Some facts about guns in the US

If someone needs to use fear to sell you something(including ideas), then it probably ain't worth buying.
anecdote:
When I got out of the army, winter 70-71, I stopped in Chicago to visit with my uncle, and the evening news was full of fear mongering "black on white violence".
So, I pulled on my field jacket, stuffed a few dollars in my pockets and headed for the south side of Chicago, got off the el, and went for a walk about. A couple hours later, I stopped in a bar for a whiskey. When the bartender got to me, I ordered a shot. He then asked for $1.50. He had just sold a guy 2 or 3 places down the bar a shot for $.75---so, I said: "Just cause I'm white don't mean I'm rich...charge me the same $.75 you charged the other guy. Many voices told the bartender to be fair. Then, as he was pouring, a big black man came down to my place at the bar and asked "You just get out?". To which I responded "last month". So, he said: "This one's on me" and paid the 3 quarters for me. A little while later, I continued my walk and was confronted by a middle aged black man inquiring: "What are you doing here?". I told him that I didn't believe the crap on the television, and came down to see for myself. he seemed to think that this was a bad idea, and offered to walk me to the el, claiming that if tomorrow, he would have read that something bad had happened to me that he would feel personally responsible.
So, he walked me to the el, paid my fare and one for himself so that he could come up onto the platform with me and see me safely gone.

Net net
I had a pleasant walk, met some nice people, had a shot of whiskey, and it only cost me the 35 cents for the ride south.

Damned terrifying experience.
;)
 
fraggle said:
With 20,000 of us killed by them every year <asterisk, see below>, that means the average
American has a one percent probability that the cause of his death will be a gunshot.
Click to expand...
That's beyond irresponsible. That's deliberately lying. And the transparency of this kind of Pravda level argument is costing you votes.

Nobody with any sense is going to trust any law, politician, or cause favored with that that kind of argument. Lord knows we need some sane gun control in the US, but I'm never letting anyone who thinks like that acquire the backing of the police and the law.

fraggle said:
Many of us are still surprised that this didn't happen--especially in the South, where lynchings occurred with some regularity.
Click to expand...
One factor was that black people were often systematically disarmed - as in the Tulsa "event" you have mentioned, there was serious gun control for black people.

Their own abuse of systematically disarmed and therefore vulnerable racial groups is fresh in the memory of the exact demographic group currently most panic stricken at the thought of losing their guns, btw.
 
Ram Tough: Today Was a Good Day

This morning the horror of horrors, a reality some would denigrate as propaganda and fearmongering erupted at North Thurston High School in Lacey, Washington.

A teacher is being credited with stopping a student who allegedly fired multiple shots at North Thurston High School Monday morning. Nobody was hurt.

The student was arrested and being questioned at the police station. The shooting happened just before 7:30 a.m. Police say two shots were fired into the air.

(KING 5)​

Unlike a United States run by Hitler and Hirohito, this is really happening.

A history teacher named Brady Olson is credited with taking down the shooter. Nobody is dead. Nobody is hurt. It didn't take a good guy with a gun, just a good guy with a conscience and an ounce of courage.

Thank you, Mr. Olson.

North T is part of my home turf; it would have been my home, according to a story my father once told, but for a good deal on a piece of land in another county.

Ram tough. Ram proud. Ram alive.

Ram courage.

Go Rams.
____________________

Notes:

KING 5. "Teacher hailed as hero in Lacey high school shooting". 27 April 2015. KING5.com. 27 April 2015. http://kng5.tv/1JMh2qn
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
The only thing guns are for is to make pathetic little men like George Zimmerman, Adam Lanza and Donald West Wilder II feel like big men.
Click to expand...

That's what one would say, if they were ignorant of gender roles in society.

The fact is that in Western society, it is men who are responsible for their own safety, as well as that of their family and the community. If a child is drowning, we expect the man to swim against the tide to save it. Baby in a burning house? It's a man who is expected to jump through the flames. Two people in a brawl? A man is expected to break them up. A woman being attacked? It's the man's responsibility to tackle the assailant. A crazy man shoots up a theatre? It's men who jump in front of women to take the bullet. Country being attacked? It's men who are conscripted and used as bullet sponges.

