Will someone please educate this guy? Emotion != Knowledge, Intelligence, or Credibility

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
Having a gun doesn't protect you from criminals. What percentage of gun-toting fools actually successfully halt crimes when they are packing? Wait, that's the police's job, not yours. The police have guns. They, not everyday citizens, are the opposition to the criminals. You are more likely to get hurt if you have a gun during a crime (because that guy with the gun will actually just shoot you instead of taking your money). What exactly the "good" action you might possibly take with that AR-15 is, I have no idea. Perhaps spray the neighborhood with bullets after a would-be intruder wiggled your doorknob?

The police investigate crimes. They are not there to protect you. That's your job, not their's. Look at the number of times per year that guns are used to prevent crimes in the USA. Now look at the number of times they are used in crimes. You are not more likely to get hurt when you have a gun as opposed to when you dont. The guy that ran that study played with the numbers to get the results he wanted (the inclusion of suicides, for example). Amused or tcsenter posted a link to that last time someone tried spouting that line... do a search.

Your constitutional logic is failed at best. "Very clear" is quite the opposite, it's murky as hell. Go check out FindLaw and read their section regarding the Second Amendment. Not as easy and pro-gun as you would all like it to be, especially with U.S. v. Miller.

And the members of the USSC never vote based on their political opinions, huh? I am arguing about the 2nd Amendment itself, not how the court has chosen to interpret it in the past.

Countries with stricter gun laws... less murder. Quite simple. The cat's already out of the bag, sure; there are lots of guns out there. But eventually, as those used for bad purposes were seized and destroyed (assault weapons), the supply would decrease. No need to keep replacing them to keep up the quota of gun violence.

Funny, the Swedes hand out fully automatic rifles to men of military age like they are candy, and their rates of firearm crime are way lower than those in the USA. So I guess it isnt "quite simple".

And the banning of handguns has been a smashing success over in England. Unless you plan to institute gun control all over the planet, people who want guns can smuggle them in. The USA has banned weed, coke, etc... and I could pick some up tonight if I wanted to. AKs go for <$100 in Africa, and they've got millions of them. Once you make them a black market item here, it'll be very profitable to run guns into the USA... and wherever there is profit, you'll find a guy willing to run the risks.

Just admit you like owning a gun because you like firing it and it makes you feel powerful. I'll accept that, and with the NRA screaming its head off all the time as if gun ownership was the central element of American life (if they really cared about personal liberties they'd be off protesting the Patriot Act and the DMCA), I realize that the chances of meaningful gun control are low. But don't act as if you are really interested in it being a constitutional issue, that's just a good justification.

I like firing guns. Making a bunch of holes really close together in a sheet of paper is fun. Bagging a deer and having a cookout is fun. It's not a power trip. Deciding to prevent your neighbors from doing something you disapprove of... now that's a power trip.

 

[DWW]

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
Just admit you like owning a gun because you like firing it and it makes you feel powerful. I'll accept that, and with the NRA screaming its head off all the time as if gun ownership was the central element of American life (if they really cared about personal liberties they'd be off protesting the Patriot Act and the DMCA), I realize that the chances of meaningful gun control are low. But don't act as if you are really interested in it being a constitutional issue, that's just a good justification.

No offense guy (I am probably as much against guns as you are) but uh not many people give a flying hoot about the DMCA as it doesn't hurt most common peoples personal liberties

Hell most tech enthusiasts I know couldn't give a flying fvck about it either.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
Having a gun doesn't protect you from criminals. What percentage of gun-toting fools actually successfully halt crimes when they are packing? Wait, that's the police's job, not yours. The police have guns. They, not everyday citizens, are the opposition to the criminals. You are more likely to get hurt if you have a gun during a crime (because that guy with the gun will actually just shoot you instead of taking your money). What exactly the "good" action you might possibly take with that AR-15 is, I have no idea. Perhaps spray the neighborhood with bullets after a would-be intruder wiggled your doorknob?

Your constitutional logic is failed at best. "Very clear" is quite the opposite, it's murky as hell. Go check out FindLaw and read their section regarding the Second Amendment. Not as easy and pro-gun as you would all like it to be, especially with U.S. v. Miller.

