Owning guns is saving your life and property

[WinterBorn]

If someone comes to my house, my dog will bark or I will see headlights. I look to see if I recognize the people and to see how they are approaching my home.

Also, if someone invades our home, unless it is during a meal, we are likely scattered about the house. Also, most people (in more urban areas) look thru a peephole or something similar before unlocking and opening the door. When I lived in Atlanta, my neighbors were amazed that I would open my door so readily.

 

[WinterBorn]

No evidence?



http://www.gunbanobama.com/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out.html

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4227

http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out/



There are thousands of fearmongering websites speading panic among the nutbase of paranoid gunlovers.



Do you deny it?

You have maintained that we gun owners on this website are paranoid. You have claimed that I have guns strictly because I am paranoid. These links do nothing to prove that.

Yes, and there are thousands of websites spreading fear about alien abductions, secret gov't conspiracies and who knows what else.

That is neither proof all gun buffs are paranoid nor proof that anyone is out to take away our guns. Nut cases are simply nut cases.

 

[/MSG/]

I think one of the main points regarding the ownership of guns is being ignored. We can all play statistics and what-ifs, it gets us nowhere. The fact is that the desire to own a device for killing ones fellow man is tantamount to actually doing the deed. All gun owners are therefore potential murderers (that is not to say that other people are not).
So why is it Americans who have fallen in love with violence? It really can be nothing more than a childish naivety and an imposed sense of fear. You are not Rambo (which other nation would make such a series of films?) You are not John Wayne. Some Americans have almost deified the concept of violence.
There is excuse upon excuse with the what if someone was about to rape your sister, yet how many sisters have had their chastity saved by a bullet? Just excuses so the children can play real life Rambo. It may come as a shock to some that when you are shot you do not immediately get up and dust yourself down as if you were a cartoon character.
I would also be critical of those (sorry Mr TTTT) who show videos of idiots doing stupid things. Those videos give the loonies an argument and encourage the production of irrelevant facts and statistics.
No, the desire to own a device for killing living things is not acceptable and you know full well that you use whichever ammendment it is, to give you license to behave like children.
The most anti-social words you will hear (not only regarding guns) are, 'I have a right ....' and 'I tell it like it is...', and 'No one's gonna stop me ...'
Here endeth the first lesson.
Have a nahce day, yorl.

Except the police and all branches of government of course. Their desire to kill people is the highest moral authority which would be criminal to deny.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Nobody is going to seize your guns. The Second Amendment is still in place.


The First Amendment secures your right to believe that someone is scheming to take your handful of firearms in spite of the vidence to the contrary.


It also protects my right to mock your obsessive paranoid fear.


You are more likely to shoot yourself, an acquaintance or a family member than you are to repel a criminal, the US government or a foreign invasion.

The current investigation explores the association between rates of household firearm ownership and suicide across the 50 states. Prior ecologic research on the relationship between firearm prevalence and suicide has been criticized for using problematic proxy-based, rather than survey-based, estimates of firearm prevalence and for failing to control for potential psychological risk factors for suicide. We address these two criticisms by using recently available state-level survey-based estimates of household firearm ownership, serious mental illness, and alcohol/illicit substance use and dependence.
Methods: Negative binomial regression was used to assess the relationship between household firearm ownership rates and rates of firearm, nonfirearm, and overall suicide for both sexes and for four age groups. Analyses controlled for rates of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and drug and alcohol dependence and abuse.
Results: US residents of all ages and both sexes are more likely to die from suicide when they live in areas where more households contain firearms. A positive and significant association exists between levels of household firearm ownership and rates of firearm and overall suicide; rates of nonfirearm suicide were not associated with levels of household firearm ownership.
Conclusion: Household firearm ownership levels are strongly associated with higher rates of suicide, consistent with the hypothesis that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide.


​

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/pag...=2007&issue=04000&article=00031&type=abstract



http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn14647-guns-in-the-home-may-increase-suicide-risk.html



http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/social-health-hazards/guns-and-suicide/index.html



Here's a blog that affords many examples of gunlover shootings....


http://ohhshoot.blogspot.com/

 

[WinterBorn]

I have asked similar questions before, and have yet to receive a response.

So I would ask them again (mainlyof the two who seem most opposed to privately owned guns).

Are you in favor of banning all privately owned guns?

Are you in favor of banning guns designed for hunting?

What gun bans would you approve of, or would you favor?

 

[WinterBorn]

Nobody is going to seize your guns. The Second Amendment is still in place.


The First Amendment secures your right to believe that someone is scheming to take your handful of firearms in spite of the vidence to the contrary.


It also protects my right to mock your obsessive paranoid fear.


You are more likely to shoot yourself, an acquaintance or a family member than you are to repel a criminal, the US government or a foreign invasion.

The current investigation explores the association between rates of household firearm ownership and suicide across the 50 states. Prior ecologic research on the relationship between firearm prevalence and suicide has been criticized for using problematic proxy-based, rather than survey-based, estimates of firearm prevalence and for failing to control for potential psychological risk factors for suicide. We address these two criticisms by using recently available state-level survey-based estimates of household firearm ownership, serious mental illness, and alcohol/illicit substance use and dependence.
Methods: Negative binomial regression was used to assess the relationship between household firearm ownership rates and rates of firearm, nonfirearm, and overall suicide for both sexes and for four age groups. Analyses controlled for rates of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and drug and alcohol dependence and abuse.
Results: US residents of all ages and both sexes are more likely to die from suicide when they live in areas where more households contain firearms. A positive and significant association exists between levels of household firearm ownership and rates of firearm and overall suicide; rates of nonfirearm suicide were not associated with levels of household firearm ownership.
Conclusion: Household firearm ownership levels are strongly associated with higher rates of suicide, consistent with the hypothesis that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide.


​

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/pag...=2007&issue=04000&article=00031&type=abstract



http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn14647-guns-in-the-home-may-increase-suicide-risk.html



http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/social-health-hazards/guns-and-suicide/index.html



Here's a blog that affords many examples of gunlover shootings....


http://ohhshoot.blogspot.com/

If you want to discuss suicides, then a different thread is in order. Unless you think those who committed suicide with a gun would have been unable to do so without a gun.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

If you want to discuss suicides, then a different thread is in order. Unless you think those who committed suicide with a gun would have been unable to do so without a gun.

It's cute when you think you make the rules.


You didn't read the research.


"the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide"...


That indicates that a person who attempts suicide with a gun is more likely to succeed than not, which is not as true of other methods.


How many foreign invasions have you repelled lately?

 

[WinterBorn]

It's cute when you think you make the rules.


You didn't read the research.


"the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide"...


That indicates that a person who attempts suicide with a gun is more likely to succeed than not, which is not as true of other methods.


How many foreign invasions have you repelled lately?

Suicides, while tragic, are no justification for not having a firearm in the home. Granted, if a member of your family is suicidal, you should take extra steps to secure your firearms. But that does not eliminate them. If someone is serious about suicide and does not have a gun, they will use a rope, a tall building, a lake, medicines, or knives to kill themselves.

We have repelled every single military invasion. Your sarcasm is noted. Your lack of knowledge of history is noted as well.

Still avoiding answering simple questions, I see.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Suicides, while tragic, are no justification for not having a firearm in the home. Granted, if a member of your family is suicidal, you should take extra steps to secure your firearms. But that does not eliminate them. If someone is serious about suicide and does not have a gun, they will use a rope, a tall building, a lake, medicines, or knives to kill themselves.

We have repelled every single military invasion. Your sarcasm is noted. Your lack of knowledge of history is noted as well.

Still avoiding answering simple questions, I see.

As the research I cited indicates, none of the alternative methods of suicide is as likely to be successful as the gun, which is designed to kill.


I'm all in favor of allowing gunlovers to end their fear-filled lives with their personal penis substitute when they take the coward's way out.


Which foreign invasion did you repel using your personal arsenal?


Do you normally peer through the peephole when your dog barks, clutching a gun in your sweaty, shaking hands?


How many home invasions have you personally prevented with your mighty lil' hoard of peashooters?

 

[WinterBorn]

As the research I cited indicates, none of the alternative methods of suicide is as likely to be successful as the gun, which is designed to kill.

If the person truly wants to die, they will accomplish it.

Which foreign invasion did you repel using your personal arsenal?

All of them.

Do you normally peer through the peephole when your dog barks, clutching a gun in your sweaty, shaking hands?

Is there are point to this question?

How many home invasions have you personally prevented with your mighty lil' hoard of peashooters?

Come down, break in, and we'll discuss it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you in favor of banning all privately owned guns?

Are you in favor of banning guns designed for hunting?

What gun bans would you approve of, or would you favor?

.

 

[Lowaicue]

Except the police and all branches of government of course. Their desire to kill people is the highest moral authority which would be criminal to deny.

A rather silly thing to say. YOUR police want to kill you? YOUR government (the one that was elected by a majority of voters) wants to kill you? I think you need help with this. If there is one tiny morsel of truth in what you say I would strongly suggest you ask them why they want to kill you and then move to Europe.

 

[Lowaicue]

Most of my guns are for hunting. No shame there. I perform a vital part of the conservation efforts, both by my actions and by the extra taxes I pay.

I am not a violent man. I would never want to shoot anyone. But what is far worse than shooting someone is knowing my loved ones suffered or died because of my refusal.

So you enjoy spilling the blood of free, wild creatures? What a pity they can't shoot back.
If they are of such numbers that they are causing trouble then surely the authorities are there to cull as necessary. I just can't see what 'pleasure' can be gained fron watching a free animal crumple and die in a pool of blood at my hand. You definitely have (as yanks like to say) 'issues'.
If you wish to protect yourself, and those close to you, then you should uphold the law and ensure that people like Madoff never get the chance to ruin the lives of innocent people. Madoff and his ilk cause considerably more sadness and despair than a couple of guys looking for drug money.
If the law where you live is inefficient then, as a citizen, you have the right to call them on it and ensure that your vote changes their attitude.
I have to admit to being completely unable to understand otherwise intelligent people who are so certain that there are people who wish to kill them. Isn't that taking paranoia a little too far?
Very sad.

