Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, September 20, 2019

Gunmaker Colt Manfacturing said Thursday it is temporarily halting production of rifles for the civilian market, including the popular AR-15.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

There's enough in circulation.

#1 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-19 07:19 PM | Reply

Last I looked there are over 20 manufactures of the AR15 and many more making parts and accessories. Colt got out of that model because their is a lot of competition and not much profit to be made. This is an empty virtue signal.

#2 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-20 07:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Great. Short of taking them away I think anyone that owns one should be strictly licensed that need bi annual renewal.

#3 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-09-20 08:12 AM | Reply

Anyone who owns one should have to have psychological examinations every six months until they give up their weapons of war. The damage an AR15 does to the human body is so much more extreme than other weapons cause, they should not be in civillian hands and I just don't care about arguments otherwise. When one of your kids is murdered with one of these weapons they you will have a right to your opinion, til then you don't. I stand firmly with the Sandy Hook and Parkland parents.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 08:25 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Great. Short of taking them away I think anyone that owns one should be strictly licensed that need bi annual renewal.

#5 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-09-20 08:27 AM | Reply

"The damage an AR15 does to the human body is so much more extreme than other weapons cause,
#4 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-09-20 08:25 AM "

Danni, dead is dead regardless the weapon and you are worrying about damage to the body?

Well, I have to admit that's on argument against the AR15 I've never heard.

#6 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 08:29 AM | Reply

#4 | Posted by danni Here is a little fact for you to consider. The caliber that kills more people than any other is the lowly .22.
The Sandy Hook shooter used a pistol.

#7 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-20 08:36 AM | Reply

sorry for the double post... having lived around firearm enthusiasts and gaining a little insight into their "pshychology" I think it is better to work with them. Most AR owners are moderates and not crazy and would like to see them out of the hands of crazies... most I've known would support some sort of legal agreement in order to keep and enjoy their weapon.

There is a "gun nerdieness" ... its not only about power, It is the history, mechanics, design...technology... the overall marvel of them. Like it or not AK's have a collectors item mystique about them that only increases as you threaten to "take them away". That threat makes them more desirable. Guns are fun and fascinating to honest hardworking people...and it isn't only hunting.

I want to end NRA, manufacturers and retail to stop lobbyists who are into it for the money without taking all human interests into consideration.

Its hypocritical for liberals to insist all owners be relieved of their firearms because the mere ownership means they are nuts. Its just not true... anymore than its true all muslims are bad and should be kept out of the country.

Don't punish honest people for the actions of pigs.

#8 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-09-20 08:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read "gunshot wound." I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair"and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal."

www.theatlantic.com

#9 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 08:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The damage an AR15 does to the human body is so much more extreme than other weapons cause

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-20 09:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Its hypocritical for liberals to insist all owners be relieved of their firearms because the mere ownership means they are nuts. Its just not true... anymore than its true all muslims are bad and should be kept out of the country."

Falacious argument. 99% of us aren't even asking for that. That kind of overstatement is typical of the gun nuts.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 09:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A round from an AR15 travels three times faster than rounds from other guns. That alone makes them much more deadly on the battlefield and I want our soldiers to have them for that reason and I don't want civillians to have them for that reason.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 09:04 AM | Reply

They dont have ARs on the battlefield.
They have M16s.

Full auto and tri burst.
Not semi auto.

#13 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2019-09-20 09:12 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 3

"ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt.

In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War. It was known as the M-16."

www.npr.org

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 09:18 AM | Reply

#13 | Posted by HanoverFist, That is incorrect. The original M16 had Semi-automatic and full automatic fire ability. The M16A1 has semi-auto and burst,(three round) ability. The reason was that full automatic fire is generally worthless because the recoil makes it impossible to control or to stay on target. That is also why belt fed machine guns are fired from mounts.

#15 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-20 09:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I know that the civillian version isn't automatic but I've read that they can be converted to automatic fairly easily. I don't know if that is true or not but I do know that the velocity of the bullet is what makes them so deadly.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 09:20 AM | Reply

"The damage an AR15 does to the human body is so much more extreme than other weapons cause, they should not be in civillian hands and I just don't care about arguments otherwise."

Interesting.

Could you maybe explain to a simpleton such as myself how a round from a Colt AR-15 causes more damage than a round from a Remington 783 bolt action rifle?

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 09:37 AM | Reply

"You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?"

I'm pretty sure she knows EXACTLY what she's talking about. Ask her...she'll tell you.

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 09:40 AM | Reply

"I know that the civillian version isn't automatic but I've read that they can be converted to automatic fairly easily."

Yup. Just wave your wand, say "Expecto Patronum," and then you have your automatic weapon.

The difficult part is finding the right wand.

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 09:42 AM | Reply

DOCNJO
Your right about the M16A1.

Thanks.

#20 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2019-09-20 09:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?"

"Ask her...she'll tell you."

Wrong. I'll post an article from the Atlantic that gave me the information in the first place to educate you. You could at least thank me.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 09:45 AM | Reply

#3 | POSTED BY RIGHTISTRITE AT 2019-09-20 08:12 AM | FLAG: I guess then we will also 'license' the 'right' to free speech as if it can be licensed then it is no longer a RIGHT - right?

#22 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-20 09:50 AM | Reply

"Wrong. I'll post an article from the Atlantic that gave me the information in the first place to educate you. You could at least thank me."

You'll post on article claiming that a round from a automatic or semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle is capable of inflicting damage that the same round fired from a bolt-action rifle wouldn't cause?

Send it.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 10:01 AM | Reply

Great. Short of taking them away I think anyone that owns one should be strictly licensed that need bi annual renewal.
#3 | Posted by RightisTrite

What part of the first amendment do you have a license for?

#24 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-20 10:27 AM | Reply

#16 | Posted by danni, Modifying the action of a semi-automatic weapon to fire fully automatic is a felony crime in the US. The penalty is a minimum of three years in federal prison. Building a fully automatic weapon with out a class III federal firearms license will get you considerably more time.

