The body count

[revtech100 16]

There are some basic facts that the RWNJ types ignore. First is if someone wants to kill you they are FAR more likely to succeed if they use a gun. If they must use a knife most normal people have a far better chance of successfully defending themselves! And if the objective is mass murder only explosive devices can match a gun with plenty of ammo for the ability to take out many people quickly!

Do you seriously believe that you can make something true just by saying it over and over? You may be able to fool the weak-minded but most of them are already there with you at your tea party anyway! The rest of us prefer to live in the reality based world where nonsensical statements like yours are usually just ignored!

And with my gun I have an equal if not better chance to defend myself and prohibit their success of killing me. Of is that a violation of their rights in the liberal view?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

And with my gun I have an equal if not better chance to defend myself and prohibit their success of killing me. Of is that a violation of their rights in the liberal view?

You have a far greater chance of taking your own life with a firearm, than you would ever have using it to defend yourself. Guns kill their owners almost twice as often as they kill somebody else.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/376344-hand-guns/page__view__findpost__p__5545061

[X Factor 1,112]

The just got entry into his home. The bomb expert broke every single window in his apartment.

[X Factor 1,112]

The news also reported that the shooter is in solitary confinement. He was spitting at prison guards. Other inmates were calling him baby killer.

[dalegg 143]

You have a far greater chance of taking your own life with a firearm, than you would ever have using it to defend yourself. Guns kill their owners almost twice as often as they kill somebody else.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/376344-hand-guns/page__view__findpost__p__5545061

That statistic is invalid for two reasons. The first is that people do not report how often they use a gun to protect themselves from an intruder as often as they report when a gun has been pulled on them. Second, statistics like this assume you have to actually kill the person who is threatening you in order to protect yourself, when the truth is you don't even have to fire the weapon in most cases.

Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year, and approximately 400,000 of them believe someone would have been dead had they not resorted to their defensive use of firearms. A government study put the figure at 1.5 million.

[rocks 494]

The news also reported that the shooter is in solitary confinement. He was spitting at prison guards. Other inmates were calling him baby killer.

He won't have an easy time in jail, from anyone.

From what I have read, he had a scholarship in California and got a bachelors degree there. He couldn't get a job other than at McDonalds. Then he went to college in Denver, his grades started suffering and was in the process of leaving the college. It would be interesting to know why his grades started suffering.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That statistic is invalid for two reasons. The first is that people do not report how often they use a gun to protect themselves from an intruder as often as they report when a gun has been pulled on them. Second, statistics like this assume you have to actually kill the person who is threatening you in order to protect yourself, when the truth is you don't even have to fire the weapon in most cases.

That doesn't jive with stand your ground proponents who say brandishing your weapon is something you DON'T do against someone threatening you. The reason being is that the other person could then reasonably believe they're life is in danger and respond accordingly, which would put the whole stand your ground logic into an endless loop.

Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year, and approximately 400,000 of them believe someone would have been dead had they not resorted to their defensive use of firearms. A government study put the figure at 1.5 million.

Gary Kleck is very policy opinionated, using statistics to form that opinion (that any legislation of gun control would no impact on violence). For example, he states that the statistics show there is no correlation between access to guns and violence, and that's defies any reasonable sense of logic. We know more cars on the road leads to more fatalities.

Kleck's finding has been called "an enormous overestimate" and "the gun debate's new mythical number," and it has been sharply attacked from a variety of angles. It makes no sense, its critics say, because it is wildly out of sync with what researchers know about how often crimes are committed. Defensive use is impossible to measure, they say, because it has never been properly defined. And even if you did define it carefully, it would remain such a rare event, statistically speaking, that a tiny number of "false positives" could – and almost certainly would – skew the results drastically.

"Using surveys to estimate rare events typically leads to overestimates," wrote David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health, the chief proponent of this critique, last year. "For example, the National Rifle Association reports 3 million dues-paying members, or about 1.5 percent of American adults. In national random telephone surveys, however, 4 to 10 percent of respondents claim that they themselves are dues-paying NRA members."

http://www.washingto...er/trigger5.htm

Edited July 22, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He won't have an easy time in jail, from anyone.

From what I have read, he had a scholarship in California and got a bachelors degree there. He couldn't get a job other than at McDonalds. Then he went to college in Denver, his grades started suffering and was in the process of leaving the college. It would be interesting to know why his grades started suffering.

His mother, who lives in San Diego, knew it was him, the moment she heard about the shootings in Aurora. For a person who volunteered to help kids, to mow down other kids indiscriminantly - something went wrong, and apparently the mother has some inside knowledge or intuition about it. I find it hard to believe he was able to buy his arsenal working minimum wage.

[mawilson 2,133]

I also don't understand why civilians need to possess AR-15 assault rifles, such as the one used by James Holmes in Colorado. They fire 10 shots at a time, and are intended for combat use. In civilian hands, they are by definition weapons of slaughter. Do you need one in your home?

They don't, it is totally unjustified. So are extended magazines.

If you believe (as I do) that the 2nd Amendment is there to prevent a tyrannical government from oppressing the people and that it has nothing to do with hunting, then assault weapons are ABSOLUTELY protected. In fact, one could argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to hunting rifles and shotguns. Bears and deer are not going to threaten our liberty. There's no constitutional right to hunt animals. Hunting people - absolutely, if the circumstances call for it.

[mawilson 2,133]

If you want to be able to take down your government you might need a few nukes as well.

You don't need nukes to take down the government. Assault rifles will do just fine.

The most powerful military in the world couldn't handle a ragtag team of Iraqi insurgents armed with AK-47's until they essentially bribed them (aka "the surge").

[Ban Hammer 13,726]

Are you comparing a lethal weapon that has been used to kill numerous people to choosing what you want to eat for dinner?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

[rocks 494]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Yes, that is exactly what you did.

[PMartin37 161]

That doesn't jive with stand your ground proponents who say brandishing your weapon is something you DON'T do against someone threatening you. The reason being is that the other person could then reasonably believe they're life is in danger and respond accordingly, which would put the whole stand your ground logic into an endless loop.

Edited July 22, 2012 by PMartin37

[Ban Hammer 13,726]

Yes, that is exactly what you did.

you're really missing the boat. i never once indicated i was talking about buying dinner.

just because someone is making a commotion about some firearm that does not mean i'm not going to buy said firearm.

[revtech100 16]

You have a far greater chance of taking your own life with a firearm, than you would ever have using it to defend yourself. Guns kill their owners almost twice as often as they kill somebody else.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/376344-hand-guns/page__view__findpost__p__5545061

I guess you would be correct if you were a liberal gun hating person that never touched one. I had a boss like that. Until she was approached one day while jogging. Scared her senseless. Then she went and bought a gun. Now for you to say that I have a far greater chance of taking my own life, then you do not know me or the 99% of the other responsible gun owners who practice safety all the time. Hopefully you will never be in a position were you need one. If you are, hopefully I or some one like me who cares will be there to save you from being maimed or murdered.