Opposed to Glamourizing Gun Ownership

[River]

Originally Posted by mcmurray

This has absolutely SFA to do with your right to bear arms. Do you have a link to back that up btw? I'd be interested in reading it.

Vasco's going to have a field day on that one, if he sees it.

[Sky]

I love each and everyone of you guys! :-)

[v8ko]

These people dont need guns to kill. This occurs almost daily there.

Kenya Machete Massacre Leaves 29 Dead



Im baffled that in a generations time the fellow that goes to church, believes in God, drives a truck and owns a firearm is the odd man out.

I refuse to get into this politically but look back at when certain things were removed from our society, theres a definite timeline where we stumbled and never recovered and never will imo.



If ALL parents would be willing to teach there kids wrong from right it would be an amazing world.

[DRF]

Since everyone on this thread is throwing out questionable statistics and erroneous historical perceptions-I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Alot of the smoking death stats are dog piled with other deaths,or junk science.for example,if someone worked at a factory inhaling pesticides for years and years and even died at the ripe old age of 85, BUT was a smoker for even a fraction of this time,I would guess they pile it into "Yep another smoking death".

Heres another Japan stat I picked of the net(it must be true). Japanese men smoke twice as much as American men,yet suffer half the lung cancer rates.

Also theres this...
Report: 200,000 Deaths Yearly from Medical Errors | Natural Health

This apparently is a lowball figure...I wonder how many times they screwed up and said "Aw shit...smoking death!"

[racerratt]

Originally Posted by DRF

Since everyone on this thread is throwing out questionable statistics and erroneous historical perceptions-I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Alot of the smoking death stats are dog piled with other deaths,or junk science.for example,if someone worked at a factory inhaling pesticides for years and years and even died at the ripe old age of 85, BUT was a smoker for even a fraction of this time,I would guess they pile it into "Yep another smoking death".

Heres another Japan stat I picked of the net(it must be true). Japanese men smoke twice as much as American men,yet suffer half the lung cancer rates.

Also theres this...
Report: 200,000 Deaths Yearly from Medical Errors | Natural Health

This apparently is a lowball figure...I wonder how many times they screwed up and said "Aw shit...smoking death!"

+1

[wumms]

[geochem1st]

Originally Posted by lp_junkie

The only reason there is a "rest of the first world" is because an American Soldier with his gun came over to Europe not once but twice and saved the rest of the "civilized" world from the Germans.

Are you for real? Don't distort history to make a point. You can't back this statement up at all, and it's insulting to our allies. You've been watching too many John Wayne movies.

Our right to bear arms is constitutional, and a major part of what keeps our government in check and foreign governments from being stupid enough to try and put troops on our shores, it didn't work out too good for the British in 1812 and certainly would prove very costly today.

agreed.

The only gun violence that occurs is because of criminals and stupid people getting them, then the liberal media gets the story and it's "bloodbath in the streets" all over the news which is as far from the truth as you can get. Isolated incidents do not create a need to legislate freedoms away, making them ilegal would not stop criminals from getting them just enforce the existing laws and create stiffer penalties for using guns to commit crimes.

Crimes that lead to death by firearms are not isolated. I live in Charlotte, there are multiple shootings here on a daily basis and we are a small city, most of it gang related.

Safety education is the answer to preventing a lot of accidental shootings as well as the responsible owner securing their weapons where those that are children or not smart enough to be around a gun cannot get to them.

Absolutely.

And I am pro 2A.

[Harpozep]

Originally Posted by FLICKOFLASH

Gun safety should be a required school class. Toy guns are also not a good play toy for children. I always teach my toddlers never to even point even a toy gun as a early safety rule. You never know where or when they may come across a real gun.

See here:
God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

[BOBBO]

I guess I will give up on trying to share all my silly ideas with the forum ... If I say black , You guys say white !!! Heck I start a thread about not making guns seem attractive to children and Y'all act like it's the end of the world ... I also see that due to peer pressure my thread title has been changed ..... WTF ??? ... The original title of this thread was ... Guns don't kill people , Gun owners kill people !!!!!!!!!!!! If anyone gives a Rat's ass ............... I will now STFU .......

[b-squared]

Ah, blessed silence....

...silencers...cool.

[es345guy]

Originally Posted by BOBBO

I guess I will give up on trying to share all my silly ideas with the forum ... If I say black , You guys say white !!! Heck I start a thread about not making guns seem attractive to children and Y'all act like it's the end of the world ... I also see that due to peer pressure my thread title has been changed ..... WTF ??? ... The original title of this thread was ... Guns don't kill people , Gun owners kill people !!!!!!!!!!!! If anyone gives a Rat's ass ............... I will now STFU .......

Bobbo, I absolutely respect your right to express an opinion but I am more than glad the original title was changed. Gun owners do NOT kill people, where in the hell do you come up with that? Crimminals kill people and do it on a daily basis. My government will have to murder me if they think they are going to take my second amendment RIGHTS away, seriously. Years ago I shot a guy in the leg who tried to carjack me and I felt damn good doing so. He was willing to risk my girl's and my safety over a fucking car......a car that he could obtain by hard work but no, he felt a sense of entitlement to MY car that I worked my ass off for. I also got out and kicked the shit for about 5 minutes while I explained that I could have blown his fucking head off, but hey I am a nice guy. Same guy is in prison for murder as I type this.

Whoever said the rest of the world gets along without guns doesnt keep up with the world news. Africa, Middle East, many parts of the former Soviet Union as well as South America have firearm-associated crimes that equal or better that which we have in the US. Also google Mike Ryan -this dude single handedly changed Britan's gun laws back in '89. 20 years ago in England you could carry and own a gun. I read about knife attacks in England all the time where another teenager is killed over a damn football game which is sad......it is just a GAME. Believe me, we have our share of idiots here in the US that kill at the drop of a hat -you ever "disrespect" a gangster? I would love to see British Citizens regain the right to protect themselves because (and I know you have heard this before) when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. There is some truth to that statement.

[tom1965]

Originally Posted by captain tightpants

Interesting how a drawing of unarmed good people with no guns being murdered by a bad person with a gun wins an anti-gun contest. "Only bad people need guns," hmm? Maybe the good people would still be alive had they armed themselves?

probably not , because they would most likely not have had it in them to kill !!! nor the reaction time necessary to fumble around looking for their guns .

[nsureit]

Originally Posted by tom1965

probably not , because they would most likely not have had it in them to kill !!! nor the reaction time necessary to fumble around looking for their guns .

People who have been trained to carry will respond to a threat appropriately.

[lp_junkie]

Geo- I just like busting their balls when I get a chance......... sure armed troops going over there and fighting the Wars had a lot to do with speeding up the end of them.
In my mind my right to bear arms still existing is a direct result of veterans like myself that were/are willing to spill our blood to make sure that all Americans maintain the freedoms that we enjoy.

Antis use stupid arguments and create fear and paranoia, and Europeans have no say in our rights as US Citizens, some of them are still Subjects of their governments not citizens of their nations.

[FennRx]

Originally Posted by tom1965

probably not , because they would most likely not have had it in them to kill !!! nor the reaction time necessary to fumble around looking for their guns .

you really are naive if you think the average person doesnt have it in them to defend themselves with deadly force. threaten my wife and see what happens. sure i might end up six feet under, but i also might get hit by a bus today. better to have even a 1% chance than no chance at all.

if just 1 person had a gun at Virginia Tech, maybe there would be one family who still had their son. or maybe 2. or maybe 5. or maybe all 32. but wouldnt that 1 be worth it?

as for this quick draw mcgraw crap, i dont think the average CCW person would try to draw when a gun is already pointed at them. only the foolish would try to get in a gun fight rather than hand over their wallet. but there are plenty of situation where time is allowed to draw. there are tens of thousands of these situations that occur every year in the US alone.

[lp_junkie]

Bobbo- the original title was a troll post and you know it. I agree with the premise of not glamoizing guns though.

[TOMMYTHUNDERS]

glam gun

[tom1965]

Originally Posted by FennRx

you really are naive if you think the average person doesnt have it in them to defend themselves with deadly force. threaten my wife and see what happens. sure i might end up six feet under, but i also might get hit by a bus today. better to have even a 1% chance than no chance at all.

if just 1 person had a gun at Virginia Tech, maybe there would be one family who still had their son. or maybe 2. or maybe 5. or maybe all 32. but wouldnt that 1 be worth it?

as for this quick draw mcgraw crap, i dont think the average CCW person would try to draw when a gun is already pointed at them. only the foolish would try to get in a gun fight rather than hand over their wallet. but there are plenty of situation where time is allowed to draw. there are tens of thousands of these situations that occur every year in the US alone.

Naive , dont think so , cop for 24 years pal , i was refering to the cartoon , how much time do you think you need to get your stashed gun out , make ready and engage , also add into the senario , your increased heart rate and the fact your sat in a confined place ie a car , restricted movement , factor in the victims age , surprise element , hey they are almost certainly dead by my reckoning , the vast majority of victims in this senario of car jacking are ordinary people not forces or ex forces , naive no realist yes ! by the way the majority of people comply when a loaded gun is pointed at them , not everyone is bruce willis!!

[Brian Butler]

Originally Posted by djwilbanks

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, what does this say to you?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The thinking anti-gun proponent focuses on the word 'militia'.

I have no gun, never have had one and I never will, I seriously doubt.

The anti-gun person thinks that the remainder of the Constitutional sentence applies only if the people are part of the militia. Anti-gun people stop there and say "See, when an individual is keeping a gun, he is not necessarily part of a militia, and therefore his gun ownership is not covered under the Constitution."

Now that is good reasoning. It's very hard to contradict it. Let's see if we can.

All the Constitution needed to read is, "Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the people will keep and bear Arms."

In other words, if a Militia is necessary (as stated), and if the members of the militia must have arms (by definition), then the framers only needed to say that the people WILL keep arms.

They would NOT have to state that people have a RIGHT to keep them. That is to say, if the militia contingency was the only consideration, the people MUST keep them. The concept of a RIGHT to keep them is a misnomer. (unless of course the framers realized that the guns could be used for something OTHER than the militia, and they were including these NON-militia purpose as a right, but did not attempt to list them all, since they would change in time anyway).

