Guns kill people because people buy guns

[DainBramaged]

There is no argument, nor is there an excuse to allow guns in the home. All of the civilized countries of the world, except the United States of Guns, limit gun ownership to shotguns for hunting and skeet shooting. You can't buy a Glock in England, France, Germany, or Japan. But you can buy one here. When the sale of guns ends, lives will be saved. And maybe gun lovers will remember to love their families instead of their guns.

No one ever killed 33 people with a broomstick.

[seabeyond]

1. my husband buys guns and has never killed a person

you lost your argument

on edit: btw.... he doesnt "love" his guns and he does love his family. another falsity in your argument

[DainBramaged]

2. Guns kill PEOPLE because PEOPLE buy guns

There is no argument

[seabeyond]

4. what about the guns people dont BUY but steal.

[Maddy McCall]

8. Darn you, sea.

Why do you always have to throw the monkeywrench into the cogs of illogical junk?

:hi:

Hope all is well with you and your family.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maddy McCall]

23. Me and mine are doin' fine.

:)

[BushOut06]

25. If there were no guns available, then how could anyone steal them?

Would be kinda hard for criminals to get guns if there were no guns available.

[slackmaster]

85. If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle

:nuke:

[kiki]

128. Where do they steal those guns from?

To steal a gun, you must first find a gun. Pretty easy in a country awash with them.

Try finding a handgun in the UK, let alone stealing one.

[seabeyond]

132. they arent stealing dope out of our homes. it isnt being sold in stores and then stolen

from people that BUY it. but still.... dope is had all across our great nation. it isnt going to be a tough one.

[kiki]

146. Um... people don't steal dope from their dealers.

Not in my neighbourhood, anyway. :)

People buy dope from dealers, and dealers are obviously a less reliable source than legally sanctioned retail outlets. Some people I know *ahem* have had to wait weeks for weed at times. Most people wouldn't know where to look if they suddenly wanted to try illegal drugs, but they can go and buy (or steal) a beer (or, in the US, a gun) any time.

I'm not saying this is an answer to the entire gun control argument, but on this single point, the fact that it is harder to steal an object that is illegal than it is to steal one that is readily available in millions of stores seems like a no-brainer to me...

[seabeyond]

147. and my point, if you outlawed the sales of guns, they would still be here

like booze was still here when it was outlawed and drugs is still easily available and it is not sold in stores.

[kiki]

149. OK, but that's really got nothing to do

with your point about people stealing guns.

Obviously guns would still be around if they were made illegal, but there'd be a lot less of them. And if you wanted to steal one, you'd have to steal it from an arms dealer rather than K-Mart, which I imagine would make even hardened thieves think twice.

[seabeyond]

150. the only reason using any point wahtsoever about buying guns is op

put it in his title

[kiki]

151. Erm... you've lost me.

Regardless of the OP, my entire original point was directed at your statement "What about the guns people dont BUY but steal." Are you now saying that stealing guns is irrelevant to our conversation?

[Maddy McCall]

5. Bullshit.

I have guns. I've never killed anyone.

Stupid, faulty logic. The actual exchanging of money for a gun does NOT kill people.

[DainBramaged]

14. So did a broomstick kill those people today?

I'm sorry, try as you might, if the guns weren't available those people would be alive.

Oh one more thing, I don't want to look at your posts any longer.

Goodbye. Keep loving your guns.

[Maddy McCall]

18. Pathetic.

[piedmont]

121. His enemies list most be in the thousands. nt

[piedmont]

116. GM cars kill people because people buy GM cars. nt

[zanne]

129. That's like saying that cars kill more people...

Than guns or IED's in Iraq. Intellectually dishonest.

[piedmont]

137. If I meant that I would have said it. Your analogy has nothing to do with mine. nt

[BushOut06]

6. Neither had the guy at VT

That is such a bogus argument. I'm glad that your husband has never killed anyone. But lots of "law-abiding" citizens buy guns, act responsibly for years, then snap and kill someone. How can anyone know what the future holds?

[seabeyond]

22. a lot of "law-abiding" citizens buy knives, drive cars, has a hammer

or any manner of things that can murder another human being and still manage to go a life time without killing someone. i like my husbands odds,

thanks for the concern

whoosh,.. what an argument

[BushOut06]

28. Fact is, there are lots of people who kill who have never had a criminal record

Sure, the majority of career criminals are going to obtain their guns illegally. But there are also plenty of "ordinary law-abiding" Americans who own guns, never have any intention of killing anyone, and then something happens.

[seabeyond]

29. sure and there are a lot a lotta gun owners that go to their grave WiTHOUT

killing. hence the argument guns dont kill buying guns kill is a non true argument.

the person who buys a gun could kill, likely not.
a person can steal a gun and kill
a person can use many ways to kill without a gun

just a stupid argument.... buy a gun you kill

[Maddy McCall]

3. You know those shotguns for hunting and skeet shooting in England and France?

They can kill people, too.

[Critters2]

7. And yet they do so much less frequently in England and France.

Why is that?

[Maddy McCall]

11. Well, it may be for many reasons, but it is not because people BUY guns.

I assume that people in the UK have to purchase guns, too, that they don't grow them in a garden or carve them from stone.

[pingdashf]

95. Because they are all to drunk to shoot straight

[kiki]

152. As a UK resident...

...I just want to point out how UTTERLY FUCKING HILARIOUS that gag was. Yeah, we're drunk all the time here. Maybe if we all sobered up a bit, those of us that do have guns would be able to shoot each other more effectively, like good Americans. That'd be great.

[Kutjara]

12. To be fair...

...it's a little harder to hide a shotgun or rifle in your pocket than a handgun. Seeing someone walking toward you with a shotgun and a crazed look at least gives you a little time to run away.

[Maddy McCall]

16. But we're not talking about concealability in this thread.

We're talking about BUYING guns. The OP says that the problem is people BUYING guns.

[Kutjara]

24. The OP's post was about buying, but your reply wasn't.

You stated that hunting weapons can kill too. While this is true, the issue of concealability is perhaps relevant to the lower incidence of gun murder in countries that restrict ownership to this category of weapon.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

32. Is this concealability why it's illegal to saw off the barrel of a shotgun?

Perhaps that's why only criminals saw off shotguns to illegal lengths?

[Kutjara]

35. Yes. A sawnoff shotgun is probably the most deadly short-range weapon available.

Combine the stopping power of buckshot with a size that enables easy concealment, and you have a devastating killing tool.

[DainBramaged]

42. But a Glock has 15 +1 9MM rounds

How many rounds, while you reload your "killing machine", has the Glock fired?

Nice try though. Justify your need to bleed.

[Maddy McCall]

37. Columbine...sawed-off shotguns. Right?

[Kutjara]

41. Yep, nice and concealable.

That's why it's illegal to saw them off. In the UK, carrying one of those will land you in jail for a looooooooong time.

[Maddy McCall]

43. So you can BUY a gun in the UK, modify it, and conceal it.

Concealability isn't the pivot, then.

[Kutjara]

62. All weapons purchased in the UK have to be registered with the police.

The police make periodic checks of registered owners, to make sure the guns are still in the owner's possession and are stored in regulation lockboxes. Sawing-off a shotgun that you owned would be a pretty quick way to land in jail. Because the penalties for carrying such weapons are so stiff, the average gun felon would be more likely to rob a bank using a full-length shotgun.

Actually, this is a bit academic, since the majority of gun crimes in the UK are committed with handguns that have been smuggled into the country from Eastern Europe. Long guns are very rarely used. Again, the easy concealability of handguns makes them the weapon of choice for smugglers and criminals alike.

[pingdashf]

96. Or

It could just be that there are less murders per capita in those countries to begin with. Maybe if we fixed our failing education systems we wouldn't be talking about WHAT kills people.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

17. No kidding

There's a reason that police use shotguns for riot control, they're deadly.

[DainBramaged]

36. And they stopped using buckshot years ago here

Beanbag, rubber bullet, and rock salt replace buckshot today. I guess you haven't read about riot control much.

Nice try though

[Lone_Star_Dem]

100. The point that you refuse to see

Is that criminals wouldn't use beanbags nor rubber bullets or rock salt.

Nice try though.

[StrictlyRockers]

9. Kicked and rec'ed for the truth about guns.

[billbuckhead]

10. Here compare American murder and gun murder with the rest of the world

Murders per capita
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>

Murder with guns per capita
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita>

[Sanctified]

142. Wait, Wait...

Mexico has more murders than the US and gun ownership is illegal there.

[cdnwannabe]

13. Well said - we have a sickness in this country...

that will likely never be cured. Because far too many people don't want it to be cured. And I don't care if somebody's husband buys guns but doesn't kill anybody, it all contributes to the sickness.

[sam sarrha]

19. WE SIMPLY HAVE MORE CRAZY PEOPLE..

[Maddy McCall]

20. It's a culture of retribution.

You injure me in any way, I kill you.

(Not you, sam--I'm talking in the general sense.)

It takes a crazy fucker to strap on two nines and 20 magazines, and go kill people.

[AZBlue]

112. You're right. And that's what has to change: the old-west "retribution" mentality.

It's destroying us.

[kiki]

153. Correction:

It takes a crazy fucker to stroll into his local K-Mart, buy two nines and 20 magazines, and go kill people.

[Zynx]

27. Looks like this guy was Chinese national, not American.

[DainBramaged]

31. But his weapon of choice, stolen or purchased, was a gun

I wonder how many people he would have killed with a broomstick. Or a baseball bat. Or a knife. Maybe a toaster oven?:shrug:

[mudesi]

21. And the manufacturers make BILLIONS

Let us never forget the beneficiaries.

[AZBlue]

113. And donate that to politicians.

Let's not forget the second layer of beneficiaries.

[DainBramaged]

26. Why do people who we assume to be progressive love their guns?

Someone find me the number of deaths because of accidental gun discharge. And how many children die because PEOPLE leave their guns out?

Those who find the need to defend gun ownership should be more concerned about defending those who die from gun violence.

[Maddy McCall]

34. Because we're not progressive. We're actually freepers.

Bwahahahaha. I've been exposed. I'm not progressive because I lust for guns.

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

39. find me the statistics on number of children dead in car accidents

the truth is we cannot protect all people, all the time, from all things. the number of deaths from drowning accidents by kids. the number of deaths from kids hit by cars riding bicycles.

you want to take away the responsible peoples rights to own guns, because of the irresponsible.

i totally embrace your argument. i hate guns. hate them, hate them. i want nothing to do with them. and i have nothing to do with them. and i will loudly stand up for anothers right to responsibly own one. and if they are not responsible with the gun, then i will firmly stand behind prosecuting and punishing the person thru our court system and the many laws we have on record.

