Support NeoGAF

[Stinkles]

Livestock control?

Nothing controls a sheep like a bullet. Actually, even in Scotland where I grew up, farmers carried shotguns for foxes, etc. America has wolves and bears and shit.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Livestock control?

If you farm and have an animal that has badly injured itself they it has to be put down, predators attacking livestock (granted somewhat separate from livestock control), deer hit that didn't kill the animal, or a diseased (and potentially dangerous) animal.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Livestock control?

With a handgun?

I seem to recall that story of the dude who shot those kids on the subway back in the late 80s. Made a great deal of ruckus, as I recall. Dude was propped up as some sort of hero until it came out that he was pretty racist and kinda insane.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

With a handgun?

Less messier than a rifle or shotgun up close.

 

[VALIS]

Target shooting

Can be done with non-lethal firearms or keeping your pistol at the range.

hunting

No need for handguns or concealed weapons.

livestock control

What?

Still waiting on an explanation on how I've unfairly categorized the paranoia and flimsy excuses of the pro-gun crowd.

 

[Pennybags]

This is the only instance I remember hearing/reading about recently.

 

[DoomGyver]

Livestock control?

Coyotes are a huge problem during calving season here in the usa. They target cows giving birth and they also put un-needed stress on livestock. Coyotes are cunning and if you are lucky enough to catch one off guard you better hope you have your sidearm on you. They're probably one of the hardest predators to hunt. Wild hogs are also ruining crops.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Can be done with non-lethal firearms or keeping your pistol at the range.

Never found a place that lets you do that.

You've never shot a 1911 have you?

No need for handguns or concealed weapons.

Backup weapon or if a person is not hunting by merely hiking or camping in an area with dangerous wildlife in the area.

What?

Already explained.

Still waiting on an explanation on how I've unfairly categorized the paranoia and flimsy excuses of the pro-gun crowd.

You've gotten them, you've just chosen to ignore them. Heck, your behavior act helps prove my point further.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Less messier than a rifle or shotgun up close.

If you say so. Seems like the wrong tool for the job, but whatever.

 

[sangreal]

I'm sure you can google for plenty, but here is one I remember recently:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html

 

[VALIS]

Never found a place that lets you do that.

Because they're not required to now.

Backup weapon or if a person is not hunting by merely hiking or camping in an area with dangerous wildlife in the area.

Could easily be covered under a hunting license permit rather than allowing the entire population to waltz into WalMart or their local watering hole with a weapon that could kill a dozen people in a minute.

You've gotten them, you've just chosen to ignore them. Heck, your behavior act helps prove my point further.

After your trolling shitshow in the OWS thread, neither you nor any of your threads deserve an ounce of respect.

 

[slidewinder]

I don't think many people actually hunt with handguns. People who want more of a challenge generally get into bow-hunting or black powder from what I've seen.

 

[Evil Benius]

Could easily be covered under a hunting license permit rather than allowing the entire population to waltz into WalMart or their local watering hole with a weapon that could kill a dozen people in a minute.

Generally not something you have to worry about someone legally carrying doing.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Because they're not required to now.

Requiring it would mostly be illegal under the US Constitution and most State Constitutions.

Could easily be covered under a hunting license permit rather than allowing the entire population to waltz into WalMart or their local watering hole with a weapon that could kill a dozen people in a minute.

Yet, dozens of people are not being killed at their local watering hole or Walmart every day.

After your trolling shitshow in the OWS thread, neither you nor any of your threads deserve an ounce of respect.

If that's how you choose to say you concede your argument, so be it.

Truthfully you should look up open carry. I suspect you'd stop complaining about CC as much.

I don't think many people actually hunt with handguns. People who want more of a challenge generally get into bow-hunting or black powder from what I've seen.

It's true, but it's often used as a backup. Lots though do use rifles and shotguns.

 

[LQX]

Just a few weeks ago there was a big story where some woman shot and killed some thief that ran off with her baby. It happens all the time but like anything the bad gets more attention.

 

[alphaNoid]

Because good news is bad news. Regardless this thread will attract gun haters who eventually will get drowned out by the very energetic, often overlooked silent majority, more educated on the subject who are actually gun owners ... democrat or republican.

 

[shuri]

lololol at people who think they stand a chance against gang members.

 

[watershed]

I can't stop laughing at this!

 

[Myansie]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/colle...invader/nD9XG/

One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.

A full recovery after being shot 3 or more times? Too many times to count apparently, sounds like an important detail to miss. Something is missing here and who stops to count bullets?

college-student-shoots-kills-home

Then this story above says that the dead gun man lived just a block away. The story sounds ridiculous to begin with then that gets thrown in. Has anything like this, minus the cowboy saving the day, ever happened before? We're talking a Columbine level murder spree with rape thrown in for good measure and it makes the local news. I'm calling shennanigans, this sounds dodgie.

