Gun owners buy guns because guns kill people in an efficient manner.

[whereisjustice]

If a company built a gun that could not be used to kill someone, would anyone buy it? No. Not unless they were a child buying a toy gun for cowboys and Indians.

And that's the point. Gun owners are playing cowboys and Indians with real guns. They haven't gotten smarter as they've grown up, just more dangerous.

They want to play with guns. But they refuse to pay for the mess they make. They want their guns but take no responsibility for the price of their hobby - 100,000 dead and injured a year.

Gun owners need to be charged with a felony when a gun they own is used in a crime.

They need to buy insurance and pay taxes to cover the $200+ billion dollars a year it costs taxpayers to deal with aftermath of gun violence.

They need to be fined for losing a gun or having it stolen. Multiple loses should revoke right to own a gun.

They need to submit to background checks. No private sales exceptions, no gun show exceptions.

Just for starters.

But gun owners don't want any of that. They want the guns and they want us to clean up after them.

[ileus]

1. And I buy SD firearms because of the potential to save lives.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. SD?

[ileus]

9. Self Defense

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. Yeah, I actually knew that.

I just think it's so very cute how you think your guns could only possibly be used for the purposes of self-defense.

Really cute.

[ileus]

11. I think it cute how you think otherwise.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. So the guy who goes to the gun shop to buy himself a "SD firearm" to protect his wife and kids....

....and then finds out his wife has been cheating on him with a co-worker and wants to leave him, and so he wants to drive over to her office, barge through the doors of her office, pop one in her before he offs himself in one final act....but because it's his "SD firearm", it will automatically lock up and instead play soothing Enya music and direct him to an online dating site to find some great compatible matches with some lovely single women looking for a new romance.

"SD firearms" do that, don't they? Because they can only be used for self-defense, right?


The really cute thing about that hypothetical is that it actually happened in the office suite right next to mine a couple of years ago with a guy who bought himself that "SD firearm".

Well, all that happened except for the whole gun not shooting and playing Enya music and online dating stuff.

[ileus]

15. What if he decided to choke her to death instead? I suppose that's more acceptable, no mean ole

gun was involved after all.


What if he decided instead of killing her, to get a divorce, buy a nice Bass boat, head out to the lake and catch a 6# largemouth while still carrying the same P226 he bought for self defense?

The really cute thing is I've known dozens of the above example (well not all bought bass boats, most bought sports cars or a motorcycle) and went on living life.

Or I could believe that every jilted lover with a gun is a murderer...



It's up to us to remain progressive on the 2A....together we can keep our rights.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

17. It's easier to pull a guy off his ex-wife who's in the process of choking her....

....than it is to try to stop him as he rushes by you into his office and points a gun and does in two seconds what it would probably take him a minute to do choking her to death.

Congratulations. You've just proved the OP's very point.

[kcr]

18. There is nothing progressive about believing there is a fundamental right to own guns

What you're missing is no matter what a person believes they need a gun for, self defense, collection, decoration, whatever. Keeping a system of open and freely available guns so that you can buy them for whatever purpose you feel you need them means many more people have to die. Denying that is exactly the same as those who deny other fact based claims like evolution and climate change. You deny the actual evidence to justify your perceived needs.

[frylock]

23. Not too many fire arms in San Diego this year..

pitching killed us.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

37. Ba-dum-dump!

[world wide wally]

2. I just had a thought

Since conservatives always want to "go back to the way we were".
Why don't we just bring back the gun laws that prevailed in the 70's ?

[flamin lib]

6. Or the 1880s when the western towns collected all guns at the city limits?

[Eleanors38]

25. 1870s or 1970s? Either era, Jim (large, raucous black bird) laws were the model.

I would also point out that the homicide numbers in the U.S. for 1969 were FAR higher. With those laws.

To say nothing of the number of guns in circulation or the raw population numbers at that time compared to now.

[Orrex]

30. And that was the only variable, I'm sure.

Social unrest, racial tension, political strife, and all the rest, meaningless.

