| Register  | FAQ  | Search | Login 
It is currently Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:01 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:30 pm 
Offline
rowdily playing checkers
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 3032
BFH wrote:
If the assertion that there were more irresponsible gun owners than responsible ones were true, there would be far more incidents of gun accidents and deaths, but the math simply does not show that.

That doesn't follow, given that we do not have any way of determining the expected rates of gun violence due to irresponsible gun ownership, or number of irresponsible gun owners.

For all we know, everybody in the country is an irresponsible gun owner, and current rates of injury and death are exactly what you'd expect from irresponsible gun ownership in those numbers. At the very least, we first need to define some criteria.

Quote:
Have there been a significant amount of incidents of somebody going off at a chaotic scene? Have there been any? Even one?

Of course. The most obvious and best documented examples would be those involving accidental police shootings. And these happen a lot, even though police officers (typically, hopefully) receive extensive training.

Quote:
Certainly not enough to convince me there is cause to eliminate everyone's right to have a gun, or that it would even be possible to do so.

Nobody said anything about this.

Quote:
As for the gentleman from Utah, that seems more relevant in a discussion about rhetoric than about gun ownership. I don't see why the Rep. being a jerk should affect my right to protect myself.

It's relevant because someone carrying around a gun as a security blanket isn't necessarily protecting himself. If it turns out that carrying a gun is more likely to get you killed than protect you (and there's some evidence to suggest that this is true, all other things being equal), then the right to self-defense does not imply the right to gun ownership. That's not to say that a gun couldn't be an important part of a security plan, but invoking your right to protect yourself doesn't get you to liberal gun laws.

Quote:
But if there are people ignoring the numbers and calling for sweeping gun control, I consider that a panic.

Are there people doing that?

Quote:
Plus, NRA no more represents all gun owners than PETA represents all vegans.

They don't have to do that in order to pollute the discussion.

Quote:
But Loughner could have used a knife or a baseball bat or molotov cocktails.

Oh, come on. There's no way he could have killed or injured 20 people with a knife or a baseball bat or Molotov cocktails before someone intervened.

_________________
"Tits are inconsequential, but someone pass me that kitten" ~ papayapaprikás


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:43 pm 
Offline
Has it on Blue Vinyl
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 2136
Location: 510
I read this whole thing and still feel confused. Is conceal/carry what's being argued here? Neither side seems to be advocating zero guns nor gun vending machines, or did I miss something?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:47 pm 
Offline
rowdily playing checkers
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 3032
mel c wrote:
I read this whole thing and still feel confused. Is conceal/carry what's being argued here? Neither side seems to be advocating zero guns nor gun vending machines, or did I miss something?

We started out talking about whether or not more guns at a violent scene makes us safer. And then the usual gun control debate stuff took over.

Anyway, here's the BBC's perspective.

_________________
"Tits are inconsequential, but someone pass me that kitten" ~ papayapaprikás


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:49 pm 
Offline
Not NOT A Furry

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:41 pm
Posts: 460
vegimator wrote:
Please read the study I posted. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16001874

That's a link to a study on antinutritional factors on protein digestibility and amino acid availability in foods. But I saw the earlier link, the one you intended, and I read what was linked there.
vegimator wrote:
If you have reason to doubt this study, or you have an equally valid study showing different, let's see it.

You misunderstand, I was just asking if the "gun-licensing law" in your excerpt from the study was different than the 1976 prohibition and trigger lock laws I'd read about. I don't know enough about D.C. or gun laws to understand whether or not we were talking about the same gun control measures.

As for other studies or reasons to doubt your assertion, I can only say that Steven D. Levitt of "Freakonomics" interprets the available data differently.

just mumbles wrote:
For all we know, everybody in the country is an irresponsible gun owner, and current rates of injury and death are exactly what you'd expect from irresponsible gun ownership in those numbers. At the very least, we first need to define some criteria.