 

[/MSG/]

A rather silly thing to say. YOUR police want to kill you? YOUR government (the one that was elected by a majority of voters) wants to kill you? I think you need help with this. If there is one tiny morsel of truth in what you say I would strongly suggest you ask them why they want to kill you and then move to Europe.

Or I could simply be a political dissident in a communist country. But like you and I agree, every government action is the correct action, so it's a moot point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8135203.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002675413_china10.html

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Suicides, while tragic, are no justification for not having a firearm in the home. Granted, if a member of your family is suicidal, you should take extra steps to secure your firearms. But that does not eliminate them. If someone is serious about suicide and does not have a gun, they will use a rope, a tall building, a lake, medicines, or knives to kill themselves.

We have repelled every single military invasion. Your sarcasm is noted. Your lack of knowledge of history is noted as well.

Still avoiding answering simple questions, I see.

I wonder if he, who will not debate, wants to have all prescription medicine confiscated also?

 

[Lowaicue]

Or I could simply be a political dissident in a communist country. But like you and I agree, every government action is the correct action, so it's a moot point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8135203.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002675413_china10.html

How could you be a political dissident in a communist country? I dont follow your logic.
Of course every government action is not a correct action. Governments are made of people and people are fallible. So do you advocate shooting everyone in government with whom you disagree?
Why you have posted something showing Tien an men square I do not know. At the time I was living under the British government not the Chinese one. And what are you trying to prove by posting the article about the Muslims in Xin Jiang province? Urumqi is nearly 3000 km from HK? Do you think the mass ownership of guns would have made one iota of difference?
Perhaps you would like to explain why you have posted those links. I see no relevance to the discussion... unless, of course, like many of your ilk, you are trying to move the discussion from an uncomfortable place to one in which you feel you might have an advantage.

 

[Topspin]

First of all, that is bullshit. And second of all, you claim to want fewer murders and then say someone being shot is probably good? Fuck you, Topper.

BTW, use your vaunted intellect and education to do a little research on Kellerman's study (the source for your factoid) and then come back and we'll talk.

It is actually 1.3 times more likely ya douche. Go shoot bamboo tough guy.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you enjoy spilling the blood of free, wild creatures? What a pity they can't shoot back.
If they are of such numbers that they are causing trouble then surely the authorities are there to cull as necessary. I just can't see what 'pleasure' can be gained fron watching a free animal crumple and die in a pool of blood at my hand. You definitely have (as yanks like to say) 'issues'.

Mankind has been a hunter for millenia, but now those who hunt "have issues"?

In order to maintain a balance in a wild ecosystem, you must have predators. Otherwise, there is no check on the population of animals that evolved as prey. Hunters provide that predation. Your suggestion that the authorities cull animal populations is fine, in a smaller system. But in my state alone, in order to maintain a stable whitetail deer population, roughly 500,000 must be removed annually. Any idea of the cost of such an operation by the authorities? To say nothing of the cost on a national scale. But in our system, not only do we control the wild population, the special taxes paid by hunters are a large part of the funding of the conservation programs. So we provide a culling service for free and pay the lion's share of the conservation programs. Much more efficient.

The hunt is not just about killing an animal. It is about the challenge of taking an animal with far better senses of sight, smell and hearing. And doing so in it's natural environment. I (and virtually every hunter I know) put a great deal of effort into making the kill as quick and human as possible. But the kill is a very small part of the entire hunting experience. And I have a freezer full of tasty tablefare to show for it all.

If the law where you live is inefficient then, as a citizen, you have the right to call them on it and ensure that your vote changes their attitude.
I have to admit to being completely unable to understand otherwise intelligent people who are so certain that there are people who wish to kill them. Isn't that taking paranoia a little too far?
Very sad.

Every day people in this country are robbed, raped or murdered. You maintain that this is due to our having firearms. But the majority of those crimes are committed by people with felony records, so they do not legally own the guns they use. A free society cannot control the population nearly as well as a gov't which does not allow the same freedoms. Yet nations without our freedoms still have substantial criminal activities. Having a firearm for defense is not paranoia. It is a recognition of the hazards of living in a free society. Of the guns I own, only 3 are what I would call "defensive" firearms. One of those is an antique piece handed down from my grandfather. The rest of my gun collection is for hunting, target shooting, or are antique/collector's pieces.

 

[Topspin]

Kill bamboo tough guy. U need validation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Kill bamboo tough guy. U need validation.

You need to take a remedial course in the english language, you semi-literate jackass.

See? I can debate like you do. (only far more elegantly, and without the grammatical or spelling errors of your posts)