If people would stop shaking they would have better gun control and would at least hit the target.

I think if the government tried to take the guns away from citizens there would be a revolt the likes of which they had never seen before. The shit would hit the fan in a major way.

Everyone has an opinion about this but the bottom line is that people kill, guns don't. I like the argument about drunk drivers & cars the best.

President Barack Obama will "evaluate" new legislation that effectively bans online sales of gun ammunition, but he wouldn't say whether the president could support it.

Story

(07-31-2012, 10:48 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: #2) I've never heard of one instance where someone with a CCW was nearby and thwarted one of these crimes. Too bad. In theory it sounds wonderful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian...w_shooting

(07-31-2012, 11:02 AM)Jimbone Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 10:48 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: #2) I've never heard of one instance where someone with a CCW was nearby and thwarted one of these crimes. Too bad. In theory it sounds wonderful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian...w_shooting

Jim, I appreciate your enthusiam, but, to me, it looks like the perpetrator had already committed his acts by the time 2 off-duty cops got ahold of him. If they'd been in the wrong place at the wrong time, they would've been dead, too, as their weapons were actually in another location.

(07-31-2012, 10:53 AM)Duchess Wrote: Everyone has an opinion about this but the bottom line is that people kill, guns don't. I like the argument about drunk drivers & cars the best.

It's actually a great comparative, because the number of deaths per year are just about the same for impaired drivers vs. guns.

The difference is that somehow impaired driving gets a pass, but gun violence demands more and more legislation and calls for bans. Cars are far more dangerous statistically than guns - they kill and wound more people than guns in fact. Where is the call to ban cars?

Selective moral outrage is a funny thing, ain't it?

(07-31-2012, 11:11 AM)Jimbone Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 10:53 AM)Duchess Wrote: Everyone has an opinion about this but the bottom line is that people kill, guns don't. I like the argument about drunk drivers & cars the best.

It's actually a great comparative, because the number of deaths per year are just about the same for impaired drivers vs. guns.

The difference is that somehow impaired driving gets a pass, but gun violence demands more and more legislation and calls for bans. Cars are far more dangerous statistically than guns - they kill and wound more people than guns in fact. Where is the call to ban cars?

Selective moral outrage is a funny thing, ain't it?

Who says impaired driving gets a pass?

Yeah, let's ban cars. Good one.

And, if you'd really like to sift through the numbers, why don't you find out how many of those drunk driving deaths are the DRUNK killing themselves and their drunk friends who decided to drive with their drunk friend?

Keep trying, though, this is fun.

(07-31-2012, 11:08 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Jim, I appreciate your enthusiam, but, to me, it looks like the perpetrator had already committed his acts by the time 2 off-duty cops got ahold of him. If they'd been in the wrong place at the wrong time, they would've been dead, too, as their weapons were actually in another location.

But they weren't, and he was stopped from continuing, sorry but that counts.

And don't mistake my defense of an opposite position to be enthusiasm. I'm a supporter of the 2^nd amendment, yes - but not without limits. I don't think high capacity magazines are a good idea or necessary. Automatic weapons are already illegal, and that is appropriate. I don't think crazy people should have guns.

But I am not interested in giving up my right have a firearm just so they can't get one. Because the overall point is they will break the law and find a gun somehow. That's the real fallacy of gun laws.

(07-31-2012, 11:27 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Who says impaired driving gets a pass?

Yeah, let's ban cars. Good one.

And, if you'd really like to sift through the numbers, why don't you find out how many of those drunk driving deaths are the DRUNK killing themselves and their drunk friends who decided to drive with their drunk friend?

Keep trying, though, this is fun.

You're not honestly insinuating that the fervor against impaired driving is in any way comparable to the fervor of gun control... or are you?

I don't have to sift through the numbers. I would bet everything you and I own that the number of innocent victims killed by impaired drivers far exceeds the number of innocent victims killed by spree killers who used a gun. EDIT okay, I couldn't help myself... I looked it up. Even with the most conservative look at the data, 1786 people were killed by impaired drivers in just 2009. These 1786 people were non-occupants of the impaired driver's vehicle.

Number of people killed in mass shootings from 2009 through today? You tell me...anywhere near 1786?

And my point was simply that cars are more dangerous than guns. It's a fact. Cars kill and maim more people every year than guns do. People drive those cars. People also shoot those guns. They make choices - sometimes really horrible, indescribable choices - and people die.

Bottom line MS, is people do the killing... there is no escaping that fact.

(07-31-2012, 11:46 AM)Jimbone Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 11:27 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Who says impaired driving gets a pass?

Yeah, let's ban cars. Good one.

And, if you'd really like to sift through the numbers, why don't you find out how many of those drunk driving deaths are the DRUNK killing themselves and their drunk friends who decided to drive with their drunk friend?

Keep trying, though, this is fun.

You're not honestly insinuating that the fervor against impaired driving is in any way comparable to the fervor of gun control... or are you?

I don't have to sift through the numbers. I would bet everything you and I own that the number of innocent victims killed by impaired drivers far exceeds the number of innocent victims killed by spree killers who used a gun. EDIT okay, I couldn't help myself... I looked it up. Even with the most conservative look at the data, 1786 people were killed by impaired drivers in just 2009. These 1786 people were non-occupants of the impaired driver's vehicle.

Number of people killed in mass shootings from 2009 through today? You tell me...anywhere near 1786?

And my point was simply that cars are more dangerous than guns. It's a fact. Cars kill and maim more people every year than guns do. People drive those cars. People also shoot those guns. They make choices - sometimes really horrible, indescribable choices - and people die. Bottom line MS, is people do the killing... there is no escaping that fact.

Yes, a person has to pick up a gun, point it at someone and pull the trigger. I think everyone understands that.

I don't know what numbers you're looking at, but I googled 'annual death by guns in the U.S.' and saw that in 2005 and 2006 there were more than 12,000 homicides committed.

I know 1,786 and 12,000 are pretty close in value if you squint.

BTW, I've never once said anything about BANNING guns.

You guys are so sensitive, it's unbelievable.

There are probably more that live because of a gun than die from them when you consider everything. armed citizen

(07-31-2012, 09:27 AM)Ilyanna Wrote:

(07-29-2012, 11:16 PM)shitstorm Wrote: Here's the deal on Americans' right to bear arms: It's to be able to defend ourselves against tyranny. It's not about hunting and sport, it's about not being a disarmed population when the maniacs in government go out of control and start killing people. History shows that ALL mass murder and genocide is carried out by government. Government is the danger. As long as 'authorities' have weapons, the People must. It's as simple as that.




http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

Interesting approach. So do I understand it correctly that when a population has the right to bear arms, it is able to shake off a tyrannic government? If that is the argument, is there a case where that has happened, or is that just a theory?

Seriously?

YOU'RE LIVING IN IT

(07-31-2012, 12:15 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Yes, a person has to pick up a gun, point it at someone and pull the trigger. I think everyone understands that.

I don't know what numbers you're looking at, but I googled 'annual death by guns in the U.S.' and saw that in 2005 and 2006 there were more than 12,000 homicides committed.

I know 1,786 and 12,000 are pretty close in value if you squint.

Just like an impaired driver has to get in a car, turn on the ignition, and drive it into oncoming traffic.

And wait a second... you wanted to exclude inner city gun homicides and murder/suicides earlier. I thought we were talking about crazy spree killers who use guns. I don't need to squint at anything... you need to pay better attention or decide how you want to frame your arguments consistently.

When looking at innocents killed by spree killers vs. impaired drivers killing innocents, the numbers aren't even close.

And here is where I get my data points, all for 2009.

Impaired driving http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811385.PDF

Firearm homicide http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

(07-31-2012, 12:15 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: You guys are so sensitive, it's unbelievable.

If you think tougher laws are the panacea and the answer, go walk around NWDC at night and see how well those tough gun laws protect you. Or if Chicago is closer do it there.

I'm more sensitive to the fallacy of the logic quite honestly. Tough guns laws have done nothing to stop gun crime. Period.

(07-31-2012, 02:07 PM)Jimbone Wrote:

(07-31-2012, 12:15 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Yes, a person has to pick up a gun, point it at someone and pull the trigger. I think everyone understands that.

I don't know what numbers you're looking at, but I googled 'annual death by guns in the U.S.' and saw that in 2005 and 2006 there were more than 12,000 homicides committed.

I know 1,786 and 12,000 are pretty close in value if you squint.

Just like an impaired driver has to get in a car, turn on the ignition, and drive it into oncoming traffic.

And wait a second... you wanted to exclude inner city gun homicides and murder/suicides earlier. I thought we were talking about crazy spree killers who use guns. I don't need to squint at anything... you need to pay better attention or decide how you want to frame your arguments consistently.

When looking at innocents killed by spree killers vs. impaired drivers killing innocents, the numbers aren't even close.

And here is where I get my data points, all for 2009.

Impaired driving http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811385.PDF

Firearm homicide http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Hopefully, you'll be able to start a movement to get automobiles banned.

And remember, you and Holy Shitstorm are in this together (and she's batshit crazy).

I wanted to exclude inner-city crime because those are usually crimes committed with illegally procured guns. I was talking about gun crime using LEGALLY purchased weapons. Try to remember the points being made.

You're right, however, I should include familial gun crime.

Nice work, though, in deflecting the whole point of my argument: Gun Lovers use the rationale that a killer will kill regardless if there's a gun handy or not.

I say bullshit. They'll think much harder if they have to use something other than a gun (unless it's a poor defenseless child or a wife that they're much bigger than). If their goal is to take out someone their own size, or multiple people, they don't search for a bomb, or a baseball bat, or a steak knife. They get a gun 99% of the time.

You won't acknowledge that. You bring up Stalin and Hitler and other washed up dictators to deflect.

Now we're comparing drunk drivers with cold-blooded murderers. Nice.

Hope you have your weapon with you the next time some lunatic is shooting something up in your area.

Quick, let's pass some legislation on hammer control!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manha...YxnPqNQFKI

Crazy people will use anything to kill and maim, even when they can't get guns.

I'll give you my hammer when you pry it from my cold, dead, man hands!

(07-31-2012, 01:56 PM)shitstorm Wrote: Seriously?

YOU'RE LIVING IN IT

Uh, no, I'm not.

But let me check that again...
¹⁸⁴⁸⁄₄₉ - no right to bear arms.
¹⁹¹⁸⁄₁₉ -no right to bear arms.
1933-45 - no right to bear arms.
1989 - no general right to bear arms.

Heh.

I have several "BLACK" "MILITARY" "STYLE" "ASSAULT" rifles. I also have HIGH CAPACITY magazines.

So far I haven't even come close to wanting to kill people because of the configuration, look and capability of my legally owned and operated firearms.

Maybe somethings wrong with me.

(07-31-2012, 02:30 PM)Duchess Wrote:

I'll give you my hammer when you pry it from my cold, dead, man hands!

Yeah baby...