Sorry, I don't buy it, I know far too many responsible gun owners, and I believe if every gun owner were irresponsible, the problem would be far worse.

just mumbles wrote:
Quote:
Have there been a significant amount of incidents of somebody going off at a chaotic scene? Have there been any? Even one?

Of course. The most obvious and best documented examples would be those involving accidental police shootings. And these happen a lot, even though police officers (typically, hopefully) receive extensive training.

Do we have information on accidental police shootings versus justified police shootings, or what percentage of gun deaths they account for?
just mumbles wrote:
Quote:
Certainly not enough to convince me there is cause to eliminate everyone's right to have a gun, or that it would even be possible to do so.

Nobody said anything about this.

Plenty of people speak on this, all the time, even if not on PPK. Even when people don't mean to, if you invoke "gun control" as a strategy, that brings in a discussion of imposing limits on gun purchase and ownership (I'm alright with discussing those limits, it's not that I think there should be none). If we're only talking about conceal-and-carry laws, let's specify that (and if that's the specification that's been made, again, I don't know that I have a solid opinion on that yet, but I'm interested in hearing others).

just mumbles wrote:
someone carrying around a gun as a security blanket isn't necessarily protecting himself. If it turns out that carrying a gun is more likely to get you killed than protect you (and there's some evidence to suggest that this is true, all other things being equal), then the right to self-defense does not imply the right to gun ownership. That's not to say that a gun couldn't be an important part of a security plan, but invoking your right to protect yourself doesn't get you to liberal gun laws.

I don't know that there are any infallible statistics showing that carrying a gun is more likely to get you killed. I doubt it. All I know for sure is if potential assailants have guns, I want a gun to protect myself. Even if the next time I am attacked it's not with a gun (I say next because it's something that's happened before and that I anticipate happening again), I'd still rather have a gun than not have one.

just mumbles wrote:
There's no way he could have killed or injured 20 people with a knife or a baseball bat or Molotov cocktails before someone intervened.

I believe I conceded that point, but you didn't quote that part.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:51 pm 
Offline
Mispronounces Daiya
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:56 pm
Posts: 1464
For the record, I support stronger gun control, especially in cities where it has repeatedly been shown to reduce suicide and homicide rates. Here are studies suggesting that restricting gun access reduces suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21044804
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20587817

_________________
Like the beleaguered people of sub-Saharan Africa, I'll just go to Denny's. Solidarity!
-mumbles


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:04 pm 
Offline
Mispronounces Daiya
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:56 pm
Posts: 1464
BFH wrote:
vegimator wrote:
Please read the study I posted. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16001874

That's a link to a study on antinutritional factors on protein digestibility and amino acid availability in foods. But I saw the earlier link, the one you intended, and I read what was linked there.


Haha oops. I wish I could edit that!

Well that DC study was about the same 1976 trigger lock laws ("In 1976 the District of Columbia adopted a law that banned the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. We evaluated the effect of implementing this law on the frequency of homicides and suicides." - the second sentence of the study), and even if it wasn't, the data shows that during that time period after the law was introduced, gun crime dropped drastically and I can't think of why that would happen in 1976 when gun crime remained high nationwide. That Steven Levitt article doesn't specifically address the study either and cites no specific evidence. I need more than the opinion of a pop-economics author here. Tell me why that study's wrong.

_________________
Like the beleaguered people of sub-Saharan Africa, I'll just go to Denny's. Solidarity!
-mumbles


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:08 pm 
Offline
Grandfathered In
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Posts: 9706
Location: Seattle
You know who's panicking? It ain't the people saying, "shiitake, there are a lot of guns around here!"

It's the Glock-likers.

In Salon:

Quote:
Six are dead, six still in the hospital and Americans are struggling to figure out what it all means, but there is another alarming result of the Tucson shooting's aftermath: the surge in sales of Glock pistols, the gun used by Jared Lee Loughner to carry out his crime.

