You opinion on gun ownership?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 19 NEXT
 

LilithSlave:
I think it's a sensible, albeit borderline unreasonable right to own firearms.

Sensible but borderline unreasonable? Is this the artificial intelligence argument about logical but not reasonable? I am not sure what you are trying to say.

What's really messed up, is how it's legal to own firearms, but not drugs. And that people defend this.

Yes that is messed up but unfortunately whenever I talk about the decriminalization of drugs people get pissed about it. However keep in mind that there are people out there who support the criminalization of drugs AND guns.

Furthermore, the type of people who buy firearms in the first place scare me and I'm not sure that I would want them in my home.

Try not to stereotype people. I am a nationally ranked rifle shooter and a graduate student, Eagle Scout. Most people find me to be very polite and well mannered, and if you start hanging out with people in the firearms industry you find out quickly that they are normal people. Then you have people like this- http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44690575/ns/today-today_people/t/chicks-guns-some-million-us-women-pack-heat/ The top picture is actually my favorite.

Sorry, I shouldn't have worded that as such. People who own guns don't necessarily scare me. Only the type of people who really get a kick out of guns, gun specs, and the idea of the damage they can do. The type of people who put footage of themselves shooting guns on youtube while striking tough guy poses.

Those people scare me. And believe me, most of the people I have met who own guns, have acted like that. Wait, probably all of them. I've met a few hundred people who own firearms, and every one of them I have been very uncomfortable around.

farson135:

pyrate:

It is why arguing with any far right wing american is pretty pointless, they do this for everything they argue about. They see the world in a simplified black and white and anything that seems to break their view of the world is wrong, it is simply lies from the liberals. What they fail to understand is that Colbert was absolutely right when he said "reality has a well known liberal bias".

First of all, way to pigeon hole millions of people. I can already see how fruitful discussions with you will be.

Second of all YOU state that the presence of an object is more important than every socio-economic and cultural element present in a society when it comes to determining crime and suicide. It seems more like y'all are taking to more black and white road by stating that firearms equal suicide and crime. That is about as black and white as you can get. Of course I do not expect you to acknowledge this point because doing so would invalidate large portions of your arguments. I would ask you to come up with better arguments but apparently "socio-economic elements are irrelevant" is the best y'all can do.

Third I am a Classical Liberal and my Democratic Senator has an A- rating from the NRA (kind of hurts your ability to pigeon hole millions of people).

Kid, grow up and stop acting so obtuse.

Where has anyone ever stated that a gun is a larger factor then socio-economic and cultural elements. All anyone has done is say that guns are a contributing factor, which is backed up by numerous studies.

This is a perfect example of your black and white view. You see people talking about guns contributing to deaths and you assume that we are putting 100% of the blame on guns because all we want to do is "take your guns away".

LilithSlave:
Sorry, I shouldn't have worded that as such. People who own guns don't necessarily scare me. Only the type of people who really get a kick out of guns, gun specs, and the idea of the damage they can do. The type of people who put footage of themselves shooting guns on youtube while striking tough guy poses.

Those people scare me. And believe me, most of the people I have met who own guns, have acted like that. Wait, probably all of them. I've met a few hundred people who own firearms, and every one of them I have been very uncomfortable around.

I know you do not know me but I am certified gunsmith and I regularly tear down guns and try to get everything I can out of them. One of my goals in life is to get a gun that can effectively hit targets out to a mile and I want to learn how to effectively use it. Then I want to (eventually) take it out to 1 1/4 miles so that I can match the record set by Carlos Hathcock. Then I want to take it out further. I love the idea of taking a machine and forcing it all the way to its limit and expanding my skills along with it. Now after hearing that, would you be worried about me in your house? Look there are people out there who give gun owners a bad name. If out of a few hundred gun owners you have only met the douchebag variety then you are in the wrong place.

tsb247:

pyrate:

It is why arguing with any far right wing american is pretty pointless, they do this for everything they argue about. They see the world in a simplified black and white and anything that seems to break their view of the world is wrong, it is simply lies from the liberals. What they fail to understand is that Colbert was absolutely right when he said "reality has a well known liberal bias".

Kind of the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? Farson135 has raised plenty of valid points, cited just as many (if not more) studies, and you ignore those handily enough yourself.

Colbert is incorrect. Reality is not polarized in any direction.

EDIT: You also seem to have the (false) notion that only conservatives value the Second Amendment in the U.S. That is not necessarily the case either.

EDIT 2: This also looks like a veiled ad hominem i.e. an attack on his character in an attempt to invalidate any and all of his arguments. Way to sink to the lowest level of debate!

He has raised no valid point. The few studies he has cited over and over again have been dismissed in academic circles due to major flaws or bias since they were performed by the pro-gun movement. It is not me dismissing his arguments, it is everyone outside the pro-gun movement.

Reality is polarized towards the centre. The world has knack for balancing itself out and this goes for society as well. Extremes simply do not work, inevitably things find a balance somewhere in the middle.

When you are in America saying that reality has a left-wing bias is correct as the American left is still centre right. As it currently stands, the Republican party are far right, with a focus on nationalism and religious fundamentalism. The only thing that currently separates the Republicans from Fascism is elections.

LilithSlave:
Sorry, I shouldn't have worded that as such. People who own guns don't necessarily scare me. Only the type of people who really get a kick out of guns, gun specs, and the idea of the damage they can do. The type of people who put footage of themselves shooting guns on youtube while striking tough guy poses.

Those people scare me. And believe me, most of the people I have met who own guns, have acted like that. Wait, probably all of them. I've met a few hundred people who own firearms, and every one of them I have been very uncomfortable around.

Sorry you've had that experience. However, in all likelihood, you've met people with guns and just didn't know it. And if you live in any other state than Illinois, you've likely been in public standing next to someone with a concealed weapon.

