Americans and Guns (post pics of your armory !)

[Lafoirfouille]

So,

Most of you boys play (or used to) play EQ. Which most people owning guns would call a "Pussy game".

I'm curious to see how many of the notorious BIG guys in here actually own a gun.

Pics or It didn't happen.

(post pic with bullets if possible plz so we can see the caliber!)

Any european owning a gun ? I have a flare gun but it's only in case arabs would rush my house but our government is communist again so no more risks.

Thank you have a nice weekend !

Visc

[Pico]

i do not own a firearm because my penis is larger than 4 inches fully erect (just barely tho)

[jpeute]

lol at this thread, so retarded

[Shannacore]

lol at this thread, so retarded

[JenJen]

worst thread ever. check out my both thread to see how its done.

good luck

[JenJen]

*botb

oops

[Lucky]

thougth about it til i read the replies and came to my senses

[Autotune]

I want to post my penis (gun) with a cum shot (ammo) but am afraid i'll get perma bant from forums (again).

[Lafoirfouille]

It's that retarded that I got tortue post in it :D

[mcy]

one of kitai khatz guns 357 mag

[Autotune]

one of kitai khatz guns 357 mag

one of the few guns I can't give people shit about being nickle plated (blinged).

[Gringo]

I'm going to say that is stainless steel.

[MooseTX82]

Whats inside now protects whats inside most of the time.

Benelli 12 G Pump Action.
2.75" Bucks loaded. Slugs in the drawer. Can hold up to 3.5" shells.
Enough to fuck up a burgler's day for real.

<img src="http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/483017_3521252394971_284558911_n.jpg" alt="some_text"/>

[Danyelle]

http://rlv.zcache.com/finger_gun_pistol_shooting_hand_sign_gesture_card-p137679808455017483b2ico_400.jpg

My gun. I own 2.

[Autotune]

I'm going to say that is stainless steel.

could be, still in bling category either way.

[Hasbinlulz]

http://i.imgur.com/OWKCg.jpg

[Droxx]

wheres your armory op

[Barkingturtle]

When I moved into this house I found two loaded shotguns in the basement.

That's how it is in America, fuck yeah.

[Lafoirfouille]

First to flash their 92 FS gets eternal french swag respect.

+ bullets plz

Human balls illegal and will get u banned, just sayain

[orsk]

saiga 12, not cool enough to pose with it however.

[Goofier]

Walther P22
Walther PK380
Ruger LC9
Walther PPS 9mm
Springfield XDm .45 tritium sights
Springfield XDm .45 competition fiber optic sights
Remington 870 pump 20 ga
Arsenal (Saiga) AK-47
Springfield 1903-A3
Remington model 700 .243

And on the way now...

LWRC PSD in 5.56

[Goofier]

Okay, here's some of the pr0n...

[Lafoirfouille]

Hell yeah

[Danyelle]

ITT: People who would survive a zombie apocalypse.

[kingsBlend]

http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/nerf1%20(Custom).JPG

[Lostprophets]

When I moved into this house I found two loaded shotguns in the basement.

That's how it is in America, fuck yeah.

First glance, immediately thought of this:

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IhnUgAaea4M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

hah.

[Goofier]

The basic kits as they sit next to the bed...
My chest rig has a horizontal holster for the XDm .45, 3 spare pistol mags, and of course the AK-47 mags.
The Wife's vest is almost the same since we have matching XDm's, but hers has the extra shotgun ammo on it.

[Goofier]

And with a salute to Sgt. York, the 1903A3...

[Lafoirfouille]

^^

Caliber ? must be huge

[Lafoirfouille]

The basic kits as they sit next to the bed...
My chest rig has a horizontal holster for the XDm .45, 3 spare pistol mags, and of course the AK-47 mags.
The Wife's vest is almost the same since we have matching XDm's, but hers has the extra shotgun ammo on it.

why are those ammos yellow ?

Like don't you have different ammos for shotguns, some that are like shrapnel and others who are precision shots ie like bullets?

[Goofier]

why are those ammos yellow ?

Like don't you have different ammos for shotguns, some that are like shrapnel and others who are precision shots ie like bullets?

20 gauge shells are yellow.
The Wife has some bad scoliosis, and she's really small. 20 works perfectly for her.
Yes, it's a mix. 3 buck and slugs of various types. Some solid lead, some copper hollow points. At short ranges, 3 buck in a 20 penetrates exactly the same distance as 00 in a 12.

[Goofier]

^^

Caliber ? must be huge

.30-06

[Lafoirfouille]

My question is : why ?

You guys go to the shooting gallery and have fun or it's more like you have this in case somebody tresspasses ?

[Goofier]

My question is : why ?

You guys go to the shooting gallery and have fun or it's more like you have this in case somebody tresspasses ?

Among other reasons, 2 spree killers within one mile.
One of 'em was riding the same bus to work as my wife.

[Quizy]

America should ban all firearms... too many stupid american fire arm deaths every year.. flame on.

[Maze513]

Just another weekend in Amerika!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/31vm3-BQRJU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Lafoirfouille]

Among other reasons, 2 spree killers within one mile.
One of 'em was riding the same bus to work as my wife.

holy shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit !!!!!!!!!

[lilyanna]

America should ban all firearms... too many stupid american fire arm deaths every year.. flame on.

I agree with you on this but I come from a country where the rules on guns is very strict. It shocks me to see how many people here have and know so much about guns outside of the armed forces :/

[Autotune]

I agree with you on this but I come from a country where the rules on guns is very strict. It shocks me to see how many people here have and know so much about guns outside of the armed forces :/

Man, I'd love to live in a country where the only people to have outlawed firearms are outlaws. Sounds awesome. I know in America, only law abiding citizens who purchase their firearms legally are the ones committing crimes with said firearms. Absolutely no one in America ever uses guns for their own protection, should just lock up anyone that buys a firearm immediately. This country would be so much better, I bet crime rates would just plummet. I mean seriously, who wants to try and rob someone if there is zero chance that the person isn't armed that's just poor sportsmanship.

[lilyanna]

Over here they just stab you with a pitchfork.. we are all poor farmers

[HarrisonIsStillPosting]

I hate to agree with inbreds, but...yeah.

[Autotune]

Over here they just stab you with a pitchfork.. we are all poor farmers

I wonder how often those outlaw bastards with their guns get stabbed.

[Goofier]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/068iavyTq6w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Lafoirfouille]

what is she doing !? These are INNOCENT STORMTROOPERS !

[Relapse1]

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/15/picture007sw.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/picture007sw.jpg/)

[nilbog]

America should ban all firearms... too many stupid american fire arm deaths every year.. flame on.

Wherever you live shouldn't allow automobiles. There are too many stupid deaths every year due to automobiles.

[Calabee]

how's your crime rate america? keep killing those people with your guns

[HarrisonIsStillPosting]

Wherever you live shouldn't allow automobiles. There are too many stupid deaths every year due to automobiles.

Don't forget pools too! And cigarettes, and alcohol, and...yeah.

[Saddam]

ban em or make them even harder to obtain. too many tards out there carry weapons.

[Lafoirfouille]

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/15/picture007sw.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/picture007sw.jpg/)

This reminds me the picture of Sodapop pointing his 9mm at his screen whilst staring IG at the TMO's parked at trakanon's ledge hwahahahah

[Goofier]

what is she doing !? These are INNOCENT STORMTROOPERS !

What can I say, we're rebel scum :D

[Autotune]

ban em or make them even harder to obtain. too many tards out there carry weapons.

I agree. Make it ever harder to obtain legally. Only people to have guns should be the outlaws who use them for bad stuffs.

[HarrisonIsStillPosting]

ban em or make them even harder to obtain. too many tards out there carry weapons.

Your ancestors would be disgusted with you. Shameful.

[JenJen]

what does owning a gun prove exactly?

[Goofier]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=4ef6ce69ad6e" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

My buddy Tom with his Uzi.
Had to.
It was comin' right for us.

[nilbog]

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.

It means citizens retain power to overthrow a corrupt government.

[Goofier]

what does owning a gun prove exactly?

The same thing as owning a screwdriver.

The right tool for the right job.

[HarrisonIsStillPosting]

That you are capable of defending you and your loved ones if necessary? Superman isn't real. Someone won't always be there to save you.

[Autotune]

what does owning a gun prove exactly?

Two people are in front of you, you have to punch one of them in the face. The person on the left is pissed off and has no gun, the person on the right is pissed off an has a pistol.

Who do you punch in the face?

[JenJen]

funny, in the UK nobody has to protect their loved ones with guns.

[Goofier]

funny, in the UK nobody has to protect their loved ones with guns.

Nobody 'has' to in the United States, either.
It's a right, not a requirement.

[Autotune]

funny, in the UK nobody has to protect their loved ones with guns.

nobody has to or no one is able to?

[Goofier]

nobody has to or no one is able to?

I was leading up to it :D

[JenJen]

i think you already know the answer stealin :)

[Autotune]

i think you already know the answer stealin :)

http://news.yahoo.com/police-hero-saved-lives-seattle-shootings-221520051.html

Take this story. Imagine that all those people in that cafe were armed, how many do you think would have been killed by the gunman before he was killed? Imagine if only the guy who threw some stools had a gun, how many do you think he could have saved?

The problem in America isn't that we have the right to carry a firearm to protect ourselves, it's that so few choose to. Granted some areas make it extremely hard to carry a firearm for personal protection, but it doesn't slow the rate crimes committed with firearms.

[lilyanna]

Out of interest what are the statistics on firearm deaths in America, outside of those in the armed forces?

[JenJen]

hoho this will be good.
bearing in mind 90% of these will have nothing to do with "protecting" yourself

[JenJen]

yes i am just making that figure up

[pojab]

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh291/zlyf/spree.jpg

[Autotune]

Oh man, now that you guys mention it, I forgot it is impossible to kill people without a gun. Yes, we must ban all guns now, because it is safer. Look at the European countries, they have 0 murders committed since the strict firearm enforcement, people only die from old age there.

[JenJen]

hahaha

[lilyanna]

Oh man, now that you guys mention it, I forgot it is impossible to kill people without a gun. Yes, we must ban all guns now, because it is safer. Look at the European countries, they have 0 murders committed since the strict firearm enforcement, people only die from old age there.

Lol who said zero, I was really curious. There is a gun culture in this country as well, especially with gangs in inner cities.

People come from different countries and cultures and therefore are bound to have different mindsets. I'm not knocking them on their opinion just because it's different to mine and it is actually interesting to note how people view things differently.

[HarrisonIsStillPosting]

The first step to losing every freedom you have in life is losing your right to arm yourself. History proves this thousands of times over. You are a mongoloid of proportions unmatched if you think you are better off without the means to defend yourself and your property should the need ever arise.

[nilbog]

Out of interest what are the statistics on firearm deaths in America, outside of those in the armed forces?

Choosing to murder someone can happen with a knife, bleach, or a toaster oven. If you are claiming that it's easier to kill someone with a gun, then I would argue that it's easier to protect yourself with a gun.

In England, if someone breaks into your home, I suppose you grab your bats and knives. Are swords legal?

Are these figures accurate? I looked up crime rates in England.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

Not trolling. Are the non - U.S. citizens in this thread upset because we have guns, or are they upset they do not? Surely you don't think we are going to bring our guns to your country and kill you with them.

[Autotune]

Lol who said zero, I was really curious. There is a gun culture in this country as well, especially with gangs in inner cities.

People come from different countries and cultures and therefore are bound to have different mindsets. I'm not knocking them on their opinion just because it's different to mine and it is actually interesting to note how people view things differently.

my opinion is - I'd rather be allowed to have equal-ish force to what outlaws have. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. I choose to defend myself." - somewhat popular saying.

[lilyanna]

Nilbog why so defensive? Having a view is trolling now ! Lol seriously?

Please also show me where at all I said that it's easier to kill someone with a gun?

Eagerly awaiting your reply!

[pojab]

we only do that to countries with oil so most of europe is safe

[JenJen]

different mind sets and cultures i guess.

i have no worry or paranoia that i will ever need to defend myself from someone with a gun.
a knife, maybe at a push? it doesnt cross the majority of the population's thoughts here i'd wager.

it is what it is!

[Danyelle]

my opinion is - I'd rather be allowed to have equal-ish force to what outlaws have. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. I choose to defend myself." - somewhat popular saying.

Pretty much this.

While I don't agree with the redneck consensus that owning a gun automatically makes you a badass and more of a "man" than anyone unarmed..I do agree banning them is pointless. Tighten your grip, more people will find ways to get at them anyways...unregulated at that. You know...like drugs?

Besides, it IS a defense tool. Not everyone has enough muscle to knock the (likely rather strong) assailant that just hit you, flat on his face in a single hit. Some people need a little more. Some people choose knives, some even choose shit like katanas. Others choose guns.


















Also you won't be complaining about the ability to own firearms when the zombies come, just saying :P

[Autotune]

Nilbog why so defensive? Having a view is trolling now ! Lol seriously?

Please also show me where at all I said that it's easier to kill someone with a gun?

Eagerly awaiting your reply!

first, he was saying "if you were claiming"

second, he was saying he wasn't trolling, not saying you were trolling or for you to stop trolling.

I think you are being defensive lol

[lilyanna]

I'm not being defensive I guess I did read the last line incorrectly though. I have nothing to be defensive about, as I said clearly in my last message, I'm not knocking anyone for their views.

England is by no means a perfect country.. our weather is really crap and also McDonalds burgers here are half the size of yours !

[Danyelle]

McDonalds burgers here are half the size of yours !

I fail to see the part of this that is "bad" lol

[lilyanna]

You can only fit one piece of gherkin in the burgers here they are that small!

[nilbog]

Nilbog why so defensive? Having a view is trolling now ! Lol seriously?

Please also show me where at all I said that it's easier to kill someone with a gun?

Eagerly awaiting your reply!

I said I wasn't trolling. I also said If you are claiming that it's easier to kill someone with a gun. If that is not the case, then no need to answer. I'm not really being defensive. You didn't answer any of my questions :P

I am legitimately curious. Are swords legal to use?

we only do that to countries with oil so most of europe is safe

That's what our military does; not our civilians. I do not agree with it either.

[Autotune]

You can only fit one piece of gherkin in the burgers here they are that small!

lol @ gherkin

[lilyanna]

Sorry Nilbog lack of sleep my end I did read that wrongly.

In England self defence if someone breaks into your home is allowed and indeed people do use bats and knives to do that with and they have escaped prison for doing so.

As to the statistics I really had no idea England were the worst in Europe and thats pretty scary, its probably why so many do leave and go emigrate to Australia and New Zealand!

[JenJen]

its still legal to kill a Scotsman in the city of York, UK, providing the Scotman is carrying a bow and arrow.

[Safon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYpCIZ5PRVA

4:30 into the vid, typical Americans!

[Rais]

Funny how people escape to Australia from England to escape from crimes. English people trolling themselves.

[Hagglebaron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYpCIZ5PRVA

4:30 into the vid, typical Americans!

Lmao, very true!

[Autotune]

Funny how people escape to Australia from England to escape from crimes. English people trolling themselves.

I was thinking something very similar lol

[Danyelle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYpCIZ5PRVA

4:30 into the vid, typical Americans!

I may just have to watch this movie now. Never saw the 3rd one. Only 1 and 2. So may have to watch the 3rd!

[Safon]

I may just have to watch this movie now. Never saw the 3rd one. Only 1 and 2. So may have to watch the 3rd!

No Danyelle don't do it! It was terrible, an insult to the first two. They even replaced Evy's original actress.

[lilyanna]

Funny how people escape to Australia from England to escape from crimes. English people trolling themselves.

I think the day of convicts being sent to Australia is long gone. They go now because England is so expensive to live in plus the weather is so much warmer !

Rais confirmed troll.. his post had nothing to do with gun culture!

[Danyelle]

No Danyelle don't do it! It was terrible, an insult to the first two. They even replaced Evy's original actress.

Eww, it was really that bad?

[Safon]

Eww, it was really that bad?

Well i have always wondered whether it was just me, or whether it really was that bad. Give it a shot yourself and let me know what you thought :p

[Ikkit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYpCIZ5PRVA

4:30 into the vid, typical Americans!

If you watch till 4:40, you'll see the American save the European's ass. :)

[Barkingturtle]

Come on kids, honestly, most of you are fucking geeks who spend twelve or more hours a day sitting at your computer. No one's ever going to threaten you nor are you ever going to need to defend yourself, because you're not a target in your mom's basement.

The argument that we need an armed populace to dissuade our government from becoming corrupt is pretty ridiculous to anyone over the age of twelve. It held water 250 years ago when everybody had muskets and cannons, but today the government has drones and bombs and shit. You can't compete with them if they decide they want to do whatever bad things you fantasize about them doing to you. We don't need the second amendment any more, it's just that we are so inundated with firearms that they are in inextricable part of American life. And Americans are scientifically proven to have tiny dicks. Numbers don't lie dudes.

Personally, I carried a gun as a teenager from time to time because it was the nineties and it was thug life ***** so we all strapped. The only times I was ever a victim of gun violence(shot at a few times, held hostage for a few hours) I was armed. Since becoming an adult I have never carried a gun. I've owned several houses, a farm, and numerous cars and none of them has ever been taken from me at gunpoint. No one's ever tried, even. My anecdotal evidence would thus suggest you are more likely to be involved in a gun-related altercation if you are yourself armed. Derp.

[HarrisonIsStillPosting]

Entire post could have been boiled down to your final word.

[nilbog]

The argument that we need an armed populace to dissuade our government from becoming corrupt is pretty ridiculous to anyone over the age of twelve. It held water 250 years ago when everybody had muskets and cannons, but today the government has drones and bombs and shit. You can't compete with them if they decide they want to do whatever bad things you fantasize about them doing to you. We don't need the second amendment any more...


If you were referring to my comment about a corrupt government, I said the right exists to overthrow a corrupt government; not to dissuade one from forming. If you're saying we couldn't compete with the military, I disagree. There are over 300,000,000 U.S. citizens. If actions such as this were being contemplated, I believe it would be a dissuading factor though.

According to the US Department of Defense Website (as on October 6, 2007) . . .

". . . over 1.3 million men and women on active duty, and 669,281 civilian personnel, we are the nation's largest employer. Another 1.1 million serve in the National Guard and Reserve forces. About 2 million military retirees and their family members receive benefits."

With that being said, if the U.S. government were to attack its own citizens by military means (which I don't think they would), the National Guard and Reserve should not be ignored. With the combined forces of national protectors, civilians, and everyone in the active military who would disobey orders to kill fellow Americans, I think we have a great chance of not being overtaken. If no one in the United States could legally own a firearm, I wouldn't be as confident. This is discounting weapons of mass destruction, of course. Nuking anything is usually gg.

[Kimm Barely]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/profiles/icons/big/000/034/275/New_nigra_dance.gif

[Autotune]

Personally, I carried a gun as a teenager from time to time because it was the nineties and it was thug life ***** so we all strapped. The only times I was ever a victim of gun violence(shot at a few times, held hostage for a few hours) I was armed. Since becoming an adult I have never carried a gun. I've owned several houses, a farm, and numerous cars and none of them has ever been taken from me at gunpoint. No one's ever tried, even. My anecdotal evidence would thus suggest you are more likely to be involved in a gun-related altercation if you are yourself armed. Derp.


So you were a teenager carrying a gun and thought to yourself that you were a bad ass. Your mentality as a teen was most likely the culprit of why you were a victim, not the fact you carried a gun. Your evidence suggests you are more likely to be involved in a gun-related altercation if you yourself are an idiot. There is no difference between the 90s and 00s regarding "thug life *****" the only difference is you grew up some and go a tad more wisdom. If you think owning a gun would cause you to become a thug again and do stupid shit, well then, you are doing us all a favor by not owning one.

[Lafoirfouille]

Personally, I carried a gun as a teenager from time to time because it was the nineties and it was thug life ***** so we all strapped. The only times I was ever a victim of gun violence(shot at a few times, held hostage for a few hours) I was armed. Since becoming an adult I have never carried a gun. I've owned several houses, a farm, and numerous cars and none of them has ever been taken from me at gunpoint. No one's ever tried, even. My anecdotal evidence would thus suggest you are more likely to be involved in a gun-related altercation if you are yourself armed. Derp.


??? held hostage for a few hours ???

dafuq ?

[Razdeline]

So you were a teenager carrying a gun and thought to yourself that you were a bad ass. Your mentality as a teen was most likely the culprit of why you were a victim, not the fact you carried a gun. Your evidence suggests you are more likely to be involved in a gun-related altercation if you yourself are an idiot. There is no difference between the 90s and 00s regarding "thug life *****" the only difference is you grew up some and go a tad more wisdom. If you think owning a gun would cause you to become a thug again and do stupid shit, well then, you are doing us all a favor by not owning one.

Agreed, you don't need a gun to prove you are worth something....there are other ways. Like get an education, make money, do good things, not be a catalyst to the problem.

[Razdeline]

If you were referring to my comment about a corrupt government, I said the right exists to overthrow a corrupt government; not to dissuade one from forming. If you're saying we couldn't compete with the military, I disagree. There are over 300,000,000 U.S. citizens. If actions such as this were being contemplated, I believe it would be a dissuading factor though.



With that being said, if the U.S. government were to attack its own citizens by military means (which I don't think they would), the National Guard and Reserve should not be ignored. With the combined forces of national protectors, civilians, and everyone in the active military who would disobey orders to kill fellow Americans, I think we have a great chance of not being overtaken. If no one in the United States could legally own a firearm, I wouldn't be as confident. This is discounting weapons of mass destruction, of course. Nuking anything is usually gg.

And here a quote from the good ol declaration to prove that if a government becomes corrupt, it is the right of the people to change it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Grahm]

A lot of people would have to think 1-2 times before shooting someone if they presented a real threat to there lives.......

Now people to stab would have to think 9-10 times as you are literally feeling what you're doing to that person. And unless you're a sociopath, it will affect you a lot.

[Bodeanicus]

20 gauge shells are yellow.
The Wife has some bad scoliosis, and she's really small. 20 works perfectly for her.
Yes, it's a mix. 3 buck and slugs of various types. Some solid lead, some copper hollow points. At short ranges, 3 buck in a 20 penetrates exactly the same distance as 00 in a 12.

Exactly. I've found a youth size 20 gauge shotguns with #2 or #3 buckshot are easy to handle, don't kick, and are more than enough to do the job at point blank ranges. I don't own a pistol to carry concealed, and don't want to.

[Autotune]

A lot of people would have to think 1-2 times before shooting someone if they presented a real threat to there lives.......

Now people to stab would have to think 9-10 times as you are literally feeling what you're doing to that person. And unless you're a sociopath, it will affect you a lot.

I would kill someone in an instant regardless of what I had or had not to use as a weapon if they presented a threat to me or any loved one. I would not give a second thought to that person after they were dead.

Guess i'm a sociopath, literally give 0fucks about any PoS.

[Bodeanicus]

.30-06

Same caliber as the M1 Garand. Both are great rifles if you can find one.

[Bodeanicus]

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.

It means citizens retain power to overthrow a corrupt government.

Which made perfect sense in 1776 when the pinnacle of weaponry was the single shot musket and cannon. In 2012, it's outright stupidity to think the citizenry armed with rifles, shotguns, and handguns have any chance at all against a modern trained army with access to clusterbombs, tanks, drones, and nerve agents.

[Autotune]

Which made perfect sense in 1776 when the pinnacle of weaponry was the single shot musket and cannon. In 2012, it's outright stupidity to think the citizenry armed with rifles, shotguns, and handguns have any chance at all against a modern trained army with access to clusterbombs, tanks, drones, and nerve agents.

