Let's hear it for the 2nd amendment!!! (Page 2)

People owning guns is not a necessary antecedent to voilence. I know this is true because I own a gun and I've never shot anyone.

Outlawing firearms will not stop gun violence.

I'm with you on this GB.

bradword - 2012-07-19 1:07 PM

TriRSquared - 2012-07-19 6:27 AM

gearboy - 2012-07-19 12:08 AM

Yes indeed. Hooray for the right to bear arms. It certainly is exciting to read about how peoples lives are saved. Especially when people take the time to learn how to handle guns. I'm so glad we can keep firearms in our homes to defend against attackers.

This passive-aggressive post brought to you by the committee to reelect Obama.

If guns were illegal you'd see stabbings.  If knives were illegals you'd see rock bashings.  It's not the instrument, it's the ethics and morals of the society.

So as long as the bad guys (and the government) have guns I'm going to have them as well.

I disagree, if guns were completely illegal we would still see shootings .

HA, you're right.  I really should have said "if guns didn't exist..."

I don't think anyone is cheering the "shooting of another human", we are cheering that two law breakers (bad people) came against an unknown number of law-abiding citizens (good people) unprovoked and an old man on the internet had the ability to defend all those law-abiding citizens.  I would cheer just as loudly if he had used a cane, however one of the bad guys HAD A GUN so old man on the internet used his gun.  In this case the 2nd Amendment is partially to credit so that is referenced.

Score: Good guys 1 / Bad guys 0 = cheer

Tony, go watch it again.  The man is in perfect control of his weapon at all times.  He acquires the target fires a shot.  Moves, requires, fires again.  He chases them to the door and fires a third shot.  There was nothing haphazard about the situation.

The only reason someone wants to disarm you, whether it be the gov., army, police officer or criminal, is to have power over you.

I was gonna stay out of this thread until that...

News Flash.  Obama has done NOTHING to repeal your Second Amendment rights.  Nada-Zip-Zilch.  This scare tactic is being perpetuated by the NRA aka Gun/Ammo industry to get more people to buy more product.  Presumably before the "BAN" takes effect. 

I'm in Law Enforcement.  I don't own a gun, but dont care if you do as long as it's used safely.  Sadly that is not usually the case. 

Don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure  Obama nor Bush nor Clinton nor Bush, Reagan, Carter etc., etc.  are to blame.

Easy partner.  I was teasing GearBoy (note the sarcasm font).  It was not mean in seriousness.

The part of that study (done by Lippmann) that always gets left out is that he found:

"The most common cause of deaths occurring at homes where guns are present, by far, is suicide."

So remove the suicides and the numbers plummet back to near non-gun home levels.  Guns do not cause the suicide.  Guns are the method of suicide.  If the gun was not present who is to say if the suicide would have moved forward.

NO, becuase there ARE accidents.  Not everyone is a responsible gun owner.  Some people are idiots and clean loaded guns.  Some people do not secure their guns from children.  These are horrible things to happen but they do.  But not as much as anti-gun people would like you to believe.

It's never going to be LESS than non-gun homes (that would be mathematically impossible).  However the crux of his argument (the negatives outweigh the positives) is false when you remove the aspect of suicide (which most people who buy a gun for PROTECTION are not really concerned with).

(Second bolded part)

Rare? Over 1 million home invasions, defined as when a person is home per year from 2003-2007.  IN 2007 there were about 111 million households.  So a 1:100 chance of having a home invasion happen while you are home.  I wouldn't call that "rare".

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

(Third bolded part)

But that's not he gun's fault.  It's just as easy to take too many pills or slit your wrists etc...Should we outlaw cars because you can turn those on and kill yourself in the garage as well?

You are mixing the tool of the act with the act itself.

60% hits, a that's passing score in public school.

How do you know he was not moving to try and further widen his range fan away from others? Looking at the way he moved I'd say he had control and had done quite a bit of shooting during his life, there was no jerking or supprise as is common with folks that don't shoot as much as they should. 

@ mr2tony, yes I'm glad to see he put the hurt on some punks (cheer). I would be equally happy if he had killed them.  And again wouldn't care if he had done it with a cane, rock or whatever else. Get it through your head they where the bad guys and may have killed/injuried good guys. Is either life more important? Nope, but I can tell you which family I'd rather have to notify regarding their son/uncle/cousin/father being shot.

Fox news hmmmmmmmm....

I have to wonder if this actually even happened, or if there will be a tiny off the cuff mention in some hard to find place retracting this story tomorrow..............

A few points:

5 shots, 3 wounds. And you consider only the first shot "being in control"? Sorry, the facts do not support your opinion.

Regarding shooting inches from the woman's head, in what way is that relevant?

Shooting where any number of people could have been standing? Or not. He wasn't firing blindly, and I wasn't aware of a charge of reckless shooting, unless you have more information that what was in the article...?

I realize you're very anxious to prove what a "dirty harry" wannabe reckless idiot, with no regard for innocent peoples lives, person he is, but call a spade a spade, this is a case of a legal weapon being used to foil a robbery, with no innocents being harmed.

No more, no less.

But that puts the guy in the video outside the realm of the 2nd amendment.

Grandfathered in