Pro-Gun Anti-Gun.

[Saya]

You can put a gun in your suitcase...but not peanut butter?

[KissMeDeadly]

Originally Posted by Saya

You can put a gun in your suitcase...but not peanut butter?

Fuckin' peanut butter is dangerous. Do you know about 100 people per year die of peanut allergies?

[ape descendant]

LOL, maybe they think they'll open this jar of peanut butter and find new life... ROFL

[Deadmanwalking_05]

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

An Example of what the link has...

Louisville, Kentucky

From the Courier-Journal of July 12, 2010

Headline

Police are investigating a home invasion early Monday morning that resulted in an exchange of gunfire between the homeowner and a suspect.

The suspect, a black male in his late teens, was shot at least once in the head and was in serious condition at University Hospital, said Officer Carey Klain, a Louisville Metro Police spokeswoman.

Homicide detectives are investigating the shooting because “it didn’t look good,” Klain said, referring to the suspect’s injuries.

The incident happened about 3:30 a.m. in the 900 block of Marshall Street in the Phoenix Hill neighborhood when the homeowner heard an alarm and found the suspect at the front door trying to break in, Klain said.

Gunfire was exchanged, but the homeowner was not injured.

Police are looking into the possibility there was a second person involved in the break-in attempt, Klain said.

She said she did not know how many shots were fired, or how many times the suspect was struck.

There were several children in the house, she said.

The house showed signs of the incident Monday afternoon. A bullet hole was visible in a front window, and a glass door at the front was shattered.

No one at the house responded to an interview request.

No charges are expected to be filed against the homeowner at this time, Klain said.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/



Louisville, Kentucky

Police are investigating a home invasion early Monday morning that resulted in an exchange of gunfire between the homeowner and a suspect.

The suspect, a black male in his late teens, was shot at least once in the head and was in serious condition at University Hospital, said Officer Carey Klain, a Louisville Metro Police spokeswoman.
...
No charges are expected to be filed against the homeowner at this time, Klain said.

Now THAT is a good example of a side benefit of the Second Amendment.
Everyone should have the right to self defense of life and home.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Now THAT is a good example of a side benefit of the Second Amendment.
Everyone should have the right to self defense of life and home.

That's what I've been saying all along,think about what would have happened if the victim hadn't been armed,also remember there were children present in the home when this went down.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Anyone have anything negative or positive to say about the info contained in the armed citizen web site?

How many haven't bothered to even check it out?

[CptSternn]

The real question is - how many armed home invasions were stopped last year by armed home owners compared to the number of accidental deaths that happened in the homes of armed gun owners.

Google it, check the numbers, and then ask yourself the truly important question - if you really believe in being safe, then why are you taking a huge gamble on those odds?

It's like people who drive somewhere because they are afraid to die in a plane crash. You are 100x more likely to die in a car accident than a plane crash.

Likewise, you are 100x more likely to have someone in your home accidentally killed by your gun than you actually using it to kill someone robbing your home.

The 'personal protection' argument is out the window if you do the math. It holds as much water as the idea of driving from New York to California because you fear a plane crash.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The real question is - how many armed home invasions were stopped last year by armed home owners compared to the number of accidental deaths that happened in the homes of armed gun owners.

Google it, check the numbers, and then ask yourself the truly important question - if you really believe in being safe, then why are you taking a huge gamble on those odds?

It's like people who drive somewhere because they are afraid to die in a plane crash. You are 100x more likely to die in a car accident than a plane crash.

Likewise, you are 100x more likely to have someone in your home accidentally killed by your gun than you actually using it to kill someone robbing your home.

The 'personal protection' argument is out the window if you do the math. It holds as much water as the idea of driving from New York to California because you fear a plane crash.

Sternn, are you going to do your usual thing (I.E. be a little Irish bitch)or are you going to look and see for yourself?

[Razeal18]

what if we live alone in the "bad" part of town? So long as we are knowledgable about the appropriate use and cleaning of a gun, the only one to get killed by the gun is the offender.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Excellent point R-18

[Deadmanwalking_05]

In California.

http://www.youtube.com/v/-wKRKGqYZjI

The guy was target shooting on his own plot of land,when some anti-gun, scum fuck, blissninny,piece of shit called and reported him for it.

watch the video for further details.

[Triton]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The real question is - how many armed home invasions were stopped last year by armed home owners compared to the number of accidental deaths that happened in the homes of armed gun owners.

Google it, check the numbers, and then ask yourself the truly important question - if you really believe in being safe, then why are you taking a huge gamble on those odds?

It's like people who drive somewhere because they are afraid to die in a plane crash. You are 100x more likely to die in a car accident than a plane crash.

Likewise, you are 100x more likely to have someone in your home accidentally killed by your gun than you actually using it to kill someone robbing your home.

The 'personal protection' argument is out the window if you do the math. It holds as much water as the idea of driving from New York to California because you fear a plane crash.

Okay, let's do that. But first, let's talk about where you got your misinformation. The numbers you (mis)quote are from a study done by Kellerman, et. al. in 1986. This one study, looking at just one county for just one year, has been shown numerous times to be fatally flawed in several ways - including a horribly biased sample, incomplete analysis, and inadequate controls. Drawing from it has become the classic indicator of someone who has done no research into the subject at all. Oh, and by the way, almost all of the deaths in that study were suicides, not accidents.

Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Suicide 333

As you can see, even that study shows you are far more likely to be murdered in your home than accidentally killed with your own gun.

So, since we know your source (though probably not even first hand), let's look at the REAL figures, compiled by reputable sources, all of which can also be found on Google.

According to the CDC, there were 106,742 accidental deaths in the US in 2007 (the latest year for which all the relevant statistics are available). Of those, 0.7% were from gunshots. That comes out to 747/year. According to the FBI, innocent victims not only defended themselves with guns, but actually killed their attackers 645 times that same year. The estimates of how many times they defended themselves without killing their attackers varies widely, depending on who you ask, but the smallest estimate available from any government study was over 108,000/year (CDC claims over 250,000/year and other reputable sources claim as many as 2.5 million). This includes instances where no shots were fired, so it isn't just a bunch of bad shooting. Instead it's a lot of criminals running at the sight of an armed victim.

So, even if we take the lowest estimate, which is widely seen as intentionally undercounting for political purposes (in other words we're using the estimate that is a biased underestimate done by gun control advocates), you are 145 times more likely to defend yourself from a crime with a gun than you are to accidentally be killed with one. In fact, even using this lowest estimate, you are more likely to use a gun in self-defense than you are to die from any type of accidental cause, including car accidents.

Next time you tell people to do research, make sure you've done it yourself first.

[Triton]

Oh, to answer the question:

If you had the chance to be taken to a shooting range by someone that knows what they are doing with firearms,would you take the chance and try it?

I'm usually the one taking others.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Glad to hear.

[ape descendant]

I found the perfect mug for ya deadman...

[Li'l Miss Sticky Kiss]

"If you had the chance to be taken to a shooting range by someone that knows what they are doing with firearms,would you take the chance and try it? "
Since I am former Army, yes I would and did so before I joined. I am so Pro-gun that on the weekend I sometimes work gun shows. I believe in all matters of CHOICE, it is just that CHOICE. Like food, drugs, life style, etc everyone should be able to make decisions for themselves. If they can not make appropriate decisions, then they lose the right to make decisions for themselves.

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Now THAT is a good example of a side benefit of the Second Amendment.
Everyone should have the right to self defense of life and home.

We have a few idiots get shot each year in Texas for breaking into homes. As far as I'm concerned, if you're stupid enough to rob someone in a state where they don't press charges when people kill intruders, you deserve to be shot.

[voodoowitchdr]

I think guns should only be allowed at shooting ranges, your private residence and hunting grounds if you have a current hunting license. I have no ideas on how to enforce it though.

Originally Posted by voodoowitchdr

I think guns should only be allowed at shooting ranges, your private residence and hunting grounds if you have a current hunting license. I have no ideas on how to enforce it though.

As wide spread as gun ownership is in the US they'd never be able to enforce a ban on guns. I believe people should be able to defend their house and family from intruders by whatever means necessary.

[voodoowitchdr]

Originally Posted by Hearts_Purple

As wide spread as gun ownership is in the US they'd never be able to enforce a ban on guns. I believe people should be able to defend their house and family from intruders by whatever means necessary.

That's why I thin guns should be allowed in certain locations. You should be able to defend your home, I don't argue with that. No bans, just better regulation. Think of it this way, the guy breaking into your house will be less likely to also have a gun. I'm trying to work toward a compromise.

[PortraitOfSanity]

The thing is, the people who want guns or have guns, are the people who shouldn't have guns. Look at Deadman. Therefore, I propose that everyone who doesn't want a gun, should get a free AK-47 from the government, while every redneck conspiracy theorist should have his house searched and all his guns melted.

VOILA!

That would cause more problems than it would solve, actually.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Lies and slander!

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by voodoowitchdr

That's why I thin guns should be allowed in certain locations. You should be able to defend your home, I don't argue with that. No bans, just better regulation. Think of it this way, the guy breaking into your house will be less likely to also have a gun. I'm trying to work toward a compromise.

And special spots where guns aren't allowed (with signs posted) become target rich environments for some crazy folks that want to cause chaos until they are shot by law enforcement,or as in most cases where they off themselves after damage has been done.