mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2013/03/11/gun-nuts-vs-antigun-nuts-n1527961/page/2

How do you reconcile this, Liberals?

BoJester

Too many guns available to too many i***ts

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

So your argument is that because a few people are i***ts when it comes to the proper use of guns, all people are i***ts in the proper use of guns? Too many, in your book, could be defined as one.

Since a few i***ts actions', in your view, constitute the totality of all people, we should:
no longer allow the possession or sale of automobiles? People are k**led by cars daily.
no longer allow the possession or sale of golf clubs? People have been beaten to death or injured by the improper use of golf clubs.
no longer allow the possession or sale of knives? People are k**led or injured almost daily by people using knives.
no longer allow the possession or sale of spiked high heels? People have been k**led or injured through inappropriate use of various foot apparel.
no longer all the possession, sale or ingestion of Big Macs? People die almost daily from complications of being overweight, obese and morbidly obese.
no longer allow the use of x-rays as a diagnostic tool in medicine? You know, radiation is a bad thing.

I could go on, but I have already crossed the line into silly, just as your argument is.

Next time try to use logic and not use vagaries in your arguments, you would sound more intelligent.

Since you do not believe people should have the right to defend themselves against being a victim AND you believe the police are there to protect you against criminals, I would guide you to this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Also, read, in the article, what happened during the Watts race r**ts, the police backed out and waited for the National Guard to come to the rescue.

Just because you make guns illegal does not mean that criminals will not be able to get guns.. It just means when they do have them, they know their victim pool just got that much larger.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Logic-Bo, does not C O M P U T E...

BoJester

You go a long way to proving the point of the original topic and response. NUTS with GUNS. At no point did I suggest more gun control, but gun nuts are so sensitive, they automatically react with stupid posts like yours. So let's go on: how many people commit suicide because of fat limburgs lies? get hit with debris? choke on steak? You are proof that small brains have totally evolved.
So read this and you may learn something:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/12/boston-university-study-finds-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide/

BoJester

Regarding the last paragraph. That is atrue statement. What is also true is that if conservtards outlaw a******n, a******n will still occur, with higher risks to the mother.
Do conservatards want more death?

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.21 million a******ns performed in the United States in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available. This amounts to 3,322 a******ns per day.

Source: Jones, Rachel K. and Kathryn Kooistra. "A******n Incidence and Access to Services in the United States, 2008." Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 43, no. 1 (2011, March): 41-50 [PDF]
- See more at: http://prolifeaction.org/faq/a******n.php#sthash.KB8dR9rO.dpuf
http://prolifeaction.org/faq/a******n.php

According the the CDC, for 2008
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,672
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3

When you want to compare apples to carrot sticks, be careful!
That figure from the CDC regarding firearm deaths includes suicides, i.e. self-inflicted, accidental, as well as homicide.

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

Nice try, but how do you, or they for that matter, explain the prevalence of gun related deaths in areas like Chicago and Washington, D.C. where gun ownership is damn near totally illegal and yet they both have the highest number of gun-related homicides per year per capita?

By the way, you are correct, you did not mention anything about more gun control, but your original response to the OP was:

Which tells me you are unable to comprehend the message of the article posted, and which led me to believe you side with the Anti-gun nuts.

While I will admit that I do own guns, and am quite adept at using them, you made an assumption yourself that I am a gun nut. I do not believe in unrestricted profligation of guns. In fact, at one time I was a believer that anyone should be able to own any gun they want and be held completely responsible for their actions while using that weapon. Then I went to several NRA training courses. This was after having a carry permit for over two decades and actually carrying concealed for more than 5 years. During that training I learned a lot about myself and about people in general. About the psychology involved in carrying a gun with the potential for the need to use one.

After that time, I came to the realization that potential gun owners, before owning a gun and definitely before carrying one, concealed or open, should be required to take a comprehensive, sanctioned gun safety and shooting course. I did not realize how much I did not know about shooting a gun and how much I did not know about the psychology of being a responsible gun owner/user. I have been shooting since I was 15 and I was shooting competitively from the start. My stepfather was a great teacher, but there was so much that he missed, I was surprised.


The whole debate over guns is not about controlling gun related deaths and injuries, it is about controlling people. Without guns, the people are not only powerless against the criminals, but they are also powerless against the government. Without power against the government, this country will eventually devolve into a tyranny.

TroubleshooterTim Loc: People's Republic of Oregon

This article is a classic example of a common logical fallacy. He is making a conclusion based on incorrect data.
“This research is the strongest to date to document that states with higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” he said. While three sentences earlier he states

"In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the study used a proxy variable — the percentage of a state’s suicides committed with a firearm — that has been validated in previous research."

How can say there is a "convincing statistical link" using a proxy variable? Validation of this proxy variable by previous research (no citation given). The study is using suicide data to make a conclusion about homicide.

I wasn't willing to pay $35 to read the article.

BoJester

My point was that there are TOO MANY GUNS in the hands of the wrong people.
So since you agree that I did not advocate more gun restrictions, let's look at a few facts. The shootings in Chicago and DC and other crime ridden cities is mostly between rival gangs. Both groups are armed, so having a gun does not necessarily protect one from crime, if the victim is a criminal.
Having a gun does not prevent one from being k**led by oneself, as in suicide.
Having a gun does not necessarily protect one from domestic violence or spousal abuse.
Stop trying to make more of my response than what I said.
Too many guns, too many i***ts, a simple observation

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Not enough to the non-i***ts.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Too many i***ts with guns. Not too many guns.

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

Please define the phrases, in your words, "too many guns" and "wrong people".
I showed you my hands, in the terms of fair play, you should show yours.

So my point is proven, make guns illegal and only criminals will have guns. So, you have criminals in possession of guns k*****g other criminals, as well as innocent bystanders, which is a significant number, and that justifies taking the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens?

If someone is going to commit suicide, they are going to do so whether they have a gun or not. Many use a gun because it is quick and efficient. And comparing suicide by gun to death by gun is just as silly. There is a one to one ratio for suicide by gun over suicide by other means. Does this mean that half of all suicides will suddenly go away when we take away all guns? Again, refer yourself to the CDC statistics.

All suicides (2010) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
Number of deaths: 38,364
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4
Cause of death rank: 10
Firearm suicides
Number of deaths: 19,392
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.3

Assault or Homicide(2010) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Mortality
All homicides
Number of deaths: 16,259
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.3
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,078
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

The second pair of statistics should be considered significant as well. If you take away the guns can you guarantee those 11,078 deaths in 2012 would not have happened by other means?

And no one is saying that it will. But taking away the right to own a gun and not allowing a person to carry will almost guarantee they will probably have no other means to defend themselves as well. When a person is afraid to bully another, you get no bullying. When a person does not know if the person they are confronting them can defend themselves, they are more likely not to escalate a confrontation. When you know your intended victim, in this case, your victim is not allowed to carry a gun, you can, with confidence, assume that your intended victim is a law-abiding one and will not have any ability to defend themselves because they are not carrying a gun.

Why not, you are doing it to my responses. Turnabout is fair is it not? And fair is the watchword for Liberals.

I guess being "fair" is not fair in the eyes of a Liberal to whom it is being used against, or at least not in your eyes.

Just to push this a little further, how many innocent bystanders have been k**led by law enforcement officers over the years? Did it occur because the cop using the gun was mishandling it and therefore an i***t as well? Should we also disarm every law enforcement officer in the country because a few seem to not be able to grasp the three basic rules of the usage of guns?
1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

Add to that the below rules
1) Know your target and what is beyond.
I have also seen this listed as the fourth basic rule
2) Know how to use the gun safely.
3) Be sure the gun is safe to operate.
4) Use only the correct ammunition for your gun.
5) Wear eye and ear protection as appropriate.
6) Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.
7) Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
8) Be aware that certain types of guns and many shooting activities require additional safety precautions.
9) Cleaning

By the way, it cannot be a simple observation. You fail to take everything into account. You only take into consideration a tiny se******n of the whole. You believe guns k**l people. Which is inherently untrue. Just like any tool, a gun can be used by one person to harm or k**l another. The gun on its own cannot do so.

BoJester

Once again, here is another tragic example of i***ts who have access to guns. And the victim was armed, and experienced.
And the idea that an armed citizenry could prevent tyranny is laughable. Have you forgotten Waco? or Ruby Ridge?
The real fear you should have is not the federal government, because they will win any contest of weapons, but the real fear should be with the local police agencies, with rogue, corrupt and crooked cops and sheriffs.

Schuler Loc: Santa Fe NM

all of you--every single one of you responding to any post about gun violence in America ---READ
More Guns-Less Crime-Second Edition by prof. John Lott

now you be ready to discuss the issue!!!

hope this helps!