Why are gunowners becoming the scapegoat for troubled people?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4529331701072205669

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

'nuff said

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

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.

PrototypeTheKid

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

op is silly and posts silly thingsMrPraline

dude.... my point in that was that people die in all kinds of way and in every situation that you can imagine.

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.

Riverwolf007

• Do nothing because it is already not 100% safe. And doing something that is not 100% effective is not at all effective (if a <100%, then a = 0).
• Laws are just fine, no matter what, change nothing, do nothing, defeatism!
• Compare accident, self inflicted death, natural causes, to homicide. (apparently getting cancer is self murder)

My points:

• Do something because any lives saved are lives saved, and that's nothing to scoff at.
• Our laws are too loose and there is something we can, and must, do about it (realistically).
• Do not compare accident/natural events to homicide.

It's how society operates. People will always look to direct the blame on anybody or anything but themselves.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4529331701072205669

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

'nuff said

Netherscourge

Pretty much. Allowing civilians to buy assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines is idiotic. In that case even the cops had serious issues dealing with the perps.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

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.

PrototypeTheKid

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

However, most guns start their life as legal, and I wonder how many of those guns in the 39% illegal are stolen from legal owners, or are guns that were legally bought and made illegal through modification (as simple as scratching off the serial#). What % of what category each crime type occurs... Lots of things I'd like to know about that exactly.

And, w/o a doubt, 99+% of all gun related crime occurs from someone who owns, legally or not, a gun. (so they are gun owners :P)

usdoj.gov

It's how society operates. People will always look to direct the blame on anybody or anything but themselves.

TheFatPerson

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]op is silly and posts silly thingsSerraph105

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"] Assault Rifles are, with out a doubt, designed for the mass killing of humans. (assault weapons != assault rifles, those are the ones that were banned for being "scary looking")thegerg

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".

If they were made before 1986 they're legal, but incredibly hard to get, almost impossible. You can't just walk into a store and buy a M60 machine gun.

People are freaked out by the AK47s and AR-15's because, I presume, they think they 1) look scary, and 2) are thought to be automatics, which they aren't.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

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

Netherscourge

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

Which makes them very convienent for shooting sprees...

Not civilian ones...

And a semi-automatic rifle with a drum magazine isn't extremely dangerous to large numbers of people? If anything it's more dangerous, because the shooter can make every shot count. Most soldiers don't even use their assault rifles in full auto, which kind of proves my point.

If anything, 100 carefully aimed shots in rapid succession is going to kill a lot more people than someone just coming in and spraying in full auto.

No civilian should own an assault rifle. And I love how gun nuts like to get cute with the definitions. An AR-15, even if it's only semi-auto, is still an assault rifle. You aren't going to go out and hunt deer with it. It wouldn't even be a good choice for home defense because you'd probably kill your neighbors.

The only reason to own an assault rifle is to gun down large numbers of civilians and/or cops in a massacre.

And a semi-automatic rifle with a drum magazine isn't extremely dangerous to large numbers of people? If anything it's more dangerous, because the shooter can make every shot count. Most soldiers don't even use their assault rifles in full auto, which kind of proves my point.

If anything, 100 carefully aimed shots in rapid succession is going to kill a lot more people than someone just coming in and spraying in full auto.

No civilian should own an assault rifle. And I love how gun nuts like to get cute with the definitions. An AR-15, even if it's only semi-auto, is still an assault rifle. You aren't going to go out and hunt deer with it. It wouldn't even be a good choice for home defense because you'd probably kill your neighbors.

The only reason to own an assault rifle is to gun down large numbers of civilians and/or cops in a massacre.

bigfoot2045

odds are it will never be used but in the off chance that it does since i have no idea what the situation might be it only seems sensible that if in my paranoia i believe i need a gun in the first place then i want the most effective gun i can buy.

maybe there is something terribly flawed in my reasoning that i cannot see because it is my reasoning though.

to sit there and say "The only reason to own an assault rifle is to gun down large numbers of civilians and/or cops in a massacre." does not seem like a very logical conclusion to hold.

And a semi-automatic rifle with a drum magazine isn't extremely dangerous to large numbers of people? If anything it's more dangerous, because the shooter can make every shot count. Most soldiers don't even use their assault rifles in full auto, which kind of proves my point.

