Bignugget

Just try answering the questions. Why? You don't use logic, refuse to answer my/our questions, constantly change your arguments, and there is nothing anyone can say that will change your mind. That is not a discussion, that is a yelling match. Why bother with someone as boring as you? (see image below) You can hold any opinion you want, but as soon as you say it is superior to another or should be implemented as policy, you have I support it. Simply repeating "they're bad, I don't like them, ban them" is not good enough, and not worth continuing. Understandable you cannot answer it. I also have a hard time reconciling the desire for peace and non-violence with our desire to keep nukes out of Iran's hands. MORE means of destruction and death are clearly avenues that lead to less violence as you guys have so aptly demonstrated through statistics showing how non-violent America is.... so wtf is the deal? I dunno, you dunno, maybe Jesus knows. But I do understand your inability to answer.

Just try answering the questions.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I just have a right to life. AGAIN, since I(we as humans) can't control the actions of others. The best we can do is control their access to the tools (means). We can't control Iran's leadership, we can't control their actions. So we attempt to control their access to the tools they would use. Or to frame it a bit differently....If control of the tools is moot, ineffective, and ultimately causes the reverse of the intended effect (more deaths not fewer), why are we so concerned with Iran and North Korea acquiring their own tools (means). Is it really that hard to follow the logic? I would go on to argue that I am much more likely to be killed by a gun than a nuclear weapon, and as such they should be first on the list of tools to restrict. Step back and look globally. Explain to me the rationale that 280 million guns produces a safer society than drastically fewer guns would.....when we are the most heavily armed, and nowhere near the safest... Methinks, just like that class on Nuclear nonproliferation you also are not schooled in logic. Your arguments lack logic and you refuse with pure stubbornness to see the logic in the arguments that are being made. Tell me why do you have this irrational fear, why do you hate firearms? You keep saying your less safe in the US than elsewhere, I have lived all around the world and, your Argument is besting you. Given all those dangerous firearms, the US is still one of the safest places you can live... Unless you are a criminal. I will say that I can't believe you want to see more people raped, assaulted, and robbed so that you can remove firearms from the equation. That shows a lot about your irrational argument. I am not stating that, that will or will not happen but the fact that you are willing to accept such a egregious idea to get rid of a tool to me is unfathomable. I don't really understand(logically) how you can support such a position. "I don't really understand(logically) how you can support such a position." Murder is worse than rape and assault. Try answering this: "We can't control Iran's leadership, we can't control their actions. So we attempt to control their access to the tools they would use. Or to frame it a bit differently....If control of the tools is moot, ineffective, and ultimately causes the reverse of the intended effect (more deaths not fewer), why are we so concerned with Iran and North Korea acquiring their own tools (means). " Answer that, and then re-frame it in the context of small arms. The statistics for homicide world wide do not backup your assertion that the United States is safer than most of the world.

Oh, I dunno. I am reminded of being at the range where someone's hot girlfriend was shooting with some kind of K-frame .38. She apparently had some kind of question, so she pivoted - still holding the revolver with her finger on the trigger. When I threw myself backwards on the ground to stay out of the line of fire, she looked down to see what was the fuss, and the barrel followed her line of sight. I was able to roll out of where the hole would have appeared as the barrel came down, and someone was able to get the firearm out of her hands before the damned thing went off. Anyhow, someone more focused on shaking their tits than where the firearm is pointed does not get me hot and bothered. Actually, it bothers me more than a little. I have known some beautiful women who were world-class shots, and they bore no resemblance to the airheads in this video. BSBD, Winsor Hahah my thoughts exactly. At first I am thinking, man this is the best pro-gun argument I have ever seen. Immediately replaced by wait a minute, you gave these (obviously super intelligent fortune 500) chicks with big ass tits, automatic weapons and flash bangs, and fed them coronas? Still, the big tits sold me. I am officially pro gun now.

I did a bit more poking around http://www.policek9.com/html/statutes.html It looks like several states make a distinction from normal civilian animals and LEO animals. It also appears they are proposing (or have proposed) to make it a felony in Texas.

An interesting take. Did he destroy state property through negligence and should he be responsible for reimbursement? Again, I think it all depends on how K9 in the line of duty deaths are handled normally. If a normal 'criminal' is required to pay that stuff, then that's fair enough.

You're right. They need the practice. Plus they take a bite out of their grocery bill by seizing all those healthy organic veggies. Unfortunately I understand why they are so Dbaggy. If my job involved interacting with people who are more than likely armed I would want to go in hard and fast as well. Lets face it. When there are nearly as many guns as people in a country, LEO is going to do what they have to in order to make sure they have the upper hand.