Countries with stricter gun laws... less murder. Quite simple. The cat's already out of the bag, sure; there are lots of guns out there. But eventually, as those used for bad purposes were seized and destroyed (assault weapons), the supply would decrease. No need to keep replacing them to keep up the quota of gun violence.

Just admit you like owning a gun because you like firing it and it makes you feel powerful. I'll accept that, and with the NRA screaming its head off all the time as if gun ownership was the central element of American life (if they really cared about personal liberties they'd be off protesting the Patriot Act and the DMCA), I realize that the chances of meaningful gun control are low. But don't act as if you are really interested in it being a constitutional issue, that's just a good justification.

... Quote me a study that proves that Britain and Australia have a lower amount of crime, per capita, than say, Switzerland, or the US. Please. I'd love to see this.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: DWW


It is pretty crazy reading the amount of people in this thread who want to arm their wives, girlfriends and kids. If you live in that much fear why not just move. I can't imagine "requiring" a gun to live. I think it would drive me to mental breakdown or some crap with all that anxiety.

It isnt living in fear so much as living prepared. Think of carrying a pistol as wearing your seatbelt. You dont WANT to get into an accident. And theres a decently slim chance of it provided you keep your head out of your ass while driving. But, there IS a chance, and in the event something bad happens...You want your seatbelt on. Same with a gun. You dont WANT something bad to happen, and theres a good chance nothing will. But if something bad DOES happen, you'll be damned glad you have that gun.
Its about living prepared.

 

[DWW]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: DWW


It is pretty crazy reading the amount of people in this thread who want to arm their wives, girlfriends and kids. If you live in that much fear why not just move. I can't imagine "requiring" a gun to live. I think it would drive me to mental breakdown or some crap with all that anxiety.

It isnt living in fear so much as living prepared. Think of carrying a pistol as wearing your seatbelt. You dont WANT to get into an accident. And theres a decently slim chance of it provided you keep your head out of your ass while driving. But, there IS a chance, and in the event something bad happens...You want your seatbelt on. Same with a gun. You dont WANT something bad to happen, and theres a good chance nothing will. But if something bad DOES happen, you'll be damned glad you have that gun.
Its about living prepared.

That is nice and swell if that is what compells most gun owners. But I think most of them just tell themselves that because they do have some fear. Now I'm not saying every night they go to bed wondering who is outside but by buying a gun and arming family members that somewhat acknowledges their unsettled feelings. I'd just move to another place where the possibility was even more remote. That is just me though

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: DWW

That is nice and swell if that is what compells most gun owners. But I think most of them just tell themselves that because they do have some fear. Now I'm not saying every night they go to bed wondering who is outside but by buying a gun and arming family members that somewhat acknowledges their unsettled feelings. I'd just move to another place where the possibility was even more remote. That is just me though

Have you ever fired a firearm?

 

[Pacfanweb]

So, if the Columbine murderers had used deer rifles or pistols, wouldn't the people still be just as dead now?

 

[DWW]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: DWW

That is nice and swell if that is what compells most gun owners. But I think most of them just tell themselves that because they do have some fear. Now I'm not saying every night they go to bed wondering who is outside but by buying a gun and arming family members that somewhat acknowledges their unsettled feelings. I'd just move to another place where the possibility was even more remote. That is just me though

Have you ever fired a firearm?

No and that should have no bearing on this discussion but I will disclose.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: DWW

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: DWW


It is pretty crazy reading the amount of people in this thread who want to arm their wives, girlfriends and kids. If you live in that much fear why not just move. I can't imagine "requiring" a gun to live. I think it would drive me to mental breakdown or some crap with all that anxiety.

It isnt living in fear so much as living prepared. Think of carrying a pistol as wearing your seatbelt. You dont WANT to get into an accident. And theres a decently slim chance of it provided you keep your head out of your ass while driving. But, there IS a chance, and in the event something bad happens...You want your seatbelt on. Same with a gun. You dont WANT something bad to happen, and theres a good chance nothing will. But if something bad DOES happen, you'll be damned glad you have that gun.
Its about living prepared.

