Why are guns so important to Americans?

[Dr Grump]

It's a cultural thang! I've given up on the argument. Let the Yanks keep their guns. It's their society - if that's the way they want it, let them have at it. They're nuts IMO, but it's their right to be nuts!

 

[mdjgirl7]

It's a cultural thang! I've given up on the argument. Let the Yanks keep their guns. It's their society - if that's the way they want it, let them have at it. They're nuts IMO, but it's their right to be nuts!

As McCain told Ellen Degeneras we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[necritan]

You watch too many movies. First of all people do break into peoples houses but I havent heard of any news where someone who was in bed asleep, woke up, grabbed their most prize possession and busted a cap in the perpetrator. It just doesnt happen. Rapists dont go to peoples houses and pull the wife from the dinner table. As for what I would do well if anyone breaks in my house, well they will get torn to bits by my 3 dogs that weigh 300+ combined, most likely they wont even come near when they hear the barks. As for me worrying about some sort of revolution, Well thats just fricken crazy. Stop watching those apocalypse movies and wake up. I'm not a tree hugger and I believe in action when needed. I could care less about people having guns who feel the need to shoot their dinner instead of going to Safeway and getting it the easy way. Its just all the B.S. explanations on why people need to bear arms. Just admit it, it makes you feel cool, its a power thing and you need them to hold off all those rapists, kidnappers and out of control governments. By the way I live in Tampa and hate Disney you Douche bag.

Looks like I quoted the wrong bag of douche.....oops...my bad.

I actually didnt mean to quote you.....but I imagine my response didnt go to far from the target though......

To you....the 2nd means hunting only. Fine. It clearly says that in the wording.....right?

I have control of my guns.....do you have control of your 300 lb...(sound very overweight) dogs???? Doubt it. So what....you over feed your dogs.....I over feed my guns.

Yeah....guns make me feel sooooo super cool.......cuzz when I walk around outside waving them around...pointing them at soccer moms and "douche bags" in birkenstocks....it makes me feel so cool.....man you're missing out. Yup....thats me.....you got me pegged. Yup yup yup.


I watch to many movies??.....what about these "Real" statistics makes you feel safe......??

Violent Crime - Crime in the United States 2006

 

[Dr Grump]

Yup, the US certainly is a violent place. Probably have a gun if I lived there, too!

 

[MichaelCollins]

Only in the US! Its a very backward country. End of story.

 

[necritan]

What were our forefathers thinking???

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
-Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
-Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776

 

[jschuck12001]

Looks like I quoted the wrong bag of douche.....oops...my bad.

I actually didnt mean to quote you.....but I imagine my response didnt go to far from the target though......

To you....the 2nd means hunting only. Fine. It clearly says that in the wording.....right?

I have control of my guns.....do you have control of your 300 lb...(sound very overweight) dogs???? Doubt it. So what....you over feed your dogs.....I over feed my guns.

Yeah....guns make me feel sooooo super cool.......cuzz when I walk around outside waving them around...pointing them at soccer moms and "douche bags" in birkenstocks....it makes me feel so cool.....man you're missing out. Yup....thats me.....you got me pegged. Yup yup yup.


I watch to many movies??.....what about these "Real" statistics makes you feel safe......??

Violent Crime - Crime in the United States 2006

I have 3 Mastiffs you tard , Father, Mother and Son and they are great family dogs and have been raised around children and unlike yourself they have been socialized which is important for dogs(and people)so they are very nice unless you are a hot dog or a pork chop(I picture you as a pork chop). Also I feed them Purina One(you asked). Dont you have some ducks to shoot skeeter?

PS I wouldnt be caught dead in a pair of birkenstocks. See I'm a normal guy not a fanatical tree hugger that has peace tatoo's all over me and absolutely is against war.

 

[LOki]

You watch too many movies. First of all people do break into peoples houses but I havent heard of any news where someone who was in bed asleep, woke up, grabbed their most prize possession and busted a cap in the perpetrator. It just doesnt happen.

Actually it's just not reported in the news your read; it happens all the time.

Rapists dont go to peoples houses and pull the wife from the dinner table. As for what I would do well if anyone breaks in my house, well they will get torn to bits by my 3 dogs that weigh 300+ combined, most likely they wont even come near when they hear the barks.

