[OT] Will some gun owners never learn?

[cashfruit]

first off why dont you get of my d*ck. second i know they didnt teach him anything because he blew his sister off the map with their gun, and if they tryed to teach him they did a wonderful job didnt they. at 16 i knew a rifle would blow someones head off and didnt need anyone to tell me not to aim at my sister and squeeze the trigger.

[Terry Tate]

Holy crap you guys, you're calling a 16 year old a child, like he's still unable to wash his own behind. Are we raising the biggest nation of infants in history or what?

 

It's a tragic story, but 16 years old is not a child. You should be able to live and work on your own by then. I'm not saying as a necessity - I realize times have changed, and most in this country don't have to - but have the ability (maturity) to do so.

 

Guns are always loaded. They are only to be handled when they are to be used or cleaned. They are only used to shoot things. They are only pointed at things you intend to shoot. When people or animals get shot, they often get dead. Hell, my kids know that and they're 8 and 5.

 

With few exceptions, if a kid is too immature or irresponsible to be around loaded firearms at least by the time they finish elementary school, you're not doing them any favors.

 

16. JHC.

[Alaska Darin]

first off why dont you get of my d*ck. second i know they didnt teach him anything because he blew his sister off the map with their gun, and if they tryed to teach him they did a wonderful job didnt they. at 16 i knew a rifle would blow someones head off and didnt need anyone to tell me not to aim at my sister and squeeze the trigger.

202218[/snapback]

You were smart enough at 16 to know about guns but whatever age you are now you tell another adult to "get off your dick?" Impressive use of duality there.

 

Good luck raising your own kids. I recommend doing it now while you already know everything.

[cashfruit]

you win

[stevestojan]

Remember guys,

 

Guns PREVENT crime... remember that.

 

[Alaska Darin]

Remember guys,

 

Guns PREVENT crime... remember that.

 

202278[/snapback]

Repeating stupidity doesn't add any validity to your "argument".

[cashfruit]

Remember guys,

 

Guns PREVENT crime... remember that.

 

202278[/snapback]

 

yes they do, read this

 

 

http://buffalonews.com/editorial/20050111/2020192.asp

[Alaska Darin]

Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only about 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities. Smith was asked why so many citizens in Dade County were buying guns and he said, "They damn well better, they've got to protect themselves."

 

The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour (462 times per day).

 

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

 

The numbers clearly show that the police cannot protect every individual. In 1996, there were about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time to protect a population of more than 260 million Americans -- or more than 1,700 citizens per officer.

 

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.**

 

**Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993.

 

This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.

Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.

 

But keep letting exception drive the rule. Knuckleheads.

[stevestojan]

Repeating stupidity doesn't add any validity to your "argument".

202282[/snapback]

 

And repeating your own biased opinion doesn't add any validity to your argument either.

 

But then again, I'm sure all of the kids who have been killed by guns in the home designed to protect them never got ONE word of gun safety from their parents. I mean, if they had those people's kids would have "never touched their guns".

 

Keep grapsing onto that archaic admentment. It made sence when it was written, it must still apply...

[stevestojan]

Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only about 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities. Smith was asked why so many citizens in Dade County were buying guns and he said, "They damn well better, they've got to protect themselves."

 

The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour (462 times per day).

 

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

 

The numbers clearly show that the police cannot protect every individual. In 1996, there were about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time to protect a population of more than 260 million Americans -- or more than 1,700 citizens per officer.

 

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.**

 

**Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993.

 

This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.

Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.

 

But keep letting exception drive the rule.  Knuckleheads.

202296[/snapback]

 

You keep using these numbers, and we keep ignoring them. Why? Well, you act as if the gun, and ONLY the gun prevented these crimes.

 

I want to know how many times someone was being attacked and actually shot a criminal to prevent being killed themself.

 

Because if the gun was never fired, it doesn't mean sh--. Just the site of the gun most likely made the criminal take off.

 

You keep wondering why we ignore these "stats" you bring up. It's because they are not the end all.

[Alaska Darin]

And repeating your own biased opinion doesn't add any validity to your argument either.

 

But then again, I'm sure all of the kids who have been killed by guns in the home designed to protect them never got ONE word of gun safety from their parents. I mean, if they had those people's kids would have "never touched their guns".

 

Keep grapsing onto that archaic admentment.  It made sence when it was written, it must still apply...

202308[/snapback]

Your opinion is biased. Mine is informed. The difference isn't subtle.

[stevestojan]

Your opinion is biased.  Mine is informed.  The difference isn't subtle.

202311[/snapback]

 

You crack me up... keep polishing your guns up there. Make sure there's ammo close by, and you're ready to fire when needed.

 

Isn't there a a discussion board where having a pompous remark for everything and outdoing each other in such pissing matches is the theme? We are just a bunch of football fans.

 

Seriously, go look at your last three threads. Your prickness is growing.

 

But, keep polishin' dem guns, boy!!! yeeeeeee haw!

[Alaska Darin]

You crack me up... keep polishing your guns up there. Make sure there's ammo close by, and you're ready to fire when needed.

202312[/snapback]

Turn off the television and try reading a book sometime. You won't look so damn uniformed.

 

Example: In 1996, there were 21 deaths of children aged 0-15 in the United States attributed to gun accidents. That same year, about twice as many children aged 0-10 died in bathtubs.

 

Watch out for the law abiding citizen with the gun. He's really dangerous.

 

Polish a gun? Sorry, this ain't a porn movie. Way to show your knowledge of the subject matter.

[Alaska Darin]

Seriously, go look at your last three threads. Your prickness is growing.

202312[/snapback]

Ooh, that hurts. I'm gonna have a hard time sleeping tonight.

[VABills]

Turn off the television and try reading a book sometime.  You won't look so damn uniformed.

 

Example:  In 1996, there were 21 deaths of children aged 0-15 in the United States attributed to gun accidents.  That same year, about twice as many children aged 0-10 died in bathtubs.

 

Watch out for the law abiding citizen with the gun.  He's really dangerous. 

 

Polish a gun?  Sorry, this ain't a porn movie.  Way to show your knowledge of the subject matter.

202313[/snapback]

Of course now that they overturned Yates conviction the number of dead children in bathtubs may go up again soon.

[mcjeff215]

You crack me up... keep polishing your guns up there. Make sure there's ammo close by, and you're ready to fire when needed.

202312[/snapback]

 

I really try and avoid arguments like this one, but your reoccurring stereotyping of those of us that own firearms is getting more than a tad redundant. This is really turning out to be a polarizing topic. We're not waiting for the "invasion", we're not polishing our barrels in preparation for the Government take-over, we're not shooting at beer cans in the front yard while the Mrs nurses the 7 year old.

 

I find it simply insulting that you'd state that the Right to Bear Arms is outdated. The only reason gun advocates need to refer to the second amendment time and time again is because of those of you who act on pure emotion. If it may hurt, ban it, right? Keep the "common good" in mind at all times. Legislate our way to safety. Yeah. That's the ticket.

 

I have kids. I own firearms. They're not mutually exclusive. My kid does not know better. My nephews do not know better. I wouldn't risk it if I believed they did. Hell, in my opinion, most grown men do not know better. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to assume that no one "knows better." Any less is negligence.

 

I do not refer to my guns as self defense tools. In my book, they are sporting equipment. But regardless, for you to sit there and consider me irresponsible because I am a gun owner and have a child - that's one of the most self righteous attitudes I've ever been exposed to. You have no idea how to raise a child, or for that matter, deal with firearms. Don't sit there and pretend you know better, it makes you sound like a Berkeley freshman.

[DC Tom]

And repeating your own biased opinion doesn't add any validity to your argument either.

 

But then again, I'm sure all of the kids who have been killed by guns in the home designed to protect them never got ONE word of gun safety from their parents. I mean, if they had those people's kids would have "never touched their guns".

 

Keep grapsing onto that archaic admentment.  It made sence when it was written, it must still apply...

202308[/snapback]

 

Precisely what do you know about the subject? Pardon the observation, but I see Darin supporting his views with actual statistical facts. I haven't seen you support one of yours yet...

[Alaska Darin]

You keep using these numbers, and we keep ignoring them. Why? Well, you act as if the gun, and ONLY the gun prevented these crimes.

 

I want to know how many times someone was being attacked and actually shot a criminal to prevent being killed themself.

 

Because if the gun was never fired, it doesn't mean sh--.  Just the site of the gun most likely made the criminal take off.

 

You keep wondering why we ignore these "stats" you bring up. It's because they are not the end all.

202310[/snapback]

Uh, you care to explain the "lahjik" of "I act as if the gun and ONLY the gun prevented the crime" coupled with "just the site (sic) of the gun most likely made the criminal take off"?

 

About 99% of the time, showing a gun to a would be criminal is enough to stop the crime. You feel free to whip out your "lil' Stevie". I'm sure you'll be nearly as successful.

[stevestojan]

Precisely what do you know about the subject?  Pardon the observation, but I see Darin supporting his views with actual statistical facts.  I haven't seen you support one of yours yet...

202369[/snapback]

 

my point is that one kid killed because a gun was not kept properly is more than enough..

 

You guys will never get that, though.

 

I already know how Darin is going to respond. He will say, yes, but 1,000s of others were saved because there WAS a gun in the house.

 

The problem with BOTH of you is that if someone uses stats or numbers found somewhere which MAY go against your point, you say "so, you'll believe everything the media or the government tells you? what a joke!"

 

But when you use those same sources, you use them freely and then say "facts suck".

 

You both need to start you own board of holier-than-though, pompous long winded arguments that no one wants to listen to... it would be sweet. Lots of people would come.

[Alaska Darin]

A 64-year-old Buffalo, N.Y., man was having his regular night out at a seniors social club when two armed, masked men approached a card table and demanded money. After a round was fired from an assailant’s shotgun, the intended victim, thinking his friend who had fallen to the floor had been killed, pulled out his handgun and shot and killed one of the robbers. As the robber was hit with the bullet, his shotgun went off and hit his accomplice in the arm. The accomplice fled the scene but was later apprehended at a local medical center and charged with first-degree burglary. (The Buffalo News, Buffalo, NY, 09/26/04)