The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 3161 - 3180 of total 5458 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Apr 3, 2013 - 02:45pm PT
I'm a gun owner and gun nuts are those opposed to reasonable regulation, and,or own dozens of guns and its one of the say three main interests in their lives, can you say compensating for something?

If someone called you a climbing nut or a surfing nut you'd be like damn right! It's telling that people take offense at being called a gun nut because its a pretty weird thing to be.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 3, 2013 - 02:57pm PT
Yet in an effort to remove those from citizens hands, they re-labeled them "assualt weapons"

THEY? Meaning a handful of idiots who happened to get elected? THEY are the government?

See, SANE people (not gun nuts) understand "the government" is made up of millions and millions of people. Gun nuts think "the government" is some entity that is coming for their guns.

the FET,, many will call you a gun nut too.

Nope, fet is a gun owner. HUGE difference. One that you are either too blind to see or choose to ignore.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 3, 2013 - 03:09pm PT
fuk Feinstein and the idiotic extremist on both sides... present company included.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Apr 3, 2013 - 03:34pm PT
So its LOOKS is it? Well in this case looks can kill, but really.... if we pass another assault weapons ban?

STOP MAKING (and buying) WEAPONS BASED UPON WANNABEE APPEARANCE.

I mean if its as you say and these things are merely cosmetic? STOP WEARING MAKEUP.

But if STILL you want your Rambo Wannabee Look Alike Cosmetic Weaponry... ?

I'm laughing at you.

BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAHA

HAHA

HAH!

DMT
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 3, 2013 - 03:41pm PT
Do you have research,, or is that just an out of-yer-azz opinion..?

It is well documented in this thread.

There are plenty of gun OWNERS voicing their opinions who don't appear to be nuts... michaeld, hillrat, norton, etc.

Anyone who thinks "the government" is coming after their guns... or refuses to move to a state because they can't have the mag capacity they imagine they need... or thinks anyone and everyone should be able to walk into Walmart and pick up a device capable of slaughtering dozens of people in minutes, regardless of competence or knowledge about gun safety... etc... is a gun nut.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Apr 3, 2013 - 03:43pm PT
A Gun Nut is someone who opposes any gun control legislation on the basis that it wouldn’t prevent all gun crime, yet believes that one guard with a pistol will be guaranteed to run across an entire school campus and successfully tackle an intruder with an assault rifle before they fire a single shot.

A Gun Nut is someone who spends hundreds of dollars and many hours working on tiny improvements to the accuracy of his weapon but opposes spending five minutes and $20 on background checks that would reduce the chances of ever needing that weapon.

A Gun Nut is someone who believes that there are actual threats to his person that only a 30 shot semi-automatic rifle can protect against.

TE
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 3, 2013 - 04:02pm PT
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Apr 3, 2013 - 04:04pm PT
We would go a long way in solving this problem if gun sellers became at least partly responsible for what their sold weapons ended up doing, much in the same way that if you sell drinks to an obviously intoxicated individual in some bar you may become at least partly libel for their actions. In California Bar owners have become libel in such cases.

Take the responsibility, at least in part, away from the government and put it on the shoulders of gun sellers. I can't even purchase a cell phone contract without having a credit check. With technology today background checks are remarkably simple and quick.

I also have to say that freedom is largely a function of population. The founding vision for this country never could have anticipated the contemporary density of population we enjoy.

Because of this there are weapons that are forbidden by the government and rightly so. The question IMO is simply where do we draw the line as we have all already agreed there are some weapons no individual citizen has the right to carry or even own.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 3, 2013 - 04:38pm PT
Go stuff your dead things Ron and come back when the glue fumes have worn off. Christ you are an idiot!
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Apr 3, 2013 - 04:49pm PT
I know you like to wear the martyr hat but this isn't just about you.

DMT
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Apr 3, 2013 - 04:50pm PT
It's as dumb as yer other stuff, Anderson, like FEMA death camps and mass graves. Bwahahaha!
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Apr 3, 2013 - 04:59pm PT
Debunked, idiot. Those are orders for delivery over years and is a max amount.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Apr 3, 2013 - 05:05pm PT
I have outstanding air quality at my location. In fact, I'm going out for my second workout of the day now.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 3, 2013 - 05:17pm PT
The only reloading kit endored by Big Sis.