In other words, since the framers did NOT state that they WILL keep arms, but rather they stated that they have a RIGHT to keep arms, this would imply that these arms are not kept solely for use in a militia.

Again, why would you have to give a right to people who ARE IN A MILITIA, to keep arms? OF COURSE they have a right to keep arms, just like a Marine or a combat army soldier. They have MORE than a right, they have a NECESSITY to keep arms to even BE a soldier.

There couldn't BE a militia without people keeping arms, unless arms were kept at Militia Headquarters, in which case the 'keep and bear' clause would be unnecessary.

Hence, unless the framers worded this sentence poorly, the most logical interpretation is that the right to keep arms includes more reasons than a militia.

So why did they perhaps choose the wording they did?

Perhaps they were thinking that there may be many reasons to keep arms (such as defense against drug dealers), but the one reason which shall never change is the one that concerns staffing a militia.

[nsureit]

Originally Posted by FennRx

as for this quick draw mcgraw crap, i dont think the average CCW person would try to draw when a gun is already pointed at them. only the foolish would try to get in a gun fight rather than hand over their wallet. but there are plenty of situation where time is allowed to draw. there are tens of thousands of these situations that occur every year in the US alone.

Absolutely correct, Mr. FennRx.

[Phil47uk]

Jesus..After seeing that Ted Nugent video I'm glad I live in the Shire.

[KP Willits]

Every adult in the United States should be required to carry a hand gun unless they have a mental problem (mental screening will be performed before issuance of said firearm). If a person chooses not to carry a hand gun, then they would be required to apply for a license to be unarmed and further required to wear a sign stating that they are unarmed so that the criminals would know who to rob or kill.

[Brian Butler]

Originally Posted by lp_junkie

Bobbo- the original title was a troll post and you know it. I agree with the premise of not glamoizing guns though.

In opposition to most MLP'ers, I personally think that trolling is a good thing. Who ever convinced you that it isn't?

Actually, every thread is a 'troll', isn't it? It's trying to stir debate, or agreement or feedback. Very few posts request 'NO RESPONSE'.

Maybe the definition intended is that trolling only includes "debate beyond a reasonable line whereafter very vehement discussion is likely to take place".

Now I know the mods don't have the physical time to monitor and control every possible debate. But can't the rest of us do so? Can't we tell a poster to cool it? And if he/she doesn't THEN bring it to mods attention? Don't we know the difference between right and wrong speech? Are we too sissy to admit that we know that difference?

If we keep this attitude about 'trolling', aren't we seriously limiting the interestingness of the debate that could take place?

Yea, we could go to arguePolitics.com or argueGod.com, etc., but who wants to? Wouldn't you rather know how a guy who owns a freakin' Les Paul or Marshall feels about Bush or Jesus or guns or abortion? I would.

[lp_junkie]

Brian- being from Jersey I have a fairly general idea how he feels about guns, the police and Bush.

[Brian Butler]

Originally Posted by geochem1st

The only reason there is a "rest of the first world" is because an American Soldier with his gun came over to Europe not once but twice and saved the rest of the "civilized" world from the Germans.


Are you for real? Don't distort history to make a point. You can't back this statement up at all, and it's insulting to our allies. You've been watching too many John Wayne movies.
.

Geo, I think what he means here is that if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved, the wars wouldn't have been won by the good guys without the U.S. And actually, in addition to that, I'm not sure that you COULD say that about any other one country. For example, 'If the Bohemians hadn't been involved (I'm a Bohunk), then the wars couldn't have been won by the good guys'.

So while John Wayne didn't win it by himself, the Director certainly did make him the major player.

[Harmony]

Originally Posted by KP Willits

Every adult in the United States should be required to carry a hand gun unless they have a mental problem (mental screening will be performed before issuance of said firearm). If a person chooses not to carry a hand gun, then they would be required to apply for a license to be unarmed and further required to wear a sign stating that they are unarmed so that the criminals would know who to rob or kill.

Jeez.. then surely criminals would be able to succeed in killing much better, instead of missing? They would also shoot first before robbing the unsuspected person.

[Brian Butler]

Originally Posted by lp_junkie

Those that kill with guns would most likely still commit murder no matter what they were armed with .

Good one, LP. Usually you hear it said that if you take away the right to guns, then only bad guys will have them.

Your statement is even better than that.

[Hamtone]

Originally Posted by brian butler

good one, lp. Usually you hear it said that if you take away the right to guns, then only bad guys will have them.

Your statement is even better than that.

+1

[SFK]

Guns don't shoot themselves in the dick...People...

[Brian Butler]

Originally Posted by b-squared

I think the 18th century definition of 'Freedom of the Press' is a bit different, as well.

BB

OMG, are you saying that the press has too much freedom?



I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREEI AGREE I AGREE
I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREEI AGREE I AGREE
I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREEI AGREE I AGREE
I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREEI AGREE I AGREE
I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREEI AGREE I AGREE

Why is no one else saying this??????

You are saying this, right?