I think guns are great and have seen a human being shot. Unfortunately as a military combat vet I have seen what even the nastiest of man made weapons can do to the human body. You are correct that movies and TV shows do not paint an accurate picture of what bullets actually do to people in real life. I still hold no fear of firearms and believe that are the best choice for personal and home defense.
You think I'm deluded because I'm not a statistic? Stupidity is dangerous. That's what your statistic really says. that's because they don't want to. They simply pay somebody else to do it. That isn't a good argument. We could still do that if we choose to.
I am not talking of fear of firearms - simply that the reality of injury does not seem to influence those whose only exposure is through TV where someone can be shot and end up with a small, minimally bleeding (or only oozing enough so the glamorous female co-star can mop up the red paint without getting her nails messy) wound that is sure to leave a heroic looking scar. With that sort of picture no wonder the less educated young in America think that shooting someone is somehow proof of power/self-esteem/kudos whatever.
Yes stupidity is the ultimate death penalty but humans, by being human ARE stupid - at least some of the time. The statistics (and I would be delighted to give you links to the multiple research papers backing this) show that it is more often the result of domestic violence/dispute. When a gun is accessible that makes gun violence more likely - common sense really
A YES or NO question that you yourself didn't bother answering so why get on his case about it? I swear, if it weren't for double standards, the lefties would have no standards at all.
You don't own a car then huh? No alcohol in the house either I'm sure, I've heard that leads to violence here and there too. It has to be true because I read it on Al Gore's amazing internet.
While entertainment media has certainly painted a false picture in regards to firearms it is also a double edged sword. Yes, often times TV and movies show our hero walking around barely injured after being shot, or maybe limping a bit to add effect. That does paint a false picture of what actually happens to somebody when they get shot. Hell even some media personalities, mainly rap stars, glamorize being shot as if it's a badge of honor thus leading many young people to believe that such a thing is actually "cool". Yeah I agree, the media paints a false picture, however, they do it on the other side of the spectrum as well. After Sandy Hook happened I was amazed, and I mean literally amazed, at how ignorant the American public was in regards to firearms. There are people who even to this day still believe that the AR-15 they sell at the sporting goods store is a fully auto machine gun. Or that these weapons can cut down trees and whatnot like we saw in the old action movies of the 80s and 90s. Why do people think that? Because their main source of information in regards to firearms came from movies. They saw Arnold Schwarzenegger or John Rambo mowing down hordes of bad guys with their "assault rifles" loaded with infinite movie ammo. They saw movies of American soldiers spraying down the enemy. The gun at the sporting good store looks just like that one...holy crap people can buy those?! They saw our favorite old western hero's blow people through doors and windows with shotguns. We saw Clint Eastwood blow people out of their boots with a six shooter. So while the media certainly often paints firearms as barely harmful BB guns in regards to our favorite hero's, they also paint firearms as weapons of mass destruction capable of blowing somebody 10 feet backward through a door. All sides of this issue need to get their facts from REALITY and not from Hollywood. Movies and TV do way more harm than good on BOTH sides of this issue.
Then you, unlike others, have been quite fortunate in having never been victimized by another, or put in a position of feeling utterly helpless, with your only hope being vested in authority figures who are many miles away, and may not be able to reach you in time.
The "well known fact" that you refer to is known as the Kellerman study, carried out by Arthur Kellerman. He, his study, and his methodology used have been discredited, and his dishonesty has been highlighted numerous times. No other researcher has been able to duplicate his findings, and arrive at the same numerical conclusions. If results cannot be duplicated reliably, then the results themselves are not reliable. Firearms ownership is not connected to purposes such as hunting and sport. The supreme court has held that firearms ownership is primarily tied to matters pertaining to self defense. Then explain why numerous politicians and celebrities have armed guards to protect them from harm, if firearms only provide a false sense of security. Then you choose to avoid those that are devoid of criminal records? Concealed carry is nationwide in the united states. How would you ever know whether or not the people you associate with own and carry a firearm or not?
If someone breaks into your home, why should you feel obligated to assume that they have no interest in harming you? Males more readily select firearms for committing suicide compared to females. Restrictions on firearms would not present a large affect on females who wish to commit suicide. Nor is there reason to believe that the male portion of the population would not adapt, and select alternative methods. The suicide rate of the nation of Japan is sufficient to suggest that restrictions on firearms to not deter suicides. If someone wishes to kill themselves, they will. Then perhaps regulations should be tailored to target those who are predisposed toward using violence against others for their own purposes.
On the civilian market there is a chemical compound known as tanerite. It is a stable, binary explosive used in various applications. It can be set on fire, subjected to an electric charge, even pounded with a hammer, and will not ignite. The only way to make it combust and explode is to shoot it with a rifle. Would that constitute an inert explosive device for the sake of this discussion? Two points: The above applies to motor vehicles as well. Someone who owns a motor vehicle can easily crash into a large crowd of people at seventy five miles an hour, and murder countless individuals with little effort. Secondly, firearms such as the AR-15 are used in very few killings. Mass murders gain public attention, but comparatively and statistically yield few deaths. The state of California has tried this. Despite limiting magazines to ten rounds of ammunition, they have had a number of mass shootings occur with firearms and magazines legally purchased within the state.
