Why More Americans Want to Own Guns

[Aegon]

Older guns as collectors items? Awesome in my book, especially because I'm a history buff. Those guns sit on a shelf. Doesn't negate my argument though, since those guns were once manufactured as weapons for the purpose of shooting. When they're bought and sold now they are meant to sit there and be appreciated...because using them like you'd use a modern gun would be a bad idea in most cases. As for the rest of your argument...you're literally supporting what I said. "Hunting" (shooting animals), "target practice" (shooting things), "stopping an attacker" (shooting people). Nothing that you've said negates my argument that guns are first and foremost deadly weapons. I never used this as a way of saying guns are bad and we should ban them. I used it to show that you can't compare things that are made to be weapons to things that are not made to be weapons.


Again, I was arguing against comparing guns to cars. Nothing more.

Again, you are wrong! Guns actually put food on some people's tables, and that means sustenance for many Americans of whom you've made it plain you have not considered. Muscle cars do none of that which a vehicle of more civil temperament cannot do just as well. Therefore, if you you are going to go about confiscating peoples' target pistols or hunting rifles which you decide are "unnecessary weapons", then you have to confiscate all the muscle cars first.

Your reasoning has never been anything other than shallow, and your tone always disrespectful around here, so I could really give a fuck what you think. Being the asshole that you are, you came in here and made the blunt argument that "guns are for shooting", with the obvious implication that they are made for killing people. You clearly don't know jack about what gun owners do with their guns. You've only made it clear that you've never considered whether a '22 would be useful for hunting game birds, why a shotgun is actually a practical option for this, nor the interest in target shooting, for which handguns offer much greater challenge. You never touched a gun in your life, did you? You can take your ignorant, arrogant attitude and go fuck yourself with it!

Wow. WOW. YOU'RE SO MISSING THE POINT! Also, when the fuck was I rude in this exchange? You're the one who started off by calling me ignorant and now you're going on this vulgar tirade. 

LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR. MAYBE IF I TYPE IN CAPS YOU WILL GET IT? I AM NOT SAYING GUNS ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY'RE USED TO SHOOT. I AM SAYING THAT THEY ARE MADE TO BE USED AS WEAPONS, TO SHOOT THINGS FOR FUCK'S SAKE I'M NOT ARGUING IN FAVOR OF CONFISCATING ANYTHING. And you know what, nothing you've said, through all your cuss words, has negated that! People get food on their table BY FUCKING SHOOTING THINGS. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. I HAVE YET TO TAKE A PROPER STANCE IN THIS DEBATE. I shared a funny video on the subject and then I said, simply, that guns should not be compared to cars in this way. Because guns are made FOR SHOOTING THINGS and cars are made for DRIVING. I'm not even talking about muscle cars for fuck's sake. Stop putting fucking words in my mouth because you don't like me

The primary purpose of a gun is to be used as a weapon. To shoot things. Things include, but are not limited to: targets, wild animals, ceramic pottery, and yes....people! But that wasn't my GODDAMN point, now was it? But no, you have this picture of me for some reason so you figured, "Oh yeah this guy's going down this path with it". Guess what: I fucking wasn't. All I was saying was I don't think you can compare things that are made to be weapons to things that are not made to be weapons. ...so how about you go fuck yourself with that dense head of yours, buddy? 

Jesus Christ....I mean, it's one thing to be attacked for something I was arguing, but....getting attacked like this for something I didn't even say...

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's no point getting that worked up, seriously.

/.02

[CapnAwesome]

I'm not a knee-jerk liberal, but then I'm hardly the right wing.

I will vote for Sanders if he gets on the November ballot.

I have many good reasons not to trust the government, but I will never advocate dealing with such issues by slashing it to the core - if you need a big dog, then you need a big dog, just keep it on a tight leash while you're out walking it!

There is a need for a society which permits people to monopolize markets and make billions of dollars for themselves to take care of all said society's people, or stop pretending to be a society at all. This necessitates the socialization of medical care, and as much education as is necessary to make future generations competitive for success (not the hopeless enslavement of poverty wages).

I will always stand against the privatization of services which should be performed only by government employees, having seen too much for myself what comes of crooked government administrators pretending to get anything done well at all when they can show millions of dollars in savings which have to be spent to do it all over again much too soon because it's never done right when you consistently hire the lowest bidder!

Therefore, despite having grown up on a "gentleman's farm", I ain't no fucking libertarian either!

