Atheist kills muslims and Gun Control a bad thing?

Post Reply New Topic

I have search and searched, and have yet to find not conclusive evidence to link gun control OR gun rights to crime, or violence with a simple linear relationship. Quite simply there no general correlation across the developed world.

Both side use skewed statistical and largely data and largely debunked reports to support their agenda, but if you look at the data as a whole there is simply no conclusion you could make. Quite frankly the idea of comparing national statistics has plenty of pitfalls anyway.

There are bigger factors such as subcultures, lack of rule of law, and corruption. It is flawed to look at crime purely from a theoretical first scenarios. From lots of self defense training I can tell you these scenarios, don't exist, they almost never turn out how you think.

Terrorist attacks are really rare in the West. You should worry more about drowning, it more likely to happen to you personally.

Some people are more at risk to hate crimes, but there is simply no correlation to gun right or gun control. There are many ways to peel an apple.

So those that were commenting on gun control in Paris, or gun rights in this attack need a reality check.

The US has violent crime, mainly in in cities. Just becuase some crime may guns doesn't mean the legal status of guns has much baring on that. People will make claims, but there is always another city where you can make a argument to the counter.

Then learn to curb your trolls.

Great-grandmother, and the one-handed grip became popular entirely because it was considered by screen directors to be more camera-friendly. Although there are apologists for the posture for certain situations, a realist tries to avoid being in those situations. If you are in such a situation, then it is because you have done something stupid.

I am not afraid of a "bad guy" with a gun. I am afraid of an idiot with a gun. The guy from Chapel Hill is an idiot, and every instinct in my body tells me that you, also, are an idiot.

You are an idiot because you have a paranoid and combative outlook associated with your weapon, which makes you dangerous, not only to others but to yourself. You are likely to use your weapon impulsively or out of ill-conceived fear or anger. As long as your outlook on your guns is infused with emotion, you remain an idiot with a gun.

Nevertheless, if you were taught how to handle a gun as a toddler, you had no choice but to learn to habitually assume a two-handed grip because a child is physically incapable of controlling a weapon one-handed, simply because it is mechanically not feasible.

You tend to make the overweening assumption that anyone who doesn't have the same outlook on guns or "gun rights" that you have must just have no knowledge at all of guns. You are haughty, arrogant, and don't even realize how much you are full of s**t. You make honest gun-owners look like a**holes, and you really undermine your own cause, to a large extent, by leaving an impression of yourself as an arrogant fool.

Furthermore, you promote an outlook on guns that actually is dangerous to human health and safety. A gun doesn't make you "tough," and it doesn't make you a man. You are not a "good guy with a gun": in a state of rage or in a moment of bad judgment, you could become a "bad guy with a gun" as easily as the man in Chapel Hill, and I am pretty sure he has an outlook similar to yours.

Based on the story, he has a hyper-individualistic attitude and regards the world in general as some kind of threat to his individuality. It's not necessarily that the gun makes him dangerous: if he didn't try to prove he was a man by waving a gun around, he would be on the highway with some overpriced automobile acting the fool and put just as many people in danger. The entire outlook is destructive, and it doesn't stop with guns. It extends to how you behave in every aspect of your life, and the impulsive, egocentric outlook that you promote is actually deadly.

In the end, you live your life by the same book as the man from Chapel Hill, and for the same reason, your attitude is eventually going to lead to someone getting hurt.

Your attitude is also characteristic of the average gun-enthusiast, which is why I despise the majority of them.

I know nothing about those things. Furthermore, I moved from the swamp into a city so that I wouldn't have to carry a pistol to shoot water moccasins or rabid coyotes with, and I ain't looked back.

The reason that I don't have any sympathy for the idea of abolishing guns is that there is still a rural population that uses guns in their everyday lives to deal with hazards that you would have to live in those circumstances to understand. For instance, in a very rural area, there is a good chance you could have to deal with a rabid coyote while out walking your dog. The reason that coyotes are attracted to rural areas, especially farmland, is that the animal requires open spaces to hunt for food, which is one of the reasons that the irresponsible, poorly planned clearing of land for pasture has contributed to their eastern migration. They didn't used to be around our area, but they have become an ongoing nuisance. Furthermore, it's not even healthy for the animals themselves to hunt in this region: it is too wet for them, and they end up with terrible fungal infections that cause patchy loss of fur.

There is absolutely no reason, though, for carrying a gun in an urban area. The fact is that handgun restrictions would not help. What needs to change is the culture:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 1-5#page-2

Gun violence is more of a cultural problem than a gun-problem. It is hard for some people to really wrap their minds around, but I keep reflecting on what my father used to tell me about his own upbringing: kids would bring their long-guns to class with them and prop them up in the corner during hunting season, intent on going out shooting as soon as the bell rang, and that's just how they did it. It was considered weird to behave otherwise.

As long as people carry guns for emotional reasons, such as a want for other people's "respect," they remain a danger to themselves and others. Actually look at the study, and you will see that culture and people's attitudes play an extremely strong role in gun-violence.

We need to cultivate a sober, realistic outlook on guns. That is the only thing that can be done about gun-violence.

A person is not a 'Troll' for disagreeing with you, while people who call others 'Idiots' for disagreeing with them might be.

But strictly on constitutional grounds and nothing further and even that is on thin ice.

so all the military and world leaders are crazy?
whats diagnosed mental illness? keep in mind its debated that aspergers is a mental illness.

Oh??


Didn't you just get a TOS for personal attacks?


I keep a piece (I have several) on my person or at least in my vehicle all the time. If this were the case I would have capped several people by now. Being "stupid" I'm sure I would have shot myself in the foot at least once.


Nevertheless, if you were taught how to handle a gun as a toddler, you had no choice but to learn to habitually assume a two-handed grip because a child is physically incapable of controlling a weapon one-handed, simply because it is mechanically not feasible.[/quote]
Yeah, and I was taught to pee and poop in a toddler's little toilet but I grew out of it.


Do you have any idea how hilarious you are? I know some of the more thin skinned and neurotic get all butthurt by this kind of venomous rhetoric but I get a kick out of it. Every once in a while we get one like you here and I just LOVE to f**k with them.





I didnt even read the whole story. s**t happens and some things have to be accepted as the perils of living in a free society. Those victims could have elected to go armed themselves (legally if they were US citizens) and turned the tables but that did not happen. It was one of your anti-gun brethren elected to turn this into a gunz-r-bad thread.


Yeah, of course it will.

No surprise here since you ARE an anti-gun gun owner (or at least you claim to be a gun owner).


I know nothing about those things. Furthermore, I moved from the swamp into a city so that I wouldn't have to carry a pistol to shoot water moccasins or rabid coyotes with, and I ain't looked back.
The city is a wilderness, too. This only further proves you don't have a clue.


Coyotes live wherever they can including the suburbs.


Shows what little you know....

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 1-5#page-2
/\ That's an idiotic idea. Shitcago's CeaseFire program being adopted in Baltimore. Get ready to fill some body bags.


It's handwringing protectionist like yourselves that brought that era to an end long before I could enjoy it.


"Want for people's respect"? I carry mine concealed. How can a concealed handgun achieve that when it's out of sight? Unless you live in some commie state there are people all around you carrying a handgun.


News flash for ya: It's not about guns.

You'll have to excuse me for a while. I'm going to get my AR-15 out of the safe and do something irresponsible with it just to live up to your expectations of me.

Last edited by Raptor on 15 Feb 2015, 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

manipulated by the right lol nope. I get all my they want to take my guns straight from the liberal democrat's mouths saying we want to take your guns. some will say it out right, some will say it in private meetings, or anti gun gatherings. rather prefer the first to the second. at least they honest and upfront. then theres the laws they pass, had one in oregon that was all about taking guns, well 99% of them you could keep one, if you registered it, stored it in a safe at all times, and registered the safe location, oh and the police could once a year search anyones house to make sure they have just the one gun they said, or in case of non gun owners have 0 guns. luckly people weren't stupid and rejected this law, though some of the left really pushed for it.

He is antagonistic, and you know it as well as I do. Also, he doesn't even fully grasp the points on which we actually disagree.

I say again, I am not someone who favors gun bans, largely because they are not very cost-effective even where they actually work, partly because they are not really addressing the problem. The problem is not guns, but the problem is violence, full stop.

And that is why programs like Safe Streets and CeaseFire are so effective. They address the violence rather than the tools used in acts of violence. They actually work. They save people's lives. Moreover, they are highly popular.

I call the first one 'being violent'....as for diagnosed mental illness there is lots of variation amoung that and mental illness and violent individuals should not be lumped together as one and the same. One thing that might help this society is if people would quit acting like only someone with a mental illness can do something violent....its just not true.

Are you even reading the studies that I am posting links to? They do not endorse gun bans at all. Chicago's CeaseFire program, as well as Safe Streets in Baltimore, use community outreach and don't employ a system of gun-control at all.

You seem to think that, just because I am actually concerned about violence and dangerous behavior, I must favor gun bans. I actually regard gun bans as wanting in terms of cost-effectiveness, and I am a strong advocate for programs that target violence in general, which ends up being considerably more cost-effective. Community outreach programs and attempting to change people's beliefs is actually surprisingly potent as far as reducing violence in our streets, and it might actually succeed in returning us to that era when our kids could take their long-guns to school and prop them in the corner and yet feel safe.

If you really can't tell the difference, then you are genuinely an idiot, which is simply a statement of fact. If you are putting on a pretense of being an idiot for the sake of baiting others, then you are a troll. More likely than either, you are a little of both.

The ultimate goal of anti-gunners is the elimination of private gun ownership. Period. The cold hard fact is that it's impossible and they know that so they go after them incrementally. They ban them by type and features, go after hi-capacity magazines, go after ammo via taxes and storage restrictions, try and close shooting ranges under the cloak of public safety and environmental concerns, etc.

I did some research just for my own edification. What has primarily driven sales of "assault rifles" (not a real term) has been the anti-gunners screeching about them and trying to pass legislation. The AR-15, for example, has been on the civilian market since 1963 or 64 yet acceptance was relatively slow over the next few decades. It wasn't until the late 80's and 90's when the "we've gotta get these dangerous assault weapons of the streets!!" screeching began that sales went up. Furthermore in 2009 when anti-gun legislation was expected in the wake of the Obama inauguration. Again in 2012-13 after the school shooting in Connecticut. Tell people they can't have something or it's going to be banned and all the sudden they can't wait to get one (or two or three). The 2009 and 2012 triggered a huge surge in AR-15 and AK-47/AK-74 sales. You couldn't even find one to buy in any gun shop. Ammo in common calibers was horded by the 500 and 1000 round cases to where it was generally unavailable for over a year. It was a windfall of biblical proportions for the gun industry.

Lesson: If the antis had kept their collective mouths shut for the past 25 years there would be no significant number of "dangerous assault weapons" to fuss and whine about.

Ah, the troll accusation again.

He's an anti plain and simple. He won't come out and say it directly but he tapdences around it and drops little nuggets like "hey, I just don't want my kid getting shot" or the "crazy people (i.e. conservatives) with guns" thing like what we're seeing now.

I'd love to cut your throat.

Mods, your incompetence and your unwillingness to curb this troll are among the reasons that the Internet continues to suck. As long as you attack those who call this jerk out and fail to deal with scumbags who provoke others for their childish amusement, this forum will never generate respectable discussion. I denounce you as incompetent. You are failures.

Because of my Dirty Harry avatar.



That's because we don't agree.....