[Irreverend IX]

45. How many children die because PEOPLE buy swimming pools?

Really, there's no practical reason to own a swimming pool unless you're training full-time for the Olympics. And they kill lots more people than guns.

Come to think of it, how many children die because PEOPLE drive poorly-made GM cars? We need a law that requires everyone to purchase Toyotas.

[DainBramaged]

52. Your logic is as dumb as owning a gun

One more time, was a gun designed to open a can? A swimming pool is for SWIMMING not KILLING.

[piedmont]

122. When confronted by an attacker, I don't want to defend myself with a swimming pool. nt

[bonito]

30. Then they'll make them

Look at the illegal drug trade,its still here, and they'll have guns as well, sorry, I have them for protection, my family depends on me being here for them.

[DainBramaged]

33. But why are you scared where you live?

Maybe the solution is to move.

[bonito]

38. I'm not

:scared: are you? :shrug:

[DainBramaged]

46. Nope, so why do you need your gun to protect your family ?

Never was afraid to live anywhere. If I was, I'd be in a bunker. Paranoia means defense. Why not learn karate? Close range, you have as good a chance of killing a loved one as you do a criminal who broke into your house.

So, why do you need to protect your family? With a gun?

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. So following this logic, we can conclude that cars kill people because people buy cars

and the same with knives..

and hatchets..

and machetes...

and bows & arrows,

how about motorcycles?

bicycles?

skate boards?

Should I keep going? Let's BAN EVERYTHING! people kill people, sometimes with "things", be it a gun, knife, car, what have you. If they are determined to kill someone, they will do it no matter what, if they have to use a rock or a stick... what people fail to realize is that these are criminals, committing a crime.. these aren't responsible gun owners and law abiding citizens.

[DainBramaged]

44. You're trying to justify the ownership of guns

No other WEAPON, nor vehicle, nor cooking utensil, means of transportation, was ever designed to KILL like a gun.

And how many people have gone on a killing rampage with a bow ad arrow?


A gun has ONE purpose, TO KILL.

Is that hard to accept?

[Ghost in the Machine]

98. and you are trying to justify a fascist, totalitarian agenda, in which you seek

to ban things that YOU don't like or agree with. Failed logic and blanket staements of your own beliefs/desires don't make your argument true. Yes, guns were designed to kill... or protect.. however you want to look at it, but the simple fact is criminals kill people, guns are just a tool that they choose to use. A gun in the hands of an ordinary citizen, with no aforethought to malice or criminal activity, is nothing but a piece of metal.

Is that so hard to accept?

[DainBramaged]

102. Why do you defend your gun ownership so strongly?

I'm against handguns. Why is it so important to you? I've lived my entire life without the need for a gun. Or the need to own one. Most people are like me. And gun owners need to own more than one gun. They aren't like cars. You can't take them to the drive in and show them off, can you?

(spelling edit, I'm tired, we'll try this some more tomorrow).

[Thothmes]

104. Bow and arrow

before the advent of gun powder, All killing on the planet was done with bow & arrows, spears, axes, knives, swords. While you could not get as many at one time, lots of people were killed.

[durrrty libby]

47. Loving guns is an idiotic hobby

[seabeyond]

48. so is metal detecting, but hubby just..... loves it. n/t

[Alcibiades]

49. Men with small penises

need guns to compensate for their lack of manhood, at least according to the neo-Freudian theory of gun ownership. Now, some men have a gun or two that they use. This theory need not apply to them. But the fellow who has dozens of guns is probably over-compensating for something. The gun is a surrogate penis, everybody knows that. Why don't women want to own guns? For the most part (there are exceptions) they feel no need to own their own penis. Why do some men need dozens of firearms? Again, they seek to make up for what nature has not supplied them with a hard, long, metal object, preferably one with a hair trigger and a high rate of fire. Owning additional guns beyond the first one is like having additional penises.

When such a male is threatened, especially sexually, watch out! He will often produce a gun for you to admire. You are supposed to be awed by it. In such a situation, you are well-advised not to mention the individual's small penis: focus instead on how large his gun is, and how you are totally cowed by it. Such a tactic may save your life.

This post--or rather, the theory--is based on second-hand experience. A friend of mine and her husband were swingers. She told me about one time they hooked up with another couple. When she got to the room with the guy, her husband was already having a swell time with the man's wife--she was apparently loud. When the fellow takes off his underwear, however, she laughs, because he has what is medically known as a "micropenis": a penis that is basically the size of a baby's penis, but on a full-grown man. When the fellow catches on that she's laughing, he gets his gun, starts fondling it, and says to her that she ought to get her husband and go. Which she did. True story, I think, as I have no reason to disbelieve it.

And no, I do not currently own a gun, but once did--a Ruger .22 rimfire rifle I used for target practice. It goes without saying, of course, that the bigger the gun you feel you need, the more you're overcompensating. This also accounts for the vehemence of the gun lobby--for them, gun control is the psychological equivalent of castration.

[scrinmaster]

63. Here's another quote, actually from Sigmund Freud.

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.

