Gun control and such.

[TDIRunner]

TDI, you're assuming I/anyone else is "afraid of guns".

 


***EDIT***  I think you just need to double check whose comments you are responding to. 

Ugh, I'm sorry.

No worries.  

It was funny though, because you posted that right after my post about how I was trying to stay out of the argument. 

[wiggy]

#popcorn

HOW long can we go before the pro gun guy and the anti gun guy realize they're speaking completely different languages and will literally NEVER understand each other's viewpoint no matter what?

I've played this game with lots of pro gun guys at work (I'm quite anto gun). We can respect each other, but we absolutely cannot understand each other. It's not worth the breath/keystrokes.

The thing is, I do indeed understand their viewpoint. The problem is that virtually ALL of the data regarding home defense points to "having a gun in the house is more of a liability than a security".

The people who support owning handguns and the right to shoot an intruder never seem to produce any evidence to the contrary, other than the anecdotal "if the owner had a gun..." type of thing.  Speculation doesn't prove anything. Also denouncing the empirical data, such as "so and so also said blah blah blah, which totally discredits his/her research/data".

TDI, you're assuming I/anyone else is "afraid of guns". I never said I was afraid, I only pointed to data that supports my assertion that owning a gun is more of a liability than a security measure.  The data shows that having a gun in the house is more times than not, a liability, trained or not.  This is what I was talking about above. Where's the data that shows "trained" gun owners are safer at home with their guns?  That's an assumption, and a rather large one at that.

Not sure how the mindset is relevant?  You obviously don't agree with it, but it does nothing to disprove actual data.  of course someone who is against the current gun laws is going to have a mindset that is people shouldn't own hand guns or assault rifles or sub machine guns and so on.  The fact that he has expressed his opinion doesn't invalidate the data.

I don't have any problems with people feeling that they need some sort of firearm to feel secure.  I'm just looking at data and, regardless of how any of us feel, it speaks truth.  If someone wants to point to research which says firearms in homes have proven to protect the people who live there, then I'll read it.  I'm just not seeing it, and it's tiresome hearing the same emotional defenses and anecdotal evidence from gun owners.  I could supply a glut of personal, anecdotal evidence showing that gun ownership is not necessarily a good idea for the average citizen, but I won't, because it's not all that relevant in the grand scheme of things.

More of my friends are gun owners than aren't, as an FYI. Just because I have a different opinion, doesn't mean I write someone off. So don't think that I'm going to dislike or yeah talk you for having a different opinion in this matter. Ask Palmer, we get along just fine

I'm sorry if I was a bit brash in my response earlier; it's a subject that's important to me because it enables me to defend my family. I think you meant to respond to me and might have been confused on who posted what. I made the comment earlier about people's irrational fear of guns.

As for the data, it's hard to take it seriously with a statement like, "If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide." This is like saying that stepping outside increases your odds of skin cancer or people who drive are more likely to in accidents, but there's a KEY difference. I have more control over an accident with a firearm than I do with the previous two examples.

It is physically impossible for my firearm to go off unless the trigger is pulled. Biased statistics are meaningless in the face of this one FACT. I am in control of the ultimate safety and it's the one between my ears. I, and only I, decide when it's used because it CANNOT fire unless I use it, and I know how to use it.

I don't need to list examples of firearms saving lives because there are too many. It's a tool just like a car and used properly it can take you out of a bad situation unharmed.

PS. I don't harbor any resentment or begrudge someone if they disagree. I was kind of rude earlier and apologize. I'm ok with discussion.

My mistake about the misquote. This forum sometimes throws me off, when I'm scrolling down to reference previous posts :/

Here's the thing, and this is an argument I see from gun owners EVERY time this debate comes up, cars aren't weapons, and neither is the sun. Comparing stepping outdoors and driving a car to gun ownership doesn't make  sense. The outdoors wasn't created by man, and neither was the sun. Cars weren't created as weapons.

Guns were. That's the only reason that handguns exist. They're not for hunting. They weren't invented for sport. They were invented in order to facilitate the murder if another human being. That's all.

