Comparing gun deaths to car deaths..etc

reply to post by Aim64C


The military won't follow orders is just hopeful wishful thinking by gun owners. I am not a trol and feel that guns should be better regulated. You should not be allowed to own as many or any type of gun. Like up here in Canada..you can own a waepon...but it must be for hunting...so basically hunting rifles and such. We have gun violence up here..but it is rare...very rare. I am sorry for those of you who I did not answer back as soon as you want...I have what some of you lack...a life...I may not answer for a few days or weeks...because of this.

The argument that you would have more people armed is correct...but how many would be prepared to fight to the death...I would guess very few and those that do fight...how many would be trained to use them in war situations...again very few. One more thing...you may outnumber the military....but thier weapons would surely make up for that outnumber.....missiles, gunship...etc.


While those of you "cold dead hands" fools think it is either brave or see yourself going down in a hail of gunfire like movies...it won't be like that...but hey keep talking like an internet tough guy.

A person using A GUN for protection...is using it just for that...a person buying tons of weapons...I feel the reason a lot of men don't want thier weapons to be taken is because it would take thier manhood. I believe the gun owners who accumulate a lot of guns are cowards and this is the only way make up for thier lack of manhood...both mentally and *ahem* physically. You know what they say...the bigger the weapons the smaller the package. A person using A GUN for protection...is using it just for that...a person buying tons of weapons...

Reply to post by kerazeesicko

And the only reason to make "manhood" comments is because you don't have an argument.

No, you're right, I'll sell my collection and only keep one pistol. I'll shoot trap with it, biathlon with it, hunt deer with it, enter national high power rifle matches with it, shoot all 3 gun courses with it etc...

Wouldn't want some doofus on the Internet thinking I have a small penis assuming I had one at all. Dumbass.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Sorry to strike a nerve. It's OK to have small penis. I wouldn't know ...but I hear you can have a normal life without...you people usually replace it with some type of replacement...ie...gun..cars...etc.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Brave thread. Futile, but brave.

Maybe a more suitable way of looking at this would be with the following question.

Is gun ownership neccesary in a civilised society?

If the answer is no then America is clearly uncivilised. If the answer is yes...I honestly have my definition of 'civilised' all wrong.

Reply to post by kerazeesicko

The only nerve struck is my lack of tolerance for idiocy.

...but I hear you can have a normal life without...

I hear you can live a normal life without TV, radio, games, sugary foods, fatty foods, sweet drinks, alcohol, tobacco, pine scented floor cleaner, white clothing, purple hats, computers, telephones, electricity, etc...

Without all of those things you'll just go on living quite fine. If we're basing bans and property rights on need and necessity we may as well ban everything but algae and lean-to's.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by kerazeesicko

The military won't follow orders is just hopeful wishful thinking by gun owners.

Wishful thinking on your part, really. Most of the military owns guns or is quite openly against stricter gun control laws. I can say this because I'm in contact with a number of different military communities and am in the military, myself. It's such an overwhelming percentage that I can pretty much speak for members of the military on this one.

One of the guys I serve with is practically obsessed with duck hunting. He's not turning over his firearms, and I'm not going to point a rifle at him over the issue. He's never once shot someone and I shoot better than most of our Master-At-Arms on the range - it's not like you can try and reduce it to competition over who shoots better. I've already proven you don't mock the nerd and hand him a rifle.

More to the point, though - my uncle has various firearms he uses for deer hunting and home protection. He doesn't have small children or have them over at his house - so he has a handgun next to the silverware and some other crazy places. I don't necessarily see it as a practical or safe measure - but the point is that my family has firearms. My friends have firearms. The family of my friends (both service members and civilian) have firearms.

You should not be allowed to own as many or any type of gun.

But I can freely purchase computer hardware and pirate software and launch internet-based attacks on banking systems and government agencies.

Where does this line of thinking stop?

Why should I be able to purchase a car capable of going faster than the highest speed limit in the state it is sold in? Why should I be able to own an SUV when I drive only myself around in it and have no utility-based reason for owning it?

Why should I be able to purchase a functional sword with a carbon-steel blade?

Like up here in Canada..you can own a waepon...but it must be for hunting...so basically hunting rifles and such.

To be quite honest, if I'm going to kill someone, it's going to be with a knife, or with a long-range rifle - IE, a "hunting weapon."

We have gun violence up here..but it is rare...very rare.

You also have more cows than people and a population sparsity second only to Antarctica and the surface of the moon.

I am sorry for those of you who I did not answer back as soon as you want...I have what some of you lack...a life...I may not answer for a few days or weeks...because of this.