That is nice and swell if that is what compells most gun owners. But I think most of them just tell themselves that because they do have some fear. Now I'm not saying every night they go to bed wondering who is outside but by buying a gun and arming family members that somewhat acknowledges their unsettled feelings. I'd just move to another place where the possibility was even more remote. That is just me though

Do you wear your seatbelt?
For me it isnt fear. I dont fear much of anything, as I said its being prepared. If it was fear I suffered from I WOULD move. If it was fear, I wouldnt want a gun. If you carry a gun, and are forced into a situation where you need to use it, fact is theres a good chance someone will end up dead. And if the bad guys have the drop on you, it could very well be you. You cant carry a gun and live in fear, or you'll end up dead when its go time.

 

[DWW]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: DWW

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: DWW


It is pretty crazy reading the amount of people in this thread who want to arm their wives, girlfriends and kids. If you live in that much fear why not just move. I can't imagine "requiring" a gun to live. I think it would drive me to mental breakdown or some crap with all that anxiety.

It isnt living in fear so much as living prepared. Think of carrying a pistol as wearing your seatbelt. You dont WANT to get into an accident. And theres a decently slim chance of it provided you keep your head out of your ass while driving. But, there IS a chance, and in the event something bad happens...You want your seatbelt on. Same with a gun. You dont WANT something bad to happen, and theres a good chance nothing will. But if something bad DOES happen, you'll be damned glad you have that gun.
Its about living prepared.

That is nice and swell if that is what compells most gun owners. But I think most of them just tell themselves that because they do have some fear. Now I'm not saying every night they go to bed wondering who is outside but by buying a gun and arming family members that somewhat acknowledges their unsettled feelings. I'd just move to another place where the possibility was even more remote. That is just me though

Do you wear your seatbelt?
For me it isnt fear. I dont fear much of anything, as I said its being prepared. If it was fear I suffered from I WOULD move. If it was fear, I wouldnt want a gun. If you carry a gun, and are forced into a situation where you need to use it, fact is theres a good chance someone will end up dead. And if the bad guys have the drop on you, it could very well be you. You cant carry a gun and live in fear, or you'll end up dead when its go time.

I can respect your point. I think a lot are in your position but I'd still argue many live in fear. Ever see those tv shows where they investigate someones house and they have a gun in damn near every room? heh These are loaded and ready to go too. Not just collections.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: DWW

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: DWW

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: DWW


It is pretty crazy reading the amount of people in this thread who want to arm their wives, girlfriends and kids. If you live in that much fear why not just move. I can't imagine "requiring" a gun to live. I think it would drive me to mental breakdown or some crap with all that anxiety.

It isnt living in fear so much as living prepared. Think of carrying a pistol as wearing your seatbelt. You dont WANT to get into an accident. And theres a decently slim chance of it provided you keep your head out of your ass while driving. But, there IS a chance, and in the event something bad happens...You want your seatbelt on. Same with a gun. You dont WANT something bad to happen, and theres a good chance nothing will. But if something bad DOES happen, you'll be damned glad you have that gun.
Its about living prepared.

That is nice and swell if that is what compells most gun owners. But I think most of them just tell themselves that because they do have some fear. Now I'm not saying every night they go to bed wondering who is outside but by buying a gun and arming family members that somewhat acknowledges their unsettled feelings. I'd just move to another place where the possibility was even more remote. That is just me though

Do you wear your seatbelt?
For me it isnt fear. I dont fear much of anything, as I said its being prepared. If it was fear I suffered from I WOULD move. If it was fear, I wouldnt want a gun. If you carry a gun, and are forced into a situation where you need to use it, fact is theres a good chance someone will end up dead. And if the bad guys have the drop on you, it could very well be you. You cant carry a gun and live in fear, or you'll end up dead when its go time.

I can respect your point. I think a lot are in your position but I'd still argue many live in fear. Ever see those tv shows where they investigate someones house and they have a gun in damn near every room? heh These are loaded and ready to go too. Not just collections.

Ok, thats fear when you have a loaded gun in every room. I have my bayonet, thats about it for quick defense. The guns are all unloaded and safely stored due to the fact I have kids. But that 2 foot long bayonet will still make a mess of your day. And if thats not good enough, out comes the medeival weaponry
I will agree some people have them because of fear, which as I said I feel is the WORST reason to own a gun. Like I said, fear will get you dead faster then anything, cause you'll freeze up, not react fast enough or miss your shot because of fear.

