Ask me about guns.

1. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   This isn't meant to be a pro-gun or anti-gun thread. This is meant to be an educational thread... if anybody cares.
   
   There is a lot of misconception about guns(I blame the media and Congress), so I'll explain anything or answer any questions. If you want to ask about assault-rifles, optics, stocks, calibers, barrel-lengths, suppressors, statistics, or anything else, go ahead.
   
   I hope some people care, because ignorance causes unnecessary conflict.(Not trying to insult anyone, we are all ignorant of 99.9999999% of human knowledge)

   replyreport
   1. 57

      A Driveby Quipperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Suppressors? How about an urge suppressor?

      replyreport
2. 83

   Kasmanposted 12 years ago

   All I have to say is that I agree with you on a few things I saw on another forum my friend.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Stalker

      replyreport
3. 91

   Paragliderposted 12 years ago

   All right, here's my question:  What term would you use to include all guns that are "capable of fast mass killing"? We all know such weapons exist.
   
   (I ask this because in another forum one pro-gun activist (whom I won't name here) diverts any comment about "assault weapons", "automatic weapons" etc, into a lecture on the commentator's ignorance about firearms, thereby effectively avoiding having to answer awkward questions).

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I wouldn't try to, because there's no real way to define weapons that way.
      
      Take shotguns, for example. There are semi-automatic shotguns, and there are pump shotguns. Are the semi-automatic ones more dangerous? Not really. A pump shotgun can be operated more quickly than a semi-automatic. The same thing with rifles, a pump or lever rifle can be operated just as quickly as a semi-automatic. But what happens is we have the media, and politicians, who ignorantly demonize certain guns, to the point that many or most people will look at a black rifle and think 'assault rifle', but the exact same rifle in wood or a camo pattern and they think 'hunting rifle'. Some use 'assault rifle' to mean anything semi-automatic, some use it to mean something automatic(although automatic rifles are probably never used).
      
      I would classify weapons the way they are classified. [Bolt/Breech/Pump/Semi-Automatic/Automatic] [Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle] chambered in [.22/12 Gauge/30-06/etc]

      replyreport
      1. 91

         Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         OK, thanks for that. In the absence of a suitable category word, perhaps any petition to call for restrictions should simply focus on functionality, to avoid unnecessary technical argument. Probably most people would support the proscription of any gun capable of firing more than two rounds in quick succession without reloading. As a start. . .

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That would include:
            
            Automatic rifles/shotguns/handguns
            Semi-automatic rifles/shotguns/handguns
            Revolvers
            Pump-action rifles/shotguns
            Lever-action rifles
            
            Pretty much everything except for bolt-action rifles, and breech-loading shotguns.

            replyreport
            1. 91

               Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               OK, thanks again. Do they not make single shot pistols any more? My Polish father in law used to have a small 'lady's pistol' (his description, not mine). I guess it was about .22 calibre and no more than 5 inches long. Cast in solid brass alloy. You had to cock it with your thumb before firing it. He said ladies in pre-WW2 Poland used to carry one, loaded but not cocked, in their handbags. If fired once, you had to throw it away as it would be dangerous to fire it again.
               That's as much gun as anybody needs

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I haven't looked. I think most such pistols are made as collector's/commemorative, rather than for actual use. A pistol like that, especially in .22, would be almost worthless for self-defense. You would be better off with a knife.

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't agree. I'm told (by a gun expert on this site) that in most self defence uses, the gun is never even fired. So, not firing a useless gun must be just as effective as not firing a colt 45, no?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Yeah, if you are able to scare someone away with a single-shot .22 pistol, then it worked.
                        
                        But if you have to fire to stop a threat with it, it probably won't work.
                        
                        You have to admit, there probably won't be as many people who are scared away by this
                        
                        
                        
                        as there will be scared away by this
                        
                        

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Mark Ewbieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           There are probably a large number who would be scared away if you just said "I'm gay - kiss me".

                           replyreport
                        2. 91

                           Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Sorry, false reasoning again. Nobody is scared by the side elevation of any gun. What people tend to dislike is the end elevation - the muzzle clearly pointing at the head or heart. When you find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun, the calibre hardly matters any more. When you're first in line to be killed, how much do you think about the recipients of subsequent bullets?
                           The lady's gun is all the gun you need. The rest is just macho posturing.  (IMHO, of course

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              That's simply not true. You really think people will be as worried by something that a grown man would have trouble even using because it's so small, and a full-sized pistol?
                              
                              
                              
                              Not only are those guns extremely difficult to shoot, but they are harder to see, and look more like toys.
                              
                              And, if you have to shoot, you are much less likely to stop the threat.

                              replyreport
                              1. 91

                                 Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 The gun my father-in-law had was bigger than that, maybe by about 50%. But the fact remains: Looking down the barrel of a gun, most people see danger, even if the gun is small. There have been several instances of police shooting people who were wielding only toy guns.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    I'm not saying some won't be scared of it, but it should be a clear fact that the smaller the gun, the less intimidating it will be. You have to acknowledge that.
                                    
                                    Would a gun half that big be just as intimidating too?

                                    replyreport
                     2. 59

                        readytoescapeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        What you have been told by your gun expert is true, I know, I have had to pull my gun twice and not been forced to fire. However to require a defense fire arm to be inoperable would only produce more victims of crime. If you remove the potential of death or severe bodily injury, what is there to deter a criminal? That’s about the same deterrent as requiring baseball bats to be made of Balsa wood.
                        
                        I’m pretty sure the last guy that tried to car jack me, pissed his pants and ran away because he was certain my large bore .45 Ruger semi-automatic handgun, pointed directly at him would leave very large, non-survivable hole in his head and a few more in his torso.
                        
                        And for the record FMJ (full metal jacket) bullets are lousy self-defense loads. They create too little damage to the intended target and there is too much potential for collateral damage. The best load is a jacketed hollow point (JHP) bullet with lighter grain load to create a lower muzzle velocity than an FMJ.
                        