Personally, I'm interested in specs and the like because I enjoy target shooting.

pyrate:

Where has anyone ever stated that a gun is a larger factor then socio-economic and cultural elements. All anyone has done is say that guns are a contributing factor, which is backed up by numerous studies.

No, y'all have said it is THE factor. Several of y'all have either to the effect of or exactly this (from Technofear)- "especially when simply restricting firearm ownership to those over 25 would drop the homicide rate by over 60%."

In other words firearms are THE cause and by their simple banning you could change homicide rates. Socio-economic and cultural elements be damned. BTW if guns contribute and are not THE driving force then why do you want to restrict them so much? If you acknowledge that socio-economic and cultural elements are far more important than guns then why don't you stop attacking tools that are necessary and useful and start talking about the socio-economic and cultural elements that lead to crime and suicide?

This is a perfect example of your black and white view. You see people talking about guns contributing to deaths and you assume that we are putting 100% of the blame on guns because all we want to do is "take your guns away".

So you are going to put out more bullshit instead of actually arguing something. Technofear stated that if the US started restricted gun ownership then murder would fall and Reonhato has stated several times that BECAUSE Australia had the buyback suicide dropped. Those unequivocal statements completely ignore all socio-economic and cultural elements. In addition no one (including yourself) has answered my very simple questions on the matter. Specifically if suicide is caused by firearms then why is the US suicide rate going down and why, in Australia, has both the gun suicide AND non-gun suicide been going down if GUNS are the cause of high effective suicide?

BTW yes I did notice that you did not provide a "legal definition" for Assault Rifle. Thank you for at least tacitly admitting you were wrong. Let us see if you will answer my questions without stereotyping more people.

He has raised no valid point. The few studies he has cited over and over again have been dismissed in academic circles due to major flaws or bias since they were performed by the pro-gun movement. It is not me dismissing his arguments, it is everyone outside the pro-gun movement.

You may not realize this but you saying something does not make it so. You have yet to show how exactly the Melbourne Institutes study has been disproven or how it is connected to pro-gun groups.

BTW you say I have raised no valid points but you have yet to answer ANY of my very simple questions. If those questions were not valid perhaps you should show why they are not instead of ignoring them because by refusing to answer them you are tacitly admitting you do not have the capability of answering them.

Sorry double post.

farson135:
Now after hearing that, would you be worried about me in your house? Look there are people out there who give gun owners a bad name. If out of a few hundred gun owners you have only met the douchebag variety then you are in the wrong place.

I'm a little bit scared of you, yes.

I don't understand getting a kick out of something as destructive and meant for killing as guns.

LilithSlave:

farson135:
Now after hearing that, would you be worried about me in your house? Look there are people out there who give gun owners a bad name. If out of a few hundred gun owners you have only met the douchebag variety then you are in the wrong place.

I'm a little bit scared of you, yes.

I don't understand getting a kick out of something as destructive and meant for killing as guns.

There's just something about it. The smell of the gunpowder burning, the pride of hitting the target, the sense of community. You know, a lot of people "don't understand getting a kick out of something as girly and meant for children as My Little Pony" but I can deduce by your avatar that you are a fan. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

LilithSlave:

farson135:
Now after hearing that, would you be worried about me in your house? Look there are people out there who give gun owners a bad name. If out of a few hundred gun owners you have only met the douchebag variety then you are in the wrong place.

I'm a little bit scared of you, yes.

I don't understand getting a kick out of something as destructive and meant for killing as guns.

I build my own guns. I decide what they are meant for. My hunting rifles are meant for killing. My target guns are meant for target shooting. Do not make the mistake of thinking that all guns are meant for the same thing. Think about this, the Sykes fighting knife is meant for fighting (unless it was built for the purposes of display). Because of this would you argue that all knives are meant for killing? Of course not because they all have specific purposes. Guns are the same way.

As for the why, because it is fun. I know people who love driving, mountain climbing, surfing, and other such things. They find it fun. I find my hobby fun, rewarding (both mentally and monetarily), and a nice way to challenge myself.

As for being scared of me unless you intend to attack me I do not understand why. But if you feel that way don't worry I will not be coming to your home (wherever you live)

farson135:

So you are going to put out more bullshit instead of actually arguing something. Technofear stated that if the US started restricted gun ownership then murder would fall and Reonhato has stated several times that BECAUSE Australia had the buyback suicide dropped. Those unequivocal statements completely ignore all socio-economic and cultural elements. In addition no one (including yourself) has answered my very simple questions on the matter. Specifically if suicide is caused by firearms then why is the US suicide rate going down and why, in Australia, has both the gun suicide AND non-gun suicide been going down if GUNS are the cause of high effective suicide?

it is a stupid question. why is suicide as a whole going down, because there are multiple factors, no one has denied that. the key is that over and over again it has been found that gun suicide has gone down massively and it has saved lives. not everyone who no longer has easy access to shoot themselves goes on to try another method, and that is why it reduces suicide. hell you admitted it, when i asked you

"so you are going to deny that not a single person has every on the spur of the moment decided to kill themselves with a gun."

you answered

"No"

that reduces suicide.

reonhato:

it is a stupid question. why is suicide as a whole going down, because there are multiple factors, no one has denied that. the key is that over and over again it has been found that gun suicide has gone down massively and it has saved lives. not everyone who no longer has easy access to shoot themselves goes on to try another method, and that is why it reduces suicide. hell you admitted it, when i asked you

Looks like I have to break it down for you because you ignored the entirety of my question.

Gun suicide is going down. Non-gun suicide is going down. Total suicide is going down. Because non-gun suicide is going down along with gun suicide that would imply that there is a socio-economic cultural shift. YOU must prove that the absence of guns somehow reduced non-gun suicide OR you have to allow that socio-economic cultural conditions caused the shift not the absence of an object OR you have to use evident to prove something in between. THAT is what you must prove. In addition YOU stated that the absence of guns would decrease suicide in the US BUT suicide in the US is already going down. Is that because of a lack of guns OR is it because of a socio-economic cultural shift? If it is because of a socio-economic cultural shift then you have to STOP stating that the presence of guns equals the presence of suicide.

