Quote:You could take up archery.<
>
<
>
An arrow is FAR more deadly in the proper hands. <i></i>

Can it kill? Well, then it's as deadly as most guns.<
>
<
>
That's like comparing the degree of pregnancy among women.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:We'd all kill far more deer if you could slow a bullet down to 55 miles per hour and put headlights and a horn on it. They would jump infront of it.<
>
<i></i>

Lizzie Borden did no such thing, at least according to a jury of her peers. Look it up. <i></i>

i do not like guns esp hand guns and definatly not in the home and these are the reasons why <
>
<
>
i had a friend playing around with a gun and shot himself in the foot<
>
<
>
my nieghbour house was
oken into and one of the things they stole were guns he had.<
>
<
>
instead of using your
ain in a bad situation. you are more then likely will depend on a gun, if you have one wear one hold one or point it at someone you better be prepared to use it, and be prepared to kill with it. <
>
<
>
the person who might
eak in to your house or be in your house might not be a burgler.while i was workin in a group home there was a fellow there who would escape the house and walk into other houses. we were very afraid that someone would shoot him. staff would hate to see something happen to him but also the person who shot him how would you feel if you knew you shot and killed a autistic man with a working IQ of 18 who
oke in to steal a pepsi (well empty your frig of all drinks)because he had a unstoppable and over powering urge to drink soda and coffee. <
>
<
>
<
>
Aescleah<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:i had a friend playing around with a gun and shot himself in the foot<
>
<
>
Thats like saying i was playing with Matchs and burned down my house. Lets ban fire!<
>
<
>
Quote:my nieghbour house was
oken into and one of the things they stole were guns he had<
>
<
>
They stole a gun, therefore guns are bad? Missing the point there.<
>
<
>
Quote:the person who might
eak in to your house or be in your house might not be a burgler.while i was workin in a group home there was a fellow there who would escape the house and walk into other houses. we were very afraid that someone would shoot him. staff would hate to see something happen to him but also the person who shot him how would you feel if you knew you shot and killed a autistic man with a working IQ of 18 who
oke in to steal a pepsi (well empty your frig of all drinks)because he had a unstoppable and over powering urge to drink soda and coffee. <
>
<
>
Number 1, there person IS a burgler, even if he is taking you pepsi instead of your TV. And also, most people have at least a shred of commen sense, so i dont think they come out blazing, shooting up whoever they see. <
>
<
>
You always hear of the terrible stories, where someone gets shoot. Yet you never hear of the times when someone finds a robber, flashs a gun, and he runs away ( or any one of thousands of different circumstances. <i></i>

My dad being a cop, I was around guns, and shot many guns throughout my life. I don't know if I'll ever own one though. That being said, I have no problem with people owning them legally, handguns or not. We are dangerous as a species, guns or not. <i></i>

Quote:Yet you never hear of the times when someone finds a robber, flashs a gun, and he runs away <
>
<
>
That's because it rarely happens.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Quote:I've always thought if guns were outlawed, law abiding people wouldn't have any, but all the criminals still would, afterall their criminals, they
eak the law.<
>
<
>
I have heard this pro-gun argument so many times...<
>
<
>
The question I pose to you is this - <
>
<
>
Of all the law-abiding citizens shot by gun-wielding hooligans, how many -<
>
<
>
1) Had a gun on their person at the time to fire back at the dude shooting at them and thwart the hooligan's would-be crime?<
>
<
>
2) How many of those law-abiding citizens with a gun were able to actually take the gun-wielding hoolgian out after they were shot by said hooligan and
ing them to justice?<
>
<
>
I would venture to say less than 0.1% on both questions.<
>
<
>
Now, ask yourself - How many law-abiding citizens that own handguns have injured/killed themself or someone in their household was injured/killed with their own gun. I would say the percentage is higher than the previous question.<
>
<
>
By the time someone has a gun in your face, it is already too late and the criminal is going to do what they want to anyway -whether that is to shoot you, rob you, or let you go unharmed. If you think you are going to draw your gun on someone that has one pointed at your face, you need to live in the real world and stop pretending you live in the wild west. <
>
<
>
People say that if you took the guns out of law-abiding citizens then only the criminals would have them. I say good! That makes them easier for cops to pick out of a group of people when crimes do happen. I don't know a whole lot of law-abiding citizens that commit crimes...or they would be called criminals. So why would you carry a gun around if you have no reason to use it, especially in the city limits? <
>
<
>
The only people that need guns are law enforcement officers and government officials that require them for their job. Criminals will always have guns, even if guns were made to be illegal to own in America (like that would ever happen). Therefore, you will always need our law enforcement to require them. Otherwise, handguns serve absolutely no purpose to your average law-abiding citizen. Inside city limits anyway. <
>
<
>
What you country bumpkins do with rifles and shotguns out in the boonies and sage
ush is a totally different subject. I have nothing against hunting rifles or shotguns since they are hard to conceal on the street. But in my opinion, handguns should be banned for citizens and only usable by non-law enforcement officers or government officials. <i></i>

I'm not voting for you, flip-flopper! <i></i>

Quote: We're sorry but there has been an error with your request. Please try again later.<
>
<
>
Sort of like OJ?<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
"It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional."
-A. Scalia

That was odd... should have been this quote... and I just booted up this computer at work... cut and pasted this:<
>
<
>
Quote: Lizzie Borden did no such thing, at least according to a jury of her peers. Look it up.<
>
<
>
but it didn't turn out that way. <i></i>

