Prisoner#1 said:

deucedbi9 said:

Please, let me assure you, I do not feel in any way "punished" just because I can not own a gun. I never did, nor did I ever want to. Just like the vast majority of my countrymen.

---

just because you dont want a gun doesnt mean you can speak for the rest of your countrymen

http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2009/01/england-wants-their-guns-back.html

---

moonrockmushy said:

I'm just wondering if suicide/attempts are included in that figure.

---

r00tuuu123 said:

I choose not to own a gun.  However of my friends that do or want to I support wholeheartedly we as a people deserve the right to make our own decisions and defend those decisions by what ever means we personally see fit to do so!

---

moonrockmushy said:

Our rights are reached through mutual consent, there are no hard rules when it comes to that as we have seen through the course of human history. 

I was just giving the LSD thing as an example.  That just came to mind because it is something I wonder about from time to time, the effects of forced psychedelia on a large scale.

Guns are an offensive, lethal weapon.  I don't see many other practical uses.  Drugs can be used for self-productive reasons.  To me the two are seperate.  Even knives are useful in many productive ways.  There are plenty of tools that in some circumstances are just as or more dangerous as guns, but there is a practical use to balance this danger that outweight their potential use as convienent killing devices.

---

r00tuuu123 said:

Can you deny that if you need food a gun is the most likely way to obtain said food in the face of not getting any I.E hunting?

---

Quote:

Can you deny that If a person approaches you or your family with the intent to do harm that a gun is the most effective way to deal with the situation?

---

Quote:

Can you deny that if some militarized  organization whomever it may be tries to deny your liberties or life that a gun is your best bet?

---

moonrockmushy said:

Our rights are reached through mutual consent, there are no hard rules when it comes to that as we have seen through the course of human history. 

---

Quote:

I was just giving the LSD thing as an example.  That just came to mind because it is something I wonder about from time to time, the effects of forced psychedelia on a large scale.

---

Quote:

Guns are an offensive, lethal weapon.  I don't see many other practical uses.

---

Quote:

  Drugs can be used for self-productive reasons.  To me the two are seperate.  Even knives are useful in many productive ways.  There are plenty of tools that in some circumstances are just as or more dangerous as guns, but there is a practical use to balance this danger that outweight their potential use as convienent killing devices.

---

moonrockmushy said:

I'd say trapping is far more effective for producing wild game, but I live in a sub-urban area with the benefits of modern farming.

Quote:

So you know how to run a trap line and set a snare interesting.

Isn't that likely to happen, and I'm not trying to ban guns, just limit the major producers/distributors.

Quote:

Would you not agree with a limited supply the laws of supply and demand would take effect? And What If I were to kick in your door when your children, wife , mom or dad were there?
Can you deny that if some militarized  organization whomever it may be tries to deny your liberties or life that a gun is your best bet?

---

If a whole organization is out to get me than I am fucked.  Arabs don't give a fuck about me, many just want my local government and American businessmen not to exploit them or their land, and I agree with them in that.  Plenty of people who represent the NRA are aligned with the government that has made "war on drugs" and "war on terror".

---

As to your last point I only have this to say, it is as succinct and to the point as i can think of

moonrockmushy said:

r00tuuu123 said:

Can you deny that if you need food a gun is the most likely way to obtain said food in the face of not getting any I.E hunting?

---

I'd say trapping is far more effective for producing wild game, but I live in a sub-urban area with the benefits of modern farming.

---

Quote:

Quote:

Can you deny that If a person approaches you or your family with the intent to do harm that a gun is the most effective way to deal with the situation?

---

Isn't that likely to happen, and I'm not trying to ban guns, just limit the major producers/distributors.

---

Quote:

Quote:

Can you deny that if some militarized  organization whomever it may be tries to deny your liberties or life that a gun is your best bet?

---

If a whole organization is out to get me than I am fucked.  Arabs don't give a fuck about me, many just want my local government and American businessmen not to exploit them or their land, and I agree with them in that.  Plenty of people who represent the NRA are aligned with the government that has made "war on drugs" and "war on terror".

---

Prisoner#1 said:

and yet as I have already shown via the FBI statistics, 2/3 of the time
their used to defend life, we call it justifiable homicide and just because
you dont see it doesnt mean it's not factual, it simply means you're 'closed
minded'

---

badchad said:

Prisoner#1 said:

and yet as I have already shown via the FBI statistics, 2/3 of the time
their used to defend life, we call it justifiable homicide and just because
you dont see it doesnt mean it's not factual, it simply means you're 'closed
minded'

---

Not even close.  In 2011, there was a total of 8,500 firearm related murders.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

Of those 8k, 393 were classified as "justifiable homicide".

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14

I think the more important question is: "how often to firearms deter crime"? and that is a much more difficult question to answer.  I believe it was one of the original topics of thread as well.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

really and what exactly would that entail because from what I'm seeing you want to limit access to ammunition and certain arms

---

Quote:

arabs may not give a fuck about you specifically in fact no one may give a
damn about you but that hasnt stopped terrorists from attacking civilian
targets, it hasnt stopped the 'lone gunman' from storming into a theater,
school or other public place and killing dozens of people, now why you
brought arabs into this when there's hundreds of bombs being found in the US
every year, bombs built by US citizens, it leads me to believe your
xenophobic paranoia runs far deeper than you'd like to let on

---

badchad said:

You're right.

Ok, so I have table 14, with justifiable homicides by LEO:  393
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14

and civilian justifiable homicide in table 15, another: 260
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15

That's 653 total, still a far cry from the 8k of firearm related homicides.

What else am I missing?

---

Mafeki said:

Quote:

1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the "false positive" problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate's new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

---

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/


Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

Facts

Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.

Across states, more guns = more female violent deaths

Across high income countries more guns = more female homicide deaths.

The list is endless

---

moonrockmushy said:

Prisoner#1 said:

really and what exactly would that entail because from what I'm seeing you want to limit access to ammunition and certain arms

---

High taxes on gun/ammo sales which would be used to fund groups which monitor and control gun production/distribution with the aim of making the general public aware of where guns come from for who and what reasons.

---

ok, so you're saying I should surrender my rights that protect me from illegal searches and seizures, that some government agency will put me at greater risk of being victimized by criminals seeking my legally owned guns

maybe you recall hearing about the gun hating reporter that decided the
community needed to know about how man, who and where people positively
had guns by publishing the addresses of the permit holders in weschester
county new york... it seems she doesnt hate guns as much any more because
she's hired a couple of armed body guards... it must be nice to be a wealthy
liberal fuckbag that can afford armed guards, there's no mention of threats
against her life but suddenly she needs body guards. why the quick change of
heart that would make her feel her life is more valuable than mine?

http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/01/03/news/doc50e5b1adb5b9b417715034.txt

Quote:

I think you're reading in too much.  I'm saying I don't think that Arabs or anyone else are out to get me or my family, but I hear otherwise from pro-gun advocates.  Maybe you want guns to protect from your neighbors and fellow citizens, but if that is the case you are mistaken to use the 2nd ammendment to justify yourself.

---

so now the arabs are out to get you but the pro gun advocates say otherwise,
why are arabs even an issue? xenophobic much? maybe I want guns to protect
myself from gun grabbing liberals that will strip me of my guns and then the
rest of my rights such as the 4th amendment that you mentioned stripping me
of earlier... or maybe I need them because where I live there's bears,
cougars, bobcats, coyotes, rattle snakes and other critters in addition to a
recent issue regarding rabid foxes and coyotes or maybe I just want to shoot
some paper and aluminum and it's not of your business what I do as long as
I'm not doing it to the general public... if you want to give up your
rights, feel free to do so but dont try and take mine

morrowasted said:

I don't see any issue with people having hunting rifles or pistols or even shotguns, but why does a citizen need a gun that gives them the potential to easily kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes?

---

I know some marines and army guys that could take an m-1 garand that only has  six round clip, and kill dozens of people in a few minutes.  They could take a bolt action rifle like a Springfield a-03 and kill dozens of people.