Kid, you have stated yourself multiple times that the absence of guns would decrease suicide. You have yet to prove it. The number of guns in the US is going up, population in the most gun friendly states is going up, and suicide is going down. Prove something or shut up.

I don't have a gun.

I do, however, have weapons (swords, axes, and knives) conceal in every room in my house (taped to the bottom of desks, behind photo frames, on display as 'decorations'), a steel mallet in my car door pocket, and I sleep with a hatchet under my pillow.

Odd? Yup. Paranoid? You betcha. Criminal? Not in the slightest. If the police found them I'd get a slap on the wrist but I'm a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. I've never even had a parking ticket. A judge would throw the case out and tell me to pack up my toys basically. I can appreciate that.

What I don't appreciate is the idea of some fucker breaking into my house and threatening my wife and son and I, and me not having the option of smashing his entitled fucking face in with a length of lead pipe. Just enough that my family is safe, and he is alive enough to enjoy the 10 years of prison he's just earned himself.

LilithSlave:
I think it's a sensible, albeit borderline unreasonable right to own firearms.

What's really messed up, is how it's legal to own firearms, but not drugs. And that people defend this.

Furthermore, the type of people who buy firearms in the first place scare me and I'm not sure that I would want them in my home.

I want the right to own drugs and to own guns, so I am not a hypocrit in that matter.

I NEVER am going to drink, smoke, sniff, or inject any drug into my body, but I support the right that should remain a person's descion, not the governments.

farson135:

reonhato:

it is a stupid question. why is suicide as a whole going down, because there are multiple factors, no one has denied that. the key is that over and over again it has been found that gun suicide has gone down massively and it has saved lives. not everyone who no longer has easy access to shoot themselves goes on to try another method, and that is why it reduces suicide. hell you admitted it, when i asked you

Looks like I have to break it down for you because you ignored the entirety of my question.

Gun suicide is going down. Non-gun suicide is going down. Total suicide is going down. Because non-gun suicide is going down along with gun suicide that would imply that there is a socio-economic cultural shift. YOU must prove that the absence of guns somehow reduced non-gun suicide OR you have to allow that socio-economic cultural conditions caused the shift not the absence of an object OR you have to use evident to prove something in between. THAT is what you must prove. In addition YOU stated that the absence of guns would decrease suicide in the US BUT suicide in the US is already going down. Is that because of a lack of guns OR is it because of a socio-economic cultural shift? If it is because of a socio-economic cultural shift then you have to STOP stating that the presence of guns equals the presence of suicide.

Kid, you have stated yourself multiple times that the absence of guns would decrease suicide. You have yet to prove it. The number of guns in the US is going up, population in the most gun friendly states is going up, and suicide is going down. Prove something or shut up.

read the god damn studies. you are just assuming the because both are going down that both have the same cause. yes both firearm and other suicide went down in australia. the thing is firearm suicide went down much more. another key stat is that the 2 main demographics in which firearm suicide was far more common, male youths and male over 65s saw much greater decrease then the overall average. its like trying to teach a brickwall how to dance.

there are many reasons for suicide and many causes. you cannot possible get rid of every single one of them. what you can do is reduce them. one of the causes is easy access to firearms. people who are prone to suicide are not exactly known for making rational decisions. the number 1 cause for firearm suicide is, believe it or not a firearm. you cannot commit suicide by firearm if you do not have a gun. making it harder to have easy access to a gun will stop some people making stupid spur of the moment decisions that end their life.

i really do not know how it can be explained any more then it has already been tried. more and more the comparison of gun nut vs creationist seems legit.

Not G. Ivingname:

LilithSlave:
I think it's a sensible, albeit borderline unreasonable right to own firearms.

What's really messed up, is how it's legal to own firearms, but not drugs. And that people defend this.

Furthermore, the type of people who buy firearms in the first place scare me and I'm not sure that I would want them in my home.

I want the right to own drugs and to own guns, so I am not a hypocrit in that matter.

I NEVER am going to drink, smoke, sniff, or inject any drug into my body, but I support the right that should remain a person's descion, not the governments.

what about when that right inflicts on other peoples rights. i think marijuana should be legal because smoking it is not really going to effect others but i think some of the more hardcore drugs need to stay illegal because of their much more severe side effects that include violence. ( if you have ever seen a teenager come into a hospital after taking ice than i have no doubt there is no way you would think it was ever a good idea)

to me guns are the same, we know that some aspects of gun ownership are detrimental to society. i think people are within their right to own a gun for things like hunting and sport, but there needs to be regulations around it.

2012 Wont Happen:

Not G. Ivingname:

2012 Wont Happen:
I think that individuals should be able to hold assault rifles and that private militias should be able to hold anti-aircraft weapons.

Wow, somebody else that thinks that we should be able to own fully automatic weapons! :D

We are a rare sight around here. >_>

Yeah. It is sort of rare.
And unless you agree I don't think I've ever found anybody else who supports anti-aircraft for militias here haha.

I love living in a country where (in some places), you can own an anti-aircraft gun!

tsb247:

2012 Wont Happen:

Not G. Ivingname:

Wow, somebody else that thinks that we should be able to own fully automatic weapons! :D

We are a rare sight around here. >_>

Yeah. It is sort of rare.
And unless you agree I don't think I've ever found anybody else who supports anti-aircraft for militias here haha.

I love living in a country where (in some places), you can own an anti-aircraft gun!

I love living in Missouri, because you can own fully automatic weapons rather easily, along with rocket launchers, if you have the right permit.

reonhato:
to me guns are the same, we know that some aspects of gun ownership are detrimental to society. i think people are within their right to own a gun for things like hunting and sport, but there needs to be regulations around it.

Good luck with getting those regulations. Democrats in all but the most far left fringe have given up the issue, and enthusiasm for guns has grown in this generation, by my guess due to shooter games. I had a conversation with a few of my peers over .38 Special vs .357 Magnum. Personally, I'm partial to .357 for the Python. Has a bit more kick, but more power

The fact that I, as an 18 year old can own this:

with zero haste is a sign that the other side has all but given up (And it's semi-auto, not full). So again, good luck. Because Lord knows you need it.

:D

reonhato:
read the god damn studies.

Not an answer. I have read them and have not seen the answer. Either answer the question or shut up.

you are just assuming the because both are going down that both have the same cause.

Actually I am assuming that because suicide is going down there is a socio-economic cultural shift. YOU keep splitting them into two things but suicide is suicide. If people want to commit suicide they will. The fact that suicide is going down shows a socio-economic cultural shift. UNLESS you can prove that either there was not a shift OR that gun suicide is somehow different from other forms of suicide (other than the use of a gun).

yes both firearm and other suicide went down in australia. the thing is firearm suicide went down much more.

Firearm suicide was also already on the decline. In fact this study (below), which was posted earlier by one of your comrades, shows that before the ban gun suicide was going down at about the same rate before and after the ban.

BTW stating that non-gun suicide is decreasing but at a slower rate only implies a mild substitution effect and the fact that all forms of suicide are going down is still the more important part.

http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

another key stat is that the 2 main demographics in which firearm suicide was far more common, male youths and male over 65s saw much greater decrease then the overall average.

Show the study AND page or shut up.

there are many reasons for suicide and many causes. you cannot possible get rid of every single one of them. what you can do is reduce them. one of the causes is easy access to firearms.

So firearms cause suicide. An inanimate object causes human beings to commit suicide. That is irrational.

people who are prone to suicide are not exactly known for making rational decisions.

And yet you think that if you take away a gun those irrational people will simply decide to live with their misery.

the number 1 cause for firearm suicide is, believe it or not a firearm.

I would love to know how an inanimate object is causing any form of suicide. More proof that you lay more blame on an inanimate object than you do on the sentient beings who govern how that object is used.

BTW you can commit suicide by other methods. Japan has proven that.

making it harder to have easy access to a gun will stop some people making stupid spur of the moment decisions that end their life.

It will STOP people from making spur of the moment decisions that end their life? First of all the idea that you even have the capability of stopping people from committing suicide is idiotic. If you want to die cut your wrists, jump off a building, hang yourself, all of which can be done on the spur of the moment. All those things require is a knife, tall building, and rope respectively.

Second of all are you god? What in the blue fuck makes you think you have the right to tell people how to live their lives? If a person feels their life no longer has any meaning and they what to end it what right do you have to tell them otherwise? Maybe you have a messiah complex and believe you can save everyone.

i really do not know how it can be explained any more then it has already been tried. more and more the comparison of gun nut vs creationist seems legit.

Maybe you can try answering the question I asked rather than deflecting.

CM156:
-snip-

You reminded me of a neat story...

I used to live in Kansas City, and from time to time I would run into the owner of CMMG. You know... These guys:

http://www.cmmginc.com/

They are based out of Fayette Missouri, and they make some neat stuff. Too bad the good stuff is more difficult to get on my side of the state line. :/

I still have his business card somewhere. I REALLY need to pick up some of their tactical bacon! XD

tsb247:

CM156:
-snip-

You reminded me of a neat story...

I used to live in Kansas City, and from time to time I would run into the owner of CMMG. You know... These guys:

http://www.cmmginc.com/

They are based out of Fayette Missouri, and they make some neat stuff. Too bad the good stuff is more difficult to get on my side of the state line. :/

I still have his business card somewhere. I REALLY need to pick up some of their tactical bacon! XD

Ah, yes. Those guys. Yeah, they've got some pretty cool stuff. I'm doing some shopping around for a scope and a few extra magazines for my M4 Tactical. 30 is a pretty large size, but I was disheartened to know it was the limit to what they made. Not that I would ever need 40, but it would be cool to have.

farson135:

reonhato:
read the god damn studies.

Not an answer. I have read them and have not seen the answer. Either answer the question or shut up.

you are just assuming the because both are going down that both have the same cause.

Actually I am assuming that because suicide is going down there is a socio-economic cultural shift. YOU keep splitting them into two things but suicide is suicide. If people want to commit suicide they will. The fact that suicide is going down shows a socio-economic cultural shift. UNLESS you can prove that either there was not a shift OR that gun suicide is somehow different from other forms of suicide (other than the use of a gun).

yes both firearm and other suicide went down in australia. the thing is firearm suicide went down much more.

Firearm suicide was also already on the decline. In fact this study (below), which was posted earlier by one of your comrades, shows that before the ban gun suicide was going down at about the same rate before and after the ban.

BTW stating that non-gun suicide is decreasing but at a slower rate only implies a mild substitution effect and the fact that all forms of suicide are going down is still the more important part.

http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

another key stat is that the 2 main demographics in which firearm suicide was far more common, male youths and male over 65s saw much greater decrease then the overall average.

Show the study AND page or shut up.

there are many reasons for suicide and many causes. you cannot possible get rid of every single one of them. what you can do is reduce them. one of the causes is easy access to firearms.

So firearms cause suicide. An inanimate object causes human beings to commit suicide. That is irrational.

people who are prone to suicide are not exactly known for making rational decisions.

And yet you think that if you take away a gun those irrational people will simply decide to live with their misery.

the number 1 cause for firearm suicide is, believe it or not a firearm.

I would love to know how an inanimate object is causing any form of suicide. More proof that you lay more blame on an inanimate object than you do on the sentient beings who govern how that object is used.

