You have a VERY good point there!

People only want to ban guns cause the media highlights gun related deaths. if the media didnt say anything about it, you wouldnt get people (who only watch the news) trying to stop it!

Guns aren't the only weapons around. But do you see anyone looking to ban kitchen knives?

Well, except England, they're a little odd over there as we all know.

Yeah english are weird, us scots dont like them though.

Yeah I know what kinda stuff can be used as weapons like: a spade, a trowel, a screwdriver, and FA's current favourite a spoon!

How about just a simple balled up hand? You can beat someone to death, and just look at all the people around the world that have fists! It's an epidemic!

I seem to remember something similar on a tech board. Australian government was mad at windows for having encryption in their OS, cause the kiddie porn people could encrypt things. The solution suggested was ban kids/adults/eyes.

Wanna sign my petition to ban the brofist?

Well, even if everyone had their hands removed they would still be armed...

ZOMGLUL

You have the perfect icon for that comment...

Just saying.

Hee he! I know it!

"His energetic fist should be ready to resist
A dictatorial word".

"And his fist be ever ready for a knock-down blow".

true but that is already in effect Professional Boxers that hit people outside the ring are Charged with assault with a deadly weapon

Osama bin Laden has more chance of being crowned Miss America than Scotland -- independent or otherwise -- has of revoking the UK Labour government's handgun ban, sorry.

I didnt say anything about that, in fact I hope Scotland remains part of the UK, and I hope fat bastard Salmond sees it that way.

Who's Fat Bastard Salmond?? I Googled 'Salmond' and got no definitive answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Salmond

It should be noted that many brits also think our laws are beyond stupid in some cases, and are fed up with knee-jerk reactions to every perceved mass threat depicted by the media our goverment comes up with.

Can't really argue with that, but the human race has yet to produce a perfect system so it all eventually degrades into arguing.

well that is taken from The Tick Smokey

To paraphrase someone (I can't remember who they are anymore), 'If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns'.

Stop reading my bumper.
*tosses 'On the Genealogy of Morality' Friedrich Nietzsche*

I knew that would be quoted here somewhere. ^_^

I've been considered an "outlaw" for decades, so hand me my shootin' irons.

Heard this beauty the other day.

"Sure, guns kill people. Like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat."

Or to quote Larry the Cable Guy; "Playboy gave my wrist carpal tunnel.'

WAAAHAAAHAA! XD

Lord I apologize for that, 'n be with the starvin' pygmies in New Guinea. Amen.

Yes YESyesyes. Quite true, and well put.

Durn, Karno, you were taking it easier on the anti-gun petitioner. He should've been made to be more of a ranting sloganeerer (I remember those idjits with their slogans and catch-phrases in UseNet while you were 'detained').

Yes, and Karno also gave the anti-gun petitioner the ability to use logic.

Anti-gun forces don't care about 'fairness.'

They claim to be about 'safety.'

When they're really all about CONTROL.

When the citizenry have been disarmed, the State no longer serves the citizens, the citizens now serve the State, and in fact now live at the pleasure of the State.

Guns help to keep honest people honest, and help protect honest people from dishonest people.

Agreed. Anti-gun enthusiasts seldom use logic. They're more into sloganeering, dictating policy and control. then threats when the first three don't work. Fairness is NEVER an option or a priority with them.

As long as I have an edged weapon, I'm okay. Guns are much more fun though.

I'm writing a essay/article/thesis on how furdom is about sloganeering, dictating policy and control.

It sure is refreshing to meet someone like-minded. http://www.furaffinity.net/user/40ozhyena/ is another weap enthusiast.

And since I'm currently more or less stuck in Chicago for the foreseeable future, where they are still fighting the NRA suits to get the DC-based gun ban lows overturned, I find myself relying on the kindness of my 'gun nut' friends to arm me should the need arise to fight back violently against a corrupt regime.

(Although in Illinois, saying 'corrupt government' when referring to anything state level or lower is considered a redundancy. It seems THAT all government in Illinois is corrupt, with Chicago being the poster child for the state.)

Georgia government "lost its soul" several to many years ago when they caved in and changed their state flag TWICE to keep the peace. Since then the state has been VERY progressive. I just live here, but I live here packing.

Georgia flag, Georgia flag ... Wasn't that the one that was painted on the General Lee? If so, i can see how there was a lot of pressure from 'certain groups' to change it.

We have pretty much the same groups up north. Granted, for every member of 'those groups' who runs around causing trouble and demanding that they get repaid for injustices inflicted on their great-grandparents there are ten who are well-educated, well paid members of society. But the ones who have 'made it' aren't as vocal about their opinions as the ones who are still, 'struggling against da man,' so the only ones of that demographic that make the news are the minority that make the rest look bad.

Two-thirds of the former state flag was the Confederate flag. Of course, there was a campaign for southern states to unload the "symbol of oppression", or else. Me, I would've opted for "or else", but I wasn't in Georgia then (as if you couldn't tell, I'm a product of the South). What's so bad is the next state flag was a "tribute" to previous state flags, including that "symbol of oppression", so it was a re-do. The current flag is based on a CONFEDERATE battle flag. Way To F'n' Go, Govenor Perdue! However, the "oppressed" didn't realize that fact so they accepted the new flag.

Heh...we could go on for hours about stereotypes, injustices, etc.

Yeah, but I'd quickly run out of euphemisms for the 'oppressed,' and I will not use racial slurs in a public forum, because

A) it's rude, because people in that demographic who are not in the subgroup I'm describing might take offense. and

B) things said in a public forum can resurface years later to bite you in the butt at just the wrong time.

As an example of B, say I made a disparaging remark about albinos(1) and later on, when I'm applying for a job, the HR person doing the background check happens to be an albino, and my anti-albino comment shows up during his check. You can guarantee that I'll get moved to the 'no' pile for that.


Notes:
(1) Not an actual ethnic group, but it gets the point across without leaving a keyword to get picked up in a background check.

Heh...I'm probably doomed then. But I've been labelled a villain for decades. You should've been around last month when I waxed controversial about inactive watchers and requesting they unwatch me. THAT was a pier sixer.

yes in Canada until recently you could own as many Guns "Rifles" as you wanted but you had to register a Hand gun... Now ties Jokers want us to Register ALL guns....
As Karno said people that are not law biding will not do ether and now less people have a gun. We Had One in our lives, now it is gone. we gave it to a friend who dose not need another.... Go Figure but My mom was the Instigator of no guns in the house.
though she is now Dead of Cancer... I still feel she was right in some ways Her dad who was A Ranger for most of his life said that if you carry a gun you give the person you are arresting an opportunity to use that same gun on you. so he never carryed a gun when doing his job.

I agree with this 100%. And just like American Express, I never leave home without it!

Don't forget the cell phone as well.

I have one, but rarely use it. It's mostly just for emergencies. Kinda hard to use a cell phone when you're on a motorcycle doing 70 down the highway, y'know...

I usually tuck it under the strap of my helmet, or inside the helmet when I'm on the Kawasaki.
It was half a joke but a lot of truth is said in jest. When I go jogging it's with a phone in one pocket and a Kel-Tek compact .40 in the other.

Not familiar with that brand/model. Sounds like a semi-auto pistol, though.

Not a fan of guns that use magazines, myself. I've got 2 revolvers (an old .38 special long-nose and a .45 revolver five shot). I've had a decent amount of certified training with them, go to the range frequently to blow through some money, and carry a proper license recognized in all but a few states.

Doing shit legal is the only way to do it.

I concur on the legal aspect. I have a Concealed Carry permit in VA which is recognized in 22 states.
I prefer semi-autos but it's just personal preference. I am looking into the Judge, the .410/.45LC revolver that just came out. Heard anything good/bad about it?

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2081575/
The Kel-Tek is the smaller black pistol under the 1911 magazines. I have DOC and State certification but that's all I have for certified training, the rest is just really good informal teachers and practice practice practice.

The Judge is what I own. Five shot revolver which takes various .410 shotgun shells and .45LC ammo. I have the polished stainless steel model with a four inch barrel. I think they also offer it with a 3-inch and 6-inch barrel. The four-inch barrel still makes the gun 10 inches long, and it can be tricky to conceal (but can be done).

It works great; I've probably fired 400 rounds through it already and it's been dead-on every time (though it took me awhile to get used to the bigger kick). Keep the stock rubber grip. You'll be able to go through boxes and boxes of ammo before your hand ever gets sore.

Haven't had a chance to fire the shotgun shells yet, though I do keep the gun loaded with the following: first shot is .410 birdshot, second is .000 buckshot, third is .410 hollow-point lead slug, next two are .45LC.

It's a very sturdy gun, beautifully made (if odd looking with such a long cylinder) and a lot of fun to fire. I've even found a place in town that sells 5-shot speedloaders for it!

Watch some videos on YouTube to see this sucker in action. Definitely the best all-around gun, since it can be used as home protection and vehicle protection, not to mention self-preservation!

Cool! For some reasom I always figured you would have never owned a gun, or have been anti gun.

Me? Anti-gun? Noooo. Maybe "anti-stupidity", which is something way too many people suffer from these days. And as for guns, I have no issues as long as the gun owner is a responsible person. The last kind of person who needs a firearm is someone with a temper.

Then again, I'm also very pro-death penalty for severe crimes. None of this bleeding-heart shit. There's no such thing as rehabilitation; it's just a loophole felons will use to get back out on the street to commit more crimes. Kill 'em after the first serious conviction and you'll be saving countless lives in the process.

is suprised.

Why is that?

I just want to say that I am jealous.

Why jealous? Permits are easy to get in most states. What state are you in?

I don't have residency yet. ^^ I'm in MS but may be moving shortly.

Certainly will be attainable for me, but yanno... you already got one. c:

All I ask is that gun owners use them responsibly... and don't carry them into crowded places. That's not responsible. Gun licenses = good idea.

Me, I hate guns, but the violent types won't get rid of them, so you gotta control them.

The violent types get them even if they have to break the law to do it.

Carrying a gun is not irresponsible.

Leaving a gun out in a child's reach or open to theft is irresponsible. Using any tool or piece of machinery without the proper training and safe handling understanding is irresponsible.

Take a gun safety course, educate yourself a bit before making such claims. Most gun owners and enthusiasts are careful law abiding citizens.

Like me.

OK I got to say something to you.... First carrying a gun in a crowded place is not iresponsible.... Drawing a gun in a crowded place is.... In this matter it is the responcibility for the gun owner to have training to be able to deal with the situation before drawing their firearm.... A trained gun owner will use their weapon as a last resort..... The real problem is people like you who think that if you own a gun you are a murderous violent person without thinking.... Of course there are a lot of gun owners that don't get proper training and to me is more dangerous than a gang banger......

I have a license... and I carry guns into crowded places all the time. Have for several years, without incident.

heres their sign

Being Canadian, this seems slightly surreal to me, as most people here who are into guns are considered violent weirdos.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything against you, you're very nice actually, I'm just saying that's the local stereotype. :P)

The Canadian stereotype holds true.

You may collectively bite us gun owners, then.

Your totally out of fashion beard and wrap around shades as well as your faux Nazi officer's cap totally peg you as a nonviolent stable guy. My mistake.