Pretty sure this was nearly the same mindset of Vietnam btw (kinda pointless in this topic, but all the same).

How many soldiers do you think would kill their own fellow countrymen, especially considering most soldiers would agree with the majority populace if it came to a rebellion against the government.

[Harrison]

I would kill someone in an instant regardless of what I had or had not to use as a weapon if they presented a threat to me or any loved one. I would not give a second thought to that person after they were dead.

Guess i'm a sociopath, literally give 0fucks about any PoS.

Same.

The last thing on my mind is the well being of the attacker/threat to myself or my loved ones.

If someone is breaking into my house I am not going to assume he is just some thief trying to make a buck to feed his poor family or some fucking nonsense, I'm going to plant one center mass.

[Bodeanicus]

There's a reason no one is responding to your posts, Harrison. No one can read them. I wonder why that is?

[Bodeanicus]

Pretty sure this was nearly the same mindset of Vietnam btw (kinda pointless in this topic, but all the same).

How many soldiers do you think would kill their own fellow countrymen, especially considering most soldiers would agree with the majority populace if it came to a rebellion against the government.

The Viet Cong were backed and supplied by Russia and China. Who is going to arm our populace with artillery, tanks, jets, etc. Canada and Mexico?

[Harrison]

You're a retard if you think our own army is going to fire on our own citizens, their family, friends, etc.

Well, I could have stopped that sentence at "You're a retard."

[orsk]

funny, in the UK nobody has to protect their loved ones with guns.

the UK is not a free state its not funny its sad.

[Autotune]

Who is going to arm our populace with artillery, tanks, jets, etc. Canada and Mexico?

The same military that you seem to think would fully support the government and kill their own friends/family.

[Goofier]

Okay, skip the arguin', back to the gun pr0n as intended...

The LWRC PSD, only the one we have on order is black with green furniture:

[Goofier]

Same caliber as the M1 Garand. Both are great rifles if you can find one.

CMP online store.
That's possibly next, after the PSD.

[Goofier]

Exactly. I've found a youth size 20 gauge shotguns with #2 or #3 buckshot are easy to handle, don't kick, and are more than enough to do the job at point blank ranges. I don't own a pistol to carry concealed, and don't want to.

Don't know if they're still putting it out, but ours came from the factory with a Knoxx recoil-absorbing stock, and the mag extension. Added on a rail with a pressure-switch light, and a light pipe instead of the bead.

[Bodeanicus]

Don't know if they're still putting it out, but ours came from the factory with a Knoxx recoil-absorbing stock, and the mag extension. Added on a rail with a pressure-switch light, and a light pipe instead of the bead.

Sweet.

[Sickle]

I will post my AR-15 and 12-gauge I keep in my bedroom tomorrow...Law-12 is in the shop after jamming too much :(

[Hasbinlulz]

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.

It means citizens retain power to overthrow a corrupt government.
What about "Jimbob the jackass" owning a gun says either "well regulated" or "militia" to you bro?

[Lafoirfouille]

Even Night vision googles are forbidden in France :( would totally make any american start a revolution I guess lol

[Lafoirfouille]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/459227_10151378867425226_488438250_o.jpg

Introducing my bro's toy. Of course you can't keep this at your place to defend yourself from people tresspassing...Works just fine on talibans though.

1x 1 canon GIAT 30 de 30 mm (HAP/ARH/HAD)

1 x 12,7 mm or 20 mm en nacelle (UHT)

2x paniers de 22 roquettes de 68 mm

8x missiles air-air Mistral AT AP

[Danyelle]

You actually own that?

[Cochonou]

If you watch till 4:40, you'll see the American save the European's ass. :)

If only American had known where Europe was instead of getting lost on their way, they could have saved the European's ass earlier.

However, let's not spit in the soup. Better later than never.

[Danyelle]

Nope, my bro flies it that's all. + it's worth 95 million $, a bit out of my league.

Ahh, was about to say...lol

[maahes]

saiga 12, not cool enough to pose with it however.

Or too mod the bitch!

Lol I haven't had the time to combat mod mine yet either. But I do have the drums.....

[maahes]

Man, I'd love to live in a country where the only people to have outlawed firearms are outlaws. Sounds awesome. I know in America, only law abiding citizens who purchase their firearms legally are the ones committing crimes with said firearms. Absolutely no one in America ever uses guns for their own protection, should just lock up anyone that buys a firearm immediately. This country would be so much better, I bet crime rates would just plummet. I mean seriously, who wants to try and rob someone if there is zero chance that the person isn't armed that's just poor sportsmanship.

If this is sarcasium, it is the first and most intelligent thing you have ever said.

[maahes]

Wherever you live shouldn't allow automobiles. There are too many stupid deaths every year due to automobiles.

Amen.

From my cold dead hand!

[maahes]

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.

It means citizens retain power to overthrow a corrupt government.



Respect is growing in me for a few of you!

[maahes]

The exact moment you need the cops to protect you and your loved ones, remember they are just 30 minutes away.

[maahes]

The first step to losing every freedom you have in life is losing your right to arm yourself. History proves this thousands of times over. You are a mongoloid of proportions unmatched if you think you are better off without the means to defend yourself and your property should the need ever arise.

Wow. I had no idea P99 had logical open minded minds!

[maahes]

Okay this thread got me all excited. So glad to see there are still Americans in this country that understand why we have the right to own firearms and why it is so important. Last post.. I'm starting to spam.

If you are the head of a family, the protector of a family, I personally feel it is insanely irresponsable to not own a firearm. This world is a crazy place and if you are not prepared to defend and protect what is yours at any given moment. Well I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

I am a big dude with training, but I know know there are bigger dudes out there with even more training that could over power me inorder to get to my wife and children. I can count on my training, but in this world that only gets me so far.

I don't have time to google the quote, but I think this is very relivant to my comments.

"God created man equal, Smith and Weston made it true." - XXXX

[Goofier]

More gun pr0n, please.
You guys post more, and I'll post the videos of us shooting a Class 3 Ruger AC556.

[Goofier]

Here's your teaser :D

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uaRdR-pqExc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Goofier]

what is she doing !? These are INNOCENT STORMTROOPERS !

Oh, yeah, almost forgot...
The misfires are actually SnapCaps.
They're aluminum dummies with rubber primers.
You can dry-fire all day and not hurt anything.

And they really, really help train away anticipation flinching.
You just have someone else load your magazine and mix a couple in.

[Gringo]

And with a salute to Sgt. York, the 1903A3...

Sgt. York used a 1917 Enfield.

[kenzar]

I am a big dude with training, but I know know there are bigger dudes out there with even more training that could over power me inorder to get to my wife and children. I can count on my training, but in this world that only gets me so far.


Ok, WTF would someone want with your wife and children?! I'm assuming in this scenario the attacker who is 'after' your family is out to kill them? If that's the case a house fire would work just as well as storming the door and fighting through you with a lot less effort. Guns don't fight fires last time I checked. Why is it everytime a firearm proponent is setting up a scenario where a gun will be useful its a scenario that is wildly unrealistic. If someone is out to kill you (or anyone for that matter) there are very effective ways to circumvent a firearm (a carbomb can be made by even the most novice person with a little research, a house fire leading to asphyxiation, you can make fucking thermite in any garage in america for fucks sake.) If some idiot is going to come at you from the front door I would argue that they werent serious about actually killing you and that the deadly force you are meeting them with is just unnecessary. But who cares right? You got to kill someone while being within your rights. Hell yeah! American dream!
You want to learn to stop someone from physically hurting you, travel to Israel, train in KM, train with the IDF(there are a ton of schools there run by former IDF instructors, its not fun, its not pretty, it is effective), imo they are the only people who actually use hand to hand combat anymore. You thinking your training will only get you so far is the first indicator that whatever you were trained in is ineffective. If it is an martial art, or based on a martial art, its worthless.

As far as whether or not you think the military would kill its own citizens, if this were 100 years ago where the deadliest thing you had to worry about was a cannon or a gatling gun that a man had to operate on sight, I would agree with you. But it takes a handful of men to press a handful of buttons to more than break any uprising 300,000,000 strong or not. We dont possess the weaponry that our govt possesses...not even fucking close. The 2nd ammendment was a interesting idea when it was proposed. 250 years later its kind of a laughable idea to think 300million people armed with some .223's could fight a war against a govt that can send a missle fired from a fucking submarine straight down your goddamn chimney.

[Hasbinlulz]

You actually own that?
Did you know that the word gullible is written on the ceiling above you?

[Hasbinlulz]

I know you looked.

[Autotune]

Ok, WTF would someone want with your wife and children?! I'm assuming in this scenario the attacker who is 'after' your family is out to kill them? If that's the case a house fire would work just as well as storming the door and fighting through you with a lot less effort. Guns don't fight fires last time I checked. Why is it everytime a firearm proponent is setting up a scenario where a gun will be useful its a scenario that is wildly unrealistic. If someone is out to kill you (or anyone for that matter) there are very effective ways to circumvent a firearm (a carbomb can be made by even the most novice person with a little research, a house fire leading to asphyxiation, you can make fucking thermite in any garage in america for fucks sake.) If some idiot is going to come at you from the front door I would argue that they werent serious about actually killing you and that the deadly force you are meeting them with is just unnecessary. But who cares right? You got to kill someone while being within your rights. Hell yeah! American dream!
You want to learn to stop someone from physically hurting you, travel to Israel, train in KM, train with the IDF(there are a ton of schools there run by former IDF instructors, its not fun, its not pretty, it is effective), imo they are the only people who actually use hand to hand combat anymore. You thinking your training will only get you so far is the first indicator that whatever you were trained in is ineffective. If it is an martial art, or based on a martial art, its worthless.

As far as whether or not you think the military would kill its own citizens, if this were 100 years ago where the deadliest thing you had to worry about was a cannon or a gatling gun that a man had to operate on sight, I would agree with you. But it takes a handful of men to press a handful of buttons to more than break any uprising 300,000,000 strong or not. We dont possess the weaponry that our govt possesses...not even fucking close. The 2nd ammendment was a interesting idea when it was proposed. 250 years later its kind of a laughable idea to think 300million people armed with some .223's could fight a war against a govt that can send a missle fired from a fucking submarine straight down your goddamn chimney.

You should have thought longer before you posted.

1) Your fire scenario comparison is just as fucking stupid.
2) No form of Hand to Hand (kungfu included) will stop a bullet. You can train to use a firearm in far less time than train to learn any form of hand to hand, without having to travel across the world.
3) Even people in the military have a conscience.

[Heebee]

lolmerica

[kenzar]

You should have thought longer before you posted.

1) Your fire scenario comparison is just as fucking stupid.


My comparison wasn't a comparison, just an observation. If someone wants to kill you a firearm is one of many options. To assume someone would use a firearm is quite narrow minded. There are a ton of other ways to really kill someone w/o a firearm if you really wanted to do something like that.


2) No form of Hand to Hand (kungfu included) will stop a bullet. You can train to use a firearm in far less time than train to learn any form of hand to hand, without having to travel across the world.

KM is a defense system that takes about 8-9 weeks to train and become extremely proficient at it. After that initial training people tend to retain about 80-90% of the effective movements. All based on natural reaction, meaning you dont have to necessarily remember a whole lot, just react and muscle memory takes care of the rest. No defense system will stop a bullet; not everyone who wants to hurt you has a gun. Its quite unrealistic to think you will always be armed in any situation that might come along where you would have to defend yourself. It is realistic to believe you will have your arms and legs readily available. Learning to use them effectively could prove useful. Plus KM encompasses an armed fighting system as well, IE fighting with/against someone with a knife/handgun/AR. It's just useful stuff to know, it wont stop a bullet but it's the next best thing.

3) Even people in the military have a conscience.
Most do I'm sure. My point was that it doesn't take an entire army anymore. Even if 99% of the military refuses, 1% armed with modern military weaponry can make more than a dent in 100% of civilian population armed with .223's and 7.62's. You're deluded if you think every person in the military is a noble do-gooder. Some are I'm sure, but some just enjoy killing. Having a conscience is not on any military entrance exam I've ever seen.