Reality is that the more powerful rapid fire weapons are those causing the most damage - does not matter that it will not cut a tree in half. Martin Bryant used a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine and shot and killed 35 and wounded 23 in a short time. Regardless of quibbles over definitions rapid fire high powered weapons should remain the province of those trained to use them who have a reason to own one
While that may be true, statistics show that handguns account for nearly half of all mass murders (47.9%) while AR style weapons account for around a quarter (24.6%). So while AR style weapons with their higher capacity magazines CAN cause more damage, the weapons used the most for murder in general (80%) AND mass murder (4 or more persons killed) (47.9%) are handguns. So if the end goal is to reduce gun violence by banning certain types of firearms, the logical proposition would be to ban the type of firearm with which murder is most frequently committed, no?
thats so silly I am laughing I surely hope that you never have need a gun and don't have one - - - Updated - - - nothing wrong with that-I support CHOICE - - - Updated - - - If you are afraid of owning a gun-which you clearly are-don't own one. But please spare us the phony BS about danger when your clear motivation is that you have a cultural hatred of those of us who own guns, hunt or most importantly, don't outsource our own safety to a nanny-state government
I shot someone at contact range. Meaning as he and his co-conspirator were trying to beat me senseless, I stuck a 9mm Smith in his gut and pulled the trigger. the amount of damage a contact shot does is far enhanced over what a shot from say 10 feet does. You are right
I agree. I'd like to fire one, and maybe even purchase one after I've learned how to use it, but I don't know; I've just never gotten around to doing it.
Wrong, the most weapons causing the most damage are under-powered handguns which, like the Virginia Tech shooter used, a 9mm and a .22. It would be surprising if the most popular rifle in existence was not used in a crime such as the AR-15. Ban that and the next most popular firearm will be used.
I don't know where you live. I do know that MOST of the gun owners I know are more than happy to give a new shooter or someone contemplating being a shooter tips and let them shoot. I do it all the time. When I worked at the DOJ as an attorney-maybe half the prosecutors had guns, half did not. I made sure any of the ones who didn't could shoot with me anytime they want. one guy, a rather big liberal who used to take 3 days off before the election to work for Obama asked, and took him several times. I was invited to his wedding and I asked him what he wanted. He said would it be too much to ask for that gun you let me and my wife to be shoot? and so I gave them each one though his wife wanted a 22-it kicked less. Now he probably still votes for anti gun candidates for reasons not having to do with guns, but I remember another guy in my office said he and "Ben" were at lunch with some other lawyers and one of them started in on how bad guns were and "Ben" said "I used to think like that and then I learned how to shoot and I realize that most of what you hear from even Politicians I support is NONSENSE"
Do you plan on being crippled for life, raped, stabbed, face slashed, and murdered? Apparently you DO plan to not to try to be able to prevent this from happening to anyone, including yourself. Action. Inaction. The both are the same thing. There is a word for your viewpoint: "apathy."
there are many reasons why Banoids in office target "military style" rifles. The main reasons are two 1) to set a precedent. If military style rifles are not protected despite the Miller and Heller rulings-nothing is 2) because the movies have indoctrinated a lot of low wattage sheeple to think that you can wipe out the entire south side of Chicago with one "machine gun"
Well 'military style' is as much of a political invention to describe a sporting rifle as 'assault weapon' was. The intent is emotional instead of logical.
So your statistic is that domestic violence it's violent? Well if agree with that. But the absence of domestic violence reduces the likelihood of violence correct? You can post a thousand papers supporting your circumstantial claims. Simply being level headed and following a few guidelines will drastically reduce accidents. Education can reduce accidents greatly, kind of like in every instance of human existence ever. I'm willing to compromise. I'd support education pointing out that guns can be dangerous if handled improperly and proper handling education. I also don't believe domestic violence is good. Any way we can reduce it would also reduce domestic violence involving any weapons. This double speak and misrepresentation of data doesn't work on me.
I knew a lawyer who was anti-gun. Then one night he was robbed while walking to a bar in an upper income part of the city. He handed over his wallet. Was stabbed in the lower abdomen anyway. He was in the hospital for two weeks. Lost part of his colon. He bought a gun. Late, but it did change his mind.
Over 2/3rds of rapes occur during home invasions. - - - Updated - - - Or how anti-gun you are when its half of your face. - - - Updated - - - I don't own a bicycle. They should be outlawed. No one needs a bicycle anyway. They are a hazard to pedestrials, cost hundreds of millions of dollars in injury medical costs and such as bike lanes. Most people don't own bikes anyway - and the percentage of bicycle owners is declining. Outlaw them. There is no constitutional right to have a bicycle. - - - Updated - - - I don't own a bicycle. They should be outlawed. No one needs a bicycle anyway. They are a hazard to pedestrials, cost hundreds of millions of dollars in injury medical costs and such as bike lanes. Most people don't own bikes anyway - and the percentage of bicycle owners is declining. Outlaw them. There is no constitutional right to have a bicycle and I don't like them. - - - Updated - - - Just like many people don't buy an alarm system until after burglarized, many people don't buy a gun until they are assaulted or raped. Then they buy a gun. - - - Updated - - - Just like many people don't buy an alarm system until after burglarized, many people don't buy a gun until they are assaulted or raped. Then they buy a gun.
Oh, ok, now I understand. You are being victimized in an abusive domestic relationship. Yes, I agree, you shouldn't have a gun around. But why do you stay in an abusive relationship anyway? Common sense would seem to be to get out of that relationship.