#25 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-20 10:30 AM | Reply

Wrong. I'll post an article from the Atlantic that gave me the information in the first place to educate you. You could at least thank me.
#21 | Posted by danni

And you think theye know it all? They are pushing an agenda just like you are.

#26 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-20 10:33 AM | Reply

"What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns"

"I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair"and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal."

www.theatlantic.com

#27 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 10:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And you think theye know it all? They are pushing an agenda just like you are."

Yes I am, my agenda is to not have to mourn the deaths of my kids or grandkids. What's yours and don't pretend you don't have one. That would make me laugh.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 10:41 AM | Reply

Once again we have corporate America stepping up to make obvious policy decisions that our elected officials are too cowardly and compromised to make themselves. This is absolutely pathetic.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-20 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

corporate America stepping up to make obvious policy decisions

Its obvious because they see they are going to get lawsuit after lawsuit, so why keep building a perfectly legal product.

This is hardly a way to conduct a country or a government.

I think anyone that owns one should be strictly licensed that need bi annual renewal.

I don't think licensed, but certainly training and passing said training for all firearms; for me seems reasonable.

It replaces the family training one used to receive.

#30 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-20 10:53 AM | Reply

I've read too much from ill-informed people who make inaccurate statements because they've been fed inaccurate information. I truly hope it's only ignorance caused by a lack of personal research and solely relying on what the media tells you. It is crucial that people on both sides of the isle do their research on all topics today to ensure that they have correct information before starting an argument based on facts and not feelings. With that said, hear me out on facts.

The AR platform rifle is no different than any other rifle when you look at its most basic functions. It has a trigger, a firing pin, a bolt, and a barrel. All of the other components have absolutely nothing to do with how "deadly" the rifle is. No matter the stock, the forward grip, the sights/optics, the size of magazine, or any other accessories you might want to throw on it. It fires one single round per pull of the trigger just the same as most popular handguns carried today (even most modern revolvers are double action and work on the same principal.) Statistically speaking, rifles are used in a fraction of violent crimes committed in comparison to other weapons.

The push for people to think that somehow the .223 or the 5.56 round is so much more deadly than other calibers from any other firearms is a farce! You can't compare handgun round specs to rifle round specs because that's like apples to oranges. Reason being, for those who don't know, a rifle having a longer barrel allows all of the powder to be burned up before the bullet leaves the barrel where as a handgun's shorter barrel doesn't allow for that. Therefore, a bullet fired from a rifle will have more velocity and energy than the same bullet fired from a handgun. Aside from that most rifle rounds have significantly more powder in the round which increases energy and velocity.

A .223 generally has in the ball park of 1,200 ft lbs of energy while a common hunting round the 30-06 has around 3,200 ft lbs of energy. That's approaching 3 times the amount of energy which amounts to damage inflicted upon the target. The .223 caliber round is not at all the most powerful round nor does it do more damage than any other round.

A doctor talking about the damage of a handgun round vs a rifle round fails to point out all of the key differences in the two. He also fails to point out that for his statement to be valid in reference to the damage caused by a handgun he has to indicate whether the bullets were full metal jacket or other various styles of bullets because the full metal jacket handgun round would do significantly less damage than the other varieties.

These arguments cant be made without taking the vast amount of variables into play when making these different references. At the end of the day, the .223 caliber has been around since 1957 and semi automatic rifles have been readily available in the United States since around 1902. There is no argument that the firearms are the issue. The lack of respect for others, the lack of appreciation for human life, the lack of morals, and the lack of human decency is the root of our problems.

#31 | Posted by JacobMcCandles at 2019-09-20 10:56 AM | Reply

they see they are going to get lawsuit after lawsuit

Why shouldn't they? If i built bombs in my basement and people used them to blow up schools and kill kids, i'd expect to face consequences for that. The only difference between me doing that and Colt selling AR-15s is a billion dollar lobbying industry that led to a bastardized interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that never existed pre-2000s.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-20 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Its hypocritical for liberals to insist all owners be relieved of their firearms because the mere ownership means they are nuts. Its just not true... anymore than its true all muslims are bad and should be kept out of the country."

Falacious argument. 99% of us aren't even asking for that. ~ Danni

Not yet .... but soon ..

#33 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-20 11:00 AM | Reply

Why shouldn't they?

Because its a perfectly legal product.

Much like automobiles which have accidents on a daily basis. Many many more people are killed in automobile accidents than gun violence, should we sue automobile manufactures for those deaths.

#34 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-20 11:01 AM | Reply

If i built bombs in my basement and people used them to blow up schools and kill kids, i'd expect to face consequences for that.

Bombs are illegal.

#35 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-20 11:04 AM | Reply

#35 And AR-15s should be too. That's my point, --------. Can you read?

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-20 11:08 AM | Reply

"Many many more people are killed in automobile accidents than gun violence"

Not per usage.

Are you using Republican Math again?

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-20 11:14 AM | Reply

"Many many more people are killed in automobile accidents than gun violence"
Not per usage.
Are you using Republican Math again?

#37 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Citation needed

#38 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 11:15 AM | Reply

--Not yet .... but soon ..

The only question is what the Left wants to ban first: Guns, cars, burgers or airline travel.

#39 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-20 11:17 AM | Reply

"Citation needed"

Sorry, I'm not playing your "First, let's pretend we're all stupid:" game.

Try actual math.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-20 11:18 AM | Reply

"The only question is what the Left wants to ban first: Guns..."

"Take the guns first, go through due process second"
~DJT

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-20 11:19 AM | Reply

Citation needed
#38 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

What will you do when someone posts the citation? Ignore it, like you did in the homeless thread yesterday?

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-20 11:19 AM | Reply

"Citation needed"

You trust Forbes, right?
www.forbes.com

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-20 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

""Citation needed"
You trust Forbes, right?
www.forbes.com

#43 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Generally. I also trust my own research.