Fashion is for people who have nothing interesting to say. The shades allow me to see as I am light sensative. The hat is WW1 ENGLISH. Worn by Tommy soldiers in thge trenches, fuckwit.

Thinking about your comment further, I realise that you must be able to judge people by their looks! A fine skill, as it sets you apart, as not having to get to know a person before you levy judgement against them. Your mother would be so proud, you sanctimonious self- important twit!
On to me being violent... Yeah, sure. That's why I work full time with the physically and developmentally challenged. What do you do to help your fellow man? Internet Flame Warrior does not count!

My mistake, your two comments show you're a totally well adjusted nonjudgmental guy in control of his raging pent up anger ;)

No pent up anger here, I target shoot and relieve tension that way. This has been a fun interchange. We'll have to do this again sometime, until someone ruins it by taking it seriously!

That's how the idiots work... they judge by looks alone.

They protect us from those evil pistol grips, barrel shrouds, magazines "which protrude conspicuously" and other such scary things.

Yeah, you are correct, o bearer of the cool avatar name!
It's sad that so many people take the media's word for what is an "assault weapon", or a "Militia" or whatever is the Liberal scare word of the day.
I have two bits of advice for folks, Turn off the tv and THINK even better read, then think. And my mantra, It is okay to take what you are doing seriously, just never take yourself seriously.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2905138/

I like guns. :3

Bull's-eye! :D

Well done, Karno!

I do agree that you gave the petitioner too much credit, though. Every truly anti-gun person I've met has been more of a raving nutter than most of the people I've met at gun shows.

They tend to be more rude and impulsive in my experience, too. "If you let people carry guns, the streets will run red. If someone rear-ended me, I might get out of the car and shoot them!" They might. No licensed carrier ever does.

Ever does? I suspect you might want to check your facts there...

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=r.....ient=firefox-a

He said licensed. For instance, in my state there has only ever been 1 crime committed by a person with a carry permit and it wasn't gun related.

they never speed? cheat on their taxes? Cut the tags off mattresses? I'm amazed

Oohh, the mattress tag. That's the worst.

No, What I meant was this.

To carry a gun legally here in Minnesota where I'm from you have to.

Pay 75-200$ to take a mandatory 8 hour course that covers use, legal issues and storage.
You have to apply for the permit to carry 100$
Pass a criminal background check
You have to wait 2-4 for weeks for it to process and then you can go purchase your handgun 300-1000$
You fill out that paper work.
Then you can carry it.

Grand total 500-1300$

People who go through that kind of hassle and drop that kind of money generally don't go robbing 7/11s or brandish it when someone cuts them off in traffic.

From my experience most people that carry are pretty upstanding citizens.

Yes, I suspected that was what you meant.

Hoewever, of the two people I know over here that DO have a license (both my mothers BFs, as it happens ) they're both the kind of arsehole who does use it to threaten people. Or shoot the neighbor's dog.

And Australia has strict gun control laws.

*sighs*

That's too bad. Sadly it only takes a few bad ones to ruin it for the many, many good ones.

You have my sympathy for having to put up with that.

thanks

This is quite a valid point... It's totally one thing when the weapons of the day are basically just sharper (sometimes) farm implements or stuff anyone could just pick up, like a rock or a club... but when the weapons aren't actually something "everyone" would "ordinarily" have, separating them out by force is a decidedly less effective and more oppressive means of controlling their use.

Now, personally, I don't own a gun, yet, but I'm glad I have a right to... just in case.

Well put, but as several others have stated, the gun control advocate is portrayed much too mildly.

The reason for restricting ownership of guns is to prevent the populace from objecting to what the government does. Anything and everything else you might hear is nothing more than obfuscation.

That's been true for thousands of years. Plato stated in "The Republic" that the government must take the swords away from the people so they can't rebel. I know the quote isn't exact, but I haven't read that work in several decades. There have been a lot of countries and dictators that followed Plato's advice, though.

The current 'phrase du jour' of obfuscation is "to protect the children". I know five-year-olds who know how to handle guns safely, and do so regularly. Given what I see in the news, the children should be the ones that are armed! The political machine that is in power doesn't have the guts to enforce the laws already on the books, so they keep passing more laws (that won't be enforced) and when the problem gets worse, they'll just do the same thing again.

What's that old definition of insanity? Something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting the results to be different?

A little tidbit to think about. The last time the FBI published this data was in 2003, and covered crime in 2002. They haven't published these stat's since, to my knowledge. They're probably too embarrassed.

In police involved shootings, it required 9.8 rounds of ammunition to be fired by the officer(s) involved, to get one hit on the perpetrator/suspect. Not very good shooting, where are the other 8.8 rounds going? In one particularly well reported incident in Southern California, ten officers fired more than 120 rounds at the driver of a motionless pickup. Three, three rounds hit him. Three, maybe four, of the officers were wounded, and they did this on a residential street at 2am, iird. Where did the rest of those rounds go? In a residential neighborhood? The media sure never made a sound about it.

In the same time frame, civilians involved in shootings required 1.2 rounds to effect a hit.

I don't know about you, but i'd a darn sight prefer to have the civilian blazing away in front of my house at 3am. I do know that accuracy is attained through practice. Imagine that, the civilians are better trained, and better shots, than the police. Maybe the police should start dressing in red, so the blushes won't show.

I would like to know where you got your numbers from, even though I believe you. American Handgunner's report on accuracy had the hit ratio at around 22%.

Law enforcement officers have to divide their time with so much they have to deal with. You or I as 'Joe Citizen' go to the range every weekend and focus on accuracy.

As I stated, it was the FBI's crime statistics published in 2003, for events in 2002. I have no idea if that report is still available, and I willingly admit that the quote is from memory. So any inaccuracy is mine.

As to being an accurate shot, that is part of their job description. I have seen the requirements for several departments, and I, for one, would be ashamed to shoot that badly. In fact, I would have passed any of those qualifications the very first time I picked up a pistol, when I was 9 years old.

I'll look into the report, it's nibbling on my curiosity, and fear not, I won't quote you.

When I was qualifying for sidearm I tied top of my class with an Army ranger, and the class included (but not limited to) ex-police and other law enforcement.

At 25yards both our groups (60 rounds) could be covered by an 8X10 sheet of paper though we had one 'flyer' each. The qualifications were so lax all but one passed though a couple had to retake the range time.

I'm ashamed of my AR qualification though. I rad to retake it three times.

The qualification requirement at the various departments is, basically, about 15 out of 25 rounds in the black on a full size full torso target at 15 yards.

When I had to qualify for my concealed permit, it was 50 rounds on that same target, at varying ranges from 3 yards to 25 yards. My grouping was about 7-8", with two called flyers. And I was disgusted by that. The best target in the class was no more than 3" with no flyers. Minimum qual was 35 rounds (70%) on the paper.

One thing about that range, though, was that we were all standing in a line, at most about 3 feet apart, and we moved en mass to each distance (the targets were fixed). The concussive affects of standing that close together while shooting took some getting used to.

With my scoped rifle I can normally hold about 2" at 100 yards. It's been years since I've used iron sights, but I used to hold about 5". Both of those are 5 shots, and on a good day I can get a sub 1" group with the scope. Today, my eyes probably won't let me do that well with the iron sights. When I was in the Army in the early 70's I managed to qualify "Expert" with the M16, M79, and M203. I also got familiarisation time on the M60 and M2, I really enjoyed those, especially the M2 (.50BMG).

*sigh* old memories

It was a few years ago and I can't recall what the DOC requirements were. It sounds similar to what we did on the range.
For the conceal permit it was more informal, focusing on the state laws and such rather than accuracy.

A few friends and I had a range set up until the property was sold. We'd be out there every weekend. Between range time and drills I'd go through just shy of a thousand rounds a month.
Good times.

You have me beat all to pieces on the rifle, I tip my hat to you good sir. I'd love to get behind one of those new Barrett .50s . Though at just shy of nine grand it's a little out of reach for me.
I can still dream though.

Yeah, I drool all over the Barrett's myself. The bolt actions are less expensive, especially the single shot. Still mighty pricey though. And $3+ per round for ammo is another ouch.

I wish I could afford to shoot that much. I've been unemployed for quite a while. That is supposed to change soon, with a little luck.

The rifle is practice, and getting a rifle stocked so it fits you. Not that many gunsmiths know how to do that and most rifles have stocks that are too short. I got lucky, both with fit and inherent accuracy, with my primary hunting rifle.

I don't think guns should be banned. But this comic seems to have a lot wrong with it.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm : An explanation of how the Second Amendment was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control.

In before someone calls it revisionism and perpetuates a hilarious irony.

Also, assault weapons and above are banned already. Even if you did have them, enjoy fighting off tanks and b-52s with them. Haha.

Wait, after doing some follow up reserch, I found out that assault weapons aren't banned, just heavily restricted.

Still, enjoy fighting against a war power that half your taxes contribute to, with tanks and bombs and white phosphorus enough to completely remove any evidence of your existence.

If you study the Federalist Papers, you will find that the Second Amendment came about in part because the British confiscated all arms in a sizable portion of the colonies during the conflict, particularly in Boston and New York City. It is also based on the concept of keeping the government controlled, and prevent the creation or imposition of a dictatorship or tyranny, because it granted the people the ability to fight back.

The militia, as defined in colonial times, which is the only appropriate context, meant every free, able-bodied adult male. No other restriction. The modern definition of 'militia' is completely irrelevant to any such discussion, and is used to divert attention from the gun control advocates' intention of totally disarming the public.

One thing that every Constitutional scholar I've ever read ignores. The first phrase of the Second Amendment is a preamble and nothing more. It serves only to introduce the right being enumerated. The right itself is very specific and extremely restrictive on the government, which is why all the shouting and posturing is concerned with the preamble, as though it had relevance. It doesn't, despite what all the courts have said over the last 75+ years. It is also true that every federal gun control law in existence in this country is based purely on the federal government's right to control interstate commerce.

No other preamble in the Constitution, or its Amendments, has ever been so foully used and abused.

btw, I briefly reviewed the document you quoted, and noticed that the author(s) are faculty from the University of California at Davis, and are also fervent and strident gun control advocates. Read some of their other publications, as listed in the footnotes, if you doubt that. Somehow, I doubt, quite strongly, that the presentation is completely factual and unbiased. In fact, I am inclined to believe the opposite. The fact that it is posted at the SAF has little, if any, bearing on its validity.

"The militia, as defined in colonial times, which is the only appropriate context"

Context is quite important, yes. Here's some, in fact: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788

Author: Alexander Hamilton

Mr. Hamilton seems to take issue with many of your claims and at points outright contradicts them.

Hamilton in fed 29 not only assumes as a matter of course that "the militia" is a formal military force organized by the state government, he argues that certain powers to regulate the militia should be confided in the national government and that the militia be deployed under the command of the federal government in certain circumstances.

Oh, by the way, this kind of militia still exists. It's called the National Guard.

You're grandstanding about "if you've studied the federalist papers"
But I don't think you've studied the federalist papers.
I think you've studied conspiracy websites.

Furthermore your little quip equating what I assume the BATF is a hilarious and terrible hyperbole. Look at yourself, a grown man, putting them on the same level as organizations that have killed, maimed, and disenfranchised thousands of people. You need to draw less on "personal experience", sir, and more on actual history.