* General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

[seabeyond]

68. i fear weapons and i dont have retarded sexual maturity, hubby owns guns

and he is well endowed without the penchant to show off his gun. go figure.

[Alcibiades]

89. And, of course, he has only one gun

singular. He doesn't need a whole bunch of them. According to my little theory, the more guns, the smaller the penis.

[DainBramaged]

78. Hmmmm

Is that a concern of yours?

[Alcibiades]

91. I didn't reference people

who had a pathological fear of weapons. As I mentioned, I have been a gun owner myself. I was referring to the multiple-gun owner, the collector of firepower.

Sometimes, of course, a gun is just a gun. Oftentimes, however, it's a giant metal penis.

[DainBramaged]

92. I wonder if shooting it is , never mind

:+

[Alcibiades]

105. Spewing forth a stream of bullets?

Pretty obvious, isn't it?

There is something visceral about firing a weapon. It's loud, it's dangerous, there's that smell. It's exciting, which is all the more reason it should be restrained. We recognize that sex is dangerous, and sexual puritanism is openly embraced by many in our society, but to be puritanical with regard to guns? Why, that's just being a killjoy.

[uppityperson]

50. Odd as it might seem, I am with you on this one but the problem goes deeper too.

THis is a start.

[DainBramaged]

51. What i see here are gun owners trying to justify owning guns

NONE of my Progressive or Democratic or even Independent friends own guns. But the Rethuglicans I know (including the owners of the company I work for) ALL own guns. And it's alwways the same excuse. Protection.

SO here's the question.

If your gun is locked ina gun safe to keep it away from your kids, or with a trigger lock, how are you going to protect yourself?

[seabeyond]

55. in all my posts none of it is about justifying, to you or anyone else

there is no need. you arent taking away the guns. the dems are not taking away the guns. not a single post was justifying owning guns. not a single bet of it is your business. nor is there any reason to justify seeing how my husband is responsible with is guns. regardless of not liking guns, one of the things i am most thankful for is his comfort with them and ability to handle them. and his own belief on his personal responsibility in safety with the guns.

no justifying. not needed. countering maybe.... arguing sure. maybe even debating.

[Chulanowa]

75. Just a question...

Are you comfortable with the theocratic death-loving fascists having arms while you don't? Hell, I don't like nuclear weapons, but if having one handy keeps someone from dropping one on my head, well, I'd start looking into prices on the plutonium market

[DainBramaged]

53. I get it, the gun lobby IS here.

[DainBramaged]

54. look, a few of you I can't see anymore, so stop arguing with me.

[seabeyond]

56. lol llol lol.... i am going to point finger, call names, give factless info

but dont say anything to me, cause i dont want to hear you. even though you are the one starting the thread and putting it out. lol lol. put the finger in the ears and sing la la la la la la

[DainBramaged]

57. I don't reply to the gun lobby, whoever you may be

Your sole purpose is to discredit all anti-gun threads. You have your precious guns. We can't take them away. But we can some day stop the sale of new ones. But those of you who own lots of guns want more, because you are a bit, shall we say, burdened with an inferiority complex?

[Azathoth]

58. Most people who kill people don't 'buy' guns -- they get them illegally

As the shooter at V Tech apparently did. You aren't going to stop someone who is determined to commit a violent crime by disarming law-abiding citizens.

[DainBramaged]

60. So if they "steal" them. where did they come from?

Legitimate gun owners? Ya think? SO that would mean, if there were no gins to steal.....

[Azathoth]

81. Sometimes. They get them from a variety of sources, including smuggling

Making guns illegal isn't going to cause all those sources to dry up. It's just going to deprive those who abide by the law of their right to own a firearm. Even in countries that have had truly prohibitive gun control laws for years (e.g. Britain) criminals manage to arm themselves with guns.

[DainBramaged]

84. So what, how many people get killed in England

by gun violence compared to the US? Baseless argument. Tell that to the families of the dead and wounded in VA. People get killed in England too.... nice try

[Azathoth]

93. You remind me of Bush, invoking the 9/11 families as an excuse to trample the Constitution

Or Bill O'Reilly, using a tragic DUI accident as an excuse to furiously push his anti-immigration platform. And just like both Bush and O'Reilly, when someone points out a glaring hole in your ever-so-naive logic, you simply brush it off and keep on going -- because you never cared about the facts to begin with, you were simply searching for a way to push your agenda.

People who use tragedies to advance their hardline political agendas are low. They know they can't win logically, so they attempt to exploit people's shock and emotion to suit their agenda.

{edited for spelling}

[DainBramaged]

94. Whatever, the fact remains, they were killed with handguns

NOTHING you say will change that, and my argument remains the same, in spite of the fact you don't like it.

[Azathoth]

97. Of course your argument remains the same

Just as a creationist's argument remains the same no matter how patiently a biologist explains the scientific evidence behind evolution.

[DainBramaged]

99. If you don't like my opinion, why bother arguing with me?

I am not going to change my opinion, just as I won't change my opinion of child pornographers, child labor, animal cruelty, Republicans, and my love of American cars.

W

[Azathoth]

101. Point well-taken

:)

[slackmaster]

59. I don't know how I have managed to get by for almost 50 years

Without having someone who calls himself "DrainBramaged" to tell me what I should and should not be allowed to do.

[DainBramaged]

61. Am I telling you to do anything?

I guess you love your guns too. Go bother someone else.

