Gun nuts live in such a juvenile fantasy world, one constructed of bits and pieces of all the preposterous Hollywood action movies of the past 30 years. Everyone knows, and the statistics show, that every successful use of a personal firearm for self defense is undone by at least an equal number of cases where guns were used by their owners, or someone living with the owners, to commit suicide, or instead were stolen from their owners and used to commit crimes somewhere else. It's just a stupid argument.

As an example, let's take the Supreme Court itself. In keeping with the spirit of this decision, guns should be permitted on the Court's grounds and in its innermost chambers. For this ruling to make any sense at all from a public safety standpoint, the solution to any concerns about the safety of the justices should be addressed simply by arming the justices themselves.

From what we've heard in the past few instances of gun-mediated mass murder, such as those at Virginia Tech, anyone who becomes the victim of gun violence is just a coward and a wimp who should have been packing heat. If they had a gun on their person, it's automatically assumed that everything would have turned out okay. So by that reasoning, let Justice Scalia look out for his own safety. If he's not quick enough on the draw to keep some deranged shooter from plugging him, then it's his own fault.

Here's from a gun nut to a liberal left wing nut:

I have the right to bear arms and we continue to fight for that right. I see it mostly as a deterrent to tyranny and control from socialist left wing nuts. Yes there are the problems you mentioned but gun control certainly hasn't solved those has it?

I could kill someone with other things besides a gun and commit suicide in many different fashions.

I own guns, use them to hunt and god help the person that broke in to my house in the middle of the night.

So keep believing what you want and you will wonder when we are a socialist country like so many EU countries.

When a Collective are where they should not be one has the option to resist and overcome or be a PUSSY of that Collective.

I assume that by "socialists," you mean any citizen of this capitalist country who advocates gun control (at least you didn't say "communists"). So do you seriously imagine a scenario where you'd be barricaded inside your home shooting at tyrants who want to take away your gun rights? Where would you set the odds for that actually happening? One in ten-thousand? One in a million? And regardless of your home defense fantasies, how many times have you or someone you know personally used their guns in self defense (and I don't mean someone you read about in an NRA newsletter or anything)?

But please answer my scenario about the Supreme Court. If Scalia wants to doom the rest of us to live in some old west style shooting gallery, why should guns be banned from the Supreme Court? If gun ownership is more of a deterrent than a stimulus for violent crime, then why shouldn't the justices be able to defend themselves?

Regardless of your childish fantasies, there is no credible scenario where you will "resist" a "collective" that wants to take away your gun. Deep down, you know that's never going to happen. Your interest in guns is all about your emotional neediness and has nothing at all to do with any practical matter of self defense or freedom.

I'd be fine with people saying that they like to hunt and that gun ownership for hunting or target practice is something they like to do. It's just when they start copping this Minuteman pose and act like they and their trusty musket are the only thing keeping the redcoats from invading that I have to shake my head. Get real.

fingerpuppet:

Regardless of your childish fantasies, there is no credible scenario where you will "resist" a "collective" that wants to take away your gun.

Have they taken your children yet?

Oh I get it. You're afraid of the black helicopters! Hail the martyrs of Ruby Ridge! Long live Timothy McVeigh! Whenever there's a mistake or instance of bad judgment or misunderstanding, there should always be guns around to escalate the incident into a full-blown tragedy. While we're at it, let's be sure that all 5 year olds have a handy supply of matches and gasoline to play with.

fingerpuppet:

While we're at it, let's be sure that all 5 year olds have a handy supply of matches and gasoline to play with.

Fireplaces? Autos? But someday you might like to have a fireplace.

I hate to break the news to ya, but The Collective always loses because there are no individual rights except for the yappin that there is. The Collective is based on enslaving selected individuals, or just one individual.

You are one of those that practice slavery and terrorism as the way of life. The pitiful "Amendment 13" did not abolish slavery and the part that reads "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" should not be there.

No need to explain why you call yourself "fingerpuppet".

A "fingerpuppet" is an pbject which has its thinking and speaking done by others as, it has no actual mechanics for self expression, etc.

From your plagiaristic babble, it is clear that you use the correct monicker.

I suggest you have someone read my "Average American" post to you.

Unlike your rant/rave, it is written without rancor and sticks to truth and reality.

Try it. Hopefully(not very) you may learn something from it.

I actually accepted your challenge and read your "eloquent" (your words, not mine) post. My response: tell me something I haven't heard before. Seriously, tell me how to operate the trash compactor on a navy ship or how you got drunk that time in Hong Kong and mistakenly insisted that they tattoo the chinese character for "lollipop" on your ass. (I'm just giving you a hard time because you're so damned arrogant.)

