Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Liberals" Who Don't Care About Gun Control  
User currently offlineLHMARK From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 46
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2514 times:

I was just thinking about this. I'm a left-thinker about a lot of stuff (a right-thinker about other stuff, but mostly left), and I couldn't give a crap about tightening gun control. If you want to legally buy a gun, keep a small arsenal in your house, join the NRA, whatever! Knock yourself out. It really doesn't bother me. Hell, I know "liberals" who love and own plenty of guns. Some of them are passionate hunters, too.

My point is that it isn't a bad thing to look at how people really are, beyond the media labels. Maybe we could see that we're not as different from each other as we think, or as we'd maybe like to be.


"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6181 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 2437 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting LHMARK (Thread starter):
Hell, I know "liberals" who love and own plenty of guns. Some of them are passionate hunters, too.

So do I. A good buddy of mine is so liberal it is insane, but he is a strong 2nd amendment man. I have also met conservatives who hate guns. There are plenty of both

A few years ago there was a pro gun group of homosexuals featured in the Detroit Free Press. They were trying to break the stereotype of gays all being antigun. Before that time I was unaware that people assume gays are anti gun. I guess it is because they tend to vote for more liberal politicians. There were several hundred in the group. I have never heard anything more about them.

My dad is a bleeding heart liberal and he belongs to the NRA.

I am an open minded good ol' boy who is a life member of NRA, a FFL holder, and concealed pistol license holder. I am a teacher who belongs to the NEA which is very anti gun union. I love having my NEA and NRA card next to each other in my wallet.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineN74JW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 2426 times:

I think people throw labels onto others to give themselves a comfort level with something that they are uncomfortable.

The media has political and financial agendas. I don't really consider them an objective source of information.

I am both right and left. What blows me away are some folks who have to be right or left, but not both. Right/Left there is something there for everyone I think. Ann Coulter is the Alice Cooper or Marilyn Manson of her movement, just out for a headline.


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 2426 times:



Quoting Falstaff (Reply 1):
A few years ago there was a pro gun group of homosexuals featured in the Detroit Free Press. They were trying to break the stereotype of gays all being antigun. Before that time I was unaware that people assume gays are anti gun. I guess it is because they tend to vote for more liberal politicians. There were several hundred in the group. I have never heard anything more about them.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

As for the other detail in the first couple of posts, I am very hard-headed about my feelings on gun control and maybe that's because I have encountered some of the most hard-headed opponents to gun ownership on the planet and I view that as a threat to my freedom. I've met a couple of people (members of A.net actually) who are similar to the examples Falstaff and LHMARK described, but I've found they are very few and far between. Gun control is very much like abortion and the death penalty- people generally feel very strongly one way or the other about it.

So I'll sit back and watch how this thread plays out before turning into an all-out gun control debate- AGAIN!



User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5527 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Try a homo liberal gun-lover Big grin I am all about having the right to own a gun. With ownership comes the intelligence to own, operate and safely stow said gun.


You can't cure stupid
User currently offlineN74JW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 2401 times:



Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 4):
With ownership comes the intelligence to own, operate and safely stow said gun.

That's it right there...


User currently offlineDiamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 63
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 2394 times:

Why do some people "need" guns and others do not?



I don't think that all guns need to be taken away from the population. But this idea of having an "arsenal" at home is ridiculous.



Blank.
User currently offlineLHMARK From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

Well, some people (like my friend Todd) are military historians and/or hobbyists. If it's a serious interest, and it's legal to own them, that's cool.


"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 2383 times:



Quoting Diamond (Reply 6):
Why do some people "need" guns and others do not?

Why does anyone have to prove a "need" to exercise a right?

Quoting Diamond (Reply 6):
I don't think that all guns need to be taken away from the population. But this idea of having an "arsenal" at home is ridiculous.

Well, unless they are some form of crazy mutant a person who owns 100 guns can only use as many as the person who only owns two.

I'm sure we wouldn't call Jay Leno ridiculous for owning a very large car collection.




Anywho, back to the topic. There are political liberals, and there are social liberals.. they aren't the always the same thing. Just like political and social conservatives aren't the same things. It's very reasonable for a true social liberal to believe in the right of people to bear arms.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 2377 times:



Quoting Diamond (Reply 6):
But this idea of having an "arsenal" at home is ridiculous.

Opinion. We all got 'em.

Personally, I don't see the need to have more than the four I have . . . each has it's purpose. That too is an opinion.



I know plenty of folks on both sides of the political fence that don't even blink an eye at gun ownership. Especially in Alaska . . . we all have 'em. Big guns, small guns, hunting guns, other guns, liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, independent . . . doesn't matter.


User currently offlineDavestanKSAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 1678 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 2377 times:

Well, I think I might fall into that category. I'm all for the Second Amendment as long as the said gun owners are responsible with their weapons. I really respect those who take gun ownership very seriously, as it should be. Guns can be fun, but with them come a huge responsibility, and those who understand that are of high value in my book.

I used to not understand guns, but with a little help from my uncle who is an avid hunter, and from reading some posts on this forum, I've beGUN (<----HA) to understand them, and their function in our society.

Dave



Yesterday we've sinned, today we move towards God. Touch the sky....love and respect...Safe Star!
User currently offlineToast From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

Socially speaking, I'm just about as liberal as they come. I also dislike guns personally, but I don't care if people keep arsenals at home. To me, it's just another nerdy hobby that for some reason reaches fetishism levels in some people.  Wink Accidental shootings are a problem, but gun violence probably wouldn't make it to my list of the top ten things that are wrong with America nowadays (I assume we're talking about the US here, as gun ownership is pretty much a non-issue elsewhere...)

"Liberal" and "conservative" should IMO only ever be used as a simple and convenient but very imprecise way to classify people. I haven't met a whole lot of people in my life who would conform to all or even most of the common leftist or right-wing stereotypes. Labeling the entire population using only two labels is six times dumber than classifying everybody by their sign of the zodiac, and equally unreliable.

On this forum alone, I can see plenty of people who voted for Bush twice but who aren't religious, homophobic, and can even spell correctly.  Wink Same goes for the people I might tentatively call "liberal" but who have a gun in every pocket and traditional views on race or religion. The enormous amount of possible combination of views, plus the fact that people change over time, means that "liberal" and "conservative" in fact mean only whatever you want them to mean.

And now, can we please repopulate Greenland with Democratic and Republican party card holders, and get things done seriously in the USA?  Smile


User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 2355 times:

Well, interesting.

I'm very liberal. I'd say gun control is one issue that A.net has actually led me to move my position on.

I used to utterly fail to see the pro-gun side of the debate at all. Having watched various rabid arguments here on A.net as they unfolded, I have moderated my position somewhat. I'm still anti-gun on a personal level. I never plan to have one, and I won't give my kids toy guns to play with (or other toy weapons, though) if I can avoid it, etc. Furthermore, I feel safer on the street and in certain other situations when I'm in a country where there are basically no guns floating around, and where even most police officers are not armed with guns. I also am in no way convinced that more people owning guns equals a safer country, a safer campus (anything but!) or a safer world.

On the other hand, I have come to realize that most gun owners are responsible (where the laws are reasonable), that they are legitimately interested in their guns for various reasons as with any other hobby or passion, that some people living in certain types of rural area actually need their guns in any case, and that, most of all, guns are not going anywhere. Given the way the constitution is written, gun ownership is a fact of life in the US. Though I have to confess I'd feel slightly scared letting my kids go play at a house where I knew there was a gun, unless I knew it was very safely stored, thanks to Freakonomics, I even realize that swimming pools are more dangerous in terms of numbers of accidental deaths than guns in houses...

So I basically think live and let live, within reason. I do think that gun laws should be tight enough that background checks and proper training are both required to legally own a gun.

PS: I still think Bowling for Columbine was a good movie...  razz 



It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineLHMARK From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 2348 times:

N229NW hit an interesting point. There's something about people who come across as "rabid" in their defense of the second amendment that can strike many other people as, well, unsettling. Maybe it's because the issue is less dear to them, but many non gun owners don't perceive the same level of threat to the second amendment that vociferous gun owners like Queso do. So sometimes, while defending their positions, staunch gun advocates come across as not only wanting to defend their right to bear arms, but as itching to use those arms on other people as soon as legally possible.

Now I know that isn't really the case (usually), but frankly it scares many people who don't have guns in their lives or as an interest. I think it's all about the tone.



"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6181 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2317 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 4):
Try a homo liberal gun-lover I am all about having the right to own a gun.

If you were not already on my RU list you would be again.

Quoting LHMARK (Reply 7):
Well, some people (like my friend Todd) are military historians and/or hobbyists. If it's a serious interest, and it's legal to own them, that's cool.

Great example. I have 31 firearms and only two were made after 1945.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineSiren From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 345 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2314 times:



Quoting Diamond (Reply 6):
I don't think that all guns need to be taken away from the population. But this idea of having an "arsenal" at home is ridiculous.

Let's just cut right to it... The Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say that you can't have an arsenal. In fact, the more who do, the more secure we are as a country. The Second Amendment was written with the intent of keeping homegrown despots in check. A despot can rise out of any democracy - and ours is not immune. This is a necessary check on the government, necessary for the security of freedom.

I am all for any and all gun ownership. I think that gun safety ought to be taught in schools, so as to lower the rate of accidental deaths - however restrictions are simply undemocratic. Yes, other democracies in the world don't have guns - but this was a right enshrined into the constitution... we need to keep any and all freedoms we have, for the sake of future security.


User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6181 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2307 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Siren (Reply 15):
I think that gun safety ought to be taught in schools, so as to lower the rate of accidental deaths -

Very true. Many young people don't really understand firearms. I have been an active shooter since I was nine. I learned about guns in Cub Scouts and scouts taught me about safety and respect for firearms.

Quoting Siren (Reply 15):
we need to keep any and all freedoms we have, for the sake of future security.

Another good point. Too many people want to take our freedoms away because they don't like a particular one. The only will complain about the removal of a freedom they enjoy. I will stand up for all of our freedoms because if one is taken away I don't like one I do like will be taken away next.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5527 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2297 times:



Quoting Falstaff (Reply 16):
Many young people don't really understand firearms

And adults. With ownership comes responsibility.



You can't cure stupid
User currently offlineSiren From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 345 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2293 times:



Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 17):
And adults. With ownership comes responsibility.

Exactly. This is why we need to instill the very notion that firearms are deadly serious from the moment a child enters school. These things - lessons - will probably (hopefully) stay with them as they transition to adulthood, and usher in a new era of responsible gun ownership... which isn't to say that the vast majority of guns in America today aren't responsibly kept - most are. There's always the criminal element that ruins it for the rest of us...


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2284 times:



Quoting Siren (Reply 15):
It doesn't say that you can't have an arsenal. In fact, the more who do, the more secure we are as a country. The Second Amendment was written with the intent of keeping homegrown despots in check. A despot can rise out of any democracy - and ours is not immune. This is a necessary check on the government, necessary for the security of freedom.

I am all for any and all gun ownership. I think that gun safety ought to be taught in schools, so as to lower the rate of accidental deaths - however restrictions are simply undemocratic. Yes, other democracies in the world don't have guns - but this was a right enshrined into the constitution... we need to keep any and all freedoms we have, for the sake of future security.

Oh....my....God.  Wow! My long lost sister has been found!!!!


User currently offlineDiamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 63
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2254 times:



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 8):
Why does anyone have to prove a "need" to exercise a right?

I never said that. Or at least I didn't imply that the laws should be administered in an uneven way from one person to the next.

I really don't care who owns a gun. I was just pointing out the vast differences in the way people look at gun-ownership for themselves. Some people wouldn't feel safe without a gun (or several), and some people wouldn't feel safe with one anywhere near their home.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 8):
I'm sure we wouldn't call Jay Leno ridiculous for owning a very large car collection.

Apples and oranges. Jay would have to work pretty hard to use his $2,000,000 Duesenberg as a weapon to hold people hostage, or commit a Columbine or Virginia Tech massacre.


Again, just because massacres and other types of shootings occur, I am not in favor of guns being removed from people. If the law allows you to own guns - then own guns. I don't care. Just keep it out of my house.



Blank.
User currently offlineShakeZulaNJ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2244 times:



Quoting Diamond (Reply 20):
I really don't care who owns a gun. I was just pointing out the vast differences in the way people look at gun-ownership for themselves. Some people wouldn't feel safe without a gun (or several), and some people wouldn't feel safe with one anywhere near their home.

Spot on. I have no need for a gun, and have no plans on ever getting one. But, if you are a responsible, law abiding adult, then I'm not going to stop you from getting one if you are so inclined. And it's a bit reassuring that if I needed to, I could get a gun.


User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2215 times:



Quoting Siren (Reply 15):
I think that gun safety ought to be taught in schools, so as to lower the rate of accidental deaths - however restrictions are simply undemocratic. Yes, other democracies in the world don't have guns - but this was a right enshrined into the constitution... we need to keep any and all freedoms we have, for the sake of future security.

 checkmark 

Quoting LHMARK (Reply 13):
Maybe it's because the issue is less dear to them, but many non gun owners don't perceive the same level of threat to the second amendment that vociferous gun owners like Queso do.

That is because the First amendment isn't going to be taken away. The Second has been a target for a very long time, and it has to be defended vigorously.

I enjoy shooting and with it comes a great responsibility. I secure my firearms where they cannot be accessed by minors. My family knows how to handle weapons safely, including my eight year-old son. He knows the safety rules, including not to touch anything when I am not around. He has his curiosity, and will ask to see something, and I will satisfy his curiosity. My brother has handed him a loaded pistol, and he has asked my brother to "make it safe." I watched this with interest as my brother removed the magazine and attempted to hand it to him; "open it so I can see the chamber." He knows that if he is at a friend's house and someone brings out a gun, he is to get out of there immediately.

This country was founded on great principles, such as those of freedom of speech, religion and assembly. But the founders thought it so important that we the people not be oppressed by tyrants, that they made the right to keep and bear arms the second. That is ahead of illegal search and seizures, the right to protect yourself against self-incrimination; so it is something I hold dear and will speak out against any infringements to any of our rights.

As for having an arsenal, some collect stamps, cars, coins, beer cans and airplanes; I collect firearms. I also have them to defend myself and my family. The police will not always be around to stop crime as it is happening, and when seconds count, the police is a few minutes away. That is not good enough for me. I have them, I carry one all the time, and it is just like the American Express card, "Never leave home without it!"


User currently offlineEaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2208 times:



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 22):

As for having an arsenal, some collect stamps, cars, coins, beer cans and airplanes; I collect firearms. I also have them to defend myself and my family. The police will not always be around to stop crime as it is happening, and when seconds count, the police is a few minutes away. That is not good enough for me. I have them, I carry one all the time, and it is just like the American Express card, "Never leave home without it!"

Do you know that it is 20 times more likely that a member of your family will be shot with those guns than a criminal. It is 20 times more likely that through some accident a member of your family will die than a criminal.


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2202 times:



Quoting Eaa3 (Reply 23):
Do you know that it is 20 times more likely that a member of your family will be shot with those guns than a criminal. It is 20 times more likely that through some accident a member of your family will die than a criminal.

You're new around here so we'll take it easy on you. I am going to tell you that you are incorrect and I am going to ask you to back up your statement with an unbiased source or statistic before I suggest your post be deleted. This point has been made many, many times here and has been shown to be false just as many times. You re a victim of media and special interest group miseducation.

Have at him, MDorBust.


25 Post contains images ANCFlyer : I was thinking the same thing! Interestingly, another member here and I had the same conversation. Along with ownership of a weapon comes the respons
26 LTBEWR : Generally, it is urban political liberals who most support considerable regulation of guns, especially handguns. They believe that there is a need to
27 Post contains links MDorBust : Sir, Yes Sir. The annual US average for accidental firearms deaths is between seven and eight hundred persons http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgv
28 Miamiair : Kind of hard for this to happen when they are locked in a safe. Where did you pull those numbers from?
29 Post contains links Eaa3 : I read it in the Guardian newspaper. I was wrong though it wasn't 20 but 22 times more likely. "A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used
30 Miamiair : And it sounds like you have the common sense that God gave a fence post. Both my wife and I both carry firearms. Both are kept in bedside safes at ni
31 Eaa3 : According to the article cited above there are 30,000 people who die from gun wound's, including from murders, suicides and accidents per year. It als
32 Post contains images Queso : So it looks like it took 23 replies- I think that's a new record! Eaa, that's a pretty idiotic source, they contradict themselves in one single sente
33 Eaa3 : It doesn't specify what it calls a child. An 18 year old is not a child and furthermore you wouldn't call a 14 year old a child either. You would cal
34 Queso : And it STILL doesn't specify where those numbers came from, either. Poor source.
35 N231YE : I don't like to get into hot topic threads like these...but add me to the list that this thread describes. I am fairly liberal, but I don't care about
36 IADCA : Alright, let's break that down. With suicides, a great number of those people would kill themselves even if guns were not present. There are plenty o
37 MDorBust : " target=_blank>http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/....html Okay, let's do math. Firearm murders, accidents and suicides equals roughly 30,000 Now f
38 Eaa3 : I'm not quite sure what you mean by those numbers. You can't just multiply two arbitrary numbers together and try to prove a point. Especially when t
39 Post contains links Miamiair : They haven't. http://www.bradycampaign.org/ And the majority is by criminals using firearms acquired by other than legal means. Best example, Washing
40 BHMBAGLOCK : You're entitled to your opinion. If you truly believe this, then you need to get to work organizing an amendment to the Constitution. The right to be
41 Post contains links MDorBust : They aren't arbitrary numbers. They have been clearly source. Your contention is that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be involved in an
42 DL021 : I agree...the tone of conversation on the internet is not regulated by the natural inhibition personal contact brings and people feel free to be aggr
43 Halcyon : I think that many people who do not use firearms (responsibly of course) are given over to collective inferential error. In the book "In Mixed Compan
44 N174UA : This is exactly why Sarah Brady and company have failed on a national scale. There are too many of her own kind who don't support her draconian measu
45 BHMBAGLOCK : I wouldn't be shocked if this included elementary school kids caught drawing pictures of guns and the like.
46 Post contains images Halcyon : Or pointing your finger like it's a gun when you're in fourth second grade playing cowboys and indians. Some zero tolerance policies just show zero s
47 Post contains links N229NW : Like, errrm, this guy? http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...tag=generic_tag_guns&itemId=105785 Or this guy? http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...
48 N1120A : Absolutely. My uncle is one of them. Socially, he is just as liberal as I am. I am far more economically conservative than he is. He owns a 12 gauge
49 LHMARK : Without hijacking my own thread by entering a debate on gun control, I just can't see how the idea of using our personal firearms as a defense against
50 MDorBust : The insurgency in Iraq seems to have done pretty well for itself. Not a shot at our boys, just pointing out that the US Army can for all of it's tech
51 N1120A : The US military is not the only government force that would be opposed to such an armed resistance.
