If somebody even uses the word "bad guys" when talking to you then they are either retarded or think you are retarded.

Yeah, I hear Natalie had to take a second job having sex for money. Good to see she's moving up in the world.

More importantly, gun manufacturers, and the lobby they bankroll, definitely don't want people to be safer. They want them scared all the time. Fear is their bread and butter.

Memedumpster, do you have any idea how fucking stupid that statement makes you?

Way to generalize an entire group of people.

Who also does that? Oh, right, racists. Same notion. Making the egregious assumption that anyone who owns any gun ever is a bad person.

That is your position. And it's pathetic that you're serious about it, and it's not just another shock value joke. You're actually serious about being prejudiced because of what posessions someone has. You dont care if they've been responsible in its use, you just care that they own it, so it MUST point to an ideology opposite yours - that is some grade A stupidity, meme. But then, you always were a C-minus POEster.

Since you're so into the common safety, you wouldn't mind then if all non-hunting loads be replaced with rubber or some other non-lethal deterrent then, would you? Something that incapacitates rather than kills? I mean, if it's good enough for prisons and SWAT teams, surely you could compromise on your right to absolute wall penetrating lethality, because, after all, you're about safety and not revenge murder, correct?

O

Shit, you guys, I just QT'd myself into a corner, while Gmork is replying with his bullshit, does anyone know how to make a triangle with ASCII or something?

Possessions? We're not talking about fucking plasma TVs.

It doesn't matter how responsible some gun owners are. They're devices designed solely to kill people. The downsides to making them readily available are apparent to anyone who isn't an idiot, and the benefits exist only as irrational fears/fantasies inside the owners' heads.

I'm not going to say that every gun owner fantasizes about shooting minorities (though I've met plenty who do), but their reasons for needing guns run from misguided to insane. Most of it stems from an overwhelming fear of being perceived as helpless and weak. They think that owning a gun is the only thing preventing minorities from reenacting the Death Wish rape scene on their families, or that pulling a gun on another gun for a shootout is actually safer than not escalating things. Of course not escalating things is a thousand times safer, but the thought of FEELING helpless is overpowering to them so any gun control law is satan incarnate.

The whole "an armed society is a polite society" is the exact same crazy reasoning that religious types use when they say that fear of god is the only thing keeping them from murdering people.

Gmork; Still think you're in agreement with 99% of the politics of the people on this site? You really just want to be part of the 99%, don't you?

Speaking of home defense, I need to get some of these.
http://www.conceptsinammunition.com/Pistol_Products/44cal.htm< br />
My argument is that this should be the only ammo civilians can buy (except for the weapons we hunt game with, I am willing to compromise, I am pretty moderate).

The problem is, the white terrorists that hide in the hills and scream tyranny would shit their pants and reflexively rape their sisters if all they could get were defense ammo.

Fuck, nobody say "POEster" ever again please. Gross.

I prefer "common tater."

Why be a dud spud when you can be a greater commentator.

Yeah the term is POETard

What's even scarier is how they help (force) lawmakers to allow military weapons to become legal for consumers to buy.

I sure am glad that someone can buy the same handgun used in the Ft. Hood massacre. I just hope they don't get a hold of the rounds that can blow through kevlar. That might sting.

I remember GMORK making the argument that gun ownership does not have a direct relationship with the homicide rate, because Canada was a neighboring country where unlicensed gun ownership was legal and yet their homicide rate was much lower. When confronted with a list of European countries that had much lower homicide rates because of gun control laws, he then went on to make the argument that for some reason or another the United States is a more violent country and that Americans where somehow culturally more violent than Europeans but that guns had absolutely nothing to do with it.

WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH!

Unlicensed gun ownership in indeed legal in Canada, yet in Canada there are approximately 30.8 guns per capita, and their homicide rate is 1.63. In the USA, there are 89.0 guns per capita, and the homicide rate is 4.75. The ratio between the homicide rate and the guns per capita is virtually the same in both countries, except that Canadians have less guns and therefore less homicides.

Curiously enough, to take the Italian example, there are 11.9 guns per capita in Italy and their homicide rate is 0.87. So, the homicide rate vs guns per capita ratio is actually HIGHER in Italy (although just trivially, as it is 0.05 in both the US and Canada and 0.07 in Italy), from which we can infer that Italians are inherently more violent that Americans. Still, less guns in the hands of morons = less homicides.

Just a quick note, because that blew me away at first, there are 89 guns in the US per 100 people. So, not actually 89 guns per citizen.

Yes I apologize for not making that clearer. Actual 89 guns per capita would be excessive even for US standards.