The controls on assault weapons are mostly state laws, and vary considerably. And if you're willing to pay the fees and undergo all the background checks, you can get permits for almost any non-classified weapon. I have considered that myself, it's just that I'm not willing to have my name in that particular agency's database any more than it already is.

That agency, in my view, has virtually nothing to distinguish it from the KGB or the Gestapo, other than it's initials.

I admit it, I'm biased, prejudiced and cynical. At least on this subject, and based on personal experience.

Oh, dont worry about gun bans, because pretty soon petitions wont be needed. The way things are going, guns wont be the only thing they take away from you.

Peasants no more. That's all you need to say to these trained idiots.

Heh, the message is nicely stated in this comic, and I like the niceness given to someone of such ignorance.

Added to that, it's nice to see someone use "cognitive dissonance" these days.

^_^

Thanks for sharing.

To be fair, most people who follow politics of any variety; Left, Right, Moderate, and any poitical party you can think of have no idea what they're talking about and are just parroting back crap they've been fed.

I've not had any run ins with guns, other than a couple of instances in which I was robbed by some kids cruising around, looking for someone with money to roll. To be honest, I don't think guns should be banned either. But despite what's been said by all the gun enthusiasts here, I can't completely agree with the overall opinion.

Guns have been, and always will be one very simple thing. A form of power. ...Well, until the next thing comes along. As with most forms of power, people will seek it out for various reasons: self defense, control of populace, preventative measures (if you appear powerful enough, some people will simply leave you alone rather than risk getting hurt/killed). Unfortunately, like many forms of power, guns are able to be obtained by far too many people, and not all of them are smart about them, interested in self defense or simply because they like them.

When I say this, I'm not talking about the big groups who, honestly, tend to want a monopoly on any kind of power. Governments want to control their populace *and* defend them from problems with a minimal of difficulty (I noticed no one... NO ONE... seems to think or say the police serve any purpose outside of oppression or mentioned how the military has a purpose outside of giving the government the power to control the people they govern). Crime groups of course want the same thing. And any large organization (like gun owners and enthusiasts) also want the ability to do as they please and either defend themselves or, if needed, attack others with as much force as possible. This is just the way people are; no one want to be in a position of inferiority.

But the people who campaign for gun control aren't *all* whackos, and a lot of them live in places where control of distribution of guns is lax or non existent. Anyone can get a gun for a few dollars, load up, and go out to threaten or outright shoot anyone they want to. "Well, if everyone had guns, that wouldn't be a problem, would it?" some of you might say. But if everyone had guns, people would get shot a lot more too, and for no reason in a good amount. Though people who are educated and *smart* about gun ownership/use are fine, not everyone is either of those, or even care to be. They just want to ability to shoot someone whenever they feel like it. If the other person is carrying a gun, they can claim self defense, and possibly get off easy.

Now, what I'm saying is that gun control is a *good* thing. CONTROL. Make sure the people who get them are smart enough to know how to maintain it, when to use it, WHERE to use it, and are aware of the power involved with owning and carrying one around. But I don't think there's anyone who posted here who would say there are less dumbasses in the world that smart people, is there? Going around telling people they're morons or lackwits for not wanting guns around is at least partially unfair. Rather, it should be said that those looking to have guns banned entirely are foolish. Most likely, there are those who would like to see all guns removed from the hands of non organized groups' members. These people play on the *totally valid* fears of people without the ability to defend themselves, organizing them against guns in general, rather than just against guns in the hands of people with no morals, self control or sanity. Just saying "Well, if you're afraid, get guns and stop being afraid" is inviting random shootings and chaos. I don't think that's what those who speak for free ownerships of guns and freedom in general are advocating... is it?

To put all this in a shortened version, people who want bans on guns are probably simply afraid for their own safety, but not looking to become some sort of vigilante themselves; they just want to live without the fear of getting shot by someone who really shouldn't have a gun running up on them with one in hand. To look at people who are uneducated and then look *down* on those people is the WRONG way to do it; doing so only makes you yourself unable and unwilling to even make the effort of educating them, simply sitting on your ass and thinking "I'm right; screw them!", and leaving those same people to the all too willing hands of people looking to manipulate them.

Bingo The problem ISN'T that there aren't enough gun control laws, but that they're not ENFORCED, or enforced poorly. Me, I should not have a gun -- lousy aim

Where do you live so we can avoid getting hit with a tray bullet!

Don't worry, I just don't own any guns. See, that's part of gun responsibility -- knowing when you SHOULDN'T be a gun owner for whatever reason; poor aim, temper control problems, that sort of thing.

I wish I could favorite replies.

A little long to read, but I think the points you make are spot-on with the issue at hand.

Allow me to introduce one alternative bunch of non-gun-grabbers, the http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/

I am a Democrat. I am a Gun Owner. the two should not be mutually exclusive.

I have a CZ52 and two boxes of ammunition. I would like to find out more about Skunkwork's "Judge" revolver.

All the more the merrier. a person should have 4 guns. a pistol, a pump shotgun, a medium range rifle, and a bolt action long range rifle. My opinion and I'm sticking to it.

The Judge is made by Taurus of Brazil. I have sold many at gunshows. Avoid early models, they had problems.

Nicely done karno. That's a valid point. Looks like someone has been reading his constitution and bill of rights.

I don't like guns. They're loud, lazy, give bad cops god complexes, and I'm a lousy shot with them. I wanna take away your guns! But for some crafty peacenik scheme? Not a chance! Just so that this way, you all can fight me on equal terms, damn it all! Rock'em Sock'em Sleazeballs!

I still have yet to understand the "first take away police and military guns" mentality. If you pull a gun on a cop, you're going to go to jail, regardless of the circumstance. Having civilian guns taken away will not cause the average citizen to be raided by either force.

And because these things are necessary, I'm for responsible gun usage even if I don't like them. At least in the US, they're a necessary evil. Everyone should have to take a gun training course in their life, it might at least help people get more comfortable with them.

That last bit is the most intelligent statement I've ever heard from an anti. Nicely stated.

I'm okay with responsible gun ownership, I just don't trust people to be responsible gun owners. Even with a license. :\ There are a LOT of stupid or careless people out there!

I'm okay with responsible vehicle ownership, I just don't trust people to be responsible car owners. Even with a license. There are a LOT of stupid or careless drivers out there!

Changed it.

But we still let people drive, don't we?

People need to be able to drive to get to work, assuming their community lacks public transportation, which many do.

People do not need guns to do anything.

People that don't have public transportation available can walk or ride either a bike or a horse. They don't need one of those dangerous automobiles. Do you have any idea how many people those things kill a year? Especially when in the hands of children under the age of 25?


Do you see what I'm doing here?

You may not perceive a need for a gun and that's fine I wouldn't have it forced on you.

But people do need them for the same reason police officers do. For protection.

And I don't know how it is where you're from but here, people still feed feed their families with game taken with a firearm.


Sure we could use a bow to hunt or clubs to defend ourselves. But, like the people who could ride a bike to work instead of drive, i'd rather use the best tool for the task at hand.

You can protect yourself with fists, clubs, bows and arrows, etc., and the same goes for hunting. Is this less effective than a gun in some cases? Of course. But walking to your place of employment is also less effective when, say, you have a 30 minute commute by car, or even an hour's worth. You can do it, but you certainly wouldn't want to.

My point exactly.

I sincerely hope you never need to be defended, then, because an armed Police Officer will have to intercede on your behalf, and defend you because your rhetoric will not allow you to see things clearly. I hope the cop doesn't get hurt, either. Because frankly, I do not think you anti-gunners are worth one Cop being injured.

If you're going to protect yourself against the army, you'll need a lot more than handguns and collector's items.

You'll need tanks, and artillery, and maybe a few nuclear missiles....

... or some well-placed IEDs and sharpshooters.

See: resistance groups in Nazi-occupied Europe (France in particular); Taliban in UN-occupied Afghanistan, Al Qaeda (among others) in Iraq & Pakistan, IRA in Northern Ireland, etc.

no no no you have it all wrong...

EVERYONE Should have a gun...


Thats right.. Give guns to every person on the planet...




















Now the BULLETS HOWEVER ................

Yeah... LOL!!!
Did anyone here think, that the hole gun story in USA may looks a little bit à la "stone age"??

Do you really need more than one or two guns?

of course I do! My gun cabinet still has room in it!

You only have two hands and some guns require both.

I just get excitable as to choice, like to keep my options open.

Some people have a howitzer in the garage.

Photos or it didn't happen.

I do.

Different guns for different uses.
Hunting, short range and long range.
Your standard Zombie gun.
Sidearm for protection, human or not.

Other than that I would get lucky finds for their uniqueness and collectability.

Tell you what, if I was out someone where and a bear came after me, I'd be happy I had a gun on me.

Same goes for, "Hey look, rabid dog!"

Guns are tools and should be treated with as much respect and care as any tool.

If you're alone with a bear and you shoot it you'll probably just make it angry. You'd be more likely to survive by just knowing how to react to a bear's posturing.

Not if I was carrying my rifle. Bear are tough, but not impervious.

Bears beat the shit out of each other and you expect to kill it with a metal slug shot at just the right angle while it's charging you? Good luck with that and send me some video. I'd watch either outcome.

Don't be inflammatory.

Although of course knowing the animals you're going to be around is key in any wilderness survival situation. I'm not one to provoke any animal needlessly.

Clearly you've never heard of bear hunting.

So some people have a howitzer for....plowing a field?

Now you're just being impetuous.

To address this nonsensical 'logic' (if you will), a Howitzer would fall under collectible/unique, I'm pretty sure you can't legally own a Howitzer anyway. But as for myself personally I'd never own a god damn Howitzer even if it was legal.

I do hunt, that's what my long range and short range rifles are for.

Well first of my apologies it wasn't a howitzer but a converted antiaircraft gun. Sencondly I got something better than photo's. I found the news broadcast I originally saw it in. It is mostly in Dutch but the interviews aren't dubbed. The big guns are at the end of the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCliRTFT2j0

You might want to check out time 1.21.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AliR.....eature=related

Generalize much? You really think al Americans are like this?

Wake up.

And you're Dutch, right? So that means you're eight foot tall, tan and blonde.

Nope! I speak dutch but I'm not from the Netherlands. I'm 1 m 74 cm tall, Caucasian but still due to hair color quit dark in appearance.

And no I don't think all Americans are like that. All the Americans I have known for year, none of them own a firearm. But you have to admit that there isn't another country in the world where a large group exists that takes the right to bear arms to such extremes.

Still failing to see how those clips applies to anything. Or to plowing fields. Those were gun shows... To Show Guns.

Many times there are extremely crazy weaponry on display at gun shows. More often the not, the weapons are 1.) Not for sale, 2.) Non-Operational (display only) or 3.) Historically important/notable.

Recently, I attended a gun show and I got to see a $4,000 Pirate Blunderbuss. Cool? Definitely! Would I buy it if I had four grand to blow? Not likely.

In my experience, people who own crazy-ass weaponry are historical nuts or military buffs who want the weapon for novelty and show. The blunderbuss was probably there because the dude couldn't get as much as he wanted for it from a Museum. And FYI, There is a small but informative Pirate Museum on Massachusetts.

TL;DR what is your point?

