Why are guns so important to Americans?

[Voidwar]

A lesbian who has never been with a man, ever.

Inferno is a Gold Star.

Why does this matter in a gun thread Jerry ?

I mean, I think she fled the field, but was this the classiest way to point it out ?

 

[Jerry]

Why does this matter in a gun thread Jerry ?

I mean, I think she fled the field, but was this the classiest way to point it out ?

It makes sense that you would ask since Inferno hasn't answered my question yet. She's under the weather atm so just sit back and relax.

 

[vendur]

"God created man. Samuel Colt made 'em equal."

 

[American]

I am very anti gun. I think they should all be collected and melted down to make something useful. When i say this most people look at me like I am crazy. You may too. I just want to know why people feel the need to have them. Please explain this need if you would be so kind.

Where are you from?

 

[Scorpion89]

I am very anti gun. I think they should all be collected and melted down to make something useful. When i say this most people look at me like I am crazy. You may too. I just want to know why people feel the need to have them. Please explain this need if you would be so kind.

Inferno-I answer you on that other forum but here is my rspounce.

First their is this thing called the 2nd Adm. which means I and you can have and own a Gun, that should be the end of any debate our Founding Fathers made this the Second most important Adm. right after the 1st that should tell you everything you need to konw.

Question for you Inferno are you saying that we need to throw out the Bill of rights ?????

 

[First Thought]

Inferno-I answer you on that other forum but here is my rspounce.

First their is this thing called the 2nd Adm. which means I and you can have and own a Gun, that should be the end of any debate our Founding Fathers made this the Second most important Adm. right after the 1st that should tell you everything you need to konw.

Asinine. Intelligent and coherent debate should be had whenever two parties feel it is necessary.

Question for you Inferno are you saying that we need to throw out the Bill of rights ?????

I think you should re-word this, it seems like you are setting up a strawman.

 

[Baralis]

I believe alot of the people that are anti gun probably were not raised with guns in the home.

I was raised by a hunter and became a hunter myself. At age 6 my father bought me my first gun. I was also taught to properly handle them and respect them. I have lived with guns in my home my entire life. The funny thing is none of the many I have had ever held up a store, robbed a bank, or threatened anyone.

When you are raised with guns you will realize that the guns are not evil. They do not commit crimes or intentionaly harm people. The people that are afraid of guns should be afraid of the criminals that misuse them instead.

 

[Scorpion89]

Asinine. Intelligent and coherent debate should be had whenever two parties feel it is necessary.


I think you should re-word this, it seems like you are setting up a strawman.

Not when it come's to the Bill of Right Our Founder father put these in place for a very good reason there is no debating the Bill of rights unless your asking for new Constitutional Convention which could lead to an Armed uprising.

 

[winston53660]

Inferno-I answer you on that other forum but here is my rspounce.

First their is this thing called the 2nd Adm. which means I and you can have and own a Gun, that should be the end of any debate our Founding Fathers made this the Second most important Adm. right after the 1st that should tell you everything you need to konw.

And even still to this day one can not scream fire in a crowded theater.

 

[Scorpion89]

And even still to this day one can not scream fire in a crowded theater.

Correct but hat is apple and orange in this discussion. The Cort rightfully ruled that screaming Fire in a Crowed Theatre wasn't 1st Adm Speech protection because it trampled on the rest of the Theatre 1st Adm right and was an act of macils.

The only way the 2nd Adm. can be change is for a Convention are you calling for one.

 

[Goshin]

Not when it come's to the Bill of Right Our Founder father put these in place for a very good reason there is no debating the Bill of rights unless your asking for new Constitutional Convention which could lead to an Armed uprising.

Scorpion, thank you for standing up for the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.

I would say that there are some things you could do to make your stand more effective. Writing in a clear manner, using good punctuation/sentence structure/paragraphs and so on, make your posts more readable and understandable. These are all good things, especially when clear communication on a message board is chancey at the best of times.

The clearer your message is, the more likely it is to have the desired impact.

Now, you know and I know that the 2A guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Not everyone agrees with us, and while I know it is tiresome to go over the same explanations 50 times, it is unfortunately necessary some times. So instead of just dashing off a quick post, a more in-depth explanation of your position or point usually works better in pressing one's argument.

Keep up the good fight.

G.

 

[Jerry]

I am very anti gun. I think they should all be collected and melted down to make something useful. When i say this most people look at me like I am crazy. You may too. I just want to know why people feel the need to have them. Please explain this need if you would be so kind.

To guard against nut-ball landlords who think they can draw a shot-gun and force you off their property under threat of immediate death if you violate an anti-possession clause in the rental agreement.

 

[Goshin]

To guard against nut-ball landlords who think they can draw a shot-gun and force you off their property under threat of immediate death if you violate an anti-possession clause in the rental agreement.

Geeze, Jerry. :rofl

 

[Jerry]

Geeze, Jerry. :rofl

Hey, the legal and correct thing to do is begin an eviction proceding, but he didn't see it that way.