[slackmaster]

65. I love only people, my pets, and the wonders of nature

Firearms are interesting in their own way, but I wouldn't describe my feelings about them as love in any sense of the word.

Go pretend to read someone else's thoughts.

[DainBramaged]

67. I guess you missed my last message

[slackmaster]

69. I look forward to your last message

:D

[seabeyond]

73. lol lol you are sharp. should have gone to bed an hour ago

getting the giggles.

[seabeyond]

71. agree with me on my thread or go AWAY.... bah hahhaha.

wow. i havent experienced an op like this in long time on du. but then i took a break for a while. getting funny though.

[DainBramaged]

64. Put me on ignore than.

You are brain dead if you think my argument threatens your collection.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

70. So your antique collection is threatened by stopping the selling

of handguns? Is that the issue? The old NRA cold dead fingers lie?

[slackmaster]

74. If the sale of handguns is stopped, the value of mine will drop to zero instantly

You are a direct, though miniscule, threat to a segment of my retirement plan.

I'm not very concerned. You are quite ineffective in the pursuit of your agenda. Just be advised that you are working against my personal vested interests.

[DainBramaged]

77. So, people can die to keep the value of your collection up?

That is too sick to even imagine.

We're done.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

80. No, it's yur idea of a retirement fund that is dangerous to all of us

[slackmaster]

82. stutter punch

n/t

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MGD]

118. Actually, their value will increase significantly as their availability decreases.

But that's no reason to stop supporting the 2nd Amendment.

[treelogger]

72. Incorrect - similar massacre happened in Germany and in Switzerland

You write: "All of the civilized countries of the world, except the United States of Guns, limit gun ownership to shotguns for hunting and skeet shooting."

Nearly completely wrong. Only in England and Japan are handguns so tightly controlled that civilians can not own them.

You write "You can't buy a Glock in England, France, Germany, or Japan."
Tell my brother-in-law in Germany about that. He has an H&K and a Sig (he wouldn't buy a Glock, because he thinks they are pieces of junk; there is something to his argument).
Tell my friend Henrik from Sweden, who owned 8 or 9 pistols, when he moved to the US.

We had 10 years of an assault weapons ban - 1994 to 2004. Columbine happened exactly in the middle of it.

Nearly exactly 5 years ago, a similar even to Columbine happened in Germany, in a high school in Erfurt; I think 17 students were killed. Germany has very tight gun control laws, even tighter than in California or Massachussets. All handguns need to be permitted, and permits are only issued very rarely, to serious sport shooters; those are restricted in how many guns they can own; hunters can also have one or two handguns. All gun permits are discretionary - there is nothing resembling "must issue". Permits require training (about a year for sport permits), and psychological tests. The number of people with LEGALLY ACQUIRED handguns is much smaller than in the US, and handgun ownership is mostly restricted to the socioeconomic middle class (as people in the lower class will simply not be issued permits). Yet, illegal guns are easy to obtain; many of them come from eastern block countries.

Then there is the person who entered a state parliement in the Swiss canton (state) of Zug, and shot a half dozen members of parliement. As we discussed in the Guns forum, handgun ownership is very very tightly controlled in Switzerland (while ownership of military assault rifles is actually mandatory, and every able-bodied male of military age has one at home, with ammo).

Please stop spouting nonsense. Gun control does not prevent lunatics from obtaining guns, and does not prevent them from committing massacres.

[DainBramaged]

76. Your argument is the NRA argument

A few examples of deaths in foreign countries to prove people die everywhere from guns.

Why are you so afraid of my thread?

Wait I don't care, and neither do the families of the dead and wounded in VA.

[treelogger]

86. What does the NRA have to do with it?

Sorry, but I'm not an NRA member. I refuse to join them, because they support the republicans too much. I think that I have explained this several times on this forum already.

Second, it's not about a few examples of deaths in foreign countries. My point (which you probably don't want to hear, and much less want to understand) is that gun control has already failed to do any good, so why make the same mistake again.

Third, I'm not afraid of your thread. I'm afraid of your mindset. Sure, I could let you and like-minded people force the democratic majority in congress to push through massive gun control bills, as a reaction to this massacre. The net effect is easy to predict, as we already did this experiment in 1994: It would be a republican majority in both houses of congress, and the return of the Newt Gingrich revolution. I don't want that. If you want that, please say so - you are free to have that opinion. I think a majority of people in the US understand that gun control is not the answer; it is a placebo, an attempt to pacify an activist crowd, who thinks that any societal problem must be cured by an activist government program, whether that program does any good or not.

[DainBramaged]

88. Fine, I still think if we ban handguns, deaths will drop dramatically

And since the Republicans have controlled Congress and the White House since 1994 and 2000 (not imcluding 06) respectively, and you can't sue gun manufacturers for gun crimes anymore, and the NRA has polluted Congress, we Will have to live with the deaths so you can buy your guns.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

[DainBramaged]

90. So, the Democratic Majority is the problem?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flying_monkeys]

103. SEGUE: Why do people have handguns? (serious Q here)

I get the hunting argument for rifles and such. I also understand some people feel they need handguns for protection (from identified threat, or because their job targets then as identifiable victim).

But for others outside of those two groups - - why do y'all think you need access to a gun (handgun)? Or is it just you like them for sport/hobby and WANT them?