                        A quality JHP will expand and begin to tumble on impact and will usually stay in the target, creating severe injury, but if it does pass thru it will stop when it encounters normal construction materials. No Collateral damage.

                        replyreport
                  2. 60

                     Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     In reality, the .22 is the assassin’s first choice for up close and personal "hits". They do more damage than a .45. In an instance of a home invasion, you'd think the sound of the slide action of a shotgun or clicking of the revolver would send the intruder running unless he's nuts or way high on something. A powerful magnum or even a 9mm opens the door for collateral damage. In reality, if you come face to face with an intruder, do you have what it takes to actually pull the trigger? Unless the guy is armed and there's a deadly threat to you or your family. But what if he's an unarmed 14-year-old and poses no physical threat to you and is crazy enough to think that you don't have the balls to shoot him? Vast majority of burglars are kids, not these 30+ year old pros we see on TV or movies. To ease my mind about getting mixed up with the law when it comes to shooting someone breaking in my house and the idea of actually killing someone, I resort to non lethal methods like a taser gun with laser sight.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        No, a .22 does not do more damage than a .45. Not even close. The .22 leaves a tiny wound channel, doesn't hardly do any tissue damage outside the channel, no hydrostatic shock, etc.
                        
                        .45 is arguably the best round for defense, if you aren't worried about cost. There's a reason why the SS uses it.
                        
                        
                        
                        First, if someone attacks you while you have a gun, then that is a deadly threat.
                        
                        Second, there isn't a huge difference in the number of offenders by age. 3% fall under each age from 15-20, while 2.7% fall under each age from 21-29. The most common are around 18.
                        
                        http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes the .22 does more damage than the 45. The SS used the .45? I didn't know the Germans (then or now) ever used the Imperial English System.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Secret Service
                              
                              And no. Why do you think a .22 would do more damage than a 45?
                              
                              
                              
                              How about some real data?
                              
                              22: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … UOGNq_iF2A
                              45: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … G8r-of5wtM
                              
                              Notice the 22 leaves a tiny wound channel, while the 45 leaves a large channel. Notice the block isn't really affected by the 22, but it is the 45.
                              
                              Additionally:
                              
                              40 grain 22 @ 1037 fps = 95 ft-lbs energy
                              165 grain 45 @ 1130 fps  = 467 ft-lbs energy
                              
                              You're comparing a candle to a flame-thrower.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 What's with you and Youtube? You don't get it.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Youtube hosts videos.
                                    
                                    Those videos are ammunition tests, fired into ballistic gel according to FBI standards. They show an approximation of what each bullet can do to a person.
                                    
                                    You failed to present any data that shows a 22 to do more damage than a 45, while I provided video evidence, as well as the energy contained in each round.
                                    
                                    Why can't you just back up your claim?

                                    replyreport
                              2. 71

                                 rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Your comparison is misleading in that it does not express the difference adequately. Assasins prefer the .22 calibre because of two distinct charachteristics. One is that the explosion is so much less than that of the .45 calibre and .45 calibre creates a large entry wound with less depth that can easily be abated with dressings and pressure. The .22 calibre has a more dramatic effect because as your demonstration video started to show the bullet goes deeper and off course. Many times the .22 calibre will tumble as it takes its straying course through the body. Surgeons have a difficult time finding the bullet fragments that cause infection which is many times worse than the damage of the initial wound.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    1 - The .45 easily penetrates to 12 inches and beyond in ballistic gel. Anything more in unnecessary, and results in more cases of a bullet passing through the target(meaning it doesn't transfer all of its energy to the target). The .45 doesn't create a shallow wound.
                                    
                                    2 - The 22 leaves a tiny wound channel. Very little bleeding, very little tissue damage, almost no hydrostatic shock.
                                    
                                    3 - A .22 tumbling still does much less damage than a 45. A self-defense 45 will expand, this is what it looks like while it is travelling through the gel(or a person)
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    A 45 will expand up to .8 sq-in, while a 22 might get up to .2 sq-in.
                                    
                                    You really have no leg to stand on with this. If .22 is so good, then why doesn't a single law enforcement agency, government agency, or military unit use it? You won't find that recommendation from a single group that is dedicated to ballistic testing.

                                    replyreport
         2. 74

            livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sorry but I wouldn't support that.  I've been in the military and since getting out I have collected over 25 different firearms including a few semi-automatic rifles.  In 20 years, my guns have never killed anyone, nor have they came close.  I've never shot or even pointed a weapon at a person.  Some of my guns have never even been fired.  My sole use of these weapons is the enjoyment of collecting and target shooting.  My 2 favorites are my AR15 and my grandfathers AR7, both semi-automatic rifles.  In the Army, I qualified as an 'Expert' with the M16 and I fell in love with the power and skill that it takes to shoot a man-sized target from 300 meters away.  There are some indoor ranges here in Chicago where I occasionally take my handguns, but with the rifles, I ether visit my friend in Central Illinois that has 2000 acres of farmland, or up in Wisconsin, about 2 hours north of me.  Proscription of guns is the wrong reaction to gun violence.  Taking away guns is not going to stop mass killings.  Those that want to kill will find a way, they will either poison our water, use homemade pipe bombs, or fly a prop plane into an office building.  Why? Because people kill people.

            replyreport
            1. 91

               Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               People don't kill people. People are naturally peaceful, social and cooperative. A very small number of social deviants do commit murders and even massacres, but not enough to justify fearmongering with the tired old people kill people adage. You might as well say people swallow coins. No doubt some do, but it's not a valid description of humanity.
               
               How would you feel about having your collection rendered safe (unusable) if it didn't in any way change their appearance?

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  It may be an old adage but it is the truth.  There are millions of gun owners here in the US but only a tiny fraction of deviants commit crimes with those guns so yes it is the people that kill and guns are only a tool they use.  Take away the guns and those deviants will find another tool.  People are naturally violent, they are only peaceful because of social restraints.  Our biggest problem is identifying those that live without or beyond those social restraints. 
                  