_________________
"It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional."
-A. Scalia

Quote:That's because it rarely happens.<
>
<
>
Next thing you are going to tell me is that Pink Pistols and Second Amendment Sisters are lieing. <i></i>

<
>
Just requoting my post from earlier in the thread. Apparently Fiburs reading skills aren't where they used to be. May wanna go back and read the thread.<
>
<
>
Quote:2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by defensive gun use in the US <i></i>

Source Guurn? And does that only include civilian use? I mean...sounds like a nifty stat, but I'd like to see the actual data used. <
>
<
>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

It is from a study done by the University of Florida in 1993 I believe. Yes, it is an old study. It really isn't that hard to find all sorts of info on gun use. Most sites are heavily biased though (both ways) and critical thinking is required when reading their stats. Incorrect numbers are quoted almost as much as if they were talking about secondhand smoke.<
>
<
>
The first page that comes up in google when I searched defensive gun use us was http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock...medex.html<
>
<
>
A pretty good example of what I am talking about. <i></i>

Home invasion/robbery is on the rise. Lots of stats from reliable sources back this up.<
>
<
>
How do armed police stop this? They don't. They fill out the paperwork afterwards. There is exactly jack shit that cops can do to defend you or your property.<
>
<
>
Just buying a gun and thinking you're safe is usually more dangerous than not owning a gun at all. Buy guns and get professional training (qualified instructors, not Roger Rambo from guns-r-us) in how to use them. Teach your spouse/kids how to handle firearms safely (and take precautions to keep small kids away from them). Practice practice practice. Know your local laws regarding gun ownership and use of force. It's always better to escape than fight (the lives of you and your family are more valuable than a TV, right?). If you have a bunch of guns, invest in a gun safe and keep as many as possible locked up at all times (i.e. don't make it easy for criminals to arm themselves). Take reasonable precautions in your home (nobody lives in a fortress, but make your home as difficult a target as possible).<
>
<
>
And if you're the type who could fly into a rage and shoot someone for no reason just because a gun is handy don't buy a gun... spend the $$ on therapy instead. Anyone who has ever seen what a gunshot can do to someone (or something) firsthand who isn't a total nutbag should realize that pulling a gun should be an absolute last resort. But if you must do it, do the job right. Just hope you never need to. <i></i>

Quote:Most sites are heavily biased though (both ways) and critical thinking is required when reading their stats. Incorrect numbers are quoted almost as much as if they were talking about secondhand smoke.<
>
<
>
Yeah that's the biggest bitch about statistics, they're very easy to manipulate when you don't see all the data.<
>
<
>
4 out of 5 dentists prefer Crest. (But compared to WHAT? Dirt? Which is why they're not allowed to use that anymore in ads ). <
>
<
>
I have no doubt that some crime IS detered or stopped by gun ownership. I just find it hard to believe it would be 2.5 million crimes, unless we're also including police officer statistics and business gun ownership.<
>
<
>
Thanks for posting the stats, will take a look through it and see what data they're using.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Incidently, the most interesting part of the website to me was the suicide rates in Canada listed pre and post gun ban. I have always wondered what banning guns did to suicide rates. I am positive there are innumerable confounding factors, but it is nice ot see something. <i></i>

AH found the source of those numbers. It's a bullshit stat.<
>
<
>
Here's the real source:<
>
<
>
Kleck and Gertz’s claim of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year is derived from a telephone survey of 5,000 American adults conducted in 1992. Fifty-six respondents to this survey reported that they had used a gun in self-defense during the past year. Kleck and Gertz multiply the proportion of respondents in their survey who report a defensive gun use (X /5,000 = Y percent) by the number of adults in the U.S. (around 200 million) and the number of defensive gun uses equals 2.5 million per year. They estimate that in 670,000 of these incidents the would-be victims used guns when they were away from their homes.<
>
<
>
That's from a Berkeley study on the myths of defensive gun use, and it goes on further to explain why it's a bullshit stat.<
>
<
>
Essentially we have no way of knowing whether or not the defensive gun use prevented crime. First the people responding merely stated from their POV they had used a gun 'defensively'. They could have pulled it out when quite frankly it was unnecessary. It could have been
andished in a bar fight, or when they felt threatened by someone.<
>
<
>
And of course, that's assuming that the respondants were replying accurately (though there's measurements in phone surveys for accuracy, often the phrasing of the question can skew accuracy. Name a movie you liked in the past year, with a list of all movies will get you a more accurate result than asking 'Did you like movie X' for example).<
>
<
>
There are other reasons it's a bullshit stat btw. A lot of other reasons. But there's some good ones. (Another big reason is regional polling. Gun ownership being far more common in some areas than others, just as crime rates are far higher in some areas than others. Yet the extrapolation of data is uniform, which is wrong).<
>
<
>
It's impossible to say that it was done in a manner to prevent crime. And the statistic shouldn't be given as much weight as it appears to be given.<
>
<
>
Which is why it's still being cited (as a positive stat) even though it was included in a 1994 study, over 10 years later, because it's a positive stat. <
>
<
>
Just as I'm sure the other side also quotes skewed information. Which makes it harder for people to have an informed opinion unfortunately.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Source wars. <
>
<
>
Who didn't see this coming? <i></i>

