Why are gunowners becoming the scapegoat for troubled people?

[QUOTE="ScorpionTroll"]

I was raised in a house with nine guns. I've recently started my own collection. Where I'm from gun ownership is just a normal every day thing.

PrototypeTheKid

Agreed, my father taught me from early on, how to responsbile use and store a gun and not once did I even think of using it on anyone.

i feel ya, i was also raised around them and i live in a city where i cant really even use them as often. i just started collecting my own(only have one right now lol) and i think it sucks that they are going to start banning certain models and are making everyone who owns a gun look like a psycho.

If you own alot of guns, there is probably something wrong with you to be fair.

If you own alot of guns, there is probably something wrong with you to be fair.

TopTierHustler

and cats

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] No, it happened here in the U.S., it just wasn't a state that did that, it was a county. l4dak47

If you own alot of guns, there is probably something wrong with you to be fair.

TopTierHustler

I think that anyone who passes a background check and basic mental stability test should be allowed to buy a gun. I don't agree with concealed carry laws. I know that won't prevent the crazies from getting guns, but having guns legal on the street is just inviting escalation of tense situations.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

If you own alot of guns, there is probably something wrong with you to be fair.

noscope-ak47

my translation for correlation =/= causation:

does not say what i want it to say so it does not count.

;)

anyway despite that here is the 20/20 peice which links gun control to higher crime rates... not that it will do any good.... because you are designed to think your personal opinion is right no matter how much evidence exists to show you are not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

hell, i'm probably wrong too and just can't see it because i don't want to, oh well, life is funny.

Because they aren't you baby. Gun owners are so damn insecure.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father of the US.

th3warr1or

I would argue the contrary. "They that can give up essential safety to obtain civic rights enjoy neither liberation nor safety."

Because they aren't you baby. Gun owners are so damn insecure.

Socijalisticka

Sorry, we're defending you plebs for when big bruva govment comes a knockin.

Troubled people + guns = shooting sprees and lots of deaths.

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

Because they aren't you baby. Gun owners are so damn insecure.

PrototypeTheKid

Sorry, we're defending you plebs for when big bruva govment comes a knockin.

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

Because they aren't you baby. Gun owners are so damn insecure.

PrototypeTheKid

Sorry, we're defending you plebs for when big bruva govment comes a knockin.

Hence my point.

[QUOTE="PrototypeTheKid"]

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

[QUOTE="PrototypeTheKid"]

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

Because they aren't you baby. Gun owners are so damn insecure.

Socijalisticka

Sorry, we're defending you plebs for when big bruva govment comes a knockin.

Hence my point.

For the same reason video games, movies, music, etc are.

worlock77

Please, dont even compare. I cant kill anyone with a game or a movie. Theres definitely something wrong with a country where you can buy guns at a mall... Its no coincidence the EUA is the 1st world country with the highest gun violence attach rate. You could argue that "its because its big" but thats no excuse. Look at China, or Russia, or Japan. Big countries with lots of people that still have low gun violence numbers. Why? Cause you cant buy guns like lollipops in those countries

here is one of the biggest reasons people have the attutudes about guns that they do.

we tend to only get one side of the narrative.

in 2002 gun owners stopped a shooting rampage in virginia.

280 papers reported the story.

only 4 papers reported the shooting was stopped by armed citizens.

"When the sound of shooting erupted, panic ensued. "People were running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front of traffic, trying to get away," Gross said.

Instead of joining in the chaos, Gross and Bridges ran to their cars and got their guns. Joined by an unarmed Ted Besen, an ex-Marine and police officer, the three men approached the shooter from different sides.

"I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down," Bridges recalled. "Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed him back, and we all jumped on."

Wrote Lott: "What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, justfourstories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/student-group-wants-campus-gun-ban-lifted

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml

we all want simple easy to understand concepts, since things like this ads complexity and confusion to the news the news just does what you want it to do and spoon feeds you an easy to understand narrative.

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

Because they aren't you baby. Gun owners are so damn insecure.

PrototypeTheKid

Sorry, we're defending you plebs for when big bruva govment comes a knockin.

Insecure might not be the right word. It's probably more accurate to say that you suffer from delusions of grandeur.

here is one of the biggest reasons people have the attutudes about guns that they do.

we tend to only get one side of the narrative.

in 2002 gun owners stopped a shooting rampage in virginia.

280 papers reported the story.

only 4 papers reported the shooting was stopped by armed citizens.

"When the sound of shooting erupted, panic ensued. "People were running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front of traffic, trying to get away," Gross said.

Instead of joining in the chaos, Gross and Bridges ran to their cars and got their guns. Joined by an unarmed Ted Besen, an ex-Marine and police officer, the three men approached the shooter from different sides.

"I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down," Bridges recalled. "Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed him back, and we all jumped on."

