Or committing murder......
Most of the serial killers didn't use guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims
The top 3 serial killers in the U.S. used other methods.
Is this the most Annoying Anti-Gun Statement?
- Thread starter Sgt.Murtaugh
- Start date
- Status
Most of the serial killers didn't use guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims
The top 3 serial killers in the U.S. used other methods.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
The question I find most annoying is, "What do you need a gun for?" I respond with, "I don't know why I need a gun - but I'll be damned if I ever get caught without one!"
If they follow up with, "What the h... does that mean?" I answer, "I won't know why I need a gun until the need does arise. 'Till then, I'm prepared."
Woody
If they follow up with, "What the h... does that mean?" I answer, "I won't know why I need a gun until the need does arise. 'Till then, I'm prepared."
Woody
Guy B. Meredith
Member
There are a lot of problems with these "stats" and we need to STOP dealing with them in their own context as if that was any part of reality. I am really tired of this bigoted dreck.
"XXX times more likely to shoot yourself or be shot by a family member than for self defense." Interesting if firearms are used only for self defense and killing family members. They aren't. Nor for hunting.
We really need to get the message across that a huge (HUGE) number of rounds are fired for totally non lethal competition for each one used in hunting, defense, suicide or criminal pursuit. I haven't sat down and researched the figures, but it would be in the thousands of times as much volume for competition compared to other non military uses.
As far as the relative danger of a firearm in the house, instead of loaded "stats" try simple math. Take the best numbers you can find for the number of domestic firearms homicides (a figure I saw from the DOJ was around 280 in the year studied. 2012?) and divide that into the number of gun owning households with family, partners or whatever. The result should be that a firearm is about 10,000 times more likely to be used for competitive shooting or not at all as used against domestic partners in any given year.
"Guns are only made for killing" shows an incredible ignorance of the market in competition firearms and ammo which is definitely NOT made for killing as a primary purpose.
As for "you don't need...". Since when has need become a valid criteria? The market is awash with things we don't need but don't get in the way of people who want them. Try cabbage patch dolls for one.
And then there are "gun nuts are just a bunch of fat old white men" and "it's all about genital envy":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTrutPuAbdc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTuk4DbT6q0
People who want to restrict actions of responsible people need to have a constant deluge of reality thrown at them non stop.
"XXX times more likely to shoot yourself or be shot by a family member than for self defense." Interesting if firearms are used only for self defense and killing family members. They aren't. Nor for hunting.
We really need to get the message across that a huge (HUGE) number of rounds are fired for totally non lethal competition for each one used in hunting, defense, suicide or criminal pursuit. I haven't sat down and researched the figures, but it would be in the thousands of times as much volume for competition compared to other non military uses.
As far as the relative danger of a firearm in the house, instead of loaded "stats" try simple math. Take the best numbers you can find for the number of domestic firearms homicides (a figure I saw from the DOJ was around 280 in the year studied. 2012?) and divide that into the number of gun owning households with family, partners or whatever. The result should be that a firearm is about 10,000 times more likely to be used for competitive shooting or not at all as used against domestic partners in any given year.
"Guns are only made for killing" shows an incredible ignorance of the market in competition firearms and ammo which is definitely NOT made for killing as a primary purpose.
As for "you don't need...". Since when has need become a valid criteria? The market is awash with things we don't need but don't get in the way of people who want them. Try cabbage patch dolls for one.
And then there are "gun nuts are just a bunch of fat old white men" and "it's all about genital envy":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTrutPuAbdc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTuk4DbT6q0
People who want to restrict actions of responsible people need to have a constant deluge of reality thrown at them non stop.
If they want to pick and choose what the 2A grants you, then see if they are ok with you picking and choosing what the 1A grants them. Not many people are willing to have restrictions on their free speech.
Oh, and swimming pools kill more young children than guns. Maybe we should ban swimming pools? http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2013/09/29/how_common_are_child_gun_accidents_666.html
Oh, and swimming pools kill more young children than guns. Maybe we should ban swimming pools? http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2013/09/29/how_common_are_child_gun_accidents_666.html
mrdeltoid
Member
It is possible that the odds of a gun being use against you or a family member are higher than it being used against an intruder. BUT that is only because you are around the gun more often than the intruder.
I would also say that I am more likely to cut myself with one of my own kitchen knives than I am to stab an intruder with it.
Faulty reasoning taken out of context. That's all it is.
I would also say that I am more likely to cut myself with one of my own kitchen knives than I am to stab an intruder with it.
Faulty reasoning taken out of context. That's all it is.
Guy B. Meredith
Member
Intruder/domestic thing includes suicides which are roughly half of all firearms homicides. The fact that more intruders are scared off than shot should be something to celebrate.
Rusty Luck
Member
I don't know about the most annoying but this thought process/line of thinking (without knowledge) is beyond annoying. Too many reasons to shake my head.
“This is a ghost gun,” Senator de Leon begins, holding an unloaded rifle in his hands. “This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”
LINK to the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iJmFEv6BHM0
“This is a ghost gun,” Senator de Leon begins, holding an unloaded rifle in his hands. “This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”
LINK to the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iJmFEv6BHM0
ngnrd
Member
Compromise.
Twiki357
Member
Are there any “Anti” comments that are not annoying?
Kurt S.
Member
The famous "43 X blah blah" statement may not be the most annoying, but it's on the list for being the dumbest. And the most easily refuted.
steelerdude99
Member
This line (or lie) irks me most: "90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns".
That is # 2 on my list as most annoying anti-gun statement
This line (or lie) irks me most: "90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns".
When I hear this one, I ask if they are in favor of slavery, reject the right of women to vote, etc. Most of the abhorrent activities in our past that are now legal were favored by the majority.
I also like the whole "what militia are you in?" My response - "Do you believe that only all men are created equal?"
When I hear this one, I ask if they are in favor of slavery, reject the right of women to vote, etc. Most of the abhorrent activities in our past that are now legal were favored by the majority.
I also like the whole "what militia are you in?" My response - "Do you believe that only all men are created equal?"
This is a consistent mantra of the anti gun establishment. Remember, Gov. Cuomo saying "You don't need ten bullets to kill a Deaaah"? They want to brainwash the public into thinking the 2A is about hunting while nothing could be further from the truth.
Just more lies from the statists. The 2A is to specifically protect US from THEM.
MedWheeler
Member
The original assertion is that "one is 43 times more likely to be killed with their own firearm (or have a house-mate so killed) than to use it to kill an intruder."
Now, even if that is true, and it may well be, it does not take into consideration the possibility of using one's firearm to otherwise stop an intrusion without the intruder being killed. Those types of incidents outnumber intruder-killed ones thousands of times to one.
Now, even if that is true, and it may well be, it does not take into consideration the possibility of using one's firearm to otherwise stop an intrusion without the intruder being killed. Those types of incidents outnumber intruder-killed ones thousands of times to one.
JustinJ
Member
Whether it is 43x more likely or 10x I don't really care. My right to defend myself and my loved ones is not to be limited by the irresponsible actions of others.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
Most recently, the most annoying anti 2A statement is "common sense solutions" or some variation of those words. My common sense says stay away from the second Amendment. Enforce the laws already in place.
Stevie-Ray
Member
I always annoy them right back by interrupting and saying "....No buts; you either support it or you don't!" Pisses them right off.
I've generally got an answer for every idiotic factoid and anti-gun sentiment. Comes from a lot of practice when I was working.
- Status