The Forbes article was a fluff opinion piece. There were not numbers or facts or citations given, so I looked them up myself. Oddly, you usually demand numbers. I guess they aren't so important if there is an opinion you want to believe.

Anyway, here are the numbers:

There are 269 million registered vehicles in the US.
There were ~40,000 vehicular deaths in the US in 2018
That is 6,725 deaths per car

There are 393 million guns in the US
There were 14,611 gun deaths in the US (excxluding suicide) in 2018
That is 26,959 deaths per gun

www.quora.com

en.wikipedia.org

ohsonline.com

www.thetrace.org

#44 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 11:34 AM | Reply

"Sorry, I'm not playing your "First, let's pretend we're all stupid:" game.
Try actual math.

#40 | POSTED BY DANFORTH A"

Unlike your Forbes fluff piece, not only did I do the math, I looked up the actual numbers.

#45 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 11:34 AM | Reply

"What will you do when someone posts the citation? Ignore it, like you did in the homeless thread yesterday?

#42 | POSTED BY JOE "

When the citation is a fluff opinion piece with zero facts or statistics cited, yes, I do ignore it.

So sue me.

#46 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 11:36 AM | Reply

"Try actual math."

Good point.

For every round fired, how many result in death or injury. I don't know...I will assume you do.

For every time a car is driven, what percentage results in death or injury?

I'm guessing you know this as well. I'm interested to see the data.

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 11:41 AM | Reply

Hmmm.

It looks like Goat already produced an answer.

I don't agree with it completely. I prefer a measure based on active usage of both vehicles and firearms, but I think the actual numbers (if available) would only make a stronger case that vehicles were far more dangerous than cars. I have thousands, likely tends of thousands of trips in a motor vehicle. No serious wrecks. A couple of small incidents. I've also fired off thousands of rounds. No casualties whatsoever.

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 11:46 AM | Reply

"That is 26,959 deaths per gun"

Sorry for typo above. That should be 1 death per 26,959 guns.

But I think eveyone caught that.

#49 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 11:47 AM | Reply

"For every round fired, how many result in death or injury."

Why are you comparing a round to a full driving trip? Why not count every car and pedestrian you pass without hitting? Why not count by the foot or block traveled?

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-20 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"There were 14,611 gun deaths in the US (excluding suicide)"

Excluding one of the main uses of guns? My, how convenient.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-20 11:53 AM | Reply

"Why are you comparing a round to a full driving trip? Why not count every car and pedestrian you pass without hitting? Why not count by the foot or block traveled?

#50 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Why don't you provide some numbers that support the Forbes fluff piece you stand by, Deflection Dan?

#52 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 11:54 AM | Reply

"It looks like Goat already produced an answer."

By mucking with the numbers, and pretending one bullet equals one driving trip.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-20 11:54 AM | Reply

"Why don't you provide some numbers"

Keep playing your "stupid" game, where one bullet equals one full trip.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-20 11:55 AM | Reply

"Excluding one of the main uses of guns? My, how convenient.

#51 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

People will commit suicide if they want to bad enough, regardless the instrument. Bur OK, I'll play your deflection game and redo the numbers. They'll still show vehicles are more deadly.

In the meantime, show us some numbers to back up your opinion piece.

#55 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 11:56 AM | Reply

Including suicides (which most likely would occur anyway by another method) there were 37353 gun deaths in the US in 2018. That is one death per every 10,521 guns

And as madbomber pointed out, that is probably a liberal figure is you want to include actual gun usage.

The Forbes fluff piece was cute, but devoid of facts.

But you knew that.

#56 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 12:02 PM | Reply

"By mucking with the numbers, and pretending one bullet equals one driving trip.

#53 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

LOL

Yet you have yet to provide a single digit of numbers to rebut me.

And no, I did not pretend one bullet equals one driving trip, liar.

#57 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 12:03 PM | Reply

"Keep playing your "stupid" game, where one bullet equals one full trip.

#54 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

I never made that claim, liar.

Still waiting for you to produce some numbers to support your Forbes fluff opinion piece.

#58 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 12:04 PM | Reply

Looks like Danforth who lives by numbers also dies by the numbers.

#59 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 12:06 PM | Reply

Falacious argument. 99% of us aren't even asking for that. That kind of overstatement is typical of the gun nuts.

#11 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-09-20 09:01 AM | REPLY | FLAG PPPFFFTTTTTT!!

You're full of ---- Danni. I've had two pistols in my life both given to me by my father for personal protection when I was in my 20's. One was a SW 22 cal and one was a 22 cal derringer hardle a gun nut. I never once used either one of them... except to learn how. I gave them to my cousin after she did his he to her sex reassignment surgery... I was afraid for her safety especially when she was being a ---- trying out the new giblets... she had some close calls...people weren;t quite so understanding back then.. Soooooo I'm hardly a gun nut or a conservative.

I did live in Alaska where you can buy AK's ast a yard sale and virtually everyone I knew there had an arsenal, several of them possessed an AK. They never used them for hunting really they used them at the range or sometims to clear a stand of trees blocking their way. They used to laugh at me for not owning a single fire arm. Most everyone I know now owns one or more firearms.

I don't like that crazies get their hands on them... and I think we can find a way to make it work the same as we do with cars and other potentially deadly weapons. Every car I've owned has been designed to break the law most places where you can drive them. I have no doubt in my mind that people are intentioally run over every day by some nut job behind the wheel. Don't get me started on those driving drunk, or in excess speed... or to engage in robberies... ad nauseum. Someone buys a muscle car capable of 180 mph definitely a deadly weapon no one threatens to confiscate a Camero because they were designed to break the speed limits or can kill and maim.

#60 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-09-20 12:13 PM | Reply

Why do righties always want to compare guns to cars?

The primary purpose of a car is transit. The primary purpose of a gun is to pierce flesh. The overwhelming majority of vehicle deaths are operator error. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are operator success. Why is this even considered a valid comparison?