Source war? Naw I find it refeshing to see people tear apart studies. You would have to be pretty insecure to get upset just because someone proved you wrong. The right answer is to thank them and use the knowledge you have gained.<
>
<
>
The point that guns are used defensivly and probably enough to make it not a rare occurance still stands. I'm sure Tarot would agree that we both would love to have a series of studies that showed a definitive answer one way or another, but it isn't going to happen. <
>
<
>
Rather than argue gun ban or free guns for everyone, how about we frame the discussion around making our country work with the set of self imposed rules we have to live under. I'd suggest education as a starting point. This includes the safe handling of guns, the responsibilities of ownership and the penalties for
eaking the laws. Sex education is in schools, why not have education about guns and gun laws. No, mentioning it in civics doesn't count. <i></i>

Without looking anything up, That 2.5 mil stat is bs. Someone made that up because it sounded nice. You cannot accurately estimate the number of crimes that do not happen because of the presence of guns. Who is going to report this crime that didn't happen and who is going to record and publish it? Until I see this report I call major BS.<
>
<
>
GUNS DO NOT MAKE YOU SAFER<
>
<
>
2/3 of all homocides in the U.S. are committed by guns (duh). Of those, the overwhelming majority are committed by handguns. The (again) overwhelming majority of gun violence occurs not by a "robber" but by someone who got into an argument and happened to have a gun readily available. Not only that, but the person who will assault you is not a stranger prowling the neighborhood, but a close acquaintance such as a family member/close personal friend. Most people who are killed by guns in their home are killed by their own guns. The flipside is that the odds that you will use your gun to hurt an outside attacker are much MUCH lower than the odds that you will hurt a family member/relative. So-called "justifiable homicides" (like armed c!tizens killing teh bad guyz) just do not happen. It's a cowboy fantasy.<
>
<
>
Guns for hunting = Fine. Guns to hurt people = Bad. <
>
<
>
Thats right, guns DON'T kill people! People WITH guns kill people!<
>
<
>
(If you want specifics on the stats you can do it yourself. Every year the FBI publishes their UCR with the help of all state and local police departments. Not a perfect methodology as they are strictly based off of reported crime but as close as is needed in this forum) <i></i>

_________________
"Be glad there was a keyboard, monitor and miles of fiber between us when you typed that."

"State that opinion in my presence, you fucktard, and I'll show you how valid it is when I'm kicking the shit out of you."

Damn you guys have been busy >_< <i></i>

_________________
"Be glad there was a keyboard, monitor and miles of fiber between us when you typed that."

"State that opinion in my presence, you fucktard, and I'll show you how valid it is when I'm kicking the shit out of you."

Quote:Source war? Naw I find it refeshing to see people tear apart studies. You would have to be pretty insecure to get upset just because someone proved you wrong. The right answer is to thank them and use the knowledge you have gained.<
>
<
>
Yes, source war. I'm sure there's "some truth" in any source but the bottom line is we can all start googling different sources from now until next year and we still wont know the "real truth."<
>
<
>
Opinions are like assholes you know?<
>
<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Interesting murder stats, and here's my SOURCE: http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pres...us2000.htm<
>
<
>
Quote:Murder<
>
<
>
* There were an estimated 15,517 murders in 2000, virtually no change from the 1999 murder estimate of 15,522. The number of murders was 21 percent less than in 1996 and 37.2 percent less than in 1991.<
>
* Murder trends for the Nation's cities collectively indicated murder increased by 0.7 percent from 1999 to 2000. Murder declined 3.8 percent in the suburban counties and 3.5 percent in rural counties.<
>
* Based on supplemental murder data provided for 12,943 of the estimated 15,517 murders in 2000, males comprised 76.2 percent of the murder victims. By race, 49.0 percent of the victims were white, 48.5 percent were black, and other races accounted for 2.5 percent of the victims. Adults, persons aged 18 or older, made up 89.7 percent of the murder victims.<
>
* Supplemental data for 14,697 murder offenders indicate that 90.2 percent of the offenders were male and 91.3 percent of the murder offenders were aged 18 or older. By race, 51.4 percent were black, 46.1 percent were white, and 2.6 percent of the offenders were of other races.<
>
* Data continue to indicate that murder is most often intraracial. In 2000, 93.7 percent of black murder victims were slain by black offenders and 86.2 percent of white murder victims were slain by white offenders.<
>
* In 2000, relationship data between victims and their offenders indicated that 44.3 percent of the victims were acquainted with or related to their assailants. Familial relationships existed between 13.4 percent of the victims and their murderers; acquaintances murdered 30.9 percent of the victims.<
>
* Husbands or boyfriends murdered 33.0 percent of the female victims, and wives or girlfriends killed 3.2 percent of male victims during 2000.<
>
* During 2000, arguments were the predominant circumstance leading to murder.<
>
According to supplemental data, 29.4 percent of murders resulted from an argument. Felonious activities such as forcible rape, robbery, arson, etc., precipitated 16.7 percent of the murders, and 0.5 percent of the murders were suspected of having felonious intent.<
>
* Firearms were used in 65.6 percent of the murders in 2000. By firearm type, handguns accounted for 51.7 percent of the murder total; shotguns, 3.6 percent; rifles, 3.1 percent; and other or unknown types of firearms another 7.3 percent. <
>
<
>
It's a shame they classify the deaths caused by drunk drivers as manslaughter vice murder because off the top of my head I think MADD says there's like 17000 a year. But then I can find a ton of SOURCES that say MADD is using bullshit numbers. <i></i>