                  What would be the point to rendering my collection unusable? I use many of my guns all the time. I have fun shooting and practicing and improving my skills.  Some of my guns were purchased as an investment, I have a Civil War era pistol that I bought at an estate sale for $800 15 years ago and today it is worth about $6000, I've never shot it and I rarely even touch it with bare hands but if I were to make it unusable it would be worthless.  I have an appreciation for guns, their engineering, history, design, use, etc that the casual gun owner does not have. Plus, without my guns, how am I to survive the zombie apocalypse?

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Much like asking the owner of a centuries old authentic samurai sword to grind the edge square.  Just in case he ever wanted to use it as a weapon it would have to be just another bludgeon.

                     replyreport
                  2. 91

                     Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Astonishing thing to say. In my World, people are naturally peaceful. They are only violent because of mental illness or extreme provocation.
                     The person I know best is myself. I am not naturally violent, I am naturally convivial. Are you naturally violent, livewithrichard? If you are, maybe you should seek counselling.

                     replyreport
                     1. 53

                        whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Then how do you explain the extreme violence in ghettos? Are they all crazy or does just being poor constitute provocation?

                        replyreport
                        1. 91

                           Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           In a well organised and caring society people are naturally peaceful because they are given space and freedom to be peaceful. In a ghetto, with little or no hope, a man (usually a man) may turn to violence in the hope of escape.

                           replyreport
                     2. 74

                        livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        And what world would that be? You are delusional if you believe that.  Leave your valuables unsecured and see how peaceful your neighbors are.  Yes if I didn't have social restraints I would be very violent. I played violent sports in school... I was trained to kill in the Army...  I support the death penalty and even further I would support murders and rapists get the same done to them. I was brought up in a loving, caring, respectful family that taught empathy and right from wrong, so I restrain myself from doing harm to others...  but I will not turn my cheek if harm is done to me or my family or those that I care most about.  Maybe you should seek counseling to bring you back to reality.  Maybe it only takes turning on the TV or reading the news to see we live in a very violent world, and I seriously doubt that your 'World' is immune from this violence.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           I leave my valuables unsecured all the time and yes, my neighbours are peaceful. So, this is my world too. Your world, as you describe, is very violent but it is not everyone's world. The same could be said to you regarding delusional thoughts and therapy- Violence does appear to be at the forefront of your mind.

                           replyreport
                           1. 74

                              livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Protection from violence is at the forefront of my mind and it appears that you too are delusional if you think violence is not part of your world.  You live in a country of 65 million+ where .001% of your population commits intentional homicide.  I live in a country of 314 million+ where .004% of our population commits intentional homicide.  This only accounts for intentional homicides but if you take account of all violent crime, then according to your Dailymail the UK is almost twice as violent as the entire US.  So, yes your 'world' is every bit as violent as mine. Take your blinders off and look at your country as a whole and not just your neighborhood. I live in Chicago so we get a fair bit more share of the violence than most other places in the US, but I'm not too far from some suburbs and communities that see almost no crime, let alone violent crime.  I live in a large condo building with hundreds of units occupied by every nationality I can think of, we're cordial to each other in passing but I sure as hell wouldn't leave my door unlocked.  No, I don't need therapy, I'm a very happy, thankful, and sociable guy.  But I don't live with my head in the clouds.  I know I live in a violent city.  I grew up with violence, and learned to develop 'street smarts.'  I don't let my guard down because I know for a fact there is danger lurking around every corner.  Those that don't keep guard are victims in the making.

                              replyreport
                        2. 91

                           Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           I work in the major News TV channel of the Arab world. I see raw footage every day that is too shocking to put to air. So don't lecture me on violence. However, I also know that the vast majority of people are non-violent, and desire (and largely manage) to live peaceful lives. And I distinguish completely between opportunist theft and violent crime. Most criminals are non-violent too. I walk freely wherever I am in the world and have never felt the need to carry a weapon of any sort, So don't lecture me on street smarts either. I've made it to sixty living this way. I'm not about to be frightened into carrying weapons.
                           (By the way - don't read the Daily Mail if you want reliable information).

                           replyreport
                           1. 74

                              livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I'm not lecturing you so don't you lecture me about anything... Maybe I'm wrong but is see the duplicity in your remarks... "I see raw footage every day that is too shocking to put to air."... but some how this violence dissipates in your presence?  If you see it everyday then why do you have the attitude that "it will never happen to me?"  I'm sure in your job you see victims everyday that held that same attitude.  I'm not trying to scare you into carrying a gun and I'm happy you have street smarts, but come to Chicago and walk 'freely' through the hood and then tell me how safe you are.  I'll agree with you that the majority of people live non violently and most probably do desire to live peaceful lives, but do you honestly believe that violence is not inside them, inside most. Do you not agree that it is the social restraints that contains that violence from raring its ugly head?  I may have given you the impression that I am a violent person.  I assure you that I am not.  All I was trying to relate is that violence surrounds me, it has been engrained into my psyche through a lifetime of competitive sports, military training, and everyday news in my own city.  It don't put much effort in restraining my reactions because of the family I was raised in, the values received from church and community, and my social engagements. 
                              
                              By the way, I don't read the dailymail.. My initial stats on intentional homicide came from wikpedia and while searching stats on violent crime in the UK compared to the US, I found that article in the DM very compelling.  If it is wrong info then Hollie can dispute it with me, but since I seen nearly the same info on several sites, I think she will have a hard time doing so.