Maybe you should have thought longer before you posted. Your three points of criticism aren't necessary to anyone with a reading comprehension above that of a 5th grader.

[Hitchens]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wcbe3Ao0ThU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WCPZMnQ9API" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Peatree]

12 gauge double barrell remmington...$109.95...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFriRcIwqNU

[Autotune]

My comparison wasn't a comparison, just an observation. If someone wants to kill you a firearm is one of many options. To assume someone would use a firearm is quite narrow minded. There are a ton of other ways to really kill someone w/o a firearm if you really wanted to do something like that.


KM is a defense system that takes about 8-9 weeks to train and become extremely proficient at it. After that initial training people tend to retain about 80-90% of the effective movements. All based on natural reaction, meaning you dont have to necessarily remember a whole lot, just react and muscle memory takes care of the rest. No defense system will stop a bullet; not everyone who wants to hurt you has a gun. Its quite unrealistic to think you will always be armed in any situation that might come along where you would have to defend yourself. It is realistic to believe you will have your arms and legs readily available. Learning to use them effectively could prove useful. Plus KM encompasses an armed fighting system as well, IE fighting with/against someone with a knife/handgun/AR. It's just useful stuff to know, it wont stop a bullet but it's the next best thing.

Most do I'm sure. My point was that it doesn't take an entire army anymore. Even if 99% of the military refuses, 1% armed with modern military weaponry can make more than a dent in 100% of civilian population armed with .223's and 7.62's. You're deluded if you think every person in the military is a noble do-gooder. Some are I'm sure, but some just enjoy killing. Having a conscience is not on any military entrance exam I've ever seen.

Maybe you should have thought longer before you posted. Your three points of criticism aren't necessary to anyone with a reading comprehension above that of a 5th grader.

Go back and reread "a house fire would work just as well as someone going after your wife in kids" (to which you then get off saying guns don't put out fires)

I know what KM is (also thought it was funny you expect people to travel to Israel). The guy expressed that he knew/knows some form of hand to hand or "kungfu". It is retarded to think everyone should travel over seas to learn anything for self defense. Proper training with a handgun and how to use one in self defense is more than enough for the average person. Stop thinking about James Bond scenarios.

Military people use Military equipment. You think after one gives up that he is just going to leave with his rifle? I think the only deluded one is you. The entire Military would split bottom to top. It might not take an entire army to kill people, but they would have to fight their other half that have the same shit they do. Apparently you seem to think once someone in the military defects from the government side they would instantly lose everything they have access to.

I was trying hard not to call you an idiot, but it's pretty fucking apparent now. I like the fact that your snide comments and general way of thought shows how idiotic your mind set is too. "lets take your wife/kids being hunted scenario (not to mention it wasn't a fucking hunted or assassination scenario that the guy said, it was a simple fucking statement you retard) and change it with a burning house scenario b/c it would work just as well. Except the part where guns can't kill fire and they can kill badguys.... hurhur derpdaderp." "Oh you think you know some form of hand to hand, well you don't know wtf you're talking about. Go learn KM from Israel b/c it's the best and you're fucking stupid." "If someone in the military decides to not kills his friends and no longer agrees with the government, he's gonna go home with his .223 and leave all the other equipment behind, b/c that's what half the military would do or even 90%."

You can stop projecting on the interwebs now, it might work on your friends, but here it just looks like advice from a pompous tool.

[Peatree]

All I own is a Mossberg 500 Tactical Special Purpose 20 Gauge 41" Shotgun. Only had to make use of it once, and I never even had to fire it.

We had an intruder in our house around 3am. All I did was dial 911, informed police there was an intruder in our home (downstairs) while I was upstairs. With 911 on the phone I announced I knew he was there, told him 911 was called, and I was armed...once he heard the ditinctive "chuck" of the shotgun coming from upstairs he left in quite a hurry.

Police got there about 5 minutes later. 911 let them know I was armed, I stayed upstairs and once they announced themselves and 911 confirmed that was them in my house I came down with my hands above my head and all was well.

BTW - another squad car caught the three punk ass thugs running down another alley about 3 blocks away.

I would have rather had it than not - cause these three thugs were known to beat up other homeowners in the pas during the break in's. I could handle one of them on my own, but I doubt three.

Nothing works better than the distinctive chuck of a shotgun.

[Someguy1983]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/hotheadirish/Gun.jpg

[Kruel]

Yea i own guns, so whats it to ya...

Springfield 1911 loaded - 45
Beretta 92A1 - 9
Beretta BU9 Nano - 9 - CCW gun
Walther PK380 - 380
Walther P22 - 22
Remington Spartan side by side 20" Stock - 12g - underbed special

I go to the range all the time with my wife. We find it is a fun way to get out of the house and have some fun. I dont have some dream situation that a gun will protect me in... but we do live in a fucked up world. I would rather have a fun and just enjoy another hobby - than to have some fucker have the upper hand on me because I didnt believe i would ever need one.

[doraf]

Just a few of the riffles I actually have pics of.

The AR15 is made by LMT with a 2 stage trigger and ambidextrous safety.

The Stevens shotgun for home defense. I am

I picked up the Mossberg tactical .22 for my daughter who thinks daddy's AR is "cute."

[jpeute]

lol at this thread, so retarded

[doraf]

Not nearly as retarded as the French bending over for the Germans. "Oh stick it right here, Mr. Hitler. Just don't our paintings please." Fuckin pussies.

[doraf]

Not nearly as retarded as the French bending over for the Germans. "Oh stick it right here, Mr. Hitler. Just don't touch our paintings please." Fuckin pussies.

[maahes]

Ok, WTF would someone want with your wife and children?! I'm assuming in this scenario the attacker who is 'after' your family is out to kill them? If that's the case a house fire would work just as well as storming the door and fighting through you with a lot less effort. Guns don't fight fires last time I checked. Why is it everytime a firearm proponent is setting up a scenario where a gun will be useful its a scenario that is wildly unrealistic. If someone is out to kill you (or anyone for that matter) there are very effective ways to circumvent a firearm (a carbomb can be made by even the most novice person with a little research, a house fire leading to asphyxiation, you can make fucking thermite in any garage in america for fucks sake.) If some idiot is going to come at you from the front door I would argue that they werent serious about actually killing you and that the deadly force you are meeting them with is just unnecessary. But who cares right? You got to kill someone while being within your rights. Hell yeah! American dream!
You want to learn to stop someone from physically hurting you, travel to Israel, train in KM, train with the IDF(there are a ton of schools there run by former IDF instructors, its not fun, its not pretty, it is effective), imo they are the only people who actually use hand to hand combat anymore. You thinking your training will only get you so far is the first indicator that whatever you were trained in is ineffective. If it is an martial art, or based on a martial art, its worthless.

As far as whether or not you think the military would kill its own citizens, if this were 100 years ago where the deadliest thing you had to worry about was a cannon or a gatling gun that a man had to operate on sight, I would agree with you. But it takes a handful of men to press a handful of buttons to more than break any uprising 300,000,000 strong or not. We dont possess the weaponry that our govt possesses...not even fucking close. The 2nd ammendment was a interesting idea when it was proposed. 250 years later its kind of a laughable idea to think 300million people armed with some .223's could fight a war against a govt that can send a missle fired from a fucking submarine straight down your goddamn chimney.

Thank you Autotune, you took care of most of my reply. So thank you.

And Kenzar I don't know if you are a man or a woman, a child or an adult. Please read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

I made a promise to my wife and children to be a protector and a provider, I made a promise to myself that I would do all that I can to give my wife and children a safe life at all costs. If you ever get married or have children you will experence this same feeling. The feeling when someone elses life becomes more important to you than your own. The horror that goes through my head when I read the above link and start to relate it to my own family.

There is a 1:1,000,000,000 chance that this might happen to my family. I am confident and I find a great deal of peace knowing that at least I have a fighting chance to prevent it.

Please if you an American citizen I urge you to use your 2nd Amendment right! Its not a privliage, it is a RIGHT!

[Goofier]

Sgt. York used a 1917 Enfield.

Details, details.
He SHOULD have been using one.

:D

[Goofier]

I go to the range all the time with my wife. We find it is a fun way to get out of the house and have some fun. I dont have some dream situation that a gun will protect me in... but we do live in a fucked up world. I would rather have a fun and just enjoy another hobby - than to have some fucker have the upper hand on me because I didnt believe i would ever need one.

Very well put.

[Goofier]

More gun pr0n tomorrow.
Going to shoot an AR-180 and a SP1 :D

[Hitchens]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OvWzQDHn900" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Xadion]

I want the gun that Vash's gun in trigun was based off of. for reals

[Harmonium]

http://i.imgur.com/euOeq.jpg

I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

http://i.imgur.com/n3LqF.jpg

[Kimm Barely]

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/f/f/fff06_ORIG-FatGunDude.jpg

[JenJen]

what a handsome fellow

[Naerron]

If anyone here has heard of intelligence squared they are oxford style debates hosted by NPR and are pretty cool. This one is entitled "Guns Reduce Crime" good arguments from both sides. Check it out.

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/598-guns-reduce-crime

[tunnelmule]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/us-usa-shooting-denver-idUSBRE86J0AM20120720

so much for the argument that easier access of guns for the law abiding citizen will help stop with such masacres.

seems it only ever helps the person who wants to do the killing

[karsten]

you sound euro, and your argument sounds fag

[karsten]

visceral if that's you btw i'm gonna facebook punch you!

[Ele]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/us-usa-shooting-denver-idUSBRE86J0AM20120720

so much for the argument that easier access of guns for the law abiding citizen will help stop with such masacres.

seems it only ever helps the person who wants to do the killing

That seems a bit anecdotal. One isolated incident and the whole argument is suddenly invalid?

Would he not have been able to commit some form of violence with or without guns in this instance? He had improvised gas devices and set up his apartment with improvised incendiary devices. He definitely has access to means, but guns were not the only means he used or had access to.

[nilbog]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/us-usa-shooting-denver-idUSBRE86J0AM20120720

so much for the argument that easier access of guns for the law abiding citizen will help stop with such masacres.

seems it only ever helps the person who wants to do the killing

If bystanders had guns, they might have helped. I'm not sure the legal ramifications if they did, but they might have saved some lives.

For example, Kennesaw, GA requires every head of household to own a firearm. Since that law being instituted in 1982, their population has risen from 5200 to 30000 and their crime rate has decreased.

An isolated incident of batman fever has nothing to do with gun laws. The attacker would have had the same results (or worse) with a molotov cocktail in a packed movie theater.

[karsten]

guys don't get trolled by the european versions of hicks

[Hasbinlulz]

The attacker would have had better results with a molotov cocktail in a packed police station.
fix'd

[Eashan2.0]

Eashan is my Hero !!!!

fix'd that for you

[Barkingturtle]

If bystanders had guns, they might have helped.

Are you sure bystanders didn't have guns?

I think what you meant to say was: If bystanders had discharged their guns, it might have helped.

Or maybe, more accurately, you meant to say: If a bystander had brought their gun to the movie theater, managed to not get shot before he could react, identified the shooter in a chaotic, darkened theater full of screaming, fleeing victims and tear gas, drew a bead and successfully shot the spree killer, well, that might have helped.

Why is this argument important to people? The argument that "if only someone in the killing field had brought their gun shit would have been different". What about a populous already teeming with firearms makes some people think, "Gee, where can we fit moar guns?"

[Phats]

People need to train, respect, and carry a weapon.

If a psycho wants to murder people, your mom, your wife, your daughter; They are going to murder them regardless of 'set gun laws'.

NO ONE PERSON should have more power than another. If psycho's can get weapons, so can citizens.

[Phats]

Or as habinbad would say, If cops can carry weapons, so can citizens.

fix'd

[Hasbinlulz]

Are you sure bystanders didn't have guns?

I think what you meant to say was: If bystanders had discharged their guns, it might have helped.

