[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by CDB

Considering actually that this stat was taken from a study that with crap methodology that concentrated on criminals with rap sheets that read like War and Peace and which found no significant difference between the gun owning group and unarmed control groups, the actual take home from it is that being a criminal ups your chances of being shot regardless of whether you own a gun or not. However misinformed and misinforming liberals do like to trot this bullshit claim out every now and then, proving only that they are too lazy to read the source material and to understand the massive problems with it, or that they don't care and are so gullible that they'll believe anything Hillary Clinton says or say anything to advance an agenda, true or false..

I won't go through the effort of pretentiously quoting and debating you verbatim. Despite all your rhetoric, and keen use of the word 'bullshit, you misinterpreted my post and intent; you and I view the world through diametrically opposed lenses, no point in couching our arguments in differing circular terms.

With that being said, you breathing still, pookie? I could care less about Gun Regulation - the implementation of the Registry in Canada has proven to be more bureaucratically confusing then protecting. I am wholly unconcerned with whether or not to regulate them in the United States. I was merely pointing out THE RIDICULOUSLY LOW probability owning a gun will increase your safety, or ability to protect your family. Perhaps you can provide a stat refuting that?

You should take a breath and realize I wasn't questioning your libertarian 'rights over anything else' stance - selfish and individualistic as it may be. Merely pointing out the 'Bullshit Facts', as you put it.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

I won't go through the effort of pretentiously quoting and debating you verbatim. Despite all your rhetoric, and keen use of the word 'bullshit, you misinterpreted my post and intent; you and I view the world through diametrically opposed lenses, no point in couching our arguments in differing circular terms.

So in other words you have nothing to back up your BS assertion. Typical liberal response.

"Hey, you know 20 out of 18 people are killed by their own weapon and then raped by a pitbull! Guns are baaaaaaaad!"

"That's not actually the case... (reason) ... (statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Private Agencies, etc.)"

"I don't care, I believe it anyway!"

I was merely pointing out THE RIDICULOUSLY LOW probability owning a gun will increase your safety, or ability to protect your family.

Already did by name: John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime. Please read it.

You should take a breath and realize I wasn't questioning your libertarian 'rights over anything else' stance - selfish and individualistic as it may be. Merely pointing out the 'Bullshit Facts', as you put it.

Facts my ass. They aren't facts, that's the point. Your facts are BS nonsense that liberals have been peddling for years and they never get any traction because it takes anyone with the slightest motivation and brain power less than a minute to look them up and see what a load of **** they are.

You are not more likely to be killed by your own gun than to be protected by it. That is a fact. What you're peddling is nonsense that has been known to be nonsense for quite some time, which is why you rarely hear about it anymore. There's a reason the gun control movement has been essentially silenced: they're wrong, and they went to extremes of misinformation to try and hide that fact and were outed again again as bullshit artists of no particular skill.

There are however a whole lot of liberal gun haters who can't be bothered to actually educate themselves on this issue and prefer to merely repeat what Hillary says and consider that being 'informed'.

[joecski]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

With that being said, you breathing still, pookie? I could care less about Gun Regulation - the implementation of the Registry in Canada has proven to be more bureaucratically confusing then protecting. I am wholly unconcerned with whether or not to regulate them in the United States. I was merely pointing out THE RIDICULOUSLY LOW probability owning a gun will increase your safety, or ability to protect your family. Perhaps you can provide a stat refuting that?

I would think that in the current climate of the United States with things like the Katrina tragedy where armed criminals roamed the streets while the government deserted the people and left them defenseless would be enough to prove that you DO have a chance of self-protection with a gun. There was widespread chaos - raping and pillaging at it's finest - that was not widely reported in the media. As I said in an earlier post, I prepare for disaster, because the area I live in is prone to tornadoes and hurricanes, and a gun is part of my kit.

Maybe in Canada there is no crime, there are no bad people with guns, and you can sleep with your doors and windows unlocked. It isn't like that where I live. If I could be totally assured I would never need a gun, that I would never encounter anyone who wanted to kill me or my family who had a gun, then I would fall back on my deadly kung-fu skills for self-defense. However, even Bruce Lee wouldn't stand much of a chance against a .357, and life isn't a Hollywood movie.

[The Brute]

First off im a firm believer in our second amendment right and the fact that guns don't kill people stupid idiots with guns kill people. I personally feel that gun crimes would go up due to the fact that civil citizens would have no means to protect themselves form these loonatics. Not to mention illegal gun-running would skyrocket. In a country with 200+ organized crime groups the demand for illegal firearms would go thru the roof and they have the funding, ships, and connections to flood the market with semi-automatic weapons and pistols. I think if the democrats want to turn us into England where they have universal healthcare and no guns they need to start by getting these illegal immigrants, cartel associates, and gangbangers out of the country then maybe we could be like england. But for that to happen we will have to drop on the immigration list from the top to as low as england. Also they should quit these human rights rants and bring back the death penalty and quit turning prisons into fine resorts. The taxpayers would feel better and these criminals might not look foward to going to jail. I believe Ron White said it best, "If you kill somebody we will kill you back!"

[CDB]

Originally Posted by joecski

I would think that in the current climate of the United States with things like the Katrina tragedy where armed criminals roamed the streets while the government deserted the people and left them defenseless would be enough to prove that you DO have a chance of self-protection with a gun. There was widespread chaos - raping and pillaging at it's finest - that was not widely reported in the media. As I said in an earlier post, I prepare for disaster, because the area I live in is prone to tornadoes and hurricanes, and a gun is part of my kit.

Actually the National Guard went around disarming people. Typical response, and probably added to the victim count.

[CDB]

The whole premise behind gun control is that someone who is willing to take a gun, point it at another human being, and say, "Give me your money, or I'll kill you," or, "Spread your legs, or I'll kill you," or, "I'm just going to kill you for the fun of it!", is going to put their hand to their forehead and say, "Alas!, I can rob and murder no more, the government says I can't have a gun!
"Maybe I'll become a CPA..."

The idea that someone who is willing to break the laws against robbery, burglary, rape, assault, and murder, is going to feel at all constrained by a law which tells him which weapons are acceptable in pursuit of his criminal career is totally assinine. The only people who will obey those laws are the ones who are not violating and not likely to violate the more serious prohibitions. Therefore all you do is disarm people and raise their profiles as likely victims.

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by CDB

So in other words you have nothing to back up your BS assertion. Typical liberal response.

"Hey, you know 20 out of 18 people are killed by their own weapon and then raped by a pitbull! Guns are baaaaaaaad!"

"That's not actually the case... (reason) ... (statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Private Agencies, etc.)"

"I don't care, I believe it anyway!"



Already did by name: John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime. Please read it.



Facts my ass. They aren't facts, that's the point. Your facts are BS nonsense that liberals have been peddling for years and they never get any traction because it takes anyone with the slightest motivation and brain power less than a minute to look them up and see what a load of **** they are.

You are not more likely to be killed by your own gun than to be protected by it. That is a fact. What you're peddling is nonsense that has been known to be nonsense for quite some time, which is why you rarely hear about it anymore. There's a reason the gun control movement has been essentially silenced: they're wrong, and they went to extremes of misinformation to try and hide that fact and were outed again again as bullshit artists of no particular skill.

There are however a whole lot of liberal gun haters who can't be bothered to actually educate themselves on this issue and prefer to merely repeat what Hillary says and consider that being 'informed'.

Well, that was a good for a laugh.

You really need to breathe - being a paranoid libertarian recluse cannot be good for cholesterol levels already, adding in unnecessary internet stressed based on your inability to read cannot help.

I mentioned, several times, the excesses and bureaucratic failures of registries; the Canadian registry has failed miserably (mentioned this, but in your juvenile tirade, you may have missed it).

I also mentioned the statistically insignificant levels of both being killed by your own gun, and being able to defend yourself with it. Once again, you may have missed that as well.

Again, the issue that a gun is necessary, or fundamental, is ridiculous. Your viewpoint places a primacy on citizen rights, gun rights being one of them; I accept that. Now get over the fact somebody may disagree with your philosophical inclinations about why, or why not, to own a gun.

You sure are a spaz for a pot-smoker. Go smoke a joint, jesus.

[bpmartyr]

All I can say is: I have guns, many guns in fact. I am proficient in their use, maintenance and safety as are all my children and wife. When my children were younger they were locked up and out of reach. I instill a respect for the weapon and ensure they know exactly what happens to someone when they are shot and what rare circumstances allow them to bear and, God forbid, end someones life. I have no fear of them "accidentally" shooting anyone or harming themselves.

That being said, go ahead and try trespassing on my property. The only one likely to be hurt is the trespasser.

If the government wants to shred the Constitution and take my guns they will do so over my dead body. Literally. (And likely some of theirs as well.)

[CDB]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

I also mentioned the statistically insignificant levels of both being killed by your own gun, and being able to defend yourself with it. Once again, you may have missed that as well.

No, I didn't. You're wrong. Millions of people a year use a gun to defend themselves. See the work of previously mentioned John Lott.

Again, the issue that a gun is necessary, or fundamental, is ridiculous. Your viewpoint places a primacy on citizen rights, gun rights being one of them; I accept that. Now get over the fact somebody may disagree with your philosophical inclinations about why, or why not, to own a gun.

Disagree all you want, next time try to support it with something solid as opposed to the usual discredited bullshit that you pulled out this time. Makes you look bad.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by bpmartyr

I have no fear of them "accidentally" shooting anyone or harming themselves.

I always wondered how you 'accidentally' shot someone with the weapon that has a 5-8lb trigger pull or something similar.

[Reaper329]

Originally Posted by Mo250

I think joecski said it best. You seem to associate carrying guns with some sort of stigma. If we carry them somehow there is something wrong with us. For me it gives an advantage in those life-death situations. If you don't want to carry a gun I have no problem with that but please don't paint us like we're some sort of freaks.

I apologize if it came out that way, as that was not my intention in the least.

Furthermore, my point is that I just dont see the need personally. If you do and the law allows it, so be it.

[Reaper329]

Originally Posted by CDB

Then I present you with a scenario: two or three guys break into your house, and as is the trend these days, don't just rob you at gunpoint but force your woman to blow them while you watch. What's your definition of defense under those circumstances?

under those circumstances, if the gun is in another room or locked away it is of no help. Seriously, would you tell the intruders, "hold on while I get my gun"? However, there are times the you have to respond and respond you will, by any means necessary

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by CDB

No, I didn't. You're wrong. Millions of people a year use a gun to defend themselves. See the work of previously mentioned John Lott.

Is the person using John Lott, or should I say Mary Roth, actually chastising me for using discredited research?

On to the data. I'm sorry, but vague and ambiguous ESTIMATED hand-gun DGU statistics are shaky at best. Horrible at worst. Lott has been continually discredited for his misrepresentation, and at times, outright mickey mousing of data. For somebody so concerned with my sources, you should choose better yourself.

I don't necessarily put stock in any 'researcher', who extrapolates the work of two previous authors, mysteriously, to LA Times and Gallup polls. His range of DGUs from 'previous' studies is also a bit ambiguous - anywhere from 750,000 to 3,000,000 is pretty pathetic. Almost as pathetic as you considering this as a viable source. While the Kleck studies Lott frequently references as 'previous studies' make vague mentions as to brandish-in-defense statistics, the SINGLE LA Times poll which produced the 3,000,000 mark makes absolutely no mention in terms of percentage fired for self defense.

Lott's own thin statements on the matter:

"There are surveys that have been done by the Los Angeles Times, Gallup, Roper, Peter Hart, about 15 national survey organizations in total that range from anything from 760,000 times a year to 3.6 million times a year people use guns defensively. About 98 percent of those simply involve people brandishing a gun and not using them."

Most of the bullshit you are regurgitating has been erroneously used in Lott's work; from my brief research from Torrenting the E-Book, only 2 of Lott's national survey references (from the NSDS and his other 'sources') make any mention whatsoever in terms of brandishing to prevent an attack - pretty weak defense, bud.

In fact, even Kleck, Lott's main reference, states that the firing statistics used in all of Lott's works are misinterpreted. For example, he often cites 'majority' firing rates for those that brandish. Well, when one examines the actual NSDS studies and sees that only 1.83% of gun owners have actually brandished their gun, and only 58% of those have actually fired, Lott's ice grows continually thin to stand on. That equates to LESS than 1% of Americans who own guns actually using their gun to defend themselves. Compare this to the 39% of American household with guns, and my point stands, and yours does not Harris Interactive | The Harris Poll - Gun Ownership: Two in Five Americans Live in Gun-Owning Households .The possibility that owning a gun will contribute significantly to your safety is a false assertion.

Lott continually, and intentionally, misrepresents all of his statistical data, CDB - your source is a very poor choice. Kleck has publicly discredited the use of his statistics, especially the following claim by Lott:

"Guns clearly deter criminals, with Americans using guns defensively over 2 million times each year — five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes in 1997, according to research by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. Kleck’s study of defensive gun uses found that ninety-eight percent of the time simply brandishing the weapon is sufficient to stop an attack."

In fact, Kleck's survey was not geared specifically towards violent attacks, nor even to 'attacks' in general. Nor, even, was Kleck's research directed towards personally experienced attacks of violent nature; it was actually extended towards threats to others, verbal attacks, and otherwise. The 98% figure Lott extrapolates from this also has nothing to do with prevention, but merely the percentage of individuals whom actually experienced attacks that brandished their weapon. Not such a solid point, any longer. So, it is not true, as I am sure you wish it was, that you are 98% more likely to prevent an attack by brandishing a weapon.

Honestly CDB, this was pathetic. I realize in your fervent attempts to defend your position, your probably assumed I wouldn't check your sources.

Already did by name: John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime. Please read it.

Unfortunately for you, I did, and this has to be the most discredited bullshit you have ever concocted. As I said, the minute probability that one may be able to use their gun is not enough, for me at least, to justifies its cost or possible accidents arrived via its ownership. Now that you have been totally brushed aside, hopefully we can end this.

John Lott...

With all that being said, I still stand by my original position (which you mischaracterized and attempted to pigeonhole) that I am not anti-gun, am not pro-registry, and merely have different philosophical inclinations than yourself on the matter. The difference between you and I, obviously, is I use credible sources, while you follow your paranoid ilk.