific... thanks

You appear to be dishonest enough to try to make such an argument despite the clear and distinct fact that more guns have resulted in more deaths in the US and the fact that gun restrictions have seen a drop in gun violence and gun deaths where they were applied in the US.

I base my arguments on personal experience and studies like below
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_brady_bill.html
http://www.guncite.com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf

Not to mention all of your repeated talk of responsibility when you post in a very violent way (such as your "Killary" comments) with distinct language that is often used by gun advocates to promote the image of killing people like Hilary Clinton and at times, they directly threaten her (and by using terms like "Killary", you aren't that far behind). So I wonder, how responsible are you?

i have met her on the job. I don't like her. nor will I pretend to like her. I don't have to... it is personal... and i can call her whatever I wish. my point about her still stands and I will continue to stand against her personally due to our past.
She is very anti-gun and a hypocrite, and I don't like her.
if you don't like that... tough

and I have never advocated killing her, nor can you produce anything showing that I have...

you can lump me in with whomever you wish. don't care.
you will do it regardless.

You are certainly free to run and hide from the very figures you posted which clearly show how wrong you are. That is your choice.

and you can see that there are conflicting reports linked above

But seeing how you are misrepresenting the arguments presented by others here, even those who are gun rights advocates, I don't hold my breath for much honesty from you in any regard.

you mean like your honesty above?
pot/kettle: you learn that one from RC?

 

[sculptor]

It must be the Miller case.

Entertaining anecdote:

When the army introduced that ugly toy m16 which had the annoying habit of jamming just when that was exactly what you wouldn't want.
A lot of the guys wrote home asking dad, mom, their brother, uncle, or whoever to send them a shotgun with double aught. They then promptly cut down the barrels, so, oddly enough, sawed off shotguns were indeed used in military engagements.
Go figure

lol

 

[sculptor]

Great idea, but unenforceable - how do you know for certain if someone is carrying their gun with a round chambered? Do you stop everyone you see with a gun and inspect it? What about revolvers?

It isn't something that needs to be law... it's something that is common sense... the problem isn't the regulation or the firearm... the problem is the people. People, in general, seem to be getting dumber and dumber by the decade... common sense has gone by the wayside.

Think about it - even fifty years ago, did you EVER see someone hold a firearm like this:

Or how about this gem...

No... the problem isn't the gun... the problem is the people.

The m14 was worth less and less on full auto. Some guys claimed that it was a tad less inaccurate on full auto if held sideways.
Personally, I never tried this. How in hell could you actually hit what you wanted to holding the weapon like that?
If it ain't one shot one kill, I ain't particularly interested in it

 

[billvon]

I don't quite understand the entire argument on both sides. One side believes personal guns should be strictly regulated and certain weapons should be outlawed, while the other side argues as if anyone is trying to outlaw all guns completely. Both sides need to calm down and look at this issue from a narrower. more realistic viewpoint.

Agreed. The vast majority of Americans are pretty moderate - they support private gun ownership, but also want to see stronger (and better enforced) gun laws.

 

[sculptor]

Agreed. The vast majority of Americans are pretty moderate - they support private gun ownership, but also want to see stronger (and better enforced) gun laws.

The crazy, and I do mean CRAZY thing is, according to the above referenced supreme court ruling(see trooper's post).
Military type weapons, in the hands of civilians, are the ones protected by the constitution.

 

[Bells]

example
you two share some traits IMHO

the ONLY point of RELIGION is to segregate and CONTROL

there is NO OTHER PURPOSE that religion serves... and there is a difference between a faith and a religion
a faith is a belief in something without empirical data or evidence proving it
a RELIGION, on the other hand, is the dogmatic institution that segregates those who follow the rules with those who do NOT

religion is used for CONTROL of others PERIOD
there is NO OTHER PURPOSE than to CONTROL what you think, do, believe, act upon and more... and to prove it, you simply have to look at Christianity and the many factions therein, from catholocism to the snake handling pentacostal whom all technically believe in the same thing, but different versions/dogma/tenet/philosophy (or religions)

The system does NOT WORK. It has been PROVEN NOT TO WORK. that is why THESE COMPLAINT THREADS have been allowed by Admin, so that the complaints CAN BE aired in open forum and no longer buried or framed 'in a back room' by those very troll-mods responsible for all the complaints.