Bloomberg reports that Arizonans are rushing to pick up the $499 semi-automatic. According to one store owner, "We're at double our volume over what we usually do." This was two days after the shooting.

Another stat: one-day Arizona Glock sales jumped 60 percent Jan. 10 compared with the corresponding Monday last year. And it's not isolated to the Grand Canyon state, either.

_________________
Did somebody say Keep on rockin?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:10 pm 
Offline
rowdily playing checkers
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 3032
BFH wrote:
Sorry, I don't buy it, I know far too many responsible gun owners, and I believe if every gun owner were irresponsible, the problem would be far worse.

Anecdotes aren't evidence, and you have no grounds for believing that.

The point here is that if you're going to hold other people to account for making assumptions about gun owners, you're exposing yourself to a similar critique.

Quote:
Do we have information on accidental police shootings versus justified police shootings, or what percentage of gun deaths they account for?

Beats me. I'm not particularly interested in looking for it, since I don't know why that would be useful.

Quote:
Plenty of people speak on this, all the time, even if not on PPK.

So talk to those people about it.

Quote:
I don't know that there are any infallible statistics showing that carrying a gun is more likely to get you killed. I doubt it.

Statistics are never infallible, by definition. But yes, there is evidence that carrying a gun means you're more likely to get shot.

Quote:
All I know for sure is if potential assailants have guns, I want a gun to protect myself.

I believe this is what you referred to earlier as 'panic' (someone ignoring the numbers and going with a personal reaction to a particular threat). How is this any more legitimate than saying "All I know for sure is if potential assailants have guns, I want gun control legislation to protect myself"?

_________________
"Tits are inconsequential, but someone pass me that kitten" ~ papayapaprikás


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:22 pm 
Offline
Not NOT A Furry

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:41 pm
Posts: 460
vegimator wrote:
That Steven Levitt article doesn't specifically address the study either and cites no specific evidence. I need more than the opinion of a pop-economics author here. Tell me why that study's wrong.

I'm not sure if it was wrong or right, or if it can necessarily be applied to all cases of gun control in every city in every state. I'd have to dive further into the study and research other ones, a task that I am interested in, but one that will have to wait and will probably happen beyond my participation in this thread.
just mumbles wrote:
Anecdotes aren't evidence, and you have no grounds for believing that.

Sure they are, that's why it's called anecdotal evidence. I'm not sure why you think I would NOT have reason to believe those gun owners are responsible.
just mumbles wrote:
The point here is that if you're going to hold other people to account for making assumptions about gun owners, you're exposing yourself to a similar critique.

But the difference is, there are established guidelines among gun owners for responsibility. If you're making the assertion that they are ignoring those guidelines, or that the vast majority of them are, I think the burden of proof is on you. I don't think the statistics support the conclusion that all gun owners or even most are running around irresponsibly.
just mumbles wrote:
Quote:
Do we have information on accidental police shootings versus justified police shootings, or what percentage of gun deaths they account for?

Beats me. I'm not particularly interested in looking for it, since I don't know why that would be useful.

Because if you're going to invoke cops who shoot wrongfully as evidence of people panicking in a chaotic situation, it would help to see the numbers as far as that happening. I just don't believe there's an epidemic of that. Incidents of it? Sure. And that's horrible. But I don't think it represents the vast majority.
just mumbles wrote:
Quote:
Plenty of people speak on this, all the time, even if not on PPK.

So talk to those people about it.

I'm not sure how gun control is an irrelevant aspect of this conversation. Others made the assertion that there are too many guns or that people having guns is the problem. Isn't gun control the solution being implied to that perceived problem?

just mumbles wrote:
I believe this is what you referred to earlier as 'panic' (someone ignoring the numbers and going with a personal reaction to a particular threat). How is this any more legitimate than saying "All I know for sure is if potential assailants have guns, I want gun control legislation to protect myself"?