 

[DanteFox]

lololol at people who think they stand a chance against gang members.

lololol at any gang members who think they stand a chance against me.

 

[dudeworld]

lololol at any gang members who think they stand a chance against me.

if you killed a gang member, 5 days later they'd come to your house and riddle your neighbours house with bullets and kill most of the people inside. then 2 days later when they realise they got the wrong house, they'll come back for the right one and set it on fire

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

lololol at people who think they stand a chance against gang members.

That's the issue with the anarchic approach to building a society - collective or co-operative action is often orders of magnitude more effective than individual efforts and so collective organisation will naturally inevitably tear apart the ideological basis of the society.

Basically, it doesn't matter that you are personally armed, since you will never outgun the mafia. That means that you might band together with your fellows and form a militia or law enforcement squad, but for it to be effective (or for you to be free to pursue non-militia-related activities), you will need to cede some of your personal authority over to the collective, which is to say, that the militia will need to be given a monopoly on violence. A militia, after all, needs a command structure, a territory at war profits no one but the weapons manufacturers and a farmer/lawyer/doctor/manufacturer can't spend every day playing soldier.

 

[Zzoram]

The "positive" would typically be not having some stuff stolen, the "negative" is escalation resulting in somebody getting injured or killed over some money and goods that would likely be worth less than the injury or loss of life.

Armed robbers aren't going to shoot you if you give them what they ask for, but they will be much more likely to shoot if you pull a gun on them. If your first response is to pull your gun when an armed robber approaches, what do you think the first response of the armed robber already holding his gun will be? That's why store policy is to give robbers what they want, it makes them go away without hurting anyone. A store would rather lose $1500 in cash and goods than have an employee die on the job and have to pay out for that.

 

[VALIS]

Yet, dozens of people are not being killed at their local watering hole or Walmart every day.

Haha! It's amazing how self-deceptive pro-gun logic is.

According to you one of the reasons why we should be able to carry handguns is because of dangerous animals while hiking, a scenario that affects such a small portion of the population it's bordering on 0.0%, not to mention these animals can be dealt with using non-lethal weapons (pepper spray, rubber bullets, stun guns, etc.).

But when confronted with the facts that people have acted irresponsibly with their legal guns and killed other humans, well, this small percentage will be waived away by saying it's a minority or responsible owners don't do that or some other nugget of self-delusional bullshit.

Besides which, your position is already conceded to in multiple ways! I think hunting is a dumb sport for gap toothed inbreds, but hey, you want to acquire a license to carry a rifle to a hunting ground? Okay. Want to create ridiculous remote scenarios where people are afraid of dangerous animals while on a hike and need to carry a fucking firearm with them? I even said okay to that under the same provisions as a hunting license!

But it's never good enough with you people. There is never any moderation or compromise behind any pro-gun moron's position, the only thing you want is to be able to carry a gun on your person whenever and where ever you want, and I've been through this a dozen times. Once all your poorly reasoned arguments are dispatched, behind it all is nothing but paranoia that you're going to be beset upon by Commies/Muslims/Criminals, and you, as the reincarnation of John Wayne, are gonna defend your homestead with your six shooter. It's goddamn hilarious.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Probably because terrible accidents or cases of 'misuse' are far, far more likely to occur for people who own firearms than any likelihood that said person will have the firearm at the moment he or she becomes the victim of a crime, and also be able to properly use said firearm to deter or stop the criminal.

 

[fastford58]

These threads make me giggle.

 

[fastford58]

Haha! It's amazing how self-deceptive pro-gun logic is.

According to you one of the reasons why we should be able to carry handguns is because of dangerous animals while hiking, a scenario that affects such a small portion of the population it's bordering on 0.0%, not to mention these animals can be dealt with using non-lethal weapons (pepper spray, rubber bullets, stun guns, etc.).

But when confronted with the facts that people have acted irresponsibly with their legal guns and killed other humans, well, this small percentage will be waived away by saying it's a minority or responsible owners don't do that or some other nugget of self-delusional bullshit.

Besides which, your position is already conceded to in multiple ways! I think hunting is a dumb sport for gap toothed inbreds, but hey, you want to acquire a license to carry a rifle to a hunting ground? Okay. Want to create ridiculous remote scenarios where people are afraid of dangerous animals while on a hike and need to carry a fucking firearm with them? I even said okay to that under the same provisions as a hunting license!

But it's never good enough with you people. There is never any moderation or compromise behind any pro-gun moron's position, the only thing you want is to be able to carry a gun on your person whenever and where ever you want, and I've been through this a dozen times. Once all your poorly reasoned arguments are dispatched, behind it all is nothing but paranoia that you're going to be beset upon by Commies/Muslims/Criminals, and you, as the reincarnation of John Wayne, are gonna defend your homestead with your six shooter. It's goddamn hilarious.

You are absolutely case in point that uninformed gun-grabbers argue emotion more than fact. Kind of shitty that you have resorted to name calling and generalization. Ah well...so the drum beat continues another day.

 

[Cereal KiIIer]

Ironically, he has a real-life law enforcement qualification. And viewing that shaky shooting, I sure hope he never discharges a weapon in the line of duty.

The funny thing is that he is actually a highly qualified marksman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfztQ5c5UMw

 

[VALIS]

You are absolutely case in point that uninformed gun-grabbers argue emotion more than fact. Kind of shitty that you have resorted to name calling and generalization. Ah well...so the drum beat continues another day.

Which is why you, clear headed and focused on nothing but the issues, are just debating the points I made hey wait...

 

[FStop7]

I know of two off of the top of my head.

One was a farmer who was attacked by two men who were trying to steal his truck (on his property) early in the morning. He kept a handgun in the truck and when they tried to kill him he shot them both.

Another was a man who was walking home from a dinner date with his girlfriend when they were attacked on a side street by a robber. The robber ended up being killed as the male victim was carrying a concealed handgun. The case was reviewed by the district attorney but it was clearly enough a case of self defense to where it went no further.

If you want something more verifiable then try contacting Mas Ayoob. He teaches armed self defense and is widely regarded as an expert on the subject. He's testified in many court cases about the use of lethal force, written books, etc.

 

[Joel Was Right]

If you're circled by a group of people at night and you sense aggression, could you legally take out your firearm?

Spoiler

But wouldn't it mean next this group are going to bring guns when they circle their next target, someone whom may not have a gun themselves

 

[fastford58]

Which is why you, clear headed and focused on nothing but the issues, are just debating the points I made hey wait...

The problem is that people like you are not worth debating. You can't argue against an emotional opinion. It's like arguing for abortion against a devout pro-lifer. Not worth the time or energy.

I'm going right now to order a SigP226 in .40SW. I'm going to name it VALIS. You keep being angry and bitter, I'm going to enjoy my hobby.

 

[Fusebox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

...every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting.

Apparently his statistics are controversial but I'm not smart enough to dispute them.

And this bit is just scary:

In 1996, lobbyists for the National Rifle Association began pressuring Congress to eliminate the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) which had funded much of Kellermann’s research. Although the effort was ultimately unsuccessful, the House voted to cut the NCIPC’s funding by $2.6 million, precisely the amount it had spent on the firearms research the previous year. [4]. The money was ultimately restored by the Senate, but earmarked for traumatic brain injury prevention. The final appropriation language included the following statement: “[N]one of the funds made available for injury control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control”. These words appear in every CDC grant announcement to this day

Ugh. Don't like the facts? Bury the source!

 

[XMonkey]

He deserves it for making a stupid point in a stupid manner.

Stairs is a pretty awful poster, but if this was the benchmark for bannings then half this forum would be banned by now.

 

[VALIS]

If you're circled by a group of people at night and you sense aggression, could you legally take out your firearm?

Yet another argument against pro-carry/conceal types: Shooting someone would be seen as excessive force most cases.

For instance, someone holds you up with a knife, you shoot 'em, you're probably going to jail. That's what these people get up to in their circles, they talk about how unfair it is that only the criminals are allowed to carry weapons but not them, somehow ignoring that the same laws apply to everyone and one of the biggest expenditures in America is in police forces to combat criminal activity.

 

[Boogie]

Less messier than a rifle or shotgun up close.

pistol over a rifle or shotgun to put livestock out of their misery?

No, just, no.

 

[VALIS]

The problem is that people like you are not worth debating. You can't argue against an emotional opinion. It's like arguing for abortion against a devout pro-lifer. Not worth the time or energy.

I'm going right now to order a SigP226 in .40SW. I'm going to name it VALIS. You keep being angry and bitter, I'm going to enjoy my hobby.

Just admit you have nothing. You don't have a good argument to combat the fact that I say I'm okay with your target shooting, okay with your hunting, okay with many recreational uses for firearms even if I don't personally identify with any of these, but you have no good argument for wanting to carry a concealed firearm in public. None.

You're the one who's being emotional. You're all ticked off at my gap toothed inbred barb and claim I'm being emotional, even though you haven't offered one shred of a coherent, tangible rebuttal and just keep calling me emotional.

Here's your third opportunity now to try and craft an on-point rebuttal instead of focus on the emotions and name calling.

 

[VALIS]

Come to think of it, I almost have more respect for Young Earth Creationists than I do for those who are pro-carry/conceal. At least the creationists delusions aren't going to hurt anyone, at least not directly.

 

[Conciliator]

Ugh. I was going to look for some statistics on self-defense gun use to drop some science in this thread but it is damn impossible to find stats not directly linked to agenda-oriented sources. Are there any that exist? Some numbers from a legit source could be enlightening.

 

[Fusebox]

What's wrong with the Arthur Kellermann statistics I posted? The fact the NRA went to so much effort to shut him down implies he was on the right track at least.

 

[DoomGyver]

pistol over a rifle or shotgun to put livestock out of their misery?

No, just, no.

When we butcher steer or hogs I just use a 22lr pistol and shoot them between the eyes. Death is instant and clean, anything more powerful would make a mess.

 

[VALIS]

When we butcher steer or hogs I just use a 22lr pistol and shoot them between the eyes. Death is instant and clean, anything more powerful would make a mess.

And if this is the case, again, fine. I'd say you should be allowed to carry a handgun in a slaughterhouse or on your ranch.

As always, there are 9 million answers to the pro-gun people's insipid scenarios that stops well short of people being allowed to carry them in public.

 

[pj]

Ugh. I was going to look for some statistics on self-defense gun use to drop some science in this thread but it is damn impossible to find stats not directly linked to agenda-oriented sources. Are there any that exist? Some numbers from a legit source could be enlightening.

How about me, earlier in this thread?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32504310&postcount=18

219 justifiable homicides with firearms by private citizens in 2008.

Here's another one:

592 accidental gun deaths in the US in 2008.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

Also 18,223 gun suicides, but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[Zzoram]

Ugh. I was going to look for some statistics on self-defense gun use to drop some science in this thread but it is damn impossible to find stats not directly linked to agenda-oriented sources. Are there any that exist? Some numbers from a legit source could be enlightening.

Well earlier in the thread was a post about how the NRA lobbied Republicans to cut funding to the CDC that was being used to study fire arms statistics.

If they're afraid of what the data says, that should be a red flag that something is wrong.

 

[Fusebox]

Also 18,223 gun suicides, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Why? How come people are so quick to separate gun-related suicides from non-self-defence gun-related deaths?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Why? How come people are so quick to separate gun-related suicides from non-self-defence gun-related deaths?

Because a person who wants to kill themselves is going to kill themselves. The gun is just the tool, like a rope, car, bullet train, et al.

A full recovery after being shot 3 or more times? Too many times to count apparently, sounds like an important detail to miss. Something is missing here and who stops to count bullets?

college-student-shoots-kills-home

Then this story above says that the dead gun man lived just a block away. The story sounds ridiculous to begin with then that gets thrown in. Has anything like this, minus the cowboy saving the day, ever happened before? We're talking a Columbine level murder spree with rape thrown in for good measure and it makes the local news. I'm calling shennanigans, this sounds dodgie.

Any actual proof of that?

Once all your poorly reasoned arguments are dispatched,

Except you failed to that do.

 

[Fusebox]

Because a person who wants to kill themselves is going to kill themselves. The gun is just the tool, like a rope, car, bullet train, et al.

Ropes, pills, exhaust pipes and travelling to the nearest train-track all take enough prep time for most people to sober the fuck up and realise the bad idea they're about to make. Guns are too convenient and attempts to get them removed from the equation seem like a disingenuous ploy by the pro-gun lobbyists.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Ropes, pills, exhaust pipes and travelling to the nearest train-track all take enough prep time for most people to sober the fuck up and realise the bad idea they're about to make. .

How about kitchen knifes and razor blades and jumping out a building.

Guns are too convenient and attempts to get them removed from the equation seem like a disingenuous ploy by the pro-gun lobbyists

No, it's simply stating it's a tool no more or no less.

Besides do you favor the government controlling the ability of citizens to choose how to end their life?

 

[Fusebox]

How about kitchen knifes and razor blades and jumping out a building.

Slashing your wrist still takes a long time and gives people plenty of time to change their mind. You'll notice very few suicides are done by jumping out of a building, because not everyone lives in a tall building. See point 1 about having enough time to sober the fuck up.

Gun-related suicides shouldn't be exempt from being used as an example of why the risks of city gun ownership outweigh the very, very rare benefit.

Besides do you favor the government controlling the ability of citizens to choose how to end their life?

No I don't, I believe they should be able to see Doctor Kevorkian and discuss their options. Once again, removing the chance for impulsive, drunk or drug-fuelled suicides.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

The problem with trying to find statistics for how many crimes are prevented by gun ownership is that there's no real way to measure deterrence.