But you have to admit that there isn't another country in the world where a large group exists that takes the right to bear arms to such extremes.

I'll admit to that not question. But... Your point?

Your beef is with our laws? Granted you're allowed that, I'm allowed that.

But I have yet to hear of a murder committed with a Howitzer, an Anti-aircraft gun or anything more than a 9mm or .45. So more restrictive laws would do what?

I have no beef with your gun control laws. But more with the application and enforcement of them even in my country there has been a number of screw-ups involving gun control.

My point is why own fully or semi automatic assault rifles? Home protection is something I hear often but if you shoot one of those things in an average wooden American home it would not surprise me that the round would go through a number of walls before losing momentum. And who knows who's behind those walls. If I turn on my TV here and there is something American on it then sooner or later a gun and or rifle comes in it.

Committing a murder with a howitzer or an anti-aircraft gun would be difficult not to mention extremely messy.

Maybe your problem with my country is how your country perceives mine. Maybe you shouldn't believe everything the media tells you.

Also, maybe your country could learn a thing or two from mine, in regards to gun control. The closest thing to gun control screw ups I've experienced is having my social security number mistyped and my approval to purchase my hunting rifle delayed by 3 days.

My country erred on the side of safety.

I can tell you why I would own a semi or fully automated weapon.

I would own one to take it to the range, shoot it until my shoulder aches, take it home, clean it, and put it away.

Because they are fun to shoot.

Because it is my hobby.

Because it is my right to do so.

I'm a law abiding citizen who is trained how to use firearms safely. Why not?

So will a .22 round. So can a crossbow dart. So can some of the newer airgun pellets. The only way a gun is being fired in MY house is if I'm defending my life or my family. People in glass house don't throw stones... no shooting in the house. There is a time and place for everything.

For shooting guns, the place is the range, and the time is whenever they are open. (or, legal hours out in the field during hunting season, yadda yadda.)

Committing a murder with a howitzer or an anti-aircraft gun would be difficult not to mention extremely messy.

Not to mention overkill. That's why most crimes are committed with 9mm, .45 or .38. Or, a knife or blunt object. So if the 'extreme-ness' or power of the weapon is not directly proportional to crime level, they should be restricted because...?

It really depends on your needs. If the only thing you want is home defense, then a short barrelled 12-ga pump shotgun is all you need.

On the other hand, I hunt (I also eat what I kill, which is also why I hunt) with both rifle and pistol, I'm a target shooter, I shoot trap and skeet, and I'm a collector. I just wish I had the money to indulge myself.

Guns are specialized tools. If I'm shooting targets at 500-1000 yards, I can't use my hunting rifle, it doesn't have the accuracy. The super-accurate rifle is too heavy to carry when hunting. If I'm hunting rabbits, the rifle I use for elk is severe overkill and far more expensive to shoot, and illegal in some situations. The rabbit rifle, on the other hand, is completely inadequate for elk, as well as illegal for that use pretty much everywhere.

Invest in a vehicle. You can go places and still kill things. One car, one tool, to kill rabbit, deer, or target silhouette. That and one shotgun should do you, assuming you sleep in the car while spooning the shotgun. It's no good if someone breaks into your house and gets into the gun cabinet before you.

So... how does your car protect your home again? I don't follow.

And, intentionally killing animals with a vehicle is 1.) illegal and 2.) ruins most of the meat.

I used to be of the mindset that people should have guns to protect ourselves from the government, not burglars and deer (after all, isn't that what allowed the US to become a free country in the first place?). Then I came to the realization that in this day and age, people are too comfortable and the military is too organized, too quick to deploy, and too powerful for an armed uprising against them. So keeping weapons to protect ourselves from the government is no longer an adequate argument in my opinion, and I see now reason to keep them D:

Yeah, I've always found those that say that they need their guns to protect themselves from the state a little farcical. If the state actually wanted to get you, they would get you, whether you got a handgun and a shotgun or not. This argument may have worked 200 years ago, when the most the redcoats could come after you with was a musket, but today...

I don't understand why people just can't be honest: They want to have guns to protect themselves from other people that have guns. Simple as that, and not something I have a problem with. I've certainly lived in some parts of town where getting a handgun sounded like a pretty good idea.

Yush, Karno states his case very well. Nice toon!

But Karno, never think about moving here to California (even though the climate beats the hell out of the state you now reside in) because of the rediculous gun laws in this Governator State.

Dude you should move here in Alabama you could find guns in every pwan shop like looking for candy and you get a permit fill it out and pay 20 bucks and Viola you are legal to have your hand gun registered and legal.

It would be nice if we had to deal only with the anti-gun-fraction here in Germany. Here they start with anti-knife-laws our politicians are so damn stupid that they even marked medical scalpels as weapons per definition so every surgeon technically commits a crime when he uses one in a surgery.
Our politicians main goal is to get a weapon-law like Great Britain where it is even forbidden to go outside with a screwdriver in the poket.
At this point I want to mention that Great Britain has the second larges amount of crimes commited with knifes.
And why is that so? Cause criminals don't mind laws. They just can be sure that a good citizen won't carry a bigger one, so they are safe doing their crimes.
These anti-weapon laws are only saving the criminals and not the good citizens.

Karno, I think that if you became a figurehead of the furry community, you could finally reside where you should be. Your wit, artistic talent, and philosophy are to be admired.

I thought he already was...
...silly me.

The problem is that if you say "Uncle Kage"< everybody knows who you mean. Almost the same with "Max BLackrabbit". You say "Karno/Kjartan" and some people think you sneezed.

The problem with laying your arms? Assuming everyone else will no matter who they are

Only criminals want to get rid of our guns. Because then we are powerless to defend ourselves against them. What ultimately helped to incite the American revolutionary war? king george wanted to outlaw guns on the colonies. Gun control is all about power.

True. The criminals include the vast majority of politicians, at all levels, as they are violating their oaths of office by pursuing gun control.

Although the American Revolutionary War, and the Civil War, were about taxes first and foremost. The slavery issue in the Civil War was spin and justification, and only started well after the War, though it takes some research to uncover that. The gun control issues in the Revolutionary War were mostly imposed by the Royal governors and the generals, also well after the war was underway, so the colonists couldn't shoot back. The same thing that our soldiers are doing today in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with as little justification.

Not necessarily the foremost of reasons but one of. Supposedly some of the gun control issues where starting prior to the outbreak of the war.

Well, as someone opposed to gun ownership who's never committed any sort of crime and is a staunch pacifist, I find that comment not only incredibly wrong, but massively offensive as well. It is sad that, realistically, the country is so full of illegal guns that we could never get them all away from the criminals, and as such a gun ban would likely be good news for armed criminals. I could not be less interested in power; I'm interested only in seeing fewer people die because of firearms, because those deaths are completely and utterly needless.

Oh, and, the Revolutionary War had nothing to do with gun control. It was chiefly about taxation, lack of government representation, quartering of British soldiers, the closing of the port of Boston, and the Boston Massacre. If the banning of guns was at all involved, it was a minor side issue. I suspect that you heard that fact from some pro-gun person or organization somewhere or another; sadly it isn't actually true.

You should be an NRA spokesperson :P

i agree whole-heartedly with this tho...im not in favor of anyone giving up their rights to protect themselves as they see fit...i like my guns...and if you look in history, no gun towns are prime (and easy) targets for crime to control instantly...

Thanks Karno, I needed a good chuckle today. Just kind of sad that it's funny because it's true

Heh well it looks like they're already starting in on Tobacco soon Alcohol and guns will be next. I wonder if they took into account that rum runners will be damn well armed. XD

Oh, and another to add. I heard it somewhere, but damn me if I remember where.

"Gun control is the theory that a 120-pound woman has the right to fistfight a 210-pound rapist."

Also to note here when I get my refund check i'm getting a Taurus .45 ACP i try it out not shooting it. But holding it my hands and it very balanced. I have to try it out to see on kickback so if it will my weapon of choice as my sidearm.

Since you're a pretty smart guy, Karno, I'm going to assume that, by gun-banners, you mean extreme leftist whackjobs who really want guns outright illegal, and not the majority of gun control supporters who just want there to be greater regulation, scrutiny, and accountability on the sale and purchase of firearms. I presume you're not one of the "liberal wanna take away all're galldang guns" types.

Nope. I'm a liberal, myself. It's the control freaks who want to disarm the peasants, so as better to oppress them. Doesn't matter if they arrived at that position via the right or left path - the Gestapo and the KGB do the same things for the same reasons.

On one episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit, they showed a guy selling skyscraper parachutes. That is, a parachute you could use to jump out of a skyscraper in case 9/11 happened again. My thought was that actually spending money on something like that was ridiculous, since the likelihood of ever actually needing it is infinitesimal. And the likelihood of being able to get to it and use it is smaller still.

This is my basic position on guns.

This has nothing to do with the amendment itself, just the practicality of the idea of owning a gun as protection. Sure, it's your right. But how likely is it for a situation to arise when you'll actually need it? Or that you'll be able to get to it without being seen? Or heard? Or that you'll be able to get to it at all? Or that you'll be able to load it in time? Or that you'll be able to load it correctly? Or that you'll remember to turn the safety off? Or that you'll have the courage to face your attacker with it? Or be able to pull the trigger? Or that your aim will be true? Or that the person you intend to use it against will be cognizant enough to be even realize you have a gun? Or that they won't have a gun too? Or that they won't be faster to shoot? Or that they won't simply kill you anyway no matter if you do everything right? It just seems to me that the probability of a gun ever being useful to me is very, very, very tiny. It seems like a situation where, no matter what preparations or precautions you take, luck is still going to be the single biggest factor in the outcome.

Also, things are compounded if you have children and a gun in the same house. If that's the case, then the only sane thing is to keep the gun locked up. That further decreases the probability of the gun being useful. How well can someone retrieve a gun from a closet shelf and disable the trigger lock, in total silence, at night, while a burglar is in the next room?

Also, I have never, to my knowledge, heard of a case of someone successfully using a gun in self-defense against a police officer ...and surviving. Even if they did, it's not going to end well for them. They're either going to be in prison, or on the lam, for the rest of their life. No question. I can't imagine someone shooting a cop and being found innocent. Even if they were legally in the right, I can't believe that the dead cop's buddies in blue wouldn't mess with the evidence to ensure 'justice'.

(Also, having seen how Americans in general react to having their freedoms taken away for real [the Patriot Act, for instance], I wouldn't expect more than a few individual scuffles if the government ever really did decide to take away all the guns. In real-life examples that have already happened of our government subverting our constitution, the majority of us have failed in our duty as citizens. If there ever was a time for armed revolt, we let it pass by.)

Sure, bad things have happened to me in the past and inevitably will in the future. But I would never put my trust in a gun to get me out of anything. Especially not when experience has taught me that my mind is a far more effective tool of self-preservation.

In general, reading between the lines of many pro-gun people's arguments, what I really see is, "I like having them so you can't take them away." I don't see anything more than that. I don't see noble defenders of liberty; I see collectors. No different than people who obsess over stamps or coins or Star Trek stuff. And that's okay. (I myself obsessively collect Transformers.) It just annoys me whenever I suspect someone's not being completely honest about their motives. (I'm not accusing YOU of this, since all i know of your position is this cartoon. But other people I've talked to definitely talk big yet act shallow.)