Additionally, if righties really think guns are like cars then perhaps we should require mandatory training, tests, licenses, registration, and comprehensive state-by-state databases of guns - you know, like we do with cars.

#61 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-20 12:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"By mucking with the numbers, and pretending one bullet equals one driving trip."

That's not what Goat did.

That's what I thought would produce a more accurate metric, but Goat's numbers were based on death per car vs. death per gun. To me, that's a less valuable assessment because some guns and cars are used with different degrees of frequency.

Statistically, a gun (or car) that is unused is not a threat to anyone...and the likelyhood of usage cane be based on the frequency of use. I say rounds fired-trips taken.

If you have a better measure, I'm game.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 12:35 PM | Reply

"Why do righties always want to compare guns to cars?
#61 | POSTED BY JOE "

Why do proggies want to make gun ownership sound more dangerous than it really is?

Fact is, only one of every 26,959 guns in the US is used to kill another person. And this number is based on all one on one killings. I.E., it doesn't even factor in legal use of a gun as in self defense. So that number is actually significantly higher.

Yet proggies pretend there is a huge problem with people who own guns.

#63 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 12:35 PM | Reply

"Yet proggies pretend there is a huge problem with people who own guns."

The US gun homicide rate is 25 times that of other high-income countries.
The US gun suicide rate is 10 times that of other high-income countries.

^
People who own guns did that.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 12:44 PM | Reply

"If you have a better measure, I'm game.

#62 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER "

I'm not sure I'd count actual rounds fired, but perhaps target shooting sessions, either at a range, or plinking cans in the woods or hunting. Even then, I'm positive car deaths still far outnumber gun deaths per gun usage. I grew up plinking cans with my dad and later with my son and friends out in the woods. Probably hundreds of times and 100x that in rounds fired. Yet neither I, my dad, my son, nor my friends ever killed anyone with our guns.

I think it's safe to say that my experience is typical of all responsible gun owners and users of whom there are millions.

My father was extremely strict on gun safety. His mantra was, "there is no such thing as an unloaded gun". My first gun I ever shot when I was about 8 years old was a single shot .22 rifle. I once took a shot at a can and swung the gun around past my dad to reload it. He asked me, "Why did you point a loaded gun at me?" I insisted I didn't and that he saw me take the shot. He simply said, "there is no such thing as an unloaded gun". I lost gun shooting privileges for a month, maybe two, I don't remember.

His lesson stuck well. I will never point a gun at anyone, even if I do know it is not loaded. I have a revolver and it is veryr easy to know if it is loaded or not. Yet I will never point it at a human or swing it past them. Never. I, like most people, respect guns. I am not a threat to anyown with it unless they are in my house uninvited or I am otherwise threatened with deadly force. I would not hesitate to use it in those conditions.

#65 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 12:49 PM | Reply

#64

Cool.

Now let's do it with cars.

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 12:50 PM | Reply

"People who own guns did that.

#64 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Duh. No ----.

Level one snoofygames (tm) engaging.

#67 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 12:51 PM | Reply

#3 | POSTED BY RIGHTISTRITE AT 2019-09-20 08:12 AM | FLAG: I guess then we will also 'license' the 'right' to free speech as if it can be licensed then it is no longer a RIGHT - right?

#22 | POSTED BY MSGT

Its fine. Its still a right if you follow the amendment to the letter. You don't need to have a license if you are in a "well-regulated militia".

#68 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 12:53 PM | Reply

And alcohol related vehicle accidents.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 12:55 PM | Reply

I have been on airplanes since I was a baby. Last count, I have flown on a plane approximately 350 times. I am obviously not a threat to blow up a plane or hijack one. Why does TSA have to check me each time I board one?

#70 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-09-20 12:56 PM | Reply

"Its fine. Its still a right if you follow the amendment to the letter. You don't need to have a license if you are in a "well-regulated militia"."

Refresh my memory. Does the 2nd Amendment grant the right to bear arms to the people, or the well-regulated militia?

Because whoever it is that has the right to bear arms, referenced as "the people" in the second amendment...they're the only ones granted rights in any of the other amendments as well.

So really, unless you're in a well-regulated militia, you can't claim a right to free speech, or a right to freedom of religion, or a right to unlawful search and seizure.

Those only apply to the "well-regulated militia," right?

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 12:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Why does TSA have to check me each time I board one?"

Are you familiar with TSA pre-check?

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 01:00 PM | Reply

And Global Traveller.
Sure makes life easier. I'm always "TSA PreCheck."

#73 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-20 01:07 PM | Reply

sorry - Trusted Traveler Global Entry is the proper name.

#74 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-20 01:08 PM | Reply

"I did not pretend one bullet equals one driving trip"

You pretended one gun equals one car, and the ubiquitous use of cars is somehow equivalent to the comparatively rare use of guns. And you also purposely ignore suicides, a sadly regular use of guns.

No thanks, not playing.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-20 01:10 PM | Reply

#31 | Posted by JacobMcCandles

Ok, if you want to talk misinformation... You are correct there is SOME out there. Comparing your average 9mm wound to pretty much ANY rifle round would there is going to be huge differences - that was kind of the whole point in these comparison and there is no doubt about that.

We can certainly talk about the 30-06 round and rifle. Typically the typical 30-06 round is also designed to mushroom on impact - it is TRULY devastating to bodies. They also most often bolt action or pump action with some semi-automatic versions out there as well. Magazine size? 5-7 rounds? How many of those have been used in mass shootings? Why haven't they been used? So why are we talking about them?

We can also talk about the damage from the .223 shot from an AR-15 variant vs your average rifle round as well but all we really have to do is look at the death tolls of most of the mass shootings in this country and which gun and round was used. Why was it used? What magazine sizes are out there? But then again who actually cares because a lot of people are dying from being shot by them because they ARE a devastating round even when there are much bigger ones...

#76 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-09-20 01:11 PM | Reply

"#64
Cool.
Now let's do it with cars."