10. Rainbow Brite Ammo Loader Kit – Another wonder from GlamGuns.com, this kit ($243.95) contains streamers, glitter and confetti that can be added to a gun chamber, shooting out “a trail of sparkling love with every shot.”

Gary

Social climber
Right outside of Delacroix
Apr 3, 2013 - 05:27pm PT
If only he'd been armed and trained in firearm usage, this might have been prevented:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-west-virginia-sheriff-shot-20130403,0,3476693.story

A West Virginia sheriff was shot and killed Wednesday near the Mingo County courthouse in the town of Williamson, officials said.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 3, 2013 - 06:10pm PT
Dumb and Dumber are out-dumbing themselves today

Hey now, I've never called YOU names.




Clearly the news is in it with the government. The more people that disagree with you, the bigger the conspiracy... and the more guns you need. Genius! Resistance is futile.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Apr 3, 2013 - 07:08pm PT
Gun owners should be able to shoot their ARs or bushmasters at the range like they do.

A Gun Nut is someone who believes their right to punch holes in paper is superior to a kid's right to attend school without being murdered.

TE
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 3, 2013 - 07:09pm PT
There was never any doubt... just having a little self-deprecating fun.

Glad to see more sane people (TE) speaking up.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 05:12am PT
A Gun Nut is someone who believes their right to punch holes in paper is superior to a kid's right to attend school without being murdered.

An anti-gun-nut is someone so statistically clueless that they believe that the odds of being gun-murdered at school are even related to the right to punch holes in paper.

According to the US Census Bureau, there were 55.5 million kids enrolled in school, grades 1-12, in 2012. Of that number, 565 were killed by guns (in any context!) in that year. That translates into basic odds for 1-12-graders of 1 in 98,230 of being killed by a gun (anywhere, in any context) in 2012.

However, those odds are for being killed by a gun at ANY point in the year 2012, yet kids are in school a small fraction of the total hours in a year, certainly less than 1/3 of the time. But the stated odds are not for being gun-killed AT school. The odds are far lower when contemplating ONLY at-school hours. Even non-complex thinking about this yields something like 1 in 294,690 for the odds of a kid being killed by a gun AT school in 2012. More sophisticated analysis would produce even longer odds, all things considered.

So, the anti-gun-nut believes that odds of 1 in almost 300,000 should be sufficient to excite a national brouhaha and denigrate those people that are "punching holes in paper." Let's compare for perspective....

Annual odds of dying by other causes:

All accidents and injuries: 1 in 1656

Intentional self-harm: 1 in 8447

Assault by firearm: 1 in 24974 (entire population)

Walking: 1 in 54538

Fire: 1 in 104524

So, a kid in school is dramatically, hugely, amazingly safer from being murdered by a gun than, say, uhhh... WALKING during a given year. And being killed in a car wreck. And dying in a fire.

In fact, the very kid we're trying to protect is far, far, FAR more likely to kill him/herself (not using a gun).

Indeed, worrying about death in the statistical range of 1 in hundreds of thousands is actually NUTTY!

It's nuttier than planning your retirement on the results of a single horse race. It's nuttier than planning your life income on the basis of getting some friends together to buy a bunch of lotto tickets. At these sorts of odds, it is LITERALLY not worth thinking about, much less devoting the national will to "address" and "solve."

There is no "epidemic of gun violence in our schools." This phrase, "epidemic of gun violence" is a media creation with ZERO basis in statistical fact. 1 out of 300,000 of ANYTHING is not an "epidemic."

If anything, there is an epidemic of kids killing THEMSELVES while not using guns.

If the anti-gun-nut response is the old saw: "NO kid should EVER be murdered while in school," there are (at least) two responses:

1) "Should" in this context is an absolute ideal, and it is not possible in principle to achieve the ideal. Period! You can't even get close, no matter what you do. The most radical police state could not achieve this ideal. So, some kids are gonna get killed by guns while in school. So, this devolves into (2) below, which is about "reduction."

2) This line hearkens back to the "if it can save even one life" BS. But NOBODY really believes that in ANY context. As a nation we constantly employ cost/benefit analysis to decide where to exert effort to save lives. We do not EVER think in absolute terms like "if it can save even one life."

We DO put price tags on lives, as we MUST, because there is not enough money in the world to think in terms of "if it can save even one life."

