27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[Kristie]

Except for those instances when it is necessary to kill.

The statistics are against you, Gallstones. It is rarely necessary to kill.
As I showed earlier, 87% of killings in the home are suicide, where the gunowner or a member of his/her family kills themselves. The increased incidence of suicide in the home is 2 to 10 fold as a result of there being a gun in the home. Killings as a result of a person defending him/herself run at about 1% of killings as murder.

So basically, it is very infrequent when a killing is needed. The greatest bulk of killings with guns are murders or suicides, not self defense. Statistically, having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of a family member being killed with a gun, rather than reducing it.

Quit making shit up!

[Gallstones]

Except for those instances when it is necessary to kill.

The statistics are against you, Gallstones. It is rarely necessary to kill.
As I showed earlier, 87% of killings in the home are suicide, where the gunowner or a member of his/her family kills themselves. The increased incidence of suicide in the home is 2 to 10 fold as a result of there being a gun in the home. Killings as a result of a person defending him/herself run at about 1% of killings as murder.

So basically, it is very infrequent when a killing is needed. The greatest bulk of killings with guns are murders or suicides, not self defense. Statistically, having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of a family member being killed with a gun, rather than reducing it.

Multiple times per day across the nation it becomes necessary to kill.

Suicide doesn't count. It is a personal choice and not an incident where it is necessary to kill.

[Gallstones]

Oh dog, do I hate it when people compare cars to guns.

Fair enough. It shouldn't be much of a comparison; guns should be far more regulated than cars. But it's the other way around.

I'm not sure it is.

[Gallstones]

The price of the freedom to own machines which fire little pellets of alloy so fast they can kill people is that you tolerate those little pellets killing people at a level most of the world finds breathtakingly puzzling and staggeringly stupid.

However I doubt that this blind spot in your national psyche is going to change much at all in the near future.

Fools.

Do you think freedom came free? No one gave their life for the liberty you enjoy and take for granted today?

[Kristie]

Except for those instances when it is necessary to kill.

The statistics are against you, Gallstones. It is rarely necessary to kill.
As I showed earlier, 87% of killings in the home are suicide, where the gunowner or a member of his/her family kills themselves. The increased incidence of suicide in the home is 2 to 10 fold as a result of there being a gun in the home. Killings as a result of a person defending him/herself run at about 1% of killings as murder.

So basically, it is very infrequent when a killing is needed. The greatest bulk of killings with guns are murders or suicides, not self defense. Statistically, having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of a family member being killed with a gun, rather than reducing it.

Multiple times per day across the nation it becomes necessary to kill.

Suicide doesn't count. It is a personal choice and not an incident where it is necessary to kill.

Tell that to the person committing suicide. I'm positive they see it as very necessary. All a matter of opinion/perspective.

[Ian]

Oh dog, do I hate it when people compare cars to guns.

Fair enough. It shouldn't be much of a comparison; guns should be far more regulated than cars. But it's the other way around.

I'm not sure it is.

Depends how you define regualted of course. But without a drivers license I would have a far easier time buying an assault rifle than a car. Reality is what it is.

Hell, getting the drivers license was much harder than buying my gun. The background check, registration and brief safety video I had to sit through for the gun were nothing compared to the time and study requirements for Drivers Ed.

[Ian]

The price of the freedom to own machines which fire little pellets of alloy so fast they can kill people is that you tolerate those little pellets killing people at a level most of the world finds breathtakingly puzzling and staggeringly stupid.

However I doubt that this blind spot in your national psyche is going to change much at all in the near future.

Fools.

Do you think freedom came free? No one gave their life for the liberty you enjoy and take for granted today?

Nobody thinks that at all. But many of us think the 2nd Amendment is on the verge of being obsolete. The 18th amendment was ratified and later proved to be a shitty idea, and repealed by the 21st. People have more of an attachment to the 2nd one for various reasons, many of which I can understand. But that doesn't mean it hasn't outlived most of its usefulness, or that it's not being horribly misinterpreted nowadays.

[Gallstones]

So, if you had to kill something, what would you prefer to use?

