Kurt Russell on gun control - General

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305513]kurt russell is cool, so this is a big shame. the fact of the matter is that gun control works[/QUOTE] I almost forgot about this post. This is wrong. This is factually wrong. And theres even examples in the US of areas [California] that have some strict gun control but awful gun violence.

lol I see more people for the banning of fucking Pitbulls than people for stricter gun control. hilarious

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;49309060]lol I see more people for the banning of fucking Pitbulls than people for stricter gun control. hilarious[/QUOTE] pitbulls are a dangerous weapon that should not be put in the hands of those that are unfit for owning one owait

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;49308169]If you need a gun to protect yourself in the area you live in then you should probably move.[/QUOTE] If you live in that area then it's probably because you can't afford to move.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305513]kurt russell is cool, so this is a big shame. the fact of the matter is that gun control works you can come up with excuses all day long about 'only criminals will have guns' or 'people will make their own guns' the fact of the matter is that we had a huge mass shooting in 1996. we outlawed guns, and it hasn't happened again in all the years since. sorry america. kurt's argument is that 'they can kill people with other things if we outlaw guns', which is true. of course anybody can kill anybody with anything but guns make it 10x easier and more efficient to do so. and yes, they can make bombs. but making a bomb is a lot harder than getting a gun. and the harder something is, the riskier and longer it takes, and the more parts they have to source, which allows more time and more ways for them to be tracked and get caught.[/QUOTE] I'm shocked that I actually agree with you for once, Rusty. We know gun control can certainly help. I don't think we need to go as far as outlawing firearms because, quite frankly, there are just so many in circulation in America that there is no conceivable way we could enforce that. But right now, it is easier to buy a firearm than it is to buy a car, and a car is far more useful. There are a few things that could help. First of all, we really need to put more pressure on illegal sales. A common, federal law on what is and isn't legal would be helpful, but more importantly we need to expend more resources on illegal gun sales. Right now, the police force is mostly using its time and money to fight non-violent drug offenses, which is a huge waste because guns can be far more harmful. And the vast majority of guns involved in criminal incidents are illegally gained either through theft, private sales, or having somebody else purchase said gun for the individual. Secondly, there are laws we can add to our legal purchases as well. Even though the majority of firearms used in criminal cases were illegal, there is still a sizable amount that were legally purchased and, more importantly, that number is growing. So I propose a simple solution. Make gun ownership similar to automobile ownership. Give a written test, a physical test, maybe even a class preceding those. Then have the ATF give out licences instead of leaving the decision of "who gets guns" to private businesses. Right now, the only thing stopping you from getting a gun (so long as you have a clean background check) is the person selling it. I know people who sell guns and happen to work at a store that sells firearms, and unfortunately the people selling them are unlikely to turn down a sale because many of them rely on the sale directly for income. Small gun shops get money that goes directly to the owner, while large chains (like the one I work at) are more likely to give out bonuses to individuals who sell lots of product, meaning those who work at the gun counter can be rewarded for selling as many guns as possible. Obviously, this is not a good recipe. Giving that to a third party who isn't reliant on a gun sale would help immensely. I also think that you should have to be licensed for different types of firearms in the same way that you must be licensed for different types of vehicles. Basically, we need to change how we view firearms. The Second Amendment is not decisively an argument for gun rights because it is far to vague in its wording. We have yet to decide whether or not the Second Amendment means the right of a state militia to own firearms or the right of all citizens to own firearms, but even if it is the latter we need to rethink that policy. In a country that doesn't even guarantee shelter as a basic right, why should gun ownership be elevated to that level? Gun ownership is a privilege that should be earned and kept through responsible conduct. I think that is fair. That way, responsible gun owners have nothing to fear. They can keep their guns. The only expense is some extra paperwork, but is that not worth the potential to save lives? It's hardly obtrusive and I believe it presents a fair and balanced regulation without banning any weapons from civilians who want them and use them respectfully.