If you STILL don't understand this patent fact, and again default to HIDING BEHIND 'the rules' that HAVE FAILED MISERABLY already (or we wouldn't be having any of these conversations!), then you have already lost the plot and are of no use whatsoever to anyone, let alone the VICTIMS of systemic failures that have led to all this.

I went back through your posts and Undefined posts. And I literally clicked on a random one from each of you.. Which one is yours and which one is Undefined? Frankly, the manner of posting is interchangeable. From sentence structure and the manner in which you both rely on upper case and the manner in which you deliberately misrepresent people's posts and arguments..

Now, it will be fairly obvious based on the topics being discussed, but as I noted to my colleagues earlier today, the similarities are astounding, as are a few other little tidbits that have cropped up, such as you both mentioning each other out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever. Undefined, the little sociopath that he is, spent quite a bit of time making sure we understood just how much he hated you and you him, saying how you had gone after him on another site. And here you are, mentioning him out of the blue first in relation to Fraggle's post to you and now me. A member that you supposedly know little or nothing about on this site or how he related to this site.

i said i know about him, that is not strange
i never claimed omniscient knowledge of this forum. Quit putting lies into my mouth, thanks

I'm not.. "thanks".

At one point, you seemed to be complaining that Undefined would have been warned for trolling and Fraggle was not:

Perhaps he doesn't. But that is not an excuse, especially for a moderator.
Lets look at this from another POV
had this been Undefined/RealityCHeck posting the comment in this thread, it would definitely be called trolling by all parties. even some of his friends.

although I do know quite a bit about him and some interesting tidbits about this forum as well due to recent exposure and experiences- shared on other sites as well as input from other historical arguments etc

Of course you do...

And here you were arguing that you don't really know much about this site. Which is it to be?

See, I've been posting here for ummm nearly 12 years or so now. And there is something that always stands out with posters, especially the psycho's like Undefined/Reality Check. Being the stupid narcissists that he is, he always thinks he's very clever and can rarely be caught. But the issue is that people rarely notice how they post. Sure, they can drop the upper-case at the start of sentences when they remember to, but the one thing that remains constant is that they always revert back to how they have always posted, until someone comments on it, and they immediately change how they post. One of the other things is the fact that they always mention the other, without fail, in some way, shape or form. Even when (such as in this thread), they have nothing to do with the discussion at all.

Funny that, isn't it, Stumpy?

how so?
you keep saying that.

please link this comment
Be specific about the link and show the quote, please
I can't find the comment where I claim a year but it clearly showed a 30 year period... thanks

I posted a link to a Mother Jones article, which had the image of a graph in it. You responded, claimed it was incorrect and false because it did not match what you had found on Wiki.. What you had found on Wiki was for one year. The graph on the Mother Jones article was a compilation for over 30 years, which was clearly stated in the article.

Mostly because I see some fallacies on one particular link... your chart here

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ths-fact-check

shows that illinois is far down the ladder in gun deaths, and gun ownership... but looking at the DOJ rankings which are linked through WIKI here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...tates_by_state

you can see the numbers more clearly: lets take two extreme's from YOUR chart: Arkansas and Illinois

According to your mother jones site, http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png

Illinois is towards the bottom of the gun deaths and has fewer guns than Arkansas....
then we look at the DOJ chart on Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...tates_by_state

state populat pop Murd- Gun Gun Murder Gun
density ers Mrdr ownrsp per 100,000 tr per 100,000
Arkansas 2,915,918 56.43 130 93 55.3% 4.5 3.2
Illinois 12,830,632 231.9 453 364 20.2% 3.5 2.8

Your mj chart makes places like california, new york, new jersy, florida and illinois seem idyllic, but the reciprocal is the truth. I've been to each and every state, and there are some very hostile places in all states, but according to your list, there are not that many in CA... (yeah, right... like walkin in LA is just another moonlit stroll through the arms of love)

sorry. But until I can see hard numbers on this, I am dismissing your links other than your studies. I will review those when I have more time... and then compare them to the DOJ statistics.

Just to reiterate. The graph in the Mother Jones article was for over a 30 year period. What you linked and quoted was for one year. From the Mother Jones article:

A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

Emphasis mine.. From the wiki site you linked and cited when you tried to claim that was wrong because they did not match what you linked from wiki, the figures you linked were for a year by year basis, not a compilation of 30 years, so of course, the two would not be the same and not fall in the same place on the graph, because the DOJ figures you were linking from wiki were only for one year, whereas the one from the CDC and cited on Mother Jones was a 30 year compilation.

So I'll ask again, do you need me to explain the differences to you and why your figure for one year cannot be exactly the same as what was represented for a 30 year graph?

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_brady_bill.html
http://www.guncite.com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf

So you link from these very very pro-gun sites which state what exactly? The JAMA article they link to is dated. The one I provided was much more recent. Also, they weren't really about what I had linked or discussed.. sooooo...

please produce where I have stated this.
I will argue that we need firearms for protection because the police are not always available when you need them
I will argue that it is more cost effective to carry a gun than a cop
I will argue that it is cheaper on taxes to protect yourself
I will argue that police should not be your ONLY options... but never that they should not be relied upon at all.
you are right... it is an absurd argument, and it is also totally fabricated by you as well

Police are a valuable asset, but they are not omnipresent, nor omniscient. You must take consideration for your own safety in the means that you need to based upon your training as well as comfort level (be it firearm, or whatever)

I would never be anti-police, so don't try to put those words in my mouth. (anti corruption or corrupt police, yes, but not anti-police)

I never said you were anti-police. What I did clearly say is what you just reiterated about what you "will argue".

Secondly, the argument that a) you need to be able to have guns to ensure you are covered because b) you cannot have a police officer with you at all times is rubbish. Because your argument is pretty much you having the belief that you can take the law into your own hands.

My assertion was that gun restrictions have not stopped violent crime nor killing or shooting deaths.
there is a difference.
If your gun laws were so effective, how did those mass shootings occur after the enactment of such strict laws?
you keep pestering me on my belief that heavy restrictions will only insure that criminals will have guns... now justify your belief that your blanket gun removal has eliminated mass killings, which was your original comment

We've had 2 in around 20 years since then. You've had how many? I stopped counting the mass shootings you had this year alone when it was approaching the 100 mark. For this year alone and we haven't reached the end of the year yet.

Are you really going to try to argue that 2 in 20 years is not successful in comparison to the free for all mass shootings you seem to have on a weekly basis in the US? The gun laws you touted as being "excellent":

We have excellent laws... look up your state statistics. find out how many felons applied for a firearm and then how many were refused,,, and how many were prosecuted.

Are an absolute failure because of the fact that between 1999 and 2011, you had nearly 400,000 gun deaths. We had less than 3500 in that time.

Based on those figures alone, I'd say our gun laws are pretty damn near "excellent" when compared to the train wreck that you have in the US.

now... call me whatever you wish, but when you say "and we have yet to have a mass shooting since then" but it is not true, then you can either call that a mistake (which I pointed out) or you can call it a blatant lie, which I am thinking is more likely the truth of the matter especially concerning your behavior since then.

I did acknowledge it and I said, so we had 2 in 20 years (several times).. Perhaps you could read and comprehend?

I like disagreement as it can open the mind to new ideas, and it is good that you don't like guns... that is your prerogative. I tried to point out that the core problem is still not addressed even in your country. Mass killers have still killed with guns (as PROVEN despite your claims) and they have also switched methods to other worse ways. which was MY POINT. (along with the whole fact that the core problem was not addressed)

so... either you made a mistake and can't be adult enough to admit it, or you lied and are trying to backpedal by distraction and denigration?
it is a nasty game... I would rather go on to more productive posts, but since you brought it up...

As I noted before, I did say we had 2 in the 20 years or so since we had the restrictions put in place. Repeatedly. So perhaps you could explain why you are now saying that I have not?

and let me add a bit about dismissing your links... I said
should I also throw the rest of that conversation in there? it is where you fallaciously claim that I mistook 30 years for one, if I am reading it all correctly.
or is this your assertion of misrepresentation?
be specific... thanks

Already handled and linked above, thanks.

Care to explain how you made this blatant error and why you are still trying to deny it?

I base my arguments on personal experience and studies like below
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_brady_bill.html
http://www.guncite.com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf

And you whined that I referred to Mother Jones?

i have met her on the job. I don't like her. nor will I pretend to like her. I don't have to... it is personal... and i can call her whatever I wish. my point about her still stands and I will continue to stand against her personally due to our past.
She is very anti-gun and a hypocrite, and I don't like her.
if you don't like that... tough

and I have never advocated killing her, nor can you produce anything showing that I have...

"Killary"

Enough said.

you can lump me in with whomever you wish. don't care.
you will do it regardless.

and you can see that there are conflicting reports linked above

The reports you linked weren't even about the same thing. Which once again points to a clear comprehension issue.

you mean like your honesty above?
pot/kettle: you learn that one from RC?

There you go mentioning him again..

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Funny that, isn't it, Stumpy?

so you think I am RC?
pretty funny, actually...

easy enough to check
ask the admin to check my IP and verify that I am not RC or in Aus
i don't use an anonymizer.

& I don't live in Australia.

You, however...?

p.s. sometimes i forget to capitalize. i have large fingers. call it a personal quirk and deal with it

I posted a link to a Mother Jones article, which had the image of a graph in it. You responded, claimed it was incorrect and false because it did not match what you had found on Wiki.. What you had found on Wiki was for one year. The graph on the Mother Jones article was a compilation for over 30 years, which was clearly stated in the article.

Ok. I see what happened there now.
I made a mistake. I apologize for that.

I still stand by the comments about living in cali, etc however.
and I do think that the graph is not accurate, but until I can find proof of that, all I can say is that it does not seem right to me - especially based upon personal experience.
If I can verify that, I will

Until then, apologies for the misread. That is my mistake

Also, they weren't really about what I had linked or discussed.. sooooo...

I found them to be exactly about what you were talking about.
you said

In other words, the more prevalent firearms are, the higher the gun violence and gun death rates will be. And States with gun restrictions have fewer gun related deaths. Gee, what a surprise there.

and the studies that I linked found no correlation in the US between the restrictive Brady Bill laws and the drop in crime or firearm deaths

Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within states that were required to institute waiting periods and back-ground checks, implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rate

Seems VERY relevant to your claims.
You claim states with gun restrictions have fewer gun related deaths, and the study said that the restrictions that were implemented and designed in the law to do exatly that were not found to affect the overall rate of killing except suicide for persons 55 or older.

I never said you were anti-police. What I did clearly say is what you just reiterated about what you "will argue".

Ok. let me re-state for clarity
Yes, I will argue that you need to be able to defend yourself from criminals when there are no police.

this is not a rubbish argument, it is one of personal safety out of necessity and one that has been needed in the past
so the part where you state

you cannot have a police officer with you at all times is rubbish. Because your argument is pretty much you having the belief that you can take the law into your own hands.

is itself absurd in its inference that somehow my life or my families safety/life is not worth protecting

When I defend myself, I defend as needed based upon my training
I am not trying to be the Punnisher (c), I am trying to insure that I have the opportunity to do what I want with life.
A criminal who wishes to violate my rights will have to contend with that.

Although I do feel that everyone should have their day in court, I also am very practical in that: If a person is blatantly violating the law and is attempting to take my life, then I have every right to defend myself.
Nowhere is it said that I should stand there and allow any criminal to take advantage of me. This is also only reinforcing their illegal behavior.

IF a criminal makes a decision to commit a crime, it is not usually a matter of a well thought out plan. It is more likely to be spontaneous or decided through a percieved weakness in the victim. If it gets violent, it is usually because the offender has a history of violence. If it gets deadly it is usually because the offender has a history of escalation to and or deadly attempts.

Based upon this it is the right of anyone to defend themselves with the requisite force needed to subdue or stop the crime/criminal. My training is the use of equal force for reprisal (you don't call in an airstrike for a kid throwing rocks at your tank)

This is a logical deduction, IMHO, based upon my experience in the various places I have lived as well as the various situations I have been in as well as the law I have read.

It is not a matter of taking the law into my own hands, because I know full well that my actions will result in an investigation and that I will have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that I felt the force used was required.

this is a matter of LAW. Even a self defense case requires a detailed investigation, and if the person defending themselves is highly trained, then the investigation is actually much more involved. it is a matter of law and order, and it is detailed in federal, state and local statutes in the united states.

On a federal level, self defense is legal only in response to "An affirmative, unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences."

supported by the following case law
http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/united-states-v-peterson-483-f-2d-1222-dc-circuit-1973/

The definition of legal self defense on a state level often varies significantly from this definition and from other states, but each state makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force

you can see the above quotes spelled out on WIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

this is readily available, and though you may not appreciate Wiki, it also provides links to studies and case law in the article for your perusal

(Perhaps you can tell everyone how accurate the wiki link for Aus is? make corrections as needed)

so it is not an absurd assumption, nor is it an absurd argument, because the right to self protection and self preservation is a fundamental right and is hard wired by nature.