Personaly I don't understand why a guy who owns a shot-gun would opose the right of others to own a gun. I gues some people support one set of rules for the rulers and another for the ruled.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

To guard against nut-ball landlords who think they can draw a shot-gun and force you off their property under threat of immediate death if you violate an anti-possession clause in the rental agreement.

That sounds like a "mexican standoff" you got there. :2razz:

 

[joko104]

I don't want to play semantics, but I would "limit" the right to have guns to policemen, security guards & soldiers only, because they need arms to fullfill their mission.

This right is already limited for security reasons: young people/former criminals/crazy people can't have guns ; no one can bear arms in planes/town halls/libraries...

For the same reason, I think that people who are not policemen/soldiers should not have guns: statistics show that (even if it's not 43 times more) guns owned by civilians kill more innocents than intruders. That is thus a clear danger.

So your complaint is that gun owners should always kill criminals execution style? I favor the death penalty but don't agree with your advocacy of citizens just gunning down anyone committing or attempting to commit a crime execution style.

That was your point, wasn't it?

 

[Jerry]

I am very anti gun. I think they should all be collected and melted down to make something useful. When i say this most people look at me like I am crazy. You may too. I just want to know why people feel the need to have them. Please explain this need if you would be so kind.

Case in point:

So I stayed at my girlfriend's house last night. When I stay at her place Im usually one of the last one's to go to bed alongside her dad. I finished brushing my teeth and was about head back to her room to go to bed but her dad went up to me (with shotgun in hand) and told me to grab my pistol because he heard someone sneaking around the house and that they tried to get in through front door and were going to try the back one which isnt a deadbolt. Well I was in back of the hall while he stood toward the front ready and shortly this asshole busts in screaming "Time to die you spic loving kikes!" He fires the shotgun but missed but it was enough for this neo-nazi ****tard to realize that this is armed household and ran with his tail between his legs. Needless to say I didnt get my sleep last night.

 

[Harshaw]

I am very anti gun. I think they should all be collected and melted down to make something useful. When i say this most people look at me like I am crazy. You may too. I just want to know why people feel the need to have them. Please explain this need if you would be so kind.

I believe it is YOU who hold the extremist views here.

 

[Harshaw]

statistics show that (even if it's not 43 times more) guns owned by civilians kill more innocents than intruders. That is thus a clear danger

So the only successful defensive use of a gun is to kill?

(This is kind of like saying the US or Canadian militaries should be banned because they haven't fought on North American soil in over 150 years.)

 

[stevenb]

Maybe you should apologize. Then read my posts and see what i am actually saying before you attack me again. I will not post on this issue with you again. I am sorry I have not taken a bad tone and no one else seems to think I have. You sir seem to be the only that took issue.

Actually, I took issue to that.. I just didn't say anything about it.

I agree with you that the constitution gives us the right to own guns, but I do think that these ideas should be updated to suit the time. When the founders wrote that, assault rifles and other high caliber weapons didn't exist, so the danger was nowhere near where it is today.

That said, I don't think that every gun control law ever passed necessarily violates our right to own guns so much as it places limits on them.

Did our founding fathers envision people burning flags as a mode of free speech?

I'm pretty sure they didn't.. but it's still covered isn't it?

Funny how that works.

 

[Goshin]

I don't want to play semantics, but I would "limit" the right to have guns to policemen, security guards & soldiers only, because they need arms to fullfill their mission.

This right is already limited for security reasons: young people/former criminals/crazy people can't have guns ; no one can bear arms in planes/town halls/libraries...

For the same reason, I think that people who are not policemen/soldiers should not have guns: statistics show that (even if it's not 43 times more) guns owned by civilians kill more innocents than intruders. That is thus a clear danger






lol, nice try but you did not read my previous posts: both buckets & cars have got huge advantages (transportation...). Guns also have an advantage (kill intruders) but this advantage is limited (how many of you have ever had an intruder at home, and how many times was is necessary to use a gun and kill him????) and is outweighted by a great disadvantage (increased risk of being killed/killing your family/friends/innocents)

This is totally fallacious.

the Kleck Study:
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Number Of Protective Uses Of Firearms In U.S: Projected at a minimum of 2.5 million cases annually, equal to 1% of total U.S. population each year. Criminal assailants are killed by their victims or others in only about 0.1%, and wounded in only about 1.0% of incidents as described above. Most such crimes are prevented by mere presence of a firearm in the hands of an intended victim.(Dr. Gary Kleck, PhD, Florida State University, Targeting Guns, 1998)

A 1993 Gallup Poll study (hardly a conservative partisan group) found a likely annual rate of defensive gun use (DGU) of 777,153 per year in the US.
An LA Times 1994 study found an implied national DGU of 3,609,682.

Firearms Accidents and Firearms Safety Education
Fatal Firearms Accidents for All Ages Annually: 1,134 nationwide in 1996. Rate of 0.4 per 100M population. Represents a roughly 90% decrease from record high in 1904. Accident rate is down by 65% since 1930, while U.S. population has doubled and number of privately-owned firearms has quadrupled. Compare to other types of fatal accidents, for all ages: Motor Vehicles 16.7/100M, Falls 4.8/100M, Poisoning 4.0/100M, Drowning 1.7/100M, Fires 1.6/100M, Choking 1.1/100M.(National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, BATF, US Census)

Fatal Firearms Accidents for Children 14 and Under Annually: 138 nationwide in 1996. About 3% of all fatal accidents under age 14. Represents a 75% decrease from record high of 550 in 1975. Compared to other types of fatal accidents for children: Motor Vehicles 44%, Fires 16%, Drowning 14%, Choking 4.5%.(Nat'l Safety Council, Nat'l Center for Health Statistics)

Even the most conservative studies on defensive gun use say over 60,000 uses per year, most with no shots fired.

60,000 / 1,134

Means that a gun is about 50 times MORE likely to be used in self-defense than to cause a fatal accident. If we accept the higher Kleck figure of 2.5 million, it becomes something like 2,400 to 1 in favor of guns as protection tools.


G.

 

[rhinefire]

I am very anti gun. I think they should all be collected and melted down to make something useful. When i say this most people look at me like I am crazy. You may too. I just want to know why people feel the need to have them. Please explain this need if you would be so kind.

To shoot naive people.

 

[Goshin]

To shoot naive people.

I understand that some of the anti- posts can provoke anger... I get testy too.

Saying things like this, though, doesn't help our image. Too many people already believe the stereotypes, why help it along.

k?

G.

 

[hazlnut]

This is totally fallacious.

the Kleck Study:
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

That Kleck Study apparently has more problems than the one you posted in the other thread. Here, take a look:

States United to Prevent Gun Violence on firearms, gun rights, guns, society: Gary Kleck Numbers Often Disputed

Gary Kleck's study of defensive gun use has been shown by numerous scholars to not be plausible. His 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year has been called "the most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official." (Cook, Ludwig, Hemenway, 1997 - see evidence) And while Marvin Wolfgang might not have found fault with Kleck's methodology he did point out the limitations of survey research and the "problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe."

This problem of extrapolation can be noted in the fact that Kleck reported that 207,000 times a year the gun defender thought he wounded or killed the offender. Yet that would be twice the number of people treated in emergency rooms each year for non-fatal firearm injuries and most of these people are victims of assault, suicide attempts and accidental shootings rather that criminals shot by defenders.

Study after study has found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of homicide and suicide. And while guns are used to prevent some crimes they are used far more often to commit crimes. Guns are used to kill, maim, rob, assault, threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self-defense.

It seem to be a study with very limited data analysis. Did he really only look at one year? 1993?

Goshin: If you only read studies that confirm your beliefs and don't even consider studies contrary to you beliefs, then you're not really doing an critical thinking on this issue.

 

[Goshin]

That Kleck Study apparently has more problems than the one you posted in the other thread. Here, take a look:

States United to Prevent Gun Violence on firearms, gun rights, guns, society: Gary Kleck Numbers Often Disputed



It seem to be a study with very limited data analysis. Did he really only look at one year? 1993?

Goshin: If you only read studies that confirm your beliefs and don't even consider studies contrary to you beliefs, then you're not really doing an critical thinking on this issue.

You give me too little credit sir. Back when I was a college student, I decided that my views on guns needed review. At the time there wasn't an internet to speak of, so I hit the library. I read a number of books on the subject, both pro- and anti-, as well as some that claimed "objectivity" (heh).

I spent quite some time thinking about all the information I had taken in, and questioning all my assumptions. I made a truly honest effort to re-assess my position.

Where I landed is pretty obvious. I became even more pro-gun than I had been before.

I don't know of many posters who make a habit of citing studies that oppose their position, and I haven't noticed you doing it so far. Am I to be held to a standard that no one else practices? :lol:

I have long thought that Kleck's numbers were probably too high. I often cite the government studies that have found 60,000 to 200,000 defensive uses per year. These are studies based on FBI crime report data. Even going by these most conservative figures, which to my knowlege no one questions, guns are used for defensive purposes far more often than they are involved in accidental deaths.

A 1993 Gallup Poll study (hardly a conservative partisan group) found a likely annual rate of defensive gun use (DGU) of 777,153 per year in the US.

It is my opinion that the truth probably lies between the two extremes: that is the lowball conservative gov't numbers and the very high Kleck figures. Other studies have put the national DGU/yr (defensive gun uses per year) at between a half-million and one million. I expect that is probably correct, and my anecdotal experiences would seem to support such numbers.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies, [16] or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries. [17] These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported. [18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses. [19]
The strongest evidence that a measurement is inaccurate is that it is inconsistent with many other independent measurements or observations of the same phenomenon; indeed, some would argue that this is ultimately the only way of knowing that a measurement is wrong. Therefore, one might suppose that the gross inconsistency of the NCVS-based estimates with all other known estimates, each derived from sources with no known flaws even remotely substantial enough to account for nine-to-one, or more, discrepancies, would be sufficient to persuade any serious scholar that the NCVS estimates are unreliable.
...The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun.