Gun Owners
We were going to call this topic Gun Nuts. Then we realized the folks we'd be making fun of are armed.
Just The Facts
- The issue of gun ownership, and the obsessive, nay hysterical, arguments over it, leave most non-Americans totally baffled.
- We mean - it is just a hunk of metal that can kill people.
- So are cars. Either ban them too, or get over it.
Types of Gun Owners
The Normal
But, I'm left handed ...
The vast majority of gun owners buy a gun, learn and actually follow the rules of gun safety. They spend their time at the range, put it out of the child's reach, and teach their kids that a gun is always loaded. Because it otherwise it is just an awkwardly shaped club.
The Criminal
It is a tool of the trade. Mugging or jacking someone with a crowbar takes much more effort. Knives are just fucking gross, you have to get close enough to smell the fear sweat and your hands get all sticky.
The Fearful
The fearful are voted most likely to kill an innocent bystander by their gun safety class. They buy a gun, carry a gun, but never realise they have the responsibility to actually use a gun if necessary.They keep the gun unloaded so the kids don't get hurt.
The Hunter
The hunter owns guns for one reason only. Carrying on the proud tradition of our ancestors, who fought their way to the top of the food chain by being the nastiest, deadliest fuckers around.
As long as you follow the two rules of hunting - "You wound it, you track and kill it," and "You kill it, you eat it" we are totally fine with this.
The "Over-compensator"
Likes owning a gun for the feeling of power over life and death it gives him. He goes for the biggest calibre he can find, and will most likely miss and dislocate a shoulder if he ever has to use it.
The Collector
Mostly harmless, the gun collector can give you chapter and verse on every gun ever made. His guns are kept immaculate, in air conditioned storage, and are stripped and cleaned regularly. Only two of them have ever been fired by him. The rest are far too valuable.
The Scary Dude
All those guns - and it is still the knives in easy reach.
This guy is just like the collector. Except he knows how to shoot them all, and has enough ammo for his collection to turn Syria green with envy. Convinced the government is watching him at all times from their black helicopters. We wish.
Gun Owners and the Law
Gun laws in the US are confusing. You can be totally legal, drive over an invisible line and be a criminal. It is a legal system designed by Escher and built by W. Heath Robinson.
Concealed carry permitted. Concealed carry illegal. Open carry permitted. Open carry illegal. .22 caliber a no no, or carry a .50 Browning. Do not bend, fold, spindle or mutilate. We're from the government, we are here to help.
Making sense of gun laws requires the use of a gun.
Anyone thinking about buying a gun should know your state's gun laws. Read them. Follow them. Know the laws of any state you are travelling to. And don't try to fly with your gun. This seems to be something people still forget.
Gun Owners and Politics.
Just lighten up. You look completely fucking retarded to the rest of the world, squabbling over some non-issue when there is serious shit to be taken care of.
Now let's take a peek at the various parties and their gun ownership stances. Hopefully, by using the sweeping generallisations and out of context quotes favored by Fox News and CNN, we will offend both sides equally.
Republicans
These stand foursquare for the right to own as many damn guns as can be held in your house and the giant bunker you've dug out underneath it. They interpret the second ammendment to mean they have the right to buy them instantly, and the right to use them any damned way they wish, including shooting targets made to look like your opponent.
Sorry, Harry. Hows the heart?
To be fair to the party, they reflect the views of their supporters. The vast majority of Republican supporters are rational, hard working folks from rural areas or "frontier" states. Yes Texas, we're looking at you, and frankly are a little tired of your bullshit. You haven't been a frontier state for half a century now. Move on. These folk consider a gun as no more than a hammer, or a computer - just another tool. And like all tools, to be learned and used correctly.
Democrats.
To some Democrats, the only good gun owner is one that has been licensed, examined and regulated down to a BB gun and a slingshot. To some gun owners, the only good Democrat is a target. The Democrats are fully in favor of gun control, licensing and regulation.
After all - you don't turn someone loose on the highway in two tons of metal without making sure they can handle it. Why should guns be any different? A waiting period to buy a gun while they check on your sanity, criminal record, political affiliation and terrorist propensities? Is that a sensible precaution, or an unforgivable intrusion into your illusion of privacy.
Again, they are just mirroring their supporters - the urban and the fearful. The ones from the cities who tend to suffer from gun and gang crime the most. The ones that want to be able to go to the convenience store without getting shot.
Libertarians
We include these, despite a Libertarian party in power being a contradiction in terms, because there approach is fairly easy to summarize.
You don't bother me, I don't bother you. Unless someone pops a balloon somewhere in this room.
"Hopefully, by using the sweeping generallisations and out of context quotes favored by Fox News and CNN, we will offend both sides equally."
ReplyReplace Fox News with MSNBC and you have yourself a fact
Picture of Travis Haley?
Reply*STAMPS* Approved!
Strict guns laws only make crime worse. *Cough (Crime ridden) California cough* It makes crime easier and more profitable if you are selling illegal guns. Criminals do not have to worry about getting shot when no law-abiding citizens in the area can own a good firearm. Billy: "But more guns equals more shootouts, right?" Oh, sure. Criminal: "I want to go buy a gun and shoot these guys, but darn, I can't own a gun, that would be ILLEGAL!... Darn." If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. Countries who have lost their gun rights tell America to not ever give them up.
ReplyThe U.S. has one of the most lax sets of gun laws in the world... and also one of the highest gun-related death rates each year. So the idea that "strict gun laws make crime worse" is false. Japan has strict gun laws, and hardly no gun-crime at all. Of course, it's not to say that strict gun laws make crime go away either.
It has more to do with the attitudes and cultural guidelines of an area, not its gun laws.
They might have a low rate of gun crime, but im sure criminals just used something else.
'Damn it Harry, you always had a big heart - which is why it was so hard to have the bullet miss it!' - Cheney
Replyi get it , cheney was paid money to kill harry.
Making guns illegal will just open up more potential for the black market to prosper off of criminal sales, just like with Prohibition. People like me, my family, and my friends, who have guns but only use them for a job/at a gun range/to hunt with, would be screwed over if we couldn't have our guns, but the people that want to use them to get money from banks or random people on the street will be in control since they can still get their guns however they want. Let's look at the marijuana laws for example. It's illegal but countless numbers of people use it, because they know they can get it. It'd be the same thing, only a much more violent motive.
Reply"So are cars. Either ban them too, or get over it." A valid argument. So lets even the playing field and make the ownership of a gun equal to that of a car.
ReplyYou have to pass skills and knowledge tests. You have to carry insurance and registration at all times.
Sounds like a good idea and I can definitely agree with your point. XD
the problem is, is that many see a gun and picture columbine, gangsters, accidental child suicide etc. these things, however, are not a product of the existence of the gun, rather the idiocy of those who choose to A. Misuse them for heinous purposes B. are irresponsible fools who do not lock them up when not use, and there are known to be people who are unfit to handle firearms, and C. people who act stupidly around guns and cost many people their rights as they pertain to weapons. case in point the police shooting of a Los angeles boy who was drawing an airsoft gun on a cop. the kneejerk reaction was not to educate the public about the dangers of having airsoft games in public areas and without notifying the police, or about brandishing anything looking like a weapon in public, it was to introduce a bill to paint arisoft guns bright colors. an obvious counter-argument to this bill is that a criminal can just paint his gun a bright color, and brightly colored guns do exist (for example pink walthers and other handguns are available for sale). sadly, while we are not living in the wild west, we are, by no means, living in a totally safe and violence-free society, and to adequately protect oneself, one must have the tools to do so. I like guns. I enjoy shooting them, studying them etc. I am not religious, homophobic, or bigoted. in fact i am openly atheist. sadly stereotypes will exist everywhere. and our culture is becoming such, that declaring an interest in firearms can be seen as weird and socially unacceptable. guns are inanimate objects, and should be treated as such. yes they are dangerous, but only when misused.
Reply"I am not religious, homophobic, or bigoted. in fact i am openly atheist"
this is something that distinguishes you from the average gun owner? is that what you honestly think?
Interesting little speech.
One sentiment that is stated alot is the idea of " saying that you need a gun is just an old american cowboy attitude". This isn't really that true. While obviously the fact is that where you live as a huge impact, there is a legitiamte need for self protection and that need is proven every day. a much higher number of gun deaths in the US are defensive in nature than what is given credit for ( 50 ish % IIRC) However the much bigger thing is the number of times that close calls happen. Where a rough looking dude is eyeing you down and then you draw, and he then bugs out. The number of women who avoid rape by drawing there pistol from there purse isn't recorded but its significant.
