What complete idiots came up with this ad? Must've been some limp-wristed liberal think tank in Washington D.C. that cannot comprehend the idea that people kill people, not guns. Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming Ted Kennedy's car for killing Mary Jo Kopechne or his bottle of liquor for getting him drunk. Morons!
OK Why did they use a black kid?? It simple really, the so called minorities have had their culture wrecked by 40 + years of the "nanny state". Their neighborhoods become ghettos and run rampant with crime. Restore the economy, no need for welfare, restore the family, parents raise kids and instill values, and lastly these people are not victims anymore,either of random violence or being ruined by socialism.
wait a second that seems a tad racist. How come it s a black kid being shot...And to all of you anti gun people out there How dare you try and take away my second amendment right. Theres an obvious reason for why the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms. How would you all like to have your freedom to put stupid ads like this on air. You wouldnt would you. So how bout you back the hell off and go back to being abunch of left wing Socialist.
Saying the 2nd amendment doesn't apply because of advances in firearm technology is like saying the 1st amendment doesn't matter because all they had when it was written was ink and paper no computers or internet.
i love how all the anti gun video like/dislike bars are almost all red with just a bit of green at the end. its just the opposite for the pro gun videos
This video is ridiculous.... nothing but bad propaganda. And of course they used a black kid. And u cant "kill" the gun, its not a living thing. Guns DO NOT KILL PEOPLE.... PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!! They may USE A GUN to do so.... sadly. Leave a firearm alone and by itself AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN... it will just sit and rust... until SOMEONE decides to pick it up and put it to use. We need more common sense and education... as well as enforcement of existing laws... NOT MORE CONTROL OF US!
Blanchard Oklahoma authorities don't plan to file charges against an Oklahoma woman (18 year old Sarah Mckinley) who fatally shot a New Year's Eve intruder at her house while she had a 911 dispatcher on the phone, but the intruder's alleged accomplice has been charged in the death.
Oklahoma law allows the use of deadly force against intruders, and prosecutors said McKinley clearly acted in self-defense. According to court documents, Martin was holding a knife when he died.
This is stupid as any other liberal anti-gun ad. Maybe if that kid had parents that were decent people he wouldn't be in a situation to get shot so if he gets shot it's because his parents are worthless.
So take guns away from law abiding citizens, and the criminals can just keep doing what they have always done. Places where there is gun control, there is a higher crime rate. And if guns promote violence then there would be mass murders at every gun show in america.
why doncha stop the niggas from killin niggas? they do it with a stick or a brick, did it in chicago, they made a video, niggas like killin eachother, guns are tools, just like a hammer, hammer will kill you just as dead as a gun, cars kill more people than guns, take the cars away, dumbassed mothafucka!
There are 3 things that make a gun kill. 1. the person 2. the gun 3. the ammo
making the ammo illegal makes no sense
making people illegal is impossible
making the guns illegal is very easy to do. If we remove the people from the trigger and maintain a police only gun law then murders would halve themselves in a week. It worke in Australia and it will also work in America (as long as you the cops do their job)
1) Gun ownership is guaranteed in founding documents precisely to let one avoid being stuck with a government that the people don't want; removing it creates precedent for removing, say, freedom of speech. Would you want that?
2)Do you honestly think that the criminal element is going to surrender its guns? Properly maintained, those things last centuries. Centuries in which the common man is at the mercy of the criminal.
@ANIOLATORV Uh, you dont realize that we have MILLIONS of unregistered guns do you? There is NO way to find them. Believe me, i own 3 Unregistered AR-15's for this exact reason. Guns are part of our culture, illigalising guns here is a pretty silly idea; the horse has bolted, legged it, and been turned into glue already on that particular one.
@jrfranz13 could you explain why you said that? guns were banned in germany for along time anyway. Its not as strict as other countrys but they have laws in place.
If your saying that guns could ave stopped hitler then your wrong. Hitler got to power through SUPPORT, he started a revolution which failed so instead he got VOTED into power. he also had 44 attacmpst on his life and they all failed. guns wouldnt have changed the Nazi regime in any way
@ANIOLATORV No way could Hitler have gotten away with alot of what he did had the populace had weapons to defend themselves. Granted most of the citizens of Germany had any clue as to the depravity of his regime.
@jrfranz13 The citizens SUPPORTED HIM!!!! he didnt take power as an evil dictator bent on destruction. he originally took power by getting VOTED in by the poeple and THEN used that power to become a dictator bent on destruction. Guns would have made no difference at all no please, just please read a book or watch a documentary and please dont be so ignorant!
@jrfranz13 guns kill people abd thats all theyre good for. Not only people kill themselves with guns!!! not by suicide but by accident ALL THE TIME and no amount of education will stop them. The next time you see a cop getting shot when he pulls a car over for a speeding fine think of how it could have been avoided. Take England as an example for your crappy logic. Could the riots in london have been stpped if the cops used live ammo? NO THEY COULDNT it would ahve made things worse
@ANIOLATORV Have you ever thought of grammar lessons and heard of spell-check before trying to convince us with your illogical argument that you are smart?
@jrfranz13 not only that it goes the other way, if people used guns on cops it would also have become a shit storm. In Australia where people dont have guns we can walk down teh street and not be afraid. Our Prime Minister used to go on jogs every morning IN PUBLIC WITH VERY LITTLE SECURITY!!! people could just walk up and talk to him and weve never had a single assasination in our history. our country is proud to not have an obsession witha killing machine
@jrfranz13 lol youve realised you lost and now your insulting me!
why did you instantly think "liberal politician" thats because you a brainwashed close minded ignorant fuck you doesnt know how life works outside of the US
@ANIOLATORV First off, calm the fuck down. I NEVER insulted you. secondly, I have NO fear walking down any streets because all those bad guys have turned in their guns once they found out they were illegal...that thought just makes me all warm and fuzzy...how 'bout you?
@jrfranz13 Over here the police went on raids and haver taken them by force. The only people with guns are farmers (hunting rifles only) and bikers. they may have them illegally but they havnt killed a single innocent person. They only ever kill other bikers.;
@jrfranz13 what? all this and you give up just to start trolling! you have lost! you cannot see the truth and you will forever remain ignorant. Its people like you who stop those like me from making the world a better place and furthering humanity
@ANIOLATORV I'm no troll sir. I just know better than to beat my head against a wall...or argue gun control with a blithering idiot..same difference. Have a nice day.
@ANIOLATORV what if the people get a baseball bat? knife? car? your logic is flawed. do you honestly thionk that by UNarming lawful citizens that the human debris criminals will just say "Oh...shit....guns are illegal...I better go turn mine in to the authorities right now!" seriously, THINK before you foment you anti-gun diatribe please.
This was FUCKING STUPID!!! In my 16 years of being around guns, never have I seen one load itsself, float around and start shooting stuff. A gun is as good as the person behind it. Which means, boys and girls, MOST GUNS ARE GOOD!!
even if you take all guns away and criminal decide to follow that law (yeah i know right) they will just stab and bludgen you to death now if youre a bad shot it takes what 5 to 6 shots to kill you in lets say 10 to 12 seconds now if they're bad at stabing you it could take in upwords of sevral hundred stabs and could last hours think about it but the bottom line is ITS OUR FUCKING RIGHT BOTTOM LINE no ifs ands or buts the peoples rights so stuff your anti gun shit back up your ass
if you don't like private gun ownership then move to North Korea? Nobody is allowed to own a gun there. I'm sure the gun-haters would love Love LOVE living in North Korea.
Or maybe they should move to Juarez Mexico? Nobody is allowed to legally own a gun in mexico. I'm sure the gun-haters would LOVE to live in Juarez mexico.
Yes, I find it impossible to totally cognify a person who would do something like that to another human being. The only way I see of preventing it is putting out more information and education to the populace; those who practice gun violence must stop themselves of their own accord, otherwise it is not stopped. Gun control is certainly worthy, but ineffective in and of itself.
@jerico641 But the idea is gun control, and there's no reason to ban the gun that would have done that, because the criminal would have still had it...
Well, I think the ad is supposed to be indicative of what will continue to happen if we don't enact better gun laws, and continue to strive to educate people in general on the dangers of handguns and assault weapons. To that end, I believe the ad served it's purpose.
@jerico641 That depends on its purpose. I take Ekaterina out to the range to have fun with her by putting holes in targets. For me, her purpose is entertainment. She's a fine old gal, wreathed in an aura of history.
True, she has a ferocious bite, which can be used to protect my life and property. But that's largely secondary, since I have the good fortune to live in a nice neighborhood.
Well, without sounding too condescending (I hope), blowing holes in targets IS destruction. I have no problem with people shooting targets (if that's all they did) with their guns, I just can't see the attraction myself. What I'm worried about are semi-automatic handguns used to tear other people to shreds. Btw, I assume that Ekaterina is that name of your...gun? No offense, just wondering.
@jerico641 Entropy makes destruction a part of... well, most things. In the abstract (i.e. punching holes in 6-8 pieces of paper), I do less damage than the average kindergarten class. Shooting is a simple joy, but not easy to explain; for that, I would have to recommend that you get some range time in hopes that the rifle could tell you better.
Like yourself, I am no great fan of killing people; however I do believe that sometimes it can be the best of the choices with which one is presented.
Well, entropy says that destruction is necessarily a part of the living condition, and we can't help the gradual disintegration of ourselves and the natural environment, but I don't really subscribe to it that closely. At any rate, I guess we still have a choice as to whether to physically destroy matter by our own hand. As for shooting, I doubt I'll be out there anytime soon; guns honestly scare me (I'll be on the golf course). And I hope never to be faced with such a choice
@jerico641 Entropy makes destruction a part of... well, most things. In the abstract (i.e. punching holes in 6-8 pieces of paper), I do less damage than the average kindergarten class. Shooting is a simple joy, but not easy to explain; for that, I would have to recommend that you get some range time in hopes that the rifle could tell you better.