So why do I think it's a bad idea to ban guns in the US? Maybe it's because I grew up shooting guns in a geographic area where you weren't considered bad for that, knowing that not all people who like to shoot guns are violent freaks (target shooting is an actual sport unto itself for some), but after watching the video below, it reminded me of what New Hampshire is like. Compared to neighboring Vermont, it's a bit more rugged and cold, which may be one reason why it could never really be competitive for tourism. Much of it borders the most urbanized part of MA, and NH fears the spread of its drug culture and the threat which that brings to their comparably isolated homes. It's a sparsely populated State in a cold and rugged part of the US, therefore hard to effectively patrol, not pretty.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100...title-area


American violence has been blamed mostly on easy access to guns in the wrong hands, and while this is a point hard to argue, the argument that taking guns from law-abiding citizens will make them more safe is weak at best.

Yes, I know such policies work well enough in Britain and Europe, but the geography of the US isn't Britain, nor Europe. For one, there's a high population density throughout most of Britain and Europe. Where the real estate isn't hot, there tends to be low tree cover too.

West of the Alps, Europe doesn't really have much in rugged mountainous regions either. Mountains tend to be gentle rolling hills by comparison, and bald of cover. Also, there are parts of Europe which do not ban guns, in fact they are required in each household in Switzerland, where the real mountains are.

Of course there is also the Scots Highlands, and all of Britain prohibits guns, but another factor hasn't been weighed for America: Britain doesn't have an enormous span in square miles, so where road and foot patrolling may be difficult, there isn't as much for air patrol vehicles to cover. Which is an enormous problem in the vast mountain ranges of the US, where more of the people live who want their guns.

To be fair, there is also the cultural isolation in the US, which vast square mileage has permitted. MA residents may call their NH neighbors gun-loving idiots, but the NH residents are terrified of getting too close to the druggies of MA who they don't understand. In much of Europe, more citizens want to arm themselves because they are afraid of incoming Muslim refugees. Honest to fuck, I don't know how it happened that Englanders, who live in close proximity to all that and then some ever willingly gave up their own weapons. Or maybe they never did so willingly, never had legal access to guns, or don't remember the last time there ever was such a choice. If you became the witness to a crime by a London thug who then comes after you and follows you home, then what do you do?

I reject the notion that gun control worked well in Britiain. The murder rate didn't go down after the various gun control measures there. So by what standard did it work well? Britain has a lower murder rate then the US, but then it has a similarly lower murder rate before it had gun control as well. Britain has always had a lower murder rate then the US, regardless of it's gun control laws. I haven't seen any evidence that Britain's gun laws lowered the murder rate there. If it isn't causing less murders, what's the point?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Again, you are wrong! Guns actually put food on some people's tables, and that means sustenance for many Americans of whom you've made it plain you have not considered. Muscle cars do none of that which a vehicle of more civil temperament cannot do just as well. Therefore, if you you are going to go about confiscating peoples' target pistols or hunting rifles which you decide are "unnecessary weapons", then you have to confiscate all the muscle cars first.

Your reasoning has never been anything other than shallow, and your tone always disrespectful around here, so I could really give a fuck what you think. Being the asshole that you are, you came in here and made the blunt argument that "guns are for shooting", with the obvious implication that they are made for killing people. You clearly don't know jack about what gun owners do with their guns. You've only made it clear that you've never considered whether a '22 would be useful for hunting game birds, why a shotgun is actually a practical option for this, nor the interest in target shooting, for which handguns offer much greater challenge. You never touched a gun in your life, did you? You can take your ignorant, arrogant attitude and go fuck yourself with it!

Wow. WOW. YOU'RE SO MISSING THE POINT! Also, when the fuck was I rude in this exchange? You're the one who started off by calling me ignorant and now you're going on this vulgar tirade. 

LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR. MAYBE IF I TYPE IN CAPS YOU WILL GET IT? I AM NOT SAYING GUNS ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY'RE USED TO SHOOT. I AM SAYING THAT THEY ARE MADE TO BE USED AS WEAPONS, TO SHOOT THINGS FOR FUCK'S SAKE I'M NOT ARGUING IN FAVOR OF CONFISCATING ANYTHING. And you know what, nothing you've said, through all your cuss words, has negated that! People get food on their table BY FUCKING SHOOTING THINGS. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. I HAVE YET TO TAKE A PROPER STANCE IN THIS DEBATE. I shared a funny video on the subject and then I said, simply, that guns should not be compared to cars in this way. Because guns are made FOR SHOOTING THINGS and cars are made for DRIVING. I'm not even talking about muscle cars for fuck's sake. Stop putting fucking words in my mouth because you don't like me

The primary purpose of a gun is to be used as a weapon. To shoot things. Things include, but are not limited to: targets, wild animals, ceramic pottery, and yes....people! But that wasn't my GODDAMN point, now was it? But no, you have this picture of me for some reason so you figured, "Oh yeah this guy's going down this path with it". Guess what: I fucking wasn't. All I was saying was I don't think you can compare things that are made to be weapons to things that are not made to be weapons. ...so how about you go fuck yourself with that dense head of yours, buddy? 

Jesus Christ....I mean, it's one thing to be attacked for something I was arguing, but....getting attacked like this for something I didn't even say...

Now that it's plain your simple snipes won't fly, this is when you switch to talking sense so that you can play the victim. I've seen you oversimplify situations before, misrepresenting my words or just taking potshots, and at this point I'm just sick of dealing with you.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I'm not a knee-jerk liberal, but then I'm hardly the right wing.

I will vote for Sanders if he gets on the November ballot.

I have many good reasons not to trust the government, but I will never advocate dealing with such issues by slashing it to the core - if you need a big dog, then you need a big dog, just keep it on a tight leash while you're out walking it!

There is a need for a society which permits people to monopolize markets and make billions of dollars for themselves to take care of all said society's people, or stop pretending to be a society at all. This necessitates the socialization of medical care, and as much education as is necessary to make future generations competitive for success (not the hopeless enslavement of poverty wages).

I will always stand against the privatization of services which should be performed only by government employees, having seen too much for myself what comes of crooked government administrators pretending to get anything done well at all when they can show millions of dollars in savings which have to be spent to do it all over again much too soon because it's never done right when you consistently hire the lowest bidder!

Therefore, despite having grown up on a "gentleman's farm", I ain't no fucking libertarian either!

So why do I think it's a bad idea to ban guns in the US? Maybe it's because I grew up shooting guns in a geographic area where you weren't considered bad for that, knowing that not all people who like to shoot guns are violent freaks (target shooting is an actual sport unto itself for some), but after watching the video below, it reminded me of what New Hampshire is like. Compared to neighboring Vermont, it's a bit more rugged and cold, which may be one reason why it could never really be competitive for tourism. Much of it borders the most urbanized part of MA, and NH fears the spread of its drug culture and the threat which that brings to their comparably isolated homes. It's a sparsely populated State in a cold and rugged part of the US, therefore hard to effectively patrol, not pretty.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100...title-area


American violence has been blamed mostly on easy access to guns in the wrong hands, and while this is a point hard to argue, the argument that taking guns from law-abiding citizens will make them more safe is weak at best.

Yes, I know such policies work well enough in Britain and Europe, but the geography of the US isn't Britain, nor Europe. For one, there's a high population density throughout most of Britain and Europe. Where the real estate isn't hot, there tends to be low tree cover too.

West of the Alps, Europe doesn't really have much in rugged mountainous regions either. Mountains tend to be gentle rolling hills by comparison, and bald of cover. Also, there are parts of Europe which do not ban guns, in fact they are required in each household in Switzerland, where the real mountains are.

Of course there is also the Scots Highlands, and all of Britain prohibits guns, but another factor hasn't been weighed for America: Britain doesn't have an enormous span in square miles, so where road and foot patrolling may be difficult, there isn't as much for air patrol vehicles to cover. Which is an enormous problem in the vast mountain ranges of the US, where more of the people live who want their guns.

To be fair, there is also the cultural isolation in the US, which vast square mileage has permitted. MA residents may call their NH neighbors gun-loving idiots, but the NH residents are terrified of getting too close to the druggies of MA who they don't understand. In much of Europe, more citizens want to arm themselves because they are afraid of incoming Muslim refugees. Honest to fuck, I don't know how it happened that Englanders, who live in close proximity to all that and then some ever willingly gave up their own weapons. Or maybe they never did so willingly, never had legal access to guns, or don't remember the last time there ever was such a choice. If you became the witness to a crime by a London thug who then comes after you and follows you home, then what do you do?

I reject the notion that gun control worked well in Britiain. The murder rate didn't go down after the various gun control measures there. So by what standard did it work well? Britain has a lower murder rate then the US, but then it has a similarly lower murder rate before it had gun control as well. Britain has always had a lower murder rate then the US, regardless of it's gun control laws. I haven't seen any evidence that Britain's gun laws lowered the murder rate there. If it isn't causing less murders, what's the point?

If you can point to some figures which I could reference, I'd be very happy - frankly I've had to take the word of the anti-gunners here, who make the claim that violence is down where the guns are banned, and nobody else seems to have offered a denial, even though there are numerous gun owners on this site.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've seen you oversimplify situations before, misrepresenting my words or just taking potshots [...]

You've done the same to me before. You'll find "sympathy" in the dictionary, between "shit" and "syphilis".

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If your're going to challenge my argument, you can at least present a decent counter-argument - just throwing shit is for pre-pubescent children and people like EP.

Nah, if it's all the same to you, I'll just stick the poo-flinging.

The point is that muscle cars serve only the unique requirements of those who have no regard for safe, civil use of public highways, and they generally enjoy endangering and terrorizing those who they should be sharing our roads with as equals. This. makes. that. type. of. vehicle. a. weapon. on. public. highways. Therefore, at very least they should not be legally registered for highway use.

No offense, but that's a thoroughly idiotic point. I'm not going to tell you why it is, you'll have to work it out yourself.

How many people who own assault rifles (many which are non-repeating, but those who make our laws took no time to learn anything about guns before they wiped their dicks on the dotted line) actually carry them loaded on public highways, or loaded in any public places? I doubt those who do obey our laws anyway, and there are other reasons why they should not be at large.

I neither know nor care how many people own a specific type of a specific weapon.

Therefore, I do see a problem, but it's a practical one, not a logical one - fixed it for you.

You 'fixed' something that wasn't broken. Well done.

However, the practical problem of confiscating weapons is no less a practical one, and liable to stir up more violence and death than it's worth. It simply isn't worth triggering our next civil war over.

Think it through: If confiscating the guns is done properly, there won't BE a civil war.

Can't disagree with you there in the case of urban gun owners, but not every American lives in your world, and that does not make them either anti-social nor violent. However, this equation holds true with muscle car drivers everywhere on this earth.

It sounds as though you have about as much experience with owners of muscle cars as I have with firearms.

Yours in poo-flinging camaraderie,

Boru

[ignoramus]

Muscle cars are a bad breed of cars, which exist specifically to endanger and cause fear to millions of other Americans on our highways. Therefore, the argument stands.

That is so absurd, it competes with the best of the religitards for a sig quote.

[Gawdzilla]

The absurdity of "We can't do A, so we don't need to do anything about B" still leaves me a little breathless.

[Aegon]

Wow. WOW. YOU'RE SO MISSING THE POINT! Also, when the fuck was I rude in this exchange? You're the one who started off by calling me ignorant and now you're going on this vulgar tirade. 

LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR. MAYBE IF I TYPE IN CAPS YOU WILL GET IT? I AM NOT SAYING GUNS ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY'RE USED TO SHOOT. I AM SAYING THAT THEY ARE MADE TO BE USED AS WEAPONS, TO SHOOT THINGS FOR FUCK'S SAKE I'M NOT ARGUING IN FAVOR OF CONFISCATING ANYTHING. And you know what, nothing you've said, through all your cuss words, has negated that! People get food on their table BY FUCKING SHOOTING THINGS. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. I HAVE YET TO TAKE A PROPER STANCE IN THIS DEBATE. I shared a funny video on the subject and then I said, simply, that guns should not be compared to cars in this way. Because guns are made FOR SHOOTING THINGS and cars are made for DRIVING. I'm not even talking about muscle cars for fuck's sake. Stop putting fucking words in my mouth because you don't like me

The primary purpose of a gun is to be used as a weapon. To shoot things. Things include, but are not limited to: targets, wild animals, ceramic pottery, and yes....people! But that wasn't my GODDAMN point, now was it? But no, you have this picture of me for some reason so you figured, "Oh yeah this guy's going down this path with it". Guess what: I fucking wasn't. All I was saying was I don't think you can compare things that are made to be weapons to things that are not made to be weapons. ...so how about you go fuck yourself with that dense head of yours, buddy? 

Jesus Christ....I mean, it's one thing to be attacked for something I was arguing, but....getting attacked like this for something I didn't even say...

Now that it's plain your simple snipes won't fly, this is when you switch to talking sense so that you can play the victim. I've seen you oversimplify situations before, misrepresenting my words or just taking potshots, and at this point I'm just sick of dealing with you.

More like you have nothing to say because you realized you were wrong in going after me like that here... Also, I see no difference in the way I talk/argue to the way plenty of others here do, including yourself. You going to launch a personal attack on Boru now too? He called your argument idiotic, after all!

I'm sick of dealing with you as well