 

[fredtam]

The second ammendment is not open for debate when taken in context.
It is there in case the people wish to change their government by force. If the English had succeeded in restricting gun ownership there would be no US. It is specifically designed to allow the "people" to have a fighting chance against the ruling power's military. The Founding Fathers had no idea if there new Government would work and wanted to leave every option open for the "people" to change it. There were criminals at that time. They knew that guns could be used in crimes but felt that the right of citizens to bear arms was more important.

I own several "assault" weapons along with other weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties. I have them partly for the hobby and sport aspects but I also have them in case the sh!t ever hits the fan. I will have the ability to supply food and the ability to protect my property from the criminals of society as well as the people who have to post on the internet to see if it is ok to drink milk the day after the "sell by date" who have no idea what to do because there aren't any gas stations or grocery stores open.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: notfred
I don't really give a fvck how his son was killed. It's sad that he died, but it's not the fault of any inanimate object. My grandfather was killed when a semi truck crossed into oncoming traffic and caused a head on collision with his car. Do you see me trying to ban cars or semi trucks?

<-- Doesn't own a gun, doesn't have any real desire to own a gun, but believes others should be allowed to.

oh that's a great example.

yup, semis were designed with the goal of killing people and killing people is about all it does well. guns on the other had, they do a lot of good stuff. yup, they are usefull for carrying freight back and forth accross the country . . . .

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: fredtam
The second ammendment is not open for debate when taken in context.
It is there in case the people wish to change their government by force. If the English had succeeded in restricting gun ownership there would be no US. It is specifically designed to allow the "people" to have a fighting chance against the ruling power's military. The Founding Fathers had no idea if there new Government would work and wanted to leave every option open for the "people" to change it. There were criminals at that time. They knew that guns could be used in crimes but felt that the right of citizens to bear arms was more important.

I own several "assault" weapons along with other weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties. I have them partly for the hobby and sport aspects but I also have them in case the sh!t ever hits the fan. I will have the ability to supply food and the ability to protect my property from the criminals of society as well as the people who have to post on the internet to see if it is ok to drink milk the day after the "sell by date" who have no idea what to do because there aren't any gas stations or grocery stores open.

To bad your "assault" rifle is horribly innaccurate beyond about 400 yards. Heck, mine is just warmin up at that point. So, before I invade, whats your property like?

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: fredtam
The second ammendment is not open for debate when taken in context.
It is there in case the people wish to change their government by force. If the English had succeeded in restricting gun ownership there would be no US. It is specifically designed to allow the "people" to have a fighting chance against the ruling power's military. The Founding Fathers had no idea if there new Government would work and wanted to leave every option open for the "people" to change it. There were criminals at that time. They knew that guns could be used in crimes but felt that the right of citizens to bear arms was more important.

I own several "assault" weapons along with other weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties. I have them partly for the hobby and sport aspects but I also have them in case the sh!t ever hits the fan. I will have the ability to supply food and the ability to protect my property from the criminals of society as well as the people who have to post on the internet to see if it is ok to drink milk the day after the "sell by date" who have no idea what to do because there aren't any gas stations or grocery stores open.

To bad your "assault" rifle is horribly innaccurate beyond about 400 yards. Heck, mine is just warmin up at that point. So, before I invade, whats your property like?

That is what the .50cal is for.

Edit: also a working knowledge of mines, explosives, etc.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: fredtam
The second ammendment is not open for debate when taken in context.
It is there in case the people wish to change their government by force. If the English had succeeded in restricting gun ownership there would be no US. It is specifically designed to allow the "people" to have a fighting chance against the ruling power's military. The Founding Fathers had no idea if there new Government would work and wanted to leave every option open for the "people" to change it. There were criminals at that time. They knew that guns could be used in crimes but felt that the right of citizens to bear arms was more important.

I own several "assault" weapons along with other weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties. I have them partly for the hobby and sport aspects but I also have them in case the sh!t ever hits the fan. I will have the ability to supply food and the ability to protect my property from the criminals of society as well as the people who have to post on the internet to see if it is ok to drink milk the day after the "sell by date" who have no idea what to do because there aren't any gas stations or grocery stores open.

To bad your "assault" rifle is horribly innaccurate beyond about 400 yards. Heck, mine is just warmin up at that point. So, before I invade, whats your property like?