I don't intend any of this as an insult; I genuinely would like to hear your take on these ideas. None of them are set in stone. I'm open-minded. And frankly, I welcome a challenge to them to see if they can stand up to reasoned opposition.

Oh, it's just immmmmm-possible to defend yourself with a gun? Then how come it happens over a million times a year? According to the FBI, no less. Check out http://www.americanrifleman.org/Art.....amp;amp;cid=25 for some first-hand accounts of armed defense. A gun is a tool. If you think you can't be trusted with one, that's fine. But having one gives me the option of armed defense. I like having plenty of options. It's nice that you think your amazing mind can defend you from harm, but as I've never heard of a gunfight where the winner used mental powers to stop his opponent's bullets, I'll stick to the dull, unimaginative tactic of shooting back.

>Oh, it's just immmmmm-possible to defend yourself with a gun? Then how come it happens over a million times a year? According to the FBI, no less.

I'm not saying that doesn't happen. In fact, there's some places where I'd say owning a gun more than makes sense (I live close to Detroit and I watch the news regularly). Here's my point though: contrast that two million with the number of times a gun has not done its job. I know it's almost certainly impossible to find statistics where someone's had a gun and wasn't able to use it when they needed to, but law of probability dictates that it has to happen. And add to that the number of instances where someone's mistaken a loved one for an intruder and shot them, or the number of times someone's gun has malfunctioned and killed them. Like I said; I watch the news regularly. I do see stories of guns successfully being used for protection. But far more often do I see stories where guns were either useless, or worse than useless. So that two million means nothing until we have something to compare it to. It's not just the number of times guns are useful, it's the *percentage* of times when they're useful.

You also have to ask yourself: how many children getting their brains blown out is an acceptable trade-off? I'm definitely not the type to champion safety over freedom, but if we as a society say it's a good idea to regulate cars, tobacco and alcohol, then why such resistance from gun groups to even sensible gun regulation? (Notice that I imply there are non-sensible gun regulation ideas too.)

And I'm not saying no one should have guns. I'm just saying from what I've seen, they can be as much of a liability as an asset, and that quite often they're a placebo. They exist to make people *feel* safer. I just don't see evidence that owning one really does make you safer. Americans seem to be obsessed with the quest for perfect safety, and it's an illusion. For instance, you could have a zillion guns, and they won't protect you from carbon monoxide poisoning. Or cancer. Or a million other things that COULD happen to you, but probably won't. Put succinctly: if you prepared for every single bad thing that could ever happen to you, you couldn't possibly have any time left over to actually live your life. Sure, someone could break into my house and rob me. But I know that the probability of that is low enough that I'd rather not worry about it and not waste money or stress going to great lengths to prevent it.

And again, if the police or the military ever did come to take away your rights, no amount of guns is going to stop them. I've never seen a shootout with police end victoriously for the shooter.

>A gun is a tool. If you think you can't be trusted with one, that's fine. But having one gives me the option of armed defense. I like having plenty of options.

That, I can understand. Wanting to have that option open makes sense. But it's like the skyscraper parachute I mentioned. Sure, it's probably comforting to have that option, but is it worth $3,000 (the cost of the chute)? At what point does sensible precaution become gullibility? In other words; how much money and effort are you willing to put into a hypothetical situation?

>It's nice that you think your amazing mind can defend you from harm, but as I've never heard of a gunfight where the winner used mental powers to stop his opponent's bullets, I'll stick to the dull, unimaginative tactic of shooting back.

Well, I didn't mean psychokinesis. I meant that if someone broke in, I'd think of a way to call 911 silently or look around for potential weapons. A gun's not the only way to stop someone. I imagine a pair of scissors applied to the neck area swiftly enough would work quite well. Or I might even be able to talk my way out of it. Meaning I'd try to appeal to the person's better nature ...while slowly making my way towards the kitchen knives. I'd say I have options too.

Or you could get a gun, keep it in the nightstand and then hey, no need to search for weapons. As for as calling 911, you just call from a landline phone and leave it off the hook. Duh. They tell people to do that all the damn time.

And honestly, during any robbery, a 911 operator will tell you to try and get out of the house.

If someone comes in the house while I am asleep, the phone is several rooms away from my bedroom. I'm really going to be able to get up, walk to the kitchen or livingroom, and ask the thief politely to allow me to use the phone? Also, my bedroom is nowhere near a door outside. Going out the window would be possible, though if a burglar comes when I'm upstairs, there goes that idea. More complicated than you assumed, eh?

Also, with the gun-in-the-nightstand scenario, you assume that if someone does break in, that you will be closer to the gun than they are when it happens. What happens if you're so sound asleep that you don't wake up when they look through the nightstand?

Guns provide an illusion of safety, that's all. They can be useful, yes. But they are absolutely not a guarantee. And they absolutely do come with risk attached. The way I see it, the potential protection and potential risk at least cancel each other out, so I feel no need to own one.


"and are great stress relief."

Just had to mention this: no, they aren't. Studies now show that 'letting your anger out' does the opposite of what most people think it does. If you were to go down to the gun range to blow off some steam, that does not release stress/anger like air from a balloon. What it does is create a habit. Your brain learns to associate anger with whatever you've been doing to vent that anger. In this case, you would be training your brain to want to pick up a gun whenever you get stressed. Yikes.

Don't take my word for it though: http://www.apa.org/releases/catharsis.html

I was more referring to the unwinding of stress, which physical activity is a major part of. Its effects are quite similar to that of weight lifting in terms of stress relief.

If you're shooting properly and practicing good marksmanship, which in itself is a meditative mindset, which requires you to control your breathing, which also helps steady your heart rate, the close, careful focus on the foresight and slow, deliberate squeeze of the trigger and the sudden surprise of that first round...

God, that last paragraph sounded like it came from a porn story...

Then your house and your sleeping situation needs to be improved from a defense standpoint.

I have several loaded handguns and a flashlight within immediate reach of my bed. My bed is oriented so that i can see anyone coming down the hall from 30 feet away. This isn't paranoia, just intelligent furniture arrangement.

Further, I sleep on the second floor, all the windows are locked, all the doors have deadbolts, and the house has an audible alarm that also calls the police instantly.

Safety comes in preparation.

Safety is a mirage. Chase it and chase it and chase it and YOU WILL STILL DIE SOMEDAY ANYWAY.

You know what can still get into your bedroom fortress at any time? A heart attack. Or radon gas. Or a fire. Hell, even a brown recluse spider.

And what about outside? Lots more things can kill you there. Cars. Lightning. Slippery stairs. I'm sure handguns would have been very helpful to the people in the Twin Towers.

And do you know what will kill you anyway no matter WHAT you do? What will ravage your body and mind the longer it eats you? Why, it's old age!

Are you starting to get my point? Are you starting to see why I chuckle sadly at people who prioritize safety? You take a few sensible precautions against the most likely risks, don't do foolish things, then stop worrying. We'll never be perfectly safe and, literally, it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever be perfectly safe. So you can go crazy, or you can not worry.

OK so you never take any safety precautions ever? You never wear a seatbelt? You never look both ways before crossing the street? You do not have smoke alarms in your house?

I keep a fire extinguisher around in case of fire, i keep a jack and a lug wrench in my car in case of a flat tire. And I carry a pistol in case of muggers. I fail to see how these three things are any different. All unlikely scenarios, but in case something DOES happen I like to be prepared.

If you like to go through life all willy-nilly "we're all going to die anyway, why care about anything" that's fine, thats your business. When your house burns down because you did not buy a fire extinguisher "because fires almost never happen", then boo hoo for you.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.....nd-killed.html

Interesting study, this one... the upshot is that carrying a gun makes you nearly five times as likely to be shot and killed. And that was only if you were CARRYING a gun; people who had a chance to use their gun were killed even MORE often.

"While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates."

That's because the study was done soley in the stinking shithole of philedelphia where it is nearly impossible to get a pistol permit in the first place, so many of those people were probably carrying illegally.

If you can show me that that is the case, then I will gladly reconsider the results of the study. But they do mention that they covered many factors when they calculated the statistics, and it doesn't seem that legal ownership would be one they would overlook.

<facepalm and sigh> You don't get it. Not only did I already say, "You take a few sensible precautions against the most likely risks, don't do foolish things, then stop worrying.", but you're not grasping my point.

What I'm saying is that you could have smoke detectors, a fire extinguisher and all sorts of other stuff. It's still possible that you could go on vacation and come home to a blackened foundation!

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PREPARE FOR EVERYTHING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU.

Throughout my life, most of the worst luck I've had were things that I literally could not have prevented without being able to see the future. It's so easy, after an accident, to say, "I should have prevented that!" But it's a lie. Last summer I broke my hand after tripping in a parking lot on a one-inch curb that I'd walked over dozens of times. I didn't beat myself up over it because it was impossible to forsee.

In your case, it doesn't matter how many guns you have, how your bedroom's set up or how well you're trained. It's an inevitability that bad things will still happen in your life. And there's a rather small percentage of situations that can be prevented by shooting them.

My point is, I think that people like you are wasting your life preparing for something that you can't know if it'll ever happen, and even then, no matter how many precautions you take, you still cannot guarantee your safety no matter what you do. Your efforts are futile, and are always going to be.

your life is futile. because you will die anyway.

i understand what you say 100%, i just think you are talking out of your ass.

"i understand what you say 100%, i just think you are talking out of your ass."

Sorry, it's not enough to just say that. Where is my logic wrong? You want me to go away? Arguments, examples, evidence: that's the only way.

"you are the dumbest person who has ever lived."

That's what you shouted on my userpage. And it says so much about you. Remember, YOU instigated this conversation. YOU chose to argue with me about an old post I'd left on another user's submission. And now you're getting angry at me? Angry enough to do something as foolish as that shout? Because it can very easily be used as evidence against you to the admins. Your insult didn't hurt me, it hurt YOU.

And that's exactly the type of behavior they talk about in that study Jagget mentioned. People who carry guns are more likely to be shot and killed, and the researchers believe it's because it gives them a false sense of security, which leads to them acting without thinking of consequences. Did you think through the consequences of your action? Did you think about who's gonna see that shout and laugh at you for it?

You started out speaking with confidence, and it looks like you didn't expect the response you got from me. Your posts started shrinking in length (something I have seen many times). And now you're resorting to single-paragraph insults. That's what someone who can't form a counterargument does. That's what someone does when their opponent makes a solid point and they don't want to have to concede it.

I am resorting to one-line ad hominem with you because I do not respect you. I was less rude to Jagget because he presented me with something resembling a cohesive argument. Sure, he googled, but at least he gave me some numbers to dispute.

You have presented me with nothing but repeating a philosophical position about how one should not bother being prepared for unlikely circumstances.

That is your opinion, not a fact. I know, the two can be very confusing sometimes.

The result is me not taking you seriously.

>I am resorting to one-line ad hominem with you because I do not respect you.

When I don't respect someone, I still don't shame myself by leaving playground-level insults on their userpage. Or snide PMs. The fact that you resorted to one-line ad-hominem attacks at all still says plenty about what kind of person you are.

>You have presented me with nothing but repeating a philosophical position about how one should not bother being prepared for unlikely circumstances.

