Hey, Jebus, i see you're up to your old tricks. You need to get some new ones.

Two words: Blue State

Some hippie asked me once, "Why do you need a gun?"

I said, "To kill people."

Guess if we're going to be reverting to this:


Then we need to start getting together some of this:




So that we can fight another one of these (if -ahem- we have to):

towatchoverme

die in a fire, biatch.

Some hippie asked me once, "Why do you need a gun?"

I said, "Are you threatening me?"

If the government controls all the guns, none of the Constitution matters; when push comes to shove, they could repeal every single right if the people can't fight back.

Most (but not all, to those of you in the indignant "I'm the exception" crowd) of the same people who say "I'll accept a little danger from terrorism because George Bush is trying to take my freedom" also say something to the effect "I refuse to accept a little danger from gun owners."

People say "well all you have to do is jump through hoops A, B, and C and you're a legal gun owner!" Well, duh. Everything on the internet is legal in China as long as the government approves it, but that doesn't demonstrate any kind of freedom.

The first amendment can be nullified at any moment if you can take away or castrate the second.

sdtangler: The general populace (me included) don't need guns for self-defense.

Are you telling me that I'm not the only one who can use his ass as a flamethrower?

I'm more likely to shoot a relative than a robber.

That's your problem, and nobody else's.

Hey, gun owners, can you guys farking read?

2nd Amendment: "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."

Are any of you in a militia protecting the state? The way I read the amendment, it means you're allowed to have guns when they are used in a militia to protect the state and nation.

Programmer Cat

I'm more likely to shoot a relative than a robber.

That's your problem, and nobody else's.

Um, no it's statistically proven that a gun is more likely to kill a relative than someone trying to hurt you. I believe 46 times more likely.

uidzero: Err right. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would be. Further, you're chance of being hurt OR HURTING someone else go up dramatically when you introduce yet another weapon into play.

I'd certainly hope my chances of hurting someone who is threatening my life would go up dramatically when I put another weapon into play. That's kind of the point.

And as far as it increasing the chances of _my_ being hurt, that's just not true.

According to US DOJ statistics, you're half as likely to be injured or killed if you resist a violent crime with a firearm than anything else you can do including immediately following all their instructions and not resisting.

Guns cause waayyyyy more harm than prevent it, all day every day.

Also not true. The US DOJ study of defensive gun use, estimated that guns were used for self-defense around 1.5 million times per year in the US, which is about double the amount of times guns are used in crimes each year. There have been over a dozen similar studies with estimates ranging from 800,000 to 2.5 million times a year.

Hey, gun-grabbers, can you guys farking read?

2nd Amendment: "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."


The way I read the amendment, it means any citizen is allwed to have guns.

So, "the people" actually means "the milita"???

does it also only refer to "the militia" when the same words are used in the 1st and 4th amendments?

Jeez, this still going on? :) Only in for a few, I swear it!

Programmer Cat

So is trust in authority, since you insist on bringing up anarchy. Quite frankly, for all your posturing, I have no reason to believe that you are more intelligent or more moral a person than I am. In fact, I have good reason (by my standards) to consider you my moral inferior since you want other people to be controlled, and I think everybody should leave everybody else well enough alone.

And since your standards are your own and not objective, the point is ?



Don't be so willing to trust in authority. No law, no police officer, no government can save you from somebody bent on committing a crime against you. It's your life; you own it, so it's your responsibility to preserve it. You would be remiss in your responsibility to yourself and to others (since you expect others to risk their lives to protect yours) around you if you insist on remaining defenseless.

IIRC, you were the nut saying that you would shoot Bush in the head a while back in a fark thread (watch out for my memory, it's nasty...), despite everyone (including people who had taken an opposing position) recommending you relax up a bit with your psycho talk. I have no reason to believe you have any moral high ground or intellectual prowess, given your track record of poor decision making and emotional instability. Also, don't project on me, I don't have any blind trust in the government, quite the opposite, however I feel they would be capable of keeping legitimate businesses from manufacturing weapons and ammo, if they so chose.

Are any of you in a militia protecting the state?

As a matter of fact by law I am a member of the Illinois State Militia.


However, your reading of the 2nd Amendment is flawed.
Membership in a militia is not a prerequisite to having the right to own a firearm.

That particular part explains why the government recognizes that the people have a right to bare arms.


Remember, the Bill of Rights was telling the government what they can't do. It was not telling the people what they can do.

Jebus ... didums get upset? Didums did?

Dude, you're not good at this trolling thing, clearly. You lack the sense and subtlety God gave a sack of bricks. People here think you're a gomer and they don't even know the OTHER story. So how about you get a NEW-new alias and come back as someone who isn't such a choad?

Son of God

Um, no it's statistically proven that a gun is more likely to kill a relative than someone trying to hurt you. I believe 46 times more likely.



source please?

and I say again, you are FAR more likely to die in a car crash, of hypothermia, of a severe allergic reaction, and falls than you are of a gunshot.

/source for said statistics in an earlier post.

towatchoverme

go troll somewhere else retard. You falsely accusing me of being some guy from kentucky or something is getting kind of old now.

and no one said I'm trolling. Trolling is posting for the express purpose of pissing people off...which is exactly what YOU are doing.

wrffr

I'd certainly hope my chances of hurting someone who is threatening my life would go up dramatically when I put another weapon into play. That's kind of the point.

When someone is threatening your life, or $200 in your wallet?

And as far as it increasing the chances of _my_ being hurt, that's just not true.

According to US DOJ statistics, you're half as likely to be injured or killed if you resist a violent crime with a firearm than anything else you can do including immediately following all their instructions and not resisting.

Really? I'd like to read up on that, provided it's not on the NRA's website :)

Also not true. The US DOJ study of defensive gun use, estimated that guns were used for self-defense around 1.5 million times per year in the US, which is about double the amount of times guns are used in crimes each year. There have been over a dozen similar studies with estimates ranging from 800,000 to 2.5 million times a year.

How is 'self-defense' defined? I throw my beer at you (assault), and you draw a gun? That number sounds skewed as all hell, I'd like to understand how that statistic was derived.

I think that Assembly Bill 352 is nothing but a troll. From the response seen here its a good troll.

First of all, this is not a law, its a bill that will never get passed or become a law.

This is an election year gambit. You float a bill like this so that you can accuse everyone who votes against it of being "soft on crime" because not having this bill helps criminals get away.

The fact that it would be impossible to implement will get lost in the debate.

Son of God

Um, no it's statistically proven that a gun is more likely to kill a relative than someone trying to hurt you. I believe 46 times more likely.

That statistic is only partially true.

First off, it the statement was was not only a relative, it was "aquaintence or relative" which allows the statistic to include your rival gang members, drug dealers, pimps, and other criminal aquaintences

Second it completely ignores when a law abiding citizen apprehends or forces the retreat of an intruder with no shots fired, or no one injured.

Households with swimming pools are much more likely to have children die than those households with firearms.

There's a green plaid jacket on the back of the chair,
Its like a moment frozen forever there.


/obscure.

uidzero
The National Self Defense Survey concluded that there are approximately 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians per year in the United States.

The study was conducted by Florida State University criminologist Dr Gary Kleck

His numbers have undergone numerous peer reviews. None have conclusively refuted his data.

Dr Kleck is quite impartial.
He was not and still is not either pro-gun, or anti-gun

JohnBigBootay: And why don't you be intellectually honest and finish the switzerland story - virtually all of those are rifles, not handguns, and the owners were given extensive safety training via their mandatory military service.

That part doesn't matter... a nut with a gun is a nut with a gun. The statistics Xai posted were compelling, though. Very.

Jebus

Sigh. Whatever. You're the one who has to live with yourself, not me. Thankfully, my computer has an "off" button which i will now employ.

"You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States."

"Simply put: guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home

I was wrong about the exact number, but the general gist is correct.

Son of God; there's comma's in there for a reason dude. many a court battle have been won/lost on the placement of a comma.
not american, but just pointing that out.
this law would only really help ya get you gun back, some day, after it was used in a crime..
/i own a single shot .22 rifle. they'll go through bullet proof vests.. should it be illeagle?

SumDumAmerican

The National Self Defense Survey concluded that there are approximately 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians per year in the United States.

The study was conducted by Florida State University criminologist Dr Gary Kleck

His numbers have undergone numerous peer reviews. None have conclusively refuted his data.

Dr Kleck is quite impartial.
He was not and still is not either pro-gun, or anti-gun

Never hear of him, and I don't know who his peers are. Do you have a link? I need to understand his definition. and how he handled the data.

Court Example: There is only a 1 in 100,000,000 chance (numbers out of ass, just play along) that DNA from one person would match the DNA of anothers barring identical twins

Pertinent info: There is 1 in 200 chance the DNA lab can create a false positive


That number sounds fishy as hell to me... I'm definetly willing to read the study though.

Have personally owned 2 handguns and an AR-15 for several years and I don't recall ever killing anyone.

...am I late?

uidzero

I'm back, as are you.

Defensive gun uses.

There's links there for you to actually get closer to the study. Sounds like they're doing a pretty decent amount of good, no?