It's hardly 'source wars', especially since Guurn and I happen to be on the same side of the issue here.<
>
<
>
In case you missed it, I happen to be very pro-gun.<
>
<
>
The stats I've seen in the other direction (more people killed by their guns than saved) also doesn't include businesses, or anyone who has guns for other purposes (such as hunting). They're looking ONLY at people who bought a gun for the specific purpose of 'home protection'. <
>
<
>
Which is, quite frankly, dumb. It's not dumb to have a gun for home protection, it's fucking stupid to depend upon it as your source of home protection. If you live in the boonies, where police would take 15 minutes or more to respond, then your best choices for 'home protection' are making sure your home is secure, job one. Second, being a realist, how bad IS crime in your area. Do you really need to have the Ted Nugent compound? Third, you want help on the way, whether that's notification through an alarm system (usually installed for free, service contracts are pretty cheap...less than most cable subscriptions annually) or via 9-1-1. <
>
<
>
And if you have children, you want to make sure that your kids are both educated about guns, and that the guns are secured from them, while being available to you. See Khan's post for how he set that up with a biometric safe for ammo.<
>
<
>
Most rural area people have guns for far more than home protection though. Many are hunters. Quite a few enjoy target practice, and have them for enjoyment. <
>
<
>
And frankly a guy like Khan with quite an arsenal is the least likely to have his kids killed by or kill another with his guns. It's the dipshit in the city who bought a 9mm for home protection and has it 'hidden' under the couch who's more likely to come home one day and find that Timmy blew off his friend's head. Or the dumbfuck who keeps a round racked in the shotgun in the closet. <
>
<
>
This isn't a 'stat', but most cases I'm personally aware of that I've read through the elements of the case where one child has killed themself, a sibling or another with a gun 'accidentally', it was almost always the only gun in the house. The children didn't know jack shit about guns other than they had been told to never touch one. And the gun always had two purposes: home protection or heirloom.<
>
<
>
I'm not saying that it never happens where numerous guns are present and people are hunters etc. It's just far rarer. And the cases where children have used guns in those instances, it hasn't been accidental, it's been intentionally homicidal.<
>
<
>
And back to 'it's dumb to depend on a gun for home protection' how many people can guarentee they wouldn't hesitate to shoot another human being. <
>
<
>
I can't. I can't say I wouldn't hesitate. The last thing I ever want to do in my lifetime is take the life of another, even in defense. I'm not saying I wouldn't in defense, but I sure as hell hope it never comes down to that. And unless you're positive...and I think very few people can be, or have the training to be (outside of avid hunters, military, police, etc. ) then you're far safer running for that telephone, so you have people coming to aid you.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

SOURCE: http://www.madd.com/stats/1112<
>
<
>
Quote:According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2004, 16,694 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 39 percent of the 42,636 total traffic fatalities.<
>
<
>
People calling bullshit:<
>
<
>
SOURCE: www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj...59052.html<
>
<
>
Quote:Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) continues to insist that “we lose 17,000 people every year because of drunk driving.� 1 Not true! Even one death caused by drunk driving is one too many. But MADD’s assertion is still simply a false and gross exaggeration that the organization repeats over and over again.<
>
<
>
Here are the facts based on statistics for a recent year presented by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): 42,116 total fatalities involved 57,480 drivers, of which 7,400 were known to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over the legal limit. Thus, 12.87% (or 7,400) of the drivers involved in fatal crashes were legally intoxicated. Therefore, drunk drivers were associated with about 5,422 traffic fatalities.<
>
<
>
Oh my, when does it stop? <i></i>

Quote:Who is going to report this crime that didn't happen and who is going to record and publish it?<
>
<
>
Well, if you use a gun to prevent a crime, you're generally reporting it. Guy comes in to rob your store, you
andish a gun...you're still calling the cops. Someone
eaks into your home, you either use your gun or
andish it...cops are coming. Someone tries to steal your car, and you wave a gun, again, you're calling the cops.<
>
<
>
Attempted criminal acts are often crimes in and of themselves, so there would be reports of it. Obviously your point stands that certainly not all of them would be reported, and that it would be an area of underreporting. Then again, so are many other crimes. (Rape, homicide, etc.)
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:In case you missed it, I happen to be very pro-gun.<
>
<
>
Not at all, but your position on the subject has no bearing on the point I'm trying to make. <
>
<
>
I'm trying to point out that it's a good idea to take any study or statistics posted with a grain of salt because we can all start posting crap statistics all day long.<
>
<i></i>

Tarot, one last thing, I seen this turning into a source war back on page 1 when Fribur posted:<
>
<
>
Quote:Back that bullshit up.<
>
<
>
This is probably just the beginning.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:<
>
I'm trying to point out that it's a good idea to take any study or statistics posted with a grain of salt because we can all start posting crap statistics all day long.<
>
<
>
I completely agree with that, which is why it's ALWAYS important (not just on this issue) to examine the source material. <
>
<
>
Unfortunately in some issues, such as the entire 'secondhand smoke' debate, you can easily get bogged down in a war of the sources. If we toss out 90% of it as clearly bullshit...even the remaining 10% which isn't, may speak to different factors. The ultimate result may be (not trying to rehash that debate) that yes, it's probably harmful...but to what degree we just don't know. Then from there people form different opinions and usually go with the 10% of non-bullshit that supports their viewpoint. <
>
<
>
Or in the case of probably most people, also the 90% of crap that supports them too. <
>
<
>
Statistics can be hard to understand, but I think today it's crucial to understand if you want to form your own opinions about things. You have to be able to glance at the source material to determine really how much weight to give it when formulating your own opinions simply because it is so easy to manipulate to reflect the result you want.<
>
<
>
Same with studies. And I think most people know that with various foods. Eggs are bad. EVIL! Don't eat them!!! Oh wait, they're good. Great for you! Start shoveling them in. Oh fuck, um okay they're not great, but they're not bad, um maybe moderation? Red wine. Coffee. Chocolate...the list is endless. <
>
<
>
And the biggest problem is mainstream media misunderstanding science too. One study doesn't equate to a valid answer. It can be damn close depending on the study now (regarding specific vaccines, etc), but not usually. But what sells for the media is heavy handed announcements. <
>
<
>
Something in your kitchen may be deadly! News at 11. Are your children at risk? Stay tuned! <
>
<
>
But everyone can fall for crap information. It's a pain in the ass to independantly look up everything on every story. So when it's not too important, we'll extend a certain amount of trust to it. But once we care enough to discuss it (or it effects us, or becomes more important than something casual), it's a good idea to start looking at the stats that get tossed around on both sides.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Actually, homicide is the crime that is the most reported. Very very few homicides are never reported because a) someone saw it happen b) someone finds a body or c) someone just up and disappears from their life one day. On a side note, the UCR by the FBI is probably the best source for info on homicide for that reason. You can cry foul on some statistics (like rape) that are very unlikely to be reported, but the FBI wins when it comes to counting bodies. <i></i>

_________________
"Be glad there was a keyboard, monitor and miles of fiber between us when you typed that."

"State that opinion in my presence, you fucktard, and I'll show you how valid it is when I'm kicking the shit out of you."

Well depends on how you define reporting, and I'm not trying to be weenie about it. <
>
<
>
It's scary and sad how many Does the coroner's office has at any given time. Now, some of those people may have an open report on them somewhere and it simply hasn't been connected to the corpse. And there are more than a few corpses which are simply so decomped it's impossible to determine cause of death, unless there's bone injury which is visible. (Despite the belief of some in CSI television magic hehe). <
>
<
>
But it's just freaky how many people die, and there's just seemingly no one who misses them. Then contrast that with the number of 'missing person' reports which never get resolved.<
>
<
>
Of course, my perception here could easily be skewed because of our climate out here we do get a substantial amount of homeless and aged people from other states who may die without being missed, or because they have no one to miss them. <
>
<
>
So homicide is underreported as specifically a homicide, but as you said, due more towards lack of witnesses than a refusal to report. Whereas other crimes (rape, robbery, fraud, etc) are more likely to be underreported for very different reasons. <
>
<
>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

I own guns. My father owns guns. My
other and sister own guns (my sister hunts elk). None of our weapons have ever shot a human, accidentally or otherwise. And why?<
>
<
>
Because my guns are fucking loaded. All the time. There's no mystery, no ambiguity, no room for doubt whatsoever. It's loaded.<
>
<
>
This means no one I don't trust to hold a loaded gun ever gets near my weapons. My roommates understand and adhere to this principle, because they don't want anyone to die either.<
>
<
>
Crazy as it sounds, it's worked great for 40 years since my father started that practice. When I have children, I'll ask him what he did when we were tottering around the place. Since we're all still alive, I'm guessing that whatever he did worked pretty well. We were fairly ingenious about finding ways to kill ourselves as small children. Tranthas Stormwalker<
>
<i></i>

Well, if your family was anything like mine I was taught to respect guns. My father started letting me shoot around 5 and I got my first gun at 8. A gun was a tool, not a toy. I had my fair share of little plastic toy guns but those were toys. The real guns hung on a rack in my parent's bedroom, they were tools.<
>
<
>
I cannot honestly say that none of my guns have been used to kill anyone, because I honestly don't know. I have an old .308 British Enfield that was retooled in 1956 so I don't know if it was used during WWII(or possibly Korea) or not. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I have many friends that taught their kids to shoot and hunt when they were young, but I personally taught my kids that guns weren’t toys and were not to be messed with at all. I had no problem with them coming with me, but they weren’t shooting. Now that they’re adults things are different. My daughter has taken some classes at the indoor range and she shoots with her husband. My son is 19 and is just getting ready to take his hunter safety course and I plan on
eaking him on upland birds and ducks next season. My youngest daughter is just about 17 and she wants to hunt birds, so I might make an exception with her and let her hunt next season with us. <
>
<
>
It’s a personal opinion that kids shouldn’t handle firearms. But I would think that I’m in the minority for most gun owners/hunters on this issue. For many it was a way of life, and I myself was introduced to guns at about 12 years old. Maybe it will be different with my grandkids but that’ll depend on how mom and dad feel about it. Lately I’ve been hitting the range once or twice a month but it varies. <i></i>