On the other hand, a woman bears little responsibility for her own safety, and absolutely none for the security of others. That's not to say that women don't sacrifice their well being for others, but when was the last time you heard of a woman covering a male stranger with her body to protect him from bullets? The fact of the matter is that women don't have to worry about safeguarding their own well-being, because men will always be around to do it, whether it's a husband, brother, police officer, military man, or politician who enacts legislation and institutes social services to protect women (eg. women only buses). In fact, men will always be on hand to protect not just a woman's physical well-being, but also to shield her from discomfort or inconvenience.

The above observations of gender relations in society explain why men are keen to own firearms. If you have the role of protector, then you need the tools do perform your roles effectively. Sadly, society places the burden of being a protector on men, while taking away their means of carrying out that function. How exactly does an unarmed man protect a woman from an armed assailant? With sticks and angry words?
 
tali89 said:
That's what one would say, if they were ignorant of gender roles in society.

The fact is that in Western society, it is men who are responsible for their own safety, as well as that of their family and the community. If a child is drowning, we expect the man to swim against the tide to save it. Baby in a burning house? It's a man who is expected to jump through the flames. Two people in a brawl? A man is expected to break them up. A woman being attacked? It's the man's responsibility to tackle the assailant. A crazy man shoots up a theatre? It's men who jump in front of women to take the bullet. Country being attacked? It's men who are conscripted and used as bullet sponges.

On the other hand, a woman bears little responsibility for her own safety, and absolutely none for the security of others. That's not to say that women don't sacrifice their well being for others, but when was the last time you heard of a woman covering a male stranger with her body to protect him from bullets? The fact of the matter is that women don't have to worry about safeguarding their own well-being, because men will always be around to do it, whether it's a husband, brother, police officer, military man, or politician who enacts legislation and institutes social services to protect women (eg. women only buses). In fact, men will always be on hand to protect not just a woman's physical well-being, but also to shield her from discomfort or inconvenience.

The above observations of gender relations in society explain why men are keen to own firearms. If you have the role of protector, then you need the tools do perform your roles effectively. Sadly, society places the burden of being a protector on men, while taking away their means of carrying out that function. How exactly does an unarmed man protect a woman from an armed assailant? With sticks and angry words?
Click to expand...
Good lord, dude...

The 15th century called. They want their views on women back.

The irony of your waffling is that women seek protection from men, so in your opinion, men must own guns to protect women from men...

A study of risk factors for violent death of women in the home found that women living in homes with 1 or more guns were more than 3 times more likely to be killed in their homes. The same study concluded that women killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative were 7 times more likely to live in homes with 1 or more guns and 14 times more likely to have a history of prior domestic violence compared to women killed by non-intimate acquaintances.7 Family and intimate assaults with firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than nonfirearm assaults. This research suggests that limiting access to guns will result in less lethal family and intimate assaults.
​
Yes, because putting more guns out there for male "protection" is a good idea... [Insert giant eye roll here]
 
Last edited:
Bells said:
Yes, because putting more guns out there for male "protection" is a good idea... [Insert giant eye roll here]
Click to expand...

Hey, that's better than I came up with. I mean, it occurs to me once again how strange it is to see people lamenting the burden men have demanded for themselves. As I read through our neighbor's post, I couldn't help but wonder what, if we accept this "What about the men?" bit even for the sake of argument, that would suggest about men.

It puts a lifetime of enduring American machismo in a curious light, whereby men are supposed to bawl about the burdens they have demanded for themselves, and sometimes at stake of life and limb. This is not, by that old standard, what we would call "manly" behavior.

And I think the first thing men need to do in order to erase this conflict from both appearance and practice is to simply admit we've been doing this all wrong for millennia.
 
tali89 said:
The above observations of gender relations in society explain why men are keen to own firearms. If you have the role of protector, then you need the tools do perform your roles effectively.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, by buying a gun, a man makes it more likely that he will get the people he is responsible for killed. Ignorance of that fact drives a lot of gun purchases. And ignorance, while unfortunately commonplace, should not be a goal held up by gun advocates.
How exactly does an unarmed man protect a woman from an armed assailant? With sticks and angry words?
Click to expand...
By removing her from the threat, and avoiding the threat in the first place. 99.99% of the people in the US seem to have no problem with such an approach. The unfortunate .01% who cannot manage that are also generally the people who are ignorant of the fact that a gun is more likely to harm the woman than help her.

How exactly does a "protector" protect an unarmed woman from the bullet fired from his gun by his toddler? Lightning speed? Bulletproof pajamas?
 
tali said:
The fact of the matter is that women don't have to worry about safeguarding their own well-being, because men will always be around - -
Click to expand...
Those men are the biggest threat. Why do you think women don't have to worry about safeguarding themselves from the biggest threat of violence they face?

billvon said:
By removing her from the threat, and avoiding the threat in the first place. 99.99% of the people in the US seem to have no problem with such an approach.
Click to expand...
There is the problem of shift work, bad neighborhoods, and the like - not always avoidable or removable. But of course it would be the woman who was armed - not the man - for safety's sake.
 
QUOTE~> s. From lex18.com:

"Getting an award for bravery... I wasn't expecting it because I don't feel like I did anything out of the ordinary," said Adil.

However, Lexington Police said there was nothing ordinary about Adil's actions. Back in February her family store, the Tobacco Zone, was robbed.

"Robbery went down, we had a fight over the gun and I took the register and the gun from him," said Adil.

It sounds simple, however surveillance video shows Adil defeat two men who were armed with a gun. After they threatened her and another employee, she didn't hesitate when she saw a chance to take their weapon.
€nd Quote....
Good they awarded her!!
 
A positive comment but no response?
 
Last edited:
There's a great comment circulating on Facebook:

Why didn't the NRA encourage black teenagers to arm themselves for protection after the murder of Trayvon Martin?
 
I'm going to guess that it's because the NRA didn't want to politicize a situation that was already volatile. I was initially surprised that I needed to explain this, but then I realised that not using a tragedy to grandstand and push your own political ideology is a foreign concept for many left-wingers. I mean, just look at this thread. Here we have numerous liberals posting news articles of gun owners accidentally harming themselves or relatives, and then *gloating* and capitalizing on other peoples' misfortune to push their own political agenda. "Hey guys, a toddler just shot his mum in the head with a gun whose safety was off. Oh those crazzzzeee gun owners! ROFLMAO!" This just tells me how slimy and exploitative left-wingers are. They style themselves as progressive and enlightened, but the more their mouths move, the more that mask starts to slip off.

And let me re-iterate. All of the gun owners I know are responsible, therefore all gun owners are responsible.
 
tali said:
I'm going to guess that it's because the NRA didn't want to politicize a situation that was already volatile.
Click to expand...
You have to be kidding. That simply has to be a joke. Please tell me that someone claiming NRA failed to advocate for gun carry in a situation of self defense because they didn't want to "politicize" the situation is pulling my leg.

At any rate, it's been a while - the situation is no longer volatile, and politics is what the NRA was invented for, so Trayvon Martin is an obvious candidate for symbol of the hazards of not arming oneself when vulnerable to attack.

And link for us all the article, speech, or media presentation in which the NRA includes young black men in its advocacy of gun possession - the one group in the US that has a genuine need for self defense via firearm from both assault by criminals and tyranny by the State, the poster boys for the NRA one would assume.
 
Iceaura said:
You have to be kidding. That simply has to be a joke.
Click to expand...

It is. Note the last line, which is the nod and wink. The third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph are also Poe keys.

Then again, even I have to admit that's a pretty subtle post. Well, you know, all things considered.
 
tali89 said:
And let me re-iterate. All of the gun owners I know are responsible, therefore all gun owners are responsible.
Click to expand...
My buddy Joe's dad was a "responsible gun owner." Joe had joined the Army Reserve and was off on his semiannual two-week bivouac. On his way home, he stopped to visit with some friends, and ended up getting in at 3am, when his parents were asleep and the house was dark. This had happened before, and they had assured him that he didn't need to call to let them know precisely when he expected to arrive.

He unlocked the front door, opened it and dropped his duffel bag on the floor. Therefore it was taking a minute or two before he had a free hand to turn on the lights.

Suddenly a bullet whizzed past, missing him by less than a yard. He yelled out, "Dad, it's me!" At this point the lights came on. Dad was standing on the landing, shaking.

Now I don't know jack shit about the ways of gun owners. But wouldn't a "responsible" gun owner turn the lights on before shooting, simply because being able to see the intruder would greatly increase his chances of actually hitting him?
 
Step #1 for any would be tyrant would be to disarm the population that he or she wishes to enslave.
"Gun control" may not be tyranny, but, then again, it would readily lend it's self to that purpose.
 
on another note:
This from Waco:
Some of the dead and wounded may have been shot by officers responding to the bedlam at the Twin Peaks restaurant franchise, Waco police spokesman Sgt. W. Patrick Swanton said.
Click to expand...

If you do not even know if you hit what you were aiming at,(assuming, of course, that the officers were actually aiming) perhaps some range time is in order?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top