BTW you can commit suicide by other methods. Japan has proven that.

making it harder to have easy access to a gun will stop some people making stupid spur of the moment decisions that end their life.

It will STOP people from making spur of the moment decisions that end their life? First of all the idea that you even have the capability of stopping people from committing suicide is idiotic. If you want to die cut your wrists, jump off a building, hang yourself, all of which can be done on the spur of the moment. All those things require is a knife, tall building, and rope respectively.

Second of all are you god? What in the blue fuck makes you think you have the right to tell people how to live their lives? If a person feels their life no longer has any meaning and they what to end it what right do you have to tell them otherwise? Maybe you have a messiah complex and believe you can save everyone.

i really do not know how it can be explained any more then it has already been tried. more and more the comparison of gun nut vs creationist seems legit.

Maybe you can try answering the question I asked rather than deflecting.

you clearly have no understanding of the matter.

a gun causes suicide, you cannot commit firearm suicide without a gun, yes some people will commit suicide with another method, but some will not. it saves lives, its that simply. how you do not understand this is beyond human knowledge.

the fact that you think we do not have the right to tell people not to kill themselves says it all. there are many people on this forum who would not be here if it were not for the fact that societies around the world recognize the fact that helping people who have suicidal thoughts is a good thing. you obviously have no insight into the world of mental health and suicide. i do not havea a messiah complex, i know not everyone can be saved, that does not mean we should not do anything to help reduce the number of lives loss.

your entire response shows the attitude of gun nuts well. you keep asking for things that have been given to you time and time again. you ignore study after study, dismissing them as if somehow you know much more than those people do.

you are an ignorant fool, one day your love of guns may very well come back and bite you in the ass, like it does to 1000s of americans every year. the gun nuts of america are just yet another demographic of people who make america look stupid to the international community.

pyrate:

He has raised no valid point. The few studies he has cited over and over again have been dismissed in academic circles due to major flaws or bias since they were performed by the pro-gun movement. It is not me dismissing his arguments, it is everyone outside the pro-gun movement.

The please, by all means post a study that invalidates his studies. If you say the data he posted has been, "Dismissed in academic circles," the certainly someone has written something to that effect and demonstrated the imperfections in the study. I would like to see that. Just saying, "It's invalid because it's from the economics department," or, "It's invalid because it shows bias," or, "Academics dispute the findings," doesn't really hold up. where is the proof? I would like to see it.

Reality is polarized towards the centre. The world has knack for balancing itself out and this goes for society as well. Extremes simply do not work, inevitably things find a balance somewhere in the middle.

Well, at least we can agree on this. Moving on...

When you are in America saying that reality has a left-wing bias is correct as the American left is still centre right. As it currently stands, the Republican party are far right, with a focus on nationalism and religious fundamentalism. The only thing that currently separates the Republicans from Fascism is elections.

Hold on there a second Tex...

The U.S. is no different from any other nation as far as political extremes go. The left is just as guilty of going to extremes as the right on different issues, and both sides can be just as wrong.

As for Republicans being fascists...

That is not true at all. There are a great number of us who are sick of the radicalism that runs rampant in the party. I am a moderate Republican myself. I rather enjoy compromise and progress, but I also favor small government and personal liberty within reason. I cannot calssify myself as a Libertarian because of my stance on drugs (Not for legalization).

I could also point out that fascism is not unique to the far-right, but that is a discussion for another thread.

CM156:

tsb247:

CM156:
-snip-

You reminded me of a neat story...

I used to live in Kansas City, and from time to time I would run into the owner of CMMG. You know... These guys:

http://www.cmmginc.com/

They are based out of Fayette Missouri, and they make some neat stuff. Too bad the good stuff is more difficult to get on my side of the state line. :/

I still have his business card somewhere. I REALLY need to pick up some of their tactical bacon! XD

Ah, yes. Those guys. Yeah, they've got some pretty cool stuff. I'm doing some shopping around for a scope and a few extra magazines for my M4 Tactical. 30 is a pretty large size, but I was disheartened to know it was the limit to what they made. Not that I would ever need 40, but it would be cool to have.

I love my AR-15, but I need to get some good close-range optics. My problem is that I don't want to remove the scope since it took me a while to get it perfectly aligned and zeroed. I may just buy a new upper for close range use and switch the whole upper depending on what I want to do with it at any given time. I am currently torn between 300 blackout and 6.8SPC.

reonhato:
you are an ignorant fool, one day your love of guns may very well come back and bite you in the ass, like it does to 1000s of americans every year.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Considering that the majority of those deaths are suicides and justified homicides, I think I'm safe. 11,000 is pretty low, compared to 75,000 from booze or 32,708 from cars. I'm not afraid of either of those things, because that would be silly. And it's worth noting that violent crime is on the decline in the states. I plan on packing heat because I don't plan on going down without a fight. I'm not ready to meet the Lord quite yet.

tsb247:

CM156:

tsb247:

You reminded me of a neat story...

I used to live in Kansas City, and from time to time I would run into the owner of CMMG. You know... These guys:

http://www.cmmginc.com/

They are based out of Fayette Missouri, and they make some neat stuff. Too bad the good stuff is more difficult to get on my side of the state line. :/

I still have his business card somewhere. I REALLY need to pick up some of their tactical bacon! XD

Ah, yes. Those guys. Yeah, they've got some pretty cool stuff. I'm doing some shopping around for a scope and a few extra magazines for my M4 Tactical. 30 is a pretty large size, but I was disheartened to know it was the limit to what they made. Not that I would ever need 40, but it would be cool to have.

I love my AR-15, but I need to get some good close-range optics. My problem is that I don't want to remove the scope since it took me a while to get it perfectly aligned and zeroed. I may just buy a new upper for close range use and switch the whole upper depending on what I want to do with it at any given time. I am currently torn between 300 blackout and 6.8SPC.

