You guys and your guns...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So much fear. Oddly, it's mostly from folks who will never been in danger.

[Coito ergo sum]

How about....

...gun bans are a no-no...

but,

...reasonable regulation of arms, like time, place and manner restrictions, safety regulations, permitting and licensing for carrying, and registration, etc., are fine...

and,

...there is no bright line as to where the level of "reasonableness" falls, but that's what the Supreme Court is for, in interpreting the reasonableness of State regulations to ensure that they do not violate the 14th Amendment substantive due process/liberty clause...?

[Jason]

I don't mind criticism of gun ownership but criticising Clint Eastwood? You've crossed the line.

[Seabass]

It's easy to claim that in a bland, generalising way.
But when you come down to real examples in detail, your claim breaks down.

This entire thread.

I rest my case. You can make the big bland criticism, but you can't make one single specific one.
Schoolboy stuff.

And this claim that gun-nuts constantly make, of huge numbers of people successfully defending themselves with guns, is utter bollocks, supported by fake statistics, cooked up by the NRA.

I've said this before. I would respect gun nuts more, if they actually admitted the truth. They like playing with their guns, they like the way guns make them feel, like Clint Eastwood or John Wayne, and they don't give a toss if other people get killed and injured, it's a price they are happy for other people to have to pay.

A lot of people are killed by automobiles, yet most people think having the freedom to drive an automobile is worth the trade off. This does not mean people who oppose car bans "don't give a toss if other people get killed and injured..."

Most people enjoy having a certain degree of autonomy, despite the risks.

[mistermack]

I don't mind criticism of gun ownership but criticising Clint Eastwood? You've crossed the line.

You got a problem with that, cowpoke?

[mistermack]

A lot of people are killed by automobiles, yet most people think having the freedom to drive an automobile is worth the trade off. This does not mean people who oppose car bans "don't give a toss if other people get killed and injured..."

Most people enjoy having a certain degree of autonomy, despite the risks.

That's fair enough, but it's not exactly comparing like with like, is it?

Cars are for transport. People are killed and injured by accident. Regrettable, but as you say, most people accept that the risk is acceptable, given the benefits of cars.

Guns are for killing and injuring people. They are designed to make killing and injuring people easier. That's where they differ from cars.

[Wumbologist]

And this claim that gun-nuts constantly make, of huge numbers of people successfully defending themselves with guns, is utter bollocks, supported by fake statistics, cooked up by the NRA.

Yes, the Department of Justice is clearly in the NRA's pocket and is in the habit of making up statistics to help the NRA out. There have been over a dozen studies done finding significant rates of defensive gun use, so you might as well just come out and admit that your reason for not accepting them is simply that they don't line up with your worldview.

[Wumbologist]

Guns are for killing and injuring people. They are designed to make killing and injuring people easier. That's where they differ from cars.

Ignoring the fact that there is are several Olympic sports involving firearms that ought to prove that they have legitimate sporting use without killing anything, let's think about the injuring/killing aspect of guns for a second. Injuring or killing people is never really a good thing, I think we can all agree on that. However, there are certainly times where killing someone may be the least bad available option in a situation. If I'm faced with a scenario where I have no option to retreat, no way out, and it's me or an attacker who means to kill me, what exactly is wrong with a gun "intended to kill" working in such a manner to kill my attacker and save my life? I genuinely hope that I never have need to draw a gun on somebody, let alone shoot them, but if it came down to a situation of me vs. someone who wishes to hurt or kill me, then yes, I'd like my gun to be well-suited to ending the threat to my life.

[Seabass]

A lot of people are killed by automobiles, yet most people think having the freedom to drive an automobile is worth the trade off. This does not mean people who oppose car bans "don't give a toss if other people get killed and injured..."

Most people enjoy having a certain degree of autonomy, despite the risks.

That's fair enough, but it's not exactly comparing like with like, is it?

Cars are for transport. People are killed and injured by accident. Regrettable, but as you say, most people accept that the risk is acceptable, given the benefits of cars.

Guns are for killing and injuring people. They are designed to make killing and injuring people easier. That's where they differ from cars.

I never said they were exactly analogous. I was simply addressing your comment about gun nuts not giving a toss about death and injury so long as other people pay the price.

[Gallstones]

"I'm a citizen of the USA and I like guns and support the Second Amendment"

"Guns!? Second Amendment!? USA!?"
"Defend yourself!"





Me: "First tell me why."

[Gallstones]

A lot of people are killed by alcohol and tobacco every year too.
When are they going to be outlawed?

I mean a person could get drunk and flip out, decide to chain smoke in an enclosed space, subject others to second hand smoke, get belligerent when asked to take it outside, start yelling and punch someone--then get into the car and kill someone on the highway going home.

Fucking nutso alcoholic smokers.
The police should have the authority to save society from them by shooting them on sight.

[Coito ergo sum]

A lot of people are killed by alcohol and tobacco every year too.
When are they going to be outlawed?

My point exactly. But, they are regulated...

[mistermack]

And this claim that gun-nuts constantly make, of huge numbers of people successfully defending themselves with guns, is utter bollocks, supported by fake statistics, cooked up by the NRA.

Yes, the Department of Justice is clearly in the NRA's pocket and is in the habit of making up statistics to help the NRA out. There have been over a dozen studies done finding significant rates of defensive gun use, so you might as well just come out and admit that your reason for not accepting them is simply that they don't line up with your worldview.

Like your other statistic, those figures are actually bollocks.
How do they get these figures? They just ASK people. And people say, yeah, i've had to defend myself with my gun !

You ask a bunch of fantasists, and what you get is fantasy.

[Wumbologist]

And this claim that gun-nuts constantly make, of huge numbers of people successfully defending themselves with guns, is utter bollocks, supported by fake statistics, cooked up by the NRA.

Yes, the Department of Justice is clearly in the NRA's pocket and is in the habit of making up statistics to help the NRA out. There have been over a dozen studies done finding significant rates of defensive gun use, so you might as well just come out and admit that your reason for not accepting them is simply that they don't line up with your worldview.

Like your other statistic, those figures are actually bollocks.
How do they get these figures? They just ASK people. And people say, yeah, i've had to defend myself with my gun !

You ask a bunch of fantasists, and what you get is fantasy.

Considering that most defensive gun uses occur without a shot being fired, how else would anyone know about them? If I've been accosted by a crook, pull a revolver and tell him to fuck off, and he runs off into the night, I'm probably not going to waste the rest of my evening telling the cops about the bad guy who was here just a minute ago but I scared him off. No police report, yet a crime was prevented, and depending on the mental state and intentions of the criminal, harm to myself may have been avoided.

You're grasping at straws to avoid the very real fact that there are over a dozen methodologically valid studies that have found high rates of defensive gun use in the US, because if guns are used more often in defense of innocents than they are used by criminals to perpetrate violence, your argument falls apart.

[mistermack]

[
I never said they were exactly analogous. I was simply addressing your comment about gun nuts not giving a toss about death and injury so long as other people pay the price.

I did say fair enough to that. Not giving a toss is a bit strong. But they don't care enough to actually change anything.

A lot of crocodile tears are shed, but nothing ever changes.

Cars are actually highly regulated, compared to guns. You have to pass a test, and it's illegal to drive drunk.
Not so with guns. It's illegal to be drunk in charge of a moped. Is it illegal to be drunk in charge of a gun? ( I don't actually know the answer to that ).