Post: #251

(12-16-2012 10:17 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:09 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:05 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  "Yes, there is a cost to freedom. Look at the number of auto fatalities we have in the US, which dwarfs gun homicides. Should we give up cars?"

Please guys...stop using this as part of an argument to defend gun ownership. The automobile was built to provide transportation. With the exception of the rare incidents where someone purposely uses an automobile to run someone down, deaths resulting from cars are accidents. And laws have been placed in effect to punish those who operate vehicles while impaired as if they killed someone with a weapon. Guns are made to kill. When someone uses one, it is with the intent to kill. Let's stop comparing guns to cars.

And yet, that's very telling isn't it? Weapons that are used to kill are causing much less death than automobiles. So how much of a "problem" is it really?

And the other comment about how the media only reports negative incidences rather than positive ones regarding guns. YOU MEAN THE ANTIGUN LIBERAL MEDIA?

You replaced "stories" with "incidences." That's dishonest. I'm referring to what and how the media reports ANY story, not just stories involving guns.

I am too. A liberal media that reports stories that further's their agenda. You're telling me that a 14 year old kid defending his family and his home isn't newsworthy? That's a great story but you won't get national attention because it's pro gun.

Post: #252

(12-16-2012 10:25 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:17 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:09 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:05 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  "Yes, there is a cost to freedom. Look at the number of auto fatalities we have in the US, which dwarfs gun homicides. Should we give up cars?"

Please guys...stop using this as part of an argument to defend gun ownership. The automobile was built to provide transportation. With the exception of the rare incidents where someone purposely uses an automobile to run someone down, deaths resulting from cars are accidents. And laws have been placed in effect to punish those who operate vehicles while impaired as if they killed someone with a weapon. Guns are made to kill. When someone uses one, it is with the intent to kill. Let's stop comparing guns to cars.

And yet, that's very telling isn't it? Weapons that are used to kill are causing much less death than automobiles. So how much of a "problem" is it really?

And the other comment about how the media only reports negative incidences rather than positive ones regarding guns. YOU MEAN THE ANTIGUN LIBERAL MEDIA?

You replaced "stories" with "incidences." That's dishonest. I'm referring to what and how the media reports ANY story, not just stories involving guns.

I am too. A liberal media that reports stories that further's their agenda. You're telling me that a 14 year old kid defending his family and his home isn't newsworthy? That's a great story but you won't get national attention because it's pro gun.

Are you saying the mass media should promote guns? That would be akin to promoting violence and bloodshed. They simply can't take that side of the issue.

Post: #253

I wonder how anti-gun G is?

   

Post: #254

(12-16-2012 10:28 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:25 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:17 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:09 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:05 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  "Yes, there is a cost to freedom. Look at the number of auto fatalities we have in the US, which dwarfs gun homicides. Should we give up cars?"

Please guys...stop using this as part of an argument to defend gun ownership. The automobile was built to provide transportation. With the exception of the rare incidents where someone purposely uses an automobile to run someone down, deaths resulting from cars are accidents. And laws have been placed in effect to punish those who operate vehicles while impaired as if they killed someone with a weapon. Guns are made to kill. When someone uses one, it is with the intent to kill. Let's stop comparing guns to cars.

And yet, that's very telling isn't it? Weapons that are used to kill are causing much less death than automobiles. So how much of a "problem" is it really?

And the other comment about how the media only reports negative incidences rather than positive ones regarding guns. YOU MEAN THE ANTIGUN LIBERAL MEDIA?

You replaced "stories" with "incidences." That's dishonest. I'm referring to what and how the media reports ANY story, not just stories involving guns.

I am too. A liberal media that reports stories that further's their agenda. You're telling me that a 14 year old kid defending his family and his home isn't newsworthy? That's a great story but you won't get national attention because it's pro gun.

Are you saying the mass media should promote guns? That would be akin to promoting violence and bloodshed. They simply can't take that side of the issue.

Am I the only one here that sees these antigun guys as being irrational and drawing the most illogical conclusions? Honestly Timoteo that makes no sense. At least you're indirectly acknowledging that the media has a liberal agenda.

Post: #255

(12-16-2012 10:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I wonder how anti-gun G is?

All Californians are anti gun hippies or gang members dude.

Post: #256

(12-16-2012 10:28 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  Are you saying the mass media should promote guns? That would be akin to promoting violence and bloodshed.

An ostensibly reasonable, but unsubstantiated connection the antis always use. Yet the data shows otherwise.

Post: #257

(12-16-2012 10:38 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:28 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:25 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:17 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:09 PM)Fisto Wrote:  And yet, that's very telling isn't it? Weapons that are used to kill are causing much less death than automobiles. So how much of a "problem" is it really?

And the other comment about how the media only reports negative incidences rather than positive ones regarding guns. YOU MEAN THE ANTIGUN LIBERAL MEDIA?

You replaced "stories" with "incidences." That's dishonest. I'm referring to what and how the media reports ANY story, not just stories involving guns.

I am too. A liberal media that reports stories that further's their agenda. You're telling me that a 14 year old kid defending his family and his home isn't newsworthy? That's a great story but you won't get national attention because it's pro gun.

Are you saying the mass media should promote guns? That would be akin to promoting violence and bloodshed. They simply can't take that side of the issue.

Am I the only one here that sees these antigun guys as being irrational and drawing the most illogical conclusions? Honestly Timoteo that makes no sense. At least you're indirectly acknowledging that the media has a liberal agenda.

It seems YOU'RE being emotional. I merely asked you a question. I've stated my own position on guns on a number of posts, so I'm not going to restate. By my asking you a simple question, you've labeled me. You're making it personal - I'm speaking in general.

Post: #258

"An ostensibly reasonable, but unsubstantiated connection the antis always use."

Perception pretty much becomes reality. And our society doesn't like nuance and grey areas. For the media to somehow appear to encourage and promote gun ownership and use, the inference would be that they are promoting violence, even if that weren't the intention.

Post: #259

"Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools."

The massacre at Virginia Tech happened in a zone where guns were prohibited. From the article, the Aurora movie theater massacre happened at the only 1 of 7 theaters within a 20 minute drive of the killers home which had a policy that prohibited CCW. When was the last time you heard of a mass killing at a gun range or police station? While these perps are completely out of their minds, they aren't stupid. Any further efforts made in this country that try to protect the innocent from being victims is actually putting them at further risk of being a victim.

Not that the chance of you being involved in something of this nature is really high anyway.

Post: #260

(12-16-2012 10:53 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  "An ostensibly reasonable, but unsubstantiated connection the antis always use."

Perception pretty much becomes reality. And our society doesn't like nuance and grey areas. For the media to somehow appear to encourage and promote gun ownership and use, the inference would be that they are promoting violence, even if that weren't the intention.

I'm not at all.

Let's look at this statement which is typical of liberal thought. In it you take an unrelated maxim and then tie it into an assertion formed in a negative context. Because you can't "prove" a negative the implication is that you're right by default. This is all baloney of course since by your own argument the glorification of shooters is promoting guns. The fact is, newsworthy stories aren't aired simply because they don't fit the liberal agenda. There's zero evidence to suggest reporting the story of a kid defending his home and family will cause people to go out and shoot and kill innocents but that's what you're claiming.

Let me do it the opposite way. If stories that showed the proper use of guns as they were intended were aired, more people would use safe gun practices and fewer criminals would commit crimes if they thought well trained and armed citizens would retaliate.

This thread is full of facts that destroy the anti gun arguments but those are also being willfully ignored.

Post: #261

(12-16-2012 11:21 PM)Fisto Wrote:  This thread is full of facts that destroy the anti gun arguments but those are also being willfully ignored.

Same thing in the Zimmerman thread when the antis started in, and a bunch of us came back with facts and logic - this was summarily ignored and all we got was emoting. Always the same story. I don't post to convince the antis. My goal is to help inform the guys who live in the big liberal cities and are constantly being fed anti-gun propaganda, have never owned guns, but have a feeling that the anti arguments don't hold up to any serious scrutiny or even common sense (that was the position I was in before I did a lot of reading on the matter and became pro-2A).

I have yet to take a newbie shooting who doesn't walk away thinking they've been misled about guns their entire lives (sound familiar to guys at RVF vis-a-vis women???).

Post: #262

(12-16-2012 11:21 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:53 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  "An ostensibly reasonable, but unsubstantiated connection the antis always use."