I'm looking at handguns for when I turn 21. That's how I want to spend my 21st birthday: Shopping for guns, not getting drunk. I'm partial to a M1911 for a regular pistol, and a Colt Python for a revolver. A longer barrel one, at least. My father has a 4 inch Colt Python

tsb247:

pyrate:

He has raised no valid point. The few studies he has cited over and over again have been dismissed in academic circles due to major flaws or bias since they were performed by the pro-gun movement. It is not me dismissing his arguments, it is everyone outside the pro-gun movement.

The please, by all means post a study that invalidates his studies. If you say the data he posted has been, "Dismissed in academic circles," the certainly someone has written something to that effect and demonstrated the imperfections in the study. I would like to see that. Just saying, "It's invalid because it's from the economics department," or, "It's invalid because it shows bias," or, "Academics dispute the findings," doesn't really hold up. where is the proof? I would like to see it.

Reality is polarized towards the centre. The world has knack for balancing itself out and this goes for society as well. Extremes simply do not work, inevitably things find a balance somewhere in the middle.

Well, at least we can agree on this. Moving on...

When you are in America saying that reality has a left-wing bias is correct as the American left is still centre right. As it currently stands, the Republican party are far right, with a focus on nationalism and religious fundamentalism. The only thing that currently separates the Republicans from Fascism is elections.

Hold on there a second Tex...

The U.S. is no different from any other nation as far as political extremes go. The left is just as guilty of going to extremes as the right on different issues, and both sides can be just as wrong.

As for Republicans being fascists...

That is not true at all. There are a great number of us who are sick of the radicalism that runs rampant in the party. I am a moderate Republican myself. I rather enjoy compromise and progress, but I also favor small government and personal liberty within reason. I cannot calssify myself as a Libertarian because of my stance on drugs (Not for legalization).

I could also point out that fascism is not unique to the far-right, but that is a discussion for another thread.

There is no such thing as the left in America. What you refer to the left is still right wing. What you call 'extreme' from the 'left' is actually standard stuff for most of the world. In a lot of developed nations our right wing political parties are still to the left of the Democrats in the US.

For example, in America the idea of Universal Healthcare is controversial because many on the far right see it as a 'socialist' ideal. To many Republicans UHC is an extremist idea from the left. However, the US is the only developed country without it. Norway was the first to officially adopt it in 1912, by WW2 New Zealand and Japan had joined them. By the end of the 70s a couple dozen countries had adopted UHC. Today there are more than 50 countries with UHC. It is not an extremist idea, yet in America there are people that treat it as some sort of Communist plot.

CM156:

tsb247:

CM156:

Ah, yes. Those guys. Yeah, they've got some pretty cool stuff. I'm doing some shopping around for a scope and a few extra magazines for my M4 Tactical. 30 is a pretty large size, but I was disheartened to know it was the limit to what they made. Not that I would ever need 40, but it would be cool to have.

I love my AR-15, but I need to get some good close-range optics. My problem is that I don't want to remove the scope since it took me a while to get it perfectly aligned and zeroed. I may just buy a new upper for close range use and switch the whole upper depending on what I want to do with it at any given time. I am currently torn between 300 blackout and 6.8SPC.

I'm looking at handguns for when I turn 21. That's how I want to spend my 21st birthday: Shopping for guns, not getting drunk. I'm partial to a M1911 for a regular pistol, and a Colt Python for a revolver. A longer barrel one, at least. My father has a 4 inch Colt Python

My first handgun was a Taurus PT145 Pro Millenium. It's a subcompact .45. I enjoy shooting it, but the 3" barrel means that it lobs the bullets rather than fire them in a reasonably straight line. I bought it because it was all I could afford at the time, and the Springfield XD that I wanted was about $200 more than I had. It's a good little handgun for defending my home. I doubt I will ever need it, but I am glad to have it.

My second handgun was my FN Five-SeveN. I saved up for over a year to get that thing, and I am still so proud of it. Everyone notices when I fire it at the range. It is louder than most large caliber handguns and produces a fireball comparable to the size of a basketball. It's a shame my front sight has some wobble due to an incident with a (non)universal holster I got for it a few years ago.

The Five-SeveN is expensive to feed, but it is SO accurate! Not to mention the 20 round magazine, low recoil, and the fact that it is very easy to fieldstrip. The only cons are the overall price, and the fact that if it needs repair, you need to ship it off to FN or it will void your warrenty.

I also have a Nagant revolver. It's more of a novelty that I picked up at a gunshow for about $130. It isn't really good for anything more than striking up conversation. The trigger may very well have a 20lb pull and then (weird) little rounds are quite expensive.

tsb247:

CM156:

tsb247:

I love my AR-15, but I need to get some good close-range optics. My problem is that I don't want to remove the scope since it took me a while to get it perfectly aligned and zeroed. I may just buy a new upper for close range use and switch the whole upper depending on what I want to do with it at any given time. I am currently torn between 300 blackout and 6.8SPC.

I'm looking at handguns for when I turn 21. That's how I want to spend my 21st birthday: Shopping for guns, not getting drunk. I'm partial to a M1911 for a regular pistol, and a Colt Python for a revolver. A longer barrel one, at least. My father has a 4 inch Colt Python

My first handgun was a Taurus PT145 Pro Millenium. It's a subcompact .45. I enjoy shooting it, but the 3" barrel means that it lobs the bullets rather than fire them in a reasonably straight line. I bought it because it was all I could afford at the time, and the Springfield XD that I wanted was about $200 more than I had. It's a good little handgun for defending my home. I doubt I will ever need it, but I am glad to have it.

My second handgun was my FN Five-SeveN. I saved up for over a year to get that thing, and I am still so proud of it. Everyone notices when I fire it at the range. It is louder than most large caliber handguns and produces a fireball comparable to the size of a basketball. It's a shame my front sight has some wobble due to an incident with a (non)universal holster I got for it a few years ago.