Wrote Lott: "What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, justfourstories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/student-group-wants-campus-gun-ban-lifted

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml

we all want simple easy to understand concepts, since things like this ads complexity and confusion to the news the news just does what you want it to do and spoon feeds you an easy to understand narrative.

Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

For the same reason video games, movies, music, etc are.

4dr1el

Please, dont even compare. I cant kill anyone with a game or a movie. Theres definitely something wrong with a country where you can buy guns at a mall... Its no coincidence the EUA is the 1st world country with the highest gun violence attach rate. You could argue that "its because its big" but thats no excuse. Look at China, or Russia, or Japan. Big countries with lots of people that still have low gun violence numbers. Why? Cause you cant buy guns like lollipops in those countries

oh yeah also japan... which means low gun violence is now linked to the avalibility of used scoolgirl panties in vending machines.

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

[QUOTE="PrototypeTheKid"]

Sorry, we're defending you plebs for when big bruva govment comes a knockin.

PrototypeTheKid

Hence my point.

[QUOTE="PrototypeTheKid"]

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

Because they aren't you baby. Gun owners are so damn insecure.

Person0

Sorry, we're defending you plebs for when big bruva govment comes a knockin.

The fact you people feel safe with this type of police force equipment is just appaling.

[QUOTE="PrototypeTheKid"]

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

Because they aren't you baby. Gun owners are so damn insecure.

-Sun_Tzu-

Sorry, we're defending you plebs for when big bruva govment comes a knockin.

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="PrototypeTheKid"]

Sorry, we're defending you plebs for when big bruva govment comes a knockin.

PrototypeTheKid

The fact you people feel safe with this type of police force equipment is just appaling.

Someone missed the point i was making....

I don't necessarily think it's the gunowners themselves that are being targeted, although I'm sure that is the case in some instances, but the accessibility of firearms. Of course, the discussion of firearm accessibility is a highly charged discussion that never seems to go anywhere beyond one side proclaiming that the prevalance of firearms makes it easier for people to acquire them and go out on shooting sprees, and the opposite side arguing that this right is constitutionally protected and that any attempts to hinder the availability is an infringement.

here is one of the biggest reasons people have the attutudes about guns that they do.

we tend to only get one side of the narrative.

in 2002 gun owners stopped a shooting rampage in virginia.

280 papers reported the story.

only 4 papers reported the shooting was stopped by armed citizens.

"When the sound of shooting erupted, panic ensued. "People were running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front of traffic, trying to get away," Gross said.

Instead of joining in the chaos, Gross and Bridges ran to their cars and got their guns. Joined by an unarmed Ted Besen, an ex-Marine and police officer, the three men approached the shooter from different sides.

"I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down," Bridges recalled. "Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed him back, and we all jumped on."

Wrote Lott: "What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, justfourstories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/student-group-wants-campus-gun-ban-lifted

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml

we all want simple easy to understand concepts, since things like this ads complexity and confusion to the news the news just does what you want it to do and spoon feeds you an easy to understand narrative.

Riverwolf007

ugh, there is a chance those shootings couldnt even take place if guns werent easily accessible by the masses

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

here is one of the biggest reasons people have the attutudes about guns that they do.

we tend to only get one side of the narrative.

in 2002 gun owners stopped a shooting rampage in virginia.

280 papers reported the story.

only 4 papers reported the shooting was stopped by armed citizens.

"When the sound of shooting erupted, panic ensued. "People were running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front of traffic, trying to get away," Gross said.

Instead of joining in the chaos, Gross and Bridges ran to their cars and got their guns. Joined by an unarmed Ted Besen, an ex-Marine and police officer, the three men approached the shooter from different sides.

"I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down," Bridges recalled. "Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed him back, and we all jumped on."

Wrote Lott: "What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, justfourstories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/student-group-wants-campus-gun-ban-lifted

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml

we all want simple easy to understand concepts, since things like this ads complexity and confusion to the news the news just does what you want it to do and spoon feeds you an easy to understand narrative.

4dr1el

ugh, there is a chance those shootings couldnt even take place if guns werent easily accessible by the masses

ban kitchens?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-state-media-say-teenager-kills-8-wounds-5-in-knife-attack-in-northeast-of-the-country/2012/08/02/gJQALIrARX_story.html

here is a body count of 8 by a knife wielding man.

if you want to flip out and kill people you will find a way to do it.

drive into a crowd with a car, arson, blunt instruments, whatever.

from the link.

"Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50."

People on average are too idiotic to even be able to drive cars without hurting or killing someone, which is why we require licensing and insurance. The current situation where any clown with enough money and a clean criminal record can buy deadly weapon is putting way too much faith in the common man.

We need some common sense gun laws. Outlaw assault weapons, require classes and testing for new gun owners, do more extensive background checks including mental health screenings, and so on. It should be appropriately difficult to buy a gun.

Less guns means less gun crime. You cant deny that we have more gun violence than countries without guns. The argument one should make to gun ownership isnt one about safety. It's about personal freedoms and rights. That's the issue.

[QUOTE="4dr1el"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

here is one of the biggest reasons people have the attutudes about guns that they do.

we tend to only get one side of the narrative.

in 2002 gun owners stopped a shooting rampage in virginia.

280 papers reported the story.

only 4 papers reported the shooting was stopped by armed citizens.

"When the sound of shooting erupted, panic ensued. "People were running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front of traffic, trying to get away," Gross said.

Instead of joining in the chaos, Gross and Bridges ran to their cars and got their guns. Joined by an unarmed Ted Besen, an ex-Marine and police officer, the three men approached the shooter from different sides.

"I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down," Bridges recalled. "Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed him back, and we all jumped on."

Wrote Lott: "What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, justfourstories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/student-group-wants-campus-gun-ban-lifted

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml

we all want simple easy to understand concepts, since things like this ads complexity and confusion to the news the news just does what you want it to do and spoon feeds you an easy to understand narrative.

Riverwolf007

ugh, there is a chance those shootings couldnt even take place if guns werent easily accessible by the masses

ban kitchens?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-state-media-say-teenager-kills-8-wounds-5-in-knife-attack-in-northeast-of-the-country/2012/08/02/gJQALIrARX_story.html

here is a body count of 8 by a knife wielding man.

if you want to flip out and kill people you will find a way to do it.

drive into a crowd with a car, arson, blunt instruments, whatever.

from the link.

"Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50."

Replace the knife with a gun and you will pretty much double or triple the body count.

[QUOTE="LordRork"]

The US needs to decide what it wants its gun laws to do - if it's home defence, fine...but what does a person really need to achieve that? It's not an assault weapon, but a rifle, shotgun or pistol might be reasonable (and also have a place in hunting or pest control).

Many in the US are far away from the nearest policeman, so it's not unreasonable. Gun control should ensure that the person who wants a gun is capable of using it responsibly.

The right to bear arms needs to be balanced against nearly 300 years in the advances of personal weapons, something that couldn't have been foreseen in the 18th century.

thegerg

and if you do end up in that horrible situation you want tactical superiority.

of course you look like a madman when you say you want an assault weapon but if you ever do actually need it you want to dominate the situation.

you want a high capacity mag, you want a high power calibre that will shred any cover they might find, you want the ability to suppress and move around.

the point is you can never have any idea what you may need so in that case the only thing that makes any real sense if you think you need it at all is to need something that horrifies people in its effectiveness.

that's why people freak over assault weapon bans.

why would you think you need something then not want to get the most effective type of thing you think you need to have?

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="4dr1el"]

ugh, there is a chance those shootings couldnt even take place if guns werent easily accessible by the masses

Netherscourge

ban kitchens?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-state-media-say-teenager-kills-8-wounds-5-in-knife-attack-in-northeast-of-the-country/2012/08/02/gJQALIrARX_story.html

here is a body count of 8 by a knife wielding man.

if you want to flip out and kill people you will find a way to do it.

drive into a crowd with a car, arson, blunt instruments, whatever.

from the link.

"Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50."

Replace the knife with a gun and you will pretty much double or triple the body count.

Less guns means less gun crime. You cant deny that we have more gun violence than countries without guns. The argument one should make to gun ownership isnt one about safety. It's about personal freedoms and rights. That's the issue.

sonicare

Less guns means less gun crime. You cant deny that we have more gun violence than countries without guns. The argument one should make to gun ownership isnt one about safety. It's about personal freedoms and rights. That's the issue.

sonicare

even at a time when overall gun violence dropped across the rest of america.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

just saying totalitarian regimes that strictly control gun access is not good enough. we need to take our examples from the real world we live in here in the states.

yep take them away.

then take away all the knives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-state-media-say-teenager-kills-8-wounds-5-in-knife-attack-in-northeast-of-the-country/2012/08/02/gJQALIrARX_story.html

then you better take those dogs away from people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

don't forget how deadly cars are better get rid of those too.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

whoops, record fatilities in slip and falls in the shower too, better outlaw showers while we are at it.

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/personal-injury/slip-and-fall-accident/slip-and-fall-accidents.htm

seriously pansys, why don't you just go build an underground bunker and live in that if you are so terrified of the risks you face everyday.

Riverwolf007

Don't compare homicide to accident.

Knives or cutting instruments account for 13% of homicides, while guns are 66%.

Guns-related deaths are ~half the deaths as car accidents, however cars are not commonly used in homicide. Fewer people die from shower related accidents, than guns (19k shower, 24k gun (2.9 homicide, 5 suicide, per 100 000))

Homicides (all sources), census.gov
Vehicle deaths and suiciderate, census.gov
50.7% suicide uses guns, suicideology.org

Replace that gun with poisoned food and you can increase it even more. What's your point? thegerg

Poisoning accounted for 7 homicides in 2009.

-----

I've said this crap before:

Guns are convenient to kill with as they were invented for that purpose, and only guns that have no reasonable likely hood of killing a human are not in the category of 'designed to kill', otherwise they are great at killing humans, and fulfilling their purpose for invention.

We need gun laws that are 'realistic' becaus an outright ban will not work (sadly)

And for people who will, or may have (didn't read the who thread), say something about Switzerland, they have 'more strict' laws than many of our states, about half the guns per 100 people, and the majority of their male population 'has' go through military training.

We have states that don't require a permit for anything, no sale limits, and require no training. Realistic gun-control is necessary (gun-control does not mean ban).

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]so then what else do we do to end violence?

ban kitchens?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-state-media-say-teenager-kills-8-wounds-5-in-knife-attack-in-northeast-of-the-country/2012/08/02/gJQALIrARX_story.html

here is a body count of 8 by a knife wielding man.

if you want to flip out and kill people you will find a way to do it.

drive into a crowd with a car, arson, blunt instruments, whatever.

from the link.

"Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50."

thegerg

Replace the knife with a gun and you will pretty much double or triple the body count.

reality has very little bearing over what the situation is when it comes to us changing our minds about something and people will say (and believe) whatever it takes in order to keep their world view from changing.

Why the fvck are people so scared of "assault rifles". Seriously. Explain your reasoning to me.

Why the fvck are people so scared of "assault rifles". Seriously. Explain your reasoning to me.

SpartanMSU

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Why the fvck are people so scared of "assault rifles". Seriously. Explain your reasoning to me.

Inconsistancy

You know what I meant. I'm not talking about the automatic rifles, which are illegal. I'm talking about the rifles that are semi-automatic that look "scary".

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

yep take them away.

then take away all the knives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-state-media-say-teenager-kills-8-wounds-5-in-knife-attack-in-northeast-of-the-country/2012/08/02/gJQALIrARX_story.html

then you better take those dogs away from people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

don't forget how deadly cars are better get rid of those too.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

whoops, record fatilities in slip and falls in the shower too, better outlaw showers while we are at it.

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/personal-injury/slip-and-fall-accident/slip-and-fall-accidents.htm

seriously pansys, why don't you just go build an underground bunker and live in that if you are so terrified of the risks you face everyday.

Inconsistancy

Don't compare homicide to accident.

Knives or cutting instruments account for 13% of homicides, while guns are 66%.

Guns-related deaths are ~half the deaths as car accidents, however cars are not commonly used in homicide. Fewer people die from shower related accidents, than guns (19k shower, 24k gun (2.9 homicide, 5 suicide, per 100 000))

Homicides (all sources), census.gov
Vehicle deaths and suiciderate, census.gov
50.7% suicide uses guns, suicideology.org

Replace that gun with poisoned food and you can increase it even more. What's your point? thegerg

Poisoning accounted for 7 homicides in 2009.

the world is not safe.

i'm sorry that guns are one of the myriad of things that make up that "not safeness" i support strict background checks to try and catch as many fruitcakes as possible but in the end that will never 100% effective.

what bugs me is that people want to take one danger and make it seem like your overall odds get better if that is controlled when that is the furthest thing from the truth.

if we really wanted to save lives we would outlaw people being able to get fat and die of diabetes and heart disease.

it is like the old joke of the guy that lost his keys in the dark area but searches under the street lamp because that is the easyplace to look.

we are consumed over gun violence that kills what? 5 to 10% of the numbers heart disease puts up?

but see, heart disease gets almost no ratings on the evening news so we don't think about it.

gun violence is flashy and exciting so it leads in peoples perceptions, not the things that are actually a danger to you odds wise.

did you ever consider the fact that it's gun owners who are responsible for gun related crimes? Maybe not all gun owners everywhere, but the ones shooting people all happen to be gun owners.

Why the fvck are people so scared of "assault rifles". Seriously. Explain your reasoning to me.

SpartanMSU

Assault Rifles are designed to take out a battalion of soldiers.

Which makes them very convienent for shooting sprees...

did you ever consider the fact that it's gun owners who are responsible for gun related crimes? Maybe not all gun owners everywhere, but the ones shooting people all happen to be gun owners.

Serraph105

holy shyt that's deep!

also 100% of all heart attack deaths occur to people that eat food!

damn you statistics!!!!

:P

did you ever consider the fact that it's gun owners who are responsible for gun related crimes? Maybe not all gun owners everywhere, but the ones shooting people all happen to be gun owners.

Serraph105

That's the stupiest **** I've ever read in my life.