I guess I am one of those country bumpkins because I grew up on a ranch in Montana and was around guns all my life. My father and grandfather taught me that a gun was a tool to be used not abused. Of course we had several thousand acres where I was able to hunt and target shoot. <
>
<
>
However when I was old enough to obtain a hunting license my dad made me take the safe hunters course even though it was not required at the time. After my military service I married and had kids of my own and guns were always in the house, but they were kept in a gun safe and when they were old enough both my daughter and my son learned the proper handling of firearms.<
>
<
>
Never once while they were growing up did they ever touch the firearms without adult supervision, if they wanted to target shoot they would ask and we would go to the range and practice.<
>
<
>
You read in the papers all the time about some kid either killing a friend or themselves playing with a gun they found laying around in the house. First shame on the parent for leaving a firearm laying around and double shame on them for failing to teach the kid how to properly handle it.<
>
<
>
A lot of people say we should ban handguns, hell I had a handgun when I was 11 years old, it is a lot easier to kill snakes and the like with a handgun especially when you are on horseback. I am a firm believer in owning firearms both long guns and handguns but it is the responsibility of the gun owner to keep his weapons safe.<
>
<
>
Today I own 4 shotguns, 8 rifles of various calibers, 6 handguns and I do have a conceal carry permit for my handguns. <i></i>

video.google.com/videopla...8870249151<
>
<
>
This is the reason why liberals will never take away the peoples guns. <i></i>

As a gun ower who happens to be conservative and believes in the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, I must say I find that video distrubing.<
>
<
>
It has all the earmarks of a training video for some ultra rightwing militia group. First off the little girl appears to be too young to be using a machinegun, the fat guy with the two machine pistols looks like your atypical nut who give gun owners a bad name. If you want to teach a kid to shoot you don't use a machingun as your weapon of choice, did you notice that at one point she was shaking her hands? The vi
ation and recoil of that weapon was too much for the kids physical structure and she was feeling it.<
>
<
>
While it is leagal to own a machinegun, if you possess the proper permits, why the hell would you want too? <
>
<
>
I spent 30 years in military service fought in a war and never once have I had the desire to own a machinegun or any other fully automatic weapon after I retired. Actually in a running firefight a rifle set to the full automatic position is not nearly as effective as when it is set in the semi auto or the three shot burst position. While it looks impressive to blow through a clip in one second unless you enemy is in a line and right on top of you, you probably would have wasted 15 or more rounds instead of using your ammo in a more effective manner. You can burn through a shitload of ammo in a short while with your weapon set to full auto and in a firefight the last thing you want to be without is bullets.<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<i></i>

I was taught to safely care for and hunt with rifles when I was 12, when we moved to the Yukon. I have owned several rifles and killed many animals and birds with them in my lifetime, safely. <
>
<
>
I approve of people being able to own rifles - if they are also sold under controlled circumstances (education required, background check, waiting period), and shot when using a license. What's the hurry when you buy a rifle (or gun) - must you have it 'today'? <
>
<
>
I have no idea whatsoever why most people really 'need' handguns except for ego and what they call 'protection' - which I think can be accomplished just as well with a rifle in most cases. <i></i>

Quote:While it is leagal to own a machinegun, if you possess the proper permits, why the hell would you want too? <
>
<
>
In a moving car, in an urban setting, if you set it to full auto and hold it straight, you can inflict a tremendous amount of damage on anyone standing grouped in a centralized area, like on the sidewalk or on the porch of a house.<
>
<
>
And as long as you don't care about things like a backstop or anyone else dying, it can be quite effective.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

This of course begs the question how many people who committed homicide with a machine gun, and obtained it legally. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Quote: This of course begs the question how many people who committed homicide with a machine gun, and obtained it legally.<
>
<
>
Not so much 'machine gun' as 'fully automatic assault style rifle/guns'. And the cavaet "and obtained it legally", I'd have to say very few since many such guns are now illegal.<
>
<
>
Something interesting though, many of you may not be familiar with the 'Hollywood Bankrobbers' (try googling LA / Hollywood bankrobbers shootout), it happened in 1997 IIRC. Anyway two guys in full assault gear held up a bank, and started shooting the fuck of out Los Angeles. With fully automatic assault weapons. And they had complete fucking body armor.<
>
<
>
It was just...unreal. Lasted well over an hour too, if memory serves. End result, while a few people were wounded...other than the bad guys no one died.<
>
<
>
And considering the amount of ammo expended, it was unbefuckinglievable. Oh and the bad guys shots were going through armor like butter. And the cops couldn't shoot past their body armor. In fact there's footage where you see the guy looking like he's doing a little dance. It's the bullets pinging off his body armor like he's fucking superman.<
>
<
>
Gun shops in Los Angeles literally opened up their doors to the cops and allowed them to take out any weapons/ammo they needed. Again if I remember correctly the ammo they needed to take out these guys (black talons, aka 'cop killers') were already off the streets. Many people have this ammo stored, as it's not (afaik) illegal to own, you simply can no longer buy or sell it legally.<
>
<
>
Anyhoo, I forget how bad guy #1 went down, I want to say it was suicide, but I forget. Either that or he popped off his helmet and they head shot him. <
>
<
>
Bad guy #2 went into a residential neighborhood trying to get away, and a cop rolled under the car and got him in the one of the few spots he was vunerable (ankle). Since they were unsure if there were others there, it took 45 mins to get an ambulence to the guy, and he bled out and died. <
>
<
>
And of course, his survivors filed a lawsuit. <
>
<
>
Anyway point being these guys were semi-decently trained, I mean they knew how to use the weapons. And after shooting the fuck out of several city blocks, and clearly attempting to kill people (as they were directly shooting at both cops and civilians pinned down) they managed to kill a total of : 0 people.<
>
<
>
Had they entered a building and sprayed, they'd have probably killed more than a few. Or if they were surprising a group of people just standing around, again you'd probably see more people dead. But in a city enviroment with a ton of things to move behind that are stone-like, and lots of places to get low and hide, it was surprisingly uneffective. <
>
<
>
Fortunately. <
>
<
>
Anyway I'm sure the footage is available somewhere online, there was a shitload of media coverage and if you've never seen it, you should find it and watch it. Knowing that no one dies (though several people were injured sadly) except the bad guys makes it less horrible to watch.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:Anyway two guys in full assault gear held up a bank, and started shooting the fuck of out Los Angeles. With fully automatic assault weapons. And they had complete fucking body armor.<
>
<
>
They were wearing HOMEMADE body armor.<
>
<
>
They were also using AP rounds, and semiauto rifles with automatic kits on them. Among other things.<
>
<
>
Quote:Anyhoo, I forget how bad guy #1 went down, I want to say it was suicide, but I forget. Either that or he popped off his helmet and they head shot him. <
>
<
>
They were wearing ski masks, not helmets. During the entire engagement no one shot them in the head until the end, and that was the guy shooting himself. There is a debate as to whether a SWAT officer shot him in the head or if he shot himself in the head for the killing blow(it was almost simultaneous so they aren't sure).<
>
<
>
<
>
Quote:Bad guy #2 went into a residential neighborhood trying to get away, and a cop rolled under the car and got him in the one of the few spots he was vunerable (ankle). Since they were unsure if there were others there, it took 45 mins to get an ambulence to the guy, and he bled out and died. <
>
<
>
<
>
He tried to switch cars, the guy whose vehicle he was trying to take(a
own jeep pickup type thing) took his keys when he ran. He was trying to switch his stuff back to the other vehicle when SWAT rolled up and they did indeed get down behind a car and shoot him in the legs. After being wounded to where he couldn't walk the guy gave up and laid there hand cuffed for around 45 minutes and bled out.<
>
<
>
The fact of the matter was they were going after money, I'm sure they would have rather have just gotten the money and not had to shoot at all.<
>
<
>
They were also on barbituates(sp?), they took drugs before hand knowing what could happen so that they continue to fight back even if they were shot.<
>
<
>
---------------<
>
<
>
As to the machine gun shoot. That is a video of one of the get togethers held around the country at shooting ranges where legally licensed machine gun and automatic weapon owners are invited to shoot their weapons. There is also one held at Knob Creek KY on a biannual basis.<
>
<
>
The fact of the matter is guns are not very complicated devices and kits can be found. If they cannot be found it really wouldn't take all that much knowledge to modify a weapon to make it automatic. What you generally see are a bunch of street idiots shooting at each other that probably, as a whole, have the gun knowledge of a military boot camp trainee after his introduction to the weapons. That's assuming he didn't grow up around guns before joining.<
>
<
>
Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Quote:In a moving car, in an urban setting, if you set it to full auto and hold it straight,<
>
<
>
People who have seen Rambo too many times, crack me up when they say stupid shit like this....<
>
<
>
It is almost impossible to hold a weapon straight and true while firing on full-auto. And that's standing still, much less in a moving car. <i></i>

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

I agree people kill people. Wouldn't it be better if that person who does kill people didn't have the gun as an option? Makes it easier for the police to take him out. I've never even seen a handgun where I live in Canada, and have yet to know anyone who has been shot.<
>
<
>
My friends in North Dakota are going to yell at me now. <i></i>

Just FYI:<
>
-------------------------------------------------<
>
Q: Do I need a license to buy a machine gun?<
>
A: No, you don't need a license. If you are permitted by law to own a handgun and your state allows the transfer of machine guns, you can buy one.<
>
<
>
Q: Where do I get a permit for a machine gun?<
>
A: You don' t need a permit, either. You do need to complete an "Application For Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm", also known as a Form 4, and this must be signed by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) in your locale. You also need to submit, in duplicate, a complete set of fingerprints and passport-size photos. The BATF then sends your fingerprints to the FBI for a background check while the BATF checks out the legality of the item being transferred. If all goes well, in about 90-120 days, the BATF sends the approved Form 4 back to your dealer and you can go pick up the Form 4 and your new toy. The item is now registered with the BATF in your name and the Form 4 is your only proof of this, so a copy should be with the NFA item at all times. Think of it sort of like a car title. The item was transferred to you and when you sell it, you transfer it to the new owner.<
>
<
>
Q: What is the charge for this transfer?<
>
A: When your application to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is submitted there is a $200 transfer tax to be paid for machine guns and silencers and a $5.00 transfer tax for AOW. <
>
<
>
Q: I want one - is my state a "machine gun state"?<
>
A: Click here to check out regs in your state: http://www.autoweapons.com/pagelinks/statelist.html<
>
<
>
Q: How do I make a semi auto gun into a machine gun?<
>
A: Generally, you don't, unless you want to spend the next 10 years in prison and pay a $100K fine. No new machine guns can be made, as per the 1986 ban. We have to keep trading the ones already out there. But with certain platforms (M16/HK/and others), there are registered conversion devices (that themselves are considered MGs and were also registered with the BATF before the 1986 ban) that you can "put in" a semi-auto weapon to make it into a MG. These conversion devices are in the $5K-$6K range and going up at the same rate as registered-receivers (semi-auto's converted to MGs and registered with the BATF before the 1986 ban) and domestic factory MGs that were legally registered with the BATF before the 1986 ban and foreign made MGs that were registered with the BATF before the 1968 ban.<
>
<
>
Q: OK, I'm gonna do this. Where do I get the forms?<
>
A: You can have BATF mail them to you. Here's a link to their online form-ordering page:<
>
http://www.atf.treas.gov/dcof/index.htm<
>
<
>
Or you can download them directly at titleii.com:<
>
http://www.titleii.com/Forms.htm<
>
<
>
<i></i>