I want to try to understand you. I don't feel the need for a gun, because I am unlikely to get attacked at home with 4 dogs (especially in my neighborhood).... But maybe you can help me understand why *you* feel the need for access?


(DISCLAIMER: I did own a gun, once, while living in VA, after my answering machine recorded threatening messages that named the place I lived. It spooked the HECK out of me and I bought a gun the next week (from a cop). I never needed it, and as time went on I got secure again, bought more dogs and sold the gun, so I *do* get the personal protection angle. I just have trouble understanding why people want guns if they don't have *documentation* that they are targeted/work in a profession that is targeted. Help me to understand?)

[jmg257]

107. There are over 1.4 Million violent crimes in this nation annually.

Though the odds of "YOU" being a victim are kind of small - it is seemingly better to go through with whatever it takes not to be a HELPLESS victim IF you are ever faced with protecting yourself or a loved one. Unfortunately there ARE evil people in the world, who will do dispacable things. Comparable to having a fire alarm in your house - hopefully you will never need it, odds are in your favor, BUT you never know. One can usually not predict when something awful will happen - a handgun allows you to conceal & carry in most situations - so you are always as well prepared as you can be (supposedly).

It is not so much a matter of being paranoid, it is a matter of being prepared.

[treelogger]

114. To shoot?

You asked: "Why do y'all think you need access to a gun (handgun)"

Look at the scores for my shooting league. You will find entries for 30 or 40 shooters. My scores are pretty good - recently I'm in the top third. Really come a long way in the last few years, when I've had some more practice. Regular competitive shooting really helps much more than just going to the range and making uncontrolled holes in paper targets. The focus and concentration from actually competing also helps.

Or look at my web page, where you'll find a picture of the first rattlesnake we found this year, two weeks ago. It was less than 4 feet from our deck. A full-grown one, about 3' long. We have small kids at home. It was in a location where using a shovel or hoe would have been somewhere between difficult or impossible. In the same picture you will find a yardstick, and the revolver which sent the rattlesnake to the eternal slithering grounds. I've been known to carry a revolver loaded with shotshells (so called "snakeshot") on my belt when working in my yard during the height of snake season. Last year, I had to kill 5 rattlers, all within a 30 foot perimeter around the house. This is in addition to about a half dozen harmless gopher snakes, which were carefully caught, placed in buckets with lids, and quickly relocated to either the wilderness, or given to friends who want them for their vegetable garden, to control gophers and mice.

[DainBramaged]

127. No one wants to answer you, they love their guns, simply put.

[karlrschneider]

106. Pie in the sky.

Try to get my guns, you can't.

[DainBramaged]

110. You missed the entire point

I won't explain any more. Gun owners aren't a well armed melita, and NO ONE wants to take YOUR guns, that dear sir, is the pinnacle of Republican talking points.

And one more thing

Why isn't one gun enough?

Cya

[treelogger]

115. Why isn't one bicycle enough? Or one shovel?

You asked "Why isn't one gun enough"?

As I explained above, I used to shoot a certain model target shooting pistol (H&K Elite). My scores were mediocre, even though this is a very fine pistol - just not ergonomic for me (if I had known that when I bought it, I could have saved a lot of money). Then one day I borrewed a Sig 210 from a friend, and was AMAZED how much more accurate I became. I was lucky enough to find one of these very rare pistols for sale, and immediately spent a heck of a lot of money on it. When it had to be overhauled, which then caused it to break, I went back to shooting the H&K, and my scores went back into the basement. Then luckily, another Sig 210 (this one even older, about 60 years, but fortuantely in great shape) came up for sale, and I snagged it. Now the range officer exlaims "that's a nice grouping you got" when he sees my target.

This is in addition to the rimfire revolver (a .22) which is used for garden pests that rattle, and also to teach the kids to shoot (as it is very controllable, light, recoils little, and is much safer than a large-caliber pistol).

Recently, I've been thinking of buying an olympic target pistol. The reason is that those are also very very accurate, but shoot rimfire, which brings the cost of shooting way down. Think about it from an energy-efficiency point of view: All I want to do is to make a hole in a paper target, preferably right where the little red dot is. I don't have to take an SUV-sized chunk of lead like a 9mm or .45 and accelerate it in that direction; I could save lots of petroleum products (and even more money) by only lobbing a tiny .22 piece of lead - the Toyota Prius theory of shooting. OK, let's be serious now: I calculated that the savings in ammo cost for competition alone would pay for the olympic pistol in half a year.

We haven't even started on collecting. A guy I know has a collection of about a hundred extremely fine handguns. He cleans and polishes them religiously, occasionally trades duplicates away to other collectors, regularly buys rare models when they become available, and happens to be a fine shooter too. All of them are in a very good safe in his house. Is there any logical reason to deny him the right to collect guns? He is certainly no more dangerous to society with one pistol on his belt, then with one pistol on his belt and 99 collection pieces which are the envy of everyone in his safe. One might even argue (somewhat contrivedly) that by taking old models of the market, and restoring them to their glory and putting them into his very secure safe, he is taking them out of gang bangers in the slums of Oakland and Comptom, thereby making society as a whole more secure (that argument is contrived, because gang bangers don't use old and expensive european-made target shooting pistols, they either use black-market guns, or buy inexpensive but good-quality guns like Glocks and Rugers legally at the nearest gun store, if they have no criminal background).