What caused the higher murder rate was the slight limitation on the availability of guns. Sure.

To say nothing of the number of guns in circulation or the raw population numbers at that time compared to now.

More people own iPhones now than in 1969. Maybe that explains the lower homicide rate.

[hack89]

3. I have not hurt or killed a living thing in 35 years

Just poke a lot of holes in pieces of paper.

[world wide wally]

16. Can you say the same for the shooters in Oregon, Colorado, Virginia, Texas, Connecticut… etc etc?

What is your solution?

[hack89]

19. I support most gun control proposals with only two firm exceptions

I do not support AWBs or registration. I live in a state with strict gun control (we have UBCs for example.) All of my representatives in Washington support gun control. I will vote for a candidate for president that supports gun control. I am not an obstacle to stricter gun control.

[world wide wally]

21. glad to hear that

[GGJohn]

4. LOL.

How many of these inane threads are you going to post?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Why do gun law enforcers carry guns?

[Facility Inspector]

7. Love is blind

Ray Charles is blind

Ray Charles is love.

That is the level of "discourse" with these arguments.

[mmonk]

12. I didn't buy mine because they kill people efficiently.

So that screws up your hypothesis.

[kcr]

20. But that doesn't change the fact that they kill people efficiently

All guns everywhere didn't magically change their properties the day you bought yours, did they?

[mmonk]

24. False arguments.

A judgment was made about my purchase and I'm letting you know that judgment is incorrect.

[kcr]

35. What was false about my statement?

Nothing. The fact that guns are weapons and the number and ease to get them cause deaths isn't changed magically just because you don't intend to murder anyone.

[olddots]

14. we in America grew up with war movies & cowboy movies .

We also grew up with everyone smoking and drinking to show how sexy they were .Guns are a very important material possession ,you may have nothing but your gun can change that .That phyco babble rings true .Remember guns were called equalizers and still are in other terms .Its not all about machisimo there may be a very primal part of our brains that makes us want to be savages in a non savage world of over 7 billion humans .I know fucking boring ....

All this talk about violence makes me want to get violent .........

[Ghost in the Machine]

22. Many also buy guns for the sole purpose of putting food on the table for their families, too.

Can YOU build a gun that distinguishes between a deer, elk, turkey, quail, etc., and a Human Being?

The very plain and simple fact is this: Humans have been killing each other since the beginning of time. They will continue to do so. Some out of jealous rage, some out of momentary loss of reasoning and others just because there is something wrong with their wiring and they are hardwired to be emotionless, stone-cold killers. Human life means NOTHING to them, like the guy recently that raped and killed an old woman "because he was bored and had nothing better to do".

The 'Media' is partly to blame, and the reason we have so many "copycats". Most of these people are loners who feel invisible to the world and, IMHO, see all the attention that these other mass murderers get and think "here's MY chance to be *somebody*. EVERYONE will know my name". I was glad to see after last weeks shooting that the media wasn't releasing the name of the shooter, at least where I live, and my dad said that CNN was following suit with that. The Executive Producer of our news station actually came on TV and said that they weren't releasing the name, and that was going to be their policy from now on.

Peace,

Ghost

[Eleanors38]

26. The purpose of the OP, IMO, was to stereotyoe all gun-owners. It didn't work.

[Ghost in the Machine]

36. "It didn't work." Does it ever?? The anti-gunners don't seem to have much when pressed for details..

All you hear is crickets....

Peace,

Ghost

[Duckhunter935]

31. I agree

With you on loaners looking for fame. They get it 24/7 and if they murder well enough, their name will be out there for generations.

[Ghost in the Machine]

46. I'm glad to see *some* of the Media starting to refuse to release their names. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

49. a small step

[upaloopa]

27. Guns kill animals efficiently too.

You see we got to kill them pesky animals that have always lived were we now want our homes and livestock.
I lived in open range country and the cattlemen ruled the countryside with their guns. They came to my house to tell me they have the right to shoot my dogs if they went on their land. They have a right to fucking shoot any damn thing they want.

[Decoy of Fenris]

28. I buy mine for historic value and appreciation. Never gave a thought to killing. *shrug* n/t

[Duckhunter935]

32. I am glad my collection

Of bolt action military spec weapons will never kill another person. They are locked in my safe and do quite well on some paper plates.

[Decoy of Fenris]

33. Aye, most of mine are single-shot or five round strip clips.

My old man somehow got ahold of an 1873 Springfield that I know I sure as hell won't be firing; apparently, that model was known for explosive misfires. Given its age, that's a reputation I don't want to put to the test.

[Duckhunter935]

42. My oldest is a 1926

mosin

[Decoy of Fenris]

43. Great gun, but let's not get into it here.

Gods know we'll get tagged for "gun porn" or something. Shoot me a message if ya want.

[Duckhunter935]

44. I agree

Talking about an 80 year old antique rifle will be alerted on by the controllers around here, lol

Have a great day

[Decoy of Fenris]

45. You too, mate. n/t

[REP]

47. My oldest is an 1890 Stevens .22 LR

It was my great grandfather's, and what I learned to shoot on.

[scrabblequeen40]

29. Well-said

You summed it well. Even in unlikelihood that you have to defend yourself, there are other ways to do without a gun.

[leftyladyfrommo]

34. People buy guns because they like guns.

Everything else is just an excuse.

[Shrek]

38. I bought mine to kill pheasants efficiently

I have no interesting in killing people.

[Orrex]

39. Are you a pleasant mother pheasant plucker? Do you pluck mother pheasants?

I'll bet that you're the pleasantest mother pheasant plucker that ever plucked a mother pheasant.


That's gold!

[Jim Beard]

40. Enjoyed reading this article this morning

Networks Slam 'Controversial,’ ‘Beyond Insensitive’ Ben Carson - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2015/10/07/networks-slam-controversial-beyond-insensitive-ben-carson#sthash.deMiHV4A.dpuf

The outraged journalists at NBC, ABC and CBS on Wednesday slammed the “controversial,” “beyond insensitive” Ben Carson for his comments about last week’s shooting in Oregon. Their anger provides a strong contrast to controversial statements by Hillary Clinton in recent days. Carson urged people in a mass shooting situation to attack the gunman, prompting Today co-host Natalie Morales to rage, “It's beyond insensitive. It's hard to hear that.” Co-host Willie Geist huffed, “But my goodness, who would ever second guess people in that situation?” Tamron Hall agreed, saying, “I don’t understand it.” - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2015/10/07/networks-slam-controversial-beyond-insensitive-ben-carson#sthash.deMiHV4A.dpuf

CARSON: Not all kindergarten teachers, I said people who are trained and understand all the implications. And you obviously are not just going to have a weapon sitting on the kindergarten teacher's desk. And I know that’s-

JOY BEHAR: So where would the weapon be?

CARSON: It would be secured in a place where kids could not get to it.

BEHAR: So if a gunman comes in – if a gunman comes in with an AK-45 or AR-15, how fast can that teacher go to the locked drawer and get that gun?

CARSON: Well, I want that teacher trained.

- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2015/10/07/networks-slam-controversial-beyond-insensitive-ben-carson#sthash.deMiHV4A.dpuf

Trained for what, how fast you can get the key and unlock the gun while the shooter already has shot you for not following his orders.

People don't realize id all attacks work on the element of surprise. That is how they make it work. Even in other situations like the drive by, it is the element of surprise. A shooter never ever tells the target, "I will be there in 10 minutes to shoot the whole class. Neverever.

[Whiskeytide]

41. The only honest...

... argument for owning a gun is "fuck off! I like guns". * Those of us that own guns should simply accept that.



*. Jim Jefferies, comedian.

[hobbit709]

48. Lots of things kill people in an efficient manner.