The Five-SeveN is expensive to feed, but it is SO accurate! Not to mention the 20 round magazine, low recoil, and the fact that it is very easy to fieldstrip. The only cons are the overall price, and the fact that if it needs repair, you need to ship it off to FN or it will void your warrenty.

I also have a Nagant revolver. It's more of a novelty that I picked up at a gunshow for about $130. It isn't really good for anything more than striking up conversation. The trigger may very well have a 20lb pull and then (weird) little rounds are quite expensive.

I'm looking for a good CCW handgun, and what I've been told is that 1911s are good ones for that purpose. The Five-SeveN is also one I've been looking at. That's got a lot of stopping power, I take it?

CM156:

tsb247:

CM156:

I'm looking at handguns for when I turn 21. That's how I want to spend my 21st birthday: Shopping for guns, not getting drunk. I'm partial to a M1911 for a regular pistol, and a Colt Python for a revolver. A longer barrel one, at least. My father has a 4 inch Colt Python

My first handgun was a Taurus PT145 Pro Millenium. It's a subcompact .45. I enjoy shooting it, but the 3" barrel means that it lobs the bullets rather than fire them in a reasonably straight line. I bought it because it was all I could afford at the time, and the Springfield XD that I wanted was about $200 more than I had. It's a good little handgun for defending my home. I doubt I will ever need it, but I am glad to have it.

My second handgun was my FN Five-SeveN. I saved up for over a year to get that thing, and I am still so proud of it. Everyone notices when I fire it at the range. It is louder than most large caliber handguns and produces a fireball comparable to the size of a basketball. It's a shame my front sight has some wobble due to an incident with a (non)universal holster I got for it a few years ago.

The Five-SeveN is expensive to feed, but it is SO accurate! Not to mention the 20 round magazine, low recoil, and the fact that it is very easy to fieldstrip. The only cons are the overall price, and the fact that if it needs repair, you need to ship it off to FN or it will void your warrenty.

I also have a Nagant revolver. It's more of a novelty that I picked up at a gunshow for about $130. It isn't really good for anything more than striking up conversation. The trigger may very well have a 20lb pull and then (weird) little rounds are quite expensive.

I'm looking for a good CCW handgun, and what I've been told is that 1911s are good ones for that purpose. The Five-SeveN is also one I've been looking at. That's got a lot of stopping power, I take it?

It's a 5.7mm, so no. The thing it's great at is penetration (one of the very few handguns designed to pierce armor) and it's accurate as hell.

http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k118808_bullets-%205.7x28%204.6x30%20.17HMR%20.22WMR%20.17HM2%20.22%20LR.jpg

CM156:

tsb247:

2012 Wont Happen:

Yeah. It is sort of rare.
And unless you agree I don't think I've ever found anybody else who supports anti-aircraft for militias here haha.

I love living in a country where (in some places), you can own an anti-aircraft gun!

I love living in Missouri, because you can own fully automatic weapons rather easily, along with rocket launchers, if you have the right permit.

DX

WHY MUST I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA!?!

We are an inch away from only legally being allowed to own muskets.

usmarine4160:

CM156:

tsb247:

My first handgun was a Taurus PT145 Pro Millenium. It's a subcompact .45. I enjoy shooting it, but the 3" barrel means that it lobs the bullets rather than fire them in a reasonably straight line. I bought it because it was all I could afford at the time, and the Springfield XD that I wanted was about $200 more than I had. It's a good little handgun for defending my home. I doubt I will ever need it, but I am glad to have it.

My second handgun was my FN Five-SeveN. I saved up for over a year to get that thing, and I am still so proud of it. Everyone notices when I fire it at the range. It is louder than most large caliber handguns and produces a fireball comparable to the size of a basketball. It's a shame my front sight has some wobble due to an incident with a (non)universal holster I got for it a few years ago.

The Five-SeveN is expensive to feed, but it is SO accurate! Not to mention the 20 round magazine, low recoil, and the fact that it is very easy to fieldstrip. The only cons are the overall price, and the fact that if it needs repair, you need to ship it off to FN or it will void your warrenty.

I also have a Nagant revolver. It's more of a novelty that I picked up at a gunshow for about $130. It isn't really good for anything more than striking up conversation. The trigger may very well have a 20lb pull and then (weird) little rounds are quite expensive.

I'm looking for a good CCW handgun, and what I've been told is that 1911s are good ones for that purpose. The Five-SeveN is also one I've been looking at. That's got a lot of stopping power, I take it?

It's a 5.7mm, so no. The thing it's great at is penetration (one of the very few handguns designed to pierce armor) and it's accurate as hell.

http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k118808_bullets-%205.7x28%204.6x30%20.17HMR%20.22WMR%20.17HM2%20.22%20LR.jpg

Is it wrong that I read that whole thing in the voice of your avatar? I think it is.

Anyhow. I'm looking at something with stopping power over armor piercing. I doubt a common thief will be wearing armor of any degree. Thanks for the tip, though.

reonhato:

you clearly have no understanding of the matter.

You know, saying the same thing over and over again does not make what you said true. Why don't you try proving that I have no idea what I am talking about instead of just saying it? Let us see how you do here.

a gun causes suicide,

From Merriam Webster's dictionary.com
SUICIDE:
1
a : the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally

An ACT. An act cannot be performed by an inanimate object. It is impossible.

you cannot commit firearm suicide without a gun,

No you can't but neither can an inanimate object perform an act on its own.

yes some people will commit suicide with another method, but some will not. it saves lives, its that simply.