If anything, 100 carefully aimed shots in rapid succession is going to kill a lot more people than someone just coming in and spraying in full auto.

No civilian should own an assault rifle. And I love how gun nuts like to get cute with the definitions. An AR-15, even if it's only semi-auto, is still an assault rifle. You aren't going to go out and hunt deer with it. It wouldn't even be a good choice for home defense because you'd probably kill your neighbors.

The only reason to own an assault rifle is to gun down large numbers of civilians and/or cops in a massacre.

bigfoot2045

Yes, I know soldiers don't use their rifles in full auto, in fact, when I was in the Army my M4 only had safe/semi/burst. That's besides the point I'm trying to make though. My point is that people freak out over assault rifles, but don't freak out over a normal looking rifle that's semi-auto. If you're against all semi-autos, fine, then say that.

Man this thread is going all out still. I guess we will not come into agreement on this issue for a long time. Some believe guns are an American right, others are against Guns in the hands of citizens, I believe gun laws today are too strict, but hey each to their own I guess

Man this thread is going all out still. I guess we will not come into agreement on this issue for a long time. Some believe guns are an American right, others are against Guns in the hands of citizens, I believe gun laws today are too strict, but hey each to their own I guess

Kamekazi_69

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]dude.... my point in that was that people die in all kinds of way and in every situation that you can imagine.

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.

Inconsistancy

• Do nothing because it is already not 100% safe. And doing something that is not 100% effective is not at all effective (if a <100%, then a = 0).
• Laws are just fine, no matter what, change nothing, do nothing, defeatism!
• Compare accident, self inflicted death, natural causes, to homicide. (apparently getting cancer is self murder)

My points:

• Do something because any lives saved are lives saved, and that's nothing to scoff at.
• Our laws are too loose and there is something we can, and must, do about it (realistically).
• Do not compare accident/natural events to homicide.

people are worried about some pie in the sky risk of a maniac which realistically is not going to happen very often yet take terrible risks in everyday choices like diet and exercise and being on the phone while driving and a whole host of other choices that have far higher odds of inflicting damage on themselves.

sure you are right in that if we can fix something we should but realistically how can i have this conversation about about guns with people when their view of the issue is so skewed by feelings and emotions and not an actual accurate honest assessment of risk?

can you see where it is frustrating for me to see people go out of their way to go after guns when the reality is they are going to die in greater numbers and at a way higher rate from the decisions they make on a daily basis?

how can i get worked up over a few dozen maniac deaths per year and see that as the huge threat that the rest of you see when a million people in the usa alone will smoke and eat themselves to death this year?

like i said i see that as fair to bring up in that we need to look at the real threats but maybe it is not. i really don't know.

[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"]

Man this thread is going all out still. I guess we will not come into agreement on this issue for a long time. Some believe guns are an American right, others are against Guns in the hands of citizens, I believe gun laws today are too strict, but hey each to their own I guess

l4dak47

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

And a semi-automatic rifle with a drum magazine isn't extremely dangerous to large numbers of people? If anything it's more dangerous, because the shooter can make every shot count. Most soldiers don't even use their assault rifles in full auto, which kind of proves my point.

If anything, 100 carefully aimed shots in rapid succession is going to kill a lot more people than someone just coming in and spraying in full auto.

No civilian should own an assault rifle. And I love how gun nuts like to get cute with the definitions. An AR-15, even if it's only semi-auto, is still an assault rifle. You aren't going to go out and hunt deer with it. It wouldn't even be a good choice for home defense because you'd probably kill your neighbors.

The only reason to own an assault rifle is to gun down large numbers of civilians and/or cops in a massacre.

Riverwolf007

odds are it will never be used but in the off chance that it does since i have no idea what the situation might be it only seems sensible that if in my paranoia i believe i need a gun in the first place then i want the most effective gun i can buy.

maybe there is something terribly flawed in my reasoning that i cannot see because it is my reasoning though.

to sit there and say "The only reason to own an assault rifle is to gun down large numbers of civilians and/or cops in a massacre." does not seem like a very logical conclusion to hold.

Are you expecting a SWAT team?

What's wrong with a 12 gauge shotgun?

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

And a semi-automatic rifle with a drum magazine isn't extremely dangerous to large numbers of people? If anything it's more dangerous, because the shooter can make every shot count. Most soldiers don't even use their assault rifles in full auto, which kind of proves my point.

If anything, 100 carefully aimed shots in rapid succession is going to kill a lot more people than someone just coming in and spraying in full auto.

No civilian should own an assault rifle. And I love how gun nuts like to get cute with the definitions. An AR-15, even if it's only semi-auto, is still an assault rifle. You aren't going to go out and hunt deer with it. It wouldn't even be a good choice for home defense because you'd probably kill your neighbors.

The only reason to own an assault rifle is to gun down large numbers of civilians and/or cops in a massacre.

bigfoot2045

odds are it will never be used but in the off chance that it does since i have no idea what the situation might be it only seems sensible that if in my paranoia i believe i need a gun in the first place then i want the most effective gun i can buy.

maybe there is something terribly flawed in my reasoning that i cannot see because it is my reasoning though.

to sit there and say "The only reason to own an assault rifle is to gun down large numbers of civilians and/or cops in a massacre." does not seem like a very logical conclusion to hold.

Are you expecting a SWAT team?

What's wrong with a 12 gauge shotgun?

also, bad guys can wear armor too. i want the round to penetrate under any circumstance. not just in some circumstances.

what i am trying to get across here is that if you are the type of person that thinks you need a gun then it only makes sense to think you need the most effective gun you can get.

does that make any sense?

No one blames gun owners, just guns in general. And for good reason. If you remove all guns you remove all gun crimes. America would become a safer place overnight if that were to ever happen. Unlikely however.FPSfan1985

Making guns illegal won't remove all guns. It will disarm law-abiding people and the bad guys will still find a way to get them. Even if they don't have many guns, they'll still commit violent crimes. This is not a solution.

Because it's convenient.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Because it's convenient.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Crushmaster

Because it's convenient for the ignorant.

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"]No one blames gun owners, just guns in general. And for good reason. If you remove all guns you remove all gun crimes. America would become a safer place overnight if that were to ever happen. Unlikely however.hartsickdiscipl

Making guns illegal won't remove all guns. It will disarm law-abiding people and the bad guys will still find a way to get them. Even if they don't have many guns, they'll still commit violent crimes. This is not a solution.

Of course it's a solution. To gun crimes. No one said anything about violent crimes. Less guns = less gun crimes. Simple Mathematics.FPSfan1985

.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"]No one blames gun owners, just guns in general. And for good reason. If you remove all guns you remove all gun crimes. America would become a safer place overnight if that were to ever happen. Unlikely however.FPSfan1985

Making guns illegal won't remove all guns. It will disarm law-abiding people and the bad guys will still find a way to get them. Even if they don't have many guns, they'll still commit violent crimes. This is not a solution.

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Making guns illegal won't remove all guns. It will disarm law-abiding people and the bad guys will still find a way to get them. Even if they don't have many guns, they'll still commit violent crimes. This is not a solution.

noscope-ak47

It doesn't happen that often, that's why it's rarely reported.

I am not entirely sure that people are being indoctrinated, the media for instance I don't see touches on fire arm bans very often. Only network that does is MSNBC but that's a far left propaganda machine.

But you are right about scape goats, I wish more people would actually get introduced to guns so they would learn that they are not bad like they think, the individual is the one who does bad things with it.

Personal responsibility comes in. People kill people with cars all the time, we don't ban cars. People die from alchohol all the time, we don't ban alchohol. We blame the individual, so why are gun owners treated differently?

Because it's convenient for the ignorant.

airshocker

Agreed

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"]No one blames gun owners, just guns in general. And for good reason. If you remove all guns you remove all gun crimes. America would become a safer place overnight if that were to ever happen. Unlikely however.FPSfan1985

Making guns illegal won't remove all guns. It will disarm law-abiding people and the bad guys will still find a way to get them. Even if they don't have many guns, they'll still commit violent crimes. This is not a solution.

Simple mathematics that's not supported by the data.

If you look at shootings where more than 3 victims or injured or killed for the past couple decades, in all but one instance, they happened in "Gun Fre Zone"s, the most recent shootings adding even more credence to that notion. Feel free to look it up.

Then take a look at cities like New York city where I currently live, Chicago where I grew up or Washington DC, all of which have some of the strictest gun laws. Yet, they have some of the highest crime rates.

Do we even need to look at Mexico which smaller population has a much higher gun death rate.

Or maybe take a look at the CDCs findings in 2003 and even more recently I believe where they stated that gun legislation had no significant effect on crime rates or homicide rates in the cities or states that implemented them.

Then we look at states like Florida. The passing of concealed carry laws did not result in daily shoot outs a la the Wild West. Or what about that city in Georgia.. I forget its name... when they made it mandatory for all home owners to have a firearm in their home. They crime rate decreased.

People like to trot out Great Britain as an example of how gun laws helped. But did they? Crime rates increased, especially home invasions and sexual assault. In 60% of the home invasions, the residents were home at the time of the crime.

They also like to mention Australia which has a very low gun death rate. Gun deaths have been goin down at a relatively even rate since the 80s. Since the passage of their gun ban after a massacre there in 1996, that gun death rate continued to decrease at the same rate, unaffected by the ban.

I would highly recommend you look to some research done by Dr. John Lott who does an exhaustive, multi decade study on gun legislation and pairs it up with crime data. His work is independent and has been vetted by pier review and published by the University of Chicago.

The point: gun legislation is intellectual low-hanging fruit. Violence is a multifaceted issue. To oversimplify it by pointing the finger at gun ownership is a distraction from the real research that needs to be done on the matter.

I am not entirely sure that people are being indoctrinated, the media for instance I don't see touches on fire arm bans very often. Only network that does is MSNBC but that's a far left propaganda machine.

But you are right about scape goats, I wish more people would actually get introduced to guns so they would learn that they are not bad like they think, the individual is the one who does bad things with it.

Personal responsibility comes in. People kill people with cars all the time, we don't ban cars. People die from alchohol all the time, we don't ban alchohol. We blame the individual, so why are gun owners treated differently?

ShadowMoses900

Exactly. I love how some of the gun control enthusiasts take aim(pun intended) at semi-automatic weapons when in fact... they're no more dangerous then hunting rifles.

And I agree on introducing people to firearms. I took my daughter shooting just a little while ago just to show her the monumental gap between Hollywood and reality. With great power comes great responsiblity. Yes, Uncle Owen, it's absolutely true. And it's a principal that everyone should understand, not just superheroes. That's why every responsible CCW holder should know the 4 rules of gun safety by heart and live by them.

Actually, we did ban alcohol. I think we all know how that worked out.

Personal responsibility comes in. People kill people with cars all the time, we don't ban cars. People die from alchohol all the time, we don't ban alchohol. We blame the individual, so why are gun owners treated differently?

ShadowMoses900

alcohol isn't designed to kill people, if you use alcohol properly, you have a fun drunk night with freinds, if you use guns properly, people die.

If you use alcohol inproperly people can get hurt while if you use a gun improperly people won't.

bad analogy on your part.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Personal responsibility comes in. People kill people with cars all the time, we don't ban cars. People die from alchohol all the time, we don't ban alchohol. We blame the individual, so why are gun owners treated differently?

TopTierHustler

alcohol isn't designed to kill people, if you use alcohol properly, you have a fun drunk night with freinds, if you use guns properly, people die.

If you use alcohol inproperly people can get hurt while if you use a gun improperly people won't.

bad analogy on your part.

If I use my firearm properly, I get to defend myself and save the lives of my family. If the bad guy dies, then that's a shame, but I wouldn't regret it.

Law biding CCW holders aren't out to gun people down. We're not out there with a cape and mask looking to be the best vigilantes we can be. I just want to be able to defend myself if I ever have to. I hope to God that it never comes to that.

But sorry, the police, as much as I respect what they do for us, they can't be there all the time.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Personal responsibility comes in. People kill people with cars all the time, we don't ban cars. People die from alchohol all the time, we don't ban alchohol. We blame the individual, so why are gun owners treated differently?

TopTierHustler

alcohol isn't designed to kill people, if you use alcohol properly, you have a fun drunk night with freinds, if you use guns properly, people die.

If you use alcohol inproperly people can get hurt while if you use a gun improperly people won't.

bad analogy on your part.

So you're saying the proper way to use a gun is to shoot someone?

I guess millions upon millions of people in the US aren't using them properly.

I mean, we all know everyone who purchases a gun says "hey, I'm glad I bought this gun, now I can go kill a ton of people with it, yay!".