Americans and Guns (post pics of your armory !)

[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>

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

I never said I was a gun-toting badass. I think that is quite obvious if you could read. I have also been shot at before, it wasn't fun then and it wouldn't be fun again. However, I would not hide like a coward and wait for my turn at the barrel when I could do something.

Cowering when you have the ability to save lives isn't sane. It's straight lunacy.

Glad to know a "marine" vet. was out there that had this mentality, yet now I totally question your previous statement of serving.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I never said I was a gun-toting badass. I think that is quite obvious if you could read. I have also been shot at before, it wasn't fun then and it wouldn't be fun again. However, I would not hide like a coward and wait for my turn at the barrel when I could do something.

Cowering when you have the ability to save lives isn't sane. It's straight lunacy.

Glad to know a "marine" vet. was out there that had this mentality, yet now I totally question your previous statement of serving.

That's an exciting life you're living, son. Toting that iron with you every wear you go, bullets whizzing by your head. Oh, wait. You've been watching movies again and forgetting it's not real, haven't you?

One of the service men who was actually in the Aurora shooting did exactly what I typed. He threw his girlfriend to the floor and covered her with his body. Then he took one for the team. She survived.

Standing there and returning fire is the fastest way to becoming one of the victims. You won't find one member of the police force or military who will endorse that tactic, unless you count Dirty Harry. You're seriously delusional, kid.

[Barkingturtle]

Originally Posted by Turp

^ 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.