I took a firearm safety class when I was 11 years old. I shot shotguns and pistols and as a kid even owned my own 410 shotgun. I went hunting a few times, but it got to seeming not quite right to me. If it were frontier times and I needed the food, maybe it would be different. In any case, I don't begrudge responsible hunters and gun owners, even though it's not my cup of tea.

What I do get tired of is the inevitable far-fetched fantasizing that accompanies the insistence that many gun owners have that they need their guns for self-defense. I say hogwash. I've lived in urban environments for years and years since I grew up, and like practically everyone I know, I got by just fine without having a gun. There has not yet been a single incident where I would have needed or wanted one. But maybe I don't get scared that easily, I don't know.

Using similar self-defense arguments, you would be on equally firm footing insisting that we should always carry parachutes, avalanche transponders, hippopotamus repellent, snake-bite kits and full-body condoms everywhere we go. 'Cuz, ya know, anything could happen, I suppose. But the likelihood is extremely low.

So let's be honest: about the only thing that your gun protects you from is your own unreasonable sense of fear.

Maybe the gun-nut "collective" should rein you in. Your paranoid delusional stream of semi-consciousness is only hurting the cause.

fingerpuppet:

So let's be honest: about the only thing that your gun protects you from is your own unreasonable sense of fear.

What would you know about guns, insurrection, rebellion, disease, crops, wood, metal or anything else? Simply put, protection is not a fantasy, it is hard.

You have LIFE with very little liberty after giving ownership to "The Collective" because slavery doesn't pay. The only Civilization "The Collective" can control is the one that they are destroying.

I never cared about gun laws passed by liberals anyway, I have always had a gun in my home, in fact several of em, I'll be damned if I am going to sacrifice my life or my family for those idiots, & if someone does break in and I put him down, he will be immediately buried in the rose garden. Liberals always find a way to either sue or you have to stand trial, no thanks.

Funny, the justice department reports a total of 30,000 deaths a year from handguns, and over 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.

<link>

Where did you get your facts from? It seems like another baseless emotional argument. And by the way, suicide can be commited in a number of ways, they're not related to gun violence statistically. Nobody who was set on committing suicide stopped themselves because they didn't have a handgun.

Please inform yourself before bleating about topics you don't understand. Every state to repeal gun bans has seen a drastic reduction in violent crime, and it's because criminals know that there is a risk of being shot.

fingerpuppet:

Gun nuts live in such a juvenile fantasy world, one constructed of bits and pieces of all the preposterous Hollywood action movies of the past 30 years. Everyone knows, and the statistics show, that every successful use of a personal firearm for self defense is undone by at least an equal number of cases where guns were used by their owners, or someone living with the owners, to commit suicide, or instead were stolen from their owners and used to commit crimes somewhere else. It's just a stupid argument.

As an example, let's take the Supreme Court itself. In keeping with the spirit of this decision, guns should be permitted on the Court's grounds and in its innermost chambers. For this ruling to make any sense at all from a public safety standpoint, the solution to any concerns about the safety of the justices should be addressed simply by arming the justices themselves.

From what we've heard in the past few instances of gun-mediated mass murder, such as those at Virginia Tech, anyone who becomes the victim of gun violence is just a coward and a wimp who should have been packing heat. If they had a gun on their person, it's automatically assumed that everything would have turned out okay. So by that reasoning, let Justice Scalia look out for his own safety. If he's not quick enough on the draw to keep some deranged shooter from plugging him, then it's his own fault.

If you're going to bandy numbers about, perhaps you could actually read the report that you cite as your evidence. The 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU) number does not come from the Justice Dept, but was the result of a telephone survey conducted by an academic that is cited in the DOJ report. The DOJ report itself calls this number into question, as well as the result of their own survey that used a similar methodology and gave an estimate of 1.5 million DGUs. There is yet another estimate from the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) that puts the number at only 108,000 DGUs per year. The DOJ report said:

Private citizens sometimes use their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are sometimes invoked as a measure of the public benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys yield far higher estimates of the number of DGUs. Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of 2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994 telephone survey conducted by Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz.[13] The 2.5 million figure has been picked up by the press and now appears regularly in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, editorials, and even Congressional Research Service briefs for public policymakers.

[...]

The NSPOF-based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys.

So the survey you cite as your evidence states that the estimate of 1.5 million DGUs per year "greatly exaggerates" the true number. And the number you gave (2.5 million) is one million more than that. The more accurate estimate (for various reasons if you care to actually read the report you cited) is 108,000 DGUs per year. Anyway, good job. To quote your earlier reply,

Please inform yourself before bleating about topics you don't understand.