|
Stories
| Home | About | Topics | Rejects | Abortions |
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained.
You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email
will not be read. Please read this
page if you have questions.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained.
You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email
will not be read. Please read this
page if you have questions. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
 |
|
Guns are inanimate objects. (3.66 / 3) (#2) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 04:41:33 AM PST |
|
|
|
They do not possess a functioning mind, nor a Christian soul, they cannot have morals. Therefore guns are neither good nor bad.
Being shot in the head by a drugged-up burglar with a gun is bad. Shooting a blustering homeowner who thinks his rifle makes him 'safe' in the head is good. Guns themselves are amoral. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
True, perhaps "gun ownership" would be a (5.00 / 1) (#3) |
|
by Adam Rightmann on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 05:35:54 AM PST |
|
|
|
poll option. A. Rightmann |
|
Wha?!?! (none / 0) (#10) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 16th, 2002 at 09:12:11 PM PST |
|
|
|
Shooting a blustering homeowner who thinks his rifle makes him 'safe' in the head is good.
So you think it is good to shoot someone in the head because they believe guns give him safety?!?!! umm...guns do provide safety. If a robber breaks into my house, I shoot him. If I didn't have a gun, I get shot, my wife gets raped then shot, and my stuff gets stolen. Yes, for that at many other reasons, I LOVE GUNS! |
|
In answer to your question: (4.00 / 1) (#14) |
|
by because it isnt on Sat Aug 17th, 2002 at 04:34:38 PM PST |
|
|
|
So you think it is good to shoot someone in the head because they believe guns give him safety?!?!!
Yes. There's one less idiot in the world, and there's another gun in the hands of its rightful owners, i.e. criminals. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
to you gun owners = criminals? (none / 0) (#18) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 10:26:04 AM PST |
|
|
|
"There's one less idiot in the world, and there's another gun in the hands of its rightful owners, i.e. criminals."
that is the most biased statemetn ive ever seen. every year several million people are saved by guns. about 2.5 million to be precise. every year thousand opon thousands of hunters flock to the nearby forests geared up in camo to hunt dear, elk, turkey, pheasant, bear, and many other animals. are these people criminals too for wanting to put dinner on the table? if so, then by the same reasoning fisherman are criminals too, because they take and kill fish.... and every year hundred osf thousands of people go to shooting ranges, and shoot round opon round at little black circles 50, 100, 150, and 300 yards away. are these people also criminals? i didnt know it was illegal to shoot paper... |
|
Save your rhetoric. (5.00 / 2) (#22) |
|
by because it isnt on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 04:00:20 PM PST |
|
|
|
to you gun owners = criminals? What an outrageous slander! I most certainly did not say that. These self-styled 'gun owners' are an insult to the common criminal, the class of person to whom guns REALLY belong. When you were playing "cops and robbers" as a child, you may remember that the criminal had a black mask, a stripy or pigeonfeet jumper, and a bag marked SWAG. Does the average homeowner need any of these items? No, he doesn't, and so it is with guns. about 2.5 million to be precise 'About'. 'Precise'. Your own words mock your argument. Guns do not protect you from the number one cause of death in America, cars. If I were to pick a number-one life-saver, it would be "public transport", not guns. thousands of hunters You can't call yourself a 'hunter' if you use a gun as a weapon. You are simply a 'killer', because you took no effort to actually hunt your animal. You pointed. You shot. Why not just use hand grenades? Or rocket launchers? Or scud missiles? No, the true hunter uses a bow or a spear. The wily hunter will set a trap and wait. Do you know the nasty shit they put in shotgun cartridges? If I killed an animal with a shotgun, I would only serve the meat to my enemies. Busy farmers use their shotguns to quickly and accurately kill vermin, much as they use combine harvesters instead of harvesting by hand. The shotgun is a miracle of the modern age, but it is not a sporting accessory. i didnt know it was illegal to shoot paper The 'sport' of shooting is not illegal. Neither is dwarf tossing, or wrestling, or bungee jumping. The legality does not come into question, it is the legitimacy of the sport you should be concerned with. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
How much education do you have? (none / 0) (#39) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 06:34:04 PM PST |
|
|
|
Let me just point out the numerous flaws in the post to which I am replying. First, you might want to look up the word rhetoric before posting, fool.
Next, lol, I love this quote: ...the common criminal, the class of person to whom guns REALLY belong. So you believe criminals should have guns but law abiding citizens should not??? wow eithier you, yourself are a criminal or you are really dumb. Guns do not protect you from the number one cause of death in America, cars. If I were to pick a number-one life-saver, it would be "public transport", not guns. We are not talking about the number one cause of death. We are talking about one cause of death. Cars have nothing to do with this thread. You can't call yourself a 'hunter' if you use a gun as a weapon. You are simply a 'killer', because you took no effort to actually hunt your animal. You pointed. You shot. Have you ever gone hunting before? If you have you must have had amazing luck by finding the dumbest animal ever. Hunting is a challenge. Yes, archery is more difficult but shooting a gun has challenges too. Have you ever even fired a weapon?? Do you know the nasty shit they put in shotgun cartridges? I do not hunt with a shotgun. I believe it is illegal to do so. Shooting varmin is an exception. We are talking about rifles here, not shotguns. The legality does not come into question, it is the legitimacy of the sport you should be concerned with. OK, maybe I'm just stupid or something. Perhaps you could enlighted us all by explaining what the hell you mean by this. Why would shooting a gun not be legitimate? |
|
Hunting the Hunters (5.00 / 2) (#100) |
|
by Naive Fool on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 10:46:07 PM PST |
|
|
|
>So you believe criminals should have guns but >law abiding citizens should not??? wow eithier >you, yourself are a criminal or you are really >dumb.