Like yourself, I am no great fan of killing people; however I do believe that sometimes it can be the best of the choices with which one is presented.
A history buff will often collect guns with no intention of ever shooting them; his enjoyment comes from having and displaying historical artifacts.
Yes, Ekaterina is the name that I picked for my 91/30. It's a Soviet bolt gun of Czarist-era design (patented in 1891, revised in 1930; mine was manufactured in 1938, probably has a few Germans in its past). I'm trying on 'person who names things' for size. (What do you think? Does it work, or is it just creepy?)
Well, to me it sounds fine; I'm probably not the best judge, however. But I like to collect historical items too. I have several old coin collections, some antique Victorian furniture, and others. I'd probably be afraid that any guns I had would drop off the hooks on the wall and go off (even if I was sure they weren't loaded)! I just find them distasteful. To each his own, I suppose
Well, that may be the case; so I'd say why add something else potentially dangerous and destructive to your life? Unfortunately, I need to drive to get around (or get out on the streets in some motorized vehicle or other, like a bus or whatever), but I don't have to have a gun in my house; and I've always felt perfectly safe.
@jerico641 How dare you! You are putting lives at risk by driving on the state's streets! What happens when you lose control of your vehicle and run over a poor innocent child? Or cause thousands in property damage, bankrupting small businesses.
You should be ashamed to be a Car owner! Use public transportation, they are professionals at driving. You'll feel even more safer if someone else is at the wheel, and not you.
Uh, huh...I get it. But the fact is that we practically have to travel is vehicles if we want to live in this society, but we don't have to own guns, see? Btw, I've got a CDL license, so for whatever it's worth, I am a "professional driver".
@jerico641 You don't get my point clearly. We don't need a reason to own a firearm, we can do whatever the hell we want with them. There's a reason why the second amendment is up, it's primary reason is to over throw a tyrannical government, which one could argue that our's is leading to, self defense against criminals, and hunting are only secondary. Don't believe me? Look up Thomas Jefferson and his opinion on the second amendment, and why it is there.
I think I got your point the first time; and there's a difference between doing what you want with an item you own and your motivation for purchasing it in the first place, but never mind that. The 2nd Amendment references a well-armed militia being necessary for security of the country; that means a National Guard, not private gun ownership. Personally, I don't care what Thomas Jefferson said; TEC 9s and UZIs weren't around then. Today we have a major problem with guns in the U.S.
@jerico641 Ahhh the old "Modern guns have changed and therefore the definition of the 2nd should be as well" argument. That works for idiots pal. Unfortunately for you, I'm not an idiot.
The supreme court ruled that the police are not responsible for your safety, that's why you don't see "serve and protect" on their vehicles anymore.
The technology of the firearms weren't even put in mind in the first place, nor do they even matter to the 2nd. If the government has them (Continued
Well! THAT was certainly a lot of commenting. I'll try to sum up all of mine more briefly. The police ARE responsible for community safety; what else are they there for? And I'm stating that the 2nd Amendment doesn't reference personal gun ownership at all, regardless of technological advancement. I only referenced advancement with regard to your comment on Jefferson. I don't think you're an idiot; my point was meant as valid to any normal person. As to stricter gun laws, (cond.)
@jerico641 Then the people should be able to obtain them as well in order to be able to defend themselves properly. The state isn't your friend, no matter how you wish they were. With things such as the Patriot act and National Defense Authorization Act, the US is becoming more and more fascist as time goes by. As well as class warfare becoming a more real thing as the difference between the two grows.
How can you over throw an evil government when you're un-armed? You can't.
I know there will still be a black market for gun sales; I'm not an idiot either. But we have to start somewhere, and the fact that disturbed individuals can now walk into a gun store and walk out with a semi-automatic is appalling; it must be dealt with. Lastly, the UK has VERY few handgun deaths per year, as opposed to the U.S. which had at least 12,000 last year. Oh, I doubt I'll watch that documentary, unless you watch "Bowling for Columbine". Thanks anyway though.
@jerico641 But as I said before that you keep avoiding, if a criminal want's an Uzi, they can get it, legally, or not. And usually, according to the FBI, they obtain them illegally anyways.
Look at the UK, they practically banned firearms, yet they are the crime capital of Europe, and have a higher rate of violent crime then even the US.
Gun Crime isn't a problem in the US, it's a problem in the UK, where innocent law abiding citizens are being murdered without a chance to defend.
@jerico641 - The 2nd amendment references the militia AND the right to keep and bear arms. There is a comma in there. We have problems with guns in this country because idiots keep trying to pass laws to keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens and placing them right in the hands of criminals. The People's Republic of Kalifornia has some of the highest gun crime rates in the country and they have the country's most extreme gun control laws. Hmmmm.....
@jerico641 Banning items from the public is pointless, look up the prohibition of alcohol, see how it completely failed and only help grow organized crime? Look at the current prohibition of "Narcotics", if you want to smoke weed, you can find it everywhere in the country. The government cannot prevent items from getting into the hands of the public.
If firearms are banned, criminals could still get them via the black market, and other ways.
@jerico641 How about the 18 year old mother who just defender her and her 3 month old son's lives by killing a deranged imbecile after he broke into her home? What about the retired police officer who was carrying his pistol and saved 3 children in an flipped vehicle in a river by shooting out the window?? There are MOSTLY decent people who own guns...only criminals have them illegally. Lets focus on enforcing our present laws rather than jeopardize the lives of innocent, law abiding citizens.
So this ad was like the first mad magazine, institute gun control or Ill shoot this kid? Oh my god, guns kill children in commercials for not being controlled correctly. Im going to go disassemble, clean, and reassemble my .44, then tuck it in and tell it a story about when good guns go bad. They grow up so fast, I just hope we taught them enough to make good decisions. Use oil in moderation, clean your crevices, and only consume high quality ammo. GUNS ARE PEOPLE TOO, just like corporations.
Bullets don't kill people, guns don't kill people. People kill people. All gun control does it make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase guns and easier for criminals to get them. Do you really think a criminal is going to walk into a gun store to buy a gun??? In states where there is gun control, violent gun crimes are highest. In states with no gun control, violent crimes with guns are lowest. Those are the facts. Any questions?
@jerico641 - The Columbine kids legally bought their handguns? LOL, really? They were 17 years old and not even old enough to legally purchase a rifle, let alone a handgun. The Virginia Tech shooter had no previous criminal record that would prohibit him from purchasing a gun. Using your logic, we shouldn't allow ANYONE to own a gun because they COULD kill someone and no one should own a car because they COULD kill someone. Think about that. Your logic fails.
@PaulPradaShow Maybe they were too young, but they bought them anyway. And the Virginia Tech guy had a record of mental aberration that should have been seriously considered. It's my belief that the gun store owner just wanted the sale and never even checked. Personally, yes, I'd rather NO ONE had lethal handguns or assault weapons. They're deadly and only used to kill. The logic is solid.
@jerico641 I can already tell just by reading through your other comments that you're rather ignorant about firearms, and that your only experience with them is through popular media (Video Games and Movies). It's rather hilarious coming from a man who said we should let go of our superstitions and that we should be in fear of inanimate objects.
@jerico641 - If they bought them anyway, then you prosecute the SELLER. How hard is that? And your idea that no one should have handguns is laughable. Do you really think that would make a safer world where the criminals have all the guns and law abiding citizens don't? Do you realize that all studies and statistics show that crime in gun controlled cities is HIGHER than in cities that have concealed carry laws? Your logic is FARRRRRRRR from solid. Next time, do some research first.
It wouldn't be hard to prosecute the seller; but to my knowledge no one ever did. Btw, how do you separate the "criminals" from the "law-abiding citizens" when most fire arm deaths in this country are accidental or purposely caused by a friend or close relative. Lastly, if your studies are so correct, why does the U.S. continue each year to lead the world in hand gun deaths? How can I know who's nice and who's not when everybody's packing heat like Wyatt Earp? Think, okay?
@jerico641 - You sounds like you want to create this utopian, perfect world or something. Accidents are accidents whether it's from a car accident, a gun accident, a skiing accident, a plane accident, etc. etc. Are we just going to ban EVERYTHING that could cause injury or death? Be realistic. 55% of gun deaths are from suicide. Get rid of guns and the lower the "gun deaths" but increase suicides by some other means whether it be jumping off a bridge, overdose, etc. Welcome to life and reality!
Wouldn't you like to have a Utopian, perfect world? I realize that's a dream, but that certainly doesn't make it a worthless goal. My point was that quite a number of Americans tend to shoot and kill unarmed people, neighbors, and family members by accident, when supposedly "defending their homes". That's a horrible tragedy which can be prevented. You do realize, I hope, that the odds of your ever having to use a firearm against another person is roughly about 10,000 to one.
@jerico641 - A utopian perfect world is a pipe dream that science has proven humans are incapable of achieving. I'd rather focus my energy on attainable goals. Americans do not "tend" to shoot and kill unarmed people defending their home, in fact, there are only a handful of cases each year that fall in that category. Almost all deaths from guns outside of homicide are from suicide. Already had to use my firearm against an intruder so just goes to show, it IS useful if and when the need arises.
Jesus, do you read English? I stated that while I realize a utopian, perfect societ is unattainable (especially until we can change the minds of people who actually LIKE guns), but working toward it would it and of itself create a better world for all of us. And yes, Americans do "tend" to kill unarmed people every year, to the tune of about 9,000 deaths (it's right there in the ATF statistics). But even if not, wouldn't ONE Columbine be enough to help change your mind?
@jerico641 - Secondly, you completely ignored my other points about fatal accidents. Cars, boats, trains, planes, dogs, horses, wild animals, motorcycles, snowmobiles, skis, snowboards, rockclimbing, skydiving, drag racing, swimming... lol, I could go on forever. All of these activities resulted in deaths last year. Should we ban all of them too? That is exactly your reason for wanting to ban guns. So why exactly again would banning guns but not these activities be okay? That's what I thought.
Third, I didn't ignore your points. I stated that we have to start somewhere, and handguns and assault weapons, which are used ONLY for destruction, are a hell of a lot more sensible place to begin than freaking swimming or snowboarding, for god's sake. That's asinine. Oh, and btw, congratulations on shooting someone; did you kill this person, or just maim him? I just want to know whether or not to add the gold clusters to your "home defense" medal.
@jerico641 - You are so far loony leftist that I think you actually might be back on the right, LOL. Luckily, a majority of people do not share your nutty position. Enjoy living your life in a bubble! People like me, we're going to enjoy the ride and live life. Maybe if you took a minute to come out of your frightened little shell and let people live their own lives and enjoy their own liberties and freedoms, you'd feel differently. In a way, I sort of feel sad for people like you.
Yeah, thanks for answering the question so clearly; I think maybe you're a little to the right of Attila the Hun, but I'm probably wrong about that, as I try not to judge peoples' entire personalities based on their opinions on one issue. As for me, I love life, because I'm not paranoid enough to think I need a loaded gun around constantly to help save me from "bad guys". I think that puts YOU in a frightened little shell. Live your own scared life, I'll continue to enjoy mine
@jerico641 - You're categorizing all gun owners as paranoid, which is your first problem. Many gun owners own guns for sport purposes such as target shooting at a gun range, or hunting. Others own them as a means of self defense, as peace of mind in the event someone breaks into their home. No different than installing an alarm system. A woman a couple weeks ago would've been killed, along with her 3 month old baby had she not killed the armed intruder breaking down her door.
Give me a name or something, and I'll Google that woman to get all the real facts; I doubt very seriously if it was as "clean cut" as that. And to me, quite a number (not all) of gun owners I've talked with DO strike me as paranoid. They seem worried about some (usually ethnic and poor) phantom bad guy coming to rob and kill them, and they get mad talking about ti as if it's already happened, even if it hasn't! THAT'S paranoia. When you're that worried, where's the "peace"?
@jerico641 - Sure, go ahead. Her name is Sarah McKinley. She was 18 years old with a 3 month old baby in her arms. Her husband died of cancer a week earlier on Christmas day and two armed men were breaking down her door to rob her. She had her dead husband's shotgun and revolver and used it to protect herself and her baby after first calling 9-1-1. The police didn't get there fast enough and she had to use the gun. Now go ahead, tell us all how wrong that was of her to protect herself and child.
Okay; I found her story, and it mostly confirms the things I've already been saying. She knew the guy (he was apparently interested in her for a couple of years, and she had recently run into him at a convenience store), and I said that it's mostly family members or someone known to the victim who perpetrate violent crimes; she was already awake, and she managed to keep him out for twenty minutes, giving her a lot of time to get to her guns (she had two). The guy was (con'd)
(con'd): armed with a knife, not a gun, otherwise he might have shot right through the window or door and killed both her and her son; and she had plenty of time even to ask the dispatcher if she could shoot the guy. I dare say that if she had been awakened suddenly by a less inept burglar, she wouldn't have had time even to get to those guns, and then might have made the situation worse in blind panic. To me, she seems like a VERY lucky woman, and proof of nothing else. con'd:
Finally, I'll agree with one thing; I don't understand why the cops couldn't make it to her home within the twenty minutes; most of them were certainly on patrol, since it was New Year's Eve. That doesn't speak too well for her local cops.
@jerico641 Dude, I read some of your comments, funny stuff. Would you have liked it better if the mom was unarmed? I'm sure she could fend off 2 grown men while being consumed with panic in a fist fight..OH knife fight.Guns are made to kill, so? Cars are made to take you from point A to point B, yet they kill more people than guns do. You make the same old played argument, but I'm not sorry to say I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Self defense is a right, not a privilege.
God, where do you people come from? I already answered the car question on here TWICE; I'm not doing it again. I'm glad you can be so nonchalant about guns being made to kill; your human decency warms my heart. If you read those comments of mine and you're still making this argument, then you didn't understand them. Try again; or on second thought, don't bother, as I'm sure you've got guns to clean, and I wouldn't want you to waste your time...
@jerico641 You answered a reply, not so much the car statement. Human decency? It's funny that people like you without sound arguments result to personal attacks like my lack of human decency or me not understanding. I understand very well and disagree with your flimsy point. I've always supported gun rights, but never fired a gun before I enlisted. So no more stupid assumptions in a sad attempt to degrade.
*Sigh* I'm not attempting to degrade anyone, I'm just responding to what I've been told on here, and I'm getting frustrated that no one seems to see any correlation between easy access to guns and gun violence. I don't want to curtail peoples' rights, I want to try and change their minds, if I can. And with regard to cars, I don't know what you people want from me; yes, there are car accidents that kill people, but cars are designed for transportation, not killing. That's my point
@jerico641 "I'm not attempting to degrade anyone, I'm just responding to what I've been told on here, and I'm getting frustrated that no one seems to see any correlation between easy access to guns and gun violence."
Perhaps because there is no correlation other than in your own fear?
God, where do you people come from? I already answered the car question on here TWICE; I'm not doing it again. I'm glad you can be so nonchalant about guns being made to kill; your human decency warms my heart. If you read those comments of mine and you're still making this argument, then you didn't understand them. Try again; or on second thought, don't bother, as I'm sure you've got guns to clean, and I wouldn't want you to waste your time...
@jerico641 - LOL, EXACTLY! Finally we have a breakthrough here! (angels sing, the sky gets brighter as you see the light!) LOL. You never know if the cops are going to get there in time which is EXACTLY why it was good that she had a loaded gun to protect herself and her 3 month old baby.
*Sigh* You did the obvious; I expected that comment. My admonition of the police response time wasn't meant as a justification for having guns in houses. I was only wondering why it took them so long. I also stated that this was not a random break-in; she knew the guy. And she was awake and had time to get the guns and have them ready (if she had been asleep and surprised, I dare say the outcome would have been tragically different).
Well, I meant if the guy hadn't been so inept and actually sneaked in and surprised her while she was asleep. Then I doubt that her two guns would've done her any good at all. And if he had happened to find them, he would have been armed with guns rather than a knife...she was extraordinarily lucky.
I can't see how "smart" enters into it; lucky, yes, smart, no. I assume you mean that she was smart in that she had guns (I wonder why she needed two?) to protect herself, and then had them ready when she needed them, is that right? What I'm stating is that if she had been dead asleep, and the guy had surprised her at her bedside with a knife to her throat), then the two guns she had wouldn't have been worth beans. Again, that's what I mean by lucky. And still someone is dead.
@jerico641 - She had two guns because one was a hunting shotgun that her husband used for hunting before he died of cancer a week before the break-in. The second was an old revolver, probably handed down from a relative. But what difference does it make how many she had? 0, 2, 30? Who cares! LOL. And yes, we've gone over this; if someone slit her throat while she was sleeping, she'd be dead but because she had the guns, she and her child are alive. This really isn't very hard to understand.
What makes you think I don't understand your opinions? I understand them perfectly, I simply don't agree with them. You maintain that the young lady is alive because she had guns at her disposal, and I maintain that she's alive because she was awake and aware of what was happening, and had time to prepare. Let's not forget one important issue here, too: she knew the guy. This wasn't some random break-in. This corresponds with the known data about these events. (con'd.)
@jerico641 - Whether she knew the guys or not is irrelevant. So is the "data" because all it shows is that in that "data" are other similar situations where an armed acquaintance was shot in the act of a violent crime. Justifies it even more. And you forget that the fact remains that she is alive because she had a gun. "But what ifs" and "But if she's" are irrelevant as they are not factual aspects to the incident. Stick to the facts, not what if's.
It's significant; it's comparative data, based on comparisons of domestic violence involving handguns. What it comes down to is that you have an infinitesimal chance of ever being assaulted by a total stranger with a gun in the middle of the night. If that's why you have a gun, then the GUN is irrelevant. She should have called the police when he harassed her at the convenience store. But the basic facts aren't in dispute; yes, she stopped a home invader by killing him.
@jerico641 would you risk the life of your family/your children/yourself on an infinitesimal chance? I certainly wouldn't, and I'm a single guy with a dog.
No, I certainly won't risk my life and the lives of my family on an infinitesimal chance; that's why I don't have guns in my house. My kids are more likely to be shot and killed by accident than assaulted by an unknown assailant if I keep a gun in the house.
@jerico641 and how exactly would this accident happen? Firearms, lacking their own consciousness, cannot pull their own triggers. Any parent not educating their children on firearms and keeping them secured is just as irresponsible as not protecting yourself against the unknown. How do you plan to protect your family in the event of a home invasion? (aside from cowering in fear of course)
Accidents can happen whether children are educated or not; they do so every day. And you actually made my point for me very well, thank you. The unknown is not necessarily dangerous; in all probability it isn't. People are just frightened by what they either don't understand or can't see. It's unnecessary, and makes you "cower in fear" every day of your life. You've been watching far too much "Cops".
@jerico641 I'm both shocked and disappointed that someone as seemingly intelligent as you are can be so ignorant. I propose my original question to you again... what do you plan to do in the extremely unlikely scenario in which your home is invaded? Or you're held at gunpoint in a dark parking lot? Call 911? Lowest response time I could find was 6.3 minutes (Seattle, as of 2011). Plenty of time for him to murder you and your family after you tell him where all your valuables are...
I try not to agonize over bad things that are very unlikely to occur. I have a general faith in the goodness of people that's been confirmed time and time again in my life. The media coverage in the U.S. would have you believe that your life is in constant danger from violent attack or home invasion, and it's just not true. I don't think I could hit anything accurately with a gun under the best of circumstances, anyway. If your scenario should actually occur, I'd (con'd.)
