And of course, no one can get shot without some mention of gun control...

[hal2kilo]

What's funny is that there apparently was a CCW holder there, but he was back in the crowd, and by the time he had enough situational awareness about what was happening the shooter was subdued.

By unarmed people with real hormonal fortitude.

 

[nick1985]

Bunch of fools in here showing off their ignorance of firearms. The disinformation makes me cringe.

 

[nick1985]

Is that a reality? Please show me anywhere that a 30 round pistol clip was used for good.

fail

 

[nick1985]

I'm not a gun person so I have no idea what pistol has the largest stock magazine.

Friend of mine has a sig 226 with 20 round mags. Also, it was his 30 round mags that was his downfall. If he had used regular 15 rounders, he would have taken out more people. 30 round mags are retarded in pistols, there is a reason they are not used.

Your posts make it painfully obvious that you know nothing about firearms. If you only knew how big of a fool its making you look like in this thread you would back out.

 

[hal2kilo]

Friend of mine has a sig 226 with 20 round mags. Also, it was his 30 round mags that was his downfall. If he had used regular 15 rounders, he would have taken out more people. 30 round mags are retarded in pistols, there is a reason they are not used.

Your posts make it painfully obvious that you know nothing about firearms. If you only knew how big of a fool its making you look like in this thread you would back out.

I've never seen these same posters in a paranoid "they are trying to take our gun away" circle jerk thread before.

 

[irishScott]

I've never seen these same posters in a paranoid "they are trying to take our gun away" circle jerk thread before.

Last I checked senator McCarthy is going to propose legislation to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds as it was under the assault weapons ban. That would take many people's gun away.

 

[nick1985]

I've never seen these same posters in a paranoid "they are trying to take our gun away" circle jerk thread before.

And the usual anti-gun people that don't know the first thing about firearms (30 round mags in pistols are deadly!, rofl), are in this thread making jackasses of themselves.

So whats new, right?

 

[nick1985]

Last I checked senator McCarthy is going to propose legislation to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds as it was under the assault weapons ban. That would take many people's gun away.

"In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times
more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.”2 In the first
year since the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%."

--FBI statistics

"Even the government agrees. “... the weapons banned by this legislation [1994
Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”12"


Do these morons even look at the data on the "effectiveness" of these bans? Nope. They dont need to, they have fools like jstorm and hal2kilo cheerleading them despite what the facts say.

 

[spidey07]

Last I checked senator McCarthy is going to propose legislation to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds as it was under the assault weapons ban. That would take many people's gun away.

And just like when Obama was elected gun sales, magazine sales, ammo sales are going thru the roof.

 

[nick1985]

And just like when Obama was elected gun sales, magazine sales, ammo sales are going thru the roof.

Yep. I'm monitoring this very closely. If it looks even remotely possibly that it will pass, I will have an FAL with about 30 magazines ordered ASAP.

 

[Tom]

Its even better though, since people with a CCP statistically NEVER commit gun crimes, they are in the same category as those who have never even touched a gun statistically.

That means you are at least just as safe (from a gun crime standpoint) standing in an elevator next to a guy with a legally concealed .45 with 2 12 round mags as you are standing next to a person who has never even seen a gun.

Statistically the risk is the same.

Actually, I am pulling that out of my ass. I am making an assumption that a person that doesn't own a gun can not commit a gun crime and that really isn't true. A person does not have to own a gun to use one.

You're right, you arer talking out your ass. A person without a gun cannot commit a gun crime. Ownership has nothing to do with having or not having a gun. The question I asked was about people without a gun, not people who don't own a gun.

And even if the homicide rate for legally owned guns is low, you haven't given any actual facts to back that up, they aren't zero.

In fact, the killings in Tucson were commited by a legal gun owner.

 

[nick1985]

And even if the homicide rate for legally owned guns is low, you haven't given any actual facts to back that up, they aren't zero.

I'll toss a few facts at you regarding this.

"The rate of defensive gun use (SGU) is six times that of criminal gun use." --Bureau of Justice Statistics

"Of all forms of firearm homicide, 13% are civilian legal defensive homicides" -- TIME Magazine

"For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved
through defensive use." -- TIME Magazine

 

[hal2kilo]

I'll toss a few facts at you regarding this.

"The rate of defensive gun use (SGU) is six times that of criminal gun use." --Bureau of Justice Statistics

"Of all forms of firearm homicide, 13% are civilian legal defensive homicides" -- TIME Magazine

"For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved
through defensive use." -- TIME Magazine

I notice the gun freaks never post about how most guns deaths occur in ones own family.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[shira]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...r-gun-control-has-dropped-in-recent-years/?hp

Was wondering when the left was going to drag this out.

Cliffs:
1. Polls show record low numbers of American support stricter gun laws.
2. Polls show a large majority opposed to a handgun ban.
3. Polls show a large majority believes that stricter gun regulations wouldn't have stopped the shooting, but hell we're the New York Times so we'll talk about it again anyway. Hell we'll even put it on our home page right beneath the main headline article!
4. We'll end on the fact that a poll we conducted showed a very slim majority in support of an "assault weapons ban".
5. Guns r bad. Thank you reader!

Polls show that about 90% of the U.S. population believes God exists. Does that prove that God exists?

 

[hal2kilo]

Polls show that about 90% of the U.S. population believes God exists. Does that prove that God exists?

Do you know that common sense and anecdotes rule.

 

[irishScott]

You're right, you arer talking out your ass. A person without a gun cannot commit a gun crime. Ownership has nothing to do with having or not having a gun. The question I asked was about people without a gun, not people who don't own a gun.