[QUOTE=kapin_krunch;49308541]Isn't that a moot point though as in the UK farmers are allowed to own a shotgun to protect their livestock, as long as they have a licence.[/QUOTE] Don't forget that target shooting and hunting are also a thing here so most of the essential gun uses are covered. Everyone seems to take an all or nothing approach when they argue about this sort of thing, it's stupid and gets you nowhere.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;49309486]Don't forget that target shooting and hunting are also a thing here so most of the essential gun uses are covered. Everyone seems to take an all or nothing approach when they argue about this sort of thing, it's stupid and gets you nowhere.[/QUOTE] legit the only real restrictions are on owning guns for "self defence" or specific firing mechanisms and ammunition that would generally serve little sporting or functional purpose. as long as you have a proper gun cabinet, bolted to a proper wall in your house, and can be vetted as "not likely to shoot up a school", you can buy most shotguns, a decent number of rifles and basically any bolt action operated rifle under the sun (there's a good few .50 rifles rocking around, but few ranges can actually be bothered to provide anything worth shooting them at). most people here arguing for more control are most certainly not arguing to 100% removal of all firearms ever because that's piss-takingly hard, even we can't do it. we're mostly arguing for much more regulation on concealable weapons like pistols (the main type of firearm used in crime after all) and more precautions to prevent legally bought firearms ending up on the black market due to owner negligence.

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;49309060]lol I see more people for the banning of fucking Pitbulls than people for stricter gun control. hilarious[/QUOTE] one is an animal, the other is an object :I

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49309459] Basically, we need to change how we view firearms. The Second Amendment is not decisively an argument for gun rights because it is far to vague in its wording. We have yet to decide whether or not the Second Amendment means the right of a state militia to own firearms or the right of all citizens to own firearms, but even if it is the latter we need to rethink that policy. In a country that doesn't even guarantee shelter as a basic right, why should gun ownership be elevated to that level? Gun ownership is a privilege that should be earned and kept through responsible conduct.[/QUOTE] There's a lot wrong with your post, but this argument irks me the most. The language in the 2nd amendment is not unclear. It has been analyzed by professionals with doctorate degrees in English and they all say it refers to the individual right to bear arms. Supreme Court justices (see: not people with English degrees) used to dispute this until they somewhat recently ruled it covers the individual right to bear arms based on what nearly every single person involved in creating the amendment said. Every single man involved in the writing of the Constitution and its amendments spoke of the necessity for every person to have the right to own a firearm. They spoke of what I spoke of before, the inherent right to defend oneself. You could soundly infer that, if everyone involved believed in the individual right to bear arms, then the amendment they wrote also meant the individual right to bear arms. "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." [img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Aik5Hzgxtoo/UPb3YwPNrRI/AAAAAAAAAV8/8hT8MJJRULI/s1600/2nd+Amendment.gif[/img] Advanced English teacher proves there is no vagueness in the wording of the 2nd amendment. In order to a basic right to exist, there must be a way of enforcing it. You do not have the right to live if you do not have the right to defend yourself. You do not have liberty if you do not have the means to preserve it. You do not have the right to free speech if you're only allowed to use it in specific areas. The Bill of Rights outlines rights you are [B]born with[/B], they are not granted by a government, they were not granted by the Constitution. Everyone always says, "What's the big deal? You can keep your guns!" but that isn't true. Every time gun owners "compromise" (a compromise assumes we get something in return, not the case), things are taken away. I come from Texas, moved up to CT for submarine school after joining the Navy. If Texas laws switched to CT laws overnight, I'd have to lose some of my guns I owned. Couldn't even do paperwork to save them. Little by little, more tiny rules are added to gun control laws and it slowly constricts what we can and cannot own. It isn't fair, it isn't balanced, and upholding the Constitution takes precedence over the lives taken by firearms. The numbers for firearms being used in defense (including fired and not fired, simply presenting often does the trick, as it did with me) is actually higher than the numbers of people getting killed by them. Who's the one arguing to save lives here?

the bataclan shooters brought select fire rifles and grenades into PARIS the only gun control is repealing the second amendment, but no one wants to roll the rock up that hill

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;49308169]If you need a gun to protect yourself in the area you live in then you should probably move.[/QUOTE] Yes because everybody can just pack up and move whenever they feel like. :downs:

Oh please, owning a gun shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege. Also the second amendment exists so that you can overthrow the government which probably wouldn't work out too well. I highly doubt a bunch of redneck militants can overthrow a government with militarized police and one of the highest funded militarises in the world. Also the whole "I need a gun for self-defence argument is dumb. If you cared so much about self defence then you can learn martial arts, buy pepper spray, use a taser, etc. There are plenty of non-lethal self-defence methods. Also, chances are if your house gets broken into, you're not going to be waiting for the robbers with your gun in hand. [QUOTE=dragon1972;49308346]I tend to find that gun control advocates never bother to substantiate their claims or address criticism that challenges their points of view. I'd be really happy to see them do either of those things when they debate.[/QUOTE] It's not like pro-gun advocates are any better with their predictable knee jerk reaction responses and hostile responses. Like I get it you like guns, that's cool, but don't pretend like they are some necessary thing you need for self-defence or something.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49311127]Oh please, owning a gun shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege.[/quote] Yeah sorry I have a right to life, and part of that right comes with the ability to defend myself. [QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49311127]Also the second amendment exists so that you can overthrow the government which probably wouldn't work out too well. I highly doubt a bunch of redneck militants can overthrow a government with militarized police and one of the highest funded militarises in the world.[/quote] If any sort of insurrection on a mass scale were to happen, it wouldn't be traditional warfare. It would be gurrelia style stuff like we've seen out of most people who have fought us in the last 60 years. (note that I don't actually believe that we'll have some sort of large scale insurrection in the near future, but if it were to happen, it sure as hell won't be a head on head clash ala the Civil War) [QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49311127]Also the whole "I need a gun for self-defence argument is dumb. If you cared so much about self defence then you can learn martial arts, buy pepper spray, use a taser, etc. There are plenty of non-lethal self-defence methods. Also, chances are if your house gets broken into, you're not going to be waiting for the robbers with your gun in hand.[/quote] And I can tell you for a fact that none of those are 100% guaranteed to save your life, not like a gun would have 100% chance either but it sure as hell is better than fucking pepper spray or a taser. Are you really suggesting people actually attempt to use Judo against muggers or home invaders (Or should I take out my fencing equipment and fence them away?)?? A majority of people on this planet will not have the time for training to become competent enough in any martial art to actually fight off someone with a weapon. But there exists the great equalizer - the gun. While I'm sure if you're facing an unarmed mugger, martial arts could help, [I]you don't have the guarantee that they're completely unarmed[/I]. And of course on home invaders you wouldn't be waiting, but there's still time between when you first hear them enter, and when you'd confront them.

Not taking any sides here, just some fun tidbits to think about in terms of death statistics in the United States, I'm not gonna give some bogus percentages or opinions I'm just gonna lay out some cold hard numbers: Deaths by firearm in the U.S. (2014): 32,383 Of that: -Suicide: 21,175 -Homicide: 11,208 Deaths by vehicle in the U.S. (2014): 32,719 Deaths from the flu in the U.S. (2014): 32,743 Deaths from strokes in the U.S. (2014): 128,978 Listen, it's a shitty thing to say, but I'm gonna say it. People die. But in my earnest opinion we are making way too be a ruckus over the gun control debate. Look at those numbers. I didn't mention everything because I didn't want to be depressing. [sp]Cancer took almost 600,000 people in 2014.[/sp]

