[Death_Taco]

Vote a ****** up: http://bit.ly/ZZIf0N

[Death_Taco]

Originally Posted by ]TSS[ Dake

If you've ever gone hiking with a gun, folding stock is far more convenient.

It was meant for transportation. Not really for adjustable length for the shooter past maybe 1-2 clicks inward.

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by Dirtybirdy51

SPP: I saw that **** as a kid. He'll, as a child I pretended like I was in the army and was shooting people. I'm not ****ed up tho. I don't go around committing murderous crimes.

I think it's individual people which are the problem. Some people are just ****ed up individuals and there isn't too much we can do about it.

I do think the media encourages the crazies. Not to mention gives them more ideas.

Crazy people are not rational, so trying to apply logic to them...

[Mr.Familiar]

Originally Posted by Smart Parts Player12

The issue at hand isn't guns, it's this broken system that glorifies death and destruction. You can't change the channel on your television without seeing someone being shot or blown up. It's so totally ingrained in society.

It's always been ingrained in society. People have always killed other people, brutally. The issue at hand is the efficiency in which lives can be taken at, at least that's what we are led to believe.

[VETERANwalkON]

I'm meeting up for a drink with a girl from POF tomorrow. Seems like she could be crazy, but we'll see.

[Pelto123]

More people on my wall posting about and apparently believing in the conspiracy theory that the government staged the Sandy Hook tragedy inorder to ban guns and form NWO.

Almost makes me want to buy a gun to protect myself from such people.

[gunzzzz]

Originally Posted by Smart Parts Player12

The issue at hand isn't guns, it's this broken system that glorifies death and destruction. You can't change the channel on your television without seeing someone being shot or blown up. It's so totally ingrained in society.

Bro, that would require people actually thinking, and addressing the issue rather than just banning **** so people feel safe, until it happens again.

[gunzzzz]

Originally Posted by Pelto123

More people on my wall posting about and apparently believing in the conspiracy theory that the government staged the Sandy Hook tragedy inorder to ban guns and form NWO.

Almost makes me want to buy a gun to protect myself from such people.

There is NOTHING wrong with responsible firearm ownership. If you don't have a responsible friend to show you the ropes, sign up for a basic class. Self defense is nothing to be ashamed of.

[Lurker27]

The reality of living in any society* is that you're trusting the other guy to not be a jackass and shoot/stab/detonate you. Ari is 100% correct in diagnosing the problem.

Gun laws will have essentially no correlation to crime. The only correlation that matters is that democrats who forward laws aligned with the views of their constituents are more likely to be re-elected.



*- This should tell you that the real 'engineering' of society that would reduce gun violence must take place at a more embedded cultural level. The decline in gun violence seen in this country, for example, is largely correlated to the decline in crack cocaine use (and therefore trafficking)

[hsilman]

you know what I just thought of that might be a good analogy to assault rifles, or maybe guns in general? drugs.(like pot, lsd, crack, etc; not prilosec)

They're something that no one "needs" to have. They serve no necessary function(unlike the car) in any iteration.

When used responsibly by well informed adults, they are a source of pleasure and enjoyable for all. However, when indulged in by irresponsible people, they are a major source of crime, probably the largest factor.

I would hazard a guess that most people who are pro-strict gun control legislation in our age group, are also pro-drug legalization.

[gunzzzz]

Originally Posted by hsilman

you know what I just thought of that might be a good analogy to assault rifles, or maybe guns in general? drugs.(like pot, lsd, crack, etc; not prilosec)

They're something that no one "needs" to have. They serve no necessary function(unlike the car) in any iteration.

When used responsibly by well informed adults, they are a source of pleasure and enjoyable for all. However, when indulged in by irresponsible people, they are a major source of crime, probably the largest factor.

I would hazard a guess that most people who are pro-strict gun control legislation in our age group, are also pro-drug legalization.

Tell that to anyone whos had to pull a gun in self defense..?

[Pump Revolution]

742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States last year alone. Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75 percent of the total — occurred in residential swimming pools.

About 175 children under the age of 10 died last year as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides.

We must ban swimming pools, think about the children

According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns. Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.

[Dirtybirdy51]

pump, while im still not for any ban on weapons and largely support your views on the matter, those are quotes are stupid as ****. you cannot equate a gun to a car to a swimming pool to a bee sting to herpes to cigarette smoking. **** just isnt the same.

[hsilman]

Originally Posted by gunzzzz

Tell that to anyone whos had to pull a gun in self defense..?

OK. So not guns in general, you're right. But we should all be able to agree that a semi automatic rifle is a poor choice for either personal or home defense.

Also, let's not forget that the vast majority of gun crimes are in the inner city over drugs.

Strangely, I am kind of thinking that having less restrictions on all non-handgun firearms while making handguns themselves illegal might actually be sensible legislation. It would seem that although we must accept that "criminals will break the law", there must be a reason that they heavily favor handguns. I making another guess and think its a combination of discretion when approaching along with the relatively low cost of both ammo and the weapon itself.

If handgun access was somehow limited, perhaps crime would actually go down?

That seems really poorly thought out lol. Just rambling really, because who gives a ****? Nothing we say here is going to change anything, and no matter what happens, all the way up to outlawing all guns or removing all restrictions, we'll all probably survive and nothing will really change.

I really wish that there was a more committed police presence in the areas that need it the most though. I see no less than a half dozen cops on my commute through midtown. My friend who lived in bed-stuy for a year never saw a single police man.