(con'd.) try to reason with the person, put him at ease as best I could, and give him any material possession of mine that he might want. Most murders in this country are committed by someone known to the victim. There is far more danger of having your children abducted off the streets by a stranger (although that is rare as well) than some stranger bursting into your home and killing everyone. And pulling a gun on someone, I believe, would only increase the danger for my family.
@jerico641 "People are just frightened by what they either don't understand or can't see. It's unnecessary, and makes you "cower in fear" every day of your life. You've been watching far too much "Cops". "
What a load of crap! I've been a cop, and I can tell you from experience that a little concern is a good thing. I still carry a gun. I carry for the same reason that my car has a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, shovel, chains, and blankets. It's called being prepared for real life.
The other items you mentioned (fire extinguisher, blankets, etc.) are useful in a crisis (I can think of several scenarios), but the gun you'll likely never need unless it's a flare gun. People are simply afraid and distrustful of others as a general rule, and automatically assume they'll need a gun. the majority are decent, nonviolent folks who have no interest in hurting you. A little concern IS a good thing, but irrational fear is not. I would think a former cop would know this.
@jerico641 "People are simply afraid and distrustful of others as a general rule, and automatically assume they'll need a gun. the majority are decent, nonviolent folks who have no interest in hurting you. A little concern IS a good thing, but irrational fear is not. I would think a former cop would know this."
More bullshit from a moron.
Or are you another paid shill for the Brady Bunch? It's hard to believe that anyone can be as stupid as you seem to be.
Well, THAT was an intelligent response. I'm not going to debate you on this issue if you're going to start insulting me personally; there's no need for that. To answer your question, though, I have nothing to do with the Brady Bill or any other gun control group/legislation; I'm just a husband and father who doesn't want my kids or grand kids involved in gun violence. And who realizes that people are not as violent as the "lock and load" crowd would have us believe; it's true.
@jerico641 "I'm not going to debate you on this issue"
If you don't like people's attitude, acquire enough knowledge to move yourself from the idiot category.
If your local PD has a ride along program, participate. See the real world.
Then do some reading. Try Kleck & Getz, and Lott (who started out like you, did some honest research and flipped his position.) Read the writings of Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who lost both her parents at Luby's due to misguided folks like yourself.
I live in the real world, you apparently live in some action movie full of villains. I'm not going to be insulted by you anymore; this debate is at an end (one last item: I saw an interview with the Hupp woman once; her parents were killed when some lunatic entered the restaurant and began shooting, probably with automatic weapons he'd purchased legally. The place was full of patrons, and if she'd had a gun, she probably would have killed an innocent person, and been killed herself.
@jerico641 I'm not going to be insulted by you anymore; this debate is at an end"
This never was a debate. You're too ignorant on the subject to have a valid position. Nor is it an education, because you're not intellectually honest enough to view FACTS objectively. You'd rather rant on, endlessly repeating the simplistic Brady Bunch mantra.
@jerico641 "No, I certainly won't risk my life and the lives of my family on an infinitesimal chance; that's why I don't have guns in my house. My kids are more likely to be shot and killed by accident than assaulted by an unknown assailant if I keep a gun in the house. "
Sorry, but Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz proved that premise to be bullshit almost 20 years ago, but that hasn't stopped the morons from repeating it.
@jerico641 "Two people out of millions of gun owners disproved a premise? How?"
Kleck and Gertz are Professors in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. They conducted a study published in 1995 that completely refutes your bullshit concerning home defense with firearms.
Perhaps you should actually do a little research rather than simply jacking your jaws.
(con'd.) People are usually assaulted by someone they know, usually a friend or relative. This is significant because there are so many folks out there like you who seem to believe that they are in real danger from a random home invasion by an armed (usually drug crazed) perpetrator. Therefore you believe you need guns to protect yourselves. This type of thing very rarely happens at all. As to the amount of guns she had, it was just a parenthetical remark, no significance.
@jerico641 You completely missed this persons point. As long as the human race exists there will be instruments used for defense or victimizing others. And handguns are not used "only for destruction" I own several handguns and go to the range quite frequently for the enjoyment of target shooting. Competitive shooting is a challenging and hobby/sport enjoyed by many. So is collecting and painstakingly restoring old revolvers and semi auto pistols. I see nothing destructive in this.
No, I didn't miss his point; you guys are missing mine. I understand that human beings in societies can be violent for all sorts of reasons, and to change that, we have to change ourselves and other aspects of our society, such as poverty. Fear and want breed anger and violence. And, as I stated on here once before, blowing holes in targets IS destruction. I only hope that most of them are getting enough of a hard on doing that, and won't have to actually hurt anyone later.
@jerico641 - Again, using your own hilarious logic, if shooting holes in targets is destruction, so is scalping the grass when you hit a golf ball. Both sports, both destructive under your logic. Maybe we should require a license to own a golf club just in case the golfer tries to use it to bludgeon someone to death if they don't get a big enough "hard on" hitting golf balls with it. Are you even serious anymore? This logic is so laughable I almost think you're joking. Wow.
I'm as serious as you apparently are about needing a gun to confront phantom housebreakers. The chances are better that you'll be struck by lightening than threatened with a gun. And if you can't tell the difference between a firearm and a golf club, I wonder if I should take you seriously. Anyway, let me try (*sigh*); a golf club is designed to hit a golf ball across a course and eventually into a little hole; any damage is unintentional. This differs them from guns, see?
@jerico641 - The damage is quite intentional... YOU'RE SCALPING THE GRASS! You should ban walking too because you might destroy an ant. Or since you're so stuck on guns used at a gun range are destructive because they put holes in paper, I guess we should ban hole punches and staples too. This isn't even worth me responding to anymore. Anyone who reads all these comments will see how stupid you really are, even if you can't see it yourself. Just don't delete your comments or it won't be as funny
Have you ever played golf? The idea is to NOT scalp the grass if you can help it. But that's of no consequence except to people like you who want to make invalid comparisons (golf and guns; I can't believe you). Guns are made to destroy things, period. Now let that sink in while you're not responding anymore, okay? And WHATEVER you do, don't remove your comments, especially these about comparing golf and firearms LOL.
gun control sucks. give me liberty or give me DEATH
USSWISCONSIN64 1 week ago
wasted a minute of my life...moving on
visionHddfi 2 weeks ago
What complete idiots came up with this ad? Must've been some limp-wristed liberal think tank in Washington D.C. that cannot comprehend the idea that people kill people, not guns. Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming Ted Kennedy's car for killing Mary Jo Kopechne or his bottle of liquor for getting him drunk. Morons!
jilajig2 2 weeks ago
Free people retain the right of self defense granted them by God.
Only SLAVES allow their government to disarm them.
You'll find out if you let it happen!!
beggarz 3 weeks ago
Shoudnt you stop the one that controlled the gun,I would have but you people dont want me to have a gun to defend the kid in the video.
MrHahaha9494 1 month ago
Wow guns cause damage I’ll bet no one knew that before this! They also save around 2.5 million lives a year!
mp5man 1 month ago
OK Why did they use a black kid?? It simple really, the so called minorities have had their culture wrecked by 40 + years of the "nanny state". Their neighborhoods become ghettos and run rampant with crime. Restore the economy, no need for welfare, restore the family, parents raise kids and instill values, and lastly these people are not victims anymore,either of random violence or being ruined by socialism.
unclefixer 1 month ago
Gun control? How about stopping gang crime? Wouldn't that be a little more helpful?
MetalSights 1 month ago
wait a second that seems a tad racist. How come it s a black kid being shot...And to all of you anti gun people out there How dare you try and take away my second amendment right. Theres an obvious reason for why the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms. How would you all like to have your freedom to put stupid ads like this on air. You wouldnt would you. So how bout you back the hell off and go back to being abunch of left wing Socialist.
whyyouhatinmyfriend 1 month ago
um I'm sorry but a child is NOT a watermelon or a water bottle and IS NOT used for target practice. this video is so philosophically weak...
AuraStudios 1 month ago
right..... all criminals with unregistered guns are going to listen to this.....sure.
preludefan 1 month ago
Saying the 2nd amendment doesn't apply because of advances in firearm technology is like saying the 1st amendment doesn't matter because all they had when it was written was ink and paper no computers or internet.
EMTDoellman 1 month ago
i love how all the anti gun video like/dislike bars are almost all red with just a bit of green at the end. its just the opposite for the pro gun videos
mrklawonn 1 month ago 2
Ahhhhhhhhhhh.........that felt good
mrklawonn 1 month ago
i am about to do something i have never done before
dislike a video
mrklawonn 1 month ago
This video is ridiculous.... nothing but bad propaganda. And of course they used a black kid. And u cant "kill" the gun, its not a living thing. Guns DO NOT KILL PEOPLE.... PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!! They may USE A GUN to do so.... sadly. Leave a firearm alone and by itself AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN... it will just sit and rust... until SOMEONE decides to pick it up and put it to use. We need more common sense and education... as well as enforcement of existing laws... NOT MORE CONTROL OF US!
MrHos84 1 month ago
Comment removed
jrfranz13 2 months ago
Comment removed
jrfranz13 2 months ago
Blanchard Oklahoma authorities don't plan to file charges against an Oklahoma woman (18 year old Sarah Mckinley) who fatally shot a New Year's Eve intruder at her house while she had a 911 dispatcher on the phone, but the intruder's alleged accomplice has been charged in the death.
