How can people look at statistics and be pro gu control?

http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/c1/6/1017/3/access_denied.pdf

 

That quote you supplied is talking about end users, or gun owners, to report when their guns are stolen, not gun dealers. If you read my quote telling godisnotreal to know what he is talking about before speaking, he is referring to gun dealers, not gun owners. If you want to switch gears and talk about gun owners, then lets talk about that, but my statement still stands: don't talk about something you know nothing about and then act as if you do. It makes you look like an idiot and ruins credibility when you are caught in an obvious lie or fabrication.

Requiring someone to report something lost or stolen sets bad precedent for prosecution under the law. Right or wrong, it is what it is. Personally, I would report a gun stolen as soon as I realized it was stolen, but then again, I know where my pistol is at all times so it is almost a non-issue.

 

Throw something? Play dead? People were defending themselves long before guns - admittedly not as successfully but they at least were TRYING whereas so many on this forum seem to believe "No gun me dead" and yet when that is pointed out it is denied. Do this as an intellectual exercise, imagine you are faced with a wild beast and you gun jams - what are you going to do?

But truth is America is not talking about removing all guns - it is not even doing what Australia did - and our farmers and sporting shooters STILL HAVE GUNS - they just have to be more responsible with them is all

.

I hear stories like this and wonder if so many Americans are doing this - what is it doing to the environment? How many people can the country sustain this way - and I am not even going to GO there with the diseases one can get off of feral and wild game meat if it is not properly handled

There are Olympic events for HUNTING FOOD? Sorry but I could not think of anything more boring. But even if and it is a big if, we banned all gun ranges tomorrow - why not practice archery? Takes MORE skill and you will get more exercise with the advantage of recycling ammunition

Even if that were true it is far far easier to survive an attack by broken bottle than a gun shot wound - and your last statement needs substantiation - so citation please

 

Clear the jam and try again. Pretty simple. Regardless, you want to take away a very effective and reliable method they to protect themselves and ask them to play dead? Maybe we should do the same for rape victims - just play dead and hope he goes away.

Why not do a little research rather than make wild speculation? Wild game is extremely safe and quite healthy. It is very lean and hormone free. Diseases almost never come from wild game - especially if you prepare it properly. You should be a bit more careful cooking bear or mountain lion - just like with pork since the meat can carry the same parasites as pork, but deer, elk and moose are about like cattle. As for how many the country can handle, due to management, such as winter feeding programs, we have more wild game in the wilderness than we did 100 years ago. Many hunting states see over 200,000 hunters every year. A couple I looked at - Minnesota and Colorado see close to 200,000 deer harvested each year, not to mention the numerous other game species. We have so much game that there are well over a million deer hit by cars every year, yet the population remains very strong. Sometimes the population is so strong that the fish and game departments actually have to hire hunters to thin out the populations so they don't overtax the environments. There is more than enough game in the US to handle the population that chooses to hunt.

Both an intentionally obtuse statement combined with a clear ignorance of the subject. Have you ever tried competition shooting? I've done many kinds, as well as archery competition. They take different kinds of skill, but at least as much skill to accurately fire a gun as it does to fire a bow.

You first. You implied that most or at least many legal gun owners would use that gun to threaten their spouses, neighbors or children until they accidentally shoot someone. Show that a significant percentage of the tens of millions of legal gun owners actually do that. Remember to exclude every instance where the person has some limiting factor that makes it illegal for them to have a gun, such as any previous domestic violence convictions. You do that and I'll pull down statistics on what weapons are most commonly used in domestic violence incidents.

 

It sounds like you are projecting. You wouldn't know what to do in this scenario so you make the assumption that other people wouldn't. One thing that I teach and have been taught is to never give in, never give up. If you are still breathing, there is something else that you can do to resist.

Who are they? All gun owners? Or just the ones that cause death and mayhem?

Hunting tags are a vital importance to an ecosystem. It helps keep populations from getting too large and wiping out other species that may come in and destroy the eco-system of another species or even encroach on human territory.

http://www.redandblack.com/opinion/...cle_87c5d267-b2e2-591e-a8e9-c98297ffbd30.html

No. Olympic shooting sports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_skeet
http://www.handgunsmag.com/2012/06/14/2012-usa-olympic-pistol-team/

You know, come to think about it, the Olympics were created to display and produce the best martial prowess in Greece. Wrestling, the javelin, stone throw, sprinting, long distance running, etc. Why should there not be guns in the Olympics?

Deadly weapon is a deadly weapon. A broken bottle will cut you and kill you just the same as a knife, sword, or other edged weapon. You will also note that self-defense and law enforcement say to neutralize the threat, not shoot the bad guy only if he has a gun. If you want to do a bit more research on edged weapons, you will also note that an edged weapon is much more deadly than a handgun given a few conditions, namely being within 21 feet and the handgun is holstered. It is called the Tueller Drill.

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

 

Seriously, is this a regular occurance for ANYONE? Given that having a gun in your home greatly increases the chances of someone in the house dying at the end of a gun, do you really believe it's worth exposing your family to additional risk "just in case I run into a 400lb mountain lion"?

The government's job is to provide for the best interests of the greatest number of citizens possible. Most citizens are more likely to run into someone having a REALLY bad day (wherein introducing a gun could be dangerous) than a half-ton grizzly. Legislation may not take the needs of Grizzly Adams into account on all occasions.

My dad also was raised in an area where if you didn't hunt you didn't eat meat... That was a long time ago for most people, and I don't think there's much of the US left (if any) where access to grocery retailers is so limited that meat is unavailable as a product. If there are such areas, and people were to lose the ability to hunt, the laws of supply and demand would ensure meat became accessible pretty quickly.
If the real issue is the cost savings on meat, this would have to be weighed against the potential additional costs of firearm ownership: the statistical likelihood that a member of your household will die as a result of your gun, the possibility that your gun may be stolen and used to harm others, the ramifications of a mistake that only needs to be made once in a lifetime...

There is a world of difference between the two images attached... Can you pick which one is the olympic shooter? If so, you've answered your own question.

When an individual wants to harm another and is willing to reach for a weapon, they will almost ALWAYS reach for a firearm if one is available. That is a problem even for people who aren't involved in the initial disagreement, as is evidenced in Texas's latest college shooting... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-22/shooting-near-houston-wounds-three-on-lone-star-campus.html

 

I'm familiar with the Tueller Drill... I guess that, since home defense scenarios are almost exclusively within 20 feet, knives are more suitable for home defense than firearms. Thanks for bringing that up.

 

If you know what the Tueller drill is then you would know that it also involves a holstered firearm and is also a reaction from the holster to a person running towards you. I doubt many things you are saying on this topic since you are not a subject matter expert and just spouting your own opinions.

 

I'm not sure I claimed expertise, just familiarity. Must you constantly put words in my mouth?
Since you are unarguably the world's only subject matter expert on anything even vaguley relevent to this topic (please feel free to read in sarcasm), do you believe a responsible owner of a legal firearm within his own home would necessarily be at less risk of a home invasion or burglary than someone willing to use a decent knife?