[cynicalrider]

But why remove something that isn't really the problem? All it does is make the "people" who feel this way, feel better and help politicians with their own agendas.

[Dirtybirdy51]

Originally Posted by hsilman

OK. So not guns in general, you're right. But we should all be able to agree that a semi automatic rifle is a poor choice for either personal or home defense.

how so? it does the same job as a handgun, and one could argue that perhaps it does a better job because you might be able to aim it more effectively (however i wouldnt know because ive never shot anything other than handguns and shotguns).

however, in terms of home defense, shotgun > *. point in general direction and shoot.

[hsilman]

Well two points.

One, a rifle is a bad choice compared the either a handgun or shotgun due to its size vs the area of a room in your house. But you already admitted a shotgun is better.

As for why remove something that isn't the problem, I'm only postulating it on the basis that I assume all handguns used by criminals were purchased legally at some point, so restricting access to them would reduce their use. Also, assuming access to rifles/shotguns is equivalent(not purchasing power, just access) and they are used in fewer crimes by far, there must be reasons for that. So if they can't get handguns as easily/cost is higher(due to lower supply), will they simply start using tools they currently aren't? Or simple resort to stabbing, or other less likely to be lethal methods?

I understand that many countries that restrict gun ownership have issues with crime. However, if we had statistics comparing the lethality of crimes before/after a ban, it would allow us as a population to make an informed decision. Maybe we would prefer more assaults/muggings if its a tradeoff for a lower overall murder rate? I don't think that's an irrational decision to make, though it's not the one I'd personally choose.

Obviously it would require a constitutional amendment, and I see current restrictions and all proposed ones as unconstitutional, but we should at least be allowed to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, the NRA works hard to block any funding for such a study.

I don't think our ownership of guns is anything special. We are not especially freer than other countries. Our govt ****s us just as much as the British or French, for instance. Gun ownership hasn't stopped Gitmo or the patriot act. I hasn't prevented the abuse of police power. It isn't magical.

And that's the extent of my playing devil's advocate. I can't do it anymore, and I wished to hell all this gun restriction crap would go away, and we'd just have good background checks for all sales and that's it. And the police would make an effort to help out in bad neighborhoods instead of sitting on their ***** in times square. And that drugs would be legalized and regulated already.

This **** raises my blood pressure.

[gunzzzz]

Originally Posted by hsilman

Well two points.

One, a rifle is a bad choice compared the either a handgun or shotgun due to its size vs the area of a room in your house. But you already admitted a shotgun is better.

As for why remove something that isn't the problem, I'm only postulating it on the basis that I assume all handguns used by criminals were purchased legally at some point, so restricting access to them would reduce their use. Also, assuming access to rifles/shotguns is equivalent(not purchasing power, just access) and they are used in fewer crimes by far, there must be reasons for that. So if they can't get handguns as easily/cost is higher(due to lower supply), will they simply start using tools they currently aren't? Or simple resort to stabbing, or other less likely to be lethal methods?

I understand that many countries that restrict gun ownership have issues with crime. However, if we had statistics comparing the lethality of crimes before/after a ban, it would allow us as a population to make an informed decision. Maybe we would prefer more assaults/muggings if its a tradeoff for a lower overall murder rate? I don't think that's an irrational decision to make, though it's not the one I'd personally choose.

Obviously it would require a constitutional amendment, and I see current restrictions and all proposed ones as unconstitutional, but we should at least be allowed to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, the NRA works hard to block any funding for such a study.

I don't think our ownership of guns is anything special. We are not especially freer than other countries. Our govt ****s us just as much as the British or French, for instance. Gun ownership hasn't stopped Gitmo or the patriot act. I hasn't prevented the abuse of police power. It isn't magical.

And that's the extent of my playing devil's advocate. I can't do it anymore, and I wished to hell all this gun restriction crap would go away, and we'd just have good background checks for all sales and that's it. And the police would make an effort to help out in bad neighborhoods instead of sitting on their ***** in times square. And that drugs would be legalized and regulated already.

This **** raises my blood pressure.

I don't feel like arguing your other points because I'm tired of it, but there are statistics and studies available on gun ownership and how it affects crime, and how cities who have enacted bans have faired. I'll point you to one study I know of off the top of my head..
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by Dirtybirdy51

however, in terms of home defense, shotgun > *. point in general direction and shoot.

I seriously hope this is a joke. In your home the shooting distance is generally within 20ft, at that range, any legal shotgun (18in barrel IIRC) will only spread about 3in of diameter in that distance. You you better make sure you aim well, especially since shotguns are low capacity.

[Dirtybirdy51]

.... and maybe im wrong. i dont know much about guns in general.

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by hsilman

If handgun access was somehow limited, perhaps crime would actually go down?

I doubt it, there are so many guns already in circulation, so while law abiding citizens turn their handguns in, criminals will retain them or buy surplus ones illegally. Violent crime increase in Europe after the gun ban happened, since criminals no longer feared being shot buy their victims. How else is a women supposed to defend herself from rape for example?

Gun crime may go down, BUT violent crime would likely increase.

Originally Posted by hsilman

One, a rifle is a bad choice compared the either a handgun or shotgun due to its size vs the area of a room in your house. But you already admitted a shotgun is better.

Handguns are mediocre compared to rifles when it comes to stopping someone. Only reason they exist is because it is not always feasible to carry a long gun around. Police for example carry handguns because of their portability, but if **** hit the fan they prefer to have that shotgun or rifle from their trunk.