Whether it's legitimate or illegitimate, right or wrong, I guess that's a debate. But as far as it being panic? I suppose it depends. If we're talking about someone who sees a news story about a crime or a shooting and rushes out to get a gun, yes, that's an action resulting from panic. If you're talking about me or other people I know who have thought it over and decided that responsible gun ownership is a viable option for self-defense, that's not necessarily panic. Neither is thinking things over and deciding that one advocates gun control, not necessarily.

(I'm not ignoring the study you linked to, I'll definitely check it out!)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:09 pm 
Offline
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:18 pm
Posts: 3676
Location: It's hot. All the time.
If anyone here can tell me why anyone needs to own a forking handgun that can shoot 33 times before being reloaded, I'm open to hear it. The only reason to own that gun is to kill someone. Period.

Do I think that some of everyone's guns need to be taken away? Yes, I do. What are the real-world chances that any one person will be in a situation where a handgun would protect them? Pretty forking minimal. Focusing on deaths is not fair. Let's talk about people getting shot. The congressperson in AZ is not dead.

Quote:
Gun Murders by Country and Population Size

When the countries are compared on the basis of firearm homicides per 100,000 population, the
United States remains an outlier.

In one year, the U.S. firearm homicide rate was:

5 times that of Canada
10 times that of Finland
13 times that of Germany
19 times that of Australia
24 times that of Spain.
44 times that of England and Wales

A 2010 study affirmed this pattern: U.S. homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than 22 other
populous, high-income countries combined. For a summary of the study, see:
http://bradycampaign.org/studies/view/191.


The Brady Campaign provides a lot more data about gun violence which is the real issue. There are even studies and data and linkies.

_________________
A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-Dub
Dessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. Fezza
You people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:44 pm 
Offline
Huffs Nutritional Yeast
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:41 pm
Posts: 111
Location: in a hammock tent...
How do you know who is good and who is bad when everyone whips out a gun?

Clearly we should have more guns so we can all start shooting. We should also carry around flags or bandannas to signal that the "good guys" are good.

Also, I think we are missing a huge opportunity here.

We could get all politicians vehicles like the popemobile that are bullet proof. This will serve two purposes:

1. To stimulate the economy, go Detroit!

2. Protect the politicians from all the guns.

We could call them RPMs Recession Proof Mobiles.

_________________
Find me @
Cooking blog: http://vegchic.blogspot.com
Vegan Dining in New England Guide: http://vegchic2.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/SimplyVegan
Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/vegchicblog
Instagram: http://instagram.com/vegchicblog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:32 pm 
Offline
rowdily playing checkers
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 3032
BFH wrote:
Sure they are, that's why it's called anecdotal evidence. I'm not sure why you think I would NOT have reason to believe those gun owners are responsible.

It's also called 'bad science'. Sometimes a modifier will rob a word of an otherwise characteristic property, forming a new unit of meaning. A vegan quiche is not a quiche (by definition), but it is a vegan quiche. Similarly 'anecdotal' deprives 'evidence' of its usual quality of being at all useful. When we talk about evidence-based policymaking, we aren't including anecdotal evidence. And it's not that I don't think you don't have reason to believe some of the gun owners you know are responsible--it's just that it doesn't tell us anything useful, doesn't get you any closer to your goal.

Quote:
But the difference is, there are established guidelines among gun owners for responsibility. If you're making the assertion that they are ignoring those guidelines, or that the vast majority of them are, I think the burden of proof is on you. I don't think the statistics support the conclusion that all gun owners or even most are running around irresponsibly.

Until you can show evidence that the majority of gun owners sign on the dotted line, it doesn't mean anything that those guidelines are written by gun owners--self-regulation is a notoriously bad policy. I also don't see any reason to accept those guidelines as definitive. Personally, I tend to think that if you're carrying a gun around in public without extensive training, you're being irresponsible. Yet there are 'responsible' gun owners doing just this.

Quote:
Because if you're going to invoke cops who shoot wrongfully as evidence of people panicking in a chaotic situation, it would help to see the numbers as far as that happening. I just don't believe there's an epidemic of that. Incidents of it? Sure. And that's horrible. But I don't think it represents the vast majority.