Or maybe, more accurately, you meant to say: If a bystander had brought their gun to the movie theater, managed to not get shot before he could react, identified the shooter in a chaotic, darkened theater full of screaming, fleeing victims and tear gas, drew a bead and successfully shot the spree killer, well, that might have helped.

Why is this argument important to people? The argument that "if only someone in the killing field had brought their gun shit would have been different". What about a populous already teeming with firearms makes some people think, "Gee, where can we fit moar guns?"
Obviously your points are all salient and astute.

I think you're missing the underlying assumptions of people who make these kinds of ridiculous claims. They think of that bystander as themselves, with all the attributes and abilities their video-game conception of the world applies to themselves. They actually think that in that kind of situation, with no training or drilling, that they could do that sort of thing. This is one area where military women and men would have a definite leg up, and that kind of training (if it ever sank in) combined with an available weapon may have actually saved the day. The problem is that in the grandiose mind of the average citizen, being leet at black ops means you'd know what to do in that situation, so they argue for idiotic things like "everyone shoulda had a gun."

I just used a lot of words and most of them are rambling, but I think you should be able to get what I'm saying.

[Nikon]

An isolated incident of batman fever

I'll pass that statement to my two military friends that were at that theater last night and direct them your way. And for those of you whining about 'if they had guns they could have shot back', this guy used a GAS CANISTER and FULL TACTICAL GEAR when he entered the theater and anyone with a conceal and carry permit that is in their right mind would not pull their gun and fire into a DARK SMOKEY ROOM of civilians at a movie theater. You guys need need serious reality check.

[nilbog]

Are you sure bystanders didn't have guns?

No, I only read the one article. I'm not sure if the bystanders were armed or not. I'm not sure if the shooter opened fire in the seating area or the lobby. I said that "If bystanders had guns, they might have helped. I'm not sure the legal ramifications if they did, but they might have saved some lives." Is this not true? If the guy opened up fire, but there were bystanders surrounding him, someone might have taken action. If everyone had a weapon, this might not have happened:

officers immediately took the suspect into custody in the parking lot behind the cinema, where he surrendered without a fight,I'm not trying to imply this guy should be shot to death, but he might have assumed it was possible he wouldn't die. If everyone was armed, the shooter might not survive. He also might not have attempted a public killing spree.

That's the crux of my overall pro-gun beliefs. If guns exist, and they are legal to own, then why not have one? If all firearms could magically disappear and the simple technologies required to make them weren't possible, I would vote yes on the removal. I would vote yes on the removal of anything capable of mass-slaughtering humans; guns, and everything else as powerful as guns. It's not possible. Guns exist on every continent and in every country.

I think what you meant to say was: If bystanders had discharged their guns, it might have helped.

Or maybe, more accurately, you meant to say: If a bystander had brought their gun to the movie theater, managed to not get shot before he could react, identified the shooter in a chaotic, darkened theater full of screaming, fleeing victims and tear gas, drew a bead and successfully shot the spree killer, well, that might have helped.Sure, it might have helped. The projectionist might have saved the day, or a random person. Not carrying a weapon removes your personal power to do anything in the hopes that an off-duty police officer, or someone who can resolve the crisis follows through.


Why is this argument important to people? The argument that "if only someone in the killing field had brought their gun shit would have been different". What about a populous already teeming with firearms makes some people think, "Gee, where can we fit moar guns?"In a thread entitled Americans and Guns (post pics of your armory !), where a random troll posts:

so much for the argument that easier access of guns for the law abiding citizen will help stop with such masacres.

seems it only ever helps the person who wants to do the killingSeems like a nice place to discuss this.

I've been around guns my entire life so I might have a different viewpoint than others. I see a gun as a tool like a lot of other things. Everyone around me owns firearms and knows how to use firearms.

[LordFresh]

I'll pass that statement to my two military friends that were at that theater last night and direct them your way. And for those of you whining about 'if they had guns they could have shot back', this guy used a GAS CANISTER and FULL TACTICAL GEAR when he entered the theater and anyone with a conceal and carry permit that is in their right mind would not pull their gun and fire into a DARK SMOKEY ROOM of civilians at a movie theater. You guys need need serious reality check.

The idea behind CCW is for protection of myself and family - so we can get to safety. It isnt meant for a hero move were we save the day. Most times saving the day doesnt happen and the hero ends up dead.

The way a CCW would of worked is if the guy was walking the isles like he says and a CCW holder was laying on the floor and had a good close shot.

Anyone can do this sort of crime - even if all guns were banned right now it would take many many years before criminals or crazy people couldnt get them.

I personally would of had my weapon in my pocket with the ability to pull it had the shooter come in front of me or my family running out.

Even with a bullet proof jacket 4-5 shots in the chest would stop him for a while.

Remember CCW can also get you killed in this sort of enviroment. Police or citizens seeing you holding a pistol while this is going on makes them think you are the gunman.

[nilbog]

I'll pass that statement to my two military friends that were at that theater last night and direct them your way. And for those of you whining about 'if they had guns they could have shot back', this guy used a GAS CANISTER and FULL TACTICAL GEAR when he entered the theater and anyone with a conceal and carry permit that is in their right mind would not pull their gun and fire into a DARK SMOKEY ROOM of civilians at a movie theater. You guys need need serious reality check.

I meant no disrespect to anyone in particular and this was indeed a tragedy. Seriously, pass along my condolences to anyone you know that was personally affected by it. 'Isolated case of batman fever' seems inconsiderate. I'm sorry for that.

[LordFresh]

May I add that anyone put in that position this morning even the worste hater of firearms would be WISHING they had a fucking gun on them.

Guns are fun as a hobby - as a tool of murder they are gross. When someone turns it into a tool for murder - your only option is having a gun on you. There currently isnt a better tool for self defense in this world.

[Bodeanicus]

Those "pussies" are the reason we're not a part of the British Empire anymore, genius.

[ShadowWulf]

I shoot and collect black powder weapons. Does that count for this thread?

.50 plains rifle, .50 smoothie percussion pistol, .44 revolver; brass confederate cavalry build. They are a blast to shoot, so much so when i bring them to the range its usually people with ar's, ak's, one crazy brit with a fucking dragoon, and M1's who wanna swap guns for awhile.

All the other weapons I collect are exclusively swords, axes, flails, billhooks, pikes, armor, etc etc etc.

[Harmonium]

XaQsbdXQuZI

Jpv6dJZhg0U

Wisconsin's new policy for obtaining conceal carry permits is awesome. Tons of people are packing here now.

I can't think of a better deterrent for this kind of situation.

[Harmonium]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpv6dJZhg0U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaQsbdXQuZI

no clue how to embed youtube video's on these forums apparently.

[Barkingturtle]

I can't think of a better deterrent for this kind of situation.

That's probably because you're a fucking idiot who can't even manage to embed Youtube videos, let alone solve complex dilemmas. That's just the impression I get.

I mean, I don't know you beyond these past two posts, but I can tell already I'd never ask you to think.

[Harmonium]

That's probably because you're a fucking idiot who can't even manage to embed Youtube videos, let alone solve complex dilemmas. That's just the impression I get.

I mean, I don't know you beyond these past two posts, but I can tell already I'd never ask you to think.

TIL that knowing how to embed youtube on forums is a pre-requisite for solving complex dilemmas.

http://i.imgur.com/f5orv.png

[Autotune]

I'll pass that statement to my two military friends that were at that theater last night and direct them your way. And for those of you whining about 'if they had guns they could have shot back', this guy used a GAS CANISTER and FULL TACTICAL GEAR when he entered the theater and anyone with a conceal and carry permit that is in their right mind would not pull their gun and fire into a DARK SMOKEY ROOM of civilians at a movie theater. You guys need need serious reality check.

First off, the theater is not as dark as you imply. If it was, the survivor recount stories you read wouldn't tell in such great detail where the guy was standing and moving around. I've read plenty of them and they all mentioned watching the guy as he went up and down the aisles.

Secondly, even if it was as dark and smokey as you imply, you could locate within 3 feet of him where he is at by muzzle fire. I know for a fact you can and anyone that has ever seen a gun fired at night (foggy or not) will know this. With a revolver and 6 rounds, any person that is worth a shit with their firearm would have dropped this retard.

Lastly, as you are now thinking of his tactical gear, let me go ahead and tell you it fucking hurts to get hit by a round in a vest. That is a round to the chest, it would hurt even more so on any other body part. He will drop to the ground like a sack of potatoes, you can possibly even kill him depending on the caliber of your gun if you hit him in the vest.

[Vladigan]

http://www.infowars.com/video-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opens-fire-on-two-would-be-robbers/

[Daldolma]

First off, the theater is not as dark as you imply. If it was, the survivor recount stories you read wouldn't tell in such great detail where the guy was standing and moving around. I've read plenty of them and they all mentioned watching the guy as he went up and down the aisles.

Secondly, even if it was as dark and smokey as you imply, you could locate within 3 feet of him where he is at by muzzle fire. I know for a fact you can and anyone that has ever seen a gun fired at night (foggy or not) will know this. With a revolver and 6 rounds, any person that is worth a shit with their firearm would have dropped this retard.

Lastly, as you are now thinking of his tactical gear, let me go ahead and tell you it fucking hurts to get hit by a round in a vest. That is a round to the chest, it would hurt even more so on any other body part. He will drop to the ground like a sack of potatoes, you can possibly even kill him depending on the caliber of your gun if you hit him in the vest.

Yes, if someone in that movie theater were armed and not killed before they were able to comprehend the situation, they probably could have stopped him after a mere two dozen or so casualties.

That's such backward thinking, though. In the event of a one-in-a-million atrocity, yes, it's better to have multiple armed retards. For the other 999,999 atrocity-less viewings, some moron civilian carrying a gun everywhere he goes only opens the door to negative outcomes.

The problem with the pro-gun crowd, if you'll grant that there's a problem, is that you have entirely too much faith in the general population (including yourselves). I have a hard enough time trusting your garden variety idiot to serve me coffee without spilling it on my dick. Naturally, I'd prefer they not be armed with a killing machine.

And for some reason, the pro-gun crowd thinks they're going to be able to save themselves from the rest of the idiots with guns by possessing a gun themselves. That's not how it works. I'm sure plenty of people in that movie theater own guns. They didn't have them at the time. I'm also sure that at least a dozen, probably more, of the casualties could have had guns on them and it wouldn't have mattered because they were already shot by the time they had any idea what the fuck was going on.

tl;dr -- the average human being is entirely too stupid to be trusted with a gun.

[Turp]

tl;dr -- the average human being is entirely too stupid to be trusted with a gun.
Lol sadly it does not work like that, thinking like that will just get civilians disarmed, but you know who gets to keep guns when a nationwide gun ban happens? Criminals an cops, an since the criminals know your not armed than crime rate spikes (in some cases 4x) insanely, this is a proven fact just look at any country with gun laws. Guns dont kill people thats like saying cars kill people an cars are always #1 every year for unnatural cause of deaths...so we should all be banned from driving? illogical thinking there. What needs to happen is this guy get punished with death, it was the guy, not the gun.
The damn guy had tear gas canisters which are not legally available at your local gun shop, they are banned yet he still got them, Plenty of gangs etc have automatic weapons an grenades even an there not legal, Banning anything does not do shit but disarm good people an the "bad/mental" ones get more out of control because of it.

[Autotune]

Yes, if someone in that movie theater were armed and not killed before they were able to comprehend the situation, they probably could have stopped him after a mere two dozen or so casualties.

That's such backward thinking, though. In the event of a one-in-a-million atrocity, yes, it's better to have multiple armed retards. For the other 999,999 atrocity-less viewings, some moron civilian carrying a gun everywhere he goes only opens the door to negative outcomes.

The problem with the pro-gun crowd, if you'll grant that there's a problem, is that you have entirely too much faith in the general population (including yourselves). I have a hard enough time trusting your garden variety idiot to serve me coffee without spilling it on my dick. Naturally, I'd prefer they not be armed with a killing machine.