I would prefer not to kill something. Except bugs, but I stomp on them.

I don't like killing either, but the deed needs to be done and you can't stomp a horse to death.
BTW, I don't kill bugs or spiders et al unless there is a need. I otherwise leave them be because I'm not blood thirsty and irreverent towards other life forms as a matter of course.

[Gallstones]

The price of the freedom to own machines which fire little pellets of alloy so fast they can kill people is that you tolerate those little pellets killing people at a level most of the world finds breathtakingly puzzling and staggeringly stupid.

However I doubt that this blind spot in your national psyche is going to change much at all in the near future.

Fools.

Do you think freedom came free? No one gave their life for the liberty you enjoy and take for granted today?

Nobody thinks that at all. But many of us think the 2nd Amendment is on the verge of being obsolete. The 18th amendment was ratified and later proved to be a shitty idea. People have more of an attachment to the 2nd one for various reasons, many of which I can understand. But that doesn't mean it hasn't outlived most of its usefulness, or that it's not being horribly misinterpreted nowadays.

Now that we have freedoms we can relax as we can't lose them again because we can trust our government and other voters to be sensible and altruistic and sympathetic and unselfish and full of brotherly love and our neighbors to not covet what we have and want to take it by force.

[Blind groper]

Do you think freedom came free? No one gave their life for the liberty you enjoy and take for granted today?

The problem with that suggestion is that Americans are not free. They are less free than peoples in the other 23 richest nations, which do not have the so-called "right" to bear arms.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that people should have the right to good medical care, a living, and education. In the USA these are not rights. They are freely available to the wealthier people and denied to the poor. The USA is not a free country. If you dispute this, go and ask a poor person.

[Gallstones]

But you can carry a gun into bars in some states? That makes total sense. And, before you say 'you drive cars to bars', just because you drive there, that doesn't mean you will drive home. My vehicle has been left at a bar more than once.

I understand that in a limited number of states you can carry a gun into a bar--you still can't drink.
Just like you can go to a bar, you can bar hop an evening away--but you can't drive yourself to and from drunk.

[Ian]

Now that we have freedoms we can relax as we can't lose them again because we can trust our government and other voters to be sensible and altruistic and sympathetic and unselfish and full of brotherly love and our neighbors to not covet what we have and want to take it by force.

Um... yeah.

Quite a fantasy you gun-lovers have about how the 2nd Amendment is what safeguards your freedom. 230 years ago a citizen militia could stand up a standing Army if they had to. How does that reasoning work out today?

[Gallstones]

Do you think freedom came free? No one gave their life for the liberty you enjoy and take for granted today?

The problem with that suggestion is that Americans are not free. They are less free than peoples in the other 23 richest nations, which do not have the so-called "right" to bear arms.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that people should have the right to good medical care, a living, and education. In the USA these are not rights. They are freely available to the wealthier people and denied to the poor. The USA is not a free country. If you dispute this, go and ask a poor person.

I am a poor person.

[Kristie]

So, if you had to kill something, what would you prefer to use?

I would prefer not to kill something. Except bugs, but I stomp on them.

I don't like killing either, but the deed needs to be done and you can't stomp a horse to death.
BTW, I don't kill bugs or spiders et al unless there is a need. I otherwise leave them be because I'm not blood thirsty and irreverent towards other life forms as a matter of course.

I wouldn't want to shot a horse to death either. If it needs put down, I'm sure there are drugs for that.
Yes, I'm a blood thirsty spider stomper!

[Kristie]

Do you think freedom came free? No one gave their life for the liberty you enjoy and take for granted today?

The problem with that suggestion is that Americans are not free. They are less free than peoples in the other 23 richest nations, which do not have the so-called "right" to bear arms.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that people should have the right to good medical care, a living, and education. In the USA these are not rights. They are freely available to the wealthier people and denied to the poor. The USA is not a free country. If you dispute this, go and ask a poor person.

I am a poor person.

Not too poor. You're on the Internet and you buy guns. You must have a bit of cash flow.