'Culture war' more than gun rights

[CRYSiiSx2]

How many people hurt themselves with hammers in that time LBA? Or committed suicide via oven or jumping off their roof?

The statistics mean that if you're suicidal and have a gun you're more likely to use the gun, NOT that having a gun magically makes you want to commit suicide.

Ohh and before you call me a pro-gun nut or whatever - I'm pro-gun CONTROL and think that ownership of anything bigger then a handgun (in towns) or a shotgun (in the rural areas) is over-kill.

As said before, you do know just about all crime committed with a gun is with a handgun right? So all of you guys calling for bans on AR-15s, 30 round mags, and such, you keep going over the same old same old, and constantly avoid the fact that most crime is done by hand guns.

I'm guessing you've never gone deer hunting, as a rifle is a better choice than a shotgun unless you are using a slug are relatively close range.

Edited May 7, 2013 by CRYSiiSx2

[Clarakore]

Many are not focused on "all crime" but on mass shootings.

There the rifle stat jumps to about 38% and the high-capacity magazines to nearly half although the sample they are drawing from is admittedly small.

On the phone so if you want to dispute stats we can discuss later.

The most horrific mass shootings in the public mind for now seem to all involve sporting arms and high-capacity mags. That is public pereption and one can blame the news for only publicizing certain mass shootings but to deny public perception will not help your cause.

Swaying them will take actual stats from an unbiased source. Opinion on this last part but that is the way I see this.

Not everyone is going to be susceptible to the big lie theory, repeating claims over and over without proof only works sometimes now.

Horribly, people do not want mass shootings and are seeming to favor both gun reforms and more security at schools, as the NRA suggested the latter.

No one will get all they want. Time to compromise. There is going to be reaction to mass shootings, it is delayed but that is natural, it is coming, they are a game changer.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I'm guessing you've never gone deer hunting.

No wild deer to hunt in Oz. Tonnes of pigs though, and you need artillery to take them down.

[Glorfindel]

"odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home" What you mean to say is "odds are that someone who lives in the home will be harmed by the gun before a home invader is harmed by the gun". How can you honestly repeat the first line and think of yourself as intellectually honest, is beyond me. A firearm in the home is not more likely to harm you, then it is to harm no one. So yes, that line has been thoroughly debunked. If you can't have the integrity to properly state what the statistic is analyzing, how are we suppose to take anything else you say seriously?

On a side note, do you really think self-reliance is unneccesary in today's world? In a world with poverty, violence and diminishing resources? Nothing personal, but that might just be the most naive statement i've ever heard on this forum.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Glorfindel

[Kowalski]

"odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home" What you mean to say is "odds are that someone who lives in the home will be harmed by the gun before a home invader is harmed by the gun". How can you honestly repeat the first line and think of yourself as intellectually honest, is beyond me. A firearm in the home is not more likely to harm you, then it is to harm no one. So yes, that line has been thoroughly debunked.

On a side note, do you really think self-reliance is unneccesary in today's world? In a world with poverty, violence and diminishing resources? Nothing personal, but that might just be the most naive statement i've ever heard on this forum.

You have to forgive him. He's been so brainwashed by liberal ideology he has no idea what it's like to have an independent thought.

[Michelle]

With one in three households in the US owning guns, if you go by the polls, there should be people dropping like flies left and right. Then of course there are all of the illegal guns in houses where they would not give an honest answer.

[Glorfindel]

WHAT? Odds are that a firarm in a home will harm someone in that home? Do you have any idea of many dead Americans there would be daily if that were the case? Now obviously I know thats not what was meant, but its obvious the words were twisted to give that impression. Are you honestly denying that many studies are a waste of time? Are you honestly denying that afro-centists and other less than credible people are doing great as professors in many universities? Surely you can't be this ignorant. Oh yeah, and you forgot to turn the sentence where I mentioned "marxism" light grey. Tell me why is it morally justified to persecute professors who don't fall in line with the rest of the mainstream lefty views? Freedom of speech has no place in academia? Why should I waste time proving anything to you when you refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts you? Tell me when was the scientific method invented? I will actually start responding with facts to your posts, as soon as you prove science and liberalism are so similar that they can be associated. Not just "well my side likes science more", I want you to logically demonstrate how you can make this claim. If you do that, then yes, I will argue in an academic manner. So far from what I've seen, debating with you will be just like debating a creationists or a David Icke fan; a complete waste of time.

I'm waiting.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

We are not the same, I am not going to call you anything, nothing personal or negative at least, because we are the same.

Quibbling over that data set is not going to interest me.

Have a nice morning.

What data shall we quibble over then, hmm?

One in three US households have guns. A third. That's more people with guns then the entire population of my country. And yet the suicide rate remains roughly equivalent between the US and Oz. Gun ownership here is 5.2% according to wikipedia. So if guns cause suicide - which is your preposition apparently, as you don't want to "quibble" and define what you mean - how come it's not higher in the US where there's more guns?

[Kowalski]

What data shall we quibble over then, hmm?

One in three US households have guns. A third. That's more people with guns then the entire population of my country. And yet the suicide rate remains roughly equivalent between the US and Oz. Gun ownership here is 5.2% according to wikipedia. So if guns cause suicide - which is your preposition apparently, as you don't want to "quibble" and define what you mean - how come it's not higher in the US where there's more guns?

I know, that my husbands favorite aunt, who committed suicide, had access to guns, but chose to hang herself....Also, my neighbor, three years ago, hung herself also. Her nephew locked up all his guns cause he was afraid she would try to kill herself. She went out into the woods and hung herself. Her nephew found her body three months later...

I think the cops could have done more in her situation. Her nephew called them out, and was worried she would try to kill herself. She ran off into the woods. So they came out, took some statements, looked for her for like 15 minutes, and then left. I know she had problems (drugs like cocaine) but she was the sweetest person and would have taken her shirt off her back to help someone. Her nephew is now an alcoholic. I feel so sorry for him, because he did EVERYTHING, he could do and she still killed herself. So speaking from personal experiance, I have to say guns in the home don't CAUSE more suicides. If someone wants to kill themselves, they will find a way. Just like murder. If someone wants to kill someone or alot of people they will find a way. A gun is just the tool they use. They both hung themselves with electrical cords, but you don't see me or anyone of my family, asking for electrical cords to be banned...

Edited May 7, 2013 by Kowalski

[Clarakore]

What data shall we quibble over then, hmm?

We are not going to.

A question was asked: "Do you have any idea of many dead Americans there would be daily if that were the case?"

It was answered plainly, without opinion, without a willingness to quibble, just a few numbers from our CDC, and simply sharing that resource from our CDC in case others want to take advantage of it.

For me quibbling would be contention with a back and forth of simple and short sentences. Unsure what you are trying to solicit but it is unlikely you will find it with me. We just have different styles of conversing.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[ninjadude]

On a side note, do you really think self-reliance is unneccesary in today's world?

where do you live in relationship to a major city? the answer will answer your question.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

We are not going to.

A question was asked: "Do you have any idea of many dead Americans there would be daily if that were the case?"

It was answered plainly, without opinion, without a willingness to quibble, just a few numbers from our CDC, and simply sharing that resource from our CDC in case others want to take advantage of it.

For me quibbling would be contention with a back and forth of simple and short sentences. Unsure what you are trying to solicit but it is unlikely you will find it with me. We just have different styles of conversing.

indeed we do.

it seems that I like to ask questions in order to get answers and you like to stand on a soapbox and hector.

Apropos of nothing - I was anti-second amendment when I came here. my opinos changed because I spoke TO people, not AT people. Great way to learn talknig to people.

[Michelle]

where do you live in relationship to a major city? the answer will answer your question.

How quickly you forget Katrina with the looting and killings that happened during a major disaster in New Orleans. Oddly enough, the press hasn't focused more recently on Sandy, where people months later still don't have plumbing, electricity or a place to live. I wonder why that is?

[Clarakore]

indeed we do.

it seems that I like to ask questions in order to get answers and you like to stand on a soapbox and hector.

Apropos of nothing - I was anti-second amendment when I came here. my opinos changed because I spoke TO people, not AT people. Great way to learn talknig to people.

Well, what was stated was that we have different styles of conversing and that I did not prefer quibling (in all fairness you asked me what we should quibble about after I stated I did not want to quibble, indicating you prefer that style of conversation).

There were no personal attacks made on you by these two statements since it is platforms that should be attacked and not persons directly.

Now the problem is some will attack platforms and others will feel that they are that platform, they will then take it personally, then proceed to make a personal attack, when only their platform was attacked, not them.

Or maybe that is just their style, to make personal attacks regardless. Whichever category they fall in, they will have a different conversational style than me.

One can attack the left or progressives all they desire too, it is not an attack on me, but my platform, and in turn I will attack their platform but not them as a person (very rarely, we all have bad days).

I am not better than anyone but have standards.

What is the excuse for those who make personal attacks frequently? Bad days too...I guess.

So, look at the way you have personally discussed or addressed me in bold above and below.

Do not be surprised if there is not much for me to respond to after that or if I do not want to speak TO certain people but choose to speak AT their platform (re: "my opinos changed because I spoke TO people, not AT people.")

We can discuss if we are all chill but once personal attacks come out they will be ignored or noted but there is never a need to respond in kind.

what's the first rule of stastics? well here in the funny lands of Oz it's "corolation does not mean causation", dunno what it is in the enlightened Americas LBA lives in.

I think what LBA is trying and failing to say is "a gun is more likely to be used to harm/accidentally bring harm to a family member, then it is to harm an intruder or an outsider".

For example, I'm more likely to hurt myself on my bike then I am someone else" that sort of thing.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[aztek]

Two Boys Suspended For Pointing Pencils Like Guns

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Well, what was stated was that we have different styles of conversing and that I did not prefer quibling (in all fairness you asked me what we should quibble about after I stated I did not want to quibble, indicating you prefer that style of conversation).

There were no personal attacks made on you by these two statements since it is platforms that should be attacked and not persons directly.

Now the problem is some will attack platforms and others will feel that they are that platform, they will then take it personally, then proceed to make a personal attack, when only their platform was attacked, not them.

Or maybe that is just their style, to make personal attacks regardless. Whichever category they fall in, they will have a different conversational style than me.

One can attack the left or progressives all they desire too, it is not an attack on me, but my platform, and in turn I will attack their platform but not them as a person (very rarely, we all have bad days).

I am not better than anyone but have standards.

What is the excuse for those who make personal attacks frequently? Bad days too...I guess.

So, look at the way you have personally discussed or addressed me in bold above and below.

Do not be surprised if there is not much for me to respond to after that or if I do not want to speak TO certain people but choose to speak AT their platform (re: "my opinos changed because I spoke TO people, not AT people.")

We can discuss if we are all chill but once personal attacks come out they will be ignored or noted but there is never a need to respond in kind.

Son, if you think what I said were "personal attacks" the Internet's going to eat you alive.

thing is, and I'm sure you'll disagree, you do talk at people. You quote pages of statistics, you refer to other articles and websites but you don't tell us what you think. You dress your opinions up as facts and whenever someone has the gall to disagree and call you out on something you've said you call it a personal attack.

The difference between a heated debate and a personal attack is that the former "plays the ball" and talks about what people say and the later talks about the people themselves. I've just talked about how you pitch the ball as well as the pitch itself.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Sir Wearer of Hats

[preacherman76]

Gun manufacturers only care about profit, they dont care whether you live or die, anti gun or not. The same with drug companies only care about profit.

Same with monsanto.

[preacherman76]

"Fighters for freedom", is an unrealistic position since it is doubtful these wannabe revolutionaries can out match a professional military force equipped with UAVs.

Why would you assume our military would side with tyranny? They took a oath to defend the constitution against ALL enemies.

Edited May 8, 2013 by preacherman76

[preacherman76]

I can't understand why they resist so virulently stricter background checks.

Yes the Second Amendment says "shall not restrict", but you have to balance rights from one area against rights from another - the right to life and liberty being on the first line of the Consitution IIRC (I'm an Aussie so please don't shoot me if I'm wrong).

You want people to be able to buy bazookas? Fine. Just accept that there's going to be a 12 month waiting list with all sort of checks.

See, no restriction on what you can buy, just a delay on when you can get it. Everyone wins in the end, noones life is risked by something easily prevented and everyone who wants a kalashnikov can have one.

What would a more strict back ground check imply though? Anyone can buy a gun so long as you are not a felon. Are you saying that people should be denied the second amendment for more then being a felon?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

What would a more strict back ground check imply though? Anyone can buy a gun so long as you are not a felon. Are you saying that people should be denied the second amendment for more then being a felon?

Well as down that road does lie Totalitarianism.

All inclusive background checks is perhaps a better phrase - you MUST do a background check on someone to sell a gun, proof of that check is what makes the sale legal. It'll be perfect, tonnes of new jobs created over night in the department of fire arm background checks. Of course it'll make private sales nigh impossible, but you could sell to liscenced business buyers who on-sell to others.

[Kowalski]

Well as down that road does lie Totalitarianism.

All inclusive background checks is perhaps a better phrase - you MUST do a background check on someone to sell a gun, proof of that check is what makes the sale legal. It'll be perfect, tonnes of new jobs created over night in the department of fire arm background checks. Of course it'll make private sales nigh impossible, but you could sell to liscenced business buyers who on-sell to others.

Well, what about people, who pass on their guns to their children or grandchildren? My husband's grandfather was an avid antique gun collector and we have several of his guns, many from 1800's. My daddy has a Japanese made rifle, that his father got off a dead Japanese soldier in the Pacific during World War II. I would HOPE that such transfers as these would be okay under what you're saying. I have no problem with background checks in theory, I have had many background checks done on me and my husband since we both have bought guns. I'm just saying these types of transactions between family members, especially when a parent or grandparent or great-grandparent has left a gun to someone, they should be able to do that, don't you think?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Well, what about people, who pass on their guns to their children or grandchildren? My husband's grandfather was an avid antique gun collector and we have several of his guns, many from 1800's. My daddy has a Japanese made rifle, that his father got off a dead Japanese soldier in the Pacific during World War II. I would HOPE that such transfers as these would be okay under what you're saying. I have no problem with background checks in theory, I have had many background checks done on me and my husband since we both have bought guns. I'm just saying these types of transactions between family members, especially when a parent or grandparent or great-grandparent has left a gun to someone, they should be able to do that, don't you think?

Well if left in a will I suppose that's entirely another matter.

[Michelle]

I'm more concerned about medical records being scrutinized, Kowalski. Even needing something to help someone sleep could be construed as a mental disorder according to some people. We all have our quirks and who is to say whether someone is dangerous or not?

[Kowalski]

Well if left in a will I suppose that's entirely another matter.

Okay, cool.

I'm more concerned about medical records being scrutinized, Kowalski. Even needing something to help someone sleep could be construed as a mental disorder according to some people. We all have our quirks and who is to say whether someone is dangerous or not?

Have you ever heard of this disorder? It makes me laugh actually that psychiatrists consider this a disorder:

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a childhood disorder described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as an ongoing pattern of anger-guided disobedience, hostility, and defiant behavior toward authority figures which goes beyond the bounds

Check out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder

[SHaYap]

~snip

Have you ever heard of this disorder? It makes me laugh actually that psychiatrists consider this a disorder:

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a childhood disorder described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as an ongoing pattern of anger-guided disobedience, hostility, and defiant behavior toward authority figures which goes beyond the bounds

Check out:http://en.wikipedia....efiant_disorder

Sadly ... we see it quite clearly in the kids today, thankfully a bit of reverse psychology gets the parent by and by but they must be constantly on their toes as the kids catch on fast and sometimes pull a reverse on the parents, its quite stressful to say the least.

Edited May 9, 2013 by third_eye