Redneck shoots up Pensacola with AK-47

[Gallstones]

Animals aren't that dangerous. I mean you can run off a polar bear by jangling your keys at it. Or so I'm told.

Yeah, it runs off to go fetch it's friends to enjoy the easy pickings.

[Wumbologist]

Obviously, what a society thinks of as normal rubs off on the young.
Your average southerner would qualify as a bit of a gun-nut in Britain. What one lot thinks of as normal would be strange somewhere else.

You mean there are different social norms in different cultures? I suppose the next thing you're going to tell me is that it's OK for people to be different and like different things!

The romans used to think it fashionable and sophisticated to watch people fight to the death for their amusement. We could all debate that with them, if they were here, and they would probably think we were odd, and downright soft.

But in a way, we still do the same. Only now, people fight to the death for our amusement, only it's in the movies, or on tv, and it's not real, just pretend.
I know which is worse, but I'm not sure which is sadder.

Neither is nearly as sad as someone dense enough to think that action movies are somehow comparable to Roman gladiatorial matches.

I'm sure that if you could go back and talk to some of the Romans who enjoyed that kind of stuff, they would be solid citizens, normal and well balanced, just like all your gun loving friends. It only looks odd from the outside.

So, what makes owning a gun comparable to watching a person get beaten and stabbed to death for entertainment?

[mistermack]

Neither is nearly as sad as someone dense enough to think that action movies are somehow comparable to Roman gladiatorial matches.

You don't see any parallel?
Give it a bit more thought.

[mistermack]

So, what makes owning a gun comparable to watching a person get beaten and stabbed to death for entertainment?

The comparison is : The Romans considered it perfectly normal to watch that stuff.
In the US, it's considered normal to own guns.

The comparison is to point out that we accept the strangest things as normal, if we are brought up with them.
You could never convince a Roman that there was anything wrong with watching fights to the death.
Likewise gun ownership in the US.
It's about what's considered normal.

[Wumbologist]

So, what makes owning a gun comparable to watching a person get beaten and stabbed to death for entertainment?

The comparison is : The Romans considered it perfectly normal to watch that stuff.
In the US, it's considered normal to own guns.

The comparison is to point out that we accept the strangest things as normal, if we are brought up with them.
You could never convince a Roman that there was anything wrong with watching fights to the death.
Likewise gun ownership in the US.
It's about what's considered normal.

I live in a part of the US where gun ownership is far more rare, I wasn't brought up with guns, and up until a few years ago, I thought guns were bad and mean and scary. After a while, I started to realize that a lot of the anti-gun arguments lacked factual support, and my opinion started to shift. You'll certainly never convince me there's anything wrong with owning guns, if you can't find the facts to back it up. Having said that, if a conclusive link between gun ownership rates and violent crime existed, you and every other anti-gun debater I've ever talked to would have rubbed it in my face a long time ago.

[Robert_S]

Neither is nearly as sad as someone dense enough to think that action movies are somehow comparable to Roman gladiatorial matches.

You don't see any parallel?
Give it a bit more thought.

Hollywood has those wimpy liberal laws about worker safety and animal cruelty.

That's what's wrong with this country: It's practically impossible to legally disembowel another living creature for fun and profit. We have to make do with make-believe.

[Wumbologist]

Neither is nearly as sad as someone dense enough to think that action movies are somehow comparable to Roman gladiatorial matches.

You don't see any parallel?
Give it a bit more thought.

Hollywood has those wimpy liberal laws about worker safety and animal cruelty.

That's what's wrong with this country: It's practically impossible to legally disembowel another living creature for fun and profit. We have to make do with make-believe.

But I thawt all dem killins' an marderins' an explowshions on that there teevee was ferreal! Dabgammit, I ain't never watchin' HBO agin', the fakers!

[mistermack]

I wasn't brought up with guns,

So, you had no tv then, or comics, or never went to the movies?

You'll certainly never convince me there's anything wrong with owning guns, if you can't find the facts to back it up.

That's an odd statement. I thought it was about the balance of pro's and cons. I've not met many people who couldn't see ANY downside to gun ownership.
I'll give you one example then. Accidents and mistakes.
All those dead people who would be alive now, but for gun accidents and mistakes. And people wounded and crippled who would be ok, but for gun accidents and mistakes.
Like the japanese student killed recently, asking for directictions on some gun-looney's drive.

if a conclusive link between gun ownership rates and violent crime existed, you and every other anti-gun debater I've ever talked to would have rubbed it in my face a long time ago.

It should be the other way round. What are the guns supposed to be for? For protection, I thought. So pro-gun debaters should have to prove the link between gun ownership and personal safety. And if you can, then it's obvious that everyone should carry a gun at all times, then you would all be completely safe.

[Wumbologist]

So, you had no tv then, or comics, or never went to the movies?

Had TV, no comics, went to movies. Still thought guns were bad and scary and that people shouldn't own them.

That's an odd statement. I thought it was about the balance of pro's and cons. I've not met many people who couldn't see ANY downside to gun ownership.
I'll give you one example then. Accidents and mistakes.
All those dead people who would be alive now, but for gun accidents and mistakes. And people wounded and crippled who would be ok, but for guns.
Like the japanese student killed recently, asking for directictions on some gun-looney's drive.

I'm not worried about accidents and mistakes because I know how to safely handle my firearms and never deviate from firearm safety rules. The gun I carry daily is virtually impossible to accidentally discharge as it is a double-action revolver that requires a 10+lb trigger pull, and it cannot be discharged any other way. I'm exponentially more likely to be killed in an accident on my way to and from work than I am to kill myself via negligent discharge of a firearm.

It should be the other way round. What are the guns supposed to be for? For protection, I thought. So pro-gun debaters should have to prove the link between gun ownership and personal safety. And if you can, then it's obvious that everyone should carry a gun at all times, then you would all be completely safe.

If you can't prove the harm in gun ownership, why should we have to prove anything else? As far as a link between gun ownership and personal safety, 13 studies on defensive gun use claimed between 800,000-2,000,000 defensive gun uses annually in the US, the vast majority of which occur without shots ever being fired.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

[Geoff]

Animals aren't that dangerous. I mean you can run off a polar bear by jangling your keys at it. Or so I'm told.

Byers?

[mistermack]

I'm not worried about accidents and mistakes because I know how to safely handle my firearms and never deviate from firearm safety rules.

That hardly makes you safe. You could be killed by someone else's mistake. It happens all the time, even to police and soldiers.

If you can't prove the harm in gun ownership, why should we have to prove anything else?

I showed you one example. Accidents and mistakes. If you can prove that they don't happen, then you might have a case. Just claiming that YOU will never make a mistake is worth nothing at all. Everyone would tell you the same, just minutes before the accidents and mistakes happened. And even if YOU are immune, other's are obviously not.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Animals aren't that dangerous. I mean you can run off a polar bear by jangling your keys at it. Or so I'm told.

Byers?

'Bout time somebody remembered him.

[mistermack]

As far as a link between gun ownership and personal safety, 13 studies on defensive gun use claimed between 800,000-2,000,000 defensive gun uses annually in the US, the vast majority of which occur without shots ever being fired.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

There's not a single fact incorporated in those figures.
Just replies. Replies can be true, or false.
It's hardly surprising you get figures like that, when many gun owners live in a fantasy world, where they are Clint Eastwood, driving off the baddies.
That study is about fifteen years old, and was worthless the day it was done.

[Wumbologist]

That hardly makes you safe. You could be killed by someone else's mistake. It happens all the time, even to police and soldiers.

The odds of that happening are vanishingly small.

I showed you one example. Accidents and mistakes. If you can prove that they don't happen, then you might have a case. Just claiming that YOU will never make a mistake is worth nothing at all. Everyone would tell you the same, just minutes before the accidents and mistakes happened. And even if YOU are immune, other's are obviously not.

So, we should ban anything that can accidentally hurt or kill someone, right? I'm 70 times more likely to die in an automobile accident, 27 times more likely to die in an accidental fall, 19 times more likely to die of an accidental poisoning, 9 times more likely to die crossing the street, 6 times more likely to die in a fire, and more than 5 times more likely to choke to death on my food. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

Looks to me like if accidents are the concern, there's a whole heap of shit to ban before we get to guns.

[Wumbologist]

There's not a single fact incorporated in those figures.
Just replies. Replies can be true, or false.
It's hardly surprising you get figures like that, when many gun owners live in a fantasy world, where they are Clint Eastwood, driving off the baddies.
That study is about fifteen years old, and was worthless the day it was done.

Well then there you go. I can't conclusively prove that more guns = more safety, and you can't conclusively prove that more guns = more crime. So how about I keep my guns if I want, you don't get any if you don't want, and you quitcherbitchin'?