Well in that case the raid makes a lot more sense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/texas-swat-team-conducts-_n_3764951.html?utm_hp_ref=tw Only problem I had is they didn't slaughter the people when they raided. Pussy cops. Okra and tall bushes?!?!? Fuckin criminals. Another fine bit of investigative work by the police who are typically highly educated, deductive reasoners. NOT.

Did a little googling. Found this "Priddy is being held in the Clark County jail on charges including attempted murder of a police officer, causing the death of a law enforcement animal, burglary, residential entry, pointing a firearm, and criminal recklessness with a firearm. Read more: http://fox59.com/2013/06/24/officer-k9-shot-during-swat-standoff-in-sellersburg/#ixzz2cA5qcDnN" So maybe there is a crime called "Causing the death of a law enforcement animal" Wonder how the penalty compares to other crimes.

Thanks shampoo. (thats how I see your name, makes me lol every time) I knew you could distill it for me Yes REHMWA. I am simply asking. I know I have HEARD if you shot a K9 dog while hes coming after you, or assault the dog, you can be charged for actions against a police officer (human) ...not just charged with animal cruelty. Since I have never done any real research, I was curious if the lawyers lurking the boards knew how accurate that was, and what really happens when you kill a K9 dog. Personally, the dude should be punished in whatever way we typically punish "Aunt Sue" who left her dog in the car while she ran into the bank and it died...etc.

Hahahah I read that and cracked up "Three months later, a dead black bear was found in the Chattahoochee National Forest that had apparently overdosed on cocaine dropped by Thornton." Rofl.

and if there was a big shiny red button that could magically make them all go away. Then your plan would work. But since there isn't, there will still be at least the same number of illegal guns in the hands of criminals. Likely more, as we know the chances of NONE of the confiscated weapons making it back onto the street is essentially nil. This is why I wish there was a category in the UCR stats for "legally purchased firearm" and "illegally purchased firearm". Confiscation would only affect the legally purchased firearms. And since there will still be criminals with firearms wanting to do bad things, and the police respond to phone calls in an average of 7 minutes in cities in my county (ignoring that most of the county is rural). I would expect that we could see those firearms continued to be used against law abiding citizens. Perhaps with more frequency than before. The efficacy of your plan relies on the magic "gun eraser" button. Since there is no magic red button we are doomed to remain as homicidal as Yemen. Maybe you are right. I like magic.

no... you've already told us that you're willing to take rifles away from millions to potentially save the lives of the 322 people murdered with rifles, and in exchange, you're OK with having thousands more raped, robbed and assaulted. based on the smallest number of estimated annual defensive gun uses, 100,000 (estimates based on different studies range all the way up to 3.6M DGU's annually) split on the proportions of 2011 violent crimes means you're OK with more than 7000 additional rapes, almost 30000 additional robberies, and more than 63000 additional assaults. Sound about right? Ill trust your math, you seem like a level headed guy. So, yes that sounds about right except for the part about the rifles. I am ok with taking ALL the guns away to potentially save the lives of ALL the people killed with guns.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I just have a right to life. AGAIN, since I(we as humans) can't control the actions of others. The best we can do is control their access to the tools (means). We can't control Iran's leadership, we can't control their actions. So we attempt to control their access to the tools they would use. Or to frame it a bit differently....If control of the tools is moot, ineffective, and ultimately causes the reverse of the intended effect (more deaths not fewer), why are we so concerned with Iran and North Korea acquiring their own tools (means). Is it really that hard to follow the logic? I would go on to argue that I am much more likely to be killed by a gun than a nuclear weapon, and as such they should be first on the list of tools to restrict. Step back and look globally. Explain to me the rationale that 280 million guns produces a safer society than drastically fewer guns would.....when we are the most heavily armed, and nowhere near the safest...

http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=933791#.UgzCD9KOS8A Fucked up sad story but it raised some interesting questions in my mind. 1) Do any of the lawyers around here know what happens if you as a bad guy, kill the K9 in his performing of his duties? Are you charged with animal cruelty, or murder of a police officer? 2) Should this cop who was obviously grossly negligent be charged with a crime? Do animal owners who leave pets locked in cars get charged as a general rule? If yes to #2, is the dog considered a person or an animal for the purposes of criminal liability (relating back to #1)....? 3) WTF kind of training are these guys getting in animal responsibility?

And we can dream of a day when people stop blaming the objects for the actions of people. And we can dream of the day when people who are afraid of an object do not show that fear by calling for the elimination of that object. When their real issue is the actions of a few people. I can't control peoples actions. I can try and control their access to weapons. It's really not that hard to grasp unless you are being intentionally obtuse. You can try and twist my words, but it isn't effective. I don't "blame" the gun. I can simply realize that when you cannot control peoples actions, the next best thing is to limit their access to the TOOLS they use. Let them go about their actions, with 280 million less firearms. Armed with boomerangs, clubs, and pointy sticks. I realize you all think just as many people would be murdered. I don't.