[QUOTE=bdd458;49311187]Yeah sorry I have a right to life, and part of that right comes with the ability to defend myself.[/QUOTE] Everyone has the right to a life, but that doesn't change things. Gun ownership should be a privilege, NOT a right. Because guess what? Not everyone is capable of making good and well informed decisions on their own. I'm sorry that a few bad people have to ruin it for the rest, but people do shitty things. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement so should we just let any hick drive a car? No. Of course not because that would be fucking stupid, because guess what? Some people are incompetent and dangerous, and they shouldn't be on the fucking road. Just like some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. It's a really simple concept, and unless you're a complete mong then it wouldn't affect you anyway if certain individuals were not permitted to carry firearms.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49311127]Oh please, owning a gun shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege. Also the second amendment exists so that you can overthrow the government which probably wouldn't work out too well. I highly doubt a bunch of redneck militants can overthrow a government with militarized police and one of the highest funded militarises in the world.[/quote] I have already covered this. Nobody expects to win/overthrow the government. It's not about that, it's about deterrence. Much like how that fat security guard at the store is no threat to you, you can probably outrun him if you want to steal, but how badly do you want to chance that? Same concept. [quote]Also the whole "I need a gun for self-defence argument is dumb. If you cared so much about self defence then you can learn martial arts, buy pepper spray, use a taser, etc. There are plenty of non-lethal self-defence methods. Also, chances are if your house gets broken into, you're not going to be waiting for the robbers with your gun in hand.[/quote] Read the thread. My apartment was broken into by two guys, one with a tire iron and one with a baseball bat. Pepper spray in that environment would have incapacitated me as well. I know martial arts, but even a damn master at every art would be mega fucked by a tire iron and a baseball bat in a tiny apartment, no way to create distance. Fired tasers only work on one individual before needing to be reloaded, handheld contact tasers need you to touch the person with it, difficult to do when they have the reach advantage with a fucking bat. I had time to grab my rifle. Not only that, but I practiced before. Most gun owners have practiced clearing their house when nobody is around (albeit for fun most of the time), oddly enough it allows you to build that muscle memory for quick reactions. They kicked at my doorknob and the door buckled (shitty thin ass door), by the time they blasted it with the kick that knocked it open, I had my rifle in hand safety off pointed right at them. [quote] It's not like pro-gun advocates are any better with their predictable knee jerk reaction responses and hostile responses. Like I get it you like guns, that's cool, but don't pretend like they are some necessary thing you need for self-defence or something.[/QUOTE] See above. A gun was the only thing that was going to save my ass that night, and I'm far from the only one. My numbers are hazy, but roughly 30,000 people are killed by firearms in the states every year, but defensive firearm use (once again, doesn't always involve the firing of the weapon) came out to around 68,000 a year based on a study that took 5 years of data. I genuinely hope you don't find out just how necessary a firearm is for self-defense. I hope you never have to come to terms with knowing those 400 dollars you spent on something mostly for shits and giggles ended up saving your life in a way nothing else would have been able to. I had those guys outmatched bigtime in firepower and I was still absolutely terrified. Your viewpoints on a lot of things change when you realize just how easy it is for someone to take your life if you don't take actions to prevent it.

[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;49311276]Not taking any sides here, just some fun tidbits to think about in terms of death statistics in the United States, I'm not gonna give some bogus percentages or opinions I'm just gonna lay out some cold hard numbers: Deaths by firearm in the U.S. (2014): 32,383 Of that: -Suicide: 21,175 -Homicide: 11,208 Deaths by vehicle in the U.S. (2014): 32,719 Deaths from the flu in the U.S. (2014): 32,743 Deaths from strokes in the U.S. (2014): 128,978 Listen, it's a shitty thing to say, but I'm gonna say it. People die. But in my earnest opinion we are making way too be a ruckus over the gun control debate. Look at those numbers. I didn't mention everything because I didn't want to be depressing. [sp]Cancer took almost 600,000 people in 2014.[/sp][/QUOTE] the point is that number of homicides/armed robberies/gun violence cases in general can be reduced if the weapons were simply regulated and distributed safely if you didn't have to go through such a rigorous process to get a license, buy a car, register that car, and buy insurance, (not to mention the extensive rules surrounding the operation and ownership of the vehicle) then those vehicle deaths would be much much higher [editline]13th December 2015[/editline] Sure people do just die, but they shouldn't die needlessly. That's why we're constantly investing in safe driving PSAs and medical research to prevent strokes and cancer and the flu.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49311338]Everyone has the right to a life, but that doesn't change things. Gun ownership should be a privilege, NOT a right. Because guess what? Not everyone is capable of making good and well informed decisions on their own. I'm sorry that a few bad people have to ruin it for the rest, but people do shitty things. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement so should we just let any hick drive a car? No. Of course not because that would be fucking stupid, because guess what? Some people are incompetent and dangerous, and they shouldn't be on the fucking road. Just like some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. It's a really simple concept, and unless you're a complete mong then it wouldn't affect you anyway if certain individuals were not permitted to carry firearms.[/QUOTE] People say "Freedom isn't Free" for a reason, although I think some of them say it for the wrong reasons. Every liberty and freedom and individual has, is of course going to be exploited by the unscrupulous. That's the price. However, that price is worth it considering an overwhelming majority of gun owners don't abuse that right. It's not my problem that there are those who can't make the best decisions, but you know what this is a free society and shit sucks. I'm not going to trample over the rights of people who haven't done wrong, just because a few jackasses has. That's an absolutely ridiculous thing to do.