Very few dogs, most likely yours included, are easily distracted by food. Fools rely on dogs.

As for me worrying about some sort of revolution, Well thats just fricken crazy. Stop watching those apocalypse movies and wake up. I'm not a tree hugger and I believe in action when needed.

No you don't--it's obvious.

I could care less about people having guns who feel the need to shoot their dinner instead of going to Safeway and getting it the easy way.

Then stop waxing all political about guns; ok?

Its just all the B.S. explanations on why people need to bear arms.

Just about the dumbest....

Just admit it, it makes you feel cool, its a power thing and you need them to hold off all those rapists, kidnappers and out of control governments.

It has nothing to do with feeling cool, and everything to do with being prepared.

 

[LOki]

One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

Utter fiction. Possible only in your imagination.

Most of them either killed themselves or a friend or family member.

The guns killed themselves?

Guns are a threat to the people who own them.

How so? I can't wait.

 

[DiveCon]

Utter fiction. Possible only in your imagination.

The guns killed themselves?

How so? I can't wait.

kirk is a moron

 

[editec]

Here's a statistic study I'd like to see.

Is the probablility that a gun in a home will protect that family from harm, or get somebody in the household killed with it?

Now I am reasonably certain that both statistical outcomes are highly improbable, so the question is which one is more improbable?

It comes down to which is more likely to happen with the introduction in a household of a gun: An accidently or suicidal death by gun, a gun related homocide of the domestic violence type, or a home invasion thwarted by a gun wielding member of that household?

I suspect, based on statistics that are known and accurate, that a gun is more likely to get a family member killed than will protect that family from harm.

HOWEVER, even if that turns out to be true, that is STILL not a good enough reason to ban guns in private hands.

Another statistic I'd like to see is this:

Which is more likely?

That a household with a gun thwarts a home invasion attack OR that the gun in the household gets stolen by a criminal?

I suspect more guns are stolen from legal owners every year than home invasions are thwarted by armed homeowners.

Again, I do not have the statistics to really know.

I doubt any of us will ever be able to get honest statistic to ever really know, either.

Why?

Because in many cases where a home invasion was thwarted by a gun, no evidence (other than testimony by the homeowner) is present to tell us for sure that there really was a threat.

It could be that the homeowner heard something, got his gun, and a potential invasion was thrwarted by that activity, OR it could be that the homeowner imagined a threat, and then thought his gun activity scared off the invader.

So the statistics which might help us to KNOW for SURE aren't really available.

We can know all the bad stats about why guns are a menace.

In those cases, far too often, there's a chalkline of a family member on the floor.

Sadly we cannot know how often a gun actually prevents a crime.

All I am reasonable sure of is this...if I truly lived in a shithole where home invasions burgularies rapes and so forth were common, I'd own a gun, too.

However since I live in a fairly civilized place, I reckon in my case a gun in my home is more of a threat to my family than a tool that will protect me from harm by bad guys.

We have very reliable stats that tell us when bad things happen because of guns and very few reliable stats that show us when a gun saved somebody from harm.

Ohm we have some stats that sshow us that happens occassionally, to be sure.

But do we have enough reliable stats to make that case FOR guns?

No, we don't.

So as to the question how one errs on the side of caution?

The question of whether a gun makes you and your family safer or less safe?

I don't think we can EVER really know.

I suspect if you're living someplace with low crime, guns are more a menace than a safety feature.

I suspect if you're living in a high crime area, then owning a gun is probably the better bet.

 

[del]

This response is so outdated. This isnt the 1700's. We have police, FBI, homeland security. When was the last time someone had to run outside and protect themselves from revolutionaries. If you were to raise your gun at anyone from "said government" you would be gunned down and disposed of, thats the reality of this world. You think a bunch of people with guns are going to be able to protect themselves from a hostile government. Give me a break.

you've got a much better chance with a gun than without one, ace.

 

[del]

One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960. Most of them either killed themselves or a friend or family member. Guns are a threat to the people who own them.

of course they are, but most people, unlike you, know enough not to point them at themselves while adjusting the trigger shear.

have an almond

 

[SwingVoter]

gun ownership is over 50% of households in some states, and mostly in low-crime areas

it's not just a 2nd amendment issue, but a major lifestyle issue in most of the south and mountain west

telling people in Kentucky that they're not allowed to hunt would be like telling people in West Palm Beach that they're not allowed to play Bingo

Gun ownership rates by state source data - Swivel

 

[del]

kirk is a moron

if I was a moron, this statement would really piss me off. it would take at least 10 kirks to make a serviceable moron

 

[necritan]

Here's a statistic study I'd like to see.

Is the probablility that a gun in a home will protect that family from harm, or get somebody in the household killed with it?

Now I am reasonably certain that both statistical outcomes are highly improbable, so the question is which one is more improbable?

It comes down to which is more likely to happen with the introduction in a household of a gun: An accidently or suicidal death by gun, a gun related homocide of the domestic violence type, or a home invasion thwarted by a gun wielding member of that household?

I suspect, based on statistics that are known and accurate, that a gun is more likely to get a family member killed than will protect that family from harm.

HOWEVER, even if that turns out to be true, that is STILL not a good enough reason to ban guns in private hands.

Another statistic I'd like to see is this:

Which is more likely?

That a household with a gun thwarts a home invasion attack OR that the gun in the household gets stolen by a criminal?

I suspect more guns are stolen from legal owners every year than home invasions are thwarted by armed homeowners.

Again, I do not have the statistics to really know.

I doubt any of us will ever be able to get honest statistic to ever really know, either.

Why?

Because in many cases where a home invasion was thwarted by a gun, no evidence (other than testimony by the homeowner) is present to tell us for sure that there really was a threat.

It could be that the homeowner heard something, got his gun, and a potential invasion was thrwarted by that activity, OR it could be that the homeowner imagined a threat, and then thought his gun activity scared off the invader.

So the statistics which might help us to KNOW for SURE aren't really available.

We can know all the bad stats about why guns are a menace.

In those cases, far too often, there's a chalkline of a family member on the floor.

Sadly we cannot know how often a gun actually prevents a crime.

All I am reasonable sure of is this...if I truly lived in a shithole where home invasions burgularies rapes and so forth were common, I'd own a gun, too.

However since I live in a fairly civilized place, I reckon in my case a gun in my home is more of a threat to my family than a tool that will protect me from harm by bad guys.

We have very reliable stats that tell us when bad things happen because of guns and very few reliable stats that show us when a gun saved somebody from harm.

Ohm we have some stats that sshow us that happens occassionally, to be sure.

But do we have enough reliable stats to make that case FOR guns?

No, we don't.

So as to the question how one errs on the side of caution?

The question of whether a gun makes you and your family safer or less safe?

I don't think we can EVER really know.

I suspect if you're living someplace with low crime, guns are more a menace than a safety feature.

I suspect if you're living in a high crime area, then owning a gun is probably the better bet.

There are some statistics that show data regarding the use of a gun preventing a crime just by mere introduction of the weapon. I had some data to put up here....but I'm still checking it out myself. If the numbers Im seeing are even barely close to the truth....the numbers are staggering. I'll get some info up here soon.

As far as weapons (guns) being a danger waiting to happen.....responsible gun ownership is no different than any other ownership of dangerous items. If maintained....and kept properly....nothing should go wrong.

However.....there are a lot of morons in this world.....and some will tip the scales toward the moron side....and when that happens...people can get hurt.

 

[LOki]

Here's a statistic study I'd like to see.

Is the probablility that a gun in a home will protect that family from harm, or get somebody in the household killed with it?

Now I am reasonably certain that both statistical outcomes are highly improbable, so the question is which one is more improbable?

It comes down to which is more likely to happen with the introduction in a household of a gun: An accidently or suicidal death by gun, a gun related homocide of the domestic violence type, or a home invasion thwarted by a gun wielding member of that household?

I suspect, based on statistics that are known and accurate, that a gun is more likely to get a family member killed than will protect that family from harm.

HOWEVER, even if that turns out to be true, that is STILL not a good enough reason to ban guns in private hands.

You're right, and since we're obviously discussing defective human beings in your little scenario, the ultimately positive result of these defective genes being eliminated, with Darwinian glee, can only be regarded as a benefit to humanity.

Another statistic I'd like to see is this:

Which is more likely?

That a household with a gun thwarts a home invasion attack OR that the gun in the household gets stolen by a criminal?

I suspect more guns are stolen from legal owners every year than home invasions are thwarted by armed homeowners.

Again, I do not have the statistics to really know.

I doubt any of us will ever be able to get honest statistic to ever really know, either.

I suspect that 2 million guns are not stolen every year.

Why?

Because in many cases where a home invasion was thwarted by a gun, no evidence (other than testimony by the homeowner) is present to tell us for sure that there really was a threat.

It could be that the homeowner heard something, got his gun, and a potential invasion was thrwarted by that activity, OR it could be that the homeowner imagined a threat, and then thought his gun activity scared off the invader.

So the statistics which might help us to KNOW for SURE aren't really available.

Of course. If we're not going to believe the criminal when he denies committing the crime, we shouldn't beleive his victim when he says he was threatened. Makes a boatload of sense.

We can know all the bad stats about why guns are a menace.

In those cases, far too often, there's a chalkline of a family member on the floor.

The chalkline of an idiot familily member, or the chalkline of a family member carrying the idiot gene.

Sadly we cannot know how often a gun actually prevents a crime.

We can have a pretty good idea.

All I am reasonable sure of is this...if I truly lived in a shithole where home invasions burgularies rapes and so forth were common, I'd own a gun, too.

I could only hope so.

However since I live in a fairly civilized place, I reckon in my case a gun in my home is more of a threat to my family than a tool that will protect me from harm by bad guys.

Evidence that you belong to a family of idiots. If guns are what is really dangerous to you guys, I'd like to find a way to arm you all.

We have very reliable stats that tell us when bad things happen because of guns....

No, we have very reliable stats that tell when bad things happen because of idiots.

...and very few reliable stats that show us when a gun saved somebody from harm.

Untrue.

Ohm we have some stats that sshow us that happens occassionally, to be sure.

But do we have enough reliable stats to make that case FOR guns?

No, we don't.

We do.

So as to the question how one errs on the side of caution?

Yes. Be prepared. Own guns.

The question of whether a gun makes you and your family safer or less safe?

I don't think we can EVER really know.

I don't want to find out we're not, for lack of shooting back.

I suspect if you're living someplace with low crime, guns are more a menace than a safety feature.

I am absolutely sure, that with or without a gun, idiots are a menace--a menace I'm statistically confident is best met with arms.

I suspect if you're living in a high crime area, then owning a gun is probably the better bet.

I am absloutely sure, that if you're unsure about this, you're an idiot. I can only hope you arm yourself anyway, and then, like an idiot, kill yourself (and just as important: your progeny) to benefit humanity.

 

[jschuck12001]

You're right, and since we're obviously discussing defective human beings in your little scenario, the ultimately positive result of these defective genes being eliminated, with Darwinian glee, can only be regarded as a benefit to humanity.

I suspect that 2 million guns are not stolen every year.

Of course. If we're not going to believe the criminal when he denies committing the crime, we shouldn't beleive his victim when he says he was threatened. Makes a boatload of sense.

The chalkline of an idiot familily member, or the chalkline of a family member carrying the idiot gene.

We can have a pretty good idea.

I could only hope so.

Evidence that you belong to a family of idiots. If guns are what is really dangerous to you guys, I'd like to find a way to arm you all.

No, we have very reliable stats that tell when bad things happen because of idiots.

Untrue.

We do.

Yes. Be prepared. Own guns.

I don't want to find out we're not, for lack of shooting back.

I am absolutely sure, that with or without a gun, idiots are a menace--a menace I'm statistically confident is best met with arms.

I am absloutely sure, that if you're unsure about this, you're an idiot. I can only hope you arm yourself anyway, and then, like an idiot, kill yourself (and just as important: your progeny) to benefit humanity.

I can tell you I had first hand experience with this. When I was in High School in 1988 we had a shooting out our High School and the Vice Principal was killed and another administrator was shot and wounded. These were 2 young kids who stole the gun from their parents room and their dad was a cop(I believe, it been a long time). Anybody can forget or screw up once and thats all it takes. If your kids know you have guns then they can get to them.

 

[DiveCon]

if I was a moron, this statement would really piss me off. it would take at least 10 kirks to make a serviceable moron

hmmm, interesting, does a moron ever think he actually IS one?
i kinda thought that went along with BEING a moron
and, if your theory is correct, what do you call someone that is beneath a moron?

 

[del]

and, if your theory is correct, what do you call someone that is beneath a moron?

kirk, obviously