ReplyEven if the need wasn't significant it is still present , and it is no ones right to limit that need for people who actually have , just because there is a large number who don't
I think you mean "...their approach..." in the Libertarian section. Also for what it's worth, the Libertarians have consistently done far better than the Republicans have at securing 2nd amendment rights. Republicans seem to be ok with just 'not voting' for gun control legislation. Libertarians believe (about the police and military) "If they can have it, we should be able to have it."
ReplyI have a half completed application for a firearms certificate lying on the table. To be finished if the guy who's rifle I normally use moves abroad.
ReplyDoes anyone else think that these articles should have the spelling errors edited out of them before being published?
Replyamen, brother! it seems as if no one cares anymore. i read the article to see if it might be funny; alas it was just annoying. no comment on guns, it has all been said...
amen brother! it seems that no one cares anymore. if they have editors, they are being paid for nothing. as for guns, meh, it has all been said before...
(For most people) Cars actually serve a need
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesSo we're in agreement? We should ban ALL racecars. Do they serve a NEED?
NO, but guns can fulfill certain needs. I can, if need be, get food with my guns, I can keep myself safe with a gun, or I can even take a shelter with the aid of a gun. I would think those are needs, wouldn't you agree?
FIrearms serve a need.
"I can even take a shelter with the aid of a gun." Oh yeah, you sound stable. I don't think the choice to commandeer a house at gunpoint is a legally protected need, let alone a right.
While I agree with the car analogy, I believe there is a major hole in the analogy. The constitution does not give us the right to drive a car, but it does give us a right to bear arms. Using that, it is very easy to punch a hole in the argument.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesYes, but the world has changed since the constitution was written. Generally speaking, it's not necessary for normal people to go out to the woods to shoot their own food. The simple fact is, that guns and cars both can kill people, but cars are actually useful in day to day life.
Maplasia: Guns are very useful to your daily life. How many times do you see a cop with a gun? If you're talking about regular people the Supreme Court has recently ruled that the second amendment protects your right to self defense. And you can't say that an individuals right to defense is better served by carrying a baseball bat. Not to mention shooting is a very fun hobby. There are many different action shooting competitions and target shooting leagues that serve as a great family activity. The people who paint a bad picture are the people who have acquired firearms through illegal means, and would not be affected by increased gun control anyway.
@neogumby - well I live in Britain, so never see a cop with a gun. They do alright over here.
Where did whoever wrote this get their information, because a significant part of this is bullshit, and the laws and such aren't nearly as confusing as implied. If you're too inexplicably retarded to realize you just entered a different state, then sitting in jail for a while is fine, better to have you removed from everyone else.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Repliesgabaca, why do you even read these articles? I have yet to see a single positive comment from you. You're an ass, and everyone hates you.
wait a minute.........Oh shit! troll feeding!
Vala, if you know you're feeding the trolls, why post?
It is illegal to knowingly carry a firearm within 1000' of a school in the US (do I need to site this), but I can travel anywhere in Kentucky without changing gun laws (KRS 65.870). Do you really think I know where all the schools are in Kentucky? Or even that I am within 1000' feet of them?
The way I see it, if I really wanted to kill someone that badly, I'd do it anyway, a silly law wouldn't stop me.
ReplyPlus there are tons of illegal markets for everything, if I really wanted a gun that badly and right then, there is always somebody out there to supply me.
So I really don't care, I like guns, they're badass.
Don't go bringing logic into this...
I'm a registered democrat, but I am all for reasonable gun ownership. I wish I could be a hunter type, but I can't pay for the licenses. I will have to content myself with skeet and targets. Outside of law enforcement, I don't think handguns are very useful, not because they are more dangerous than other guns, but because they're useless at long range. If you're close enough to use a handgun, there are less overtly lethal alternatives, taser, net, knives, martial arts, mace etc. for people that are not supposed to be killing others. it's too high risk anyway. if I have to shoot someone for trying to do harm to my person, the guy or his family could sue me for damages even if the law could not touch me. The system isn't working efficiently, but taking further control measures is not the answer either.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesHandguns are useful for home defense, and last I checked if someone breaks into your house and you kill them there is nothing their family can do about it, (at least in michigan) on the other hand if you injure them and maim them for life using a knife they can sue you. Kinda stupid, I figure eventually people will go back to the old way and realize criminals don't have rights
Everyone has rights.
