Robbery in Kansas

[Duck_walk]

Theory 1: guns deter criminals

Four criminals robbed a gun store.

Theory 2: the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun
is a good guy with a gun.

Three of the criminals were in fact shot. The male
Owner (the good guy with a gun) is dead.
The female owner was not shot

Fact: if you own a gun you are more likely to die from a
gun shot that someone who doesn't own a gun

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[ag-man]

Duck,
I respect your opinion. I do however think your "fact" is BS. Link please

 

[Stevedangos]

Good chance him and her would have been killed if he didn't have a gun. At least he put three of them down in the process.

Had neighbors in their 80's who owned a gun store hacked to pieces when they came home from church on a Saturday night. Family found them next morning when they didn't show up for Sunday school. That's when I started carrying 24/7, bastards may end up getting us but I want the chance to put them down before they get it done.

Very good friend of mine owns a gun store,,, lady was beating on his door at bedtime, he let her and a little girl in and before he got the door shut a man kicked it in, shot him and his wife, thankfully his teenage son got a loaded rifle and killed the intruder before he got another shot off.

Everyone has their opinion, but I would just as soon have a fighting chance

 

[vbsideout]

The fact that people die from guns can't be disputed. The fact that we have so many of them verifies the fact that many deaths occur at the hands of people that have guns. Guns kill!!! The more guns there are the more people die good guys and bad guy and gals.

 

[Duck_walk]

here ya go

Murder, suicide, accidents, false sense of empowerment/machismo.
---gun ownership is very dangerous.


just one of many links

 

[vbsideout]

Re: here ya go


Guns kill without prejudice good or bad people. That can't be denied!

 

[ag-man]

Re: here ya go


Duck,
I will agree that if there were NO guns, no people would die from guns. The problem remains that there ARE guns. Trying to remove them from law abiding citizens leave only criminals with guns. Then what ?

Millions of people have been exterminated throughout the world in the last century by rogue nations where the average citizen does not have weapons, were they safer being unable to defend themselves?

I asked for a link and you provided, however, theguardian and it's reputation for liberal and left wing opinion's citing a study of 650 gunowner's vs non gunowner's doesn't exactly prove that throughout history one is safer without a firearm.

 

[Duck_walk]

Re: here ya go

We are a gun crazy society. Guns are available like
bubble gum in a machine. The people in Paris are
shocked by citizens being killed this week and they call it
terrorism. In America, its just called Tuesday.

Guns kill people.

 

[Stevedangos]

Re: here ya go

That's about a credible as me posting a link

to an NRA study

In the last year multiple school shootings have been brought to a swift end by armed resource officers in the school with no or minimal casualties. How many more kids would have died if they had to wait around for cops to be called, show up, then do something??

Time to take off your wife's pants and put on some man jeans

 

[Duck_walk]

Re: here ya go

Time to move out of your cave and start respecting women and life in general.
You are such a tough guy.

 

[ag-man]

Re: here ya go


Duck,
I agree we are a gun crazy society, that is bad. The question would seem to be "how do we put the cat back in the bag?"

I do not think this is possible. Who should have a gun? Who should decide who should have a gun? When a country disarms it's citizens, do the citizens benefit? Did we win World War 1 and World War 2 without guns?

If people are safer without firearms, should we disarm our police force and military so they no longer get killed?


Guns kill people? No, people kill people, guns are just used as the tool of choice. Do I wish there was less gun violence? Of course I do, but how do we change the mentality of the human mind, that is the question.

 

[millerbleach]

Cars kill people.
Cows kill people.
Snakes kill people.
Foods kill people.
Chemicals kill people.

Just because people die from something doesn't mean it should be banned.
Guns serve far more good purposes than bad. The bad get highlighted though.

 

[Duck_walk]

Excellent and logical comparison.
I never thought of it that way.
I'm no longer going to drive a Monsanto
truck through the pasture with my pet snake
while having a snack.

Congrats your post is guaranteed top 10
for idiocy in 2015.

 

[vbsideout]

Following your logic all people die so God kills people. It must be God's fault!

 

[Stevedangos]

Re: here ya go

Good sharp assault knife much better at killing, just as effective and absolutely no noise

Or a 3500 pound car at 70 mph driven into a sidewalk full of children

Or a pipe wrench to loosen gas fittings fill a building basement full of gas and a simple timer

Or some box knifes

Funny I probably have thirty guns, not a one of them have ever ran out and killed anything all by themselves

 

[Stevedangos]

More like top ten for common sense

Heck hand grenades are a lit easier to get than handguns and a lot more deadly,,, I suppose you want to ban those!!

And fertilizer

And diesel fuel that stuffs deadly when mixed with the above

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Cars kill people.
Cows kill people.
Snakes kill people.
Foods kill people.
Chemicals kill people.