And for some reason, the pro-gun crowd thinks they're going to be able to save themselves from the rest of the idiots with guns by possessing a gun themselves. That's not how it works. I'm sure plenty of people in that movie theater own guns. They didn't have them at the time. I'm also sure that at least a dozen, probably more, of the casualties could have had guns on them and it wouldn't have mattered because they were already shot by the time they had any idea what the fuck was going on.

tl;dr -- the average human being is entirely too stupid to be trusted with a gun.

Hmm, I totally forgot how carrying a gun makes you more likely to be shot before someone that isn't carrying a gun.

You know who the idiot is in your situation? The one who thinks the guys with guns are idiots and chose not to carry because he is more intelligent.

Your entire post is fucking stupid. If anyone was too retarded to pour coffee, it would definitely be you.

[Alawen]

Aside from the heroes all coming here to claim that if they'd been there packing it would have somehow helped, here are some actual facts.

Approximately 32,000 Americans die each year from firearms. By percentage, that's more than twice the death rate of any other developed country and eight times the average of all developed countries combined. The incidence of death by firearm in the United States is about 70 times the rate of that in developed Asian countries. The United States also has more guns per capita than other developed country.

The five states with the most firearm deaths are five of the most heavily armed: Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana, Alaska and Nevada. More Americans die from suicide by firearm than from homicide. Young people aged 15-24 are the overwhelming majority of death by firearm. In most countries, the majority of shooting victims are male, but the United States has the highest incidence of women being shot.

The idea of more guns being the solution apparently appeals to people who like guns, but none of the facts point to that being true. Where there are more guns, more people die from guns. Where there are more pencils, people do more writing.

Source: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%20Updated%202009%20Section %201.pdf

[Autotune]

Aside from the heroes all coming here to claim that if they'd been there packing it would have somehow helped, here are some actual facts.

Approximately 32,000 Americans die each year from firearms. By percentage, that's more than twice the death rate of any other developed country and eight times the average of all developed countries combined. The incidence of death by firearm in the United States is about 70 times the rate of that in developed Asian countries. The United States also has more guns per capita than other developed country.

The five states with the most firearm deaths are five of the most heavily armed: Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana, Alaska and Nevada. More Americans die from suicide by firearm than from homicide. Young people aged 15-24 are the overwhelming majority of death by firearm. In most countries, the majority of shooting victims are male, but the United States has the highest incidence of women being shot.

The idea of more guns being the solution apparently appeals to people who like guns, but none of the facts point to that being true. Where there are more guns, more people die from guns. Where there are more pencils, people do more writing.

Source: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%20Updated%202009%20Section %201.pdf

So you use a statistic that is fluffed with suicide rates to talk about how people use guns to kill other people. Gotcha.

[Alawen]

What I do is use research and consider facts when I form my opinions about things.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
— Isaac Asimov

[Autotune]

What I do is use research and consider facts when I form my opinions about things.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
— Isaac Asimov

Facts are facts, but don't misuse them for something they have no business in. Suicides and Homicides have different meanings for a reason.

[Turp]

Suicide is about 90% of the numbers you listed, remove suicide an than check it, Because it is a very high rate of death in the USA. So redo it an look that up! Any Nation with gun control laws have insanely higher crime rate than America because only the criminals and cops have guns, they know you are unarmed so in return you are more likely to get robbed.
did some of your research for ya, stop being brainwashed gun control does not mean crazy people wont get guns, thats like saying drug control will end all drug use, its just illogical. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

[Autotune]

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/colorado-theater-called-gun-free-zone/

Guess someone forgot to stop this guy at the door and inform him that the establishment prohibited guns.

[Goofier]

Dammit, gonna have to start a new thread for the pics, this one's ruined like Lindsay Lohan.

By the way, under those circumstances, I would have been carrying the XDm .45 and The Wife would have had her Ruger LC9.

Just sayin'.

[Alawen]

What you're attempting to do is maintain your point with rhetoric. You have no evidence except to back up anything you've said. None of the statistics change when the suicides are removed. You are still left with more guns, more gun violence, more violence against young people, more violence against women, more violence in the states with more guns, more violence than any other developed country.

Quibbling about what you perceive as skewed evidence with no evidence to back you up leaves your argument vapid. The UPenn study is based on statistics from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting system, the DOJ's National Crime Victimization Survery and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. You've got nothing. If you actually read it, you might learn something.

[Turp]

An if ya did not know Thailand is under insanely strict gun control a Thai citizen, they must show themselves to be good members of the community and deserve a firearm, show cause for issuance of the licence, and I seem to recall show or pay a specific sum {see below} for a firearm licence to be provided. And these regulations specify the class of weapon you can own,only including shot-guns, and small bore rifles like a 22 caliber...an thats just one i know of the top of my head there are plenty other countrys with gun laws that have insane amounts of crime , do research instead of posting suicide gun control nonsense.

[Autotune]

What you're attempting to do is maintain your point with rhetoric. You have no evidence except to back up anything you've said. None of the statistics change when the suicides are removed. You are still left with more guns, more gun violence, more violence against young people, more violence against women, more violence in the states with more guns, more violence than any other developed country.

Quibbling about what you perceive as skewed evidence with no evidence to back you up leaves your argument vapid. The UPenn study is based on statistics from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting system, the DOJ's National Crime Victimization Survery and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. You've got nothing. If you actually read it, you might learn something.

I'm not doing research to appease your failed research. It is clear that you used statistics that included suicide rates. Those same suicide statistics are now being called violence by you (further misusing your facts). I'm not going to debate with someone that can't see the fault in that. I don't need to read it anymore, it clearly stated suicides as part of the study and mentions only death by firearms, not homicides.

There are many places where firearms have been required of residents and the populations have not only increased but crime decreased as well. If you're so hard up for researching, take a moment to check it out. The only thing I can tell is that the "gun control" that the government is doing now isn't working and they won't to do more "gun control" because of how effective it's been so far. I'm not sure about you, but the last time I did something and it failed, I didn't keep doing it hoping for a better result.

You can keep pushing those violent suicide crimes tho. I am getting a good chuckle out of that.

[Turp]

What you're attempting to do is maintain your point with rhetoric. You have no evidence except to back up anything you've said. None of the statistics change when the suicides are removed. You are still left with more guns, more gun violence, more violence against young people, more violence against women, more violence in the states with more guns, more violence than any other developed country.

Quibbling about what you perceive as skewed evidence with no evidence to back you up leaves your argument vapid. The UPenn study is based on statistics from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting system, the DOJ's National Crime Victimization Survery and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. You've got nothing. If you actually read it, you might learn something.
Please post Evidence of Gun control making crime rate go down. You've got nothing except establishment gun grabbing bullshit, the Attorney General Eric Holder is on TV saying we need to brain wash people into gun control, does not mean its evidence, spewing DoJ FBI Bullshit is not evidence, i linked the numbers an stated a quick fact its up to you to actually do research, prove me wrong an show me where gun control has helped crime rate and "gun violence" decrease. And to keep with the thread http://i1111.photobucket.com/albums/h468/Turp420/IMG_7863.jpg

[Barkingturtle]

The statistics are citing deaths by firearms, you stupid fucking brats.

Suicide, homicide; it's all death.

Also, who the fuck is even advocating gun control in this thread? I don't see anyone saying we need to rewrite the Constitution, although I'll admit I don't read even half the posts that get barfed out around here.

To me, it looks like some people are arguing that more guns make the populace safer from gun violence while others are pointing out how ridiculous that sentiment is.

The gun crowd just loves to climb up on its cross, though.

[Autotune]

The statistics are citing deaths by firearms, you stupid fucking brats.

Suicide, homicide; it's all death.

Also, who the fuck is even advocating gun control in this thread? I don't see anyone saying we need to rewrite the Constitution, although I'll admit I don't read even half the posts that get barfed out around here.

To me, it looks like some people are arguing that more guns make the populace safer from gun violence while others are pointing out how ridiculous that sentiment is.

The gun crowd just loves to climb up on its cross, though.

Congrats, you can read what everyone else was able to read. Don't you feel special that you were able to determine that it said death by firearms and concluded that it was tallying the suicides with homicides. Suicides and Homicides mean someone died too, oh man you're on a roll.

Now tell me more about how people didn't commit suicide without guns.

[Turp]

The statistics are citing deaths by firearms, you stupid fucking brats.

Suicide, homicide; it's all death.

Also, who the fuck is even advocating gun control in this thread? I don't see anyone saying we need to rewrite the Constitution, although I'll admit I don't read even half the posts that get barfed out around here.

To me, it looks like some people are arguing that more guns make the populace safer from gun violence while others are pointing out how ridiculous that sentiment is.

The gun crowd just loves to climb up on its cross, though.

Ok i am getting out of this thread but wtf are you talking about ? Less guns sure as hell dont make it safer !! the number one cause of death the past 100 years is democide not homicide or suicide you dumb shit! Governments routinely murder millions

So Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout the past 100 or so years, almost ALWAYS immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
See more at:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Death by government:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM

A “monopoly of force” in government is FAR more dangerous than a crazed lone shooter
So yes, James Holmes The batman killer and other crazed shooters kill a number of people each year in random acts of violence. It’s horrifying and wrong, but it’s nothing compared to the millions of lives that governments tend to destroy when they gain total power over the populace.
The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it’s a government with a “monopoly of force” over the entire population. And that’s exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: Stripping all power from individual citizens and handing “monopolies of force” to the governments of the world, faking their positions as the only “legitimate” power on the planet.
BAN CARS BAN GUNS HURRR HURRR, fucking sheep

[Alawen]

Suicide is about 90% of the numbers you listed, remove suicide an than check it, Because it is a very high rate of death in the USA. So redo it an look that up! Any Nation with gun control laws have insanely higher crime rate than America because only the criminals and cops have guns, they know you are unarmed so in return you are more likely to get robbed.
did some of your research for ya, stop being brainwashed gun control does not mean crazy people wont get guns, thats like saying drug control will end all drug use, its just illogical. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

No, suicide is not 90% of the numbers. The charts in the report make the comparison of suicides and homicides and you didn't even look at it. In Louisiana, the most violent state, the numbers are roughly equal.

In contrast, I did look at your chart which shows the United States fourth in the world for gun homicides, with no other developed countries in the top ten, below which the numbers drop precipitously.

It's not surprising that you choose to live in a universe of subjective truth and cognitive dissonance, but it is nonetheless sad.

[Alawen]

I'm not doing research to appease your failed research. It is clear that you used statistics that included suicide rates. Those same suicide statistics are now being called violence by you (further misusing your facts). I'm not going to debate with someone that can't see the fault in that. I don't need to read it anymore, it clearly stated suicides as part of the study and mentions only death by firearms, not homicides.

There are many places where firearms have been required of residents and the populations have not only increased but crime decreased as well. If you're so hard up for researching, take a moment to check it out. The only thing I can tell is that the "gun control" that the government is doing now isn't working and they won't to do more "gun control" because of how effective it's been so far. I'm not sure about you, but the last time I did something and it failed, I didn't keep doing it hoping for a better result.

You can keep pushing those violent suicide crimes tho. I am getting a good chuckle out of that.

It's pretty obvious that you didn't even glance at the report, with its clear infographics displaying homicides and suicides by state. I do hope that it's not your kid who shoots himself with your gun.

[Alawen]

Ok i am getting out of this thread but wtf are you talking about ? Less guns sure as hell dont make it safer !! the number one cause of death the past 100 years is democide not homicide or suicide you dumb shit! Governments routinely murder millions

So Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout the past 100 or so years, almost ALWAYS immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
See more at:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Death by government:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM

A “monopoly of force” in government is FAR more dangerous than a crazed lone shooter
So yes, James Holmes The batman killer and other crazed shooters kill a number of people each year in random acts of violence. It’s horrifying and wrong, but it’s nothing compared to the millions of lives that governments tend to destroy when they gain total power over the populace.
The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it’s a government with a “monopoly of force” over the entire population. And that’s exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: Stripping all power from individual citizens and handing “monopolies of force” to the governments of the world, faking their positions as the only “legitimate” power on the planet.
BAN CARS BAN GUNS HURRR HURRR, fucking sheep

Godwin's law invoked, thread complete.

[Barkingturtle]

The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it’s a government with a “monopoly of force” over the entire population. And that’s exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: Stripping all power from individual citizens and handing “monopolies of force” to the governments of the world, faking their positions as the only “legitimate” power on the planet.
BAN CARS BAN GUNS HURRR HURRR, fucking sheep

Read my last post, dipshit.

I for one don't advocate disarmament, because it is entirely infeasible. There are already too many guns in circulation to effectively remove them.

You dudes are pretty clearly in that 17-25 age bracket that dies a lot by gun. Hopefully you manage to age out of it and gain some perspective. At your age, everything is black or white, and framed only in that reference which you can understand. This is the same reason you can never manage to satisfy a woman sexually; your youthful myopia.

[Turp]

No, suicide is not 90% of the numbers. The charts in the report make the comparison of suicides and homicides and you didn't even look at it. In Louisiana, the most violent state, the numbers are roughly equal.

In contrast, I did look at your chart which shows the United States fourth in the world for gun homicides, with no other developed countries in the top ten, below which the numbers drop precipitously.

It's not surprising that you choose to live in a universe of subjective truth and cognitive dissonance, but it is nonetheless sad.
Yea indeed your charts show it only 60% give or take a bit but i did read it all and i quote "For most states,
firearm suicide rates exceed those of firearm homicide" , and those are 1990 - 95 numbers only and they come from our Federal Government or government sponsored agencies (which advocates for gun control constantly) ... Go ahead an turn your gun in bro!to all his own, the government loves you. They would never hurt you, seems your the one in a fantasy world, living in La la land. #1 cause of death past 100 years , Governments with Full control aka Democide. But turn in your guns if you even have any and it will all be safe than. Trade your liberty for so called security an see where that gets ya.

[Lazortag]

Ok i am getting out of this thread but wtf are you talking about ? Less guns sure as hell dont make it safer !! the number one cause of death the past 100 years is democide not homicide or suicide you dumb shit! Governments routinely murder millions

So Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout the past 100 or so years, almost ALWAYS immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
See more at:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Death by government:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM

A “monopoly of force” in government is FAR more dangerous than a crazed lone shooter
So yes, James Holmes The batman killer and other crazed shooters kill a number of people each year in random acts of violence. It’s horrifying and wrong, but it’s nothing compared to the millions of lives that governments tend to destroy when they gain total power over the populace.
The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it’s a government with a “monopoly of force” over the entire population. And that’s exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: Stripping all power from individual citizens and handing “monopolies of force” to the governments of the world, faking their positions as the only “legitimate” power on the planet.
BAN CARS BAN GUNS HURRR HURRR, fucking sheep

This idea that the populace needs to have guns in case the government wages war against them is completely ludicrous. A group of people with significant military training are going to utterly annihilate an even larger group of people without such training, even if they all carry pistols. You act as if playing Gears of War qualifies you to defend against a tyrannical regime. What I find most hilarious is that you listed Rwanda among your examples, yet you fail to mention how the RPF utterly curbstomped the genocidaires because they had superior equipment and training. The RPF forces numbered about twenty thousand, compared to hundreds of thousands of genocidaires.

Also it would have been pretty much impossible for tutsi civilians to form some kind of organized force when they were singled out and killed at roadblocks, and ambushed in their own homes. One family barricaded in their own house and armed with pistols isn't going to stop hundreds of people with machetes and AK47's. You fail to realize that a lot of people didn't know what was even going on, acting as if they could band together and defeat a more well-armed force that's ten times their size is absurd beyond question.

By the way, none of the conflicts you brought up occurred in democracies, so I'm not sure why you even mentioned them. This thread is about gun control in the U.S., not gun control in nazi germany. I'm much less afraid of the former committing genocide against its own people.

[Autotune]

It's pretty obvious that you didn't even glance at the report, with its clear infographics displaying homicides and suicides by state. I do hope that it's not your kid who shoots himself with your gun.

I didn't glance at the report, you're correct. I specifically replied to you and how you were using the report.

My kid will not shoot himself with my gun, no ones kid will and no one will use my gun on anyone else without my consent. You can try to twist this around on me, but it won't work. I have been brought up to respect guns and to know what they are for, not to carry around as some toy or to impress retards. You can fear guns every day, force the general population to dismantle their firearms, pass every law you can think of to restrict guns, but you will never lose that fear guns hold on you.

I don't think I'll save the world with my single pistol, however I am confident I will have the ability to save myself (possibly even others at the cost of myself). Where as your laws will never be able to stop someone with a gun once they've started firing on people.

[Alawen]

You're making some ridiculous assumptions now. I am a Marine Corps veteran and a gun owner.

[Autotune]

This idea that the populace needs to have guns in case the government wages war against them is completely ludicrous. A group of people with significant military training are going to utterly annihilate an even larger group of people without such training, even if they all carry pistols. You act as if playing Gears of War qualifies you to defend against a tyrannical regime. What I find most hilarious is that you listed Rwanda among your examples, yet you fail to mention how the RPF utterly curbstomped the genocidaires because they had superior equipment and training. The RPF forces numbered about twenty thousand, compared to hundreds of thousands of genocidaires.

Also it would have been pretty much impossible for tutsi civilians to form some kind of organized force when they were singled out and killed at roadblocks, and ambushed in their own homes. One family barricaded in their own house and armed with pistols isn't going to stop hundreds of people with machetes and AK47's. You fail to realize that a lot of people didn't know what was even going on, acting as if they could band together and defeat a more well-armed force that's ten times their size is absurd beyond question.

By the way, none of the conflicts you brought up occurred in democracies, so I'm not sure why you even mentioned them. This thread is about gun control in the U.S., not gun control in nazi germany. I'm much less afraid of the former committing genocide against its own people.

This thread isn't about gun control at all, go back to the OP. Also, there are already replies to what you've mentioned above earlier in this thread (regarding the civilians vs government military).

[Autotune]

You're making some ridiculous assumptions now. I am a Marine Corps veteran and a gun owner.

Then it is pretty ridiculous that you imply suicides as gun violence.

[Alawen]

Do you have any point at all or do you just enjoy bickering mindlessly?

[Turp]

This idea that the populace needs to have guns in case the government wages war against them is completely ludicrous. A group of people with significant military training are going to utterly annihilate an even larger group of people without such training, even if they all carry pistols. You act as if playing Gears of War qualifies you to defend against a tyrannical regime.
Ok do you even know history? The british were the biggest baddest out there never been defeated and 4% - 6% rose up in 1776 a bunch of farmers an hicks not Gears of war faggots like you stood up an whooped there fucking ass . Your logic is all wrong a skilled group with military training cannot beat guerrilla warfare, plenty of examples of this one being Vietnam and countless others that you can research for yourself. Like i told the last guy go ahead an turn in your guns, your so positive this government wont turn into another hitler,an history does not repeat itself ohh no neverrr, trade your liberty for so called security <--- is the real ludicrous.

[Goofier]

The Wife shooting my XDm .45, her's has the competition fiber sights and ported slide, mine has the tritium sights..
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dMRKk84EzZA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The Wife again, shooting Tom's (the spotter) Armalite AR-180...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jLnkrKY1KGw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Barkingturtle]

Read my last post, dipshit.

I for one don't advocate disarmament, because it is entirely infeasible. There are already too many guns in circulation to effectively remove them.
^ This is the truth but talk shit all you want i read the last post and you said "To me, it looks like some people are arguing that more guns make the populace safer from gun violence while others are pointing out how ridiculous that sentiment is.

The gun crowd just loves to climb up on its cross, though"
But here you seem to be siding with the "others pointing out the ridiculous sentiment of more guns = more safety "
So are you are conflicting statements or just misunderstanding? sorry if your old an slow working brain but which side are you on? either your for guns or against, not both fucking old fatass troll who deff never please a woman cause you prob never even seen a pussy since pussy had you little bitch.

What the fuck?

Tired of me buttfucking you in public so you wanted to hide in my PM box?

I get it. You're young. You're dumb. You're a coward who's terrified of being a victim because you can sense that you're a punk bitch.

Anyway, judging by your flailing attempt to decipher my meaning I can only conclude that my posts are way over your head. Sorry, but I can't dumb it down any more.

[Alawen]

He's PMing me, too, but his messages are borderline literate. I guess I could rant and curse back, but it's not interesting. I told him that the people at the shopping mall are going to take his guns if he doesn't shoot them first.

[Barkingturtle]

I could rant and curse back, but it's not interesting.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pWdd6_ZxX8c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Seriously though, I don't denigrate what you do with your spare time.

[Turp]

people at the shopping mall are going to take his guns if he doesn't shoot them first. Great advice your so smart man,Ill do this an tell them you sent me k thx, and Barkingturtle you are not buttfucking anyone in public but yourself with nonsense posts about "how gun crowds wanna climb up their cross an die"....than turn around and say " but you can never disarm them im pro guns" i just wanted to keep thread clear from responding to every dumbass like you that has posted here during my exp trip tonight, but im off have fun and we all get it, your old, dumb ass name, no girlfriend your whole life, and havent had pussy since pussy had you. Little bitch.

[Barkingturtle]

Bro, if you are having trouble comprehending my posts ask one of your foster parents to read it to you. I am not going to hold your hand, because I'm no homo.

[Turp]

I'm no homo. You sure about that? your avatar speaks otherwise.

[Otur]

http://images.sscentral.org/reviews/cps2000_00.jpg

[Daldolma]

Hmm, I totally forgot how carrying a gun makes you more likely to be shot before someone that isn't carrying a gun.

You know who the idiot is in your situation? The one who thinks the guys with guns are idiots and chose not to carry because he is more intelligent.

Your entire post is fucking stupid. If anyone was too retarded to pour coffee, it would definitely be you.

Holy Christ how could you possibly miss the point so horribly.

I don't think carrying a gun makes you more likely to be shot. I think a bunch of retarded hillbillies carrying guns makes you more likely to be shot. I don't think everyone carrying a gun is an idiot. I think about 60% of the general population are idiots, and with 300,000,000 American citizens -- 50% of which own a firearm -- that means a lot of fucking morons with guns. Don't fret. There are a lot of fucking morons without guns, too. Those ones are less likely to shoot me.

Also, what makes you think I choose not to carry? Because I acknowledge that owning a gun likely wouldn't mean dick if some psycho decided to burst into a movie, toss tear gas, and start shooting people with an AR-15? Because I'm not pro-gun? Neither of those things mean I don't own a gun and know how to use it. You are clearly pro-gun. Do you typically have a loaded firearm on your person when you go to the movies? How about at work? Do you typically have one on you when you go into a coffee shop? If the answer is no, then you'd be as fucked as everyone else in the past 3 spree shootings in the US.

In America, it makes sense to own a gun for personal protection. But it's not going to save you in the majority of random shootings. And if I had to give up my gun to get guns out of the hands of a few million irresponsible dimwits and/or lunatics likely to shoot someone? That's a great trade, as far as I'm concerned.

[Harmonium]

http://i.imgur.com/CIGOd.jpg

[Harmonium]

http://www.examiner.com/article/so-called-gun-free-zones-never-protect-the-innocent

"Holmes was apparently prepared to kill many more, as police have reported the shooter was carrying 6,000 rounds of ammunition.

While every aspect on the alleged shooter's life will be analyzed by the mainstream press in the days to come, the MSM will undoubtedly overlook the fact that the Century 16 movie theater had a firm policy against firearms, even for those who have concealed weapons permits.

WorldNetDaily reports that the theater's parent company, Cinemark Holdings Inc. has a strict 'gun-free' policy at all of their 459 theaters across the U.S. and Latin America.

Given this, the similarities between this and the Virginia Tech massacre are striking and a bit maddening."

Seems pretty logical to me. I mean, if you were planning on going on a killing spree, you'd pick a "gun free" zone for it wouldn't you??