52 LHMARK : Yeah, but they're getting their share of heavy equipment- not just Glocks and ARs.
53 MDorBust : What makes you think that the military, much less law enforcement agencies would actually take up arms against the citizenry? The IED wasn't born in
54 N1120A : I don't necessarily think they would (well, there is a question as to whether some police agencies already essentially have) but that would be the cl
55 DL021 : Nothing to do with gun control....the idea that a determined group of citizens intent on disrupting the governing entity can succeed is directly rela
56 Alias1024 : I'd like to know what numbers they used to figure this one out. Total gun deaths plus gunshot wound victims who survive probably doesn't equal even t
57 MDorBust : Well, seeing as how other independant studies put the number between 1.5 and 3.6 million, 2 million seems to be a nice compromise. The reason why the
58 Eaa3 : I don't think that they are talking about the amount times guns are used in defense but rather I think they are referring to it being 22 times more l
59 Eaa3 : Society should probably try to fix that too. Nice. Thanks for that. Your math was wrong because 2,000,000 has nothing to do with what I said. You sho
60 MDorBust : As I said previously, an intruder being killed or much less, just shot, is NOT the required result of using a firearm sucessfully to defend yourself.
61 Queso : This is really just dumb. My own personal experience is that I am around guns and people that use them literally all of the time and I hear about gun
62 Eaa3 : I never said anything to that extent. All I said was:
63 Post contains links Eaa3 : According to the Brady campaign: Guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense;
64 Miamiair : The fox is guarding the hen house. Come up with a credible, un-biased source.
65 Post contains images MDorBust : Okay, you are going to stick with the intellectually dishonest semantics argument that only actual shootings of a criminal count towards a defensive
66 Eaa3 : Read reply 64 again. I also went and found the source that they had for their claim and posted that source. I posted the abstract from a study in the
67 Post contains images Miamiair : I can read your post until I am blue, and it is If you believe their facts, your argument is as powerful as a beerfart in a hurricane.
68 Eaa3 : I don't see why I should not believe a study from a medical journal.
69 Miamiair : Because it is biased. Dense.
70 MDorBust : That's nice. It's garbage. Notice that of just over 600 shootings they had, 50 or so were accidental? Notice how that flies in the face of the nation
71 Eaa3 : You mean the medical journal or the Brady campaign because I agree with you about the Brady campaign being biased but why do you say that the study i
72 MDorBust : Because the people who authored it knowingly misrepresented the facts to make it appear that there were fewer legal shootings than there were. Accord
73 Eaa3 : That's nice of you to point out. Obviously with a small sample size they will not be at the national average for anything but the conclusion is that
74 Eaa3 : OK so I agree with you that there is some space for error. But you can't prove your point. All you can do is cast doubt on the study. Notice that the
75 MDorBust : Haha sure. Yeah, a Phd exempts you from being biased... Where's the ROFL emoticon again... Not by the Brady Campaign that's for sure. PS: I just spen
76 MDorBust : You don't believe that classifying the majority of legal shootings as homicides would alter the results of a study on the frequency of legal shooting
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Things You Don't Care About posted Thu Dec 15 2005 18:48:07 by Wrighbrothers
Result Of "gun Control" & What A 3000 Year Sentenc posted Mon Mar 19 2001 18:37:44 by Cicadajet
"Now Kids Don't Tease The Crocs" posted Sun Apr 22 2007 15:10:41 by ZANL188
"24" Tonight. Who's Watchin'? posted Mon Feb 20 2006 23:20:03 by Boeingfanyyz
"Jihad" - What Is It All About? posted Thu Jul 14 2005 02:51:21 by BMIFlyer
"White People Don't Understand Our Issues." posted Mon Dec 15 2003 18:33:31 by Jamesag96
"Sorry, We Don't Take Credit Cards" posted Mon Oct 20 2003 19:44:13 by FSPilot747
"The Man With The Golden Gun" posted Mon Nov 26 2001 23:49:47 by BO__einG
Wow - A Case Where Gun Control Worked posted Wed Oct 24 2007 11:13:35 by Cfalk
You Don't Hear About This Everyday... posted Sun Aug 5 2007 00:34:49 by San747