Just because people die from something doesn't mean it should be banned.
Guns serve far more good purposes than bad. The bad get highlighted though.

The problem with this argument is we recognize the deadliness of other items and limit their use when the risks outweigh the benefits in many cases.

There is a reason I cannot go and buy whatever prescription I want. There is a reason I have to have a driver's license and my car has to pass safety inspections. There is a reason you cannot have random animals in most large cities. There is a reason we have the FDA and require labeling of foods which contain allergens. There is a reason the USDA oversees food factories. There is a reason the government can require recalls of unsafe items. Etc. This system works very well, overall - it's a part of the US government we take for granted.

This the real stupidity of the gun debate in America - there's this lunatic idea that every discussion of a gun law is ONE STEP TOWARDS THE FEDS BANNING GUNS FOREVER or something ridiculous like that. Guns are dangerous items that can be used responsibility for protection or enjoyment. The law should reflect that. Common sense on guns means that they should all registered just like cars, and that there's no reason for very large caliber clips or cop killer bullets to be for sale. And it means that private establishment that wants to be gun free should be allowed to be gun free. Guns should not be carried by anyone who is under the influence of anything. Felons who committed any sort of violent crime should not be able to have guns. These are basic, common sense ideas.

The gun debate is an example of America having extraordinarily bad policy relative to nearly everyone else on earth; the prevalence of guns (especially handguns) does not make America a safer place.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Re: here ya go

Originally posted by ag-man:

Duck,
I agree we are a gun crazy society, that is bad. The question would seem to be "how do we put the cat back in the bag?"

I do not think this is possible. Who should have a gun? Who should decide who should have a gun? When a country disarms it's citizens, do the citizens benefit? Did we win World War 1 and World War 2 without guns?

If people are safer without firearms, should we disarm our police force and military so they no longer get killed?


Guns kill people? No, people kill people, guns are just used as the tool of choice. Do I wish there was less gun violence? Of course I do, but how do we change the mentality of the human mind, that is the question.

Somehow first world countries with stricter gun laws magically have better human minds as well - their murder rates are miraculously lower than ours.

The fact is that guns can and do cause more damage than other weapons; they make those weaker human minds much more likely to kill someone or commit suicide.

The police comment is pointless; they have a different role than the average citizen, and their equipment should reflect that.

I think the answer is to acknowledge the past is the past, but to fix things going forward to the extent possible. You don't have to flood the streets with more and more stupid stuff.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Re: here ya go

Originally posted by ag-man:

Duck,
I will agree that if there were NO guns, no people would die from guns. The problem remains that there ARE guns. Trying to remove them from law abiding citizens leave only criminals with guns. Then what ?

Millions of people have been exterminated throughout the world in the last century by rogue nations where the average citizen does not have weapons, were they safer being unable to defend themselves?

I asked for a link and you provided, however, theguardian and it's reputation for liberal and left wing opinion's citing a study of 650 gunowner's vs non gunowner's doesn't exactly prove that throughout history one is safer without a firearm.

The reason our criminals use guns so much is because our laws have made it so easy for them to have guns. This is not a recent issue in the US.

Also, there are numerous studies and examples about your risk of dying (and the risk of your family dying) from having a gun in your home. They all say the same thing - not having a gun in your home makes your house safer for its own residents.

http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/01/1559827610396294

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full#ref-30

The issue is that, for the average person, the rate of someone randomly killing you or even trying to kill you is outrageously low unless you live in a truly awful part of town. For example, I live in a suburb of about 50,000 people. 4 people have been killed here in the last 10 years. There's a pretty good likelihood that these were all or almost all domestic disturbances, not random violent crimes where someone needed the protection of a gun.

What does that mean for me? It means that having a gun simply creates the chance for me or someone else I live with to accidentally kill someone, or to commit suicide in a weak moment. It also helps increase the likelihood that someone dies in a domestic dispute.

This is the reason studies of households consistently show that having a gun makes you more likely to die from a gun - the gun you own is the most likely source of gun death for anyone you know.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Re: here ya go

Originally posted by Duck_walk:
We are a gun crazy society. Guns are available like
bubble gum in a machine. The people in Paris are
shocked by citizens being killed this week and they call it
terrorism. In America, its just called Tuesday.

Guns kill people.

I'm very intrigued how those guns ended up in Paris; I suspect this is a topic of intense investigation right now.

 

[SadButTrue]

Re: here ya go

Saw something on tv last week, don't remember the show, maybe 60 Minutes. Any way a 12 year old boy was followed by a hidden camera and was denied the purchase of cigarettes, alcohol, and lottery tickets, but purchased a rifle at a gun show. That isn't right, I don't care what any one thinks.

 

[vbsideout]

Re: here ya go


Guys quit trying to use facts about guns You should know facts do not count when they use knives as part of their logic. (notice I used logic and not facts) Everyone knows what happens when you show up to a fight with a knife and the other guy has a gun. ( unless you are Jim Bowie) All their small minds can think is they are coming to take our guns!!

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Duck_walk:
Excellent and logical comparison.
I never thought of it that way.
I'm no longer going to drive a Monsanto
truck through the pasture with my pet snake
while having a snack.

Congrats your post is guaranteed top 10
for idiocy in 2015.

Just a few spots behind this one.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Neutron Monster:

This the real stupidity of the gun debate in America - there's this lunatic idea that every discussion of a gun law is ONE STEP TOWARDS THE FEDS BANNING GUNS FOREVER or something ridiculous like that. Guns are dangerous items that can be used responsibility for protection or enjoyment. The law should reflect that. Common sense on guns means that they should all registered just like cars, and that there's no reason for very large caliber clips or cop killer bullets to be for sale. And it means that private establishment that wants to be gun free should be allowed to be gun free. Guns should not be carried by anyone who is under the influence of anything. Felons who committed any sort of violent crime should not be able to have guns. These are basic, common sense ideas.

If you look at the posts in these threads it would be hard to make the case the anti gun people want anything but the elimination of guns in society.
There are common sense laws that could be agreed to. Is crrying a gun under the influence legal? Has laws against driving under the influence stopped that?
I have never understood the fear of large clips. Anyone intent on killing will not be stopped by clip size. Should we just allow one bullit possesion limits?
Yes, private establishments should be able to restrict ANY activity. Are you fine with them also being able to allow what they want? How about bars that want to allow smoking or allow carrying weapons? What about a movie theatre that would want to allow either?
While i'm inclined to agree on the felons and violent crime convicted parts, I'm surprised you are. What about assimilating ex criminals back into society? I thought you were in favor of treatment over imprisonment in most cases.

 

[Neutron Monster]

i think there is a difference between the right to have a gun and other criminal measures. You don't need a gun to do your job or anything essential, whereas other punishments can and do impact your ability to support yourself and your family. I could understand limiting the law and having some crimes punishable only by a suspension of gun rights similar to how we handle certain driving offenses. But if you use a gun in the commission of a crime, I think there is no reason for you to have a gun anymore, you've shown you can't be trusted with that right.

I am generally supportive of allowing businesses to set their own rules, but I do support smoking bans for certain places. I think if a private group not open to the general public like country club wants to allow smoking, that's fine, but it should be banned in most enclosed public spaces. The problem is that secondhand smoke imposes a cost on society through higher health care costs. It's not simply a matter of preference.

I don't have a problem with the law in STL city that bars (businesses whose revenue is 75 percent or more derived from alcohol sales) can allow smoking. I think that allows the subset of people who are smokers to have public spaces available for them to congregate while also allowing non smokers to be free from smoke if they want to be free.

I think if a business wants to allow guns that is fine. I can see the logic for banning guns from establishments whose primary purpose is selling alcohol; it's generally a bad idea for guns to be there. But, I don't see that as a major issue, and I really wouldn't care much if such a law didn't exist.

I think guns should generally be banned at government buildings where other people have kids (i.e. schools). I think if a private school wants a different policy, that is their right.

 

[SadButTrue]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

I have never understood the fear of large clips. Anyone intent on killing will not be stopped by clip size. Should we just allow one bullit possesion limits?

Well obviously a weapon with a clip can inflict more harm to school children than a single shot rifle or revolver, but then you wouldn't be able to bring down deer and rabbits without a 30 shot clip.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by SadButTrue:

Originally posted by millerbleach:


I have never understood the fear of large clips. Anyone intent on killing will not be stopped by clip size. Should we just allow one bullit possesion limits?

Well obviously a weapon with a clip can inflict more harm to school children than a single shot rifle or revolver, but then you wouldn't be able to bring down deer and rabbits without a 30 shot clip.

How many shots in a mortar launcher?

 

[HannibalLector]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by SadButTrue:

Originally posted by millerbleach:




I have never understood the fear of large clips. Anyone intent on killing will not be stopped by clip size. Should we just allow one bullit possesion limits?

Well obviously a weapon with a clip can inflict more harm to school children than a single shot rifle or revolver, but then you wouldn't be able to bring down deer and rabbits without a 30 shot clip.

How many shots in a mortar launcher?

One, right?

This post was edited on 1/12 7:02 PM by HannibalLector

 

[runyouover]

You are absolutely a mother trucking idiot.

 

[Black&Gold82]

Originally posted by runyouover:
You are absolutely a mother trucking idiot.

Then you should be able to fight him on your level.