I don't see how it would help us predict anything about not-necessarily-extensively-trained gun toters, so I don't think it's useful. It does make it obvious that it happens, and that it happens often enough for it to be a concern.

I'm also reluctant to get into a number crunching discussion because, honestly, I don't think it matters. The BBC is right on the money on this point--it's not really about our collective safety, some people just think they have a right, and there's nothing that will dissuade them. I've been led on far too many gun control wild goose chases that end with "Well, I still think I have a right to own handguns" to invest much time in this.

Quote:
I'm not sure how gun control is an irrelevant aspect of this conversation.

A problem with this quote-and-reply format is that it atomizes context, and the thread of the conversation is lost from one post to the next. Keep in mind that I was responding to this: "Certainly not enough to convince me there is cause to eliminate everyone's right to have a gun, or that it would even be possible to do so."

Nobody is talking about eliminating gun rights. That's not relevant to the gun control debate in the US, because it's a complete non-starter.

Quote:
Neither is thinking things over and deciding that one advocates gun control, not necessarily.

Ok. So let's give the benefit of the doubt and assume that we've all given it some thought, in which case nobody's position is the result of panic. Well, except for the Glock fans FootFace mentioned.

_________________
"Tits are inconsequential, but someone pass me that kitten" ~ papayapaprikás


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:49 pm 
Offline
Not NOT A Furry

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:41 pm
Posts: 460
just mumbles wrote:
I'm also reluctant to get into a number crunching discussion because, honestly, I don't think it matters.

I think it matters, but I don't want to crunch numbers, because it would interrupt the "Six Feet Under" marathon going on in this house tonight.
Also, while I don't doubt there's some validity to the numbers in the studies invoked above, I know that statistics can be manipulated to argue either way, and also that there may be some issues here between correlation and causation. I know the Freakonomics author has already been scoffed at in this thread as just "pop" or whatever, but I don't agree that his interpretation of the numbers should be dismissed. And I don't think that suicide deaths by gun are necessarily relevant, for instance, to the issue of homicidal and accidental deaths by firearms.
just mumbles wrote:
Nobody is talking about eliminating gun rights. That's not relevant to the gun control debate in the US, because it's a complete non-starter.

Okay, so just discussing conceal-and-carry then... I was skeptical when I heard Arizona relaxed those laws even further then they were. But I'm not sure I like how strict they are in California, or at least as I've understood them to be. I am not a gun enthusiast and I am perhaps even less well-versed on the specifics, but I'm told the permits are very hard to get in California.

Do I think everybody should have access to every kind of weapon in the world? No, I don't believe that. But I also don't believe in the "indiscriminate shooting gallery of human targets" scenario that others are imagining if (big quotes here) "everybody" had a gun on them.
just mumbles wrote:
Ok. So let's give the benefit of the doubt and assume that we've all given it some thought, in which case nobody's position is the result of panic. Well, except for the Glock fans FootFace mentioned.

Yeah, about that sales surge in Loughner's preferred Glock... kinda twisted.

Finally, and I'm going to repeat myself here... I don't think it's fair to write off all gun owners as either irresponsible or right-wing macho meatheads. I still see it happening, and happening in this thread, and I'd bet it will continue, but it's not accurate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:39 am 
Offline
Fair trade, organic mistletoe
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:52 am
Posts: 3507
Location: Toronto
BFH wrote:
Finally, and I'm going to repeat myself here... I don't think it's fair to write off all gun owners as either irresponsible or right-wing macho meatheads. I still see it happening, and happening in this thread, and I'd bet it will continue, but it's not accurate.

I actually don't see that happening at all. I think you're the only person, in fact, who has even brought that up.