And even if the homicide rate for legally owned guns is low, you haven't given any actual facts to back that up, they aren't zero.

In fact, the killings in Tucson were commited by a legal gun owner.

And he wouldn't have been a legal gun owner under current law if his conditions and behavior had been reported. So fix the law to require such reports to be filed. Don't even begin to stereotype that all gun owners are batshit crazy.

 

[irishScott]

Polls show that about 90% of the U.S. population believes God exists. Does that prove that God exists?

No, but it means that the Atheist league will continue to spout more useless drivel about having God on our money that no one really gives a shit about. People are thankfully becoming numb to knee-jerk gun control arguments. Something I like to see.

 

[hal2kilo]

And he wouldn't have been a legal gun owner under current law if his conditions and behavior had been reported. So fix the law to require such reports to be filed. Don't even begin to stereotype that all gun owners are batshit crazy.

Only the ones that own more than a rifle, a handgun, and a shotgun.

By the way, I'm really not anti-gun, I just find it hliarious how you guys get all paranoid and butt hurt when anyone talks about any sensible regulations. But, it being a sacred, God given, human right, for adults to play with dangerous toys, I guess I shouldn't be so flippant. Now, if you guys would ever get as upset about what's happened to our 4th ammendment rights, I might start to take you seriously.

 

[shira]

I'll toss a few facts at you regarding this.

"The rate of defensive gun use (SGU) is six times that of criminal gun use." --Bureau of Justice Statistics

"Of all forms of firearm homicide, 13% are civilian legal defensive homicides" -- TIME Magazine

"For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved
through defensive use." -- TIME Magazine

I don't believe the bolded statement. Show us where Time Magazine made this statement, and show us the non-partisan studies that back it up.

From Wikipedia:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004.

So your claim is that over 170,000 lives are saved each year in the U.S. by firearms (and, no, I'm not counting guns used during warfare)? That is a load of crap.

Furthermore, these numbers on DGU are BS. Is it "self defense" if a drunk in a bar makes threatening gestures and you pull a gun on him when you could just as well have walked away? I am HIGHLY skeptical that 2,500,000 times a year a gun was an essential self-defense tool. More likely, people are counting as "self defense" any incident where a gun was introduced by the "innocent side" in a confrontation where - had a gun not been present - the incident would have had a reasonable resolution anyway.

The classic self-defense argument is about "home defense." Well tell us, how many times a year is a home break-in thwarted by the resident because he uses a gun. I'd be surprised if this happens even 1000 times a year.

 

[irishScott]

I don't believe the bolded statement. Show us where Time Magazine made this statement, and show us the non-partisan studies that back it up.

From Wikipedia:



So your claim is that over 170,000 lives are saved each year in the U.S. by firearms (and, no, I'm not counting guns used during warfare)? That is a load of crap.

Furthermore, these numbers on DGU are BS. Is it "self defense" if a drunk in a bar makes threatening gestures and you pull a gun on him when you could just as well have walked away? I am HIGHLY skeptical that 2,500,000 times a year a gun was an essential self-defense tool. More likely, people are counting as "self defense" any incident where a gun was introduced by the "innocent side" in a confrontation where - had a gun not been present - the incident would have had a reasonable resolution anyway.

The classic self-defense argument is about "home defense." Well tell us, how many times a year is a home break-in thwarted by the resident because he uses a gun. I'd be surprised if this happens even 1000 times a year.

It happens every day. As for how often it gets reported, check out the stories (and corresponding source links) here: http://thearmedcitizen.com/

 

[Tom]

And he wouldn't have been a legal gun owner under current law if his conditions and behavior had been reported. So fix the law to require such reports to be filed. Don't even begin to stereotype that all gun owners are batshit crazy.

I'm not sterotyping anyone. I'm trying to point out the difference between hyperbole and reality.

You call for sensible changes, that's the discussion I want to have.

Not argue with people who want to deny that guns are dangerous.

Or argue with someone who thinks guns should be banned.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm not sterotyping anyone. I'm trying to point out the difference between hyperbole and reality.

You call for sensible changes, that's the discussion I want to have.

Not argue with people who want to deny that guns are dangerous.

Or argue with someone who thinks guns should be banned.

Completely agree, but also like abortion, and support for israel, calm intelligent discussions don't exist. And normally, I stay out of these threads.

 

[shira]

It happens every day. As for how often it gets reported, check out the stories (and corresponding source links) here: http://thearmedcitizen.com/

I have no problem believing it "happens every day," as that would be only 365 life-saving defenses annually. But the claim is that there are well over 170,000+ life-saving defenses per year. That's 500 a day. Also claimed is 2,500,000 "defenses" per year - that's 6,850 a day. I don't think your link is going to provide quite the number of happy stories as you think.

Furthermore, if guns are such wonderful, life-saving instruments, how come the United States has - by far - the highest per-capita homicide rate of any first-world country on Earth? With all the lives we're saving with handguns, how come we have three times the homicide rates of Canada and Great Britain, where private ownership of handguns is essentially nonexistent?

 

[Brigandier]

My step-brother once got shot with 22 birdshot, no one even mentioned gun control, they mentioned idiot control.

 

[Tom]

I'll toss a few facts at you regarding this.

"The rate of defensive gun use (SGU) is six times that of criminal gun use." --Bureau of Justice Statistics

"Of all forms of firearm homicide, 13% are civilian legal defensive homicides" -- TIME Magazine

"For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved
through defensive use." -- TIME Magazine

Those very well may be true, I'll take your word for it as far as the numbers.

But my point was about a complete denial that there's any downside to the current way that gun ownership is handled.