So, we devote our efforts and money toward statistically-significant risks. And if we were thinking rationally about this, as a nation we would instantly see that death by gun at school is not a statistically-significant danger. Of course there's all this visceral reactionism....

But I said, "thinking rationally."

So, if you want to put your money where the benefits are, you would devoted hundreds of times more money and effort to reduce child/teen suicide. You can't "do it all," so you put your money/efforts where they will be most statistically significant.

Nobody wants ANY particular kid to be gun-murdered. But it's not preventable. And even "reducing" its incidence is not practically possible, because the odds against it are already so LOW! And what reductions might be achieved don't relate to the GUNS. The reductions would be achieved by focusing on other metrics.

Of the gun-murders at school, the vast majority of them are caused by small handguns rather than rifles of any sort (particularly not "assault rifles"). They take place primarily in inner-city schools (such as in Chicago), and they are almost without exception gang-related.

Not one of the laws currently being proposed will have the slightest effect on the incidence of such shootings, as the kids with the guns are getting them from their older, criminal, gang-banger siblings and friends. No assault weapons ban will significant change the incidence of such shootings, so the actual odds will remain effectively unchanged. No "straw purchases" law is going to significantly reduce the "trickle down" of illegal firearms into the hands of these young gang-banger punks.

And none of these statistics considers a host of very statistically-significant metrics, such as: race, age, size of city, size of school, regional economic metrics, or many, many others. Those metrics are the statistically-significant ones, not the existence of guns.

I grew up attending just such low-income, large, inner-city schools. My first year in high school, I saw three black teens beat a white teen to death in a corner of the football field after school. All were wearing gang colors. I saw beatings and heard about a couple of shootings. All were gang-related. ALL! And none of this came my way nor near anybody I knew. Out of a school of thousands, a tiny minority were involved in the violence. NONE of it would have been stopped by any law currently being proposed. The WEAPONS were not the issue. The other, actually statistically-significant metrics were the issues. If you want to reduce gun-violence, you have to go after THOSE metrics, because gun-violence is rooted there, not in the "accessibility" of the guns.

If there's a standard and familiar component to all anti-gun-nut arguments it is a cherry-picked, superficial analysis of the data. Basically it comes down to this song and dance: People die from guns. People should not die from guns. Thus, too many people die from guns. The ONLY way to "reduce" the number of people that die from guns is to make there be fewer guns, or at least to make there be fewer guns in "the wrong hands." So, we must legislate against guns being in the wrong hands.

This thinking is tragically superficial and ignores the real causes of violence (using ANY implements). It also over-emphasizes the positive effect of legislation (when long history in this country teaches us otherwise). Guns are "easy" to use, so they are most widely used. But the causes of gun-violence are not to be found in the guns or even how they are obtained.

And, sadly for the anti-gun-nuts' "ideal world," any effect of their heroic anti-gun efforts will prove to be statistically insignificant, because they simplistically prefer to ignore the much more difficult but REAL causes of gun violence.

You want to "eliminate" straw purchases? Go for it. I'm all for it. It's no threat to my world view at all. It will have no statistical effect.

You want to have universal background checks? No problem. I have no problem with it. It will have no statistical effect.

You want to eliminate "assault rifles?" More power to you. I find that one downright funny. (The "evil grip," lol.) And it will have no statistical effect.

On and on. The odds we're talking about are ridiculously low, and there are many more profound "threats" that can be addressed, providing a far better cost/benefit ratio, IF you are really after saving lives. If fixating on "murder" as a cause of death turns your crank, then, you know, beat your head if it makes you feel any better.

Just don't try to justify your Quixotic Quest as being rational or as owning you the moral high ground. It's not. It's superficial. It's visceral. It's knee-jerk. It's reactionary. Statistically speaking, schools are very safe. You would do better to legislate that there are sprinkler systems in every nook and cranny of the nation, so as to reduce that nasty risk of dying by fire.

After all, NO child should have to worry about being burned up in his/her sleep! And the odds are a lot higher of that than of being gun-murdered at school.
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Apr 4, 2013 - 05:31am PT
That translates into basic odds for 1-12-graders of 1 in 98,230 of being killed by a gun

Assault by firearm: 1 in 24974 (entire population)

...and these are acceptable odds??...by any measure or comparison ??
Messages 3161 - 3180 of total 5458 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews