Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Mertex]

For every situation in which a gun-toting civilian stops or prevents a crime there are a thousand cases of tragic family suicide and accidental manslaughter by gun. Guns don't prevent crimes, they cause them. No other advanced democracy has our gun ownership numbers or our gun homicide numbers.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

You are full-of-shit---

That's not just his opinion.....there are studies to back that up, but I see you can't handle facts.

Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally
justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides,
and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf

 

[Mertex]

Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!

No one is trying to "get rid" of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?

Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals? The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!

What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL! We need sparse prisons. We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms. We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.

========
Conservatives keep screaming that Obama is " going to take our guns away ".

How many guns have been taken away from you?

Hmmm, all I hear is crickets.

None. ...and there never will be any taken from me...not without having all guns registered first. That's the first step...find out who has them.

Well, that's the whole argument. Many conservatives and liberal gun owners are okay with people being able to buy them without background checks....which obviously would rule out some nuts and eliminate some needless deaths.

 

[Fishlore]

Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone. I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible. Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that? I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat! And, he's only being charged with manslaughter? So much for responsibility.



Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church


As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn. He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim). It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range. That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get. I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such. But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!

You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?

No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic. The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the last people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.

A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.

Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.
Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?

When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?

If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?

If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?

You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.

Gun laws aren't effective because we don't enforce them for criminals, just honest citizens. If you've had your right to own a gun removed through due process of law and try to buy a gun. There is no consequence, you can just move on to the next gun dealer ... or your drug dealer ... and keep trying until you score. You do nothing to keep guns from criminals. Just honest citizens

The need to "move on to the next gun dealer" is evidence that the first gun dealer has frustrated your attempted illegal purchase. Having to purchase your gun from a dealer in illegal drugs is evidence that dealers in legal drugs (or guns) won't sell to you. You cite, in your own garbled way, two illustrations of the law keeping guns away from illegal purchasers. I am not at all surprised that you cannot comprehend my posts; it is amusing that you don't seem able to understand your own posts either. Keep up the good work!

 

[Fishlore]

What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".

Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.

Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.

As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:

What I MEANT to say is what I did say. And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.

The Second Amendment still exists. The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.

That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.

The flatulent burst of childish name calling and personal criticism is unaccompanied by any evidence or analysis about anything. Like so many Internet trolls this poor laddie has nothing to offer but the spectacle of a poor chap consumed by his emotional demons. I feel sorry for him.

His worship of firearms coupled with his uncontrolled rage and inability to connect through verbal or written comminication is more than just pathetic; it is a common trait among our spree shooters, the Second Amendment enthusiasts who shoot up children in elementary schools, strangers is malls and movie theaters and a dozen other venues, including churches, distinctly American bursts of madness which splatter fair Columbia with human gore.

Not every gun nut is a mass murderer but most mass murderers are assuredly gun nuts. Remember that the next time you come across one of these incoherent spouts of hate and rage.

Hey fishfart:

While you are busy doing the very thing you pretend to be above (which makes you an imbecile hypocrite which everyone sees quite clearly, you scum-sucking twat), let's get down to it, shall we, fuckhead?

YOU are the moron who suggested confiscation of guns. I pointed out to you, you mental pygmy, that that isn't possible as long as we have a Second Amendment.

Since then, you have offered not one fucking thing to support your idiotic notion.

Now, it is true that I have engaged in name calling. Not my fault you are a fish fuckface. Deal with it, bitch.

But what is not true is that you have the foggiest notion of the implications of the stupidity you are "suggesting."

This is a sick little puppy. The idea of his gun collection would be alarming if he didn't live in some god forsaken shit hole thousands of miles from my well-guarded estate. There are hundred of these guys running around loose in God's Country. Cause for alarm.

Fishfucker:

You remain wrong. No surprise.

I can see how hard you must have struggled to come up with this post. The creative effort needed to turn "Fishlore" into "Fishfucker" has left you all sweaty and panting. The body of your argument is a testament to your rich background of knowledge, sharp analysis and deft argument. It may be the wisest thing you have ever put on the board. You keep thinking, it's what you are good at.

 

[Mertex]

Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15

.
Sorry man, who do you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.

No they are not. They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.

Bwahahaha.....they may be used for shooting projectiles, targets or what have you, but their main purpose is to kill.



People pull the triggers, but guns are designed to kill. Guns are engineered, tested, and refined to kill--rapidly, efficiently and without malfunction.

That is what the technology is designed to do. Period.

As philosopher Evan Selinger put it in the Atlantic after the Colorado shooting, thinking of guns as value-neutral has consequences. Unlike other pieces of technology that sometimes become instruments to kill people--such as cars, say, or knives--guns are designed for no other purpose.

Guns are made to kill. And we've allowed them to be treated as mere consumer items, or as recreational gizmos. They're not. Automatic weapons in particular are designed to kill many people at once.

Given the damage they can do, they should require licensing as heavy as those for someone driving a backhoe or a train. They are a serious technology that now fill private arsenals all over the country, and we know very little about who has them--and why.
Guns are made to kill.

Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.

That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting? The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period, the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.
Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality

...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used. They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.

And? This is supposed to justify that we don't need better gun control laws?

 

[Mertex]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case. But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire. Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.

Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car

Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15

Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone. I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible. Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that? I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat! And, he's only being charged with manslaughter? So much for responsibility.



Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church


As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn. He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim). It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range. That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get. I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such. But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!

You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?

Ernie....you call me an ignoramus and then go on to show your utter stupidity. Of course that one incident is not my focus. The news are rife with story after story of supposed "responsible" gun owners who end up dead or shoot some innocent person over stupid stuff, but I guess in your mind, that never happens. You've bought into the NRA myth that the more guns you have the safer you are and everyone around you is safer, too.

The challenge to that argument is that, data show, guns are rarely used in self-defense -- especially relative to the rate at which they're used in criminal homicides or suicides. A recent report from the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, put those numbers in some perspective, and I dug up the raw numbers from the FBI's homicide data. Take a look:
Guns in America: For every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent people die

 

[Rustic]

Exactly. No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!

Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?

Sorry man, who do you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.

No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol

Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.

Dream on... Hope and change. Lol

 

[Mertex]

Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?

Sorry man, who do you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.

No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol

Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.

Dream on... Hope and change. Lol

As opposed to "Make America Hate again"......I'll stick to the hope and change.......it is a lot better than what Doofus GW Bush offered up.

 

[Mertex]

As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:

What I MEANT to say is what I did say. And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.

The Second Amendment still exists. The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.

That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.

The flatulent burst of childish name calling and personal criticism is unaccompanied by any evidence or analysis about anything. Like so many Internet trolls this poor laddie has nothing to offer but the spectacle of a poor chap consumed by his emotional demons. I feel sorry for him.

His worship of firearms coupled with his uncontrolled rage and inability to connect through verbal or written comminication is more than just pathetic; it is a common trait among our spree shooters, the Second Amendment enthusiasts who shoot up children in elementary schools, strangers is malls and movie theaters and a dozen other venues, including churches, distinctly American bursts of madness which splatter fair Columbia with human gore.

Not every gun nut is a mass murderer but most mass murderers are assuredly gun nuts. Remember that the next time you come across one of these incoherent spouts of hate and rage.

Hey fishfart:

While you are busy doing the very thing you pretend to be above (which makes you an imbecile hypocrite which everyone sees quite clearly, you scum-sucking twat), let's get down to it, shall we, fuckhead?

YOU are the moron who suggested confiscation of guns. I pointed out to you, you mental pygmy, that that isn't possible as long as we have a Second Amendment.

Since then, you have offered not one fucking thing to support your idiotic notion.

Now, it is true that I have engaged in name calling. Not my fault you are a fish fuckface. Deal with it, bitch.

But what is not true is that you have the foggiest notion of the implications of the stupidity you are "suggesting."

This is a sick little puppy. The idea of his gun collection would be alarming if he didn't live in some god forsaken shit hole thousands of miles from my well-guarded estate. There are hundred of these guys running around loose in God's Country. Cause for alarm.

Fishfucker:

You remain wrong. No surprise.

I can see how hard you must have struggled to come up with this post. The creative effort needed to turn "Fishlore" into "Fishfucker" has left you all sweaty and panting. The body of your argument is a testament to your rich background of knowledge, sharp analysis and deft argument. It may be the wisest thing you have ever put on the board. You keep thinking, it's what you are good at.

You notice how quickly these supposedly "responsible" gun owners defending their myths that guns keep everyone safe get angry and make it personal and start calling you names? And we're supposed to trust that these are normal, intelligent, responsible people and worthy of carrying an instrument that can kill me! Geez!

 

[Mertex]

Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!

No one is trying to "get rid" of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?

So where should guns be allowed?

I'm guessing you think everywhere. I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.

The thing is you would never know if a person was carrying concealed. I have carried in all those places and no one ever knew and shockingly I didn't shoot anyone either

So, in other words, you are admitting that you have broken the law. Are you one of those who considers themselves a "responsible" gun owner just because you haven't been caught breaking the law?

 

[Fishlore]

.
Sorry man, who do you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.

No they are not. They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.

Bwahahaha.....they may be used for shooting projectiles, targets or what have you, but their main purpose is to kill.



People pull the triggers, but guns are designed to kill. Guns are engineered, tested, and refined to kill--rapidly, efficiently and without malfunction.

That is what the technology is designed to do. Period.

As philosopher Evan Selinger put it in the Atlantic after the Colorado shooting, thinking of guns as value-neutral has consequences. Unlike other pieces of technology that sometimes become instruments to kill people--such as cars, say, or knives--guns are designed for no other purpose.

Guns are made to kill. And we've allowed them to be treated as mere consumer items, or as recreational gizmos. They're not. Automatic weapons in particular are designed to kill many people at once.

Given the damage they can do, they should require licensing as heavy as those for someone driving a backhoe or a train. They are a serious technology that now fill private arsenals all over the country, and we know very little about who has them--and why.
Guns are made to kill.

Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.

That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting? The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period, the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.
Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality

...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used. They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.

And? This is supposed to justify that we don't need better gun control laws?

Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.
That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.

The gun is a killing device. That central fact should not be blurred by discussion of the use of guns to defend against criminals or to deter criminal attacks because the reason that guns can be used in these ways is that guns have the power to kill. Bank robbers and policmen carry guns for the same reason: they give the person with the gun the power to kill. The goals of the robber and the cops are very different but their use of the gun is the same.

The black powder muzzle loader and the double-barreled shotgun are designed to kill animals, not people. They used to be far more common in family arsenals than revolvers and automatic pistols which are designed to kill people. Those long guns have dwindled into rarity status among today's gun nuts, whose taste runs almost exclusively to automatic weapons, the people-killers.

You can't get far hunting ducks with an assault rifle. Gun nuts aren't hunters, they are fetishists. They don't fantasize about bringing down an eight point buck with that Glock, they are dreaming about shoot an imaginary black man. It's sick.

 

[kaz]

Just honest citizens

That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.

So you're a criminal waiting to happen?

 

[kaz]

Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!

No one is trying to "get rid" of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?

So where should guns be allowed?

I'm guessing you think everywhere. I certainly don't think they should be allowed in

malls - up to the owner of the mall

churches - up to the church

schools - we shouldn't have government schools, and in private schools it should be up to the school. But inside the building is one thing and on public ground is another. The people in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Oregon community college and other dead defenseless victims might not agree with you

bars - should be up to the owner of the bar

and other public places except by law enforcement officials - LOL, you say "public" places, then mostly listed private property

but I defer to the experts on this matter those that are invested in keeping the public safe - The people in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Oregon community college and other dead defenseless victims might not agree with you. And you don't "defer" to anyone but politicians, liberal ones who want to remove our rights. You "defer" to people who agree with you

 

[kaz]

Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!

No one is trying to "get rid" of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?

So where should guns be allowed?

I'm guessing you think everywhere. I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.

The thing is you would never know if a person was carrying concealed. I have carried in all those places and no one ever knew and shockingly I didn't shoot anyone either

You didn't shoot anyone? Really? But guns emanate evil!

 

[kaz]

You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that. I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL. Yeah, read your posts. The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals. It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person. You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing. Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all. Get a room

Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.

You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want. I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to read with your hand down your pants. I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.

My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit. We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.

You're going there because you're losing on content. So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.

Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic. That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?

Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.

You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?

Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that. Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.

You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place

 

[kaz]

For every situation in which a gun-toting civilian stops or prevents a crime there are a thousand cases of tragic family suicide and accidental manslaughter by gun. Guns don't prevent crimes, they cause them. No other advanced democracy has our gun ownership numbers or our gun homicide numbers.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

You are full-of-shit---

That's not just his opinion.....there are studies to back that up, but I see you can't handle facts.

Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally
justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides,
and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf

Yes, liberals masturbate constantly over your ideology, you need to learn to control your clitoris. At least in public

 

[kaz]

Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?

Sorry man, who do you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.

No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol

Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.

Dream on... Hope and change. Lol

She's hoping for enough change to buy a dildo so she can stroke her clitoris with fish brains

 

[kaz]

Sorry man, who do you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.

No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol

Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.

Dream on... Hope and change. Lol

As opposed to "Make America Hate again"......I'll stick to the hope and change.......it is a lot better than what Doofus GW Bush offered up.

Yes, that is Obama's policy, hate

 

[kaz]

I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.

No they are not. They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.

Bwahahaha.....they may be used for shooting projectiles, targets or what have you, but their main purpose is to kill.



People pull the triggers, but guns are designed to kill. Guns are engineered, tested, and refined to kill--rapidly, efficiently and without malfunction.

That is what the technology is designed to do. Period.

As philosopher Evan Selinger put it in the Atlantic after the Colorado shooting, thinking of guns as value-neutral has consequences. Unlike other pieces of technology that sometimes become instruments to kill people--such as cars, say, or knives--guns are designed for no other purpose.

Guns are made to kill. And we've allowed them to be treated as mere consumer items, or as recreational gizmos. They're not. Automatic weapons in particular are designed to kill many people at once.

Given the damage they can do, they should require licensing as heavy as those for someone driving a backhoe or a train. They are a serious technology that now fill private arsenals all over the country, and we know very little about who has them--and why.
Guns are made to kill.

Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.

That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting? The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period, the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.
Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality

...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used. They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.

And? This is supposed to justify that we don't need better gun control laws?

Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.
That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.

The gun is a killing device. That central fact should not be blurred by discussion of the use of guns to defend against criminals or to deter criminal attacks because the reason that guns can be used in these ways is that guns have the power to kill. Bank robbers and policmen carry guns for the same reason: they give the person with the gun the power to kill. The goals of the robber and the cops are very different but their use of the gun is the same.

The black powder muzzle loader and the double-barreled shotgun are designed to kill animals, not people. They used to be far more common in family arsenals than revolvers and automatic pistols which are designed to kill people. Those long guns have dwindled into rarity status among today's gun nuts, whose taste runs almost exclusively to automatic weapons, the people-killers.

You can't get far hunting ducks with an assault rifle. Gun nuts aren't hunters, they are fetishists. They don't fantasize about bringing down an eight point buck with that Glock, they are dreaming about shoot an imaginary black man. It's sick.

From the transsexual who doesn't want to engage in petty insults, but when you have that chance you pass .. over your clitoris ... over and over ...

 

[Rustic]

Sorry man, who do you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.

No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol

Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.

Dream on... Hope and change. Lol

As opposed to "Make America Hate again"......I'll stick to the hope and change.......it is a lot better than what Doofus GW Bush offered up.

If you haven't noticed the so called "hope" did not "change" shit... Lol