People clinging to guns...

[dead0man]

Do you think, maybe, that the kind of people that carry guns...I don't know, might have a good reason sometimes?  And that reason is why they are more likely to be shot than the having a gun part is?  Like the guy working at the pawn shop in the shady part of town taking the days cash income to the bank.  Or the jewlrey store owner.  Or the hundreds and hundreds of other situations.  I'm not saying it makes up all of the "four times more likely to get shot" part, but I bet it goes a long way to that end.

And I'm pretty sure no sane person has ever said that a woman having a gun is the ONLY way to be safe.

[dead0man]

Do you think, maybe, that the kind of people that carry guns...I don't know, might have a good reason sometimes?  And that reason is why they are more likely to be shot than the having a gun part is?  Like the guy working at the pawn shop in the shady part of town taking the days cash income to the bank.  Or the jewelery store owner.  Or the hundreds and hundreds of other situations.  I'm not saying it makes up all of the "four times more likely to get shot" part, but I bet it goes a long way to that end.

And I'm pretty sure no sane person has ever said that a woman having a gun is the ONLY way to be safe.

This would be relevant if only a small portion of people carried guns. But, at least in places where carrying is legally simple, an enormous portion of the population carries guns, far more than this argument could possibly accommodate.

an enormous portion of the population carries guns?? Really?  uhhhh...cite?


and if so, where the hell is the bloodbath?

I mean seriously, if guns kill people (which is the anti-gun crowds mantra) and there has been ass ton of guns sold since Obama took office and "an enormous portion of the population carries guns" in places where it's legal, one would assume we'd have daily bloodbaths on our hands....yet we don't.....whatsupwithdat?

Do you think, maybe, that the kind of people that carry guns...I don't know, might have a good reason sometimes? 

Of course they do.

The whole idea of restricting gun ownership would be to take away that reason.

If everyone has guns, and you feel that you might be in danger, you have to get a gun to defend yourself. If no one has guns, and you feel that you might be in danger, you might carry a knife instead.

And that would be relevant if you could get rid of all guns by banning them.  Especially from the kind of people that would use one to hold up a jewelry store.

[dead0man]

Of course, the most important reason for owning guns isn't defense from common criminals, but maintaining ultimate power in the hands of the citizens.

Yep, everytime.  Except for those times when it's another reason.

[dead0man]

Chris Rock thought of that, but he's just a comedian.  The reality is it's pretty simple to make bullets.  So yeah, if you want a huge black market for bullets (to go along with all the other huge blackmarkets we already have due to making things illegal that shouldn't be), then that idea might have some legs.

[dead0man]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

yep, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Keeping sh**tty govts in check is one good reason (but obviously not the only one) to keep arms, though clearly that would be difficult in today's world.

[dead0man]

Of course.

[dead0man]

While a bunch of armed citizens might not be able to take down the state, they could do lots of damage.

Indeed.  At least until the National Gaurd showed up.

But my gut tells me that if we get to the point where mass numbers of people are willing to rise up violently against the govt, many (most?) in the military won't be all that willing to fire on their dad's and uncle's and would be much more likely to turn them around and point them at the govt.  They aint mercenaries, they are our brothers and sisters.

I'll counter myself by pointing out Kent State.  Hey dead0, KENT STATE!

[dead0man]

Probably, but fighting over the ashes will be fun.

[dead0man]

I pretty much agree.  I'm very pro-gun (obviously), but I don't own a gun.  Why?  No need mainly.  Cost is important too, but having children in the house is a very important factor as well.  You've got to weigh the risks and rewards and right now in my life the possible risks of owning a gun out weigh the possible rewards of owning a gun.

But that should be MY choice to make.  Just like it should my choice to mainline heroin, rent a willing human for sexual gratification or die with the aid of a medical professional.

[dead0man]

In my experience there seems to be an inverse relationship between intelligence and enthusiasm for guns gun control.

I don't normally do this becasue it's wrong, but it seems to be convention here and I couldn't pass this one up....so

FTFY

[dead0man]

link

Well actually there is a law about it (has been since 1968, strengthed after the VaTech shooting), it's just not being used very well as many states and federal agencies are lazy (or other silly excuses like privacy) about sending in their lists of crazy people.

Consider your ignorance fought.

[dead0man]

Indeed.  It seems the only crazy people getting stopped from getting guns are, oddly, Veterans.

As a pro-gun guy, I have no probems with stopping the truly nuts from getting guns.  And the NRA often sucks...it's more of a hunters lobby than a gun lobby anyway.

[dead0man]

Thank Og she doesn't have realisticidealist's philosophy heh?