At 1/17/13 08:36 PM, Ragnarokia wrote:

At 1/17/13 06:38 PM, 1930 wrote:

At 1/17/13 06:36 PM, Painbringer wrote:

The name of the things used in that, barely passable example of "sport", tend to be classified as such things as they are the most useful for the completely meaningless slaughter of animals.

boar and deer overpopulation is a problem to the environment,also they're pretty tasty

At 1/17/13 08:41 PM, Cootie wrote: Worse than a rifle in every way except for the fact that it is more convenient. Good way to stop a carjacker or a gangster.

Spoken truly like someone who has very little experience with self protection.

I feel like Canadians could use more guns. I wish we had guns.

To make the owner feel powerful, badass, and masculine, and/or to sublimate sexual frustration.

At 1/17/13 11:45 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: To make the owner feel powerful, badass, and masculine, and/or to sublimate sexual frustration.

LOL. No.

At 1/17/13 08:40 PM, captainlolz wrote:

At 1/17/13 08:36 PM, Ragnarokia wrote:

At 1/17/13 06:38 PM, 1930 wrote:

At 1/17/13 06:36 PM, Painbringer wrote:

The name of the things used in that, barely passable example of "sport", tend to be classified as such things as they are the most useful for the completely meaningless slaughter of animals.

boar and deer overpopulation is a problem to the environment,also they're pretty tasty

Human overpopulation is a large problem to the environment, and they are likely also tasty. Should we start hunting them?

self defense, murder, shooting random objects, paper weight, etc.

At 1/18/13 12:13 AM, megagrounderx wrote: paper weight

Now there's a new one I hadn't thought of!

At 1/17/13 06:41 PM, Painbringer wrote:

At 1/17/13 06:38 PM, 1930 wrote: Well you can hunt with them then..

You'd have to get fairly close to your prey to make a successful kill - And you can't really kill a bear with a pistol.

There was an article in the Guns and Ammo I had recently where a man went out with a hunting group and hunted for polar bear with only a .44 Magnum.

Granted, he had to shoot the bastard five times but it was indeed as dead as dead could be.

At 1/18/13 12:37 AM, Chymeraxe wrote:

There was an article in the Guns and Ammo I had recently where a man went out with a hunting group and hunted for polar bear with only a .44 Magnum.

What a dumbass

At 1/17/13 11:59 PM, Xenomit wrote: Are you being dead serious?

Not really, but the fact that you guys are getting so defensive about it makes me rethink that a little.

I just find it a little disingenuous to claim that they're for "self-defense" when:

A. More guns tend to equal more homicide, and

B. Gun-related deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control laws (and while we're at it, notice how they found no statistical association between gun deaths and mental illness).

At 1/18/13 12:41 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: I just find it a little disingenuous to claim that they're for "self-defense" when:

A. More guns tend to equal more homicide, and

B. Gun-related deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control laws (and while we're at it, notice how they found no statistical association between gun deaths and mental illness).

Neither would necessarily mean that they don't get used for self defense or that their intended purpose isn't for self defense, but guns can and do get misused. Also, these two points don't actually address the statistics of firearms being used for self defense purposes. I don't know what the statistics would show on that aspect but I do know that guns do get used in self defense. Although, I personally wouldn't say that guns have only one intended purpose, but I do think self defense is one of several purposes.

As far as point A goes, it's only claiming a correlation between homicide and one variable. Also, by "more guns equals more homicide", does that mean a higher percentage of guns in comparison to population size or that a specific area with more total guns has more total homicides, without taking into account the actual homicide rate of the area? Anyway, I think the information is too vague to just blame the guns. I'm not dismissing them as a factor, but I'm sure there are many more aspects that need to be examined such as things like population density or poverty rates.

For point B, I would expect gun-related deaths to be lower in states with stricter gun control laws, but that's because gun-related deaths can also include things other than homicides, like suicide and accidental deaths. I would think accidental deaths could be attributed more to poor firearm education as a causal factor than how easily accessible a gun is. As for suicide, it makes sense that there would be more gun related suicides in areas with easier access to guns, but much like the case with homicide, that doesn't necessarily mean the easier access to guns is causing the amount of suicides and there would be many factors to take into account for what causes a specific areas rate of suicide.

I'm not actually convinced of either side on the whole gun control debate, so this post isn't meant to be taken as pro gun. Rather it's just a bit of questions/criticisms that come to mind when seeing these examples of research which supports the pro gun control or anti gun viewpoints.

At 1/18/13 12:41 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 1/17/13 11:59 PM, Xenomit wrote: Are you being dead serious?

Not really, but the fact that you guys are getting so defensive about it makes me rethink that a little.

I just find it a little disingenuous to claim that they're for "self-defense" when:

A. More guns tend to equal more homicide, and

B. Gun-related deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control laws (and while we're at it, notice how they found no statistical association between gun deaths and mental illness).

Yet numerous studies and actual real life examples show the exact opposite. You can cherry pick data you want.
For example if I exclude Black Males from crime stats, HOLY CRAP where did most of our murders go?

At 1/17/13 07:19 PM, Xenomit wrote: Shooting

The same thing all guns are for

GOOOOOOOOOOOD ANSWEEEEEEEEER

Here's one I learned in school...

Space propulsion.

At 1/18/13 02:24 AM, chiefindomer wrote: Neither would necessarily mean that they don't get used for self defense or that their intended purpose isn't for self defense, but guns can and do get misused.

That's what I find disingenuous about it. Gun advocates claim that guns make us safer, but if safety were actually their primary concern, then any rational gun owner would at least put some serious thought into their position when presented with studies like these that strongly suggest the opposite, that higher ownership and availability of guns makes us less safe. But by and large that's not the response we've seen in this thread, that's not the response we've seen out in the world, and it's certainly not the response we get from organizations like the NRA. So I can't help but end up thinking that for a lot of pro-gun people, it's less of a rational argument and more of an ideology.

By the way, I don't mean to make sweeping generalizations about all gun owners (my first comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek); there are things like the recent gun buybacks or some gun owners calling for tighter regulations and more accountability, etc. I'm just speaking to what seems to be the general trend.

Also, these two points don't actually address the statistics of firearms being used for self defense purposes.

The latter study includes self-defense killings under its broader category of gun-related deaths (along with homicides, suicides, accidents, etc.). I'm not sure of the exact numbers either, but I can't possibly imagine that they're very high, or that they come anywhere remotely close to the number of gun-related homicides, if that's what you're trying to get at here.

by "more guns equals more homicide", does that mean a higher percentage of guns in comparison to population size or that a specific area with more total guns has more total homicides, without taking into account the actual homicide rate of the area?

I believe it refers to homicide rates, given the language of their concl.

Anyway, I think the information is too vague to just blame the guns. I'm not dismissing them as a factor, but I'm sure there are many more aspects that need to be examined such as things like population density or poverty rates.

"After controlling for poverty and urbanization..."

Also, the second link goes into more detail about those exact issues. As you might expect, poverty was found to be significantly correlated to greater numbers of gun-related deaths. Perhaps surprisingly, population was not.

But when it comes down to it, I think it's more than a little bit silly to be questioning the significance of examining the influence the presence and availability of guns might have on the amount of gun-related deaths. I'm not saying that guns are the only factor effecting homicide rates, or that more gun control would completely eradicate homicide. But it is becoming painfully obvious that they are a major factor.

For point B, I would expect gun-related deaths to be lower in states with stricter gun control laws, but that's because gun-related deaths can also include things other than homicides, like suicide and accidental deaths.

I don't have the exact stats, but the number of gun-related homicides far outweighs the number of gun-related suicides and accidents. Why are you even discounting homicides to begin with?

I would think accidental deaths could be attributed more to poor firearm education as a causal factor than how easily accessible a gun is.

Accessibility seems to pretty obviously be the bigger issue here. If there were tighter regulations on how gun owners have to store and maintain their weapons (and on what they have to learn/get certified for to become licensed gun owners at all), far fewer unlicensed and uneducated people (like children, or everyone's favorite scapegoat, the mentally ill, who can't be expected to have proper firearm safety training and shouldn't have access to firearms in the first place) would get their hands on guns, and there would be far fewer accidents. And stricter education requirements for people who want to handle firearms are a form of gun control. It seems like at this point your concern is less pro- or anti-gun control, but rather where to draw the line on increased regulation. Fair enough, but because of that I don't really see this as much of a question or criticism of my points or the links.

As for suicide, it makes sense that there would be more gun related suicides in areas with easier access to guns, but much like the case with homicide, that doesn't necessarily mean the easier access to guns is causing the amount of suicides and there would be many factors to take into account for what causes a specific areas rate of suicide.

Again, I'm not saying it's the only factor, I'm saying it's a major factor, and you seem to be agreeing with me on that.

I'm not actually convinced of either side on the whole gun control debate, so this post isn't meant to be taken as pro gun. Rather it's just a bit of questions/criticisms that come to mind when seeing these examples of research which supports the pro gun control or anti gun viewpoints.

Dude, given the content of your post I think you might be more pro-gun control than you think you are. If you're at all interested, look up the Brady Campaign or other gun control groups to see some of the specific regulations and reforms people are talking about. Extreme pro-gun groups like the NRA present the issue as a ridiculous all-or-nothing dichotomy where gun control advocates want to repeal the Second Amendment and the only viable alternative is to have as little regulation as possible. But the truth is that there are several very specific legislative steps we can take to ensure that citizens can exercise their right to bear arms as safely and responsibly as possible.

Where exactly you draw the line is up to you, but clearly you recognize that our loose gun regulations are a contributing factor to our increased levels of gun violence, and that there are places where they can be tightened up for everyone's benefit.

Without guns the people are afraid of the government and the government has the ability to control everything.

With guns everyone is armed and afraid of each other but everyone is equal and will hopefully work 2gether

u get wattam sayin

Give people the misconception they are safe.

At 1/17/13 06:36 PM, Painbringer wrote: You can't really hunt with them (there goes the hunting argument.

But you can hunt with them, Shit there are whole seasons devoted to pistol hunting. I've dropped deer with a 10mm.

However, you certainly can hurt, kill, or even threaten living things - Or even yourself.

Hunting, home defense, defending one's self when you aren't home (They are conveniently small like that)

It seems like the only harmless thing you can do with them is shoot inanimate objects for recreational target practice.

Well that's one thing you can do with them, that's what most firearms owners do with theirs.

Now I'm not necessarily anti-gun, or against the second amendment; I'm just trying to make an argument based in logic.

How about this logic.

The 2nd amendment wasn't about hunting, it's about people's right to own firearms. All firearms.

Restricting any firearm is hindering that right. In fact, it's infringing upon that right.

Which is against the constitution.

Here's a fun fact: The biggest deterrent to enemy forces invading is that they'd essentially be fighting two armies. The US military forces and the Citizens of America.

At 1/17/13 06:42 PM, tox wrote: i have a little .22

It's far more awesome if you call it a deuce deuce.

DickBuns gets so pissed when someone even implies guns might actually kill people.

At 1/18/13 02:45 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
Yet numerous studies and actual real life examples show the exact opposite. You can cherry pick data you want.
For example if I exclude Black Males from crime stats, HOLY CRAP where did most of our murders go?

Every black man on Earth has a dick bigger than yours.

-hunting
-self defense
- preservation in case of a tyrannical government
-ITS A RIGHT BY THE CONSTITUTION

kind of no brainers.

Handguns are more along the lines of side arms that are used for self defense more than anything else. They are smaller than most guns which makes them ideal to conceal and whip out when the time is needed. But other than that, they are fun to shoot around for recreational purposes.

Handguns are primarily used for self-defense in the event that you or your family/friends are threatened by a criminal. It should be obvious that guns are weapons - the use of which is entirely up to the user. Your question should be more directed to ammunition type, since the bullet is the actual cause of damage.

At 1/18/13 04:01 AM, ZeroAsALimit wrote: I prefer to think they defend you from the government. You want to hold the government accountable? Get a gun.

Yes, ever since I bought my Glock 19, I feel much safer from 30mm cannon rounds and hellfire missiles.

At 1/18/13 09:20 AM, Silverdust wrote:
Yes, ever since I bought my Glock 19, I feel much safer from 30mm cannon rounds and hellfire missiles.

That is why bazookas, mortars, and grenades need to be legal for citizen use!! How can I take my child safely to school without a nuke? If everyone was armed with automatic weapons this world would be murder free!

"I have the right to shoot any person I feel like" that's straight from the constitution!!

At 1/18/13 09:15 AM, MrPercie wrote: unless were talking about those hunting revolvers, I dont think you'd do so well with a 9mm berrata or glock for taking down bears and deers

you can easily do it with .40 and up but its hard as hell with medium game.

when the constitution was written, the only firearms they had was muskets and pistols so it could be argued those are the only weapons people should be allowed to arm themsevles with.

the whole "it was written in 1776" argument is complete bullshit it was mean regardless of the fact you HAVE THE RIGHT TO ARM YOURSELF, against others or your government and the fact that people, police and the military has them why can't I to protect myself from those guys much less a foreign force (the whole reason the japanese never tried a ground invasion mind you)

At 1/18/13 09:20 AM, Silverdust wrote:

Yes, ever since I bought my Glock 19, I feel much safer from 30mm cannon rounds and hellfire missiles.

That is why I have learned the ways of the dark arts. Now I feel much safer from the 30 mm cannon rounds and hellfire missiles, nuclear weapons, .50 caliber rounds, musket pistol bullets, fire, thunder, the earth, water, light magic, animals, and anything else that could harm me. Trust me, once you put on that robe and wizards hat, you feel like a fucking sage, and knowing the ways of the dark arts adds to the experience because you are so powerful.

At 1/18/13 09:15 AM, MrPercie wrote:

At 1/18/13 09:04 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: -hunting

unless were talking about those hunting revolvers, I dont think you'd do so well with a 9mm berrata or glock for taking down bears and deers

Because people only hunt bear and deer.

Obviously they were developed for self defense. If you're trying to do your job and you're out and about you probably don't want to carry around a shotgun, a rifle, etc. If you live in Alaska, or many other parts of the USA that have dangerous predators like bears, you don't want to be out chopping wood, fishing, walking to get your mail, walking to your out house etc, without something to protect yourself with. Obviously a powerful handgun is a common choice for this. There are plenty of places down South where you could be charged by a wild boar and having a handgun on you could save your life. Then of course there are criminals.

That's the problem with the USA. It's a huge place with a lot of people living all kinds of different lives. In some places guns are a vital, in other places they are less vital, but still a right. It's hard to restrict guns in one place when you don't restrict them in other places as a criminal can go to a non-restricted gun zone to get a gun, and take it to a place where guns are restricted.