Every brick has rights.
Really? Are you serious?? If some goon breaks into my house with a revolver, I have to pick between a karate chop, a net, or a knife? A net??? What am I gonna do? throw it over him and hope he is too distracted to still shoot me? If he is going to use full on lethal force towards me or my family, I am damn well going to make sure he is dead. If I have the right to legally and responsibly own a gun, then I have the right to own the correct gun for the situation. A handgun handled properly is no more dangerous than a rifle handled properly.
Okay, i'm seeing a lot of angry gun owners, a lot of angry non-owners, a lot of angry Republicans, and a lot of angry Democrats.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesWhere are the sensible people who at least attempt to see the logic from both sides?
The bottom line is that the Second Amendment is there to stop the Federal Gov't from infringing upon the states' sovereignty. It wasn't until less than a decade ago that this was 'incorporated' via the Supreme Court to apply to individual citizens. That doesn't change the fact that this is how our society, at large, views our rights. Let us own our weapons and use them responsibly. When we act irresponsibly, by all means take them away. But not until then. Let's not forget the the Courts have ruled that the police has no responsibility to either protect OR serve. Legally, they can sit and watch as you get murdered or raped (see Gonzales v. Castle Rock).
As far as other countries are concerned, lower rates of "gun crime" can be attributed to a variety of factors, not the least of which is culture. I'm amazed at how often culture is overlooked when comparing statistics. American culture is very dependent on the self, and not on the government. Let's not forget that only a few short months ago the American people were (figuratively) up in arms over gov't healthcare, because we didn't "want to be like those socialist Europeans". Bottom line is we can't remain true to ourselves while trusting others for things like protection or care. We're independent people, and we take responsibility for ourselves. Those that don't, fine. It's your choice. But please refrain from making that decision for the rest of us.
I own firearms. In part because of my chosen job field, in part because I find shooting relaxing, in part because I enjoy the history of each firearm and how an intricate connection of fine machinery, properly tuned, works in perfect concert, and in part because my family has been stalked in the past few years. What do you know- I started carrying, the stalkers stopped.I pretty much fit in all these categories to some extent and i'm not offended by any of it. The only time I'm offended is when someone tells me that I shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.
So you're a terrorist. You used fear and intimidation to make those people do what you wanted them to do. "But, but," you cry, "those people are evil! What they are doing is wrong!" Yes, that's what every terrorist says.
(Completely playing devil's advocate, here, by the way.)
I suppose you could say that, in a sense, but that same logic applies to the majority of government action as well. The purpose of modern police uniforms are in part intimidation, similar to the way a country's armies, by their existence, is a deterrent to invasion. The difference is the actual employment of force.
During the Cold War, both Russian and American naval forces ran an unprecedented number of drills. This was a way to say, more or less, "We're here, we know you're looking, just leave us alone for our mutual benefit". For the most part, it worked: the Cold War didn't end via the conventional use of force.
In the United States, the authorities do not have a monopoly on the use of force. That does not mean that everyday citizens WANT to use that force. Often, satisfactory results can be had by making it known that you will use force if it becomes absolutely necessary.
Like one of our more famous Presidents said" Speak softly, and carry a big stick". Avoiding a fight is far better than needing to fight.
And thanks for the Devil's Advocate. Makes me think, and I like that.
of course he used fear and intimidation, if someone is really dedicated to stalking you, scaring them off is probably the most efficient way to do it.
That data is not completely correct. Please consult the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (2010). It shows that violent gun crime rates are substantially higher in rural areas as compared to urban areas. The people in urban areas have much less to fear than those in rural areas.
Replybut, there is a lot more 'rural' area as compared to 'urban', and people who live in urban areas are always in close proximity to each other.
The "small dick" portion of the chart is WAAAAAAAAAAY too small.
Reply... What do you even say to this? It's perfect. Absolute irony without need for embellishment. Beautiful.
All your statements about guns laws and morality and who-knows-what go straight up my nose. They go up there and they stay up there.
Replyseems legit....
seems legit...