[Happyfeet]

Blackwater Tactical edition, sooooo nasty~
And no longer available.

[Stalahoy]

Just a little Ruger 22 rifle. Keep hollow points in it so if i end up having to use it in the house, wont kill the neighbors. Fucking sick 30-06 goof.

[Autotune]

Holy Christ how could you possibly miss the point so horribly.

I don't think carrying a gun makes you more likely to be shot. I think a bunch of retarded hillbillies carrying guns makes you more likely to be shot. I don't think everyone carrying a gun is an idiot. I think about 60% of the general population are idiots, and with 300,000,000 American citizens -- 50% of which own a firearm -- that means a lot of fucking morons with guns. Don't fret. There are a lot of fucking morons without guns, too. Those ones are less likely to shoot me.

Also, what makes you think I choose not to carry? Because I acknowledge that owning a gun likely wouldn't mean dick if some psycho decided to burst into a movie, toss tear gas, and start shooting people with an AR-15? Because I'm not pro-gun? Neither of those things mean I don't own a gun and know how to use it. You are clearly pro-gun. Do you typically have a loaded firearm on your person when you go to the movies? How about at work? Do you typically have one on you when you go into a coffee shop? If the answer is no, then you'd be as fucked as everyone else in the past 3 spree shootings in the US.

In America, it makes sense to own a gun for personal protection. But it's not going to save you in the majority of random shootings. And if I had to give up my gun to get guns out of the hands of a few million irresponsible dimwits and/or lunatics likely to shoot someone? That's a great trade, as far as I'm concerned.


If that is not what you meant, then perhaps you should try to convey that information in a way that it does not state what you do not mean.

I also carry every where at all times. I choose not to visit places where I can't carry and the only places I visit that I don't carry are places that it isn't required (military bases, etc.)

You giving up your gun/s will never get the guns out of hands of other people. If you think this is even possible, you're delusional.

[Autotune]

Do you have any point at all or do you just enjoy bickering mindlessly?

My point is/was that your point was useless. However, some people will never admit that they were mistaken or not as correct as they thought previously.

[Happyfeet]

If that is not what you meant, then perhaps you should try to convey that information in a way that it does not state what you do not mean.

I also carry every where at all times. I choose not to visit places where I can't carry and the only places I visit that I don't carry are places that it isn't required (military bases, etc.)

You giving up your gun/s will never get the guns out of hands of other people. If you think this is even possible, you're delusional.

Stealin wins this round by a landslide with his secret weapon, logic.

[Harmonium]

http://i.imgur.com/aujad.jpg

[Happyfeet]

http://i.qkme.me/3q6epo.jpg

[Alawen]

My point is/was that your point was useless. However, some people will never admit that they were mistaken or not as correct as they thought previously.

My point was extremely straightforward. All evidence suggests that the presence of more guns results in more gun violence. The theory forwarded in this thread is that the solution to situations like the Aurora shooting is the presence of more guns. That theory has no evidence to support it whatsoever.

Because you claim not to enter any environment without your gun, you would not have been in the theater to prevent the Aurora shooting. In reality, you're making all of this up and you would have cowered between rows of seats when bullets started flying in the dark like any sane person.

None of this will stop you from continue your right-fighting based on nothing but supposition and rhetoric. You're trying to play gun-toting badass on the internet. I, for one, am not impressed. I doubt anyone else is either.

I'm Chuck Norris on the internet. Also, Hitler.

[Ephirith]

Second Amendment was devised when "arms" meant fucking muskets. You couldn't take a musket and blow someone's head off from half a mile away. You couldn't spray bullets into a room full of people with a musket. Why aren't you fucking gun nuts complaining that the government won't let you carry around sticks of dynamite? I deserve the right to detonate myself and turn everybody within 50 feet into a fine red mist, the Constitution says so. How else am I supposed to defend myself?

Using your logic we should completely cease going through the trouble to prevent nuclear proliferation. Every country has the right to stockpile a bunch of nukes to defend itself. Clearly the bad countries are going to be able to get nukes anyway, right? So we might as well go the opposite direction and make sure EVERYONE has nukes so that if the bad people do show up with nukes, we can just nuke the fuck out of them! Yes, I want to live in that world.

I am 100% in favor of a world where everyone is carrying a loaded gun. Irresponsible, irrational, hotheaded, human beings, we should all be armed. That way every time there is a fight or a scuffle, or a riot, somebody is getting shot!

Let's see what am I missing?:
-Jews did 9/11
-Ron Paul for President
-Ayn Rand was totally right about everything
-Education is for liberal sheep
-My manager is a total dick

[Daldolma]

If that is not what you meant, then perhaps you should try to convey that information in a way that it does not state what you do not mean.

I also carry every where at all times. I choose not to visit places where I can't carry and the only places I visit that I don't carry are places that it isn't required (military bases, etc.)

You giving up your gun/s will never get the guns out of hands of other people. If you think this is even possible, you're delusional.

I didn't state anything I didn't mean, nor did I imply what you inferred. 9/10 dentists agree, you suck at reading.

You also don't carry 'everywhere at all times'. You can't carry on planes, you can't carry at school, and I'd assume you didn't reject flight or education out of sheer paranoia. But for the sake of discussion, I'll assume you actually carry guns everywhere it's legal. You'd still be fucked in two of the past three spree shootings in the US.

Here's the part you're not grasping: if someone has a gun and wants to shoot you, he's pretty much going to shoot you. The scenarios in which having a gun is going to actually help you defend yourself are exceptions to overwhelming odds against. Even still, 50% of Americans own guns. That means that, out of fear of an exceptionally uncommon circumstance, you've got nearly 100 million armed civilians. That's a lot of idiots with killing machines.

And obviously giving up my guns isn't going to make other people give up their guns. The point is that I'd be in favor of legislation that would result in significantly fewer total gun owners, even if that meant I couldn't own guns myself. Most of these mass murderers aren't people who have had guns lying around for ages. They're people that go nuts and buy stockpiles of weaponry over the course of a few months prior to the shootings. If they couldn't do that, there likely wouldn't be nearly as many mass shootings.

[Turp]

Second Amendment was devised when "arms" meant fucking muskets. You couldn't take a musket and blow someone's head off from half a mile away. You couldn't spray bullets into a room full of people with a musket. Why aren't you fucking gun nuts complaining that the government won't let you carry around sticks of dynamite? I deserve the right to detonate myself and turn everybody within 50 feet into a fine red mist, the Constitution says so. How else am I supposed to defend myself?= GTFO of the country than, they have the laws you want in North Korea, i believe that will suit you well.

[Harmonium]

My point was extremely straightforward. All evidence suggests that the presence of more guns results in more gun violence.

Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung
Mussolini
Castro
All of these people required that their citizens relinquish their fire arms for the safety of all.(these are just the ones that come off the top my head for the 20th century.)

These men all salute you sir.

[Harmonium]

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.


Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

-----------------

Relationship between type of gun owned and
percent committing street, drug and gun crimes.
Illegal gun:
Street crimes = 74%
Drug use = 41%
Gun crimes = 21%

No gun:
Street crimes = 24%
Drug use = 15%
Gun crimes = 1%

Legal Gun:
Street crimes = 14%
Drug use = 13%
Gun crimes = 0%

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995.

-----------------

Making it legally possible for civilians to carry concealed weapons does not make society more violent or result in shootouts at traffic accidents.
The rate of criminal misuse of firearms by the hundreds of thousands of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida is so low as to be statistically zero. In fact, homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public.


Sources: Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/ Firearms License Statistical Report and "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997.

---------------

Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely causes the person seeking death to use another means.
While gun-related suicides were reduced by Canada's gun control legislation of 1978, the overall suicide rate did not go down at all: the gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by an increase in other types of suicide -- mostly jumping off bridges.
"The authors describe suicide rates in Toronto and Ontario and methods used for suicide in Toronto for 5 years before and after enactment of Canadian gun control legislation in 1978. They also present data from San Diego, Calif., where state laws attempt to limit access to guns by certain psychiatric patients. Both sets of data indicate that gun control legislation may have led to decreased use of guns by suicidal men, but the difference was apparently offset by an increase in suicide by leaping. In the case of men using guns for suicide, these data support a hypothesis of substitution of suicide method."


Source: "Guns and suicide: possible effects of some specific legislation," Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black, The American Journal of Psychiatry March, 1990

[runlvlzero]

Ok i am getting out of this thread but wtf are you talking about ? Less guns sure as hell dont make it safer !! the number one cause of death the past 100 years is democide not homicide or suicide you dumb shit! Governments routinely murder millions

So Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout the past 100 or so years, almost ALWAYS immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
See more at:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Death by government:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM

A “monopoly of force” in government is FAR more dangerous than a crazed lone shooter
So yes, James Holmes The batman killer and other crazed shooters kill a number of people each year in random acts of violence. It’s horrifying and wrong, but it’s nothing compared to the millions of lives that governments tend to destroy when they gain total power over the populace.
The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it’s a government with a “monopoly of force” over the entire population. And that’s exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: Stripping all power from individual citizens and handing “monopolies of force” to the governments of the world, faking their positions as the only “legitimate” power on the planet.
BAN CARS BAN GUNS HURRR HURRR, fucking sheep

/agreed but its a simple fact that most people don't bother to educate themselves and rely on MSNBC to do it for them and some ditzy blonde with no clue.

[Ephirith]

Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung
Mussolini
Castro
All of these people required that their citizens relinquish their fire arms for the safety of all.(these are just the ones that come off the top my head for the 20th century.)

These men all salute you sir.

All of those people were men, I suppose everything about men is wrong as well? I suppose they all also wore shoes. That makes about as much sense as your shitty analogy, and it does nothing to speak of the facts and statistics behind gun violence.

[Harmonium]

Are you surprised by these facts?

Maybe it's because the TV networks are deliberately not telling you about them.

According to a January 5, 2000 special report by Geoffrey Dickens, Senior Media Analyst of the Media Research Center, "In 1997, criminologist Gary Kleck estimated that over 2.5 million people a year defend themselves from an assailant or burglar by exercising their constitutional right to bear arms.

Yet how many times did television networks report such acts?

In the past two years(2000-2002), out of 653 gun policy stories, exactly 12 times.

[Harmonium]

and it does nothing to speak of the facts and statistics behind gun violence.

Please refer to my previous post for some statistics behind gun violence.

[Harmonium]

All of those people were men, I suppose everything about men is wrong as well?

Yes those were men. That's not my point however. It's the ideology those men shared with gun control nuts. That is the correlating point. Nice straw man though!

[Daldolma]

Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung
Mussolini
Castro
All of these people required that their citizens relinquish their fire arms for the safety of all.(these are just the ones that come off the top my head for the 20th century.)

These men all salute you sir.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Hitler did not require citizens to relinquish firearms. Prior to Hitler's reign, Germany had already enacted gun registration laws -- and those already exist in the US. The only gun-restrictive measure that took effect while Hitler was in power dealt with Jews and non-citizens. Plenty of citizens owned legally-registered guns under Hitler.

I don't know specifics about the other names on your list, but if you're going to botch the most infamous, I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt on the rest. Equally importantly, by your apparent definition of 'requiring citizens to relinquish their fire arms', every politician in recent world history that has passed any form of gun-restrictive measure (anything from registration to limitations on weaponry) would qualify for the list. The fact that you selectively choose the worst doesn't prove any actual point for people that realize what you're doing. Here's a list of people with brown hair:

Hitler
Stalin
Mussolini
Mao Zedong
Pol Pot
Saddam Hussein
Osama bin Laden

[Kraftwerk]

All of those people were men, I suppose everything about men is wrong as well? I suppose they all also wore shoes. That makes about as much sense as your shitty analogy, and it does nothing to speak of the facts and statistics behind gun violence.

I would call you out for straw manning it, but you even failed at that. You just sound like an idiot. Refute his point head on (Despots demanding relinquish guns prior to atrocities committed) not make a stupid analogy about wearing shoes.