[QUOTE=cdr248;49311345]the point is that number of homicides/armed robberies/gun violence cases in general can be reduced if the weapons were simply regulated and distributed safely if you didn't have to go through such a rigorous process to get a license, buy a car, register that car, and buy insurance, (not to mention the extensive rules surrounding the operation and ownership of the vehicle) then those vehicle deaths would be much much higher [editline]13th December 2015[/editline] Sure people do just die, but they shouldn't die needlessly. That's why we're constantly investing in safe driving PSAs and medical research to prevent strokes and cancer and the flu.[/QUOTE] Do you know how regulated it already is in most buying environments?

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49311339]I have already covered this. Nobody expects to win/overthrow the government. It's not about that, it's about deterrence. Much like how that fat security guard at the store is no threat to you, you can probably outrun him if you want to steal, but how badly do you want to chance that? Same concept. Read the thread. My apartment was broken into by two guys, one with a tire iron and one with a baseball bat. Pepper spray in that environment would have incapacitated me as well. I know martial arts, but even a damn master at every art would be mega fucked by a tire iron and a baseball bat in a tiny apartment, no way to create distance. Fired tasers only work on one individual before needing to be reloaded, handheld contact tasers need you to touch the person with it, difficult to do when they have the reach advantage with a fucking bat. I had time to grab my rifle. Not only that, but I practiced before. Most gun owners have practiced clearing their house when nobody is around (albeit for fun most of the time), oddly enough it allows you to build that muscle memory for quick reactions. They kicked at my doorknob and the door buckled (shitty thin ass door), by the time they blasted it with the kick that knocked it open, I had my rifle in hand safety off pointed right at them. See above. A gun was the only thing that was going to save my ass that night, and I'm far from the only one. My numbers are hazy, but roughly 30,000 people are killed by firearms in the states every year, but defensive firearm use (once again, doesn't always involve the firing of the weapon) came out to around 68,000 a year based on a study that took 5 years of data. I genuinely hope you don't find out just how necessary a firearm is for self-defense. I hope you never have to come to terms with knowing those 400 dollars you spent on something mostly for shits and giggles ended up saving your life in a way nothing else would have been able to. I had those guys outmatched bigtime in firepower and I was still absolutely terrified. Your viewpoints on a lot of things change when you realize just how easy it is for someone to take your life if you don't take actions to prevent it.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry that this happened to you. You sound like a responsible gun owner, and I don't disagree that guns can't assist in self-defence situations. However, I know most people in here aren't arguing in favour of self-defence its more of something they can say to help prove their point. The thing is I don't have a problem with people owning guns, but I do think that certain, unstable individuals shouldn't. Just like how certain people can't drive. Because these people would most likely do more harm than good with a gun in their hands. What I'm trying to say is that guns aren't necessary for self-defence, so if certain individuals weren't able to own guns they could still find alternative self-defence methods if they truly care enough about self-defence.