No argument here ... curling does suck. "Hurry, Hurry, Hurry Hard" WTF is up with that. Oh I still stand by my "NASCAR sucks" stance, but I would like to attend a live race at Bristol. Bristol looks like a fun location to visit. Who said I didn't have a little hypocrite in me. Is that what they yell during curling? I always thought it was hilarious to watch. Just imagine those idiots, for 4 years straight, nothing but practicing sliding rocks on ice and sweeping brooms. Hilarious.

My knives are means to kill things. All those things you mentioned have one thing in common. They were not designed to end the life of something. Wait what? Knives aren't meant to kill things? Holy cow. Military historians everywhere have had it wrong for thousands of years. My motor vehicles are means to kill things. Most of the tools and equipment in the garage is means to kill things. The tie my wife gave me is means to kill things. The pen my father gave me is a means to kill things* Sorry, knives can go in the list with rockets.

My knives are means to kill things. My motor vehicles are means to kill things. Most of the tools and equipment in the garage is means to kill things. The tie my wife gave me is means to kill things. The pen my father gave me is a means to kill things. Damn near anything a person chooses to use as a weapon is means to kill things. There are a lot more than 280 million means to kill things in this country. Yet again, you're focusing on what people are using to kill instead of the fact that they are killing. THIS IS CALLED BLAMING THE TOOL. You really need to focus on the fact that murders are being committed rather than how they are being committed. Less guns in this country is not a good thing. Fewer murders in this country would be a good thing. Since forcing the former would not cause the latter, you're not making a sound case. And because there is no way in hell this country will ever ban firearms for private ownership and use, you're tilting at windmills. All those things you mentioned have one thing in common. They were not designed to end the life of something. You need to pick things that are comparable to weapons designed to end life. (rockets, biological weaposn, chemical weapons, bombs, etc) Removing 280 million means to kill things means crazed angry people will need to use the TIE their wife gave them to kill 20 people. Once we get to those problems, we can deal with TIE control. "And because there is no way in hell this country will ever ban firearms for private ownership and use, you're tilting at windmills." Hey I can dream of a day where the majority of America isn't crazed, gun loving, violence mongering psychos.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/08/14/Media-destroy-powerless-protect-powerful-liars-bigots-race-hoaxers http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4521100;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

If right now, at this very moment, I walk out the door, drive to the store... and purchase 2 AR-15's, two parts kits, 20K rounds of 223, and a complete set of full body military body armor... ...how does that effect you? ? affect, right? I always get confused. It affects me because I am 90x more likely to be murdered by a gun in the USA than if I lived in the UK. That is driven directly by your ability to do what you said. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#List

Having never heard of Olympic rifle, biathlon, camp perry, three gun, IDPA, IPSC, skeet, trap, plinking, cowboy action, black powder hunting, handgun hunting, rifle hunting, reenactment, the other myriad shooting activities, plinking, or plain old collecting, he can still be an authority on guns and their uses, right? Without ever serving, carrying for his employment or his safety, talking I anyone who does, or reading the wealth or literature on the subject, he can still tell us what the truth really is, right? I guess he thinks everybody else's guns, and by extension everybody else, is a deadly threat to him. I tend to trust humanity more than him, and I guess I'm jut better at keeping incidents in proportion. I feel kinda sorry for him, being scared and unempowered all the time. I like knowing the score and my place in things. I also realize that making others powerless does not make me more powerful, it only makes them less powerful. I prefer people have choices more than being forced to conform to make silly people feel better. Most of all, I recognize that guns are not the cause of this countries problems, and would much rather address the issues that are. 280 million fewer means to kill things is a good thing.

man, you actually believe in the United States there's only 100 k people living in rural areas who want guns for defending their livestock and families from wild animals, let alone fun-loving competition shooters? Did you drop out of school? You need to look up some stats. Zzzz... You guys should really try to come up with actual thoughts, instead of just nitpicking my word selection. Try this. 280 million fewer means to end life is a much better route to go. We can handle issuing WAY LESS THAN 280 MILLION permits for the wilderness livers and the fun loving competition shooters. Better?

A news article that starts out with "Oh the irony"??? And you like and acept that? No wonder your views are as slanted as they are BTW ALL gun safey class instruction states that NO gun should be loaded in a class room environment. So this ONE guy made a mistake or is an idiot The wide brush does not apply here. No matter how baddly you want it to But keep reading CNN I suits you I find comedy from all the networks. CNN provides some good stuff though. Then you post funny stuff as fact Ok that explains alot about your posts Thanks Most of the time you make absolutely no sense. I mean literally, its nonsense that you type. What the hell does, "Then you post funny stuff as fact" even mean? Funny stuff is often fact.....sometimes funny stuff is fiction.....sometimes it's fact... Often times things that are factual can be even more entertaining than fictional stories.