Again, dismissing the data just because you don't like the guy who presented it is simply denial. The data wasn't collected by himself. He just presents it. The same would apply if data showed that keeping a gun in your house was an effective security measure. The article would be written by someone who is very pro-gun. Point is, the data is out there to be found with and without any brash opinions attached, and there's a LOT of it.  Calling the statistics biased is, well, biased, as opposed to taking a subjective look through the material.

I can totally understand the feeling of control that exists, but once again, the data speaks to the contrary. Not saying that YOU are not  a capable marksman, but rather that it's been shown to not be a good means by which to protect yourself in general.

[palmer6strings]

The only thing I'm gonna say is. If someone wants to kill/hurt/intimidate/whatever... they are going to do it with anything they can get their hands on. If not a pistol, maybe a shotgun or rifle. If not those, a knife. If not that, then something else. I will also state, that someone that is actually going to buy the gun, have it registered under their name, pays to be certified CCW isn't the ones you have to worry about. Why would they spend that much money to just commit a crime?

Here is the deal. A criminal is what he/she is... a CRIMINAL... they wont pay for any of that shit. Also, if the Government happens to finally take the guns away from civilians, a criminal will still be able to get their hands on firearms. A criminal wont care because they are planning on breaking the law anyway.

Last but not least, the Government wants us all to be sheep. They want us to follow them, no questions asked. They already think they own everything we have.
If they happen to take our firearms away, they WILL turn into a tyrannical force that we a nation wont be able to anything about.

Just my $0.02.

[FritzWhite]

#popcorn

HOW long can we go before the pro gun guy and the anti gun guy realize they're speaking completely different languages and will literally NEVER understand each other's viewpoint no matter what?

I've played this game with lots of pro gun guys at work (I'm quite anto gun). We can respect each other, but we absolutely cannot understand each other. It's not worth the breath/keystrokes.

The thing is, I do indeed understand their viewpoint. The problem is that virtually ALL of the data regarding home defense points to "having a gun in the house is more of a liability than a security".

The people who support owning handguns and the right to shoot an intruder never seem to produce any evidence to the contrary, other than the anecdotal "if the owner had a gun..." type of thing.  Speculation doesn't prove anything. Also denouncing the empirical data, such as "so and so also said blah blah blah, which totally discredits his/her research/data".

TDI, you're assuming I/anyone else is "afraid of guns". I never said I was afraid, I only pointed to data that supports my assertion that owning a gun is more of a liability than a security measure.  The data shows that having a gun in the house is more times than not, a liability, trained or not.  This is what I was talking about above. Where's the data that shows "trained" gun owners are safer at home with their guns?  That's an assumption, and a rather large one at that.

Not sure how the mindset is relevant?  You obviously don't agree with it, but it does nothing to disprove actual data.  of course someone who is against the current gun laws is going to have a mindset that is people shouldn't own hand guns or assault rifles or sub machine guns and so on.  The fact that he has expressed his opinion doesn't invalidate the data.

I don't have any problems with people feeling that they need some sort of firearm to feel secure.  I'm just looking at data and, regardless of how any of us feel, it speaks truth.  If someone wants to point to research which says firearms in homes have proven to protect the people who live there, then I'll read it.  I'm just not seeing it, and it's tiresome hearing the same emotional defenses and anecdotal evidence from gun owners.  I could supply a glut of personal, anecdotal evidence showing that gun ownership is not necessarily a good idea for the average citizen, but I won't, because it's not all that relevant in the grand scheme of things.

More of my friends are gun owners than aren't, as an FYI. Just because I have a different opinion, doesn't mean I write someone off. So don't think that I'm going to dislike or yeah talk you for having a different opinion in this matter. Ask Palmer, we get along just fine

I'm sorry if I was a bit brash in my response earlier; it's a subject that's important to me because it enables me to defend my family. I think you meant to respond to me and might have been confused on who posted what. I made the comment earlier about people's irrational fear of guns.

