Live by the gun, die by the gun!!

[Skeptikosia]

I wish I had a heat-seeking rounds.

It's also sort of funny when people whose only exposure to guns comes from movies and video games try to explain what they are and how they work. And completely fuck it up.

I understand that some just don't like the icky guns.

But the pervasive and profound ignorance of the grabbers is just staggering.

[CanuckHeaven]

Look at Chicago and DC.

Giant nanny government with de facto gun bans and some of the highest gun crime rates in the country.

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault
Florida 2008 4 3 6 4 13 23 5 7
Florida 2007 4 6 6 6 13 20 4 7
Florida 2006 4 7 5 11 16 18 6 6
Florida 2005 4 10 4 16 24 18 7 4

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary
Illinois2, 3 2008 5 26 12 28 16 25 7 18 27
Illinois 2007 5 29 12 32 20 27 8 16 30
Illinois 2006 5 30 14 33 18 25 7 15 32
Illinois 2005 5 30 12 33 20 24 4 15 32
It would appear that Illinois is much safer than the gun toting State of Florida, where they have had the right to carry since 1987, and a Castle Doctrine Law passed in 2005.

[Mando-ade]

Look at Chicago and DC.

Giant nanny government with de facto gun bans and some of the highest gun crime rates in the country.

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault
Florida 2008 4 3 6 4 13 23 5 7
Florida 2007 4 6 6 6 13 20 4 7
Florida 2006 4 7 5 11 16 18 6 6
Florida 2005 4 10 4 16 24 18 7 4

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary
Illinois2, 3 2008 5 26 12 28 16 25 7 18 27
Illinois 2007 5 29 12 32 20 27 8 16 30
Illinois 2006 5 30 14 33 18 25 7 15 32
Illinois 2005 5 30 12 33 20 24 4 15 32
It would appear that Illinois is much safer than the gun toting State of Florida, where they have had the right to carry since 1987, and a Castle Doctrine Law passed in 2005.

*thinks you lost some formatting there*

[Skeptikosia]

Look at Chicago and DC.

Giant nanny government with de facto gun bans and some of the highest gun crime rates in the country.

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault
Florida 2008 4 3 6 4 13 23 5 7
Florida 2007 4 6 6 6 13 20 4 7
Florida 2006 4 7 5 11 16 18 6 6
Florida 2005 4 10 4 16 24 18 7 4

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary
Illinois2, 3 2008 5 26 12 28 16 25 7 18 27
Illinois 2007 5 29 12 32 20 27 8 16 30
Illinois 2006 5 30 14 33 18 25 7 15 32
Illinois 2005 5 30 12 33 20 24 4 15 32
It would appear that Illinois is much safer than the gun toting State of Florida, where they have had the right to carry since 1987, and a Castle Doctrine Law passed in 2005.

Formatting is your friend.

[Bluth Corporation]

It would appear that Illinois is much safer than the gun toting State of Florida, where they have had the right to carry since 1987, and a Castle Doctrine Law passed in 2005.

The situation with regards to D.C., Florida, and Illinois seem to indicate that gun ownership/gun laws are irrelevant either way in terms of safety.

Not that it would matter if they were; safety is itself irrelevant when sacred natural individual rights are in question.

[The Sentenial Empire]

I wish I had a heat-seeking rounds.

It's also sort of funny when people whose only exposure to guns comes from movies and video games try to explain what they are and how they work. And completely fuck it up.

That lady is retarded...incendiary bullets use phosphorus to heat and burn through heavy materials such as tank armour...Not heat seeking.

[New Ziedrich]

I wish I had a heat-seeking rounds.

It's also sort of funny when people whose only exposure to guns comes from movies and video games try to explain what they are and how they work. And completely fuck it up.

"A high capacity magazine is, uh, filled with bullets..."

Those videos were hilarious. This one, however, is annoying. Smug bastard, so sure he's got all the answers, he has to talk down to everyone. You know, one thing consistently I see among the gun-control crowd is astounding condescension. It's insulting and disrespectful, really.

[The Adrian Empire]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

Which is a flawed argument, owning a gun didn't kill this women, her husband killed her, had he not a gun what is to say this would have ended better, this is a tragedy that shouldn't be exploited for this purpose, (but hypocritically requires my defence)

[Thethunderdome]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQN1u_aPgcM

I cracked up at the first sentence........

An assault weapon is a gun that is designed to be spray-fired from the hip. They were created to be used in trench warfare, when soldiers found that regular long rifles did not suit them in the trenches.

That's so grossly incorrect I don't even know what to say

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

"A high-capacity magazine generally holds 6 rounds or more."

... Again, massive LOLFAIL.

[Sanskacia]

But .. but ...
If we get rid of the guns, how are we supposed to stop those damned zombies?

I thought that tasers were the new guns, just like red is the new black, orange is the new red, and oh wait, black is the new black again. I have yet to see a High-Noon style quick draw tasering (tumbleweed optional), though.
And as soon as we harvest enough Science from the fields, we'll get to lightsabers. And then things get 'interesting'.

To me, guns have always lacked that certain flair that the blade has. Where's the style, the zing, the ... panache? No, if someone breaks into my house ... well, let's just say that I hope they've worn comfortable shoes, because it's going to be a long night.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

This says less about the kind of person who owns a gun, and more about the kind of person who openly carries a loaded handgun to a child's game. Obviously, the latter one is a lot more likely to be mentally unstable than the former.

Also, was she the murder or the suicide in that exchange?

[Skeptikosia]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

Which is a flawed argument, owning a gun didn't kill this women, her husband killed her, had he not a gun what is to say this would have ended better, this is a tragedy that shouldn't be exploited for this purpose, (but hypocritically requires my defence)

And spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat right?

[Skeptikosia]

This says less about the kind of person who owns a gun, and more about the kind of person who openly carries a loaded handgun to a child's game. Obviously, the latter one is a lot more likely to be mentally unstable than the former.

Cite?

Edit:

I carry concealed everywhere I'm allowed by law. If open carry was allowed I'd do that as well.

Do you have fire extenguishers in your house? Would you run outside and get the hose if your house caught on fire or would you wait for the fire departnem?

[Jingoist Hippostan]

Do you have fire extenguishers in your house? Would you run outside and get the hose if your house caught on fire or would you wait for the fire departnem?

You know, I support the right to carry a gun, and this still seems like an absurd comparison to me.

[Skeptikosia]

Do you have fire extenguishers in your house? Would you run outside and get the hose if your house caught on fire or would you wait for the fire departnem?

You know, I support the right to carry a gun, and this still seems like an absurd comparison to me.

Not at all. A fire extinguisher is a specific tool for a specific problem, as is a firearm. It's just that firearms have a variety of uses. Sport, hunting, self-defense, and war.

Both tools have their uses. It's when people misuse them that the problems arise.

The essence of the problem is that my rights are resticted, I'm being punished for pre-crime. My constitutionally recognized rights are abridged because:

1) some people don't know how to act, and

2) others are pussies.

1) These people should be punished for their actions.

2) These people hide behind the voice of the crowd and dictate how they think others should behave.

All I want is to be able to protect myself and my own, and be left alone. If I abridge someone else's rights then should I be punished.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

snip.

Only the consequences of misusing a gun are a lot more severe than those of misusing a fire extinguisher.

[Skeptikosia]

snip.

Only the consequences of misusing a gun are a lot more severe than those of misusing a fire extinguisher.

Potentially yes, but if you're going to use that position then you should consider banning cars first.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

snip.

Only the consequences of misusing a gun are a lot more severe than those of misusing a fire extinguisher.

Potentially yes, but if you're going to use that position then you should consider banning cars first.

Good point.

[Skeptikosia]

snip.

Only the consequences of misusing a gun are a lot more severe than those of misusing a fire extinguisher.

Potentially yes, but if you're going to use that position then you should consider banning cars first.

Good point.

Oh, and pools too.

Both kill many more people than guns through negligence alone.

[Bikonria]

*sarcasm mode activated*

If guns are allowed under the constitution for anyone and everyone to "defend" themselves, why don't we apply the same logic to nukes for a minute? We built nukes to defend ourselves from Japan. Then we built more to defend ourselves from Russia. They did the same for us. Well, we're all alive today obviously, so the Cold War must have been one peachy little happy nonviolent picnic in the history of humanity. In fact, I think that the US and the UN should just but out, and let any nation, regardless of their history or intent, own nukes and have them ready to fire at all times to "defend themselves" and we should completely stop checking in on them to make sure they're using them responsibly, 'cause it's none of our business.

Real-life

As long as there are people on this planet, they will want to kill each other. As long as we allow people to have weapons that can kill from a distance with little effort, they will do it a lot. If the United States has the right to invade the middle east in fear of weapons of mass destruction, and the UN has the right to investigate Iran over their nuclear weapons program, than a little gun control isn't just a valid idea, it's the only sane idea.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

Which is a flawed argument, owning a gun didn't kill this women, her husband killed her, had he not a gun what is to say this would have ended better, this is a tragedy that shouldn't be exploited for this purpose, (but hypocritically requires my defence)

Even if the only people allowed to own/possess a firearm were the military or law enforcement, she still could have been shot and killed, because her husband was law enforcement (parole officer).

[Gun Manufacturers]

This says less about the kind of person who owns a gun, and more about the kind of person who openly carries a loaded handgun to a child's game. Obviously, the latter one is a lot more likely to be mentally unstable than the former.

Also, was she the murder or the suicide in that exchange?

According to sources I've seen, her husband killed her, then committed suicide.

[Tkdkidsx2]

Knives kill 2x as many people as guns on the street.

Not in the USA.

A knife never has to reload, it never jams, and it makes no noise.

And you need to get up close and personal to use it. That is one of the reasons that it is not the weapon of choice in committing a crime.

Im sorry, but there are some stats saying that knives kill more people. Let me find them.

[Tkdkidsx2]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

Which is a flawed argument, owning a gun didn't kill this women, her husband killed her, had he not a gun what is to say this would have ended better, this is a tragedy that shouldn't be exploited for this purpose, (but hypocritically requires my defence)

Not necessarily. There are many household items he could have killed her with. He could have picked up a pencil and stabbed her to death... or taken a chair and hit he-... I'm gonna stop...