I love a story with a happy ending.

Originally Posted by dteowner
OK, so you bitch that I ignore your proof. When I pretty well shoot all that supposed proof in the ass, you say that proof doesn't matter because gut feel is good enough. And I'm the fool. This is pointless.

Shoot? Don't you mean you gently poke it in the ass? Because nothing you're saying is changing how extremely convincing it is - unless you're being deliberately obtuse.

That's a common position when your opinion is challenged and you're not man enough to acknowledge an honest mistake, but please keep in mind that being willfully obtuse in this case is contributing to a lot of meaningless death.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
And what part of "being able to defend yourself against said army" did you miss? It's ludicrous to think you can stave off the government with guns. :/

If (hopefully not when), armed rebellion against the continued government intrusion into our lives come, I'd rather not be the guy that is unarmed.

Originally Posted by Pladio
Carrying a gun increases your likelihood of being shot

False causality. Most people that carry guns (not own, but actually carry) are doing so illegally and tend to come from lower income level areas that have more crime.

Saying that carrying a gun increases your likelihood of being shot is like saying that people who take cancer drugs are more likely to die of cancer than those that don't.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
False causality. Most people that carry guns (not own, but actually carry) are doing so illegally and tend to come from lower income level areas that have more crime.

Saying that carrying a gun increases your likelihood of being shot is like saying that people who take cancer drugs are more likely to die of cancer than those that don't.

while that analogy makes senses it fails in that you have a choice in owning a gun, ie and no one will be dying by a gun owners hand who doesn't own one, whereas preventing cancer is far from easy or certain.

i was thinking about this last night, more to do with violence in general, not guns persay. but i really believe this countries converstaion would more legit if we reinstated the draft. people would be less prone to be so open to aggresion when there are actual risks for them and their families. also i'm sure i'll get lambasted but if the draft were to involve a lottery i think one factor that could be used in weighting your chances were increased by the amount of violence in films/tv/games you exposed yourself to. although at 35 i'm not sure i would be eligble for that draft in princple people like myself who believes in non-violence would be held somewhat more accountable for spending a hefty chunk of time doing things, even if virtually that are in direct contrast to my beliefs. (i do take the non-violent approach in games if given the opportuinity, but that is a slim minority of games). of course there would realisticly be nearly impossible to tract anyhow without a massive infringement on our privacy so i can't forsee, or condone it happening to that end. still there needs to be some accounting for our societies uptick in intake of violent viceseral virtual experiences that lack the risk of prior generations exposure to violence and risk that are pretty much a part of human nature.

Many countries have mandatory military service. Not sure it would fly here, but it can be done. It would be interesting to see if widespread training in firearms would promote more or less gun ownership.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
False causality. Most people that carry guns (not own, but actually carry) are doing so illegally and tend to come from lower income level areas that have more crime.

Saying that carrying a gun increases your likelihood of being shot is like saying that people who take cancer drugs are more likely to die of cancer than those that don't.

I can easily deduce by what you have said that you only read the title and not the article linked.

Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

Well, that's convincing. At least the link you're so proud of actually works now.

Check this out, number 368: http://www.the-gutters.com/

Originally Posted by blatantninja
If (hopefully not when), armed rebellion against the continued government intrusion into our lives come, I'd rather not be the guy that is unarmed.

That if is a BIG fantasy. But whatever….

Originally Posted by blatantninja
If (hopefully not when), armed rebellion against the continued government intrusion into our lives come, I'd rather not be the guy that is unarmed.

Every extremist group have the notion that it is time to prepare and defend against whatever foe that is about to invade. Muslim extremists boost this notion against the great Satan (USA, and Jihad means "defense" or "defending Islam"), radical feminists boost this notion against the Patriarchy (the Swedish extremists during the 90'ies lived in continued fear for patriarchal satanists, gathering in small collectives that moved frequently because of fear of a "strike"), the racists do this regarding the immigrant rapist/criminal/whatever (while gathering and sharing links of media articles that "prove" that Arabs, Africans etc are up to no good), the same notions against the soviet union or Russia, China, Iran. These subcultures of fear share their fears among each-other, confirming each-others fear.

This is conspiracy theory. This is delusional. And it's often those who pass on this fear who are the more likely to take control, as have been in each case. It's groups like the Taliban who control and oppress people, forcing them under their ranks, shooting girls in the head. The radical feminist groups gathered people who ended up matriarchs over radical feminist cells and took control over their flock. Racism is built on oppression and often try to legitimate what they do and a nation in the fear of another nation will always meet a massive reduction in liberties for safety concerns.

And it's often same case with the liberty-seekers in the states. Every tyrant who has lived has believed in freedom for themselves. But I am not saying those who seek liberty are evil, they simply do not understand or grasp the necessity of authority to protect those who for various reasons cannot protect themselves. The elders, the young, the sick or just those who are busy living their lives.

These people, seeking liberty when they got a great lot, either do so because of a lack of moral capacity or because they wish to be authority over another.

Of course it's a delusion but if you don't have real causes you have to adopt unlikely ones. With knife you can say "it's needed to slice bread". With axe - "it's needed to chop wood". But with guns? It has to be "to protect myself against tyrannical government" or "to protect my wife from being raped". Sure, those scenarios are possible but 99% of us will never experience such a dire need.

another unhappy ending…… oh my god, that poor woman.

Hopefully she lives. And people are surprised when we feel that we need guns for protection, look at the people we live amongst.

Another unhappy ending for someone who had a gun

Guess, he wouldn't have been shot otherwise…

omg - It's a happy ending for me, i'm busting up here! What a way to go!

Police: Woman Smothered Boyfriend To Death With Her Breasts

Snohomish County authorities tell KIRO-TV that they were called out to the couple’s Airport Inn trailer park after witnesses heard the 51-year-old man yelling at her to get off of him after she threw him down. When authorities arrived, they found the man dead with Donna Lange on top of him, her chest smothering his face.

“She smothered him to death,” a witness told deputies, according to KIRO.

He probably fought back with half a heart and a wooden attitude

Here's a story for all you gunlovers out there. Basically: man follows GPS to address he thinks his friends live at, he goes there to pick his friend up to go skating. Inputs wrong address into gps. Goes to the wrong address where some man shoots and kills him. The man thought he was getting robbed or something. 1 person dead. Remove guns from the equation = some heated words and a misunderstanding. 0 people dead.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57…news&tag=title

Remove dumbass from having guns and you get some heated words and a misunderstanding. Or maybe he uses a knife instead.

That story doesn't make much sense either. Its highly unlikely that someone would fire a warning shot off first (as it says in the article), then fire at the 'intruder' as they 'intruder' is driving off. We'll see what comes out in the trial.

Insane freaks don't make much sense. News at eleven. AND they shouldn't have guns either.

I agree 100% with that.

Calling individuals who choose to arm themselves to defend against potential tyranical gov as paranoids/conspiracists, while at the same time screaming to gov to confiscate all guns from law-abiding people at the news of a few lunatic gun incidents. all time loony/irony

gov loonies, join the club below

"Uncle Sam will feel up your grandma or small child without pause in the name of the fear that some improbable event will be perpetrated by those dangerous individuals.

Uncle Sam will listen to your cell phone calls or read your text messages without a warrant because he perceives everyone as a potential threat that must be surveilled just in case.

Uncle Sam will infiltrate a group of impressionable youths where no credible threat of violence exists and manufacture one because in this modern age people that don't like him are all "terrorizers."

Uncle Sam will label people "mentally ill" in attempts to disarm them because all law abiding citizens that have firearms are potentially murderous peasantry."