Oklahoma law allows the use of deadly force against intruders, and prosecutors said McKinley clearly acted in self-defense. According to court documents, Martin was holding a knife when he died.
intrepidorator 2 months ago
This is stupid as any other liberal anti-gun ad. Maybe if that kid had parents that were decent people he wouldn't be in a situation to get shot so if he gets shot it's because his parents are worthless.
mickeysbaldwin 2 months ago
So take guns away from law abiding citizens, and the criminals can just keep doing what they have always done. Places where there is gun control, there is a higher crime rate. And if guns promote violence then there would be mass murders at every gun show in america.
cgutierrez06 2 months ago
what the hell, they stopped before the best part
polako68 2 months ago
why doncha stop the niggas from killin niggas? they do it with a stick or a brick, did it in chicago, they made a video, niggas like killin eachother, guns are tools, just like a hammer, hammer will kill you just as dead as a gun, cars kill more people than guns, take the cars away, dumbassed mothafucka!
mrbadx19 2 months ago
I remember the first time I shot a little boy... not really. This commercial is bullshit.
mmpeleg 2 months ago
There are 3 things that make a gun kill. 1. the person 2. the gun 3. the ammo
making the ammo illegal makes no sense
making people illegal is impossible
making the guns illegal is very easy to do. If we remove the people from the trigger and maintain a police only gun law then murders would halve themselves in a week. It worke in Australia and it will also work in America (as long as you the cops do their job)
ANIOLATORV 2 months ago
@ANIOLATORV Couple problems.
1) Gun ownership is guaranteed in founding documents precisely to let one avoid being stuck with a government that the people don't want; removing it creates precedent for removing, say, freedom of speech. Would you want that?
2)Do you honestly think that the criminal element is going to surrender its guns? Properly maintained, those things last centuries. Centuries in which the common man is at the mercy of the criminal.
SonofPencilHead 2 months ago
Comment removed
DJSpindoctor2010 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ANIOLATORV Uh, you dont realize that we have MILLIONS of unregistered guns do you? There is NO way to find them. Believe me, i own 3 Unregistered AR-15's for this exact reason. Guns are part of our culture, illigalising guns here is a pretty silly idea; the horse has bolted, legged it, and been turned into glue already on that particular one.
DJSpindoctor2010 2 months ago
@ANIOLATORV gun control failed miserably in Australia.
Unless you have an armed cop in every house, it will take +6min to intervene in you and you're family getting mugged, beaten, raped or murdered.
And, you cant stop people who are already are committing crimes from using guns, Because criminals don't give a rat's ass about laws (shocking!).
savage495 2 months ago
@savage495 please cite the sources (not bias so dont go on NRA.com)
because through history and my life in the country i live in as well as all the books ive read on the subject... your wrong.
ANIOLATORV 2 months ago
@ANIOLATORV Hitler LOVED your idea! moron
jrfranz13 2 months ago
@jrfranz13 could you explain why you said that? guns were banned in germany for along time anyway. Its not as strict as other countrys but they have laws in place.
If your saying that guns could ave stopped hitler then your wrong. Hitler got to power through SUPPORT, he started a revolution which failed so instead he got VOTED into power. he also had 44 attacmpst on his life and they all failed. guns wouldnt have changed the Nazi regime in any way
ANIOLATORV 1 month ago
@ANIOLATORV No way could Hitler have gotten away with alot of what he did had the populace had weapons to defend themselves. Granted most of the citizens of Germany had any clue as to the depravity of his regime.
jrfranz13 1 month ago
@jrfranz13 The citizens SUPPORTED HIM!!!! he didnt take power as an evil dictator bent on destruction. he originally took power by getting VOTED in by the poeple and THEN used that power to become a dictator bent on destruction. Guns would have made no difference at all no please, just please read a book or watch a documentary and please dont be so ignorant!
ANIOLATORV 1 month ago
@ANIOLATORV I know my history Bubba.Hitler was LOVED when he took power, but he also took their guns away the first opportunity he had.
jrfranz13 3 weeks ago
@jrfranz13 guns kill people abd thats all theyre good for. Not only people kill themselves with guns!!! not by suicide but by accident ALL THE TIME and no amount of education will stop them. The next time you see a cop getting shot when he pulls a car over for a speeding fine think of how it could have been avoided. Take England as an example for your crappy logic. Could the riots in london have been stpped if the cops used live ammo? NO THEY COULDNT it would ahve made things worse
ANIOLATORV 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
jilajig2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ANIOLATORV Have you ever thought of grammar lessons and heard of spell-check before trying to convince us with your illogical argument that you are smart?
jilajig2 2 weeks ago
@jrfranz13 not only that it goes the other way, if people used guns on cops it would also have become a shit storm. In Australia where people dont have guns we can walk down teh street and not be afraid. Our Prime Minister used to go on jogs every morning IN PUBLIC WITH VERY LITTLE SECURITY!!! people could just walk up and talk to him and weve never had a single assasination in our history. our country is proud to not have an obsession witha killing machine
ANIOLATORV 3 weeks ago
@jrfranz13 lol youve realised you lost and now your insulting me!
why did you instantly think "liberal politician" thats because you a brainwashed close minded ignorant fuck you doesnt know how life works outside of the US
ANIOLATORV 2 weeks ago
@ANIOLATORV First off, calm the fuck down. I NEVER insulted you. secondly, I have NO fear walking down any streets because all those bad guys have turned in their guns once they found out they were illegal...that thought just makes me all warm and fuzzy...how 'bout you?
jrfranz13 2 weeks ago
@jrfranz13 Over here the police went on raids and haver taken them by force. The only people with guns are farmers (hunting rifles only) and bikers. they may have them illegally but they havnt killed a single innocent person. They only ever kill other bikers.;
ANIOLATORV 2 weeks ago
@ANIOLATORV Fine. I accept your apology, and your defeat in this argument. Good day sir.
jrfranz13 2 weeks ago
@jrfranz13 what? all this and you give up just to start trolling! you have lost! you cannot see the truth and you will forever remain ignorant. Its people like you who stop those like me from making the world a better place and furthering humanity
ANIOLATORV 2 weeks ago
@ANIOLATORV Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! I don't care WHO you are...that's funny right there!
jrfranz13 1 week ago
@jrfranz13 your a ripe troll now aint ya, how about you come pull that shit in real life and see how long you last
ANIOLATORV 1 week ago
@ANIOLATORV I'm no troll sir. I just know better than to beat my head against a wall...or argue gun control with a blithering idiot..same difference. Have a nice day.
jrfranz13 1 week ago
@ANIOLATORV what if the people get a baseball bat? knife? car? your logic is flawed. do you honestly thionk that by UNarming lawful citizens that the human debris criminals will just say "Oh...shit....guns are illegal...I better go turn mine in to the authorities right now!" seriously, THINK before you foment you anti-gun diatribe please.
jrfranz13 3 weeks ago
This was FUCKING STUPID!!! In my 16 years of being around guns, never have I seen one load itsself, float around and start shooting stuff. A gun is as good as the person behind it. Which means, boys and girls, MOST GUNS ARE GOOD!!
flyrofgliders 2 months ago
a fools errand.
thinkformyself69 2 months ago
even if you take all guns away and criminal decide to follow that law (yeah i know right) they will just stab and bludgen you to death now if youre a bad shot it takes what 5 to 6 shots to kill you in lets say 10 to 12 seconds now if they're bad at stabing you it could take in upwords of sevral hundred stabs and could last hours think about it but the bottom line is ITS OUR FUCKING RIGHT BOTTOM LINE no ifs ands or buts the peoples rights so stuff your anti gun shit back up your ass
eatingirls666 2 months ago
Stupid video.
Gangster88232 2 months ago
if you don't like private gun ownership then move to North Korea? Nobody is allowed to own a gun there. I'm sure the gun-haters would love Love LOVE living in North Korea.
Or maybe they should move to Juarez Mexico? Nobody is allowed to legally own a gun in mexico. I'm sure the gun-haters would LOVE to live in Juarez mexico.
God bless guns
smp156 2 months ago
WTF? I wanna see the rest of the video...
saintsderespublica 2 months ago
ok but what they didnt show is "brotha man" spraying the full auto ak-47
emkivi82 2 months ago
The person who made this video is ignorant and deserves to be beaten to death with Koosh balls.
Dragdamar 2 months ago
Great video! Really hits home. Just imagine what that same bullet would've done to that kid's head.
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 no, imagine the kind of person it would take to do such a thing, and what it would take to prevent it when all else fails.
kutz0341 2 months ago
@kutz0341
Yes, I find it impossible to totally cognify a person who would do something like that to another human being. The only way I see of preventing it is putting out more information and education to the populace; those who practice gun violence must stop themselves of their own accord, otherwise it is not stopped. Gun control is certainly worthy, but ineffective in and of itself.
jerico641 2 months ago
Gun control and crime control are not the same thing. My home is safer with a gun in it.
hypothetic7 2 months ago
That was some beautiful high-speed photography! Pity about the end, though; I'd have left that out if I were them.
SonofPencilHead 2 months ago
@SonofPencilHead
Why?
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 But the idea is gun control, and there's no reason to ban the gun that would have done that, because the criminal would have still had it...
rsxar 2 months ago 2
@rsxar
Well, I think the ad is supposed to be indicative of what will continue to happen if we don't enact better gun laws, and continue to strive to educate people in general on the dangers of handguns and assault weapons. To that end, I believe the ad served it's purpose.
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 It's sort of like being rickrolled. Interesting video, right up until the part where they throw in the part that isn't interesting.
SonofPencilHead 2 months ago
@SonofPencilHead
I don't know; I found it pretty interesting and effective myself. A gun can serve it's purpose ONLY through destruction.
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 That depends on its purpose. I take Ekaterina out to the range to have fun with her by putting holes in targets. For me, her purpose is entertainment. She's a fine old gal, wreathed in an aura of history.
True, she has a ferocious bite, which can be used to protect my life and property. But that's largely secondary, since I have the good fortune to live in a nice neighborhood.
SonofPencilHead 2 months ago
@SonofPencilHead
Well, without sounding too condescending (I hope), blowing holes in targets IS destruction. I have no problem with people shooting targets (if that's all they did) with their guns, I just can't see the attraction myself. What I'm worried about are semi-automatic handguns used to tear other people to shreds. Btw, I assume that Ekaterina is that name of your...gun? No offense, just wondering.
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 Entropy makes destruction a part of... well, most things. In the abstract (i.e. punching holes in 6-8 pieces of paper), I do less damage than the average kindergarten class. Shooting is a simple joy, but not easy to explain; for that, I would have to recommend that you get some range time in hopes that the rifle could tell you better.
Like yourself, I am no great fan of killing people; however I do believe that sometimes it can be the best of the choices with which one is presented.
SonofPencilHead 2 months ago
@SonofPencilHead
Well, entropy says that destruction is necessarily a part of the living condition, and we can't help the gradual disintegration of ourselves and the natural environment, but I don't really subscribe to it that closely. At any rate, I guess we still have a choice as to whether to physically destroy matter by our own hand. As for shooting, I doubt I'll be out there anytime soon; guns honestly scare me (I'll be on the golf course). And I hope never to be faced with such a choice
jerico641 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jerico641 Entropy makes destruction a part of... well, most things. In the abstract (i.e. punching holes in 6-8 pieces of paper), I do less damage than the average kindergarten class. Shooting is a simple joy, but not easy to explain; for that, I would have to recommend that you get some range time in hopes that the rifle could tell you better.
Like yourself, I am no great fan of killing people; however I do believe that sometimes it can be the best of the choices with which one is presented.
SonofPencilHead 2 months ago
@jerico641 And a post-script:
A history buff will often collect guns with no intention of ever shooting them; his enjoyment comes from having and displaying historical artifacts.
Yes, Ekaterina is the name that I picked for my 91/30. It's a Soviet bolt gun of Czarist-era design (patented in 1891, revised in 1930; mine was manufactured in 1938, probably has a few Germans in its past). I'm trying on 'person who names things' for size. (What do you think? Does it work, or is it just creepy?)
SonofPencilHead 2 months ago
@SonofPencilHead
Well, to me it sounds fine; I'm probably not the best judge, however. But I like to collect historical items too. I have several old coin collections, some antique Victorian furniture, and others. I'd probably be afraid that any guns I had would drop off the hooks on the wall and go off (even if I was sure they weren't loaded)! I just find them distasteful. To each his own, I suppose
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 I hear ya, my unloaded guns go off all the time....
beverwyck1 2 months ago
@beverwyck1
Well, just keep your powder dry...
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 you’re honestly in much more danger just driving on the freeway, but whatever makes you feel safe.
savage495 2 months ago
@savage495
Well, that may be the case; so I'd say why add something else potentially dangerous and destructive to your life? Unfortunately, I need to drive to get around (or get out on the streets in some motorized vehicle or other, like a bus or whatever), but I don't have to have a gun in my house; and I've always felt perfectly safe.
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 How dare you! You are putting lives at risk by driving on the state's streets! What happens when you lose control of your vehicle and run over a poor innocent child? Or cause thousands in property damage, bankrupting small businesses.
You should be ashamed to be a Car owner! Use public transportation, they are professionals at driving. You'll feel even more safer if someone else is at the wheel, and not you.
Failcard 2 months ago
@jerico641 You don't need a car when you could call a cab or hop on a bus. Dont put lives at risk, THINK OF THE CHILDREN FOR GOD'S SAKE!
Failcard 2 months ago
@Failcard
Uh, huh...I get it. But the fact is that we practically have to travel is vehicles if we want to live in this society, but we don't have to own guns, see? Btw, I've got a CDL license, so for whatever it's worth, I am a "professional driver".
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 You don't get my point clearly. We don't need a reason to own a firearm, we can do whatever the hell we want with them. There's a reason why the second amendment is up, it's primary reason is to over throw a tyrannical government, which one could argue that our's is leading to, self defense against criminals, and hunting are only secondary. Don't believe me? Look up Thomas Jefferson and his opinion on the second amendment, and why it is there.
Failcard 2 months ago
@Failcard
I think I got your point the first time; and there's a difference between doing what you want with an item you own and your motivation for purchasing it in the first place, but never mind that. The 2nd Amendment references a well-armed militia being necessary for security of the country; that means a National Guard, not private gun ownership. Personally, I don't care what Thomas Jefferson said; TEC 9s and UZIs weren't around then. Today we have a major problem with guns in the U.S.
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 Ahhh the old "Modern guns have changed and therefore the definition of the 2nd should be as well" argument. That works for idiots pal. Unfortunately for you, I'm not an idiot.
The supreme court ruled that the police are not responsible for your safety, that's why you don't see "serve and protect" on their vehicles anymore.
The technology of the firearms weren't even put in mind in the first place, nor do they even matter to the 2nd. If the government has them (Continued
Failcard 2 months ago
@Failcard
Well! THAT was certainly a lot of commenting. I'll try to sum up all of mine more briefly. The police ARE responsible for community safety; what else are they there for? And I'm stating that the 2nd Amendment doesn't reference personal gun ownership at all, regardless of technological advancement. I only referenced advancement with regard to your comment on Jefferson. I don't think you're an idiot; my point was meant as valid to any normal person. As to stricter gun laws, (cond.)
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 Then the people should be able to obtain them as well in order to be able to defend themselves properly. The state isn't your friend, no matter how you wish they were. With things such as the Patriot act and National Defense Authorization Act, the US is becoming more and more fascist as time goes by. As well as class warfare becoming a more real thing as the difference between the two grows.
How can you over throw an evil government when you're un-armed? You can't.
Failcard 2 months ago
@Failcard
I know there will still be a black market for gun sales; I'm not an idiot either. But we have to start somewhere, and the fact that disturbed individuals can now walk into a gun store and walk out with a semi-automatic is appalling; it must be dealt with. Lastly, the UK has VERY few handgun deaths per year, as opposed to the U.S. which had at least 12,000 last year. Oh, I doubt I'll watch that documentary, unless you watch "Bowling for Columbine". Thanks anyway though.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 But as I said before that you keep avoiding, if a criminal want's an Uzi, they can get it, legally, or not. And usually, according to the FBI, they obtain them illegally anyways.
Look at the UK, they practically banned firearms, yet they are the crime capital of Europe, and have a higher rate of violent crime then even the US.
Gun Crime isn't a problem in the US, it's a problem in the UK, where innocent law abiding citizens are being murdered without a chance to defend.
Failcard 2 months ago
@jerico641 - The 2nd amendment references the militia AND the right to keep and bear arms. There is a comma in there. We have problems with guns in this country because idiots keep trying to pass laws to keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens and placing them right in the hands of criminals. The People's Republic of Kalifornia has some of the highest gun crime rates in the country and they have the country's most extreme gun control laws. Hmmmm.....
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@jerico641 Banning items from the public is pointless, look up the prohibition of alcohol, see how it completely failed and only help grow organized crime? Look at the current prohibition of "Narcotics", if you want to smoke weed, you can find it everywhere in the country. The government cannot prevent items from getting into the hands of the public.
If firearms are banned, criminals could still get them via the black market, and other ways.
Society needs weapons.Do your research
Failcard 2 months ago
@Failcard
I do research on firearm mishaps each year...it's very depressing.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 Here's a documentry you should watch, it's called "Innocents Betrayed: The True story of gun control"
Failcard 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jerico641 How about the 18 year old mother who just defender her and her 3 month old son's lives by killing a deranged imbecile after he broke into her home? What about the retired police officer who was carrying his pistol and saved 3 children in an flipped vehicle in a river by shooting out the window?? There are MOSTLY decent people who own guns...only criminals have them illegally. Lets focus on enforcing our present laws rather than jeopardize the lives of innocent, law abiding citizens.
jrfranz13 2 months ago
FUCK! i wanted to see that nigs brains get splattered. damnit, damnit, damnit!
TheGr8WhiteHunter88 2 months ago
@TheGr8WhiteHunter88 Yes, let's all go kill ourselves some little kids, why don't we? That's what CIVILIZED people do. =_=
SonofPencilHead 2 months ago
That was gay!
swampers44 2 months ago
So this ad was like the first mad magazine, institute gun control or Ill shoot this kid? Oh my god, guns kill children in commercials for not being controlled correctly. Im going to go disassemble, clean, and reassemble my .44, then tuck it in and tell it a story about when good guns go bad. They grow up so fast, I just hope we taught them enough to make good decisions. Use oil in moderation, clean your crevices, and only consume high quality ammo. GUNS ARE PEOPLE TOO, just like corporations.
ddddcheaper 3 months ago 2
scrambled human brains and bones into mush?
psychomajoreflex 3 months ago
Bullets don't kill people, guns don't kill people. People kill people. All gun control does it make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase guns and easier for criminals to get them. Do you really think a criminal is going to walk into a gun store to buy a gun??? In states where there is gun control, violent gun crimes are highest. In states with no gun control, violent crimes with guns are lowest. Those are the facts. Any questions?
PaulPradaShow 3 months ago
@PaulPradaShow
The guy from Virginia Tech walked into a gun store and purchased his guns legally; so did the columbine kids...
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 - The Columbine kids legally bought their handguns? LOL, really? They were 17 years old and not even old enough to legally purchase a rifle, let alone a handgun. The Virginia Tech shooter had no previous criminal record that would prohibit him from purchasing a gun. Using your logic, we shouldn't allow ANYONE to own a gun because they COULD kill someone and no one should own a car because they COULD kill someone. Think about that. Your logic fails.
PaulPradaShow 2 months ago
@PaulPradaShow Maybe they were too young, but they bought them anyway. And the Virginia Tech guy had a record of mental aberration that should have been seriously considered. It's my belief that the gun store owner just wanted the sale and never even checked. Personally, yes, I'd rather NO ONE had lethal handguns or assault weapons. They're deadly and only used to kill. The logic is solid.
jerico641 2 months ago
@jerico641 With that logic, you could call any weapons an assault weapon.
Failcard 2 months ago
@jerico641 I can already tell just by reading through your other comments that you're rather ignorant about firearms, and that your only experience with them is through popular media (Video Games and Movies). It's rather hilarious coming from a man who said we should let go of our superstitions and that we should be in fear of inanimate objects.
Failcard 2 months ago
@jerico641 - If they bought them anyway, then you prosecute the SELLER. How hard is that? And your idea that no one should have handguns is laughable. Do you really think that would make a safer world where the criminals have all the guns and law abiding citizens don't? Do you realize that all studies and statistics show that crime in gun controlled cities is HIGHER than in cities that have concealed carry laws? Your logic is FARRRRRRRR from solid. Next time, do some research first.
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
It wouldn't be hard to prosecute the seller; but to my knowledge no one ever did. Btw, how do you separate the "criminals" from the "law-abiding citizens" when most fire arm deaths in this country are accidental or purposely caused by a friend or close relative. Lastly, if your studies are so correct, why does the U.S. continue each year to lead the world in hand gun deaths? How can I know who's nice and who's not when everybody's packing heat like Wyatt Earp? Think, okay?
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - You sounds like you want to create this utopian, perfect world or something. Accidents are accidents whether it's from a car accident, a gun accident, a skiing accident, a plane accident, etc. etc. Are we just going to ban EVERYTHING that could cause injury or death? Be realistic. 55% of gun deaths are from suicide. Get rid of guns and the lower the "gun deaths" but increase suicides by some other means whether it be jumping off a bridge, overdose, etc. Welcome to life and reality!
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
Wouldn't you like to have a Utopian, perfect world? I realize that's a dream, but that certainly doesn't make it a worthless goal. My point was that quite a number of Americans tend to shoot and kill unarmed people, neighbors, and family members by accident, when supposedly "defending their homes". That's a horrible tragedy which can be prevented. You do realize, I hope, that the odds of your ever having to use a firearm against another person is roughly about 10,000 to one.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - A utopian perfect world is a pipe dream that science has proven humans are incapable of achieving. I'd rather focus my energy on attainable goals. Americans do not "tend" to shoot and kill unarmed people defending their home, in fact, there are only a handful of cases each year that fall in that category. Almost all deaths from guns outside of homicide are from suicide. Already had to use my firearm against an intruder so just goes to show, it IS useful if and when the need arises.
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
Jesus, do you read English? I stated that while I realize a utopian, perfect societ is unattainable (especially until we can change the minds of people who actually LIKE guns), but working toward it would it and of itself create a better world for all of us. And yes, Americans do "tend" to kill unarmed people every year, to the tune of about 9,000 deaths (it's right there in the ATF statistics). But even if not, wouldn't ONE Columbine be enough to help change your mind?
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - Secondly, you completely ignored my other points about fatal accidents. Cars, boats, trains, planes, dogs, horses, wild animals, motorcycles, snowmobiles, skis, snowboards, rockclimbing, skydiving, drag racing, swimming... lol, I could go on forever. All of these activities resulted in deaths last year. Should we ban all of them too? That is exactly your reason for wanting to ban guns. So why exactly again would banning guns but not these activities be okay? That's what I thought.
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
Third, I didn't ignore your points. I stated that we have to start somewhere, and handguns and assault weapons, which are used ONLY for destruction, are a hell of a lot more sensible place to begin than freaking swimming or snowboarding, for god's sake. That's asinine. Oh, and btw, congratulations on shooting someone; did you kill this person, or just maim him? I just want to know whether or not to add the gold clusters to your "home defense" medal.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - You are so far loony leftist that I think you actually might be back on the right, LOL. Luckily, a majority of people do not share your nutty position. Enjoy living your life in a bubble! People like me, we're going to enjoy the ride and live life. Maybe if you took a minute to come out of your frightened little shell and let people live their own lives and enjoy their own liberties and freedoms, you'd feel differently. In a way, I sort of feel sad for people like you.
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
Yeah, thanks for answering the question so clearly; I think maybe you're a little to the right of Attila the Hun, but I'm probably wrong about that, as I try not to judge peoples' entire personalities based on their opinions on one issue. As for me, I love life, because I'm not paranoid enough to think I need a loaded gun around constantly to help save me from "bad guys". I think that puts YOU in a frightened little shell. Live your own scared life, I'll continue to enjoy mine
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - You're categorizing all gun owners as paranoid, which is your first problem. Many gun owners own guns for sport purposes such as target shooting at a gun range, or hunting. Others own them as a means of self defense, as peace of mind in the event someone breaks into their home. No different than installing an alarm system. A woman a couple weeks ago would've been killed, along with her 3 month old baby had she not killed the armed intruder breaking down her door.
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
Give me a name or something, and I'll Google that woman to get all the real facts; I doubt very seriously if it was as "clean cut" as that. And to me, quite a number (not all) of gun owners I've talked with DO strike me as paranoid. They seem worried about some (usually ethnic and poor) phantom bad guy coming to rob and kill them, and they get mad talking about ti as if it's already happened, even if it hasn't! THAT'S paranoia. When you're that worried, where's the "peace"?
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - Sure, go ahead. Her name is Sarah McKinley. She was 18 years old with a 3 month old baby in her arms. Her husband died of cancer a week earlier on Christmas day and two armed men were breaking down her door to rob her. She had her dead husband's shotgun and revolver and used it to protect herself and her baby after first calling 9-1-1. The police didn't get there fast enough and she had to use the gun. Now go ahead, tell us all how wrong that was of her to protect herself and child.
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
Okay; I found her story, and it mostly confirms the things I've already been saying. She knew the guy (he was apparently interested in her for a couple of years, and she had recently run into him at a convenience store), and I said that it's mostly family members or someone known to the victim who perpetrate violent crimes; she was already awake, and she managed to keep him out for twenty minutes, giving her a lot of time to get to her guns (she had two). The guy was (con'd)
jerico641 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
(con'd): armed with a knife, not a gun, otherwise he might have shot right through the window or door and killed both her and her son; and she had plenty of time even to ask the dispatcher if she could shoot the guy. I dare say that if she had been awakened suddenly by a less inept burglar, she wouldn't have had time even to get to those guns, and then might have made the situation worse in blind panic. To me, she seems like a VERY lucky woman, and proof of nothing else. con'd:
jerico641 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
Finally, I'll agree with one thing; I don't understand why the cops couldn't make it to her home within the twenty minutes; most of them were certainly on patrol, since it was New Year's Eve. That doesn't speak too well for her local cops.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 Dude, I read some of your comments, funny stuff. Would you have liked it better if the mom was unarmed? I'm sure she could fend off 2 grown men while being consumed with panic in a fist fight..OH knife fight.Guns are made to kill, so? Cars are made to take you from point A to point B, yet they kill more people than guns do. You make the same old played argument, but I'm not sorry to say I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Self defense is a right, not a privilege.
Fuunken 1 month ago
@Fuunken
God, where do you people come from? I already answered the car question on here TWICE; I'm not doing it again. I'm glad you can be so nonchalant about guns being made to kill; your human decency warms my heart. If you read those comments of mine and you're still making this argument, then you didn't understand them. Try again; or on second thought, don't bother, as I'm sure you've got guns to clean, and I wouldn't want you to waste your time...
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 You answered a reply, not so much the car statement. Human decency? It's funny that people like you without sound arguments result to personal attacks like my lack of human decency or me not understanding. I understand very well and disagree with your flimsy point. I've always supported gun rights, but never fired a gun before I enlisted. So no more stupid assumptions in a sad attempt to degrade.
Fuunken 1 month ago
@Fuunken
*Sigh* I'm not attempting to degrade anyone, I'm just responding to what I've been told on here, and I'm getting frustrated that no one seems to see any correlation between easy access to guns and gun violence. I don't want to curtail peoples' rights, I want to try and change their minds, if I can. And with regard to cars, I don't know what you people want from me; yes, there are car accidents that kill people, but cars are designed for transportation, not killing. That's my point
jerico641 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jerico641 "I'm not attempting to degrade anyone, I'm just responding to what I've been told on here, and I'm getting frustrated that no one seems to see any correlation between easy access to guns and gun violence."
Perhaps because there is no correlation other than in your own fear?
XNMR53 1 month ago
@Fuunken
God, where do you people come from? I already answered the car question on here TWICE; I'm not doing it again. I'm glad you can be so nonchalant about guns being made to kill; your human decency warms my heart. If you read those comments of mine and you're still making this argument, then you didn't understand them. Try again; or on second thought, don't bother, as I'm sure you've got guns to clean, and I wouldn't want you to waste your time...
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - LOL, EXACTLY! Finally we have a breakthrough here! (angels sing, the sky gets brighter as you see the light!) LOL. You never know if the cops are going to get there in time which is EXACTLY why it was good that she had a loaded gun to protect herself and her 3 month old baby.
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
*Sigh* You did the obvious; I expected that comment. My admonition of the police response time wasn't meant as a justification for having guns in houses. I was only wondering why it took them so long. I also stated that this was not a random break-in; she knew the guy. And she was awake and had time to get the guns and have them ready (if she had been asleep and surprised, I dare say the outcome would have been tragically different).
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - Considering it took nearly 20 minutes of pounding on the door, I dare say the outcome would have been the same!
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
Well, I meant if the guy hadn't been so inept and actually sneaked in and surprised her while she was asleep. Then I doubt that her two guns would've done her any good at all. And if he had happened to find them, he would have been armed with guns rather than a knife...she was extraordinarily lucky.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - No, she was extraordinarily smart.
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
I can't see how "smart" enters into it; lucky, yes, smart, no. I assume you mean that she was smart in that she had guns (I wonder why she needed two?) to protect herself, and then had them ready when she needed them, is that right? What I'm stating is that if she had been dead asleep, and the guy had surprised her at her bedside with a knife to her throat), then the two guns she had wouldn't have been worth beans. Again, that's what I mean by lucky. And still someone is dead.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - She had two guns because one was a hunting shotgun that her husband used for hunting before he died of cancer a week before the break-in. The second was an old revolver, probably handed down from a relative. But what difference does it make how many she had? 0, 2, 30? Who cares! LOL. And yes, we've gone over this; if someone slit her throat while she was sleeping, she'd be dead but because she had the guns, she and her child are alive. This really isn't very hard to understand.
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
What makes you think I don't understand your opinions? I understand them perfectly, I simply don't agree with them. You maintain that the young lady is alive because she had guns at her disposal, and I maintain that she's alive because she was awake and aware of what was happening, and had time to prepare. Let's not forget one important issue here, too: she knew the guy. This wasn't some random break-in. This corresponds with the known data about these events. (con'd.)
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - Whether she knew the guys or not is irrelevant. So is the "data" because all it shows is that in that "data" are other similar situations where an armed acquaintance was shot in the act of a violent crime. Justifies it even more. And you forget that the fact remains that she is alive because she had a gun. "But what ifs" and "But if she's" are irrelevant as they are not factual aspects to the incident. Stick to the facts, not what if's.
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
It's significant; it's comparative data, based on comparisons of domestic violence involving handguns. What it comes down to is that you have an infinitesimal chance of ever being assaulted by a total stranger with a gun in the middle of the night. If that's why you have a gun, then the GUN is irrelevant. She should have called the police when he harassed her at the convenience store. But the basic facts aren't in dispute; yes, she stopped a home invader by killing him.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 would you risk the life of your family/your children/yourself on an infinitesimal chance? I certainly wouldn't, and I'm a single guy with a dog.
idreamofteens 1 month ago
@idreamofteens
No, I certainly won't risk my life and the lives of my family on an infinitesimal chance; that's why I don't have guns in my house. My kids are more likely to be shot and killed by accident than assaulted by an unknown assailant if I keep a gun in the house.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 and how exactly would this accident happen? Firearms, lacking their own consciousness, cannot pull their own triggers. Any parent not educating their children on firearms and keeping them secured is just as irresponsible as not protecting yourself against the unknown. How do you plan to protect your family in the event of a home invasion? (aside from cowering in fear of course)
idreamofteens 1 month ago
@idreamofteens
Accidents can happen whether children are educated or not; they do so every day. And you actually made my point for me very well, thank you. The unknown is not necessarily dangerous; in all probability it isn't. People are just frightened by what they either don't understand or can't see. It's unnecessary, and makes you "cower in fear" every day of your life. You've been watching far too much "Cops".
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 I'm both shocked and disappointed that someone as seemingly intelligent as you are can be so ignorant. I propose my original question to you again... what do you plan to do in the extremely unlikely scenario in which your home is invaded? Or you're held at gunpoint in a dark parking lot? Call 911? Lowest response time I could find was 6.3 minutes (Seattle, as of 2011). Plenty of time for him to murder you and your family after you tell him where all your valuables are...
idreamofteens 1 month ago
@idreamofteens
I try not to agonize over bad things that are very unlikely to occur. I have a general faith in the goodness of people that's been confirmed time and time again in my life. The media coverage in the U.S. would have you believe that your life is in constant danger from violent attack or home invasion, and it's just not true. I don't think I could hit anything accurately with a gun under the best of circumstances, anyway. If your scenario should actually occur, I'd (con'd.)
jerico641 1 month ago
@idreamofteens
(con'd.) try to reason with the person, put him at ease as best I could, and give him any material possession of mine that he might want. Most murders in this country are committed by someone known to the victim. There is far more danger of having your children abducted off the streets by a stranger (although that is rare as well) than some stranger bursting into your home and killing everyone. And pulling a gun on someone, I believe, would only increase the danger for my family.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 "People are just frightened by what they either don't understand or can't see. It's unnecessary, and makes you "cower in fear" every day of your life. You've been watching far too much "Cops". "
What a load of crap! I've been a cop, and I can tell you from experience that a little concern is a good thing. I still carry a gun. I carry for the same reason that my car has a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, shovel, chains, and blankets. It's called being prepared for real life.
XNMR53 1 month ago
@XNMR53
The other items you mentioned (fire extinguisher, blankets, etc.) are useful in a crisis (I can think of several scenarios), but the gun you'll likely never need unless it's a flare gun. People are simply afraid and distrustful of others as a general rule, and automatically assume they'll need a gun. the majority are decent, nonviolent folks who have no interest in hurting you. A little concern IS a good thing, but irrational fear is not. I would think a former cop would know this.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 "People are simply afraid and distrustful of others as a general rule, and automatically assume they'll need a gun. the majority are decent, nonviolent folks who have no interest in hurting you. A little concern IS a good thing, but irrational fear is not. I would think a former cop would know this."
More bullshit from a moron.
Or are you another paid shill for the Brady Bunch? It's hard to believe that anyone can be as stupid as you seem to be.
XNMR53 1 month ago
@XNMR53
Well, THAT was an intelligent response. I'm not going to debate you on this issue if you're going to start insulting me personally; there's no need for that. To answer your question, though, I have nothing to do with the Brady Bill or any other gun control group/legislation; I'm just a husband and father who doesn't want my kids or grand kids involved in gun violence. And who realizes that people are not as violent as the "lock and load" crowd would have us believe; it's true.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 "I'm not going to debate you on this issue"
If you don't like people's attitude, acquire enough knowledge to move yourself from the idiot category.
If your local PD has a ride along program, participate. See the real world.
Then do some reading. Try Kleck & Getz, and Lott (who started out like you, did some honest research and flipped his position.) Read the writings of Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who lost both her parents at Luby's due to misguided folks like yourself.
XNMR53 4 weeks ago
@XNMR53
I live in the real world, you apparently live in some action movie full of villains. I'm not going to be insulted by you anymore; this debate is at an end (one last item: I saw an interview with the Hupp woman once; her parents were killed when some lunatic entered the restaurant and began shooting, probably with automatic weapons he'd purchased legally. The place was full of patrons, and if she'd had a gun, she probably would have killed an innocent person, and been killed herself.
jerico641 4 weeks ago
@jerico641 I'm not going to be insulted by you anymore; this debate is at an end"
This never was a debate. You're too ignorant on the subject to have a valid position. Nor is it an education, because you're not intellectually honest enough to view FACTS objectively. You'd rather rant on, endlessly repeating the simplistic Brady Bunch mantra.
XNMR53 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jerico641 "No, I certainly won't risk my life and the lives of my family on an infinitesimal chance; that's why I don't have guns in my house. My kids are more likely to be shot and killed by accident than assaulted by an unknown assailant if I keep a gun in the house. "
Sorry, but Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz proved that premise to be bullshit almost 20 years ago, but that hasn't stopped the morons from repeating it.
XNMR53 1 month ago
@XNMR53
Two people out of millions of gun owners disproved a premise? How?
jerico641 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jerico641 "Two people out of millions of gun owners disproved a premise? How?"
And what part of your ass did you pull those figures out of?
XNMR53 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jerico641 "Two people out of millions of gun owners disproved a premise? How?"
Kleck and Gertz are Professors in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. They conducted a study published in 1995 that completely refutes your bullshit concerning home defense with firearms.
Perhaps you should actually do a little research rather than simply jacking your jaws.
XNMR53 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
(con'd.) People are usually assaulted by someone they know, usually a friend or relative. This is significant because there are so many folks out there like you who seem to believe that they are in real danger from a random home invasion by an armed (usually drug crazed) perpetrator. Therefore you believe you need guns to protect yourselves. This type of thing very rarely happens at all. As to the amount of guns she had, it was just a parenthetical remark, no significance.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 You completely missed this persons point. As long as the human race exists there will be instruments used for defense or victimizing others. And handguns are not used "only for destruction" I own several handguns and go to the range quite frequently for the enjoyment of target shooting. Competitive shooting is a challenging and hobby/sport enjoyed by many. So is collecting and painstakingly restoring old revolvers and semi auto pistols. I see nothing destructive in this.
DucknCoverin 1 month ago
@DucknCoverin
No, I didn't miss his point; you guys are missing mine. I understand that human beings in societies can be violent for all sorts of reasons, and to change that, we have to change ourselves and other aspects of our society, such as poverty. Fear and want breed anger and violence. And, as I stated on here once before, blowing holes in targets IS destruction. I only hope that most of them are getting enough of a hard on doing that, and won't have to actually hurt anyone later.
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - Again, using your own hilarious logic, if shooting holes in targets is destruction, so is scalping the grass when you hit a golf ball. Both sports, both destructive under your logic. Maybe we should require a license to own a golf club just in case the golfer tries to use it to bludgeon someone to death if they don't get a big enough "hard on" hitting golf balls with it. Are you even serious anymore? This logic is so laughable I almost think you're joking. Wow.
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
I'm as serious as you apparently are about needing a gun to confront phantom housebreakers. The chances are better that you'll be struck by lightening than threatened with a gun. And if you can't tell the difference between a firearm and a golf club, I wonder if I should take you seriously. Anyway, let me try (*sigh*); a golf club is designed to hit a golf ball across a course and eventually into a little hole; any damage is unintentional. This differs them from guns, see?
jerico641 1 month ago
@jerico641 - The damage is quite intentional... YOU'RE SCALPING THE GRASS! You should ban walking too because you might destroy an ant. Or since you're so stuck on guns used at a gun range are destructive because they put holes in paper, I guess we should ban hole punches and staples too. This isn't even worth me responding to anymore. Anyone who reads all these comments will see how stupid you really are, even if you can't see it yourself. Just don't delete your comments or it won't be as funny
PaulPradaShow 1 month ago
@PaulPradaShow
Have you ever played golf? The idea is to NOT scalp the grass if you can help it. But that's of no consequence except to people like you who want to make invalid comparisons (golf and guns; I can't believe you). Guns are made to destroy things, period. Now let that sink in while you're not responding anymore, okay? And WHATEVER you do, don't remove your comments, especially these about comparing golf and firearms LOL.
jerico641 1 month ago