You still have not explained why a truly suicidal person will not simply substitute say a knife for a gun. Let us add another country to this discussion, Jamaica. Jamaica has one of the highest murder rates on earth and massive numbers of guns (mostly illegal but illegal guns are easy to come by). Jamaica has a suicide rate of about 0.3 per 100,000. Once again if the presence of guns equals the presence of suicide then why doesn't Jamaica have a high suicide rate? The obvious answer would be socio-economic cultural conditions combined with other issues.

the fact that you think we do not have the right to tell people not to kill themselves says it all.

You can tell them all you want but forcing them to live when they do not want to is immoral.

there are many people on this forum who would not be here if it were not for the fact that societies around the world recognize the fact that helping people who have suicidal thoughts is a good thing. you obviously have no insight into the world of mental health and suicide.

My great-grandfather ordered his doctors to stop all treatment so that he could go home and die in peace. Some asshole doctors tried to have him committed and even called in a judge saying they could expand his life by a few years, years that he would have to spend in a bed, fed by an IV drip. My family told them to fuck off and he died in peace with his wife, son, grandkids, and great-grandkids.

i do not havea a messiah complex, i know not everyone can be saved, that does not mean we should not do anything to help reduce the number of lives loss.

Forcing people to live a life that holds no meaning to them is not saving them you.

your entire response shows the attitude of gun nuts well. you keep asking for things that have been given to you time and time again. you ignore study after study, dismissing them as if somehow you know much more than those people do.

So you are not going to provide evidence. Instead you are going to deflect and pretend like you have provided actual proof of what you believe. Kid, your studies are not as conclusive as you want them to be. So either show me conclusive proof or stop posting.

you are an ignorant fool,

You are the one who attempts to argue that inanimate objects are capable of forcing people to commit actions.

one day your love of guns may very well come back and bite you in the ass,

Maybe but you know what, that will be my fault and I will not be asking society to take the blame for my mistakes.

the gun nuts of america are just yet another demographic of people who make america look stupid to the international community.

Hey kid, you need to stop holding back and tell us how you really feel. Kid, we gun nuts are well respected in the international community because we are good people. Go to any international shooting competition and you will see large groups of people cheering for the shooters. In fact here you go- http://www.ipsc.org/matches/calendar.php. Then again I expect you have never even been out of your own country or met a significant number of foreigners so how would you know anyway. I on the other hand have done both, in fact I have been to international shooting competitions.

It is people like you who hold distain and hatred for others that makes our world as screwed up as it is. One of my favorite quotes of all is one from the Roman playwright Terence, "I am a man and I consider nothing that is human is alien to me". You could learn a few things from him.

Not G. Ivingname:

CM156:

tsb247:

I love living in a country where (in some places), you can own an anti-aircraft gun!

I love living in Missouri, because you can own fully automatic weapons rather easily, along with rocket launchers, if you have the right permit.

DX

WHY MUST I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA!?!

I don't know. I suggest you move. Missouri has great hunting, wonderful people, and good ribs if you're in the Saint Louis area. I went to a range that rented a 9mm fully auto, and sold a FN P90 right off the wall. It was like.... $1,500 or so. I don't know if it was fully auto though.

reonhato:

a gun causes suicide, you cannot commit firearm suicide without a gun, yes some people will commit suicide with another method, but some will not. it saves lives, its that simply. how you do not understand this is beyond human knowledge.

No. Just no. A gun does not cause suicide. A firearm is simply an object. It is a conglomeration of pins, springs, steel, and wood/plastic. It is nothing more than that. It can only be used for whatever purpose the operator intends it to be. Just because a gun can be used for suicide, it does follow that it must.

Again, people can swallow pills, jump in front of a train, drown, jump in front of a bus, drink bleach, suffocate, and well, you get the idea.

Having a gun present does not alter a person's state of mind and cause them to kill themselves. External factors that are completely independent of the issue of firearms altogether are what generally lead to suicide. Things like losing a job, a divorce, a major loss, physical disability, etc. are just a few things that may lead to suicide. However, blaming the gun for the death of the person is irrational and stupid. In the end, the person made the decision to end their own life, and the fact is that there are many different ways to do that.

My point is this: Making the claim that more guns = more suicide and fewer guns = less suicide is not valid because the presence of guns does not have a direct effect on what pushes people to kill themselves (dispair, regret, depression, etc.). Period. Suicidal tendencies are an emotional problem; not a firearm problem.

The fact is that there are too many factors to take into account when looking at suicide statistics anyway seeing as each case is unique to the individual. The cause of the suicide attempt was the emotional state of the person involved and the events that led them to that emotional state - NOT the gun. That is probably why he is skeptical of those studies - as am I. Those studies probably do not go deep enough to determine what led to those deaths, but rather they only state that a death occurred.

I can't comment on Farson's views since I cannot fully understand him based on a few pages of text. However, I will ask you this:

Who is to say that reducing the number of firearms present will do anything? Removing firearms will likely not remove the underlying cause of suicide. Instead of focusing on how people kill themselves, you must instead ask why. This is a distinction that I don't think you have picked up on and you seem incapable of grasping. People do not kill themselves, "Because there was a gun on the table," and they don't kill themselves because they feel that it's easy to do just because they have a gun. No, people kill themselves because they feel they have no other options. Wouldn't counseling do more to prevent suicide than removing guns? After all it addresses the real problem - the individual. What you seem to advocate is removing a means to kill oneself. That is ultimately futile since there are still a infinite number of ways in which a person can kill themselves. If you start by fixing the person, then the firearm issue becomes moot. This is true all the way across the board.

In essence, you are spouting nonsense.

you are an ignorant fool, one day your love of guns may very well come back and bite you in the ass, like it does to 1000s of americans every year. the gun nuts of america are just yet another demographic of people who make america look stupid to the international community.

Have you not noticed that you aren't making yourself look to great either? There are still quite a few posts that you have happily ignored. I wonder why that is? The fact that you have resorted to name calling doesn't help your case either.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked