People clinging to guns...

[Link]

[Jacobtm]

People with guns have very sensitive egos, they don't like when you're mean to them.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Does anyone still remember that?

Also, more people buying stuff=more people buying guns. It's like getting freaked out about December being the #1 month for buying trees.

[Jacobtm]

Does anyone still remember that?

Also, more people buying stuff=more people buying guns. It's like getting freaked out about December being the #1 month for buying trees.

Those trees are thrown out in January.

People don't toss out guns as quickly, rather they stockpile them.

[Link]

Does anyone still remember that?

Also, more people buying stuff=more people buying guns. It's like getting freaked out about December being the #1 month for buying trees.

I don't think most people are "getting freaked out."  There is a small camp of people in this country that think that people in black helicopters are going to show up and snatch the guns out of their hands, and there is another much smaller contingent of people that kind of wish this fantasy would come true.  The rest of us really don't care and it doesn't influence our voting or buying habits.

I just thought the two things were kind of funny.  I remeber a friend of mine telling me about how a relative of his was going to buy a gun and ammo because they were afraid of what Obama would do to gun laws.  This person was looking at a regular run of the mill hand gun, not a .45, not an assault rifle.  Just a small .22.  It was absurd.  They honestly thought the feds were going to swoop down and take every single .22 cal handgun.  It's just bizarre.  With two wars going on and a terrible recession they honestly thought confistacting millions of handguns and having a Ruby Ridge a week was Obama's plan.  Like I said...

[tpfkaw]

Ah yes, I remember that.

Unhand your weapons, citizen!  Remember there is no god but the State.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Ah yes, I remember that.

Unhand your weapons, citizen!  Remember there is no god but the State.

I don't think that was quite the point he was making.

[Beet]

This is really depressing. If you have a gun, you are more likely to get shot. During an assault, gun owners are four times as likely to get shot. And even if you don't get shot, in many self-defense situations, non-lethal force is more appropriate than pulling a gun. All the messages telling women that having a gun is the only way to be safe is potentially creating more dangers, IMO.

[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.

[Verily]

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.

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 accomodate.

[Jacobtm]

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.

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.

Yet many a gun-toting citizen ends up in jail. Hell, they've thrown people in jail for wearing bulletproof vests...

[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.

[Jacobtm]

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.

We'd have to do more than simply ban them, obviously.

A supply side solution, like huge bullet taxes, perhaps.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't follow.

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.

[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.

[patrick1]

Aren't we forgetting that something like 50% of gun owners are hunters and/or target shooters. It seems you are setting up a straw man that implies people only have guns to protect themselves from the gubmint tyranny.  

[Free Palestine]

F-ck gun control.

[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.

[Jacobtm]

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.

Many rappers, black comedians, etc. have thought of the idea before. Indeed, making things illegal is no way to kill the supply or the demand. Even if we shut down all U.S. gun/bullet manufacturers, we'd just have Rusky ones coming in all the time.

Ultimately, I suspect that as long as Americans want to shoot and kill each other, they'll find a way to do it.

One way to drop down homicides significantly would be to legalize drugs. Can you and I agree there?

[dead0man]

Of course.

[Jacobtm]

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.

Still, the basic unit of state power is nothing but a man with a gun.

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

[Beet]

- General Social Survey, last conducted in 2010, continues to find a record low number of people admitting to owning guns. The methodology is biannual face-to-face survey. According to this survey, gun ownership has been falling since the 1980s.

- The Gallup annual survey agreed with the General Social Survey until 2011, when there was a six-point surge in reported household gun ownership.

- NICS raw background checks began to surge in late 2005.

- NSSF-adjusted NICS, which takes out CCW permit application checks and CCW checks on active permit databases used in some states, began to surge in 2008.

Until 2011, discrepancy between survey data and NICS data could be explained by increasing concentration of gun ownership. However, with the release of the 2011 Gallup data, there is a broadening. We will have to await the release of the 2012 GSS and the 2012 Gallup.

[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!

[Beet]

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!

By the time we reach that point, our society will be dead anyways.

[dead0man]

Probably, but fighting over the ashes will be fun.