Perception pretty much becomes reality. And our society doesn't like nuance and grey areas. For the media to somehow appear to encourage and promote gun ownership and use, the inference would be that they are promoting violence, even if that weren't the intention.

I'm not at all.

Let's look at this statement which is typical of liberal thought. In it you take an unrelated maxim and then tie it into an assertion formed in a negative context. Because you can't "prove" a negative the implication is that you're right by default. This is all baloney of course since by your own argument the glorification of shooters is promoting guns. The fact is, newsworthy stories aren't aired simply because they don't fit the liberal agenda. There's zero evidence to suggest reporting the story of a kid defending his home and family will cause people to go out and shoot and kill innocents but that's what you're claiming.

Let me do it the opposite way. If stories that showed the proper use of guns as they were intended were aired, more people would use safe gun practices and fewer criminals would commit crimes if they thought well trained and armed citizens would retaliate.

This thread is full of facts that destroy the anti gun arguments but those are also being willfully ignored.

Can you prove this? HA HA!

Post: #263

(12-16-2012 11:34 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 11:21 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:53 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  "An ostensibly reasonable, but unsubstantiated connection the antis always use."

Perception pretty much becomes reality. And our society doesn't like nuance and grey areas. For the media to somehow appear to encourage and promote gun ownership and use, the inference would be that they are promoting violence, even if that weren't the intention.

I'm not at all.

Let's look at this statement which is typical of liberal thought. In it you take an unrelated maxim and then tie it into an assertion formed in a negative context. Because you can't "prove" a negative the implication is that you're right by default. This is all baloney of course since by your own argument the glorification of shooters is promoting guns. The fact is, newsworthy stories aren't aired simply because they don't fit the liberal agenda. There's zero evidence to suggest reporting the story of a kid defending his home and family will cause people to go out and shoot and kill innocents but that's what you're claiming.

Let me do it the opposite way. If stories that showed the proper use of guns as they were intended were aired, more people would use safe gun practices and fewer criminals would commit crimes if they thought well trained and armed citizens would retaliate.

This thread is full of facts that destroy the anti gun arguments but those are also being willfully ignored.

Can you prove this? HA HA!

Are you denying that people do not imitate behaviors shown in the media?

Post: #264

(12-16-2012 11:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 11:34 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 11:21 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:53 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  "An ostensibly reasonable, but unsubstantiated connection the antis always use."

Perception pretty much becomes reality. And our society doesn't like nuance and grey areas. For the media to somehow appear to encourage and promote gun ownership and use, the inference would be that they are promoting violence, even if that weren't the intention.

I'm not at all.

Let's look at this statement which is typical of liberal thought. In it you take an unrelated maxim and then tie it into an assertion formed in a negative context. Because you can't "prove" a negative the implication is that you're right by default. This is all baloney of course since by your own argument the glorification of shooters is promoting guns. The fact is, newsworthy stories aren't aired simply because they don't fit the liberal agenda. There's zero evidence to suggest reporting the story of a kid defending his home and family will cause people to go out and shoot and kill innocents but that's what you're claiming.

Let me do it the opposite way. If stories that showed the proper use of guns as they were intended were aired, more people would use safe gun practices and fewer criminals would commit crimes if they thought well trained and armed citizens would retaliate.

This thread is full of facts that destroy the anti gun arguments but those are also being willfully ignored.

Can you prove this? HA HA!

Are you denying that people do not imitate behaviors shown in the media?

Media in general, or the news, which you have a particular issue with?

Post: #265

Also, I never said that the media glorified shooters, thus promoted guns. I said the media reports/promotes the biggest, most explosive stories. A mass shooting of children will always garner more press than someone defending their home against an intruder. You see this as an anti-gun bias, while I see it more through the prism of the news business. Those two views may very much tie together, but the moment someone starts applying the liberal/conservative label to a discussion, we lose our way. The same with the conspiracy angles. One of the biggest complaints I hear from people in general about the news is that "it's so negative." All murders and other criminality, or politics, and not enough human interest stories and feel-good shit. For both the print and televised media, they're going to go with what sells.

Another popular complaint about other media, namely tv and film, is that there's too much sex and violence. That's what sells. You can toss music into the mix also - that certain kinds of music (let's be honest...the beef is with Hip-Hop/Rap) promotes violence and sexuality. I'm sure there is influence of some kind on the public, but how do you measure that? Advertising is purposely manipulative, but other media? It's all about the dollar. As long as folks are buying, they'll generate more of it. And face it...their are choices. Personally, I love action/violence/sex in my movies. I just can't make the reach that it's media that drives people to walk into a school or theater and start shooting.

Post: #266

(12-15-2012 04:05 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:46 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:39 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:33 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:14 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I actually thought about this, but here's the problem - a person's medical records are confidential. In running checks for a person's criminal record to judge their fitness to own a weapon, how do we check for mental fitness? Good luck trying to pass legislation that allows access to these kinds of records.

Couldn't an individual consent to sharing their records?

I suppose this is possible, but that's assuming a person has had any past treatment. If they've never had a psych assessment, are you recommending one be done? Then you'd have to wait for the results before you could get your handgun. I know part of the NRA's issue is they are against the 2 week waiting period. The way the healthcare system works, it could be weeks before you got an appointment, then a few more weeks before the results came through.

Of course its possible.

A reasonable gun control initiative: To own a gun you must undergo a mental health examination and consent to share the results of that examination to the proper authorities.

You don't want to consent sharing the results of that mental health examination? Fine. You just won't be issued a gun license. Anyone find issue with this?

I'm good with this, but the NRA wouldn't be. And since they largely speak for gun owners, the public would need to do battle with their own lobby. And I also see the "government intrusion" argument growing out of this.

That's true but the whole 'government intrusion' argument ignites anytime any kind of legislation is put forth. The whole 'big government' and 'government intrusion' argument is just nonsense. It doesn't have any kind of meaning anymore. It is utterly banal.

When Eisenhower signed the Highway Act in the 1950s to create the Interstate system there were people going crazy calling it government intrusion. People who stand against progress always use similar arguments. There is really nothing new and fresh about our political system. Winston Churchill was right when he said, "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

Post: #267

Great....

... A Baptist Church less than an hour from my home is planning on protesting the funerals of those killed on Friday. The churchgoers are of the "God Hates Fags" persuasion. They're also known for picketing military funerals.

More negative press for Cincinnati.

Post: #268

(12-16-2012 10:18 PM)houston Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:04 PM)garygroundwork Wrote:  yeah there's no point..you're right. Trying to argue logic and common sense with gun lovers is a waste of time. My bad.

This is how a lot of anti gun people are. It's a lot like liberals and those ugly feminists who claim to be so open minded. They're closed minded as hell, give off a nasty "holier than thou" attitude and start calling you all sorts of names when you don't agree with them. I'm sure they think I'm some sort of militia, Republican, backwards freak just for having a pistol and not putting all my faith in cops to rescue me if my life's in danger.

LMAO...let's not pretend it's only one side that is close minded. No matter which side you're on you're convinced the other side is close minded...and both sides are right about that.

Post: #269

(12-17-2012 12:52 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  Great....

... A Baptist Church less than an hour from my home is planning on protesting the funerals of those killed on Friday. The churchgoers are of the "God Hates Fags" persuasion. They're also known for picketing military funerals.

More negative press for Cincinnati.

Sadly one of the guys I talk to another board lost his cousin in this and they were alerted these westboro baptist nuts were tweeting about being there and that they may encounter them. No matter which side of the gun debate you're on you should be for putting a bat to each and every one of these pieces of shit.

Post: #270

(12-16-2012 03:27 PM)assman Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 11:57 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

assman Wrote:Let’s take a look at the UK, that Sarah Brady paradise of gun control, where gun crime has gone up 89% in a decade. By contrast, lawful gun ownership in the US has been increasing steadily and gun crime has been decreasing. This is even more pronounced if you exclude the parts of the country with the strictest gun control (Chicago, DC, etc.). I posted this along with sources in an earlier thread - I think it was the Zimmerman thread.

That's not a proper argument. By looking at the worldwide stats for firearm-related death rates, I see that USA's rate is 9 (compared to Mexico's 11 and Jamaica's 45), but the UK's is only 0.25.

0.25 * 1.89 = a bit less than 0.5, which is still twenty times less than the USA. Surely you don't believe that such an enormous difference between the two countries can be explained by more gang activity in the USA or whatever.