Look, just because someone is capable of irony doesn't make them wrong. You are, what is that number again, seven times more likely to hurt a member of your own family than a criminal? And I love all this "have you ever gone hunting before?" nonsense. That's really not the issue. If you need to prove to yourself that you are smarter than a moose, you've got a huge self-esteem problem. Similarly, if you are actually hunting for food as the most practical method to put food on the table, you need an economics lesson. One of the things that it seemed "because it isn't" was trying to point out, although I don't want to put words in his mouth, is that people hunt because they want to feel superior to stupid animals, not because they need food or an excuse to walk in the park. Jeez, get a dog! As to the legitimacy of shooting a gun, that wasn't the question, and would almost certainly be a circumstantial issue. The question is: What makes it a sport? A skill, a hobby, a sadistic fantasy aid, an extraordinarily innefective method of self defence, a necessary prop in a snuf film. All of these things guns may be, but that does not make shooting them a sport any more than it does pool, darts, shuffle-board, eating lunch or stepping on an ant. If you were wrestling alligators, or bears, or boxing kangeroos, or even just stalking animals, tagging them with paint-balls and running away like an NRA member, that would be one thing, but the death of the animal involved, if any of the descriptions of hunting-as-sport I've ever heard are to be believed, is completely unnecessary. Why not hunt each other, there would be an activity that could claim all aspects you have ascribed to hunting, plus it would be fair, and you would have competition. The Lord of the Flies II and III, teen and middle age, here we come. Yahoo. |
|
Great name... (none / 0) (#106) |
|
by Hyped on Sun Aug 25th, 2002 at 01:49:15 PM PST |
|
|
|
...because it describes very well what you are.
"You are, what is that number again, seven times more likely to hurt a member of your own family than a criminal?" You are refering to a variation of the Kellerman '43 times more likely' statistic, a study that was published back in 1986. However, you obviously haven't kept with the times, because this study was LONG ago refuted, and even gun control advocates have stopped using it in their arguments. Might I remind you that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times a year (90% of the time without firing a shot) in America. In a majority of those cases (about 80%), the criminal had used violent force beforehand. So here, we see that a gun is more likely to SAVE a family than be used to kill somebody, family member or criminal. Oh, and about your bullshit hunting views: Nobody needs to 'prove' anything by hunting. It's called putting food on the table. And I don't care what you want to say about how it is done. Tools change over time. Once there were bows, now there are guns. The technology has improved. In the history of man, new tools have facilitated evolution. And I don't give a shit if you don't like it. |
|
Might I remind you... (none / 0) (#128) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Tue Aug 27th, 2002 at 01:38:25 AM PST |
|
|
|
that the number that you quote is a biased claim made by the NRA and other gun advocacy groups to promote their agenda, while other biased groups (the Brady Campaign, the HCO, and UC Berkeley) refute the claims and the numbers? As of yet, there has been no third-party group (such as a non-partisan government agency or moderate university) that has staked such a claim. As such, your numbers can be seen to be as unreliable as the "Kellerman" statistic.
Also, nobody needs to hunt to put food on the table. Tools change over time. Once there were bows, then guns, and then meat processing facilities. The technology has improved. In the history of man, new tools have facilitated its continued survival, considering that man lies in the face of an evolutionary brick wall. It's quite unfortunate, actually, for if Darwinian theory (a theory which actually stands on somewhat shaky ground right now) was still active in today's society, we probably wouldn't have to deal with you. Love, IB ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
Let Me Clear This up for You (none / 0) (#108) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 05:55:06 AM PST |
|
|
|
Similarly, if you are actually hunting for food as the most practical method to put food on the table, you need an economics lesson.
Are you saying it is cheaper to just buy meat than it is to hunt it yourself? Hunting actually saves hundreds of dollars. Lets see here, 200 pounds of venison for the cost of one bullet compared with 200 pounds of beef. I wonder which is cheaper? Also, many people don't hunt simply for sport or because it is cheaper. Venison is, in my opinion, the best tasting meat. Not to mention the fact that it is much more healthy than beef or chicken. One more thing. You may think we big bad hunters are wrong for killing innocent animals. But look at the way cows are processed. One clean shot through the heart is a much less painful way to die. |
|
You actually do need an economics lesson. (5.00 / 1) (#129) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Tue Aug 27th, 2002 at 02:04:53 AM PST |
|
|
|
Economy is not merely about price, son. It also deals with practicality. It is quite economically unfeasible, in today's modern society, to think that hunting would actually save you hundreds of dollars.