                              replyreport
                              1. 91

                                 Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 The raw footage mostly comes from war zones or from sites of terrorist bombings. In the latter case, the nature of a random bombing is such that a gun will afford you no protection at all. It's in the nature of TV News to deal with these events. But they do not constitute normality.
                                 Where I am now (in a 7th floor apartment building in Doha) I can look out over the roofscape of maybe 100,000 people, most of whom are probably sitting down to breakfast or preparing for their National Day celebrations. Violence is not in their minds. They are not armed. That is normality.
                                 In Syria, on the other hand, the country is being ripped apart with violence. That is an aberration. It is not what the people want, and as soon as it is over normality will start to return.
                                 Of course I know that violence is part of our nature, but so is creativity. So are love and friendship. So are imagination, trust, compassion and hope. The mindset that says "only" our social "restrictions" prevent us from enacting violence is very foreign to me. What we have, most of us, are wonderful social constructs that allow us to flourish as free creative spirits. Our capacity for violence can remain in its dark corner unless absolutely required. It should not be allowed to dominate our thinking or actions. That, to me, is an aberrant mindset.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 81

                                    Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Paraglider, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have written here.
                                    I think that you have an excellent grasp of life and world situations. I think that it is wonderful that you are living the life you are and I commend you for it.

                                    replyreport
                        3. 59

                           islandantoinetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           We don't lock our doors on the Big Island of Hawai'i and people including our neighbours don't  "walk away" as you say with our "things" because they are not secured.  There still ARE peaceful societies! Sad you don't live in one and live for your gun. IT must put terrible pressure and stress on you. A lot is your state of mind.  I wrote this post on another site that is how I feel about guns from many experiences from ALL sides of the issue:
                           Personally I don't believe in guns period, after living in societies where there are no guns and no need for them. People will and do find a way to kill each other without guns. However guns = money and make that BIG MONEY and GREED in America as sadly with so many other "things". I know how to shoot, learned at a private all girls summer camp that Judy Garlands "other" daughter Lorna Luft and sister of Liza Minnelli attended with me. They got us all to sign that paper to join the NRA for life. We were too young to know what we were doing or the full ramifications of it. Now I do know, have formed opinions about gun violence and I choose NOT to have a gun. Not that I am a "hothead" but too many people and things in this society in America can push your buttons no matter what they be and I'd kill some people for sure!!! Yep sure would! And I am an RN with extensive education in mental health. But the truth IS the truth. Some people do not deserve to live! Ever looked into the eyes of the man who sexually molested your child? I have; there IS evil in this world and sadly the courts do not always dish out what is the deserved outcome. Then there is the other side where too many cops shoot and kill first. Oh you don't hear about all of them on the nightly news do you! If you think only 34 people a day die in America from guns you are gullible. So you can not say only these people "should" have guns and those people should not; as there are people of all races, creeds, colours, states, locations and beliefs that should NOT have guns and sadly there is no sure way to ensure that these people do not have them except for NO ONE TO! Since life can not go back sadly for the good of mankind, due to gun=money=lobbyists=greed=more money=power; it may just "go back" to the wild wild west days where everyone had a gun and shot anyone they wanted to "faster than the next man" could shoot and kill him. It certainly seems like the NRA folks want that. I see a woman with a gun on her hip in jeans not looking very ladylike, then there are the pink guns, and I see two 16 yr. olds who were able to buy legal guns from a gun shop who killed their friend with one. Then I see two hi-way patrol police in Texas doing body cavity searches ON THE HIGHWAY of two women using the same glove for throwing a suspected marijuana cigarette out the window. If these women had not agreed to the search they so easily could have been shot. I think I have experienced it from all sides and thus have decided I am AGAINST ALL GUNS.
                           
                           And the Daily Mail is a great place to read.  I recently found it!

                           replyreport
                           1. 74

                              livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Thank you for such a condescending reply... If it is as you say on the Big Island then everything reported here: http://www.bigislandnewscenter.com/tag/crime-stoppers/  must be a big LIE.  So sad that people are blinded by what goes on around them that they have to lash out at people when they point it out.
                              
                              Everything else you posted only supports my earlier statement that violence is within all of us.  And if you are as  responsible a person as you think you are then having a gun would not change that.  I have many guns, I live in a very violent city, but I never feel the need to take one with me when I'm out and about the city. I don't need them for protection either, I can do that pretty well without any weapons.  My reasons for having guns is for my own pleasure, collecting and investing.  I never purchased a gun with the thought of how much damage it could do to a person because the use on a person has never been a part of my thought process. 
                              
                              @movingout... no kidding genius... if you had actually read what I posted, I mentioned that that scenario was meant for drama for something I am writing.

                              replyreport
                              1. 71

                                 Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 "Violence is in all of us." Therefore, the more guns the better.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 74

                                    livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Those are your words Ralph, not mine.  Nowhere in this thread have I promoted more guns.  So again, for the slow witted readers that want to just pick out random words, guns are only a tool and if someone wants to do harm they will use whatever tool is available.  Responsible, sociable, gun owners would never use a gun to harm someone... Gun owners that are irresponsible and unsociable, might choose to use a gun.  The problem is identifying those people before there is a problem.  I have no problem having to register a gun or even to submit a psychological release from my personal doctor but I'll be damned before I voluntarily give up my guns without being fairly compensated... example, when I purchased my AR15 several years ago, I only paid $800 and today that same weapon is selling for $3500+

                                    replyreport
                  3. 67

                     LucidDreamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Livewithrichard
                     
                     the only thing is, another tool would be what? Probaly not something capable of killing twenty something people in a matter of seconds.

                     replyreport
                     1. 74

                        livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Really?  What about a homemade pipe bomb, or the numerous poisons that can be found in the local Walmart? While researching for my novel, I came up with an even more devious plot: A distraught kid breaks into his high school science class and steals the containers of acid, then he deposits the acid into the fire sprinkler system.  The next day he lights a match to set off the sprinkler system and it douses the entire class body and staff with the acid.  It may not be lethal but it is certainly mass destruction. (yes I know it's not as easy as it sounds but it makes for good drama.)
                        
                        The point is, if a person is set on doing bad things then they will find a way and a tool to do it with.  Everyone wants to feel better so they attack the symptom of a problem and never even address the root cause of the problem.  You may feel better taking that cold and flu medicine but you still carry the virus and spread it to others.