Ah, the ‘firearms death’ argument. As if dying by knife or bat is better than dying by gunshot.

Let’s look at violent crime in the UK - The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. The UK, that nationwide ‘gun-free’ zone has a violent crime rate 4X that of the US.

And as I noted earlier, even with the UK’s gun ban, it has seen gun crime nearly double in the last decade - yes, gun crime is still a small absolute number there, but if gun control works, why has the gun crime rate nearly doubled in the last decade?

This is yet another evasion. You are implying that more people (compared to population size) get killed each year in the UK than the USA, only that in the UK they're dying from being knifed or beaten to death.

...yet the murder rate for USA is 4.2, whereas for UK it's 1.2.

Violent crime includes any injury, even light injuries, so it's not a good comparison. But if you insist on using it, you've just proven my point - UK, despite being way more violent in general, still manages to keep its people from massacring each other!

It's possible that UK has three times more beatings and knifings that leave people permanently disabled or in a coma, as opposed to the USA where they just die instantly, so that the end effect is roughly the same. But I'm not buying that.

p.s. I'm not denying that some guns have to exist somewhere to keep people safe, as per Kipling's (or Orwell0s) "People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf". I just don't think your facts about (lack of) correlation between gun control and deaths / gun-related deaths are accurate.

Post: #271

(12-16-2012 03:27 PM)assman Wrote:  Ah, the ‘firearms death’ argument. As if dying by knife or bat is better than dying by gunshot.

Show me how the boy could have killed 26 people with a knife or a bat that easily.

Having automatic weapons makes killing a heck lot easier.

Post: #272

I've read through this whole thread, the whole debate about gun control makes me laugh. I have no say either way, all I'll say is I'm happy that 0.07 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in the UK.

Also the crime/gun statistics reported by assman on the UK are incorrect, especially when the article has the balls to say Gun crime in the UK is worse than South Africa....yeh right.

Carry on anyway, it's sad that you guys have to have this discussion once a month whilst we have it...erm...once so far in my lifetime (1996).

Post: #273

Show me how the boy could have killed 26 people with a knife or a bat that easily.
[/quote]

Richard Speck tortured, raped and killed eight nursing students. At once. Armed only with a knife. Because he did good victim selection.

Likewise, this jackass selected a bunch of 1st grade children age 6. It would have only taken more time, but at that age they were defenseless lambs to the slaughter.

And of course infamously 2,996 people were killed. By jackasses armed only with box cutters.

Post: #274

(12-15-2012 03:46 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:39 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:33 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 03:14 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I actually thought about this, but here's the problem - a person's medical records are confidential. In running checks for a person's criminal record to judge their fitness to own a weapon, how do we check for mental fitness? Good luck trying to pass legislation that allows access to these kinds of records.

Couldn't an individual consent to sharing their records?

I suppose this is possible, but that's assuming a person has had any past treatment. If they've never had a psych assessment, are you recommending one be done? Then you'd have to wait for the results before you could get your handgun. I know part of the NRA's issue is they are against the 2 week waiting period. The way the healthcare system works, it could be weeks before you got an appointment, then a few more weeks before the results came through.

Of course its possible.

A reasonable gun control initiative: To own a gun you must undergo a mental health examination and consent to share the results of that examination to the proper authorities.

You don't want to consent sharing the results of that mental health examination? Fine. You just won't be issued a gun license. Anyone find issue with this?

This type of solution is what I had in mind. And perhaps taking it a step further by requiring ALL existing gun owners to submit to a mental health assessment. If they fail, their guns are taken away.

Post: #275

The current Mayor of NYC, Mike Bloomberg, is a huge proponent of gun control. He sued the State of Virginia, because so many guns recovered here in NY were traced back to gun shops down there. Guys hop on Greyhound and roll down there. They get a motel/hotel room, and go shopping, using that as their address. They wait for the check to be run, then they can buy as many guns as they can carry. Then they roll back up to NYC. They actually profiled what a typical gunrunner would be wearing or carrying, so undercovers walk around Port Authority bus terminal watching for guys that might fit the profile. Oddly enough, Mr. Arch-Conservative law & order Rudy Giuliani actually went after guns also. He went after retired cops and others that were legitimate owners. If they couldn't show a legitimate cause to own a gun, he made them give them up.