Meat is actually quite cheap. First, consider the time that today's modern working man (or woman - we promote equality here in Adequacy!) earning the median income in the United States must find to actually hunt and kill an animal for sustenance. During that time, the same man could work how ever many hours earning money to buy him a large quantity of meat, along with a nice bottle of red wine and a pint or two of vanilla ice cream. Also, hunting is never a sure thing. You don't know if you will go home empty-handed after however many hours one decides to spend in the field. One can always be sure to find meat at their respective supermarket, however, and it usually does not require leaving their respective urban/suburban communities (where the vast majority of the United States population now lives). For one must always consider that hunting, even with a fire arm, takes a small modicum of skill to do correctly, if not efficiently. This is a skill that many of today's modern society do not have, or even want to bother to learn. Plus, if you take into consideration the cost of the rifle, ammo, licenses, gas to get from point A to point B, proper training, beer, etc. then it becomes apparent that for the vast majority of the United States hunting is actually quite economically unfeasible. One must also consider that most people do not have the space nor the knowhow to store and preserve 200 lbs. of meat. That is why hunting is no longer an essential tool for survival in today's modern society. Instead, it is looked upon as a pastime, a ritual, or a bonding experience to be shared with other (usually) men. Notable exceptions, however, include Ted Nugent, who, in my humble opinion, IS INSANE. Venison, however, is quite tasty, and my local butcher usually keeps some in stock. I personally like to grill it over a nice open charcoal flame, plain, accompanied with a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon red. And yes, the way that cows are processed is quite brutal, if efficient. I hear that the floor workers wear knee-high boots to wade through the blood. Not that I'd ever visit one myself, though - I'm a bit squeamish when it comes to mass slaughter. ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
Hunting not an Alternative to Stores (none / 0) (#145) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 04:52:13 PM PST |
|
|
|
I didn't mean that hunting was just a way to save money. I enjoy hunting. So, why not profit from my hobby by eating what I hunt? I save some extra cash and get get some high quality meat. The cost of the gun, license, beer (lol), etc is not factored in because I would have spent that money for my hobby, anyway. I agree, it is not feasable for most people, but in my situation it is.
I agree, I always love a nice venison steak grilled with baked potatoes and corn on the cob. The best meal I've ever had! :) |
|
Trapping (none / 0) (#40) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 06:41:47 PM PST |
|
|
|
The wily hunter will set a trap and wait.
And what do you expect the hunter to do when he traps the animal? It is very dangerous to be armed with only a bow when you trap an animal. Why? Because they will be really fucking pissed off!! And when it sees you coming its anger will only increase. Maybe your presense will make it angry enough to give it the strength to unexpectedly break out of the trap. How much time will it take you to knock an arrow, pull back the bow, aim, and fire? |
|
Well then, (none / 0) (#78) |
|
by jvance on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 07:45:10 AM PST |
|
|
|
you'd be in for a fair fight, wouldn't you? I thought hunting was supposed to be a manly sport. -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR |
|
The hunter and his wily ways. (none / 0) (#103) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 25th, 2002 at 08:38:16 AM PST |
|
|
|
And what do you expect the hunter to do when he traps the animal?
Kill it, obviously, using a nice clean knife. Knives aren't full of nasty chemicals, and they don't need expensive disposable ammunition in order to work. Survival skill courses include how to kill trapped animals with your bare hands, should you be unlucky enough to lose your knife. (Sing along, everybody: This is my knife. There are many like it, but this one is mine.) You're not trapping to show what a "man" you are (that's utterly barbaric), you're trapping because you need the meat more than the animal does. Animals are, obviously, angry to be caught, but a good trap leaves them severely weakened. Most trapped animals can be left to die if you're really afraid of them, provided there's no competition for the carrion. If they do escape, it'll be with less limbs than when they got caught. Are you basically saying that you are so incompetent at shooting, that you require to trap an animal before you can shoot it? adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
knives guns animals meat (none / 0) (#136) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 28th, 2002 at 08:51:58 PM PST |
|
|
|
If God didn't want us to eat animals then why did he make them out of meat? |
|
"I've got a gun" (none / 0) (#23) |
|
by walwyn on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 04:14:05 PM PST |
|
|
|
every year several million people are saved by guns. about 2.5 million to be precise.
To be precise this includes those people who say I thought I heard a noise and shouted 'I've got a gun' then nothing happened.and many other animals. are these people criminals too for wanting to put dinner on the table? Mmmm! Yummy. |
|
Am I a crimminal? (none / 0) (#99) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 10:38:49 PM PST |
|
|
|
I like to target shoot, go out to the range, go out in the backyard and plink at cans.
But does it make me a crimminal if I would be willing to shoot a man? I hope not. Now I'm only 16 so many will think im immature but I dont think I am. By the liberal mans standards I must be a crimmanal because I will shoot someone... if I have to. And whats this "if I have to"? I am a soldier. Not a regular soldier, but militia. No I'm not PART of a militia but the simple fact that I'm American makes me milita. If I had to I would lay my life down for this country. It wouldnt matter if I was aganst the entire army of China I would go down guns blazing, my guns, guns that I purchased. That is why I plan to own guns. There is the fun recreational part but I would use them to fight off tyrany and opression to the last breath. "It is better to die on my feet than to continue living on my knees. " - Emiliano Zapata Proud member of the vast, right-wing conspiracy |
|
Guns Are Bad (none / 0) (#75) |
|
by Mad Monk on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 06:27:10 PM PST |
|
|
|
[umm...guns do provide safety. If a robber breaks into my house, I shoot him. If I didn't have a gun, I get shot, my wife gets raped then shot, and my stuff gets stolen. Yes, for that at many other reasons, I LOVE GUNS!]
So the burglar shoots you with his knife? |
|
does it matter? (none / 0) (#137) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 09:01:13 PM PST |
|
|
|
A knife is a weapon....so yes, I'd shoot him.
What did the hijackers use for 9/11?? |
|
Well sir... (none / 0) (#148) |
|
by faustus on Thu Sep 5th, 2002 at 10:54:13 PM PST |
|
|
|
...they used Boeing 767's. Obviously America needs to clamp down on their lax plane control laws, or face severe consequences in the future. --You seem to be suffering from a liberal-arts education. |
|
SING IT BROTHER!!! (none / 0) (#98) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 10:24:01 PM PST |
|
|
|
I agree that a gun makes me safe. Sure some one could use it for evil but if I have a gun I can perhaps stop them from doing any more harm. So a gun doesnt just keep me or my family safe it also keeps my freinds and neighbors safe, and who are my neighbors? It could be you and if something were to happen at your house, it dosnt matter if I dont like you, someone breaks in to your place with the intent of harming you ill shoot him in the face for you, you can bet you ass I will.
"It is better to die on my feet than to continue living on my knees. " - Emiliano Zapata Proud member of the vast, right-wing conspiracy |
|
Oh, right... (none / 0) (#24) |
|
by Hyped on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 05:15:53 PM PST |
|
|
|
Previous two posters: Your stereotyping of gun owners as criminals is ridiculous and reflects a complete lack of intelligence on your part. Go ahead and call me a criminal. I've never used a gun with malicious intentions. I am a law-abiding citizen. Yet ignorant people like you have chosen to antagonize me because I am exercising a right to which I am granted by the Constitution.
"You can't call yourself a 'hunter' if you use a gun as a weapon. You are simply a 'killer', because you took no effort to actually hunt your animal. You pointed. You shot. Why not just use hand grenades? Or rocket launchers? Or scud missiles? No, the true hunter uses a bow or a spear. The wily hunter will set a trap and wait." Don't you think it takes patience to aim carefully and wait for your target? Don't you think hunters also set up traps, even though they have guns as well? You have to point and aim a gun as well, and you have to do it carefully, because if you miss the first time, the animal runs away, and you don't get a second chance. Comparing use of guns for hunting to use of bows is ridiculous - both are weapons that launch projectiles. A gun fires a bullet. A bow fires an arrow. Technology has changed. What is the big deal about that? And why would I use a rocket launcher to hunt? It's not even legal to own that kind of weaponry. Do you even know anything about gun laws in this country? "To be precise this includes those people who say I thought I heard a noise and shouted 'I've got a gun' then nothing happened." Actually, no it does not. In the state of Illinois last year, there were over 50,000 reported attempted home invasions reported to the police. There were over 14,000 incidents in which home owners used guns either to threaten or shoot criminals in self-defense. This number (in only one state) is about equal to the average number of gun homicides in the entire United States. You can imagine what it must be in OTHER states such as New York or California, where crime is considerably higher, and in the entire country. |
|
Actually (none / 0) (#25) |
|
by walwyn on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 05:59:00 PM PST |
|
|
|
You are almost likely to be killed by a gun in an arguement than by a felon. And just how many of those reported attempted home invasions were actual atttempted home invasions? |
|
Wait a minute... (none / 0) (#26) |
|
by Hyped on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 06:13:09 PM PST |
|
|
|
<i>You are almost likely to be killed by a gun in an arguement than by a felon.</i>
First, you assume that all felons have guns. This is not true. The felon may attack the person with a knife or some other weapon. This would justify a case of self-defense. However, your own statistics show that since 1995, there have been more felonies involving firearms than arguments turning deadly. Also, even arguments can be between people who are criminals (they would not classified under gang-related). Two drug dealers arguing over business and then one shooting the other, for example. As I have said, the majority of gun homicides involve criminals shooting criminals. <i>And just how many of those reported attempted home invasions were actual atttempted home invasions?</i> All, I would imagine. If you are implying that these incidents involve a person mistaking a door-to-door salesman for an armed robber and then shooting him, that is not included. Those would be classified as 'accidental' shootings, a completely different category. |
|
Wait an eon... (none / 0) (#28) |
|
by walwyn on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 01:25:44 AM PST |
|
|
|
...which is probably the time it will take you to understand two simple graphics. Looks like even the US government underestimates their citizens numeracy. |
|
Huh? (none / 0) (#30) |
|
by Hyped on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 01:11:40 PM PST |
|
|
|
I wasn't saying your assesment was wrong; just that it might be open to question.
Both you and 'Because It Isn't' need to stop acting like such a**holes, by the way. If you aren't capable of carrying out an intelligent, civil conversation, then maybe you both shouldn't be here. |
|
Suck on this. (none / 0) (#32) |
|
by walwyn on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 03:01:34 PM PST |
|
|
|
If you look further on your government's website you'll find that only 14% of all murders are stranger on stranger, in 52% of cases there is a relationship between the murderer and victim, and in 19% of cases the relationship is intimate. Of those spousal murders, two thirds are killed by guns. And women are most likely to be killed by someone they know with a gun. Boyfriends, however, are mostly killed by knives. The upshot is that Mr Isnt is correct, if you remove the guns from the 'law abiding', and you are not an associate of felons, you are less likely to be killed by a gun. |
|
*Suck on this* (none / 0) (#33) |
|
by Hyped on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 03:37:40 PM PST |
|
|
|
Even your latest findings are questionable as well.
"If you look further on your government's website you'll find that only 14% of all murders are stranger on stranger, in 52% of cases there is a relationship between the murderer and victim, and in 19% of cases the relationship is intimate." Again, this can still be criminals killing criminals. It can be something such as a gang member killing someone who he knows to be a member of a rival gang. The relationship may be based on a gang rivalry, in that sense. Over 75% of people who use a gun in a homicide have an adult criminal record. Even the remaining 25% cannot be legitimately assumed to be non-criminals. The reason that the last 25% of gun murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition, they cannot have an adult criminal record. "Of those spousal murders, two thirds are killed by guns. And women are most likely to be killed by someone they know with a gun. Boyfriends, however, are mostly killed by knives." And how many such instances are we dealing with, exactly? This would be more significant if we could know some exact numbers. "The upshot is that Mr Isnt is correct, if you remove the guns from the 'law abiding', and you are not an associate of felons, you are less likely to be killed by a gun." As we have seen, the majority of people who misuse guns are not law-abiding. I can hardly see removing guns from the scene as being a solution to gun deaths, or even reducing them. Gun control has not put an end to gun crime (or crime in general) in Britain, or in Brazil (where the gun murder rate is the highest in the world in spite of strict gun control laws). |
|
Denial... (none / 0) (#34) |
|
by walwyn on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 03:57:18 PM PST |
|
|
|
...is not a river in Egypt. These aren't my figures they are from your Department of Justice. Now I suppose you're going to tell us that the 'gubmint jus made it up'! |
|
*Hmmm* (none / 0) (#35) |
|
by Hyped on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 04:10:58 PM PST |
|
|
|
Okay, you're starting to piss me off now. If you aren't willing to treat me with the same respect that I have treated you, then I'm not willing to have this discussion.
I never said you made them up. I know where they come from. Where did I ever accuse you of making them up? Huh? All that I have said is that there are many ways to interpret the statistics that you have posted. I never said you were totally wrong. I am simply trying to say that we must look deeper into the reasons for these crimes before passing judgement. Furthermore, what country are you in now? |
|
Don't tell him, Walwyn! (5.00 / 1) (#36) |
|
by because it isnt on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 04:43:05 PM PST |
|
|
|
He's pissed off and he's got a gun! We are in mortal peril! adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
Why would... (none / 0) (#37) |
|
by walwyn on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 04:56:52 PM PST |
|
|
|
...the posting of a few percentages cause you to get 'pissed off'? There really ought to be a psychological test before some people get access to guns! Confronted with the figures that wives/girlfriends are more likely to get murdered by someone they know; that the weapon of choice is usually a gun and you want to go discuss reasons/motivations for the murders, as if the victim is somehow to blame for being killed with a gun. It seems at least if you are female and your partner owns a gun, you ought to get out quick. Lets just hope your partner never argues with you. |
|
Why doesn't... (none / 0) (#38) |
|
by Hyped on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 05:45:23 PM PST |
|
|
|
...Mr. Isn't realize how stupid he's making himself look?
Questions, questions... Get real, pal. If you're trying to solicit comments from me that can be used to prove your inane theory that all gun owners are criminals, then you can get lost. You aren't making anybody look bad except yourself. Walwyn: I'm pissed off because you (and the guy who ISN'T even that smart) keep treating me as though I'm some trigger-happy Yank. You've got no right to stereotype people like me the way you're doing. I am just annoyed that you aren't capable of carrying out a civil conversation. It has nothing to do with the statistics. Again, however, reverting back to an INTELLIGENT conversation, I will just say that the statistics you have shown are still debatable. I never said that "victim is somehow to blame for being killed with a gun" (in your words). I simply said that the victims themselves are questionable. Are they criminals? Are the people who shoot them criminals? Other statistics have shown that many people who die in gun violence are, indeed, criminals. All I said is that there is contrasting evidence that MAY or MAY NOT prove this wrong. What is your problem with that? |
|
Well Played (none / 0) (#41) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 07:11:10 PM PST |
|
|
|
I'm glad to see someone here can maintain an intelligent debate. Despite the personal attacks made against you (e.g. "He's pissed off and he's got a gun! We are in mortal peril!
" and "the posting of a few percentages cause you to get 'pissed off'? There really ought to be a psychological test before some people get access to guns!").
These two know they lost the debate and must now resort to personal attacks and twisting your words around. I also would like to say that I agree with you 100%. Guns save lives. When was the last time anyone heard a story about John Q. Public, the accountant with 2.5 kids suddenly going on a murderous rampage? No, every news story involving guns is about some lowlife, alcoholic, drug addict, gang member, killing his wife because he was fucked up on crack or was drunk off his ass. These people are not law abiding citizens. These are the people who should not have guns. Those of us who obey the law and contribute to society deserve the right to protect ourselves. The police cannot protect me, so I have to take it upon myself. Yes, I know the police are not totally worthless, they go on patrol and stuff like that. But how long would it take from the time you became aware of the criminal in your house to: 1. Get to the phone without the criminal knowing. 2. Call 911 and report the crime. 3. Make your way to a safe hiding place. 4. Wait until the cops arive. Maybe you are lucky. Maybe you live on the first floor and you sleep next to an open window. Fine, jump out the window and run to the neighbors. But what about your kids? Most kids have their bedrooms upstairs, they have no escape. The main use of the police is to catch the criminal after the fact. If they can get there before the criminal can do anything, great. How many gun related crimes occur compared to the number the police can stop before they happen? You might say something like "why not arm yourself with another weapon?" or "get a security system." Fine, that will help. But what if you have a knife and the criminal has a gun. Who do you think is gonna die? A security system is just fine to scare off robbers, but what if someone seriously wants to kill you. They know they have plenty of time to run in, do the job and run out before the cops arrive. It doesn't matter if he's caught or not because you are dead. What if he's some pissed off guy, fucked up on crack? I don't think the flashy lights and loud noises of a security system are going to affect him. |
|
The well-to-do murderer. (5.00 / 1) (#44) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 02:05:41 AM PST |
|
|
|
My precious 28 inch widescreen TV and Sony hi-fi come before your right to life, my friend.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
As a responsible gun owner... (none / 0) (#46) |
|
by walwyn on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 04:50:04 AM PST |
|
|
|
...I take it that you keep your under lock and key. And that the ammunition is stored seperately from the weapon? Yes. |
|
No (none / 0) (#52) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 01:39:24 PM PST |
|
|
|
OK what is the point of gun locks and keeping the ammo separate?? No, it is not to protect your children. I was raised around guns and from the time I was old enough to crawl, my parents were drilling it into my head to stay away from them (when I was a young child, that is). When I was old enough where my parents believed I could handle a weapon in a responsible manner, they let me shoot guns. And even when I could shoot guns my dad would constantly drill gun safety into my head.
Before that, I knew what guns were and I knew to stay away from them. If I put a trigger lock on my gun and have the ammo in another room, then whats the point? A criminal breaks into my house, what am I going to do? Oh, Mr. Badguy, could you be so kind as to wait here while I get my keys, unlock my gun, go to the other room and get my ammo, load my gun, then shoot you? hell no. Gun locks and all that other nonsense are no substitue for good parenting and discipline. |
|
So unlike 70%... (none / 0) (#58) |
|
by walwyn on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 04:30:28 AM PST |
|
|
|
...of gun owners, not very responsible at all. Because you want to be "armed and ready" for the unlikely event of a criminal breaking into your house, you'll run the risk, 365 days a year, that your kids, relation's kids, or kids friends, could wonder around your house day or night, and find a loaded weapon to play with. |
|
Please Read before Posting (none / 0) (#59) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 09:55:55 AM PST |
|
|
|
Did you not read my post? Well fine, since you are clearly too lazy to do so I will reiterate:
Gun locks and all that other nonsense are no substitue for good parenting and discipline. My parents taught me how to act around guns. Therefore, I was less likely to have an accident. Since I knew how to handle the weapon, period. You (if you use locks as a substitute for parenting) are the one running the risk. What if one day you forget to put the lock on your gun. Or, what if you don't quite turn the key all the way? Or, what if your kid, like me, knew how to pick certain simple locks? What happens if your uneducated child gains access to the trigger then? My guns will be kept in my bedroom. When I was a kid, I wasn't allowed in my parents room. When my friends came over they were told this as well. Now, keep in mind that this is one pistol, used for protection purposes only. My other guns are in a gun safe. Its not like I have loaded shotguns sitting around the house. |
|
Oh another Washington! (none / 0) (#61) |
|
by walwyn on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 12:36:32 PM PST |
|
|
|
Despite the fact that the story of Washington and the Cherry Tree is a myth, it does illustrate the general principle that even the most dull child is occasionally rebelious. You might dress kids up in their sunday best every day, and instruct them not to get dirty, but kids occasionally act like kids and mess up. Yer can't put an old head on young shoulders. Miniture grandpas and grandmas they ain't. |
|
Boy are you smug... (none / 0) (#76) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 07:41:44 PM PST |
|
|
|
Walwyn - I am pro gun, even though I have no desire to own a gun. I've read your posts, and you are the most cocky and smug person I've ever seen. Learn to not use personal attacks in debate and listen to what the other person says other than 'La la la la I'm not listening!' |
|
Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#96) |
|
by walwyn on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 05:08:01 PM PST |
|
|
|
I suspect that I've spent more time reading your comments than you have yourself. I suggest you dispassionately re-read what you have written, then go hang your head in shame.
|
|
When... (none / 0) (#45) |
|
by walwyn on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 04:37:02 AM PST |
|
|
|
...did Mr Isnt ever say that "all gun owners are criminals"? That is something you've read into a comment by Mr Isnt. The point was, I believe, that possession of firearms by the law abiding do not make the law abiding safer. Similarly you were pointed to some data which shows that one more likely to be killed by someone one knows than by some stranger commiting a crime. And that the most likely weapon used will be a gun. Your take on that was that was "the majority of those instances could still be criminals". In other words, "I don't like the numbers the government produces, so I'd rather guess some numbers to confort myself". Posting the data, and not accepting your spin, got you annoyed "pissed" and you then characterized yourself as "some trigger-happy Yank". So now you're whining "People are being rude to me, and attacking Americans." Well poor little ol' you. |
|
End... (none / 0) (#47) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 05:18:24 AM PST |
|
|
|
"...did Mr Isnt ever say that "all gun owners are criminals"? That is something you've read into a comment by Mr Isnt. The point was, I believe, that possession of firearms by the law abiding do not make the law abiding safer."
Oh, really? Let's look at his quote again: "There's one less idiot in the world, and there's another gun in the hands of its rightful owners, i.e. criminals." Essentially, he's saying that guns are only to be used by criminals, and that gun owners should be shot. "Your take on that was that was "the majority of those instances could still be criminals". In other words, "I don't like the numbers the government produces, so I'd rather guess some numbers to confort myself"." Actually, maybe it's just you saying "I don't like the fact that I may be misinterpreting my own data, so I'll launch a personal attack on him to comfort myself and maintain my arrogance; after all, I'm so damn smart." You have been told that the majority of people who use guns in crime are criminals with adult criminal records, not necesarily happy, law-abiding spouses who had never committed a crime until they picked up a gun and shot someone with it. What more is there to ask? "So now you're whining "People are being rude to me, and attacking Americans." Well poor little ol' you." How about...you just admit that you are a cocky little punk who has some serious social problems relating to people and must attack them personally to get them to admit he is right? Sounds more like it to me. That said, I am done with this conversation. You have shown no sense of respect at all, personal attacks and dubious statistics aside. Therefore, I will not respond to you or your little kiddy friend (Mr. Isn't) anymore. BTW, I don't even own a gun. When did I ever say that I did? |
|
Reading comp. not up to scratch. (none / 0) (#48) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 06:42:53 AM PST |
|
|
|
Essentially, he's saying that guns are only to be used by criminals, and that gun owners should be shot.
Hardly. I was opining that guns rightfully belong to criminals, and that middle-class homeowners who think guns make them safe are idiots. At no point did I say that gun owners should be shot, although it would be deliciously ironic. BTW, I don't even own a gun. I don't own any chemical weapons, but I fully support Saddam Hussain's pledge to use his on the Americans. Chemical weapons want to be free. adequacy.org -- because it isnt |
|
Pure Ignorance (none / 0) (#51) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 01:25:29 PM PST |
|
|
|
...and that middle-class homeowners who think guns make them safe are idiots.
Well you know what they say: "Ignorance is bliss." |
|
You are correct. (none / 0) (#54) |
|
by because it isnt on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 04:52:18 PM PST |
|
|
|
Well you know what they say: "Ignorance is bliss." That's right. The average homeowner is blissfully ignorant of statistics which show 15 million incidents of theft compared to just 690,000 incidents of robbery, or 3.5 million incidents of household burglary, but only 1 million incidents of forced entry. A householder is far more likely to have his possessions stolen quietly and incident-free. A wise householder would spend on defense against theft, rather than robbery. The important point here is that a gun is not a deterrent to a thief. He will simply bring his own gun and shoot the stroppy owner if detected. A thief is far more concerned about not getting caught. This means houses without noisy burglar alarms, houses where a door or window has been left open (opportunity makes a thief), houses where the owners are away. Guns will not protect you, no matter how much you fantasise about gung-ho vigilantism. As they say, ignorance is bliss. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
You Must be Full of Bliss (none / 0) (#55) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 05:30:22 PM PST |
|
|
|
You only talk about theft and robbery, what about murder without a motive, rape, kidnapping, etc.
...a gun is not a deterrent to a thief. You seem to be forgetting about this possible scenario: Two couples walk through a park one evening. There is a robber, "scoping things out." He is looking for an easy target. Now, he sees one couple and the man is clearly armed (he can see part of the holster from under his shirt). Another couple walks by and the man does not appear to be armed. The robber can pick either couple to rob, which one do you think he will pick? As for your statistics, I thought another person here proved why you are interpreting them incorrectly. |
|
You're full of shit. (none / 0) (#57) |
|
by because it isnt on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 01:31:56 AM PST |
|
|
|
You only talk about theft and robbery, what about murder without a motive, rape, kidnapping, etc. Yes. Guns make these crimes much easier to commit too. Thanks for bringing them up. The robber can pick either couple to rob, which one do you think he will pick? He'll pick neither, unless one's a very frail looking couple. He's not so stupid as to start a 2 against 1 fight. The robber has the element of surprise. As for your macho-man with the gun, he'll be dead from the robber's own gun if he tries to defend himself with his penis-substitute. You neglect the obvious solution to the reduction of crime, which is police patrols that prevent the robber hanging about in the park in the first place. Or is that too Socialist a solution? As for your statistics, I thought another person here proved why you are interpreting them incorrectly. No, they showed that you interpreted them incorrectly. This is an entirely different set of statistics. Are you afraid of numbers? adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
Explain your Logic (none / 0) (#60) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 11:24:41 AM PST |
|
|
|
This is the last post I will make on this thread because you people obviously lost the argument. You feel you must continue to defend your point by making such childish remarks as he'll be dead from the robber's own gun if he tries to defend himself with his penis-substitute.
What about his gun? What makes you so sure he won't shoot the robber first? As for how you interpreted the rape scenario, if my wife walks around with a gun and someone tries to rape her, she will shoot him. As for the scenario about the two couples: another common name for a gun is "the equalizer." Get it? Numbers don't mean a thing in this situation. You neglect the obvious solution to the reduction of crime, which is police patrols that prevent the robber hanging about in the park in the first place. I'm sorry if this is rude, but I just have to laugh at this naive comment *rofl*. Sorry, you are just too funny. News flash! The police are not everywhere. And, no, more police does not solve it. How many cops do you think we would need to have them monitoring every square inch of American soil? |
|
A penis substitute... (none / 0) (#62) |
|
by Hyped on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 02:54:16 PM PST |
|
|
|
...sure as hell isn't what I think of guns. Maybe what you think, but that's just you, and frankly, I don't care what you think.
"As for your macho-man with the gun, he'll be dead from the robber's own gun if he tries to defend himself with his penis-substitute." I just love that line. Penis substitute? You think I want to own a gun as a penis substitute? What the hell...who are you to make that kind of judgement? Do you even know me? Who are you to pass that kind of judgement about me? Once again, you prove yourself to be little more than some 13-year-old-know-it-all who thinks he's entitled to preach his opinion of everybody as though it's gospel truth. I want to own a gun because I enjoy target-shooting at local ranges. I've been shooting since I was 10. It's very fun...ever tried it before? Firing a gun is just like going sky-diving or surfing. It's an enjoyable activity. I am legally entitled to own a gun. Whether or not you like it (or want to judge it as some male ego-building activity) is irrelevent. People have a right to own firearms in this country. Deal with it. "You neglect the obvious solution to the reduction of crime, which is police patrols that prevent the robber hanging about in the park in the first place. Or is that too Socialist a solution?" Oh, really? Might I remind you that there is one police officer for every 3,500 people in the United States. Furthermore, hate to break it to you, but despite what you seem to think, the police are NOT responsible for your protection. Who says? The Supreme Court, pal. The Supreme Court held in an 1856 case that local law enforcement officers had a general duty to enforce laws, not to protect a particular person. In 1982, a federal court of appeals said: ". . . [T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators, but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone, it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." And as I have already said, studies have shown that citizens with guns are three times as likely to defend themselves from criminals than a police officer, and this is regardless of the criminal's own weaponry (gun, knife, etc.) |
|
So the United States is just like the movies. (5.00 / 1) (#104) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 25th, 2002 at 08:44:13 AM PST |
|
|
|
A lawless frontier, with hoodlums and criminals at every turn. The yellow sheriff won't do nothing, scared of his own shadow. Justice is dispensed from the barrel of a gun. Only one man can clean up this here town. That man is me.
Still not embracing socialism, then? adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
Well well. (none / 0) (#147) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 5th, 2002 at 08:22:46 PM PST |
|
|
|
Protect yourself with your obviously gargantuan penis and we'll just stop and agree with you. |
|
Yes, ignorance is bliss... (none / 0) (#56) |
|
by Hyped on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 05:42:41 PM PST |
|
|
|
First, I never said that the presence of guns will mean no more crime. Just as taking away guns also doesn't mean no more crime.
Here is a question: In how many of those 3.5 million incidents of household burglary were the owners around? Those are not 'hot' burglaries. The owner can't stop a criminal when he/she isn't around. Also, for 'hot' burglaries, in how many incidents were the victims armed (with guns or some other form of resistance)? In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." A study comparing the U.S. to Britain and the Netherlands (countries with low gun ownership rates) once showed that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% vs. just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.) Other studies have found that citizens armed with guns are 3 times more likely to defend themselves with a gun than police officers. Another by the Department of Justice found that gun owners are over 40% more likely to deter home invasions than someone armed with another type of weapon (mase, stun gun, etc.) |
|
reply to an obvious idiot (none / 0) (#140) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 30th, 2002 at 04:45:09 PM PST |
|
|
|
Are you an idiot? How can you say shooting a LAW ABIDING citizen in the head is good. I bet you call yourself a christian too.
I am a cop in Los Angeles and I can tell you that unlike what a lot of politicians say , cops would love to see lawfully armed citizens on the streets. It is a fact whether you like it or not threat crime in Florida and Texas has dropped while crime in the oh so lovely streets of LA has skyrocketed. You people want everything to be safe but you just dont want to see it being made safe. A legally armed population would do that. |
|
Point by point rebuttal time. (5.00 / 1) (#142) |
|
by because it isnt on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 04:51:56 AM PST |
|
|
|
Are you an idiot?
No. It seems that you intended this as a rhetorical question, given the title of your post is "reply to an obvious idiot". Unless that was an instruction. How can you say shooting a LAW ABIDING citizen in the head is good. Sentences which are questions end with a question mark. In reply to your question, it's because he'll be dead, and you can then s |
678 votes - 61 %