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Won't work.  Most interior sprinkler systems are of the "wet" variety, meaning they are full of water and under pressure at all times.  You would have to notify the monitoring company that work was being done (if you don't the cops promptly show up), turn off the incoming water and completely drain hundreds of gallons from the system.  Then break the piping, pump in hundreds of gallons of acid, reseal the broken pipe, turn the water back on and notify the monitoring system it is back into operation.
                           
                           On the other hand an envelope of anthrax is pretty effective.  Or a breakable container of chlorine or mustard gas under pressure.  A tank of propane with a bit of thermite heaved through a window.  A little booby trap on a school bus.  Heck, a rental car driven through a classroom wall.
                           
                           Yeah, there are lots of alternatives, and many are cheaper and quicker than buying a gun.

                           replyreport
                           1. 74

                              livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I know its not as easy as I made it sound... I once was a pipefitter many moons ago. I helped in the building of the Beau Rivage Casino in Biloxi, MS.  In writing a story or a screenplay I would show the drama of the event not the 'how to' exactly.  Like in the movie Constantine where Shia LaBeouf's character placed a Holy Cross into the holding system effectively making the sprinkler system rain down Holy water onto the demons.  The audience (or majority of them) didn't question the possibility, they were in awe of the ingenious way of delivery.
                              
                              The point is, as you already know, there are many tools that will cause mass destruction or could be used in mass killings other than guns.

                              replyreport
                        2. 61

                           movingoutposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Setting off one sprinkler head wouldn't open all the sprinklers. That only happens in the movies.

                           replyreport
      2. 61

         oldhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         It seems to me that requiring guns to be muzzle loaded would put a big damper on the ability of one person to kill many quickly.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            BloodRedPenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Have you ever loaded a muzzle loader. Many more would die from packing the powder to tight or accidental touch off. Plus back in the day when that's the only type of gun they had. People kept them loaded and ready to fire. What if a kid got hold of it. (a conundrum)

            replyreport
            1. 67

               LucidDreamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               "back in the day" EXACTLY.....things were a little different when the founding fathers wrote the constitution. Kind of like when a kid gets a hold of a gun today with much more power and killing ability. See the post at the bottom of the page!

               replyreport
4. 96

   CMHypnoposted 12 years ago

   How can there be any misconception about guns - they kill people?
   
   I can't see that knowing the ins and outs of what an assault rifle is is going to change that.
   
   Some professionals need to know the technical details and some people are interested hobby-wise. But I don't think that knowing the technical spec of an automatic weapon is going to change many people's views on gun ownership either way.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Look above for one example of a misconception. The media and politicians have trained citizens to look at two versions of the exact same rifle. A black one will be called an assault rifle, while a camo-patterned one will be called a hunting rifle.
      
      When emotion and ignorance are part of a subject, logic and reason are hindered, or completely removed.

      replyreport
5. 52

   ocbillposted 12 years ago

   statistics. I like numbers.
   I want stats on countries with high per capita gun ownership and violent crime (not petty theft). is there a correlation?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There aren't any that would be considered useful statistics, from a statistical standpoint. A valid statistical study has to control for any factors or variables that are different in two datasets. So to compare two countries for gun ownership vs. gun homicide, you would somehow have to control for:
      
      Age
      Wealth
      Population density
      Race
      Religion
      (there are others)
      
      In addition, you would have to adjust for other factors that drive crime, such as the legal status of drugs, and the underlying crime rates themselves(If you have two countries, and one has double the gun homicide rate as well as double the knife homicide rate, then is it the fault of knives/guns, or is it the fault of that society?).
      
      Effectively, it's a useless diversion, I've never even seen an attempt to control for those factors.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Such a correlation is nearly worthless; a correlation can be found between nearly any two actions.  You need a causal relationship, not a correlation.
      
      You might look at countries with such a correlation, then look at the violent crime rate without guns.  Do those countries have a high violent crime rate using knives?  Blunt objects (baseball bat, pipe, etc.)?  Bare hands?  Boots?  Rape?
      
      If so, the causal relationship would seem to come from the culture itself, not guns.  If not, guns could be causing the violence although consideration would have to be given to the question of "will removing guns simply produce another form of violence?".

      replyreport
6. 60

   Mark Ewbieposted 12 years ago

   Would you say the larger the gun the smaller the penis?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No. While some people do compensate for what they consider faults or inadequacies, it certainly isn't a rule that can be used in reverse that way.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Mark Ewbieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         OK thanks, I'll try to put that image out of my mind.

         replyreport
   2. 91

      Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Happiness is a warm gun - Beatles, White Album

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Mark Ewbieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Helter Skelter.

         replyreport
   3. 71

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ha! That reminds me of an old Army distinction: "This is my rifle. This is my gun. THis is for shooting. This is for fun."

      replyreport
7. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   Maybe we can stimulate the conversation a little...
   
   Is this:
   
   
   
   any more dangerous than this:
   
   
   
   ?
   
   Would you call them both assault rifles, or just the black one?

   replyreport
   1. 74

      livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      To someone that doesn't know guns, the AR15 has a more intimidating design because it is made to imitate a military weapon.  Technically they both are considered 'assault rifles' since they are both capable of rapid fire.  I would do more damage with my lever action Henry .30/30.  The 'pistol grip' of the AR15 will give an inexperienced shooter a false sense of control and cause him/her to be less accurate than they would be with the Woodmaster.
      
      They are equally dangerous in the wrong hands.

      replyreport
8. 91

   Paragliderposted 12 years ago

   Sorry - you said 'restraints', not 'restrictions'. There is a difference, and I didn't mean to misquote you.

   replyreport
9. 52

   ocbillposted 12 years ago

   It appears that access is just too easy though. Since you have to be able to protect yourself in case of home invasion, they are left in the open for depressed or mentally unstable youth, except for the Denver theater and Fort Bragg shootings.
   
   FYI: Despite the much lower number of firearms in circulation in the population than the United States, Brazil recorded in 2010, 36,000 victims of fatal gunfire.

   replyreport
10. 0

    JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

    Pelosi was talking about how we need to ban 'endless assault magazines'.
    
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. Our politicians, our lawmakers, are talking about things that they don't even understand. They use sensational adjectives(what's a 'regular' magazine?), and incorrect terminology(endless, shoulder thing that goes up, etc).
    
    How are we supposed to have a real discussion when most people don't even seem to know anything about the topic?

    replyreport
11. 60

    Mark Ewbieposted 12 years ago

    The Second Amendment, the NRA, American politics dependent on donations from vested interests, Americans fear of themselves - all contributed to the school shooting.
    
    America is dealing death to the world with its drone attacks, hypocrisy in its dealings with groups that are terrorists one minute and freedom fighters the next, and its own society has a people so sick with worry (despite all their wonderful guns) that they are seriously suggesting arming nursery school teachers.
    
    To be honest mate, you can waffle on about the length and calibre of your gun as long as you like, but there is a much deeper problem in American society. 
    
    This incident and the reaction to it has made me feel less inclined to put America on my list of places to see.  The message the gun owners preach is that you are unsafe in America without a gun.
    
    Nice one.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Hey, America is a violent place. Not because of the weapons, the causes are different than that.
       
       But, to ignore the fact that 4 out of every 100,000 citizens are murdered every year is folly. If that's enough to keep you away, then fine. For me, that's a big enough chance, and I consider my life and the life of my family important enough that I'm going to have a weapon, just in case.
       
       I'll probably never have a fire in my house, but I have a fire extinguisher, just in case. I'll probably never be stranded, but I have an emergency kit in my car, just in case. I only have one life, so I'm not going to risk it.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Mark Ewbieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          OK, well, the UK has fifty million people in it and London is fairly large.  It has crime, murders, rapes and all the stuff that goes along with society.
          
          In the UK though, I believe that the majority of us feel safer WITHOUT guns.  We don't have them and the nutters don't either.  Our police, mostly, are unarmed apart from pepper spray and now Tasers.
          
          So what is the difference between our two societies?  One obvious one is the availability of guns.  Any other ideas why we rarely have school shootings yet they are a regular event in the States?
          
          As a Brit, if I thought someone in my street had guns I would be more scared.  Maybe I'd need to get one.  And then my neighbour would get scared...
          
          Is that how it works?

          replyreport
          1. 0

             JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             One factor is the income inequality. Crime rates in poor urban areas in the US are some 6-7 times higher than the national medium. Racial factors, mixed with problems with our healthcare system, coupled with the drug war, makes for a lot of really bad situations.
             
             We've tried gun control in places in the US, but things only got worse. Gun rights laws have made things better.
             
             Think about it this way. When a patient goes in to see a doctor, and has a stomachache, do you expect something that worked on one patient to work on another patient? All we are doing is looking at symptoms and trying to proscribe a cure.

             replyreport
             1. 60

                Mark Ewbieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I'm glad you can see a broader argument.  So...
                
                1.Legalize all drugs.  Cuts out the criminals and the government agencies - both of whom use illegal drugs for their own agendas. At worst - users kill themselves - they don't need to kill for that pricy next fix.
                2. Make taxation more fair.  Tax the rich a bit more - individuals AND corporations - and put some money into those deprived communities.  Endlessly building prisons is not the answer, although politically it guarantees a few more votes.
                3. Healthcare. You know, in little old Britain we have the NHS.  We can't afford it but we are proud of it (mostly). The theory is that rich AND poor can get treated.
                
                We don't really have 1. and 2. in the UK and we probably never will.  But a general equality and feeling of self worth in society would surely be better than an endless personal arms war where people need to barricade themselves in their homes.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   1 - I agree.
                   2 - I disagree. Taxes are already unfair. The top 1% of Americans pay 900% more taxes per dollar earned than the bottom 50%. 900% isn't fair enough? We have the highest effective corporate tax rate in the world, so why in the world would we make it even harder to do business here?
                   3 - Healthcare is a huge topic, and nobody here has shown any indication of actually wanting to discuss it with me. Americans pay $100-$200 billion more per year than they should have to on pharmaceuticals, because the rest of the world has price controls on them. Almost all of the funding for R&D comes from America. That pretty much sucks. I could go on(I have before).

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      Mark Ewbieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      2. That's an interesting stat.  I am sure it is misleading and unfair but I haven't got time to argue over it.  Or knowledge to be honest.
                      3. Pharmaceuticals, university research, doctors prescribing according to profit - another topic which I am sure there is a lot of mileage in.
                      
                      Another time...

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         2 - I can prove it pretty easily, the information is published by the IRS. The top 1% pays $0.24 of every dollar they earn. The bottom 50% pays $0.0185 of every dollar they earn. So sorry, I was actually thinking of another measure, the top 1% actually pay 1190% more per dollar earned in taxes than the bottom 50%.
                         
                         http://taxfoundation.org/article/summar … tax-data-0
                         
                         3 - Yup, lots of mileage.

                         replyreport
    2. 59

       islandantoinetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Aloha Mark Ewbie:
       
       I really like all your intelligent and accurate comments.
       Talking to people who had the choice to go to America or the UK and those who chose the UK all stated there was FAR LESS crime and violence in the UK and people were much happier! I was Grand Cayman only Hospital Medical Social Worker and spoke to many people who immigrated to both countries and got that info first hand.
       You hit the nail on the head.  America has Americans living in FEAR! IT is an agenda they perpetuate and it is most effective in selling many things.
       I totally agree with you and this is an excellent comment:
       Americans fear of themselves. America is dealing death to the world with its drone attacks, hypocrisy in its dealings with groups that are terrorists one minute and freedom fighters the next, and its own society has a people so sick with worry (despite all their wonderful guns) that they are seriously suggesting arming nursery school teachers.
       
       To be honest mate, you can waffle on about the length and calibre of your gun as long as you like, but there is a much deeper problem in American society.
       
       This incident and the reaction to it has made me feel less inclined to put America on my list of places to see.  The message the gun owners preach is that you are unsafe in America without a gun.
       
       I have heard many many people from all over the world state they no longer have any interest in coming to "see" or "visit" America.
       While living in other countries I heard what people really think of America and it was not good!
       
       
       Nice one.

       replyreport
12. 67

    LucidDreamsposted 12 years ago

    Kind of seems like no matter what happens, those who HAVE to have guns, will always find a way to steer the conversation to other ways people will kill people. Guns are specifically designed to kill. They are too easy to get, and even though, yeah, many people like to collect them, they were disigned to kill.
    
    No reason to keep arguing here. I'll just keep watching people kill other people on the news with guns and maybe a bomb or two. No need to do anything about it.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       islandantoinetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       YES AGREE WITH YOU LUCID DREAMS! I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED TO GUNS ONLY BROUGHT UP THE "OTHER WAYS PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE" IS TO ALSO WHO THAT THERE IS FAR TOO MUCH VIOLENCE IN EVERY WAY THAT CAN KILL - GUNS BEING THE WORSE AS YOU ARE RIGHT THEY ARE ONLY DESIGNED TO KILL.  WHAT KIND OF MONSTER NEEDS AN AUTOMATIC TO KILL BAMBI YOU IS UNARMED?  AND THEY CALL THAT SPORT?  SICK - SICK - SICK.  BUT GUNS=MONEY=GREED=MORE MONEY=MORE GUNS=MORE GREED=BILLIONAIRES IN THE NAME OF DEATH OF ANYTHING AS GUNS KILL!

       replyreport
       1. 0

          JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Who hunts with automatic weapons?

          replyreport
          1. 74

             livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             People that don't have guns, never touched let alone fired a gun, or have only seen guns on TV, always assume that people that have automatic weapons use them to hunt... what a joke.  Frankly, I hope these people never do get a gun because its that sort of ignorance that leads to gun violence. 
             You know, when I was in the military I didn't get to pick and choose which rights I wanted to defend, I defended the entire constitution.  The problem with far lefties is that they want to cherry pick the rights they want to support and that is a slap in the face to every person that has ever worn a military uniform. People who have never served their country, never served their community, and then complain about the society they live in, disgust me and I will have no further discourse with them.. Merry Christmas!

             replyreport
             1. 67

                LucidDreamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Sad!

                replyreport
             2. 66

                BloodRedPenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                livewithrichard - I whole-heartedly agree with your statement. And as a fellow veteran. I would like to thank you for your service. Merry Christmas

                replyreport
             3. 71

                Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                There is no right to assault weapons, however defined, in the constitution. Ditto for large capacity magazines, body armor, hand grenades or even handguns, except within reasonable state and city regulations.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   There is a right to arms, which is understood both through SCOTUS rulings and historical texts that an 'arm' is considered weapons used in war. The 'bear' portion of 'keep and bear arms' indicates that they are specifically referring to weapons which can be carried by an individual.
                   
                   So, you're actually wrong. 'Assault weapons', however you choose to define that, are constitutionally protected.
                   
                   Additionally, the rifles the military uses aren't specifically designed to be the most lethal, you get much more lethal rifles in hunting. The military is both restricted by the Hague convention, other 'rules' of warfare, and the desire to injure enemies in order to take more than one out of action at a time, and to be cheaper and more suppressive in nature.

                   replyreport
                   1. 71

                      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Assault weapons were banned for ten years without a successful challenge until the law expired. The most recent Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. Handgun prohibition supported reasonable gun restrictions.

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         Reasonable restrictions, yes. It also said that guns that are in common use are constitutionally protected. That includes AR-15 style rifles.
                         
                         The Assault Weapons Ban didn't really ban rifles. It mostly banned cosmetics. The Bushmaster used at Sandy Hook wouldn't have been banned. That's why using the term 'assault rifle' is stupid. Nobody can agree on what it means. Some think it's semi-automatic rifles. Some think it's 'black rifles'. Some think it's automatic rifles.
                         
                         But Ralph, we both know that the SCOTUS is just opinion. Change one judge and suddenly you would get different rulings. The constitution is clear. Very clear. So are the supportive writings and historical context.

                         replyreport
                         1. 71

                            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            If the constitution were clear there would be no need for the Supreme Court. The constitution means what the SC says it means.

                            replyreport
                            1. 0

                               JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               No, the Constitution means what our founding fathers meant it to mean.
                               
                               The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
                               
                               That's clear. Leave it to lawyers to try and weasel their way around things, you can't look at what is written and come to any other conclusion without being dishonest.
                               
                               The Bill of Rights outlines the rights of the people.

                               replyreport
                               1. 71

                                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                  The Constitution doesn't mention assault weapons, automatic or semi-automatic.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 0

                                     JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                     It doesn't name them specifically. Instead, it says 'arms'.
                                     
                                     The definition of arms at the time was 'weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” That includes both automatic and semiautomatic rifles, as they are weapons of offence. It also include body armor, as armour of defence.
                                     
                                     It's foolhardy and dishonest to say that semi-automatic rifles aren't protected because they aren't specifically mentioned, when the 2A states that the people have a right to bear ALL arms, there is no exclusion. In fact, restricting any weapons is, by definition, an infringement.
                                     
                                     Shall we extend your argument to show how illogical it is? The Constitution doesn't mention forums, so you don't have freedom of speech when you are posting on a forum.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 71

                                        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                        Atomic bombs, machine guns, hand grenades and sarin gas are all "arms," and all are "exceptions." your argument doesn't hold water. Assault weapons have been banned, consistent with SC decisions, and, as you they were banned under federal law for ten years. If my memory is correct machine guns have been prohibited by federal law for many years.

                                        report
                                        1. 0

                                           JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                           Ralph, we're talking about the Constitution. Not current or previous laws, and not court rulings.
                                           
                                           I gave you the definition of arms from the time period when it was written... go ahead and argue, your argument has nothing to stand on.
                                           
                                           Yes, 'assault' weapons were banned for ten years. Even though that has nothing to do with the constitution, you should know it was a ridiculous law. A rifle can be legal, unless you add a pistol grip? Yeah, that makes sense. Or a bayonet lug, yeah, because those things are so dangerous, they were a plague for years before they were banned.
                                           
                                           Good job though Ralph. You didn't address a single thing I said, want to try again?

                                           report
                                           1. 71

                                              Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                              The Supreme Court, not the NRA nor Jaxon Raine nor Ralph Deeds determines what is Constitutional. I haven' read it recently, but my recollection is that the most recent decision allows reasonablas state and local regulation of firearms. Of course the Second amendment didn't list the types of arms that were permitted or not permited because arms consisted of muskets sabers and lances. The arms industry has progressed a fair amount since then. I fail to see the significance of your point that the Second Amendments doesn't list any exceptions.

                                              report
                                              1. 0

                                                 JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                 Once again Ralph, you didn't actually address anything I said. Third time the charm maybe?
                                                 
                                                 Supreme Court rulings are not the same thing as the Constitution.

                                                 report
                                                 1. 68

                                                    Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                    So I guess you won't be paying your health insurance "tax"

                                                    report
                                                 2. 71

                                                    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                    True. They just tell us what the Constitution means today. So, what's your point?

                                                    report
                                                    1. 0

                                                       JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                       My point is all the stuff that I've already said.
                                                       
                                                       If the SC says the 2A means X, then the judges change and they say the 2A means Y, did the 2A really change? No, just our interpretation of it.
                                                       
                                                       You clearly don't care to address what I said, I'll just take that as a concession. I'll say it again though...
                                                       
                                                       Arms: weapons of offence, or armour of defence
                                                       
                                                       http://books.google.com/books?id=F_0SAA … CDkQ6AEwAw
                                                       
                                                       There is your definition for the word. Argue against it if you want.

                                                       report
                                                       1. 68

                                                          Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                          In a way, you're proving his point. The interpretation of the document is all that matters. The Founding Fathers intentionally made the document vague in many places to allow an evolving society to interpret the document under a variety of social and technological advances over time.

                                                          report
                                                          1. 68

                                                             Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                             Essentially, the words carry only as much meaning as the person reading them perceives them to have.

                                                             report
                                     2. 68

                                        innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                        @Ralph. I agree. The only way to apply it consistently would be to legalise every weapon, which I would personally be in favour of.

                                        report
                                        1. 71

                                           Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                           Poison gas? Machine guns. Etc? Pretty extreme?

                                           report
                               2. 67

                                  LucidDreamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                  Founding fathers came to America on a big fricken sailboat. Times were different! Things change and so do laws with them.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 66

                                     BloodRedPenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                     Where did you study history? Most of the founding fathers were born here. Their parents and grand parents were the people that ran from the king.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 71

                                        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                        You have an unerring instinct for the capillaries!

                                        report
                                     2. 66

                                        BloodRedPenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                        Ralph - If I can't get the jugular. I try to at least nick a vein or two

                                        report
                                     3. 67

                                        LucidDreamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                        Bloodredpen
                                        
                                        "Where did you study history? Most of the founding fathers were born here. Their parents and grand parents were the people that ran from the king."
                                        
                                        I was not trying to be 100% factually correct only trying to make a point that apparently went right over your head!
                                        Do you ride a horse to work? I would say probably not depending on what you do and where you live.
                                        My point is that the world changes and we need to keep an open mind!@ I am not totally against guns but something needs to be done besides having more of them. If someone suprised you bu kicking in your door and shooting with an assault rifle, chances are very good that you and your family would not have time to get your guns and fire back. So much for having a gun for safety!

                                        report
          2. 71

             Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             They masturbate with them!

             replyreport
             1. 68

                innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                "Poison gas? Machine guns. Etc? Pretty extreme?"
                
                Relieving the violent monopoly the government has over these things can only be a good thing. I am not phased by arbitrary labels like 'extreme'.

                replyreport
       2. 68

          innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Your eloquence is astounding.

          replyreport
13. 61

    movingoutposted 12 years ago

    I can't remember the last time I read about an average guy shooting and killing the bad guy for self defense? I do however read all the time about bad guys killing innocent people. And let's not forget the boyfriend/girlfriend and family dispute type shootings just because the guns are available in their homes.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       islandantoinetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I can remember the last time I read about an average guy shooting and killing the "bad guy" for self defense.  It was the Trayvon Martin MURDER! And the killer had to "stand his ground" he said.  They have even invented laws to support their guns and what they feel is their right to use these guns to KILL which is what guns ONLY DO! KILL!  Oh and did you hear about the case in Florida where a man did not like the music kids were playing in their car at the gas station so he went over the killed the driver! He is also saying he was just standing his ground.  What has America come to with their gun laws and gun rights and the NRA?  It is insane!

       replyreport
       1. 0

          JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Simple. A story like that isn't sensational. They happen locally but don't go nationwide like murder stories do.

          replyreport
14. 49

    jcalesposted 12 years ago

    ex-cons with a gun - http://news.yahoo.com/firemens-killer-l … 47945.html

    replyreport
15. 49

    jcalesposted 12 years ago

    L.A.P.D. Chief of police - in 3 years of gun buy backs of some 8,000 firearms, we have seen a drop of violent crimes by 33%

    replyreport
    1. 0

       JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Data from the FBI Unified Crime Report shows a 24% decrease in violent crime for Los Angeles for 2009-2011. That's about 8% per year. The four years previous LA saw an average of 11% per year decrease in violent crime.
       
       So, if that's the measurement you want to use, then the gun buyback program has slowed the rate of decrease in violent crimes.

       replyreport
       1. 67

          LucidDreamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          2,947 children and teens were killed by guns in 2008; another 2,793 were killed in 2009.
          Two-thirds were victims of homicide (3,892), one-quarter were suicide (1,548), and five percent
          were accidental or unknown (300) gun deaths. Black children and teens were only
          15 percent of the child population but were 45 percent of the total fatal gun deaths in 2008
          and 2009.
          
          These were not people defending their homes but children being killed by all of the guns in our nation. Too many guns with too easy access.

          replyreport