[QUOTE=cdr248;49311345]the point is that number of homicides/armed robberies/gun violence cases in general can be reduced if the weapons were simply regulated and distributed safely if you didn't have to go through such a rigorous process to get a license, buy a car, register that car, and buy insurance, (not to mention the extensive rules surrounding the operation and ownership of the vehicle) then those vehicle deaths would be much much higher[/QUOTE] And if you put that much regulation into an object used by people to protect their lives, you effectively make it so poor people cannot defend themselves. I was working 14 hour days and barely scrounged up enough money for what I had, with your solution I would have had to magically make more time in the day to take classes and get a license, save even more money for registration, and then pay a monthly insurance fee. Gun control has always targeted the poor, your solutions are fucking bullshit. All they do is disarm the people who really need guns, the single mother who can maybe spare 100 bucks for a shitty Jennings .22 or Hi-Point to protect her family, and let the rich folks who use them just for fun have all the shit they want. Gun control truly began as a means of keeping guns out of the hands of black people, keep that in mind. It's an inherently discriminatory concept. Every time you suggest more paperwork, licenses, insurance, screenings, etc., you're pretty much just saying we should take guns away from poor people. Because poor people do most of the killing with guns so just fuck them all and take their right to defend themselves away. People keep comparing shit to cars on both sides and it's absolute bullshit. The right to preserve your own life is not comparable to the need to get from point A to B quickly. Cars are useful, but the job can be done other ways. Guns are the only great equalizer. Just to put things into perspective, if Texas had the same bullshit laws as Connecticut or European countries, I would be dead today because of those 2 guys who broke into my place looking to fuck me up. All because this rifle looks like a baby killing school shooting machine, probably the entire reason why they stopped dead in their tracks like deer in the headlights. Rest in pepperoni, hope its current owner shoots the shit out of it. [img]http://i66.tinypic.com/aob0p2.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49311406]a baby killing school shooting machine[/QUOTE] Johnny Dangerously (1984) [vid]http://2static.fjcdn.com/movies/What+the+news+thinks+of+gun+owners_7ae3f5_5630448.webm[/vid] [sp]I prefer a .176 Magnum, it shoots through universities.[/sp] On topic: As stated earlier roughly 35,000 people die of firearms in the U.S. per year, that's 0.001% of the population per year. Over half of those are suicides, so round that to 11,000. 11,000 people out of 300 MILLION. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning twice and winning the mega millions lottery than ever getting shot or shot at, and people still want to say that they live in fear of sending their child to school? You have a 0.001% of it happening.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;49308169]If you need a gun to protect yourself in the area you live in then you should probably move.[/QUOTE] Cause moving is always an option... [editline]14th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Paxton;49311543][vid]http://2static.fjcdn.com/movies/What+the+news+thinks+of+gun+owners_7ae3f5_5630448.webm[/vid] [/QUOTE] Oh man, that delivery is perfect.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49309874] In order to a basic right to exist, there must be a way of enforcing it. You do not have the right to live if you do not have the right to defend yourself. You do not have liberty if you do not have the means to preserve it. You do not have the right to free speech if you're only allowed to use it in specific areas. The Bill of Rights outlines rights you are [B]born with[/B], they are not granted by a government, they were not granted by the Constitution. Everyone always says, "What's the big deal? You can keep your guns!" but that isn't true. Every time gun owners "compromise" (a compromise assumes we get something in return, not the case), things are taken away. I come from Texas, moved up to CT for submarine school after joining the Navy. If Texas laws switched to CT laws overnight, I'd have to lose some of my guns I owned. Couldn't even do paperwork to save them. Little by little, more tiny rules are added to gun control laws and it slowly constricts what we can and cannot own. It isn't fair, it isn't balanced, and upholding the Constitution takes precedence over the lives taken by firearms. The numbers for firearms being used in defense (including fired and not fired, simply presenting often does the trick, as it did with me) is actually higher than the numbers of people getting killed by them. Who's the one arguing to save lives here?[/QUOTE] But that doesn't take away from what I said that guns should not even be a right in that sense. You are not born with a right to own a weapon. I'm sorry, but you're fucking not, and if you believe that you are than you are delusional. How can we even guarantee the right to something that hasn't existed for most of human history as a basic, human right? The right to bear arms [I]is given by the government. ALL of your rights are given to you by the government.[/I] And talking about factually incorrect: [quote=]Everyone always says, "What's the big deal? You can keep your guns!" but that isn't true. Every time gun owners "compromise" (a compromise assumes we get something in return, not the case), things are taken away. I come from Texas, moved up to CT for submarine school after joining the Navy. If Texas laws switched to CT laws overnight, I'd have to lose some of my guns I owned. Couldn't even do paperwork to save them. Little by little, more tiny rules are added to gun control laws and it slowly constricts what we can and cannot own. It isn't fair, it isn't balanced, and upholding the Constitution takes precedence over the lives taken by firearms. The numbers for firearms being used in defense (including fired and not fired, simply presenting often does the trick, as it did with me) is actually higher than the numbers of people getting killed by them. Who's the one arguing to save lives here?[/quote] Back up any of that with statistics. I have not seen a single analysis in my time on this earth that says more people are protected from violence by firearms than are victims of violence, and even if such an argument exists it is in the statistical minority. Or how about the claim that your guns will be taken away? I never claimed we need to use the laws put in place by states to take away firearms, only that there should be a larger effort to ensure they go to the right people. I am the only one arguing to save people here. Your post just show the delusions that gun owners have and I am sick of it. People are dying right now because of your shit argument that is based off paranoid delusions of the "dag-gum gubment taken muh guns!" and any time anybody actually proposes sensible gun regulation, you guys shoot it down. I'm sick of it and I'm sick of this site. Grow up and learn that the world doesn't revolve around you and your gun fantasies, and make a bit of a sacrifice for the protection of others as opposed to being selfish assholes.

[QUOTE=Paxton;49311543]Johnny Dangerously (1984) [vid]http://2static.fjcdn.com/movies/What+the+news+thinks+of+gun+owners_7ae3f5_5630448.webm[/vid] [sp]I prefer a .176 Magnum, it shoots through universities.[/sp] On topic: As stated earlier roughly 35,000 people die of firearms in the U.S. per year, that's 0.001% of the population per year. Over half of those are suicides, so round that to 11,000. 11,000 people out of 300 MILLION. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning twice and winning the mega millions lottery than ever getting shot or shot at, and people still want to say that they live in fear of sending their child to school? You have a 0.001% of it happening.[/QUOTE] I must know the source (for the webm, not the stat).

[QUOTE=DuCT;49312093]I must know the source (for the webm, not the stat).[/QUOTE] It's right above it, but if you didn't see it, Johnny Dangerously (1984).

[QUOTE=megafat;49306153]Imagine if that logic applied to anything else. "People will still accidentally fall off cell towers, so they shouldn't have harnesses to prevent that."[/QUOTE] Hate to break it to you, but you picked a singularly terrible example here. OSHA guidelines explicitly allow for repairmen to freeclimb radio towers because it's much faster than being anchored 100% of the time, and it reduces weight (which is a big deal when you are already carrying a tool bag that weights something like 50 pounds). As I understand it, the calculated risks of being up for long periods of time and being caught in sudden storms far outweigh the drawbacks of potentially falling to your death.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49312083] Back up any of that with statistics.I am the only one arguing to save people here. Your post just show the delusions that gun owners have and I am sick of it. People are dying right now because of your shit argument that is based off paranoid delusions of the "dag-gum gubment taken muh guns!" and any time anybody actually proposes sensible gun regulation, you guys shoot it down. I'm sick of it and I'm sick of this site. Grow up and learn that the world doesn't revolve around you and your gun fantasies, and make a bit of a sacrifice for the protection of others as opposed to being selfish assholes.[/QUOTE] We do back them up time and time again and people like you go "AHHH THAT'S RIGHT WING BULLSHIT I WANT FACTS!" >shows facts "IT"S RIGHT WING BULLSHIT, FACTS!" >shows facts "BULLSHIT, FACTS!" It's all simply because you can not fathom that guns save lives more often than not. You're the only one here operating on butt-hurt emotions and not your head. Why don't YOU grow up and lean that the world doesn't revolve around your feelings and illogical fear of guns and don't fucking buy one and let us keep our constitutional rights.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49307596]I had my apartment broken into by 2 guys, one with a tire iron and the other with an aluminum baseball bat. The second they saw me standing at the end of a hallway facing the door with a Yugoslavian AK pointed right out them screaming, "GET THE FUCK OUT," you can guess what they did next. What would have happened if I didn't have a firearm? Those guys weren't just there to rob. I was making noise, the lights were on, they knew someone was home. They were armed with weapons that could very easily fuck someone up. I'm trained in martial arts, but I can't take on a tire iron and baseball bat in close quarters. I was pro-gun before that, but it just drove the nail deeper. Everyone disconnects themselves and thinks that shit will never happen to them, but I guarantee every anti-gun person out there and in this thread would be wishing they had one if those 2 guys barreled through the door right now.[/QUOTE] how did you know they didn't have firearms? if you'd stood out with an AK and they had been armed, it's likely they would have seen you as an immediate threat to their lives and panicked and shot you. and they outnumbered you so don't tell me you'd have shot both of them before getting yourself killed you are insanely lucky to be alive. what a stupid thing to do

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305725]yeah, i think so. but it's so ingrained in americans to think that it's totally cool and normal. it's pretty bizarre to, like, most of the rest of the world. you don't need them. they're designed to kill. i am morally opposed to them. [/QUOTE] Then what the fuck are you doing talking to us about it? You've already made up your mind, you're morally opposed to them. That's not a postulate that will change, that is a personal edict or belief that you have cemented. And the very fact you have someone's reputation ruined for you because they're a gun rights supporter speaks volumes more about how much you shouldn't be involved in gun control conversations just as much as the gun nuts who spout conspiracy theories.