Guns

[FightTheFuture]

And no one is allowed to question the violence from video games, TV, or the movies. 

Or point out that nearly all gun crime emanates from our inner cities - which have been run as one party states under Leftist policies for several generations now.  Which should give us pause when those very same politicians are trying to pass new gun laws that apply to the rest of us.

Of course. What most people fail to realize is, in roughly 75% of US counties, a gun-related homicide is abosolutely unheard of. The majority of homicides are in, or around, major urban, democrat- controlled population centers. Furthermore, those homicides tend to be largely gang-related- not that it's any less  grievous if gang members die senseless deaths.









Sent. From my HTC MyTouch 4G slide... Please excuse any typos

[FightTheFuture]

Arguing that other methods of killing makes deaths by guns less of a concern is irrational. Suggesting several gun owners fire weapons in defense in a crowded theater is wicked stupid. Hell I was in the military over 40 years ago and I still know you don't fire a weapon with non combatants in the line of fire.



In a crowded theater, 3 to 5 people will have an intellectual disability, 7 to 10 people will have an active addiction to either alcohol, opiates, or stimulants. One person will be medicated for a seizure disorder. Another 2 to 3 people will have a cognitive impairment.


There is no honest way to disregard gun deaths. They happen, either you are ok with that fact or you are not. If one is ok with that fact, they should be prepared for a large number of people who aren't. Whether they are well intentioned fools or better people than us others is beside the point.

What is 'wicked stupid' is thinking that it's better to not possess the means to end a senseless attack than to have a fighting chance. When is the last time you were in a theater? I go frequently, and this ridiculous notion that 'it's too dark' is a false narrative. I am an expert in the use of several firearms, dating back to my many years of military service. While I understand most concealed weapon permit holders will probably lack the experience I possess, it a damn better plan to return fire than roll over and get gunned down because there is a chsnce an innocent person may be harmed. That's positively ludacris!




Sent from my HTC MyTouch 4G slide...please excuse any typos

[West of the Rockies]

And no one is allowed to question the violence from video games, TV, or the movies. 

Or point out that nearly all gun crime emanates from our inner cities - which have been run as one party states under Leftist policies for several generations now.  Which should give us pause when those very same politicians are trying to pass new gun laws that apply to the rest of us.

Paperboy, numerous studies HAVE questioned if violence from games and TV, movies causes violence; the link simply is not there.  I expected that it WOULD be there!  I doubted the studies when I first encountered them.  I find a lot of game/film violence to be pretty revolting and am no fan of gratuitous violence in the name of entertainment, but the studies do not support the hypothesis.  There is misinformation being put out by those who support strong gun laws (and I do not number myself among them), but the notion that violent game/film content causes violent behavior is, I think, misinformation pushed by those who see espouse the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" perspective.

[RealCool Daddio]

I'm merely pointing out the idiocy of your original premise; that a semi-automatic firearm qualifies as WMD. Whether from a  semi-automatic rifle or an electrical cord, or an SUV, people's lives are always at risk. Most rational people understand that living in a free society comes with inherent risks.  We - or most of us - accept those risks and enjoy the freedoms which represent the other side of the coin, as it were.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable living in a quaint little Euro setting with cradle to grave nanny- state ass wiping.

You compare an assault rifle to an electrical cord, but my statement is idiotic?  And you leap from that to cradle to grave nanny state nonsense?  I bet you are of those folks that think you need that kind of firepower to protect yourself from your own government, right?

[West of the Rockies]

I thought I'd post a little supporting evidence for a claim I made a post or two above: 

I found a very interesting article from Science Daily which suggests that in fact, as the sales of violent video games have increased, the violent crime, especially among youth, has declined. I will leave the link to the article below, but here is an excerpt:

"However, Kierkegaard explains, there is no obvious link between real-world violence statistics and the advent of video games. If anything, the effect seems to be the exact opposite and one might argue that video game usage has reduced real violence. Despite several high profile incidents in US academic institutions, "Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s," says Kierkegaard, "while video games have steadily increased in popularity and use. For example, in 2005, there were 1,360,088 violent crimes reported in the USA compared with 1,423,677 the year before. "With millions of sales of violent games, the world should be seeing an epidemic of violence," he says, "Instead, violence has declined."

Reference: Science Daily (2008)

[Jackpine Savage]

Not callous at all, Fill.  And it is true that accidents happen.  The difference is that guns are specifically designed to cause death - ponds and pools aren't.

Not that stupid logic again. Of course guns are designed to kill things. So? Nothing wrong with killing when appropriate. Guess what, pools and ponds are specifically designed to restrict breathable oxygen beneath the surface. So? Nothing wrong with creating an environment inhospitable to human life when appropriate.

[Jackpine Savage]

Gary Ridgeway murdered a great many more people than Lanza could ever dream of, and he did it with electrical cords, belts, ropes and fishing line; by your definition, all weapons of mass destruction.


The point is, if a crazy person wants to kill, he will kill. Some choose to go about it in a "blaze of glory and lead" and some choose a more deliberate, methodical approach, none-the-less, the end result is, sadly, the same. 


Gun homicides are in a steep decline as gun sales have risen. The more concealed weapon permits issued; the lower the crime rate goes. If you truly are concerned about gun related homicides and crime, you`ll petition your local politico to ban, not firearms, but firearm-free zones like the theater in Aurora Colorado and the school in Newtown CT.

And they're all pikers compared to mao, pol, adolf, stalin... FDR, Truman, Bush...  well, you get my point.

[West of the Rockies]

Of course, water IS a naturally-occurring element (I use "element" as in the so-called four elements:  earth, air, water, fire).  Guns?  Not so much.  Oxygen is essential to life, but breathing pure oxygen is toxic.  So should we give mustard gas a pass now, because after all, it will kill us if we breathe it, but the same can be said for oxygen!

[Jackpine Savage]

Well, I can think of lots of appropriate, legitimate uses for guns, water, and pure oxygen, but poison gas makes a very poor defensive weapon, so I'll have to pass. However, there are many perfectly legal household chemicals that when properly mixed can create create deadly gas. They are legal because their legitimate use has been deemed to far outweigh their liability. And that is my point about guns. Millions and millions of privately owned firearms in America, and unless you are a gang banger or a suicide case, your chances of being killed by one are shockingly low.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

I thought I'd post a little supporting evidence for a claim I made a post or two above: 

I found a very interesting article from Science Daily which suggests that in fact, as the sales of violent video games have increased, the violent crime, especially among youth, has declined. I will leave the link to the article below, but here is an excerpt:

"However, Kierkegaard explains, there is no obvious link between real-world violence statistics and the advent of video games. If anything, the effect seems to be the exact opposite and one might argue that video game usage has reduced real violence. Despite several high profile incidents in US academic institutions, "Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s," says Kierkegaard, "while video games have steadily increased in popularity and use. For example, in 2005, there were 1,360,088 violent crimes reported in the USA compared with 1,423,677 the year before. "With millions of sales of violent games, the world should be seeing an epidemic of violence," he says, "Instead, violence has declined."

Reference: Science Daily (2008)

The correlation is a little sketchy.  If more kids are inside spending more time playing more video games, then it's pretty obvious that less kids spending less time outside will be involved in less violent crimes.  The rate of violence in kids HAS increased, but now it's directed towards bedroom furniture, Hot Pockets, and 360/PS3 controllers.  And Mom and Dad.

[onan]

The correlation is a little sketchy.  If more kids are inside spending more time playing more video games, then it's pretty obvious that less kids spending less time outside will be involved in less violent crimes.  The rate of violence in kids HAS increased, but now it's directed towards bedroom furniture, Hot Pockets, and 360/PS3 controllers.  And Mom and Dad.

More guns in the home would stem the violence. :

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

More guns in the home would stem the violence. :

I was just pointing out the absolute uselessness of that study, of which no mention of guns was made.  Was that study about gun violence, or violence in general?  It's still too simplistic to me.  Children and time are both finite variables; it's like me saying "studies show that swimming MAY reduce the urge to do gardening related tasks, because the more time members of my family spend swimming, the less time members of my family spend weeding and pruning."  One is not actually related to the other in any way, other than that participation in both cost time, of which I'm allotted a finite amount per day, and membership in my family, of which there is a finite amount at any one time.  We can't garden and swim at the same time, just like we can't play video games and get into a bar brawl at the same time.

I get that it's limiting opportunity for violence, but so does virtually every other activity that isn't violence.  If anything, what this study tells me is that less actual human interaction may lead to less violence.

[onan]

I was just pointing out the absolute uselessness of that study, of which no mention of guns was made.  Was that study about gun violence, or violence in general?  It's still too simplistic to me.  Children and time are both finite variables; it's like me saying "studies show that swimming MAY reduce the urge to do gardening related tasks, because the more time members of my family spend swimming, the less time members of my family spend weeding and pruning."  One is not actually related to the other in any way, other than that participation in both cost time, of which I'm allotted a finite amount per day, and membership in my family, of which there is a finite amount at any one time.  We can't garden and swim at the same time, just like we can't play video games and get into a bar brawl at the same time.

I get that it's limiting opportunity for violence, but so does virtually every other activity that isn't violence.  If anything, what this study tells me is that less actual human interaction may lead to less violence.

I was joking... nothing more. I suppose a jab at those that think more guns is the reason for lower crime as opposed to more police.

[Yorkshire pud]

Well, I can think of lots of appropriate, legitimate uses for guns, water, and pure oxygen, but poison gas makes a very poor defensive weapon, so I'll have to pass. However, there are many perfectly legal household chemicals that when properly mixed can create create deadly gas. They are legal because their legitimate use has been deemed to far outweigh their liability. And that is my point about guns. Millions and millions of privately owned firearms in America, and unless you are a gang banger or a suicide case, your chances of being killed by one are shockingly low.

I found this: It's fairly well balanced, the comments after the article are worth reading too, as there are further contributions giving various links to historical and current beliefs/facts. I wasn't aware of the first part of the following until I read this:

“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.”

Probably because the second part is the one oft quoted.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/gun-control-what-can-america-learn-from-britain/12466


It does say in the comments that gun owners are shown to be more aggressive generally. Presumably the studies cited are available.


I thought this comment interesting:

One of the main reasons often quoted is the need to have firearms to protect US citizens against a ‘tyrannical government’.
Perhaps we should this examine this as a practical scenario. In the UK if the government suspects that you have done something wrong they will soon send the Police to inquire into your conduct or arrest you, I assume it’s the same in the US. Therefore, if the US legislation passes a law that you are in default of, and you consider it an example of a ‘tyrannical government’ and that you are not prepared to accept, then the only reason you hold your firearm is to resist (unlawfully) arrest by shooting at the Police when they come for you.
Alternatively, if you are not prepared to wait, and you decide to take affirmative action against this law that you disagree with, please consider the following. In the US you don’t live in North Korea, you live within a working, living, and breathing democracy. If a law is passed democratically by a majority of representatives elected by your fellow citizens that you disagree with, and you oppose this by force of arms, does this not make you a terrorist?

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

All good points, Onan.  But surely it is reasonable to limit access to certain types of "arms", isn't it? Assault rifles, .50 caliber sniper rifles, sub macine guns, RPGs?  Tanks, thermonuclear devices?  I know, hyperbole again , but some line must be drawn somewhere between personal freedom and anarchy.

A) Access to those items is limietd,

and

B)  Who do you REALLY trust to that for you?  You really trust those people?

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

While I agree that most gun owners are responsible, I am not sure that I agree that that means the status quo is fine (if that's the point you are trying to make).  Most drivers are responsible, but we make them obtain a license, insurance, etc.  But when similar restrictions are suggested for guns, a lot of those same responsible gun owners freak out.  You are a gun owner, Onan, and based on your posts a person I would gladly describe as the very definition of reasonable.  Would you object to having to be licensed to own guns and ammo?

In general, cars are meant to be used on public roadways, so interaction with others is inherent in their use.  Guns, not so much.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

I was joking... nothing more. I suppose a jab at those that think more guns is the reason for lower crime as opposed to more police.

I can never fucking tell with you, and I put 50% of the blame squarely on your AV.  It's absolutely perfect.

[Yorkshire pud]

In general, cars are meant to be used on public roadways, so interaction with others is inherent in their use.  Guns, not so much.

Not so much? How do you explain deaths from firearms if there's no 'interaction'? Or are these virtual deaths?

[slipstream]

Not so much? How do you explain deaths from firearms if there's no 'interaction'? Or are these virtual deaths?

ah, the politically correct twister of language is back!

[Yorkshire pud]

ah, the politically correct twister of language is back!

Hush...go and play. Let the grown ups speak.

[Sardondi]

Well, well, well. The good ol' boy, combat-vet, gun-nut, Obama-hater from Shreveport, LA. who sent ricin letters to Obama as well as Mayoe Bloomberg a few months ago? Who said this in one letter to Obama -

         You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns.Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face.I served in the united states army and because your muslim ass will probly never be able to retire.I will have to work until my last breath.I deserve better and so do my wife and kiddos.I will take care of this myself and make sure you wont be runnin this country in the ground any further.The right to bear arms is my constitutional right and I will excersice [sic] that right til the day I die. What’s in the letter is nothing compared to what ive got plannedin store for you mr president.

You know - the guy who proved the horrible stuff about folks who owned guns which anti-gunners always knew was true? Well, he didn't do it. Once again, it was a concoction of a "progressive" who didn't like what the truth was, and felt driven to "improve" on it. For the good of the country don't you know. It was his wife. His actress wife. His actress wife who hated guns. http://weaponsman.com/?p=9018&utm_source=feedly

And because she hated guns, that made her morally superior. And because she was morally superior, that meant that anything she did in the cause of stopping those evil animate objects known as guns was permissible. So she buggered a series of letters making it look like her love mate was putting ricin in letters threatening Bloomberg and Obama because they didn't like guns. And she salted his computer with stuff she thought would make it look like he had produced the things, even putting castor beans in his car trunk. But of course her story fell apart. Looks like she won't be acting in any more zombie tv shows anytime soon. (I wonder if it was Walking Dead?)

I can only hope the lying bitch goers to prison for long enough that she doesn't need makeup for her next zombie role.

[PB the Deplorable]

... And because she hated guns, that made her morally superior. And because she was morally superior, that meant that anything she did in the cause of stopping those evil animate objects known as guns was permissible...

Same old story.  Like when blacks or gays decorate the front of their own dorms or homes with dreadful hateful stuff then call out the hate crimes unit.  Only later does it come out they did it themselves (and I'm not saying it's always the case, but it seems to turn out to be the case an awful lot of the time).  I think they read a bunch of Left wing shit, go to their hate rallies, get themselves all wound up and decide to help the process along. 

Yeah, the Left are the peaceful, enlightened, open-minded, tolerant ones.  Even Dan Rather got into the act with the ongoing knowingly fake news stories that got him fired.  If the R's and Conservatives are as terrible as the Left claims, they wouldn't have to lie and make this stuff up.

[Jackpine Savage]

It does say in the comments that gun owners are shown to be more aggressive generally. Presumably the studies cited are available.

Something wrong with being aggressive?

Guess what, human beings with intact testicles are also proven to be more aggressive than those who lack said testicles. Should the owners of testicles be relieved of their right to bear sack?

What's your point here, other than performing an exercise in sophistry?

[Yorkshire pud]

Something wrong with being aggressive?

That says it all.

Guess what, human beings with intact testicles are also proven to be more aggressive than those who lack said testicles.

Even the females? Strange world.

Should the owners of testicles be relieved of their right to bear sack?

What's your point here, other than performing an exercise in sophistry?

The point being aggression isn't always the way forward.

[/quote]

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

The point being aggression isn't always the way forward.

But passive-aggression is, right?

[onan]

But passive-aggression is, right?

Your response is much more passive aggressive than York's.


I am so sick of the aggression is "ok" argument. Self defense is not aggression. The minute defense becomes aggressive it becomes illegal. Don't believe me? use your weapon outside of defense and see where your ass lands.


Secondly we have a social contract that is specifically in place to avoid aggression. Otherwise society would always be the biggest guy with the biggest club would rule and others would live in fear.


There is something pathologically wrong believing aggression is an appropriate response in any civil setting. Including sports but that is another discussion.

[Yorkshire pud]

But passive-aggression is, right?

Disagreeing with aggression being a default position doesn't make me passive aggressive (I'm not pouting); it simply means I don't have an unnecessary extra Y chromosome.But hey,  but if living on the same street as the local gorilla floats you boat, go ahead.

[Jackpine Savage]

Your response is much more passive aggressive than York's.


I am so sick of the aggression is "ok" argument. Self defense is not aggression. The minute defense becomes aggressive it becomes illegal. Don't believe me? use your weapon outside of defense and see where your ass lands.


Secondly we have a social contract that is specifically in place to avoid aggression. Otherwise society would always be the biggest guy with the biggest club would rule and others would live in fear.


There is something pathologically wrong believing aggression is an appropriate response in any civil setting. Including sports but that is another discussion.

Are defensive linemen allowed to be aggressive? Lots of manifestations of aggression are not bad and not harmful. Don't become a bed-wetter like puddin' pop here. Aggression gets shit done.

And males are hard-wired to be more aggressive than women, so why are you pathologizing men?

[Jackpine Savage]

Disagreeing with aggression being a default position doesn't make me passive aggressive (I'm not pouting); it simply means I don't have an unnecessary extra Y chromosome.But hey,  but if living on the same street as the local gorilla floats you boat, go ahead.

In other words, you don't have it, so no one else should be allowed to either. I see. Don't be envious, just petition NHS to give you that addadicktamy you've always craved.

[Jackpine Savage]

Even the females? Strange world.

Wow, nothing gets past you. It's really funny hearing a woman complain about aggressive men. If women don't like aggressive men, than maybe they should stop lusting after them during their ovulation. Talk about rewarding aggressive behavior... I know, biology isn't convenient, is it?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men