There's no Second Amendment for cars.
Now let's do it with all the Amendments but #2.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 01:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"People who own guns did that.
#64 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "
Duh. No ----.
#67 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

We are in agreement.
Get rid of the people's guns, and it won't happen.
Duh. No ----.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 01:13 PM | Reply

Goatman, if everyone's father was extremely strict on gun safety, we probably wouldn't have this mess.
If you can figure out a way to make other people responsible like you, I'm fine with them having guns.
But if you can't, then I'm not.
Not sure why you're fine with irresponsible people having guns.
Could you elaborate on that?

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 01:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

With 400 companies making AR15s and parts, who cares?

#80 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-20 01:18 PM | Reply

alcohol related vehicle accidents.

Keyword: accident.

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are not accidents. Because guns are for killing.

#81 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-20 01:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Goatman, if everyone's father was extremely strict on gun safety, we probably wouldn't have this mess.
If you can figure out a way to make other people responsible like you, I'm fine with them having guns.
But if you can't, then I'm not.
Not sure why you're fine with irresponsible people having guns.
Could you elaborate on that?

POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-09-20 01:17 PM |"

Of course I'm not fine with irresponsible people having guns.

All the gun safety training in the world will not stop a crazy. See also Charles Whitman.

#82 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 01:21 PM | Reply

"We are in agreement.
Get rid of the people's guns, and it won't happen.
Duh. No ----.

#78 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

We have this thing called the second amendment.

But yeah, get rid of pork chops and cars and people won't die from them, either. Duh

#83 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 01:23 PM | Reply

""I did not pretend one bullet equals one driving trip"

You pretended one gun equals one car, and the ubiquitous use of cars is somehow equivalent to the comparatively rare use of guns. And you also purposely ignore suicides, a sadly regular use of guns.
No thanks, not playing.

#75 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

You said of me,

""By mucking with the numbers, and pretending one bullet equals one driving trip.
#53 | POSTED BY DANFORTH ""

That was a lie.

Still waiting for numbers to back up your Forbes fluff piece.

Obviously you don't have them so you blow the whole thing off with "not playing". You started the game, you were proven wrong, now you don't want to play it anymore. LOL

#84 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 01:26 PM | Reply

"And you also purposely ignore suicides, a sadly regular use of guns.
No thanks, not playing.

POSTED BY DANFORTH "

People will commit suicide if they want to badly enough.

But that's irrelevant. First time you brought it up, I redid the numbers to include suicide. So why do you lie and say I purposely ignored that when I redid the numbers to include them after your protestation?

BTW, a quick glance at the link below seems to show that every country with a suicide rate higher than the US does not have guns. I may have missed one or two, but I don't feel like looking up gun laws in dozens of countries. But I know Cuba, Sweden, Iceland, New Zealand, UK (3x US's suicide rate) etc. don't allow gns and they have a higher suicide rate than the US. So people will commit suicide whether they have guns or not

Still, being the benevolent person I am, I included them for you, inspite of your claim I ignored them.

worldpopulationreview.com

#85 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 01:55 PM | Reply

Refresh my memory. Does the 2nd Amendment grant the right to bear arms to the people, or the well-regulated militia?

Depends on your politics. Pre-2008, it was accepted that it granted the right to the "well-regulated militia". After 2008, the conservatives on the Supreme Court decided to change the Constitution to apply it to all individuals.

So really, unless you're in a well-regulated militia, you can't claim a right to free speech, or a right to freedom of religion, or a right to unlawful search and seizure.
Those only apply to the "well-regulated militia," right?

#71 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Maybe I need to go back and read the Constitution again. Because I don't recall "well-regulated militia" being mentioned in ANY of them except the 2nd.

...

Went back and read it again. Nope... only mentioned in the 2nd amendment. Maybe you should go back and read it again yourself (or possibly for the first time?). I think it would do you good.

#86 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 02:53 PM | Reply

So really, unless you're in a well-regulated militia, you can't claim a right to free speech, or a right to freedom of religion, or a right to unlawful search and seizure.
Those only apply to the "well-regulated militia," right?

Hahahahaha!

I'm gonna assume this was an honest mistake...

#87 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-20 03:06 PM | Reply

I'm not sure I'd count actual rounds fired, but perhaps target shooting sessions, either at a range, or plinking cans in the woods or hunting. Even then, I'm positive car deaths still far outnumber gun deaths per gun usage. I grew up plinking cans with my dad and later with my son and friends out in the woods. Probably hundreds of times and 100x that in rounds fired. Yet neither I, my dad, my son, nor my friends ever killed anyone with our guns.

#65 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

How many hours have you, your dad, your son, and your friends driven in a car? How many people have they killed with said car?

#88 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 03:09 PM | Reply

Why do they make cars that can exceed the highest speed limits in the US by more than 15?

#89 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-20 03:09 PM | Reply

A regulated militia isn't in my State constitution. My State's says I can have arms and I can be defend myself, my neighbor, and my State.

#90 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-20 03:12 PM | Reply

#90 You might want to re-read the Supremacy Clause. If we ever return to the interpretation of the Second Amendment that prevailed for hundreds of years, your State Constitution can go in the trash can.

#91 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-20 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also, the state militia is the citizens of the State as there was no standing army. The States didn't want a standing army constantly in place. The people, when emergencies arose, were the militia.

#92 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-20 03:16 PM | Reply

The USC doesn't contradict my State 2nd Amendment. The USC, in your opinion, grants the right to bear arms in a militia, but my State does grant the individual the right.

The USC doesnt say the militia, but not the public. Therefore the 10th grants my State to give me the right.

#93 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-20 03:19 PM | Reply

What makes me wonder about Heller is, does the District of Columbia have a 'State Constitution' or are they strictly under the USC?

I found all 50 States have a 2nd amendment that has wording different than the USC 2nd, but cant find DC's

#94 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-20 03:25 PM | Reply

If you're interested, here are the 50 States.