That is what the .50cal is for.

:Q
Eh, I'm only interested in beach front anyways.....

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: fredtam
The second ammendment is not open for debate when taken in context.
It is there in case the people wish to change their government by force. If the English had succeeded in restricting gun ownership there would be no US. It is specifically designed to allow the "people" to have a fighting chance against the ruling power's military. The Founding Fathers had no idea if there new Government would work and wanted to leave every option open for the "people" to change it. There were criminals at that time. They knew that guns could be used in crimes but felt that the right of citizens to bear arms was more important.

I own several "assault" weapons along with other weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties. I have them partly for the hobby and sport aspects but I also have them in case the sh!t ever hits the fan. I will have the ability to supply food and the ability to protect my property from the criminals of society as well as the people who have to post on the internet to see if it is ok to drink milk the day after the "sell by date" who have no idea what to do because there aren't any gas stations or grocery stores open.

To bad your "assault" rifle is horribly innaccurate beyond about 400 yards. Heck, mine is just warmin up at that point. So, before I invade, whats your property like?

That is what the .50cal is for.

:Q
Eh, I'm only interested in beach front anyways.....

Don't worry there will be plenty to go around. The beachfront is usually inhabited by the cluless rich/ old money. They won't make it through the first month and you will have excellent property for survival ie. fishing, hunting, water supply.

I was just thinking about the starving people in my hometown (barrier island in SC). How the fvck can you starve in a place that has so many oppurtunities gather food. Learn to hunt/fish you fvcktards.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: fredtam
The second ammendment is not open for debate when taken in context.
It is there in case the people wish to change their government by force. If the English had succeeded in restricting gun ownership there would be no US. It is specifically designed to allow the "people" to have a fighting chance against the ruling power's military. The Founding Fathers had no idea if there new Government would work and wanted to leave every option open for the "people" to change it. There were criminals at that time. They knew that guns could be used in crimes but felt that the right of citizens to bear arms was more important.

I own several "assault" weapons along with other weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties. I have them partly for the hobby and sport aspects but I also have them in case the sh!t ever hits the fan. I will have the ability to supply food and the ability to protect my property from the criminals of society as well as the people who have to post on the internet to see if it is ok to drink milk the day after the "sell by date" who have no idea what to do because there aren't any gas stations or grocery stores open.

To bad your "assault" rifle is horribly innaccurate beyond about 400 yards. Heck, mine is just warmin up at that point. So, before I invade, whats your property like?

That is what the .50cal is for.

:Q
Eh, I'm only interested in beach front anyways.....

Don't worry there will be plenty to go around. The beachfront is usually inhabited by the cluless rich/ old money. They won't make it through the first month and you will have excellent property for survival ie. fishing, hunting, water supply.

I was just thinking about the starving people in my hometown (barrier island in SC). How the fvck can you starve in a place that has so many oppurtunities gather food. Learn to hunt/fish you fvcktards.

Silly, guns arent used to hunt!! There used to go into schools and shoot children. Thats why we should ban and destroy all guns in civilian hands. The police and military can protect us...

 

[cquark]

Just admit you like owning a gun because you like firing it and it makes you feel powerful. I'll accept that, and with the NRA screaming its head off all the time as if gun ownership was the central element of American life (if they really cared about personal liberties they'd be off protesting the Patriot Act and the DMCA), I realize that the chances of meaningful gun control are low. But don't act as if you are really interested in it being a constitutional issue, that's just a good justification.

You could use that same argument to accuse the EFF about not being concerned about the US Constitution and are actually just using it as a justification for their enjoyment of illegal file-sharing because they focus on issues like the DMCA and not 2nd amendment rights. Both arguments are equally absurd, and besides, people can and do belong to the NRA to fight government encroachment on the 2nd amendment, while also protesting the Patriot Act (every NRA member I know does) and belonging to the EFF to fight the DMCA (not so common, as modern copyright legislation is such a complicated issue and most people have little understanding of what rights they've lost.)

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry issued a statement before Cheney's address, saying "...which helps keep military-style assault weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

wtf? osaama bin laden didn't get those AK47s from carter's country, and still wouldn't even if the ban does expire. dumbass

Republicans use terrorism to justify everything but Kerry isn't allowed to?