for the record (re: guns thread)

To add to Nator's list of stuff Jon apparently didn't read:Message 62: Message 137: Message 141: Message 182: Message 248: Message 260: Message 294: At the end there the tone got a little out of hand, but there's only so many ways you can keep saying the same thing over and over and over again.

Sure. So are explosives, but you need a license to operate them because, in addition to being fun, they are very very dangerous. I wouldn't say "most". I would say "some". And if we differentiate into different catagories of guns, I think we'll see a startling breakdown.I suspect that we'll find that the owners of hunting guns, and target practice guns are much more careful about guns than the owners of saturday night specials. This is a fantastic way to be. I assume that you are an adult. I suspect that, if you didn't have a gun on you, you would still be able to shrug off challenges and walk away from an insult.However, the 22 year old with the pistol in his waistband may not have the same level of maturity as the 40 year old recreational shooter. He may be out looking for a fight. He most definitely has something to prove.

In Wyoming, sure. In Los Angeles, not so much.

This is a dodge, Jar.Unless, what you are saying about the quote: Is that teh average Joe intended for his kid to be killed.The point is that the person buying the gun for self protection is more likely to see the gun unintentially harm a member of his family than to see it used in protection against a criminal.Weither we term that unintential event as an "accident" or a case of "neglagence" doesn't change that fact that that was not the plan when the person brought home the gun.

Lots of stuff listed here, but much of it isn't all that well thought out. You live in Wyoming! What's the population density? You said yourself you can't even get a pizza.Guess what, your average motorcycle thief isn't going to travel 27 miles off the highway to find your place and snag your bike. University of Texas at Austin massacre - Austin, Texas, United States; August 1, 1966Don't know how old you were in '66. More gun control is an answer. It is not the only answer.
Enforcing current gun laws is an answer.
Holding the media accountable for it's fear mongering and gun glorification is an answer.
Closing loop hole that allow criminals to get machine guns is an answer.There are lots of answers. Just because one of them will not completely solve the problem by itself doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Yeah, a .22 is gonna bounce off a woodchuck. Don't think it would even piss them off. "works very well" is a bit of a misnomer here. After all, you are shooting the object you are trying to protect. You may want to consider a powerful hose or some sort of great horned owl replica. Given the number of mountain lions, the restriction of their native habitates and the presences of recreational hikers and bikers, the number of attacks as astonishingly low.Generally they don't want to have anything to do with people.However, attacks do happen. But there's no reason that any of the other guns you mentioned would not be just as effective at warding off an attack.The only reason you are bringing an hand gun in that situation is that it is more convenient for you to carry it. That's fine.But the other factor of a hand gun is that it's more convenient for you to hide it so that other people don't know you have it.That's the problem I have with them. If it's for your protections, why would you need to hide it. Hiding it makes it worthless as a detourant.The only reason you need to hide your .45 is to use it on people. It's not like the mountain lion is going to say "uh oh, he's got a gun."

We are spinning off topic but...We need to differentiate between shootings in which many random people are targeted and, say, a personal quarel which has gotten out of hand.If a student shoots a teacher they hate, that's not the same as a student taking out 30 classmates.Additionally, Crash's point was that the events today get more coverage.The coverage of Columbine actually LEAD TO some of the shootings which followed it.Kids which had either been toying with the idea already, or who were angry but didn't know what they were going to do about it, went out and copycatted the Columbine kids.Had there not been wall to wall covered on 50 channels 24 hours a day 7 days a week, perhaps those follow up cases wouldn't have been so inspired.

Oh my god, Jon.Do you even listen to yourself? So your solution to gun safety is to have 2 guns in every house? Or 1 gun for every person in every house?This guy presumable has 2 hands. Why wouldn't have have had BOTH guns?Well, what if there had been another 2 guns in the house and she could have gotten both of those guns. Then they both would have had 2 guns, and no one would have gotten shot!What if her sister lived with them and saw this happening...She could have gotten her 2 guns, then all three of them would each have 2 guns. There would be 6 guns in play, and everyone would have been much much safer.

You really really really don't want to eat a city pigeon.Besides, fishing poles are very effective are procuring food. As are snare traps. As are fruit baskets and hands.As are pizza delivery guys for that matter

This makes much more sense for the "personal protection" argument than the cities where you must keep it hidden.Re: Rifle vs Handgun vs Mountain lionYou really don't need either a rifle or a hand gun for a mountain lion. A tazer, an air siren, a cattle prod, all things which could ward off a mountain lion attack.Hell, there was a story recently where I guy got into a fist fight with one and survived.

Jon, are you retarded, or just refusing to listen.This ENTIRE post was set up to demonstrate how you have trouble reading what people are posting. The fact that he lives in a sparesly populated area factors in his chances of his motorcycle being stolen.His having or not having a gun has nothing to do with that fact.I am not "relieving" the "responsibility of the gun" because NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT OWNING A GUN CAUSES YOU TO HAVE YOUR MOTORCYCLE STOLEN.Do I need to cut and paste THAT into one of the "shit Jon doesn't seem to understand" posts?

Finally you are talking sense. Yes, if it is a slippery slope - the more guns you advocate in the hands of more people, the more likely people are to get shot by those guns.So, you advocating that we attempt to achieve something like "2 guns per person" is not exactly the best plan to reduce gun deaths, is it?

HAHAHA! Too funny

Well, as we all know, the Wild West took place before violent movies and violent video games therefore there was no violence in the Wild West since these are the only two things which cause violence.

That was STRONGLY implied by your tone.The problem with the data you are siting is that you are giving weight to certain factors (number of events over time) but not other factors (socio-economics, nature of the events, causation of the events, location of the events, population density, etc)Yes, there was a period of time directly after Columbine when there was a rash of school shootings.If these were caused, as you implied, by the gun laws, then, since the gun laws are unchanged, we would expect them to continue happening.However, if these were caused by media hype over the events, we'd expect to see a spike in the events coinciding with the media.Is that "proof" that that's what caused it? No. But at least is plausible as an explaination, something which your theory currently is not.

Well, then how are we going to define "school shooting"?The shooter and the victoms must all be members of the same school?
The shooting takes place on school grounds?
The shooting is done by a crazy person?I don't know that we'd have all the information needed to parse these accounts without a LOT of googling.The point is that Petro believes that because he didn't want the news in the 60s and 70s that people didn't get shot in schools.