Dear BrainDamaged: I don't know what your hobby is, but let me take a few guesses. Why isn't one bicycle enough for you? You can certainly use the same bike for a street race, as for going off-road in the park. And certainly your teenage son can share the same bicycle with you. Lots of people get killed in bicycle accidents per year (probably than due to guns). All you really need is that old Schwinn; that $3000 carbon fibre bike you bought and actually don't ride much (because you don't want to get it scratched) is just a useless killing machine.

OK, so maybe you enjoy gardening. You really only need one type of medium-size shovel. There is no need to plant miniature roses, therefore you shall not buy a hand trowel. Admittedly, it takes a little longer to prepare a flowerbed if you have only a shovel, and not a spade, but spades are way too dangerous. Look at the pistol grip at the end, which allows them to spray round while shooting from the hip, all without reloading (this is not a joke, a deputy AG of the state of California did claim in a newspaper interview that pistol grips on assault weapons allow the shooter to spray rounds accurately while shooting from the hip, the reloading part I made up). And absolutely something like a posthole digger just has to be restricted. Imagine what would happen if you snuck in your neighbor's yard at night with a posthole digger; you could do massive damage.

Maybe you enjoy a fine wine? Pick one. I suggest Grgich Hills Zinfandel, 1983. This is the only wine you will ever have to drink. You are hereby forbidden from buying Kendall Jackson, or Mondavi, or David Bruce, or Stag's Leap, and Cabernet and Chardonnay are totally out of the question. Remember, alcohol kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. Why isn't one wine enough? Note that I picked a quite fine wine, which should go excellently with fish, beef, pork, and venison.

I happen to play the piano. Why isn't one CD enough? I propose that every pianist be issued a recording of Rachmaninoff 3rd, with Argerich and Chailly. That's all you ever need. It is the greatest piano playing ever (actually, I mean it, dead serious). There is absolutely no reason to waste money on Horovitz, or good ol' Sergei doing Rock #3 himself, or Martha with her other lover Kondrashin doing the Tchaikovsky, not to mention Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.

Some people I know happen to have the old family hunting rifle hanging on the wall. I would love to have my grandfather's old world-war-1 sidearm (he was in the hungarian army as a field surgeon, and carried a Luger). He fired the gun twice in anger - the first time, he had to kill a Russian soldier in self-defense, the second time he had to shoot to warn a would-be murderer, who quickly left (my grandfather lived in the interior parts of Brasil in the 30s, which was a dangerous place); he had it at his side for about half a century. Unfortunately, he made the right decision to sell it, in the mid-60s, when he was already an old man (I was just a kid then), he was living in a large and very civilized city, and owning a gun was no longer useful for self-defense, and was a safety risk. Still, it would have been wonderful if I could add this gun which is just soaked in memories to my small collection of family artifacts (the gold watch my grandfather got for his high-school graduation, some of the awards my great-grandfather received, old sheet music from when a relative was a student of Liszt, and so on).

I won't even get into politically incorrect hobbies you might have, like cigars, race cars, sex, ...

A person with one or two guns is about as dangerous as one with many. Not all guns are the same; they have different uses, they fit different people, they sometimes break, they may be emotionally important, and so on.

Do you see why your suggestion doesn't make much sense?

[DainBramaged]

123. Why try to justify your gun ownership to me?

P;ease don't bother explaining. And I'm NOT your dear anything.


I realized that you value your guns more than anything.


I'm sorry, I don't buy any of it. My hobbies can't kill with the single pull of a trigger.

[treelogger]

141. If you don't want to have your question answered ...

DainBramaged: You had asked "Why isn't one gun enough". If you don't want your question answered, it might be advantageous to not ask it in the first place.

You assert that I value my guns more than anything. That assertion is pure nonsense, and an insult to boot. There is a heck of a lot of things I value more. Let's not even talk about immaterial things, let me just give you one example that's easy to evaluate: The grand piano in the living room is about 20 times more "value"-able (in terms of purchase price) than any of my target shooting guns. And I probably spend more time on playing the piano than on shooting guns (looking at my scores in the shooting league, it would probably better if it were the other way round, but c'est la vie).

You also claim that your hobbies can't kill with a single pull of a trigger. Conceded. But in making that statement you are insinuating something that is not there. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US, and thousands of homicides using guns. Most triggers will neer kill anyone. If we go to trigger pulls, it gets even more extreme: I shoot about 500 rounds of ammo per week (each one with one trigger pull). Let's assume that there is 200K target shooters who are similarly active in the US (a low estimate, in a country where every second or third household owns a gun, and the largest gun/shooting/hunting lobbying organisation has 4 million members). Assuming 10K homicides per year, I calculate that 99.9998% of all trigger pulls do not kill.

I don't know what your hobbies are. But it is quite possible that quite a few of them also leave a death toll. Let me just give one example: bicycling, which kills quite a few people a year; most are the cyclists themselves, but there is a significant number of bystanders too. Even golf can kill people, when golfballs go astray. And let's not even talk about exotics like scuba diving, mountain climing, or skydiving.

P.S. As per your request, I omitted the "dear". I request, however, that you stop insulting me, by asserting things about my values that are patently untrue.

[tomreedtoon]

108. Guns kill people because people are bastards.

People were killing people without guns long before there were guns. If a more efficient means of killing people becomes available, it will be adopted in favor of guns. Quit being so fetishistic about guns and face the fact that human beings will always have the capacity for evil.