Www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

#95 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-20 03:29 PM | Reply

Gun deaths now outnumber auto fatalities in the U.S.

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

Number of deaths: 38,659
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.9

All firearm deaths

Number of deaths: 39,773
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.2

www.cdc.gov

8 people die from vaping (most likely THC) and politicians are shocked and scrambling to ban flavored e-cigarette juice.

#96 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-20 03:36 PM | Reply

"Gun deaths now outnumber auto fatalities in the U.S."

Motor vehicles have gotten safer throughout history.
Guns have gotten more deadly throughout history.
Progress!

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Motor vehicles have gotten safer throughout history.
Guns have gotten more deadly throughout history.
Progress!

#97 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

Guns have also gotten safer.

#98 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 03:41 PM | Reply

"Guns have also gotten safer."

Not for the targets of their intended use they haven't.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 03:44 PM | Reply

"#96 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY"

And since firearms far outnumber cars, the rate of automobile deaths far outnumber gun deaths.

Also, your number includes suicides, something people would do anyway. If they didn't have a gun, they'd gas or hang or poison themselves. The UK doesn't have guns, yet their suicide rate is 3x the US.

worldpopulationreview.com

#100 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 03:45 PM | Reply

Dying of old age and dying before birth outnumber all deaths.

#101 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-20 03:45 PM | Reply

""Guns have also gotten safer."
Not for the targets of their intended use they haven't.

#99 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

Using snoofygames argument, then neither have cars for people who get killed in or by them.

#102 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 03:46 PM | Reply

"then neither have cars for people who get killed in or by them."

Incorrect.
Pedestrian safety through vehicle design
en.wikipedia.org
"Since the 1970s, crash engineers have begun to use design principles that have proved successful in protecting car occupants to develop vehicle design concepts that reduce the likelihood of injuries to pedestrians in the event of a car-pedestrian crash."

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 03:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A regulated militia isn't in my State constitution. My State's says I can have arms and I can be defend myself, my neighbor, and my State.

#90 | POSTED BY PETROUS

Also, the state militia is the citizens of the State as there was no standing army. The States didn't want a standing army constantly in place. The people, when emergencies arose, were the militia.

#92 | POSTED BY PETROUS

Pretty good argument.

The problem is that the text of the constitution gives the right to bear arms to INDIVIDUALS but only in reference to a "well-regulated militia". So, it is not bestowing onto states the "right to bear arms", such that they can then bestow it on the individuals in their state as they see fit.

Now, you are correct that the state could claim that every individual in the state is in "the militia" and try to use that to grant everyone the "right to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed". But, the problem is the "well-regulated" part. You could easily claim that everyone is in the militia, but to then claim that militia (which includes everyone in the state) is "well-regulated" would be quite the stretch.

#104 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 03:55 PM | Reply

"If they didn't have a gun, they'd gas or hang or poison themselves."

In addition to this not being true,
It's also the case that using a gun is more lethal than the other things you mentioned!

www.hsph.harvard.edu
Case Fatality Rates by Suicide Method, 8 U.S. States, 1989-1997
Firearm: 82.5%
Drowning: 65.9%
Hanging: 61.4%
Gas: 41.5%
Jump: 34.5%
Poison: 1.5%
Cut: 1.2%
Other: 8.0%

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 03:56 PM | Reply

"#105 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Your list does nothing to disprove my point that people would find other methods to kill themselves.

But you know this, but in spite of knowing this, you choose to engage in snoofygames.

#106 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 03:58 PM | Reply

"In addition to this not being true,"

Of course it's true, snoofygames. The UK has 3x the suicide rate of the US and somehow they figure out how to do it without guns.

Another episode of snoofygames comes to a close.

Bye, not.

#107 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 04:01 PM | Reply

"The UK has 3x the suicide rate of the US "

Fake news!

UK: "The suicide rate of 10.1 deaths per 100,000 population recorded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in 2017 is the lowest since the organisation began recording data on suicide in the United Kingdom in 1981. In 1981 the ONS recorded the UK suicide rate as 14.7 deaths per 100,000."

US: "In 2017, there were 47,173 recorded suicides, up from 42,773 in 2014, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). On average, adjusted for age, the annual U.S. suicide rate increased 24% between 1999 and 2014, from 10.5 to 13.0 suicides per 100,000 people, the highest rate recorded in 28 years."

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 04:07 PM | Reply

The UK doesn't have guns, yet their suicide rate is 3x the US.
The UK has 3x the suicide rate of the US and somehow they figure out how to do it without guns.

?

The page you linked to says this:

U.S.A. suicide deaths per 100,000: 15.3
U.K. suicide deaths per 100,000: 8.9

#109 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2019-09-20 04:07 PM | Reply

italics off

#110 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2019-09-20 04:08 PM | Reply

"Your list does nothing to disprove my point that people would find other methods to kill themselves."

It shows that other methods don't work as well.
(Most) suicide attempts are a result of mental illness, and once people try and fail, they can get better, and not try again.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 04:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He's not interested in facts, he's only interested in owning libs.
That's why he talks to me. He thinks he's owning me.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's proven that measures like railings/fences on bridges or overpasses that are popular for suicide are effective.

Humans are a fairly lazy lot and prefer the path of least resistance, even when offing themselves.

#113 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2019-09-20 04:11 PM | Reply

Also, your number includes suicides, something people would do anyway. If they didn't have a gun, they'd gas or hang or poison themselves. The UK doesn't have guns, yet their suicide rate is 3x the US.
worldpopulationreview.com

#100 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Huh???

I followed your link and the US is ranked #27 in the world (out of 183) for suicides with a rate of 15.3 per 100,000 people.

The UK is ranked #78 in the world (out of 183) for suicides with a rate of 8.9 per 100,000 people.

So, I don't know where your "3x" comes from. Also, you got it backwards. You don't "win" by getting the "highest score". Think of it more like golf. The person with the lowest score "wins".

#114 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's proven that measures like railings/fences on bridges or overpasses that are popular for suicide are effective."

Goatman does not believe it.

#115 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 04:13 PM | Reply

"#109 | POSTED BY SCHIFFERBRAINS "

My bad. I was looing at the wrong column.

But I stand by my point that people who wantr to off themselves will find a way. And as I've always maintained, that is a personal decision. A person owns his own life and is free to do with it as he wants as long as he is not harming anyone else.

But regardless of anyone's views on suicide, the rate of death by car is much higher than rate of death by guns. In fact, there are many killers that have more victims than guns

#116 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 04:17 PM | Reply

"He thinks he's owning me.

#112 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

Who would want to own someone like you? LOL I'd rather own someone smarter than you.

#117 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 04:20 PM | Reply

"But I stand by my point that people who wantr to off themselves will find a way."

Some will. Some won't.

It's the same argument that the mass shooter would have driven ice picks into 14 peoples skulls if a gun designed to kill loads of people hadn't been available.

Point and click killing is easy and available.

#118 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2019-09-20 04:20 PM | Reply

"#118 | POSTED BY SCHIFFERBRAINS "

You may be right, and I'm sure you are to a certain degree, but it's a moot point. A person's life is his to keep or throw away as he chooses. It's not a decision in which the anti-gun crowd, or any crowd or person, has any business.

#119 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 04:23 PM | Reply

"It's the same argument that the mass shooter would have driven ice picks into 14 peoples skulls if a gun designed to kill loads of people hadn't been available."

You have to understand:
Goatman is in a place where he truly believes that's what would have happened at Parkland, had that guy's guns had been taken away.

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 04:23 PM | Reply

"A person's life is his to keep or throw away as he chooses."

Deaths of despair are not the reason we have freedom, including Second Amendment freedom.
We should seek to forestall them as much as reasonably possible.

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 04:27 PM | Reply

"You have to understand:...

#120 | POSTED BY SNOOFY | FLAG: Thinks people aren't smart enough to figure things out for themselves and believes they need his big brain to explain things to them.

#122 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 04:28 PM | Reply

"Thinks people aren't smart enough to figure things out for themselves"

Not at all!
I'm just making it absolutely crystal clear what you actually believe.
The reason I'm doing that is because what you believe is so far from the truth, other people might just think you're joking, or playing for laughs, or whatever.

They might not quite get you, you dig?
I'm here to help!

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 04:32 PM | Reply

The USC doesn't contradict my State 2nd Amendment.

Virtually every alpellate and supreme court interpretation of it before the 2000s did contradict your state constitutio. What i said is that if we go back to that reasonable interpretaion, your state constitution is superseded.

#124 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-20 04:35 PM | Reply

"You have to understand:
Goatman is ..."

#120 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You remind me of the pretentious maven at the water cooler who tells the newbies to the office, "Look out for..." or "be's a dumbass..." as if you are the only one who is able to judge character.

Get over yourself. People don't need you to think for them.

#125 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 04:36 PM | Reply

I don't get this apples to oranges argument running in this thread. Car Accidents Gun Deaths. There are very few homicides with cars compared to accidental deaths just like there are very few accidental gun deaths compared to deliberate shootings.

Apples to Oranges. Even alcohol related deaths are virtually all accidental - nobody goes out saying I am looking to kill someone and if you add on any alcohol at all in anyone's system (at fault or not) even a trace makes it alcohol related (In other words purposely skewed numbers...). The number is like 28% of deadly auto crashes involve alcohol.

#126 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-09-20 04:53 PM | Reply

Your list does nothing to disprove my point that people would find other methods to kill themselves.
But you know this, but in spite of knowing this, you choose to engage in snoofygames.
#106 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Uhhh... it shows that people will TRY other methods to kill themselves. To "find" a method implies it is successful.

If you have more guns around, more people die by suicide (all suicides, not just by gun). This has been shown statistically.

At least, as much as it can be considering the Republicans do everything they can to discourage and block actual scientific research into the effect of gun prevalence and ownership on the health and mortality of Americans.

A 2008 study by Miller and David Hemenway, HICRC director and author of the book Private Guns, Public Health, found that rates of firearm suicides in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women, compared with states with the lowest gun ownership"though the rates of non-firearm suicides are about the same. A gun in the home raises the suicide risk for everyone: gun owner, spouse and children alike.

#127 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 04:57 PM | Reply

"You remind me of the pretentious maven at the water cooler who tells the newbies to the office, "Look out for..." or "be's a dumbass..." as if you are the only one who is able to judge character."

Okay.
I'm surprised you'd associate me with a workplace, but whatever!
Regardless of all that, Goatman is in a place where he truly believes icepicks or bats or bombs would have been used at Parkland, had that guy's guns had been taken away.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 05:03 PM | Reply

"If you have more guns around, more people die by suicide (all suicides, not just by gun). This has been shown statistically."

Again, it's a moot point. A person's life is his to do with what he wants, not what anti-gun people want him to do with hit.

#129 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 05:06 PM | Reply

#128 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unless the gun can be tied to the Obama administration... then, GUNS KILL PEOPLE* AND ITS ALL OBAMA'S FAULT!"

*see Fast and Furious and the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry

#130 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 05:08 PM | Reply

"... Goatman is in a place where he truly believes icepicks or bats or bombs would have been used at Parkland, had that guy's guns had been taken away.

#128 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Citation needed

#131 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 05:12 PM | Reply

If they didn't have a gun, they'd gas or hang or poison themselves.
#100 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

But I stand by my point that people who wantr to off themselves will find a way.
#116 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 05:14 PM | Reply

Again, it's a moot point. A person's life is his to do with what he wants, not what anti-gun people want him to do with hit.

#129 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

So, you think that as a society we should do nothing to attempt to reduce the number of suicides or prevent them from being carried out?

Based on that, I assume you are in favor of legalizing attempted suicides? And without any sort of waiting period? You think a person should be able to walk into a "suicide clinic" and 5 minutes later be dead?

If no to any of the above questions, please explain why you think there should be any restrictions or roadblocks when you think "a person's life is his to do with what he wants".

#133 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 05:18 PM | Reply

If they didn't have a gun, they'd gas or hang or poison themselves.
#100 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

But I stand by my point that people who wantr to off themselves will find a way.
#116 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

#132 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You forgot to add where he said "it's a moot point" after he was definitively shown to be wrong. I think that was the best part.

"You're wrong."

"YOU'RE WRONG!"

"Actually I'm wrong? Well, why are we talking about this anyway. It's a moot point.

...

I blacked out. What happened? Who are you? And how did I get here? I've never seen her before in my life."

:)

#134 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 05:24 PM | Reply

"A person's life is his to do with what he wants, not what anti-gun people want him to do with hit."

I've never heard the pro-gun argument from a pro-suicide point of view before...

Let's see if it scales...
What if what someone weans to do with their life is not suicide, but homicide.
Should we do anything to stop them, Goatman?

Just kidding, it's a moot point!
Thanks to the widespread availability of weapons pursuant to the Second Amendment,
Nothing can be done.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 05:30 PM | Reply

"So, you think that as a society we should do nothing to attempt to reduce the number of suicides or prevent them from being carried out?hen you think

#133 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL"

If a person seeks help, then yes, we should help him.

But no one has a right to tell another person he can't kill himself if he wants to.

Do you feel you have the right to tell people who smoke to stop smoking because they are killing themselves? How about people who overeat and are slowly killing themselves? Do you have the right to tell them to stop eating so much bacon and butter and more broccoli and spinach?

These people are killing themselves as well, and quite often over psychological issues, especially the overeating example. Do we shove this guy into some kind of unsolicited therapy to "help" him?

I knew a veteran who confided in me that he wanted to die, but he didn't have the guts to off himself quickly, so he stopped taking his insulin and is waiting for diabetes to kill him. Is it is right to not take his med? I'm sure there are lots of overeaters who eat unhealthfully for the same reason as the diabetic vet.

#136 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 05:43 PM | Reply

"But no one has a right to tell another person he can't kill himself if he wants to."

We all have a right to tell them that.
It's called freedom of speech.

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 05:44 PM | Reply

"Do you feel you have the right to tell people who smoke to stop smoking because they are killing themselves?"

Yes.
Every time I went to the doctor someone told me to quit, often multiple people per encounter, back when I was a smoker.

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 05:45 PM | Reply

"Is it is right to not take his med?"

Yes.
Taking meds is voluntary, generally speaking.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 05:46 PM | Reply

Why do righties always want to compare guns to cars?

#61 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-09-20 12:26 PM | FLAG: MUST BE AN IDIOT

I'm not a rightie... I can't believe you would say something like that to me.

I'm a left winger living in reality land.

firearms are like any like any inanimate object that can be used maliciousxly

11 thousand people died last year from drivers with a BAC of .8 or over. Driving while drunk is an illegal use of a car. Not to mention not to mention how many were injured and maimed...Wreckless driving is also an illegal use of a car it counts for another 11k a year... in other words... basically 2 out of 3 traffic fatalities every year comes from the illegal use of a car... I think cars are a problem and that is we have restrictions for them... licensing requirements... safety checks... regulations out the wazzoo.... aaaannnnndddd you have to account for every car you own or that is in your possession. I've come closer to being killed by a car more often than by a bullet. But I know most people here break the law when they drive by speeding or being drunk behind the wheel... what ever. You could have been a murderer by using a car illegally. You probably don't even think about it when you are in a hurry.

It makes no sense to me that we don't treat firearms with the same scrutiny. All cars have to be registered and accounted for and if you lose one because you did something illegal it can be very costly to get it back. Its a huge responsibility to own a firearm and it should be treated with that way.

okay lets play it like you want... 40k people died from guns last year... 33K and some change died in auto accident. 60% of gun fatalities are suicides... 665 percent of auto fatalities are the illegal use of an automibile.

skru-u

#140 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-09-20 06:04 PM | Reply

665 = 66%

#141 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-09-20 06:05 PM | Reply

--"A person's life is his to keep or throw away as he chooses."

It's easier to say this when a person is of reasonably sound mind and at an age to make that decision. I actually agree that people have a right to assisted suicide once they've had the time to come to that decision etc.

But: think about a 16 year old being bullied at school, or gets dumped and his girlfriend has been cheating on him with his friend etc.

"Have a seat down here in this room full of guns and turn up The Wall"

#142 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2019-09-20 06:11 PM | Reply

The only reason people want to own weapons like an AR-15 is because of the kind of government leftists would ideally like to install. We only want to be left alone, but leftists won't stop pushing. They seem to make a lot of enemies by overplaying their hand like this.

#143 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-09-21 01:48 AM | Reply

Seems beyond challenging the comfort zone of the majority of the population, the left must go further to the point of outright offense. Bathroom assignment for transsexuals, repealing the 2nd amendment-gun confiscation, calling any opposition racist, Nazi,(or both), harp on "White privilege" while white people as a whole have been loosing ground economically for decades. So does the hard left look like they are putting together a winning platform?

#144 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-21 10:49 AM | Reply

repealing the 2nd amendment

It's not a "repeal" of the Second Amendment to go back to the intepretation that prevailed for hundreds of years after the Amendment's passage until the early 2000s when Republican operative judges decided to do the NRA's bidding. If anyone has de facto repealed the Second Amendment it's Republicans with their wholesale ignorance of the first half of its text.

#145 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-21 12:09 PM | Reply

#145 | Posted by JOE That I doubt, it certainly was not the view of those who wrote the Federalist, court activity until the 1920s which upheld gun ownership even for the individuals previously convicted of felony crimes, which is also the era that saw the founding of the NRA.

#146 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-21 04:59 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort