The pics thread

[audiophileguy]

an even better example.
the bad guys started shooting first

 

[audiophileguy]

Nope, she doesn't, there are plenty of non-lethal self-defense weapons

yeah, pepper spray would have done the trick
were you robbed at your job? mind giving some details?

edit: look
cops are minutes away
you're gun is seconds
it's not going to save you every time, but your chances are much better with one.
as for the paranoia/little dick claims
the only thing that changed after getting a gun was the sense of having more peace of mind. I didn't feel like a badass, rambo, etc, after getting one, it just let me sleep a little easier at night.

 

[Mort Divine]

Tasers, Stunguns, Pepper Spray guns, etc.

I was robbed in Baltimore when I went to MDF last year

There was a group of us walking back from a bar, we stopped at a 7-11 and on our way out we were followed by this black guy who kept asking if we had any money to give him, and we repeatedly told him no we had nothing so he grabbed me and another one of the guys while his friend stood quietly by, and since two of the people had already crossed the road it was just 2 of us

he searched our pockets, took my phone and wallet, didn't appear to have a gun himself, but i couldn't account for an unknown like his friend

 

[Dak]

So why do cops need guns then? Why does the military need guns? If we did a complete national disarmament with no exceptions I'm down. Let's see all these people back up that anti-gun talk. We could kick it off by Mrs Feinstein herself personally shredding her CCW and melting her gun down.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Mort is too far gone.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Tasers, Stunguns, Pepper Spray guns, etc.

I was robbed in Baltimore when I went to MDF last year

There was a group of us walking back from a bar, we stopped at a 7-11 and on our way out we were followed by this black guy who kept asking if we had any money to give him, and we repeatedly told him no we had nothing so he grabbed me and another one of the guys while his friend stood quietly by, and since two of the people had already crossed the road it was just 2 of us

he searched our pockets, took my phone and wallet, didn't appear to have a gun himself, but i couldn't account for an unknown like his friend

The same thing happened to my friend in '09, but I chased the fucker down and got his money back.

 

[Nephilim96]

Going to the gun range tomorrow.

 

[EffigyForgotten]

Going to shoot myself.

 

[Mort Divine]

Going to shoot myself.

Maybe guns aren't so bad after all.

The same thing happened to my friend in '09, but I chased the fucker down and got his money back.

The police got my phone back, but my wallet was gone. Thankfully I had spent all of my money the first day haha.

 

[Matt]

No one wants to take away pistols, shotguns etc..military grade AR's are not really necessary, unless you're a tinfoil hat conspiracist

 

[Dak]

No one wants to take away pistols, shotguns etc..military grade AR's are not really necessary, unless you're a tinfoil hat conspiracist

Military grade is already illegal. Hence the difference between the M designation and the AR designation.

 

[Matt]

Whatever - there's no reason for auto's, semi's, extended clips - anything that is meant to kill a lot of people in a short time. That bushmaster the dude used at Sandy Hook shouldn't be legal.

 

[King Richard]

Whatever - there's no reason for auto's, semi's, extended clips - anything that is meant to kill a lot of people in a short time. That bushmaster the dude used at Sandy Hook should be legal.

There's no reason to own a lot of things, that's a silly argument. It doesn't matter whether there's a reason to own something or not, the point is people should be allowed to own what they want out of principle.

The people who support stricter gun laws and the banning of certain types of guns and silly shit like "extended clips" (as if it's so hard to reload a gun right?) are just wrong and the facts prove it.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.

However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

Two other articles I recommend checking out too:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/


Seriously, just stop.

 

[Dak]

Kind of like when Larry Pratt goes on Morgan, gives him valid statistics, Piers calls him a liar and shouts him down, then challenges everyone to web search the the numbers. I did. Mr Pratt was correct. Not only that, but Piers insisted (like every purported Brit I've talked to on teh interwebs) that the overall violent crime rate was no big deal. You know, the one that's 4 times worse than the US, and if the internal study Mr Pratt referenced is incorrect, much crime is under-reported, not over-reported.

 

[UltimateApathy]

What's that I hear? Oh yes, it's the chirping of brainwashed little N.R.A. minions dancing on their puppet masters' strings, parroting N.R.A propoganda like a broken record player. You gun fetishists are just as mindless and sheep-like as religious pawns, except your priests are rednecks in suits and your Gods are metal killing machines. The N.R.A. spends millions every year on public image gun "evangelism", and true to human nature, many of the weak-minded succumb to this mind-control technique.

 

[King Richard]

nuh uh

 

[Dak]

Typical. No argument, no facts. Just feelings and fallacies.

 

[Mort Divine]

The government is well within its bounds to ban certain kinds of guns and other types of weaponry for civilian usage.

 

[Dak]

The government is well within its bounds to ban certain kinds of guns and other types of weaponry for civilian usage.

That's not the argument. The government is subjectively "well within it's bounds" to do all sorts of things. Like banning people from making online pseudonyms with Divine in them.

Bradybunchers (you like fallacies, there's a freebie) advocate for counterproductive and uninformed laws based on absolutely nothing other than appeals to emotion and cherry picked statistics with no context. (Like comparing "gun deaths". Not homicide, not total violence, not ratios. "Gun deaths".)

 

[Mort Divine]

I, for the record, am not for gun prohibition as a whole. Just stricter regulations and having steps made to make those regulations enforceable (lifting of HIPAA regulations when applying to own a gun for one.) I don't have a problem with people owning guns, but I think the ability for people to just go 'I need a gun to defend myself' without thinking of the implications that having a weapon that is primarily for killing people has is insane.

The amount of people who are generally responsible gun owners is significantly higher than the amount of 'gun nuts' and I get that, but I'll be damned if those people don't pain guns with a nasty color.