I can understand. Work is a 13-hour ordeal, by time you figure I wake up before four in the morning, eat/dress, drive to work, get off work, drive back home (it's a long commute), and clean up/wind-down. I'm just single and don't have much more than a couple hours before I need to be back asleep, anyway.

The argument that you would have more people armed is correct...but how many would be prepared to fight to the death...I would guess very few and those that do fight...how many would be trained to use them in war situations...again very few.

The Missouri Militia is one of the best trained and organized militias in the world. Bluntly - they are trained by former military special forces and specialize in small-unit tactics. The Marines would eat steel wool before admitting it - but the more organized militias would give them a serious run for their money.

Of course - you have a number in the military who sympathize with the militias (hence the high percentage of former military people in the militias and conducting the training). This would mean a great many would simply refuse to engage the militia, if not splinter and join them (this would include quite a few high-ranking military officials, who have close ties with the militias).

ne more thing...you may outnumber the military....but thier weapons would surely make up for that outnumber.....missiles, gunship...etc.

Like in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Sure - we can blast a standing army off the face of the planet in nothing flat. The problem, however, is that fighting an insurgency war can't be fought with the same tactics, unless you just plan on mass genocide - in which case you may as well forget the typical invasion and just reduce the nation to a nuclear wasteland.

In either case - the militias are often better equipped, from an infantry standpoint, than our military is. They generally purchase better body armor, better weapons, and ammunition specialized to be more accurate.

The militia train in small unit tactics - like our special forces. This is different than having terrorists blow themselves up at checkpoints or lob mortars around. They are trained to do what Army Rangers, Navy SEALs, etc do - within reasonable restrictions (militias don't have the need to train for the "sea" portion of SEAL training nearly as much as they do for the land portion).

To compound the issue - most military bases are reliant upon civilian support. They are not designed to be defended against focused infantry attacks - they are designed to be strategically located to deal with invasions of a foreign power and to defend against nuclear attack. Banks, quite honestly, have better personnel security systems than most military bases do.

Kind of hard to use planes and helicopters when they spontaneously explode or otherwise get placed in the "no worky" category.

It also kind of sucks when the same people you hire on as civilian contractors (and are essential for base functionality) come through and slit throats in the middle of the night, steal/destroy critical components, give away tactical information, etc. It's a re-hash of Vietnam when the VC infiltrated many of our compounds working as civilians under contract for the DoD.

While those of you "cold dead hands" fools think it is either brave or see yourself going down in a hail of gunfire like movies...it won't be like that...but hey keep talking like an internet tough guy.

No, it won't be like that. There won't be a hail of bullets. The military simply won't follow such an order as a general blanket scenario, and those few that do will be unsuccessful due to lack of organized support or because Johny Hunter popped the heads off of people walking around in uniforms and body armor going door-to-door like kids selling wrapping paper.

You would have to, literally, use combat tactics to sweep a town/city. That's thousands of square miles, millions of homes, and hundreds of millions of people. Even if you had a completely willing military - the casualty rate would be at least 50% before you even got through 10% of American homes. Your average weapon in Afghanistan and Iraq is an AK-47 with an effective range shorter than the M-16 and similar to the M-14 used by our forces. When shot at - they can generally shoot back.

The average weapon in America is a .306 rifle with an effective range at least double of the M-16, and many are optically enhanced.

That means a huge percentage of the gun owners in the nation are, effectively, "snipers."

Putting on a uniform and going around trying to collect firearms, thus, amounts to suicide. You can take that piece of paper ordering me to do that, and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

I feel the reason a lot of men don't want thier weapons to be taken is because it would take thier manhood. I believe the gun owners who accumulate a lot of guns are cowards and this is the only way make up for thier lack of manhood...both mentally and *ahem* physically.

How so? They can only use one... MAYBE two at any given time. A whole wall full of firearms is no different than a ceiling full of suspended aircraft models. I like military aviation - why I have a bunch of models and collect a bunch of the rare and out-of-print models (such as the YF-23 and the Monogram F-19 models). I also have every intention to purchase a 3d scanner and scan each part into Solidworks so that I can plug it into a rapid prototype machine in the future and build the model as often as I want, even though it's out of print.

In either case - I have a fascination with airplanes; and my collections will reflect that. Someone with a fascination for pictures of women will have a collection of those. Someone with a fascination for cars will have cars and/or pictures of them, and someone with a fascination for firearms will have them and/or pictures of them.

The demeanor, not the collection, determines whether or not compensation is the purpose.

Doctors and nurses kill more Americans than all other forms of homicides combined.

You don't have to look too hard to find the numbers to prove that. Your biggest threat isn't somebody with a gun.

It's our medical field/pharmacuticals.