This isn't philosophy. This is based on what I've learned and what I've lived. I've looked at all the times I've worried about something bad happening, all the times I've prepared for something bad happening, and all the times something unexpected has happened anyway. From that, I've extrapolated what's worth preparing for and what isn't. It's not 'prepare for everything' or 'prepare for nothing'. It's about degree of risk.

Now, if you happen to live in an extremely high-crime area, then everything you said about your bedroom setup makes sense, and I'll concede the point to you. But where i live, I literally can't remember the last time I ever heard about *any* violent crime happening around here. So if I took the kind of precautions you do, I'd be wasting my time. That's not to say it's *impossible* for something to happen here. But it's unlikely enough that I'm not going to worry. It's the same reason I don't play the lottery: probability.

Again, if you have good reason to keep a gun by your bed, fine. But don't act like there's something wrong with other people who don't. Remember how you said my "house and your sleeping situation needs to be improved from a defense standpoint." No, they don't.

Where DO you live, by the way?

>That is your opinion, not a fact. I know, the two can be very confusing sometimes.
>The result is me not taking you seriously.

So then, explain to me why you deserve to be taken seriously? You've only presented your own opinion, after all.

alright let me put it this way.

I live in a relatively safe rural area in Connecticut, but there have been sporadic break ins on this street and in one circumstance a family was held hostage. On my god damn street, about ten houses down. Thankfully no one was killed.

30 minutes away, where my uncle lives in Cheshire, CT there was a horrific murder not long ago. You may have heard it on the news. Two criminals broke into a house, robbed the family, RAPED THE WOMEN, TIED THEM DOWN, and burned the house down WITH EVERYONE INSIDE. The father was the only person to survive. These two people are now on death row.

This was in a wealthy neighborhood with zero crime and it was a seemingly random attack. As you say, safety is an illusion.

When I lived in a different state, in a different rural area, my house was broken into by a drug addict and things were stolen. The police did next to nothing. I did my own detective work, got the person arrested and retrieved my property. It was a vigilante effort and I am proud of it.

I often travel through a high crime area at night, where gangs literally roam the street. I have watched a throng of people attack another person and beat the piss out of them in the middle of the street. I had a .357 on me at the time but I continued on my way because I am not a police officer. People are shot in the area frequently. Not by law abiding citizens with pistol carry permits who go to the shooting range on saturdays and follow all the rules, but by gang members drug dealers and other ne'er do wells.

If you do not wish to own a gun, that is fine. That is your choice. But I do not take kindly to people telling me my choice to protect myself is a foolish or erroneous one.

When I talk, it is a given that what I am saying is my opinion. I didn't think that needed clarifying?

HEY, EVERYONE! GUESS WHAT ACCORDION HERO DID?

He sent me a private message entitled "a heartfelt apology"

And inside was a single sentence: "Oh, quit whining."



If you send me more PMs, I will reply to them publicly.

I dunno, I like what David Cross had to say on the issue.

"There are people in this country that vote on only one issue. 'What? He wants to take my gun away? Fuck it, I don't need to hear anything more. Y'all can start whatever wars you want, roll back any civil rights you feel like, just don't touch my gun.' What? Fuck you, you're a fucking retard and you shouldn't vote. You shouldn't vote, and you shouldn't have the right to vote."

All those people who say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "a gun is just a tool," well, I respectfully disagree. Unlike, say, a hammer or a baseball bat, which CAN be used to kill people, a gun was engineered for the sole purpose of killing. As a pacifist (or as close as I feel I can get to pacifism without becoming a self-contradictory blob of inconsistency) I find that abhorrent. Would I like for guns to be banned? Absolutely. Do I think it's going to happen in the U.S.? Not for a long, long time, if at all; we've gone far past the window where we could have undone the 2nd Amendment without vast complaints from both responsible gun owners and retards all across the states. Do I think guns should be controlled more stringently? Absofuckinglutely.

You think issue voters should not have the right to vote? Abortion, gay marriage, etc?

You're admit you're a pacifist who would like for guns to be banned. Wonderful. What do you expect me to say? You're an idealist who lives on a different planet, where puppies and rainbows and health care come from a magical spring and everybody holds hands and we all get along.

I live in the real world, an unfair and dangerous place full of war and death. You keep your naive dreams, I'll keep my guns. Thanks.

"You think issue voters should not have the right to vote? Abortion, gay marriage, etc?"

Well, actually, David Cross said that part. I agree with "you shouldn't vote," I don't agree with "you shouldn't have the right to vote." Essentially, I tend to think that people who are issue voters are missing the point of representative democracy, but that's neither here nor there.

"You're an idealist who lives on a different planet, where puppies and rainbows and health care come from a magical spring and everybody holds hands and we all get along."

Oh not at all. I just said that the lack of need for guns would be an eventual goal. Interesting that you brought health care into it, I'm going to just toss out there from the gun-love and the hating on health care that you're hardcore right-wing?

Thanks for the caricature, though, I will treasure it always.

"I live in the real world, an unfair and dangerous place full of war and death. You keep your naive dreams, I'll keep my guns. Thanks."

Here's the thing though. In your paradigm, where everyone says "the world sucks, oh well," nobody tries to change the status quo. There's nothing to work for, because no progress can be made. Meanwhile, my paradigm both acknowledges things as they are, and seeks to make things better. If you want nothing to do with cutting down on gun deaths and are more interested in having more weapons than the people who're going to "attack you," well then I wish you well. But you're never going to get anywhere that way.

Yes but our definition of progress is very different.

You would consider banning guns progress. I would consider it the exact opposite.

I only wish for a steady job with good pay and benefits, which is what I am working hard for. I have no aspirations to fix the world.

I also wish for meddling people and politicians to stop telling private citizens how to live their lives. Left wing, right wing, doesnt matter.

If you do not like guns and do not wish to own one, that is fine. that is your business. Don't buy one. Great. Happy for you.

But working for, or supporting, those who wish to take private items away from private citizens, have no idea what they are doing. Their "good intentions" are an attack on personal freedom.


You want a quote? here's a quote. " They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"You would consider banning guns progress. I would consider it the exact opposite."

If you read my actual comments, you'll see that I said only that I would like to see guns banned, but only once they became unnecessary. If you don't consider a society stable enough that people no longer feel like they need guns as a positive, then I really don't know what else I can say to you.

"But working for, or supporting, those who wish to take private items away from private citizens, have no idea what they are doing."

Well, tell me then, are you in favor of allowing private citizens to own, weapons-grade explosives? Hell, lets get silly and say nuclear armaments. If you're not, then why not, because your logic can be used to argue for private possession of just about anything.

...so the answer is to have private possession of nothing? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I said nothing about nuclear weapons. a collection of shotguns, rifles and pistols is not a multibillion dollar intercontinental ballistic missile.

I...I...ok


I'll try to be polite, because Alex is getting so very upset.

You said: "I would like to see guns banned, but only once they became unnecessary."

I can't wrap my head around this. This is why I called you naive and extrapolated (comically) from there.

In what world are weapons not necessary? maybe in a world where everybody is reasonable and polite, there is no crime, there is not poverty and suffering (which often begets crime) and nobody flies airplanes into buildings, or straps bombs to children and puts them on a bus.

In this world, if a man came up to me with a knife, we could sit down and have a cup of coffee, I'd tell him how he could fix his life, I'd hook him up with a job interview and we'd shake hands and be on our merry way. You know, that sounds great doesn't it.

But this world doesn't exist, and I fail to see how it ever will. Some people are not reasonable. Some people are strung out on drugs, some people are on the run from the law. Some people believe Their God gives them the right to kill whoever they want. Some people have had a rough life and just do not care if they live or die, and if they have to cut a few throats to get $50 for some drugs, then they'll do it.

I am actually not a violent person by nature. I do not go looking for trouble. I am not out to shoot somebody for the hell of it. I am not a hunter, I do not enjoy killing things for fun. I am a collector and a target shooter. I am interested in protecting myself from the small segment of the population that is unreasonable and potentially violent. I do not advocate everyone carry a gun, a gun is not the hammer to every nail. If you choose not to own a gun, fine.

All I ask is that people stop advocating enabling, or otherwise supporting those in power meddling in the lives of private citizens. If two gay people want to get married, great. Let them do it. You have no right to tell them not to. If a woman needs an abortion, fine. It is her body. If a man wants to smoke pot in his basement and eat brownies and giggle, fine. Let Him do it. No one has the right to tell him not to.

And If I like to collect guns and I enjoy shooting cans off the fence in the woods, if I am minding my own business and not threatening anyone, and If i keep a gun under my pillow or under my car seat for the one in a million chance that some cracked-out criminal tries to take my life, no one, and I mean NO ONE, not the government, not my neighbors, not some clown on the internet, has the right to tell me I cannot.

That is my position. I can dig up facts and numbers if I really want to, but I'm not going to convince you or anybody else, so I'm not inclined to waste my time.

See, if your gun is already loaded, in a holster by your side, where it belongs, and you practice often enough to be able to hit what you shoot at, and you are already of the self-defense mindset, none of this is relevant.

The chance of an encounter where you need to use a gun is low. But because I am armed, trained and practiced, the chance of my survival is much greater than that of my attacker. And that's all I ask for.

And there's also people who take extensive precautions against heart disease.

Then you get heart disease, and they get shot by a mugger.

The worst things in your life are always the things you didn't expect and didn't prepare for.

all i hear you saying is "dont be prepared for anything ever because being prepared is pointless"

and i find that really, really REALLY


not very intelligent.

>all i hear you saying is

I suppose it doesn't matter then that that's not what I'm actually saying? Gosh, it sure is easy to feel more right than your opponent when you choose not to understand his position.

It has nothing to do with right and wrong. These are opinions, there is no right and wrong.

You also said above:

---

Well, I didn't mean psychokinesis. I meant that if someone broke in, I'd think of a way to call 911 silently or look around for potential weapons. A gun's not the only way to stop someone. I imagine a pair of scissors applied to the neck area swiftly enough would work quite well. Or I might even be able to talk my way out of it.

---

I think THAT is foolish and dangerous, dismissive thinking. You talk about odds here... your odds of "winning" by jabbing at an intruder with a pair of scissors? Or trying to appeal to his kinder nature? Please. If you're lucky he'll run, if you have to fight him you're in pretty deep. If HE has a gun, you are probably dead.

Again, not saying everyone must own a gun. BUT I ask, why would you desperately search around in the dark for an improvised weapon when you can have a purpose-built weapon within easy reach? Yes, guns are designed to kill people. That's kind of the point. They are efficient at what they do. More efficient than say, a letter opener.

you also said:

---

I'm just saying from what I've seen, they can be as much of a liability as an asset, and that quite often they're a placebo. They exist to make people *feel* safer. I just don't see evidence that owning one really does make you safer.

---

jesus, have you ever fired a gun? Seriously.

I'm just going to reply to both your posts at once because it's easier.

>I live in a relatively safe rural area in Connecticut, but there have been sporadic break ins on this street and in one circumstance a family was held hostage. On my god damn street, about ten houses down.

In your circumstances, yes, I can see protection being a sensible precaution. As I already mentioned in the second post I made on this page: "there's some places where I'd say owning a gun more than makes sense (I live close to Detroit and I watch the news regularly)."

>If you do not wish to own a gun, that is fine. That is your choice.

I'm glad to hear you say that. But that wasn't what you started out saying. You were saying I needed to change. Admittedly, I'm guilty of that too.

Want some honesty though? Many of the pro-gun people I have talked to aren't honest about their motives, and that irritates the shit out of me. They go on and on about the noble 2nd Amendment and personal freedom and self-protection. And when I talk to them a while, I realize that they only care about these issues as they relate to guns. What it all boils down to is, "I own guns because I want to." And that's fine! So why can't these people just SAY that!? Myself, I collect Transformers. I don't try to justify that in any way; I just like them. (And i post photos of my favorites here on FA, just like you do.) But _rarely_ on the internet do I encounter a gun collector who doesn't feel the need to hide behind grand justifications for what they do. People who are secure in their reasons for doing something don't feel a need to always defend it to others (unless they're challenged on it, of course). I see this so often, it makes me rather cynical.

And while i understand and respect your reasons for owning your guns, here's a question: Why did you feel so strongly about this that you replied to me here? I'm not saying I never add onto a days-old conversation on someone else's page, but I usually don't even feel a need to. If I disagree, I just go 'eh' and do something else.

>When I talk, it is a given that what I am saying is my opinion. I didn't think that needed clarifying?

You said that since I was only giving my opinion (and not linking to stuff like Jagget), you weren't taking me seriously. I was just applying that same logic to you.

>I think THAT is foolish and dangerous, dismissive thinking. You talk about odds here... your odds of "winning" by jabbing at an intruder with a pair of scissors? Or trying to appeal to his kinder nature? Please. If you're lucky he'll run, if you have to fight him you're in pretty deep. If HE has a gun, you are probably dead.

That all might be true, I do think about it sometimes, obviously, just as I think about what I'd do if I had a heart attack, etc. But since it hasn't happened yet, and potentially never will, i choose not to care beyond that.

>BUT I ask, why would you desperately search around in the dark for an improvised weapon when you can have a purpose-built weapon within easy reach?

Because guns are expensive, and I don't have a lot of disposable income. I try to only buy things i know I'm going to get use out of. How much is it going to cost to get a gun, ammo, a license, proper training... and how much TIME is this all going to take? Plus, I don't think I could walk into a gun shop without feeling really, really uncomfortable.

And if I *did* have the money, I'd still prefer to go with some kind of home security system rather than a gun.

>jesus, have you ever fired a gun? Seriously.

Don't feel any need to. None at all. Like I said, I watch the news. I hear about plenty of accidental shootings, and I know I can sometimes be clumsy. I worry enough about just taking a heavy casserole dish out of the oven. I'm gonna trust myself with a goddamn gun!? Even people who've trained extensively with guns still have accidents. Guns are machines and machines can malfunction. People are fallible and can make mistakes. I remember a clip I saw of an arrest where a cop accidentally fired at a suspect on the ground at point blank range and it was sheer luck the bullet missed. I'm sure that cop had lots of training and it was all a genuine accident. But it still happened. It looks to me like the risks of owning a gun vs. the potential protection they offer cancel each other out.

Ahhhh, alright. I apologize for being a dickbag.

I am used to arguing with people who think all guns are bad and should be banned "for the safety of the children" or some other such illusion. I tire of them quickly and thus become rude.

I replied because I saw your comment about your home security situation. What i meant is not that you need to own a gun, but that having a phone in your room, choosing what room to sleep in, and even how the furniture is arranged, can improve your situational awareness and your ability to respond in case of emergency (not just a burglar, but even a fire too). Whether or not you change anything is up to you. But even small simple changes (like a flashlight and cell phone by the bed) would be at least something I would recommend.


You said : "Because guns are expensive"

This I have to disagree with. Some guns are expensive. But I have many, many guns I've gotten for free or purchased for less than $100. You can absolutely get an older, used pump-action shotgun for $100, I got one for $50 a month ago. It's the one I am carrying in the Real Me Meme picture.

If you don't want one that's fine, but you have probably spent more than that this month on Transformers.


You said: "I watch the news. I hear about plenty of accidental shootings"

Consider that it is The News, and that disaster and fear-mongering sells. Surely you will see many clips of car accidents and plane crashes too. How many new stories will you see that say "Mr. Brown drove to work today and did NOT get in a fatal accident." Or "In Chicago, a child was NOT abducted and horribly murdered today." News generally only shows the bad side of things. So many people began to think that this is the way things are, the rule rather than the exception. The truth is, millions of people around the country legally use guns every day without incident. You just don't hear about it because a non-event is not a good news story.

Many times when citizens draw a gun in self defense, the attacker will simply run away. The citizen will often not report the event to police for fear of being prosecuted by overzealous authorities. So the majority of self defense incidents are unrecorded by any statistics. It is easy to count how many people have been shot. But how many have NOT been shot because the attacker ran away? Far greater a number. Hopefully this gives you a better picture.

Admittedly, I own guns because I like guns. I grew up with them. I use them often. I enjoy them, I am safe with them. I customize and modify them, I collect antique ones and repair them. I show them to my friends. I am proud of my collection. My oldest gun is a Smith and Wesson revolver from 1887, and I have many from the turn of the century and 1920's. When it comes down to it, I will defend my right to own them however I see fit from people who preach against them for reasons I find preposterous, such as the intangible notion of "the public good" or the removal of personal freedoms for a promised "safety" that never materializes. I simply believe gun ownership is a personal choice that should not be dictated by populist politicians who live in gated communities and have no idea what its like to go through the ghetto at night.

You said: "I know I can sometimes be clumsy. I worry enough about just taking a heavy casserole dish out of the oven. I'm gonna trust myself with a goddamn gun!? Even people who've trained extensively with guns still have accidents. Guns are machines and machines can malfunction. People are fallible and can make mistakes."


This is absolutely true. There ARE people I would not trust with guns because they are forgetful or clumsy. Guns are mechanical items that can jam or fail and cause a hazardous situation if a person is not knowledgeable. It is important to know yourself and your limits.

However, even though guns are by definition inherently dangerous, people can still use them safely if they follow all of the safety rules. A person must always be aware of his surroundings, and the gun must be kept in good mechanical condition. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. Use the correct ammunition. Know your target and what is behind it. Never point the barrel at anything you are not willing to destroy. Keep it pointed in a safe direction. Keep your finger away from the trigger until you are absolutely ready to shoot. When in doubt, carefully put the gun down and defer to a person more knowledgeable.

If you follow all of these rules, the vast majority of accidents can be avoided. The police officer you refer to violated one of these key rules because his finger was obviously on the trigger when he was not ready to shoot. He probably tensed up in the heat of the moment, and pulled it. That is, the gun did not malfunction. It is a simple machine. The trigger was pressed and it did what it was asked to do. The fault lies entirely with improper handling of the weapon by the user. This was not "accidental", but negligence. I believe a lot of unintended police shootings occur because most cops are not gun nuts and do not obsess about the details of weapons, but they see them every day and become complacent and forget the safety rules.

I have been shooting since I was six years old. I have never had an accident, because I treat my weapons with respect.

Thought it is your choice, I recommend that someday you go with a friend to a shooting range and at least rent a small caliber target pistol, if for no other reason than to build self-confidence and maybe understand guns a little bit better. With a bit of basic safety training and a little bit of time behind the trigger, in a controlled environment shooting targets, I often find the fear goes away rather quickly and people enjoy themselves. I have converted several of my friends, not necessarily into gun-lovers, but at least gun-respecters. I find that one of the most rewarding aspects of the sport.

Isn't respect and understanding better than blind fear that comes from a lack of exposure? I think so.

>Ahhhh, alright. I apologize for being a dickbag.

Two of the most commendable words on the internet are "I apologize".

I accept.

>I am used to arguing with people who think all guns are bad and should be banned "for the safety of the children" or some other such illusion. I tire of them quickly and thus become rude.

Even if there were magically no more need of them, I wouldn't want to ban guns entirely. I can understand collecting them for their historical significance or admiration for design.

That said, I support *some* gun control. Depends on each individual law though; whether it makes sense and whether evidence proves it effective or not. I'm sure you know that the US has far more gun deaths than many other nations. It's clear that the number of guns alone is not the problem, as Britain has way fewer and I heard that one of the Scandinavian countries has near-100% gun ownership per household. So if there is something wrong with Americans' brains, that's where we should look for a solution. But you can treat both the cause and the symptoms. The waiting period makes sense to me and, if this isn't the case already, people definitely should have to pass a test before being allowed to own a gun, like with a driver's license.

And frankly, the idea of kids shooting guns creeps me the fuck out. I don't agree on rigid age laws for most things, since I know that everyone matures differently. There's not some magic age where you're ready to vote, drive or fuck. But seeing kids still in single digits being taken on hunting trips? That chills my blood. Fuck what tradition of parents say: a kid that young is too young to fully comprehend death, much less participate in it.

>I replied because I saw your comment about your home security situation. What i meant is not that you need to own a gun, but that having a phone in your room, choosing what room to sleep in, and even how the furniture is arranged, can improve your situational awareness and your ability to respond in case of emergency (not just a burglar, but even a fire too). Whether or not you change anything is up to you. But even small simple changes (like a flashlight and cell phone by the bed) would be at least something I would recommend.

I already got my cell phone there, and I can reach it without leaving the bed, and i see in dim light pretty damn good.

>You can absolutely get an older, used pump-action shotgun for $100, I got one for $50 a month ago. It's the one I am carrying in the Real Me Meme picture.
>If you don't want one that's fine, but you have probably spent more than that this month on Transformers.

<narrows eyes> Touché.

Maybe not this month specifically, but you have a point. Though the single most expensive one in my collection is $100 (Universe Aveo Swerve). And like I said, it's not just the gun, but the bullets, the license, the training, etc. Money and time.

The simple fact is, I just don't want one. They make me uncomfortable. It's because they're more than objects, they're symbols. What they symbolize to me; what they're used for and the type of person I associate with them, makes me feel revulsion. When I think of guns, it's not the responsible collector I picture. It's someone pointing one at another living being and pulling the trigger. I don't know why guns specifically have this effect on me when other things don't. I don't feel anything negative about swords, for instance.

Ultimately, it's just a matter of taste. I don't like black coffee and I probably never will. Same thing there.

>The truth is, millions of people around the country legally use guns every day without incident. You just don't hear about it because a non-event is not a good news story.

Actually, the news often has stories about someone using a gun in self defense. I saw one in the paper just an hour ago. And believe me; I know all about how the news can manufacture emotion through how often they run a certain story. But to me, even one '14-year-old shoots brother in face' story amongst hundreds of 'man defends his home from four burglars' stories is too much for me to be comfortable with. (Both of those examples happened recently, BTW.)

If every gun owner was responsible and careful, I likely wouldn't have the attitude I do. But seeing so many reports of irresponsible and careless people hurting themselves or others... My gut reaction is the same as a parent seeing a toddler reach for a knife: keep dangerous objects the hell away from those who can't be trusted with them.

>I simply believe gun ownership is a personal choice that should not be dictated by populist politicians who live in gated communities and have no idea what its like to go through the ghetto at night.

I will definitely agree that the solution to gun violence is not to just keep on throwing more laws at the problem. In fact, I wish our society would occasionally get rid of laws that are proven ineffective. No; we just keep on piling on more. How about we get rid of six gun laws that don't do shit and pass one new one that's backed up with research? (This goes for pretty much any kind of law. IMO.)

>Thought it is your choice, I recommend that someday you go with a friend to a shooting range and at least rent a small caliber target pistol, if for no other reason than to build self-confidence and maybe understand guns a little bit better.

Ain't gonna happen. If nothing else, I have the worst aim of anyone I know. Literally. I dislike public humiliation, so I think I'll stay away from shooting ranges, driving ranges, batting cages, carnival games, etc.

>Isn't respect and understanding better than blind fear that comes from a lack of exposure? I think so.

Let me put it this way: I only fear guns when someone's holding them. ;)

I will definitely agree that the solution to gun violence is not to just keep on throwing more laws at the problem. In fact, I wish our society would occasionally get rid of laws that are proven ineffective. No; we just keep on piling on more. How about we get rid of six gun laws that don't do shit and pass one new one that's backed up with research? (This goes for pretty much any kind of law. IMO.)

Suddenly, I like you a whole lot more.

BOY do I wish more people thought this way. It's hard to be a law-abiding citizen when the laws are such a confusing, entangled mess, many of which are arbitrary, based on aesthetics alone or completely ineffective and serve little purpose except to irritate collectors. There are over 22,000 gun laws on the books, on federal, state and local levels. That is ridiculous. But as they're dragging you away in cuffs they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse, right?

The Clinton era "assault" weapons ban, which thankfully expired, focused largely on the scary appearance of military-type weapons and very very little on their function. The law demonized such things are barrel shrouds (which prevent you from burning your fingers on a hot barrel), "conspicuous" pistol grips (what?), flash hiders (dangerous how?) etc. Things that do not make a weapon any more deadly, but make it look terribly scary to the uniformed. It had nothing to do with machineguns or true military type weapons as most people were led to believe, most police departments agree it was utterly ineffective, and it turned a lot of honest collectors into criminals overnight or forced them to surrender their weapons.

The term "assault weapon" is not a military term at all, and had no legal definition until the 1994 Clinton ban was penned.

That's the sort of thing we could do with less of: people in charge regulating things they have absolutely no understanding of.

>It's hard to be a law-abiding citizen when the laws are such a confusing, entangled mess, many of which are arbitrary, based on aesthetics alone or completely ineffective and serve little purpose except to irritate collectors. There are over 22,000 gun laws on the books, on federal, state and local levels. That is ridiculous. But as they're dragging you away in cuffs they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse, right?

Two things I would like to see our government put some effort into reducing: 1) the reluctance to remove ineffective laws from the books, and 2) the idea that one-size-fits-all solutions are desirable, much less possible. Having rigid laws, even if they do reduce crime, still inevitably lead to people being punished under those laws that don't deserve to be. I've never heard of a 'zero tolerance' law/policy that didn't hurt people. There needs to be room for each case to be decided individually. What do we have police for, if not to investigate crimes? What do we have judges and juries for, if not to decide cases?

"But because I am armed, trained and practiced, the chance of my survival is much greater than that of my attacker."

Actually, when you get the chance, read that study I linked above. Because you have a gun and are ready to use it, you may take your attacker out, true, but you are actually far, far more likely to be shot and killed than I am, when I carry no weapon.

i am tired of arguing against the same flawed studies the people just bring up on google and totoally do not understand the context.

I don't live in phildelphia, where getting shot is as easy as walking out the door. That study has no application anywhere else, let alone the rural area where I live.

A similar study with similar results was cited commonly in anti gun arguments by the Brady Campaign and others, a few years ago. The study was SO innately flawed that the people who performed it were blacklisted from ever being used for government funded studies again. I'd dig it up but its a waste of my time.

Anyone who doesn't see the point in gun ownership needs to go to a range and blow through a box of ammo. Maybe they'll get it.

Guns are useful, quite pretty to look at, and are great stress relief.

Banning guns will do nothing to the violent crimes. Criminals don't go to a sporting goods store, go through the paperwork nightmare, and bind their name to the serial number of a gun just to use it in a crime. They go to their black market guy and get a clean piece with the serial filed off.

I'm not anti-gun myself.
I'm anti-"bazooka for personal use" and such
A decent AK is more than plenty for an armed uprising
And heck, the only thing you should be allowed to carry out in public, unless your job demands it, is a concealed handgun.
If you're going to have an armed uprising, you won't care about the laws, as you're going to be straight out charged with treason if you fail

Is any major faction even trying to outright "ban" guns these days? Seems like a straw man anymore.

You don't have to be a major fraction to be wrong.

True true.
I was more referring to the bizarre wave of 'Guvment gon take mah guns!' we experienced in the states last spring when not one major group was proposing a gun ban and in fact at least one gun restriction was lifted.

The rush was because the people that have historically passed laws limiting or banning firearms were in charge in every part of the government.

These were the people that passed the 1994 'Assault Weapon Ban' that limited magazines to ten rounds, banned importing certain guns, and among many other things, banned features that were strictly cosmetic, but common enough to ban a large number of otherwise legal guns.

And it did absolutely nothing to curb crime. Most of the weapons that were affected were used in only about 2% before the ban changed the laws, and the new laws barely dropped that already small percentage.

Now, the rush was unwarranted. But it was also a caution against, as well as a reminder that, like the '94 ban, passing that type of legislation was effectively political suicide.

Ben Elton once proposed a license application form for owning a machine gun, which consisted of just one question: "Do you wish to own a machine gun?" If the answer was `yes´, then you would be denied.

That´s probably a good policy.

I'm not against gun-control... I control my guns rather well, I think.

D.O.P.R

I support The Second Amendment.
http://i658.photobucket.com/albums/.....1827244485.jpg

Such lovely arguments going on here....and I red every single post. The debates above all have their valid points and non valid points.

But anyways, I'm loving the comic. I will admit to leaning more to the republican side, but I truly don't pay too much attention to politics (which will prolly bite me in the ass)

The banning of guns is probably going to be a long and drawn out process and will prolly never go through to be honest. If you ban them, it's more likely people will own them. Hell, they already tried that with alcohol and you see how well that turned out. I think if the gun ban ever fully goes through, Texas will secede from the US yet again, lol.

*read

I'm all for banning guns.

I mean, honestly, what do Civilians need with Cannons, Howitzers, and Naval Weapons?

...

OH, they mean FIREARMS, that's different then.

So you sublimate your childish and paranoid fantasies of rebellion with daily range practice! And why shouldn't you? It's not like you'd stand a chance against the modern warrior. They just have a drone carpet bomb your house while you and your overweight militia inanely shoot up into the sky. I'm all for civil disobedience, but these days waging a war against a world power is a terrible idea. I'm sorry you live in state of fear and feel the need to justify your gun ownership in this way. Statistically you're more likely to shoot a member of your household before you shoot an intruder. I think gun laws are a good idea. Who wants a gun given to someone who is going to shoot up a school with it? Which is more likely, a deranged student goes nuts or a government asserts a tyrannical new code of laws? Which has happened more in the past 10 years? Gun laws in the US are fine, in theory. In practice they aren't enforced that much at all. The VTech shooter is just one who slipped through the cracks.

We get it though. You like guns. You don't like religion. You use strawmen exclusively in your rhetoric. I think you'd find a public forum in real life much more suspect of your ideas and views if you chose to vocalize them instead of hiding them in between the pages of your porn. You may even change your mind on a few things. Who knows. I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, I just think before forming any you should construct them out of logical reasoning, not fear, not societal concerns, not what's cool, and not what you hear from untrustworthy sources. Or else you pollute the world with your mental garbage, and ejaculate idiocy into people's minds.But this is the internet. There are more nonsensical opinions out there than yours (but damn it, you're pushing it) Usually this doesn't bother me this much but when I have to hear your opinions when I'm trying to masturbate, it really gets stuck in my craw.

>Which is more likely, a deranged student goes nuts or a government asserts a tyrannical new code of laws?

The truth about this might actually shock you...

People are supposed to control their government, not the other way around. I don't live in the US, but I understand the system of civil liberties and freedoms. If we give ground, the government will take one freedom after another. First, ban guns, then when the crime goes rampant in the streets (because the only people who will give up their guns are the people who've never shot anyone with them, criminals wont care), they'll declare marshall law and suspend the right to a fair trial, etc, etc. After that, they'll say it's no longer safe to vote, because the nation is in a time of crisis, so democracy will be suspended indefinitely.

This is the 'nuke-in-the-White-House' type of worst case scenario, but it HAS happened. Hitler didn't come to power by ripping the reigns of Germany from the old government, he did it in a way very similar to what I described (minus the gun ban)

I feel that people should be allowed to choose. If you want a gun, you should be able to go to a shop, fill in a form, wait 3 days while your answers are evaluated, and then carry home your pistol/shotgun/rifle/in-odd-cases grenade launcher. If you're gay and want to get married, you should be able to get a marriage license like anyone else. If you're a woman and you want to have an abortion, that's your body, and your right to do what you choose. If you want to get stoned in your basement watching old Bugs Bunny cartoons, it's your body, you're not harming anyone, why shouldn't you be able to do it? If you want to drive a car with a massively overpowered engine and nitrous, knowing the consequences, you should be able to. If you want health insurance, you can pay for it, if not, you can pay for whatever health care you need out of your pocket. If I want to go to a highschool and buy a can of Coca Cola out of a machine, I should have the option to, instead of that healthy shit-flavored juice they replaced it with.

What I'm saying is, the government is a dangerous foe if it's led to believe it has dominion over the people, people should have the right to choose what they want and do not want in their lives, and the laws that ban people in a free country from being free are tyrranical. I'm pro-choice. If you want to destroy yourself, go right ahead, but if you try to harm someone else, well then you have the right to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

I forgot to mention, that as far as school shootings go, they're not particularly popular. It happens once in a while, but guns are NOT to blame. A devoted kid with psychological issues can just as easily make a bomb out of a section of pipe, some diesel fuel and lawn fertilizer.

The problem lies with how kids are treated in schools, by their parents, teachers, friends, and bullies.

I have to reiterate that silly statement "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". This is entirely true, without access to guns, perhaps the VTech kids would've simply bombed or knifed their way through the crowd. Don't blame the firearm for the person's actions. The gun is a tool to be used in any manner appropriate, whether that means hunting for food, killing pests (like pigeons or gophers), self-defense, or target shooting. Sitting on a table, alone, a gun is not dangerous. Perhaps if it is left cocked and loaded, after many years the mechanism may slip or break from corrosion, and the weapon would fire, but overall, it is safe. In the hands of an untrained imbecile with the mental capacity of a monkey, the weapon becomes extremely dangerous, which is why, while I don't believe in controlling guns, I do believe we should control the people who get them.

AND, in addition to that, we have to pay more attention to the kids in society. If they're having problems, and don't know how to deal with it, it could be extrememly dangerous.

That all being said, I do enjoy your drawings.
Thanks for sharing them with us.

heh, i had to favorite this, i just love it.

Doesnt seem to matter where you move to these days, crime is rising. I dont feel safe without my old colt peacemaker under my pillow. Plus letting all my trashy ass meth using "family" know i stay armed, i figure is what has kept me from being robbed so far.