[Odin2005]

109. An unarmed society is a society that is easy pickings for the police statists

An armed society can rise up and get rid of the tyrants.

[DainBramaged]

111. Another Republican talking point

Lots and lots in this thread

[piedmont]

117. No. It's a belief of people who value LIBERTY. nt

[DainBramaged]

125. So being able to kill is la form of liberty?

No thank you. Shitty logic.

[piedmont]

138. Being able to defend one's self with the best tools available is. nt

[MGD]

119. Our forefathers were liberals, not conservatives.

So am I, and I support the second amendment.

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams

[DainBramaged]

124. We don't need to form a militia any longer

That's why we have a military and police force.

Nice try. I support milk drinking, much healthier.

[MGD]

135. The large standing army is incompattible with the Democratic vision of our many forefathers

as is a citizen that fights to weaken the Bill of Rights. And the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" regardless of your interpretation of the "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams


"I support milk drinking, much healthier."
So go drink a glass of milk.

[piedmont]

120. And no one ever defends themselves from a group of attackers with a broomstick either

Unless you count Jackie Chan.

[DainBramaged]

126. We aren't a Third world country yet

More shitty logic. Since when do you expect to be attacked my a mob? No, I don't care

[MGD]

136. Go walk through downtown Miami, Dallas, or Los Angelas some night and find out how wrong you are

Yours is the shittiest logic of all. In fact, you have no logic, only emotionaly fueled intransigence.

[DainBramaged]

130. This thread exposed some interesting opinions by gun defenders

I don't buy any of it.

Handguns don't belong on the streets. If all we had available were long guns, we'd reduce the number of crimes involving guns dramatically. It's that simple. Those of you who think you need to defend yourselves from the hordes are very paranoid and make me worry about the future of society.

And we DON'T need a well armed militia any longer. Most of you would probably shoot yourself if the occasion arose.


I'm done in this thread gun lovers. It brought out the worst of DU (IMHO) and some really nasty hateful comments by some of you. This isn't Freepernderground, but it seemed to be in this thread.

Handgun ownership in this country is a sickness. Maybe some day we'll find a cure, or a metal penis for some gun owners as a substitute.

[Raskolnik]

131. Its hard to believe you engendered such a response isn't it?

Well-intentioned people can disagree about gun regulation.

Not everyone who is reluctant to abridge a portion of the Bill of Rights is a freeper, nor is everyone who argues for stricter gun control laws as reactionary and shrill as you.

[seabeyond]

133. you didnt listen, you were the one to diss opposing view, you cut people

off, resorting to name calling, you're accusatory in tone to who people are (acting out like a child may) .... yet still, you come back for another bow, to attack those with differing view, put finger in ears again, and say na na na na.

people oppose your point of view come from varying angles on the issue. i am an example of a person who is totally
opposed to guns, have never messed with guns, dont like guns, yet stand up for peoples rights to own them. a totaly different perspective from the one you reduce all people, yet you dont address nor think further.

that kind of limited thinking does no one any good

i am all for you having your beliefs. i understand where you are coming from and your passion in your argument. i dont see the need to dismiss you simply because you do not hold my views. i can respect your opinion.

you lack the maturity in this thread.

[Sanctified]

143. Must be nice that you live 1 minute away

from your local police station but there are some of us who live 1 hour away from the nearest police station, you know those of us who produce the food you eat every day. What are we supposed to do if we are confronted by someone who wants to harm us or predators who wish to harm our livestock?

The idea that the police and military will protect you and citizens no longer have the need for their right to bear arms is a joke. You are more likely to be shot by the police than my gun and look at the state of our current military I would hardly say that they are in any position to protect us.

[porphyrian]

134. If you stop selling them, people that want them will steal them.

I'm interested to hear how you'd go about collecting all the guns that are already in possession of the populace.

[MadHound]

139. I think that you're a bit off there

Canada has more guns per capita than the US, but fewer murders. Meanwhile in Russia, where there is a virtual ban on all guns, there are more murders per capita than in the US.

It isn't the guns that are the problem. It is the underlying societal problems and stresses that are the problem. Deal with the root cause of the problem and you won't have to worry about guns. Simply trying to ban guns won't get you very far, very fast.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ends_dont_justify]

144. I'm certain somewhere in unwritten history, someone killed 33 people with a broomstick

The dark ages, mankind's bloodiest point in history, as well as the crusades, another bloody point in history, had no guns involved. Back then I'm sure they had the "Swords don't kill people, really really big people with swords kill people" argument and the "Ban all swords, because we can just as easily go back to sticks and stones!" argument too. Did it help? Were lives saved?

[CRF450]

145. A broom stick would hardly defend you against an attacker with a gun

Unless your really skilled at some karate ninga shit...

Once I turn 21 next year, I'll take a gun training course and have my own handgun. Theirs alot of crazy people out their, and I wont hesitate to use it if I feal my life is being threatened. Out in the country where I live, theirs hardly any cops that patrol the area, so who would I have to depend on to save my life in those split seconds, maybe up to minutes?

I'm glad to see the good number of DUers here in this thread that are against taking away gun rights. More lives would be lost because of that.

[ComerPerro]

148. gasp! But what about all those union workers who make guns? Don't you support unions?