Well, I'll just borrow an argument from the right wingers who poo-poo every concern about all our other civil liberties being erased:

Unless you are a criminal/terrorist, why would you object to this?

Surely law abiding gun owners have nothing to fear from having all guns and ammunition numbered and traceable back to an individual, just like it's the farking government's business what you checked out at the library, what you say on the phone or who you voted for?

You'd have to be Osama bin Laden himself to find fault with this plan.

towatchoverme

I'm not the one following someone around and trolling...you are.

You contribution to this thread has been absolutely nothing except for trying to troll.

admittedly, I posted stats (but they were actual statistics backed up with actual data) that compared the likelihood of being killed by assault with a firearm vs. being killed in a car wreck which a few people didnt like, but it's not trolling.

If you would check the FarQ, you will see the following will get you banned:

Trolling other Fark members
Calling out of other farkers (or attempting to)

Son of God: Um, no it's statistically proven that a gun is more likely to kill a relative than someone trying to hurt you. I believe 46 times more likely.

You must have freshly pulled that out of your ass because it still has the smell of feces on it.

indstrialvampyr

God is a bullet, and apparently alot of farkers wish they were as well.

2006-08-28 09:42:03 PM Son of God

To be fair, it's not like the Brady Campaign is an unbiased source, no?

But that aside, how are people's inability to plan appropriately grounds to infringe upon other's rights?

2006-08-28 09:45:18 PM andrethered1


Have personally owned 2 handguns and an AR-15 for several years and I don't recall ever killing anyone.

While this may be a true statement you have no idea what your guns have done while you were on vacation ... or ASLEEP. Stupid NRA, don't understand the nature of guns.

/must state the above is sarcasm, but I am sure it be law in California in the next 6 years.

People always seem to think that stopping people from shooting each other will stop them from killing each other. Take away guns and the stabbing rate goes up, right London?

Son of God

did you just quote from the brady campaign's website and expect everyone to take that as unbiased data?

lol

Lemme get you some stats from the NRA that "prove" your stats are wrong...lol

Oh gun owners, you guys never cease to amaze me with your internet bravado and strawmen arguments...

Programmer Cat Let's put you in a situation where fractions of a second could mean the difference between your survival and your death, and let you see for yourself whether or not reducing the rate of fire is a smart idea.

It must be fun pretending that you will actually ever use your gun for self-defense. Sorry about your small pecker.

FredGarvin; you'll find that criminals, and terrorists support gun control. if their not firmilur, then that makes them scaryer, criminals that want guns will get them, and it eliminates you "Hero" factor.

uidzero

You are one dumb SOB.

ronaprhys, I_Make_Jebus_Cry

If you read the article, they were quoting another source.

yeah, all those "innocent citizens" with their semiautomatic weapons...

According to this site (FBI)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html

the total of ALL violent crimes (even those NOT involving the use of a firearm of ANY sort) is 1,367,009 incidents in 2004, or about 1.36 million. Keep in mind this is ALL violent crimes...guns or not.

the defensive use of guns is estimated at about 2.55 million times, or roughly twice that.

So, guns are used for a defensive purpose nearly 2x as often as ANY violent crime of any nature is.

I'm fairly certain this means there are FAR more incidents of guns saving someone's ass than there are of guns being used by criminals.

from that site:

"In 2004, there were an estimated 1,367,009 violent crimes nationwide. Of these, aggravated assaults comprised 62.5 percent; robbery, 29.4 percent; forcible rape, 6.9 percent; and murder, 1.2 percent"

That means there was a total of 16,405 murders. Even if we assume that every single one of these was comitted with a firearm, that means that the ratio of murders with a firearm (assuming ALL murders were with a firearm) is exactly

0.00643 to one.

yeah, real stats are a biatch to gun-grabbers aren't they?

FredGarvin; you'll find that criminals, and terrorists support gun control. if their not firmilur, then that makes them scaryer, criminals that want guns will get them, and it eliminates you "Hero" factor.

Source please? I'd like to find a bunch of terrorists lobbying for gun control. If not to make fun of you, merely for it's humorous value.

2006-08-28 09:58:37 PM Son of God

ronaprhys, I_Make_Jebus_Cry

If you read the article, they were quoting another source.

And that makes it less biased how? And how does that address my subsequent point?

Jebus, I've had my fill of red herring today, thank you very much. I look forward to the day you can argue your points with civility and honesty and without pathetic appeals to the FARQ. And when that day comes, i will happily remove you from my "ignore" list. Until then, i encourage you to treat your fellow farkers with respect. Peace, kiddo.