As for the data, it's hard to take it seriously with a statement like, "If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide." This is like saying that stepping outside increases your odds of skin cancer or people who drive are more likely to in accidents, but there's a KEY difference. I have more control over an accident with a firearm than I do with the previous two examples.

It is physically impossible for my firearm to go off unless the trigger is pulled. Biased statistics are meaningless in the face of this one FACT. I am in control of the ultimate safety and it's the one between my ears. I, and only I, decide when it's used because it CANNOT fire unless I use it, and I know how to use it.

I don't need to list examples of firearms saving lives because there are too many. It's a tool just like a car and used properly it can take you out of a bad situation unharmed.

PS. I don't harbor any resentment or begrudge someone if they disagree. I was kind of rude earlier and apologize. I'm ok with discussion.

My mistake about the misquote. This forum sometimes throws me off, when I'm scrolling down to reference previous posts :/

Here's the thing, and this is an argument I see from gun owners EVERY time this debate comes up, cars aren't weapons, and neither is the sun. Comparing stepping outdoors and driving a car to gun ownership doesn't make  sense. The outdoors wasn't created by man, and neither was the sun. Cars weren't created as weapons.

Guns were. That's the only reason that handguns exist. They're not for hunting. They weren't invented for sport. They were invented in order to facilitate the murder if another human being. That's all.

Again, dismissing the data just because you don't like the guy who presented it is simply denial. The data wasn't collected by himself. He just presents it. The same would apply if data showed that keeping a gun in your house was an effective security measure. The article would be written by someone who is very pro-gun. Point is, the data is out there to be found with and without any brash opinions attached, and there's a LOT of it.  Calling the statistics biased is, well, biased, as opposed to taking a subjective look through the material.

I can totally understand the feeling of control that exists, but once again, the data speaks to the contrary. Not saying that YOU are not  a capable marksman, but rather that it's been shown to not be a good means by which to protect yourself in general.

The comparison of guns to the sun or vehicles is rooted in context, that being whether it's valid to suggest a ban on something because it's dangerous. That was one of your chief arguments  against guns, right?  What does something being man made or it being intended to be used as a  weapon have to do with whether or not it should be banned?  Are you also against archery, fencing swords, and martial arts?

As for handguns and sport, well, there is a sport for them. Also, a handgun can serve as a good back up weapon if you're hunting and come across a  larger predator.

I don't dislike your guy from the article; I'm indifferent. I  quoted him to give an example of how skewed his logic is. I'm 100% OK with being judged by someone like that. He can shake his head at violence and go on about how it's wrong and honestly,  I hate seeing innocent people hurt too. I don't want to hurt anyone, BUT if a threat exists you can bet your ass my family and I won't be victims.

I will give you credit because your heart's in the right place. You don't want the violence and on that, we can both agree. Unfortunately, the world we live in is not all peaches and cream and reality can be brutal.

I exercise my right to prepare.

You made an interesting comment at the end that I'm going to call you out on, that being that a gun is not a good means to defend yourself. How can you call for a ban on the grounds that  they're dangerous yet claim that they're not "good" for self defense? If someone intends to hurt me, my firearm will stop them EVERY SINGLE TIME. That's about as much as anyone can ask for of a self defense tool.

I  could dump an enormous, never ending pile of examples of guns saving lives on the table here but I'm not going to. You don't need statistical data to show that a properly handled quality firearm works every single time.

[RealPlumpBox]

GUYS!!!!! I AM SORRY!!!!  I mentioned I have multiple guns and whatnot but man lets get back on topic.  I respect anit gun people

[TDIRunner]

GUYS!!!!! I AM SORRY!!!!  I mentioned I have multiple guns and whatnot but man lets get back on topic.  I respect anit gun people

Good idea.

How do I protect my home?   Well, my house is setup pretty much like the houses in the first two Home Alone movies.  I dare you to try and take my games.   

[sheep2001]

I swore I wasn't going to post in here.........But if guns were outlawed, and the majority of bad guys didn't have them, why would the good guys still need them?