As a Canadian, with a very different cultural attitude towards guns, this is honestly baffling. The idea that it's a right to own something whose soul purpose and use is to kill and maim is so foreign and, honestly, beyond my comprehension. Admittedly, Canada and the U.S. have very different creation myths and resulting ethoi, and the U.S. one relies a lot on the right to bear arms. That being said, that right was enshrined in a historical context so far from today's, and with such different intent than its present day application and effect as to make it almost nonsensical.

I figure, when you're in danger from, uh, the King of England, then sure you do have a right to form a well regulated militia to protect the state. Until then, I think the cultural need and acceptance of gun ownership is terrifying and antithetical to the intent of the amendment.

_________________
"I'd rather have dried catshit! I'd rather have astroturf! I'd rather have an igloo!"~Isa

"But really, anyone willing to dangle their baby in front of a crocodile is A-OK in my book."~SSD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:26 am 
Offline
Venomous Head of Veganism
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:21 pm
Posts: 8592
j-dub wrote:
BFH wrote:
Finally, and I'm going to repeat myself here... I don't think it's fair to write off all gun owners as either irresponsible or right-wing macho meatheads. I still see it happening, and happening in this thread, and I'd bet it will continue, but it's not accurate.

I actually don't see that happening at all. I think you're the only person, in fact, who has even brought that up.

No one has said anything like that in this thread and creating made-up name calling doesn't do much to strengthen your argument.

_________________
"You guys are a little bit fast to identify as not-mumbles. " ~ mumbles


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:54 am 
Offline
Making Threats to Punks Again
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 1137
Location: Arizona
FootFace wrote:
You know who's panicking? It ain't the people saying, "shiitake, there are a lot of guns around here!"

It's the Glock-likers.

In Salon:

Quote:
Six are dead, six still in the hospital and Americans are struggling to figure out what it all means, but there is another alarming result of the Tucson shooting's aftermath: the surge in sales of Glock pistols, the gun used by Jared Lee Loughner to carry out his crime.

Bloomberg reports that Arizonans are rushing to pick up the $499 semi-automatic. According to one store owner, "We're at double our volume over what we usually do." This was two days after the shooting.

Another stat: one-day Arizona Glock sales jumped 60 percent Jan. 10 compared with the corresponding Monday last year. And it's not isolated to the Grand Canyon state, either.


Obviously these are responsible and civic-minded Americans who will all now take classes and ensure that their semi-automatics never put a person in danger. Expect an update on the corresponding surge in sales of gun safes, trigger locks, and gun safety classes.

I'm sure that update will be arriving any time now . . .

_________________
Empathy, he once had decided, must be limited to herbivores or anyhow omnivores who could depart from a meat diet.
--Philip K. Dick


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:29 am 
Offline
Grandfathered In
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Posts: 9706
Location: Seattle
Hearing on the radio this morning about all the regular old heroes at the scene in Tucson. The intern who rushed to Giffords's side right after she was shot. The woman who knocked the shooter's second magazine away. Etc. All unarmed. The one guy who arrived at the scene armed almost shot the wrong guy.

More guns for everyone!

_________________
Did somebody say Keep on rockin?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:33 am 
Offline
Not NOT A Furry

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:41 pm
Posts: 460
IsaChandra wrote:
j-dub wrote:
I actually don't see that happening at all. I think you're the only person, in fact, who has even brought that up.

No one has said anything like that in this thread and creating made-up name calling doesn't do much to strengthen your argument.

I don't really have an argument I'm looking to strengthen, though, I'm not a gun enthusiast or NRA member or someone who believes in having no gun laws, and I'm still forming my opinion on specific gun control and conceal-and-carry laws. Maybe I just misread the jokes and it turns out nobody here actually pictures macho right-wing meatheads at all when we talk about gun owners. But I thought I at least read sarcastic remarks that indicated people think most gun owners are irresponsible idiots who shoot indiscriminately into crowds. If that is the impression, it doesn't hurt my feelings personally or anything, it's just not a picture that I agree with or that the statistics support (at least how I'm interpreting the numbers).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:03 pm 
Offline
Queen Bitch of Self-Righteous Veganville
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:21 pm
Posts: 10897
Location: Illinoize
Vantine wrote:
Do I think that some of everyone's guns need to be taken away? Yes, I do. What are the real-world chances that any one person will be in a situation where a handgun would protect them?


