(May 6, 2014 at 4:40 pm)Bad Writer Wrote:

(May 6, 2014 at 12:55 pm)KUSA Wrote: Your president obviously agrees with this statement. Look at all the guns protecting him.

Wait...where do you live?

This really isn't a good rebuttal to MindForgedManacle's observation. Pointing out what one person decides to do for their protection (which is something Obama actually doesn't decide for himself) in no way negates the fact that gun fights get people on both sides killed. He was pointing out the flaw in a fallacious piece of rhetoric, and you have yet to properly address it without appealing to equally fallacious Strawmen. Why do you keep doing this on this thread, KUSA?

What strawman? It seems like every liberal celebrity that hates guns is surrounded by them by choice. You say the president has no choice in this well what if he did? Do you think he would say no to having guns protecting him? Fuck no he wouldn't. He would be a fool not to want them.

You are correct in saying that a gunfight tends to have casualties on both sides. The question is am I better off having one myself? Hell yea I am. It irritates me that so many people that choose not to have a gun want to strip me of mine.

Molon labe.

You're right. Obama had a choice. He chose to be president. With that choice comes the Secret Service detail, 24/7.

Also, no one wants to strip you of your guns. Are you a law-abiding citizen? If your answer is "yes" then you can own a gun.

Thank you for admitting that guns cause casualties on both sides. Can you also admit that bringing up Obama's gun detail is a little bit misplaced in discussing this? (That was the strawman.)

---

EDIT: He chose to run for president.

---

I have to apologize. Obama as president has no choice but to allow the Secret Service detail into every facet of his day-to-day activities, and your argument that he has no choice in the matter is not just fallacious as a strawman for being something you should know isn't necessarily true, but you presented MMM with a nice red herring too in order to direct attention away from the originally proposed issue of gun violence between good guys and bad guys. Why are you so on edge about all this, KUSA?

(May 6, 2014 at 12:51 am)Minimalist Wrote: Oh, Brakeman's thing? Yeah, sorry. I replied to Chas and never got to it.

Again, its a nice anecdote which keeps the gun nuts wetting their pants and completely ignores the reality of what the plethora of guns in this country really means. For every armed citizen who gets to indulge his Rambo-fantasy there are thousands of family members/acquaintances/innocent bystanders who face the fusillade of shots fired by themselves or others.

.. The total number of people shot in 2008 totaled 110,215--the highest total recorded during the nine-year period surveyed in the analysis.

Again, it is not an anecdote for me, it was a factual event. Additionally, I was only 14 years old at the time and I was not playing Rambo (The movie wasn't written yet) I didn't want to be in that situation, then or now, but I didn't want the girl to continue to be hurt. That doesn't make me a crazy gun nut or a wild gun slinger. I was simply compassionate to a lady in distress.

It might not make for a suitable "black and white" argument, but it is silly to completely ignore that there are "gun brandishment" events that are a positive to American society. They might or might not be drowned out by the bad gun events, but they certainly exist as more than mere anecdotal stories.

Your embellishment that for every armed citizen that has a positive event there are "thousands" of ("weazal words") "family members/acquaintances/innocent bystanders who face the fusillade of shots fired by themselves or others" is seriously misleading.

According to a quick google search, it is estimated that the are about 75 million gun owners in the US.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

So thousands to one is not even remotely true.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I read almost all of these links you post here. Even though I am a gun owner and have a past that includes more than one positive outcome of the use of a firearm, I do recognize that there is a serious problem and that we need to make changes. I once came up with several ideas that I thought would be positive and would be bearable to both sides. Unfortunately on this forum and a couple of gun forums which I joined just to judge the reaction to my ideas, I was poo-pahed and the arguments just tumbled downhill to entrenched opposing positions.

So now I read your posts, feel sad that such terrible things happen, and I use some of that info to make my own personal decisions on gun safety such as locking down my guns, but I give up on trying to get people to use logic and critical thinking on this issue, it can't be found on either side.

(May 6, 2014 at 7:47 pm)Bad Writer Wrote: Also, no one wants to strip you of your guns.

There are a lot of people that want to including Minimalist. Just ask him I'm sure he'd admit it.

Quote:Can you also admit that bringing up Obama's gun detail is a little bit misplaced in discussing this? (That was the strawman.)

It wasn't misplaced. It shows how guns protect people. It doesn't matter if you are the potus or an average citizen.

Quote:Why are you so on edge about all this, KUSA?

Because gun grabbers irritate me.

I think Min is simply on the side that wants to ban all privately owned guns. If an item becomes illegal because of the enactment of a law, it's not gun-grabbing, per se. You could always illegally hold on to it

So, I think what's the reality here is that no one wants to take your gun, but there are plenty that want to make it harder for you to own one. I think both sides are justified in their thinking; people feel they need them for protection and crime deterrent, and others see their domestic dangers and work towards minimizing the risks.

More and more it seem that people who really ( and I mean REALLY) want guns are exactly the ones who should not have them....

Like this "responsible gun owner."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/08/oh...ly-friend/

Quote:A northeast Ohio man shot and killed a woman he hired to work on his farm after mistaking her for a groundhog.

Sheriff’s deputies said 79-year-old Ralph Adams Jr. spotted what he believed was a groundhog Monday afternoon in one of his fields in Stark County and fired a rifle shot about 165 feet.

Groundhog




Woman

Yep. Every motherfucker should have a gun!

(May 8, 2014 at 11:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote: A northeast Ohio man shot and killed a woman he hired to work on his farm after mistaking her for a groundhog.

Why in the world did he want to kill a groundhog so badly he shot at one through the grasses without direct identification?

Why do "hunters" feel the "need" to kill something so much?

Personally I think the old man was crazy right there and shouldn't have been allowed a sharp stick. He wasn't going to eat a groundhog.

(May 9, 2014 at 6:59 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(May 8, 2014 at 11:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote: A northeast Ohio man shot and killed a woman he hired to work on his farm after mistaking her for a groundhog.

Why in the world did he want to kill a groundhog so badly he shot at one through the grasses without direct identification?

Why do "hunters" feel the "need" to kill something so much?

Personally I think the old man was crazy right there and shouldn't have been allowed a sharp stick. He wasn't going to eat a groundhog.

Groundhogs damage crops and structures. Farmers kill them.

And of course the two-legged female variety are particularly dangerous!

Meanwhile, here's today's Gun-Totin' Hero.

Yesterday's 'responsible gun owner' is today's 'criminal.' At least the kid will live.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/11/pe...n-bicycle/

Quote:A Pennsylvania man has been charged with multiple counts of assault after police said that he randomly fired a gun from his house, hitting an 8-year-old boy who was riding outside on his bicycle.

Yet another example of a hunter who has trouble with target "identification."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/13/nh...ld-turkey/

Quote:New Hampshire Fish and Game’s Joshua Mackay advised that hunters should always “identify your target.”

“Head to toe. Beak to tail,” Mackay insisted. “It really shouldn’t happen. A human doesn’t really look like a turkey in the woods.”

The Fish & Game guy makes a good point!