An awful lot of gun crime in the US is committed by good guys who suffer some sort of mental episode.  Or by a family member who takes the gun.  If the gun wasn't there - these multiple murders wouldn't happen.  If your argument is that your gun is locked away, yada, yada, yada, then how can it be for self/home defence.
If I lived somewhere where I was so concerned for the safety of my family, that I had to have a weapon, I would move.  Whatever the cost.  Although I really do think that the protection argument is just lip service.  How many of you have actually pulled a gun, on someone already threatening you with a gun, and not been shot first?

In 2014, deaths by terrorism in the US were 18.  Deaths by gun crime 8,512.  Yet American (and global) media is constantly scare mongering over the terrorism threat, but don't even want background checks for gun registration.  - and pair that with the figures that in countries with tighter gun control, there is lower gun crime rates, I just don't get it.  I will never get it.  I don't want to get it. 

Just to be clear, I have no problem with the pro gun people, it's just a difference of opinion.  One which were all entitled to. (But you're all wrong. Lol) 

[palmer6strings]

Actually sheep, if you adjust for population, America is further down the list for homicides that include firearms than a lot of other countries. And to add to that, countries with stricter gun laws have MORE crime including firearms than those with less "control".

Not trying to argue, just state facts.

Just saying.

[Arseen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Organise by homiside, suicide or accidental US is high ranking.

[monjici]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Organise by homiside, suicide or accidental US is high ranking.

I would be interested to cross-check these stats with the social programs in each country.
A wise man once told me that where there is less poverty (helped by social programs), there is less crime. Since crime fighting cost a lot of money, I don't mind that money goes to social programs instead. But that is a whole different topic

[FritzWhite]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Organise by homiside, suicide or accidental US is high ranking.

If someone wants to kill themselves, I don't see what the problem is. Everyone has a choice in their destiny. I don't have a problem with respecting a person's rights to choose (their own destiny). Suicide is not the right choice in my eyes, but it doesn't matter because I'm not them.

As for homicide, Palmer hit it earlier when he mentioned that with a gun ban we're not necessarily going to see a decrease in the number of homicides overall. There's no data to support the notion that the homicides won't still be committed. They will, the only thing that will change is the weapon.

If someone is unable to safely operate a firearm, there are a lot of other ways they can be a danger to themselves or others. The risk of me having an accident with my firearm is ZERO.

I would be interested to cross-check these stats with the social programs in each country.
A wise man once told me that where there is less poverty (helped by social programs), there is less crime. Since crime fighting cost a lot of money, I don't mind that money goes to social programs instead. But that is a whole different topic

Social programs can be great for helping someone with the desire to help themselves. It's great to see help go to someone truly deserving that needs a helping hand, but it's also very aggravating to see bums abuse the system.

I swore I wasn't going to post in here.........But if guns were outlawed, and the majority of bad guys didn't have them, why would the good guys still need them?

An awful lot of gun crime in the US is committed by good guys who suffer some sort of mental episode.  Or by a family member who takes the gun.  If the gun wasn't there - these multiple murders wouldn't happen.  If your argument is that your gun is locked away, yada, yada, yada, then how can it be for self/home defence.
If I lived somewhere where I was so concerned for the safety of my family, that I had to have a weapon, I would move.  Whatever the cost.  Although I really do think that the protection argument is just lip service.  How many of you have actually pulled a gun, on someone already threatening you with a gun, and not been shot first?

In 2014, deaths by terrorism in the US were 18.  Deaths by gun crime 8,512.  Yet American (and global) media is constantly scare mongering over the terrorism threat, but don't even want background checks for gun registration.   - and pair that with the figures that in countries with tighter gun control, there is lower gun crime rates, I just don't get it.  I will never get it.  I don't want to get it.  

Just to be clear, I have no problem with the pro gun people, it's just a difference of opinion.  One which were all entitled to. (But you're all wrong. Lol)  

If guns weren't there... nobody would be shot. Sure sounds like a nice ideal, right? But how do you propose this can work practically?

If guns are outlawed, then who's going to turn them in? Honest citizens or outlaws/criminals? That fact ALONE ends the argument for me right there, but let's look at some countries with heavy gun restrictions or outright bans that also share borders with other countries (not counting Austraila, Japan, etc...) like Mexico.

In 2013 the United States' firearm-related death rate was 10.64 deaths for every 100,000 inhabitants, a figure very close to Mexico's 11.17, although in Mexico firearm deaths are predominantly homicides whereas in the United States they are predominantly suicides. Consider that Mexico has over 3 million legally registered and owned guns in 2012. 3 million registered guns sounds like a lot until you consider that the population of Mexico is 122 million. By comparison, the US has 270 million guns registered and a population of 319 million, yet we have a lower rate of gun death than Mexico.

http://www.mexidata.info/id3856.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Also, Mexico isn't the only strict gun law state in which innocent civilians were gunned down by fantatics. I know if I were in France a few months ago that I would have wanted to be armed and have had a fighting chance rather than be hopelessly slain by ISIS.

Ideally, after I acquire my concealed carry weapon (aka CCW) license, then I'll be able to keep my firearm on me and truly be prepared at all times. You mentioned never being in a life or death situation and it doesn't matter if you've already been in that situation or not. Life or death, you don't get another chance to prepare or consider an alternative approach because it's game over. It CAN happen and it's a real situation that DOES happen every single day, even in 'nice' areas. That alone is reason enough to prepare.

[Arseen]

I know if I were in France a few months ago that I would have wanted to be armed and have had a fighting chance rather than be hopelessly slain by ISIS.

That is probably the most idiotic thing that anyone here as ever said.

Think what would have happened if random people would have returned fire in crowded places.
The death toll would have been way higher.

As for Mexico vs US... pretty much 3rd world country with corrupted goverment with gangs running wild vs one of the leading 1st world country with quite well working policy force... desperate comparison.
Compare US and Canada...

And for only good people turning guns in if they were illegal... that is so lame excuse.
Just cease and destroy as much of them as possible, and make getting new ones hard, with huge penalty for possession, and great reward for returning guns or reporting them.
They will eventually quite fast run out.

[palmer6strings]

This is seriously getting fucking dumb guys.

First off, if you don't live in the country being spoke about at hand, then your opinion is really invalid. Not trying to be an asshole but it's true.

Second, why should my rights be taken away just because my neighbor doesn't like it. You know, dogs kill people too, let's just outlaw them. "But Palmer, you're comparing apples to oranges, blah blah blah..."
No I'm really not. I own quite a bit of firearms that's never killed or hurt anyone. And there is a way higher percentage of people that is the same as me. Same goes for dogs. There is a high percent of dogs that hasn't hurt anyone. But yet there are a few that have killed people. So yeah let's outlaw them.

You know, gays, rapists, assholes, druggies... They all helped the spread of STD's that slowly kill people. Let's all revoke their rights. Oh but wait, we legalized gay mairage, can't not let everyone be happy about gays but we can piss people off about guns!

Third: most drugs are illegal here in the states. Look how many motherfuckers still do them. How well did the law work there. Answer me that.

^--- If you think this all sounds dumb. Just look at yourselves sitting here arguing. Get a grip.
Watch this go ignored just like everything else I say, most of you all are my friends but alls I see are a bunch of babies right now.

[Megatron]

I like to protect my games by putting them in UGCs or SHadow Fox cases.  Keeps the dust out, and allows me to display some nice artwork.  I'd say the games are pretty well protected in there from most drops, falls, or other minor accidents.  

[sheep2001]

^--- If you think this all sounds dumb. Just look at yourselves sitting here arguing. Get a grip.
Watch this go ignored just like everything else I say, most of you all are my friends but alls I see are a bunch of babies right now.

Only one person throwing toys.....

Oh, and your logic that legalising gay marriage helps spread std's........you win the dumbest comment on the internet award for the day.  Congratulations.

And by your logic of non US natives not allowed an opinion on US gun control, I hereby declare you no longer to have an opinion on gay marriage.  Unless you swing that way of course.  Then it's all good.