WHAT IF THERE IS A KILLER BEAR?!


But seriously, the only situation where I would ever think, "Hrm, maybe I should buy a gun!" is if I moved to an isolated farm far from any sort of help. Then I would get a shotgun. But only because i've seen too many movies about crazed mental patients escaping. And killer bears. And zombies, obviously. I'm not worried about any of those things when I go to the grocery store (except the zombies).

_________________
"The Tree is His Penis"

The tree is his penis // it's very exciting // when held up to his mouth // the lights are all lighting // his eyes start a-bulging // in unbridled glee // the tree is his penis // its beauty, effulgent -amandabear


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:17 pm 
Offline
Not NOT A Furry

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:41 pm
Posts: 460
You forgot the zombie bears.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:01 pm 
Offline
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:18 pm
Posts: 3676
Location: It's hot. All the time.
mrsbadmouth wrote:
Vantine wrote:
Do I think that some of everyone's guns need to be taken away? Yes, I do. What are the real-world chances that any one person will be in a situation where a handgun would protect them?


WHAT IF THERE IS A KILLER BEAR?!


But seriously, the only situation where I would ever think, "Hrm, maybe I should buy a gun!" is if I moved to an isolated farm far from any sort of help. Then I would get a shotgun. But only because i've seen too many movies about crazed mental patients escaping. And killer bears. And zombies, obviously. I'm not worried about any of those things when I go to the grocery store (except the zombies).


I now see you sitting like Fuzzy Lumpkins from the Powerpuff Girls, shotgun on your lap, rocking away. "Get off mah property!"

_________________
A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-Dub
Dessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. Fezza
You people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:19 pm 
Offline
Queen Bitch of Self-Righteous Veganville
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:21 pm
Posts: 10897
Location: Illinoize
Vantine wrote:
mrsbadmouth wrote:
Vantine wrote:
Do I think that some of everyone's guns need to be taken away? Yes, I do. What are the real-world chances that any one person will be in a situation where a handgun would protect them?


WHAT IF THERE IS A KILLER BEAR?!


But seriously, the only situation where I would ever think, "Hrm, maybe I should buy a gun!" is if I moved to an isolated farm far from any sort of help. Then I would get a shotgun. But only because i've seen too many movies about crazed mental patients escaping. And killer bears. And zombies, obviously. I'm not worried about any of those things when I go to the grocery store (except the zombies).


I now see you sitting like Fuzzy Lumpkins from the Powerpuff Girls, shotgun on your lap, rocking away. "Get off mah property!"


Yeah, it's only a matter of time before I turn into my father.

_________________
"The Tree is His Penis"

The tree is his penis // it's very exciting // when held up to his mouth // the lights are all lighting // his eyes start a-bulging // in unbridled glee // the tree is his penis // its beauty, effulgent -amandabear


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two congressmen resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:36 pm 
Offline
Bathes in Braggs
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:38 am
Posts: 1303
Location: San Francisco, CA
I really want a browning .22
http://centermassguns.com/catalog/images/27713.jpg
Image


since a ton of images of guns come up every time I google "PPK", I've been thinking about it more and more

_________________
"oh by the way I'm in this band..."
"Your band sucks."
-Rubella

Blog: http://blogthejerk.blogspot.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/mikedesert
Band: http://www.myspace.com/hornssf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Members of congress resolve to carry guns
PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:32 pm 
Offline
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:08 pm
Posts: 4066
Location: Pennsylvania
brian wrote:
Editing the thread title to be a little more accurate.

I don't remember what I wrote, but thanks!

_________________
Music Therapy Blog
Personal Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum and fancied up by What Cheer