The sad casualty of guns and stupid people in America

a reply to: SudoNim

Yes, it took a hyperbolic path right over it.

If you take action to make something not happen, and that action can be seen as directly responsible for your success, then you can lay claim to success.

i.e., my kid hasn't shot someone because i keep access to my guns under strict control, so my methods are successful. Its not because he repels tigers.

a reply to: Mianeye

I didn't read the thread and I won't because it's nonsense. Guns make this country more safe. You're grandmother, your wife, your sister, etc. are being protected every single day. Every time they come home late from work, go to the mall or the grocery store whether we realize it or not.


It gives that purse snatcher pause, because little ole granny just might have the great equalizer tucked in there with her wallet.

That's a luxury you have been afforded and if you think there are better alternatives, please go pursue them. I don't even own a gun but I know that this country is safer for all of us because of guns.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SudoNim

Yes, it took a hyperbolic path right over it.

If you take action to make something not happen, and that action can be seen as directly responsible for your success, then you can lay claim to success.

i.e., my kid hasn't shot someone because i keep access to my guns under strict control, so my methods are successful. Its not because he repels tigers.

So if I keep a tiger locked in my house and it doesn't kill my children because I have strict controls, ipso facto it shouldn't kill anyone's children if they used strict controls and should therefore be encouraged?

Your logic is flawed and quite frankly arrogant.

Millions of "irresponsible" people have easy access to guns which endanger their families lives and all you can say is, "I consider myself responsible".

originally posted by: BoldAlligator
a reply to: Mianeye

I didn't read the thread and I won't because it's nonsense. Guns make this country more safe. You're grandmother, your wife, your sister, etc. are being protected every single day. Every time they come home late from work, go to the mall or the grocery store whether we realize it or not.


It gives that purse snatcher pause, because little ole granny just might have the great equalizer tucked in there with her wallet.

That's a luxury you have been afforded and if you think there are better alternatives, please go pursue them. I don't even own a gun but I know that this country is safer for all of us because of guns.

Unfortunately, no you aren't. America's crime rate is higher than nearly all countries where its people aren't freely able and willing to arm themselves.

Your fantasy is a lovely one, but i'm afraid you live outside of reality if you believe it to be true.

a reply to: Mianeye

Sure stop the 10's of thousands being killed by abortion for no other reason then that they are inconvenient.


after all; its all about the children.

a reply to: Mianeye

How many people have died as a result of governments taking the weapons of their citizens. Nazi germany, stalinist russia etc. How about we take all the weapons of irreponsible, murderous governments millions even billions would be saved

a reply to: Qspeedyrock

The History of Gun Control


"What you need to know about Gun Control & Tyranny .... Don't Miss This"


So why is a poster here using the avatar of Homer Simpson, depicted as a bungling a hole in the cartoon hit the Simpsons,
preaching gun control ?

He must be kidding right ? He must really love guns and is just trying to add some levity to the serious
nature of gun control by autocrats and criminals.

Or is he one of those people who has already been barred from owning a gun for legal reasons and
now he is trying to equal the playing field so the rest of us can no longer own guns either




“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.”
― Adolf Hitler


“The downside to gun control is genocide.”
― John Ross, Unintended Consequences

a reply to: angeldoll

Have you ever dealt with someone out of their mind on a drug such as PCP, or whatever other sort?

I have.

I am six foot four inches tall. At the time, I weighed in the neighborhood of 280-300 lbs, little of it excess. I am, as it is said, rather a large individual.

The gentleman in question was from Guatemala, and was about 5 foot six'ish, maybe 150 lbs soaking wet. Quite a discrepancy in size. Didn't matter in the slightest. I got tossed around like I weighed 28 lbs, not ten times that... It took eight guys, including myself, after I shook off getting tossed into a wall ten feet away, to finally get him down.

The odds of a shoulder wound taking him down are not odds I'd bet on.

A hopped up individual can be an enormous threat. If someone like that is bound and determined to hurt/kill you, I would suggest either running away (always an option, IMHO), or if you carry, like I do, stopping him with lethal force, wounding him may stop him, then again, it may just make him very angry.

My own handling of something like this would go thusly, assuming I'm by myself...

Get out of his way. Unless I'm cornered with no way to avoid him, I'm not about to engage him. It's not my job. Other circumstances might mitigate that stance, but it's my starting point.

originally posted by: SudoNim

Unfortunately my post went over your head.

Saying that because something hasn't happened yet there can't be a problem isn't logic.

I could let my daughter juggle knives every morning, if she doesn't stab herself after the first week am I still being responsible?

Lots of people missing lots of points in this thread. I'm amazed anyone gets shot at all with all this poor marksmanship.

Are you saying that you are being responsible by not letting your daughter juggle knives? Because I'd agree with that. The issue isn't with the knives, it's with the level of responsibility shown by the adult.

In other words, inanimate objects are only as much of a risk as we allow them to be - whether that is knives, guns, or unrealistically huge sex toys.

originally posted by: SudoNim
So if I keep a tiger locked in my house and it doesn't kill my children because I have strict controls, ipso facto it shouldn't kill anyone's children if they used strict controls and should therefore be encouraged?

It's not for us to encourage or discourage ownership, that's an individual choice. It's also not for us to prevent ownership just because some people are idiots.

A million responsible tiger owners, one idiot tiger owner. Anyone who is so quick to sacrifice the million decent people for the one idiot, is little more than an ideological shuffle away from having the middle class producers rounded up and shot to appease the welfare rats.

You're not Tara Dublin's secret account, are you?

a reply to: SudoNim
ya i guess some ppl really don't understand. you have a problem with guns so its what you blame. for some reason you ppl seem to have a huge problem understanding that ppl kill ppl. the guns don't do anything less someone is using it. so maybe you should think before responding. if you hate guns that's not my problem. but don't blame the guns when its the weird insane ppl pulling the trigger. my whole point that you completely missed. ok take that gun from that insane person who would be pulling the trigger and then what? he would use a knife well take that away, then he would use a car or a bomb or anything . do you understand? guns are not the problem.

originally posted by: EvillerBob


Lots of people missing lots of points in this thread. I'm amazed anyone gets shot at all with all this poor marksmanship.

Are you saying that you are being responsible by not letting your daughter juggle knives? Because I'd agree with that. The issue isn't with the knives, it's with the level of responsibility shown by the adult.

In other words, inanimate objects are only as much of a risk as we allow them to be - whether that is knives, guns, or unrealistically huge sex toys.

What exactly is your point here? A gun in a home, whether securely kept or not is more risk than is necessary.

Objects under the same conditions may not carry the same risk. A knife left on a counter is not as much of a risk to a child than a loaded gun is.

Which is why we should treat them with different rules, and therefore you can't compare the two, completely exposing any pro-Gun argument that cites knives or cars as being just as dangerous.

a reply to: SudoNim

The tiger analogy has to be the worst one I've ever read:

A tiger is a living, breathing being with a mind.

A gun is a inanimate object that can not do anything on it's own, without some outside force acting upon it.

A tiger will actively try to find a way to escape from it's containment.

A gun does not try to get out of a locked box.

You want to make analogies? Pick another inanimate object that would be something that your average person would own.

I've seen some good ones already: bleach, cleaning chemicals, poisons......none of those would try to actively escape where they are put, and none of them would go after someone.....in fact, as long as they are kept put up out of reach or locked up, the pose no threat to anyone.

Power tools: same thing. Lock them up, put them up out of reach, and wow, no one gets hurt by them because they tried to escape and get out, and go actively hunting for prey.

And all of those thing can be a danger when they are out and being used. But then that is why they should only be used by a responsible individual who is following all safety directions when in use.

Just like a firearm. Keep it locked up and always be responsible and follow the safety for it. How about that? Who would have thought it?

Just like a bow. Just like knives. Just like lighters and matches.

Hell, a kid can end up seriously hurt or dead if they stick a paper clip or something that conducts, into an electrical outlet.

If you're a parent, you keep tabs on your children. You keep them safe by keeping dangerous things out of reach, and when they are old enough, teach them about safety.
You also don't leave them by themselves when they are really young.

I know this because I have 6 kids. 5 of who are now grown adults, with 2 of them having their own kids. I always did this with them, and my kids are doing this with their kids.

Parents that do not do this are morons. If they can't be responsible with dangerous things, the certainly are not responsible enough to have children.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: SudoNim
So if I keep a tiger locked in my house and it doesn't kill my children because I have strict controls, ipso facto it shouldn't kill anyone's children if they used strict controls and should therefore be encouraged?

It's not for us to encourage or discourage ownership, that's an individual choice. It's also not for us to prevent ownership just because some people are idiots.

They why is anything banned at all?

A million responsible tiger owners, one idiot tiger owner. Anyone who is so quick to sacrifice the million decent people for the one idiot, is little more than an ideological shuffle away from having the middle class producers rounded up and shot to appease the welfare rats.

What if it were 250 million tiger kept in homes as pets responsibly and 25,000 cases where a pet Tiger mauled a child to death, 25,000 cases of a Tiger mauling its owner to death and 25,000 occurrences of a Tiger mauling a neighbour to death.

At what point do you think, hold on this is just necessary? We need restrictions, training and maybe even bans on Tiger ownership.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: SudoNim

The tiger analogy has to be the worst one I've ever read:

A tiger is a living, breathing being with a mind.

A gun is a inanimate object that can not do anything on it's own, without some outside force acting upon it.

A tiger will actively try to find a way to escape from it's containment.

A gun does not try to get out of a locked box.

You want to make analogies? Pick another inanimate object that would be something that your average person would own.

I've seen some good ones already: bleach, cleaning chemicals, poisons......none of those would try to actively escape where they are put, and none of them would go after someone.....in fact, as long as they are kept put up out of reach or locked up, the pose no threat to anyone.

Power tools: same thing. Lock them up, put them up out of reach, and wow, no one gets hurt by them because they tried to escape and get out, and go actively hunting for prey.

And all of those thing can be a danger when they are out and being used. But then that is why they should only be used by a responsible individual who is following all safety directions when in use.

Just like a firearm. Keep it locked up and always be responsible and follow the safety for it. How about that? Who would have thought it?

Just like a bow. Just like knives. Just like lighters and matches.

Hell, a kid can end up seriously hurt or dead if they stick a paper clip or something that conducts, into an electrical outlet.

Replace the word Tiger with the word "Grenade" then and mauled with "blew up" since you can't seem to get your head round an analogy.

Instead of listing off things that can hurt children, something that no-one has asked for, maybe try addressing the question.

If you're a parent, you keep tabs on your children. You keep them safe by keeping dangerous things out of reach, and when they are old enough, teach them about safety.
You also don't leave them by themselves when they are really young.

Parents that do not do this are morons. If they can't be responsible with dangerous things, the certainly are not responsible enough to have children.

But they do still have children and can still buy a gun.

And someone storing a gun unsafely is a lot more dangerous than storing a box.

Also the other things on your list provide a purpose in the house and therefore have a reason for being their.
A gun does not, other than someones ego and a misguided sense of patriotism.

It's all well and good saying if parents are responsible it shouldn't happen. Of course. But they aren't, clearly and yet you keep repeating the same rhetoric.

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SudoNim

Yes, it took a hyperbolic path right over it.

If you take action to make something not happen, and that action can be seen as directly responsible for your success, then you can lay claim to success.

i.e., my kid hasn't shot someone because i keep access to my guns under strict control, so my methods are successful. Its not because he repels tigers.

So if I keep a tiger locked in my house and it doesn't kill my children because I have strict controls, ipso facto it shouldn't kill anyone's children if they used strict controls and should therefore be encouraged?

Your logic is flawed and quite frankly arrogant.

Millions of "irresponsible" people have easy access to guns which endanger their families lives and all you can say is, "I consider myself responsible".

What?

You shouldn't do metaphors.

originally posted by: SudoNim

A gun does not, other than someones ego and a misguided sense of patriotism.

SPoken like a true city slicker.

a reply to: SudoNim

Oh I can wrap my head around your tiger analogy, but it's just completely WRONG.

Here, let me try to make you understand better since you are obviously confused:

Apples vs. Oranges

Rocks vs. Plants.

Water vs. Metal

Your analogy simply does not work because it's using something that is alive, living and breathing, compared to something that in inanimate and not alive, nor can it think.

Unless that's the problem? Maybe that is the problem: you think that firearms can act on their own.

My guns are tools. They do have a purpose. You keep trying to paint them with a broad brush. Wrong answer.

See, here is a better analogy of what you are doing: Everyone should not be allowed to own cars, and instead should use mass transportation, because cars can be dangerous. They can kill not only the people around them, but those using it. On top of that, they pollute the environment and consume fossil fuels, which is a bad thing, so we should limit that, and force everyone to give up their cars, because they have a perfect alternative that everyone can use!

That is your logic. Except: you're forgetting the many millions and millions of people who do not live in cities that have mass transportation. They need their cars to get back and forth to places because there is no mass trans for them. They need those vehicles to haul things. There for they are useful tools to many people.

My guns do several things:

1) They put food on the table. Specifically food that is high in proteins.
2) They keep us safe from dangerous animals (what? You think the US is nothing but one huge mega city? Uh...NO, look below, that's a picture of my "back yard"):



Plenty of critters in there that can kill you dead.

3) It acts as a form of defense against those who might wish to do us harm or remove our property.

Calling the police and expecting them to save us from everything is NOT an option. They'll still get called because I need too, but it will already be over by the time they are able to get here.

Even the sheriff's department here urges people to keep themselves armed who live out of the city, as they will not be able to respond quick enough.

And that's is what YOU can't seem to wrap your head around. The US is not some huge mega city that everyone lives in. We are a huge country, and only 62 percent of us live in big cities....which only comprise of 3.5 percent of the US:

U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area

You are certainly entitled to your opinion (and as mentioned before by someone else, I too am always seeing how the strongest anti-gun opinions are by our non-US members here, over and over and over again. We get it: you guys don't like guns. Tough. We live here, you don't. Get over it.), and that it only has one use.

That thinking shows very narrow or closed minded thinking, and a huge lack of both education about firearms and most certainly a lack of understanding about the US and everyone in it.

Even here in the US: the strongest anti-gun activists do not live out here where 40 percent of us do. They have no clue, and stupidly think that we can just run down a block and get a coffee from Starbucks.

Yah.......nearest one to me is about 18 miles away.

So again: A gun is nothing more than another tool that has various uses. Yes, it's dangerous. Yes, dangerous things should be kept safe and locked up. That's a no brainer.

Just like a chainsaw. Damn dangerous thing......you can use it to clear trees and provide wood for multiple uses (just like a gun can provide food for you), yet at the same time, imagine what a chainsaw welding person could do in a crowd of people.

It would not be pretty.