The permit procedure sounds a lot like dealing with the Explosive Licensing Center attached to the ATF in Atlanta. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Quote:I agree people kill people. Wouldn't it be better if that person who does kill people didn't have the gun as an option? Makes it easier for the police to take him out.Wrong. He'll still be armed, because he doesn't give a fuck if it's legal, and I won't be because I'm an honest citizen, so that law will make it impossible for me to take him out without police assistance. Since their response times are a sick joke, basically it gives armed thieves unlimited license to loot my house. Tranthas Stormwalker<
>
<i></i>

Quote:It is almost impossible to hold a weapon straight and true while firing on full-auto. And that's standing still, much less in a moving car. <
>
<
>
Yup. You can't hit dick with something on full-auto. It is nothing more than a scare tactic weapon.<
>
<
>
<
>
Tranthas nailed it as well. Gun laws only prevent those who follow the law to not have guns. Those who do not follow the law could care less. <i></i>

<
>
Colby : <
>
<
>
I agree people use heroin. Wouldn't it be better if that person who does do heroin didn't have the syringe as an option? Makes it easier for the police to find them. I've never even seen a heroin addict I live in Canada, and have yet to know anyone who has injected it.<
>
<
>
It’s not that easy. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws in the first place, why would they obey one that says they can’t own/use guns. So then the only people you are affecting with gun laws, are law abiding citizens.<
>
<
>
Dero :<
>
<
>
What happened to the Class 3 Firearms Permit? IIRC you needed to obtain that as well as the concealed weapons permit to own a machine gun/suppressor/sawed off shotgun.<
>
Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Wrong. He'll still be armed, because he doesn't give a fuck if it's legal, and I won't be because I'm an honest citizen, so that law will make it impossible for me to take him out without police assistance. Since their response times are a sick joke, basically it gives armed thieves unlimited license to loot my house.<
>
<
>
Again, this sounds like solid logic, and perfectly reasonable, but when looking at countries that have strict control on gun ownership, we see that your logic doesn't follow through. Amazing as it may seem, entire neighborhoods are not being ransacked by runaway illegal gun toting thieves!<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Quote:Again, this sounds like solid logic, and perfectly reasonable, but when looking at countries that have strict control on gun ownership, we see that your logic doesn't follow through. Amazing as it may seem, entire neighborhoods are not being ransacked by runaway illegal gun toting thieves!<
>
<
>
The guns are not available there save for the military - and whatever coup d'etat pays the military for a few crates.<
>
<
>
The guns are already here, in the reach of the common man. <
>
<
>
Further, you need to understand that the US is a sprawling place compared to the rest of the world. Our city / suburb structure, limited police force, and wide expanses of lawless land make for a interesting dynamic.<
>
<
>
If you outlaw guns tomorrow, I guarantee you a great many people will become outlaws. Including myself. Syuni D'zpecyzczn<
>
a thousand lives across 65 levels<i></i>

Not all countries are the same, though.<
>
<
>
How can you say that the policy of gun control would have the same effect here as it does in other countries? <
>
<
>
<
>
Gnome - Dark Iron - Knight of Arcadia<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Amendment II<
>
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. <
>
<
>
This is the only reason I need. <
>
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."<
>
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1912<i></i>

I am still waiting for someone to explain why North Dakota has much less crime, violent and non-violent, where guns are legal and very prevelant where Washington DC has an extreme amount of crime, both violent and non-violent, where guns are illegal.<
>
<
>
According to the liberals here Washington DC would be much safer then North Dakota. There should be blood in the fields of North Dakota. But there isnt. I want one of the gun grabers to tell me why. <i></i>

Quote:Since their response times are a sick joke, basically it gives armed thieves unlimited license to loot my house.<
>
I still have a hard time believing stuff like this, are a lot of Americans genuinely scared of people invading their home and being held at gunpoint, if they themselves do not have guns to protect themselves? Kuwen Furyblades<
>
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn<i></i>

Quote:<
>
I am still waiting for someone to explain why North Dakota has much less crime, violent and non-violent, where guns are legal and very prevelant where Washington DC has an extreme amount of crime, both violent and non-violent, where guns are illegal.<
>
<
>
<
>
I was tempted to just reply with "NORTH DAKOTA" to mimic you, because to anyone with common sense, those two words answer your own question.<
>
<
>
Hicksville nowhere has less crime than an urban setting? REALLY???? OMG! Let's call the papers, why isn't anyone reporting on this?!?!?!? GODDAMN LIBERAL CONSPIRACY! <i></i>

The whole point of my post is that even if you were crazy enough to kill someone with a gun, good luck trying to find one. I've literally never even SEEN a handgun before. My dad was a cop, and he had one at work. I'd never seen it.<
>
<
>
I saw and used one when I moved to North Dakota. I couldn't believe it. It was like meeting a movie star. <
>
<
>
"Holy shit, I'm holding a real gun!"<
>
<
>
I was like a mexican playing in the snow. <i></i>