Are you really going to try to argue that 2 in 20 years is not successful in comparison to the free for all mass shootings you seem to have on a weekly basis in the US? The gun laws you touted as being "excellent":

... re: excellent gun laws: as well as mostly ignored and unsupported

i have also said that we have excellent laws if we were able to put enforcement into them.

My state has had more than 13 repeat offenders with violent criminal pasts and felonies arrested for violent crimes, including a shooting this year. (I am sticking to cases that I personally know of right now. there are obviously more and this can be verified by DOJ stats: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31 )
those criminals are back on the street today - some after only being incarcerated for less than 9 months

One threatened an entire family with death, burning them out, tried to shoot one member of the family and tried to attack another with a machete. He is out after only 3 days in county jail because he flipped on a pot smoker who had ten plants.
This man lives near enough for a European to walk to my house and I have escorted him off my property before. He is mentally unstable and is on anti-psychotic medication which he regularly abuses then stops. He also owns firearms (illegal as he is a felon). The police know this but cannot do anything about it because he is protected as a narc by the prosecuting atty's.

now THIS is a travesty of justice. and this is something worth fighting about.
This is something that addresses the core problem as well.
it is something that I fight against continually around here.

like I said. we DO have excellent laws. and a lot of times those laws are not enforced like they should be. and sometimes we have idiots protected by higher ups who want something from them so they get a free pass.

THAT is the core problem that I see here in the US
not THAT we have guns
but that we have people who cannot, or will not enforce the laws that we already have in order to protect the public

I did acknowledge it and I said, so we had 2 in 20 years (several times).. Perhaps you could read and comprehend?

you got your panties in a wad because I corrected you and now you are out for long-winded revenge.
i showed you where I felt people were coming from when you asked

So why are people against such restrictions?

you obviously don't like it because you actually said

Also, they weren't really about what I had linked or discussed.. sooooo...

but they were about exactly what we were talking about.


where to go from there?


EDIT:

Undefined, the little sociopath that he is, spent quite a bit of time making sure we understood just how much he hated you and you him, saying how you had gone after him on another site. And here you are, mentioning him out of the blue first in relation to Fraggle's post to you and now me. A member that you supposedly know little or nothing about on this site or how he related to this site.

I don't hate him. I just don't like his BS
I've actually been using quite a lot of his posts on a project I am working on.

and I DON'T know Fraggle
and he has never chosen to share anything with me

 

[Kittamaru]

I hate saying it Stumpy... but in the "eyes of the law", your hands are tied in dealing with that crackpot. It's a shame that a plea-bargain is something that is even offered in any kind of violent crime, makes no sense to me.

 

[pjdude1219]

I find it interesting that all the people harping on being responsible gun owners and you are all so very responsible not a single one of you called out sculpters comment about how he be willing to commit a crime with his gun shooting a mugger in the back. That the problem so many "responsible gun owners" only care about being responsible only up until it's time to actually be responsible than unsurprising your no shows

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I hate saying it Stumpy... but in the "eyes of the law", your hands are tied in dealing with that crackpot. It's a shame that a plea-bargain is something that is even offered in any kind of violent crime, makes no sense to me.

yeah... every time the law comes out here i get told that very same thing
"there is nothing I can do"

One cop actually suggested I allow him to enter my home during one of his rants and just shoot him.
take care if everyone's problem

But my grand-kids live next door (well... within 250 meters anyway)
not something that I want them to have to live with.

 

[sculptor]

I find it interesting that all the people harping on being responsible gun owners and you are all so very responsible not a single one of you called out sculpters comment about how he be willing to commit a crime with his gun shooting a mugger in the back. That the problem so many "responsible gun owners" only care about being responsible only up until it's time to actually be responsible than unsurprising your no shows

I have the right to defend myself. I have a civic responsibility.
If someone comes into my house armed and threatens my life and I do not respond then I am responsible for the next poor individual he assaults(sin of omission). Added to the which, once he gets rewarded for threatening and robbing me, he is more likely to come back. Upon that return, he may very well kill me or one of my family.
When you add in personal safety, and civic responsibility, then reducing or removing the menace becomes the only morally correct decision!