Topic: How many pro-gun conservatives here...
+Anonymous A — 12.5 years ago #33,320
...have actually fired a gun at something that wasn't a deer or a paper target?
+👹 — 12.5 years ago, 43 seconds later[T] [B] #382,610
I once fired at a nigger before
+Anonymous C — 12.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,612
@OP
Does the ground count? How 'bout soda bottles? Bags of flour? Fine china? Glass?
·Anonymous A (OP) — 12.5 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,613
·👹 — 12.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,615
@previous (A)
Not my problem
·Anonymous A (OP) — 12.5 years ago, 0 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,616
The NRA and the gun industry is selling a paranoia fantasy to you guys, because the fact is, the hunting market isn't enough for them. So they're convincing you that some scary black people are going to break into your house and you'll have to shoot them.
+Anonymous D — 12.5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,622
Does it make you uncomfortable that law abiding citizens own guns? What kind of neighborhood do you live in? How much do you make annually? Have you ever been mugged or assaulted?
·Anonymous C — 12.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,625
@382,616 (A)
Uh, scary black people are breaking into houses. And they're getting shot.
Homeowner 1 dead nigger 0
+Anonymous E — 12.5 years ago, 27 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,627
@382,616 (A)
In Florida you don't even have to wait til they break into your house before you can shoot them.
·Anonymous C — 12.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,630
·👹 — 12.5 years ago, 58 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,632
@382,622 (D)
Pretty damn comfortable actually.
Enraged neckbeards cant hurt me with theyre cheap imported katanas when i tell them that linux sucks ass
·Anonymous A (OP) — 12.5 years ago, 34 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,633
@382,625 (C)
Versus how many people are killed from accidental gun deaths in the home? Please.
@382,627 (E)
Thanks for only making my point more valid.
·Anonymous C — 12.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,635
@previous (A)
So what are your stats? Love to see them.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 12.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,636
@previous (C)
Show me yours first, then we'll talk.
·Anonymous E — 12.5 years ago, 19 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,638
@382,630 (C)
Hella of a bonus.
@382,633 (A)
No problem.
·Anonymous D — 12.5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,646
@382,632 (👹 )
Still, you should be careful. OP is sharpening his trusty katana as we speak.
@382,627 (E)
Other states have stand your ground laws too. The only good thing gov Rick Scott has done was refuse to get rid of the stand your ground law in FL after everyone was bawwing and baying for blood over the Zimmerman/Martin nonsense.
@382,625 (C)
This. And in a lot of cases the firearm doesn't even need to be used since it's presence alone is a huge deterrent. Criminals are also less likely to burglarize someone known to be armed since they would rather not be shot over a few bucks.
·Anonymous C — 12.5 years ago, 27 seconds later, 31 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,647
@382,636 (A)
Your assertion buddy, but it's ok.
@382,638 (E)
That same law is up for debate here. I expect it will pass :)
·Anonymous A (OP) — 12.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,648
@previous (C)
It's my assertion that there are more in-home gun related deaths than those that actually fight off African-American burglars? Are you retarded or just trolling?
·Anonymous C — 12.5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,649
@previous (A)
Calm down sugar, you shouldn't get so upset. Now you're a person who definitely should not own a gun, you hot head.
·Anonymous D — 12.5 years ago, 11 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,650
@382,635 (C)
Spoiler:
OP is talking out of his ass.
@382,633 (A)
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year --- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" --- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime
* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home. [9] * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; [10] and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.[11]
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union --- having three times received the "Safest State Award."[12]
* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. [13] FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period --- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. [14]
* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.
1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport. [15]
C. Criminals avoid armed citizens
* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. [16]
* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed. [17]
* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%. [18] Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation. [19]
* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful. [20] Justice Department study:
* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." [21]
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."[22] * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." [23]
gunowners.org ·Anonymous D — 12.5 years ago, 32 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,651
@382,648 (A)
And you would be wrong in that assertion.
·Anonymous C — 12.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 39 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,652
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year...in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. ... According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.
·Anonymous C — 12.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 41 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,654
@382,650 (D)
Of course he is. Quite a grand tardflail.
·Anonymous D — 12.5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #382,661
@previous (C)
Ikr. Just a bunch of butthurt and unsubstantiated claims.
@382,652 (C)
Bizarre, more evidence that OP doesn't know what they're talking about.
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.