"Deer hunters don't shoot more than 200 yards."

and

"Don't be fooled. A semi-automatic is just as fast as a machine gun."


CRC

The term "High-caliber rifle" used by the media.

Must be a contraction of high-power/large-caliber.[;D]

"You should just call the police; you are just a violent person who wants to shoot people."

Had that said to me.

"Guns don't serve any purpose today other than to kill things."

My response to above:

"Killing was the only purpose guns ever had you ninny, as long as the right people get killed, there ain't a problem."

"Please!" [b]*hack*[/b] "Take your foot off my throat" [b]*cough*[/b] - Is always a good one.

My favorite anti-gun saying is one I hear quite a bit when I have a rational discussion with intelligent anti-gunners:

"Well, if I had a gun I'd probably shoot somebody."

These people are so scared of their own feelings they think that if they had a gun they would use it the next time they were angry or felt road rage or something.

This sentence belongs in the dictionary as an example under the word: oxymoron.

"I hope you don't accidentally shoot one of your kids with your guns."  -Said to me in a restaurant because I was wearing a BRC t-shirt.

Well no shit.  Hope your kids aren't raped and strangled while you're waiting for the police to get there.  Moron. [pissed]

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe."

-U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, quoted by the Associated Press, November 18, 1993

A guy said that to me last week!!! what a Dumbshit

LMAO!!!!!!!That's my fave so far!!!!
(my response would be;"you're still BREATHING???
perhaps I need to mash harder!!"lol

"I don't see why people buy assault weapons and nuclear arms for fun, a family could have a domestic incident that could get out of hand and they may use those weapons." — Jean Chretian, Prime Minister of Canada

"If someone is so fearful that, that
they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their
rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these
weapons at all!"

-Said by Congerssman Henry Waxman on MSNBC INVESTIGATES during the Monday, May 14th, 2001 segment entitled "The .50-Caliber Militia"  

Most idiotic ???  Any dumbass reporter or anti gun commie assed pinko liberal who uses the word "SPRAY" or "SPRAYED" when referring to a weapon being fired.

this confirms it!!!!!   politians prefer unarmed peasents!

how about: [b]The Second Amendment is not refering to [i]PEOPLE[/i] when it says "THE RIGHT OF THE [i]PEOPLE[/i]"...it's refering to the NATIONAL GUARD [/b]
[rolleyes]

dragunov - yes, thats true that not all Republicans are pro-gun, but liberal Democrats need to be bashed for far more than their propensity to be anti-gun.  

"You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms."

"You're 40 times more likely to be killed by your own gun than to use it in self-defense."  I still can't believe out of every single employee of the company I work for, only one other person doesn't believe that crap.  The scary thing is that about half of the guys are former cops!  I can just hear them telling someone at a traffic stop, "Do you have any weapons in the car?  Yes.  You really should get rid of it, before someone shoots you with it."z

PONYBOY You are in deep sh*t!

I woke up my kid from laughing so hard that my wife is pissed at me... I coming to YOUR house.

I need a place to stay now. [whacko]

"Gun nuts must like assault rifles because they have small penises."

"why do you need one of those?"

does anybody know where the "you are 40 times more likely to die from your own gun than someone else's" crap comes from?

what is the origin of this shit?

i was having a discussion with a more "liberal" minded friend the other day (more like naieve) and she hit me with that crap as an arguement against personal protection as a valid use for firearms.  i told her i'd have to check up on that as it sounded like one of those so called "facts" the media likes to throw at you with no verification or source.

anyone know?

also, does anyone know how much violent crime in australia and england INCREASED after the firearms bans?

if they want to fight me with statistics ill play their game.

thanks

-Spaceman

"If it only saves one life, it will have been worth it."

Use that logic on every other product or action.

I somehow manage to avoid a lot of these idiots, but I heard this from my Speech Com teacher.

"You can bring a gun in to show the class how it works, but I don't want any of those....uh, ...AR...-16s."

Shit, I wish I had an AR-16. Bet that would be worth a lot.


I also always loved "Pistol grips are so you can fire full auto from the hip."

They're quoting the Kellermann study.

It actually claims "...that a a firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder."

Here's a starting point for you:

[url]www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=423[/url]

How about this.... it was during a conversation w/ my cousin's father-in-law, mother-in-law, cousin's wife.

The question got to firearms.....
(Note, most of it is paraphrased, as the conversation took place 1-2 years ago.)

m-i-l:  Why do you need guns?  There are no need for them.

f-i-l: To protect yourself.

m-i-l: That's what the police is for.

f-i-l: No, to protect yourself from the govt.  Should the need be there, it is the last option to protect yourself from an oppresive govt.

cousin's wife (his daughter):  Dad, this is America, that will never happen.



The father and mother imigrated to the US long, long ago from Europe.  He is a retired doctor, good one at that.  The daughter, mid thirties, is an educated indvidual, masters in business and a lawyer who is  teaching at the local college.

Her words hit a nerve.... I muttered or though, well, that's why there is the second ammendment, to make sure it never does happen.

[b]Spiff[/b], that statistic comes from the June 12, 1986 New England Journal Of Medicine, which reported that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than kill a criminal .

However, what anti-gunners never mention is that this same data was analyzed in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 1995, which concluded that a firearm kept in a home is at least 167 times more likely to deter criminal attack than to harm a person in the home.

Basically, it's a matter of drawing conclusions based on your expectations — anti-gunners tend to view guns as killing tools, and thus assume that death is the only logical outcome of any incident involving a firearm. Gun owners tend to view their weapons as deterrents, and thus also include prevented crimes as a benefit.

The first question comes from a 1986 New England Journal of Medicine article "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home" co-authored by "researcher" Dr. Arthur Kellerman.

You can read about it [url=www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html]here[/url].  It's been debunked, but that hasn't prevented it from being misquoted and spread like gospel.  

According to the latest International Crime Victimization Survey, Australia is #1 for violent crime in the world, and England/Wales (treated as a single political entity all the time) is #2.  Of course, both have [i]homicide[/i] rates significantly lower than ours, but the [i]violent crime[/i] rates (assault, robbery, rape) are significantly higher that in the U.S.  Do a Google Search.  The data is not yet available on the ICVS website, but some analyses of it are out there.

"We need to stop being fixated on preserving the rights of ordinary Americans..."

"The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of citizens."

A few of the famous Bill Clinton quotes from that MTV "Fight For Your Rights" show he did about eight years ago, never mind that I've never seen a show that concerns itself with an actual RIGHT. (This Episode: Your Right to an Effective Police State. Next Episode: Your "Fundamental Right to Feel Safe," featuring guest speaker Dianne Feinstein.) IIRC, he was defending a series of weapon raids he had ordered, where police confiscated privately owned firearms in gov't-subsidized DC housing with no compensation, warrants, nothing. There was an even more priceless gem of a quote he made about how the Constitution was a radical document that gave people a radical amount of freedom but that it was time to scale back, but I don't remember verbatim. It shouldn't be hard to find.

I had a lady come into the store that I work at to pick up some softball uniforms we made for her. When she entered the store she walked down the far side of the store (away from all the firearms). I asked her if I could help her and she had me come over to where she was. She just keep looking at the guns. She told me what team the uniforms were for and I went and got them. I asked her to step over to the counter to sign the paperwork. She said she didn't want to because of all the GUNS. She was afraid of them. I assured her that since I've been at the store (2+ years) that not a single guns had jumped out of the case and hurt anyone. She didn't see the hummor in my comment.

In all the time I spent in DU, the one thing repeated [i]ad nauseam[/i] by the anti-gunners was "there are [i]too many guns[/i] in the U.S." and "the number of guns" is "the problem."

Then they'd refuse to admit that by defining the problem as "too many guns" that [i]confiscation[/i] was, by definition, the only "solution."

"The man was armed with a semi-automatic revolver"

"Think of the children!  Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!"

"I support the rights of hunters - heck, I've been a hunter for years" - Bill Clinton, holding a Benelli semi-auto, which coincidentally was part of the assault-weapon ban.

...with a silencer...and cop killing, armor piercing, teflon bullets.

I have had several female co-workers say that they will never let guns in their homes.  I guess that is their choice, but I wouldn't count on any BG's respecting this.

"i think people should be able to have some guns, but not those ones that shoot all those bullets!"

and

"eventual ban of paintball guns because of the ease of converting them into automatic weapons"
-HCI

I don't have any PERSONAL experience that's notable enough to add to this thread, however, a similar topic surfaced a few months ago on the rec.guns newsgroup.

This one fellow told the tale of when he was in Wally World buying some ammo.  A mother and her 7 year old daughter were in the sporting goods section.  The little girl there is looking at the rifles and shotguns on display and asks her mother, "Mommy, are those REAL guns?"

The mother says--get this, "No, honey, of course not.  Only the police and the Army can have real guns."

Now I don't know if the mother is just stupid and naive, or was trying to make sure her daughter didn't suffer emotional trauma, but all I can think of is what would happen if this girl goes over to a friend's house one day and finds a gun?  Now she thinks all guns are toys and she may even feel safe picking it up and playing with the gun as if it WERE a toy.  I hope that girl survives the next few years to figure out that there are indeed real guns out there and they shouldn't be played with like toys.

When I was young, my mom's best friend had a husband and a couple sons who loved to hunt.  One day I was over there, on the floor playing with the dog and I found a couple rifles (or shotguns--I was too young to know) under the couch.  At least I knew enough to stay away from them and not pull it out to point at my brother and start saying, "BANG BANG BANG."  Who knows what I would have thought if my mom had told me that no one owns real guns.

-Nick Viejo.

Yo, do you have a link to that.

I believe you, but I want a link to show others.

Pointing out to a friend that my SXT's were "PC Black Talons", and he says, "Aren't those illegal because they're armor-piercing?"  Half an hour of ballistics lessons later, I've got him half convinced.  

Check out this thread on a VW related forum:

[url]http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=501932[/url]

Plenty of good ones to get worried about.  What scares the pole off of me is that the readers and posters on the forum are younger and will sadly believe much is said, negatively, about firearms.

-934

Edit:  Fixed link.  Sorry, brain fade.

Spade,

yea, i'll try to find it somewhere. i actually found it on here first. the "paintball" quote is one of a few dandies that HCI spouted on there "five year plan" (?) that was presented to klinton. the best one was that they actually believed that if enough guns were confiscated/eliminated, that it would be appropriate to "disarm law enforcement officers."

i sent bits of it to a friend, i'll email it to you.

"These type of guns serve no sporting purpose"

Thanks. I know some anti-gun paintballers (I know, what the hell?) who'd shit a brick.

Skibane, I believe the 167 number, from what I saw when I read the study myself. Do you have a link to that article?


From
http://geocities.com/gebooth2001/docs/somebodylying.html
Statement:

"A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than be used against an intruder."

Truth:

This is a misrepresentation of a meaningless comparison from a limited and poorly done study. This study was performed over a 6 year period in one single county in the USA. As this study is was done in just one county, that makes its results useless for saying what happens anywhere else. Scientists and researchers call this "a sample size of one". The comparison is meaningless because it is an apples vs oranges comparison. 37 of the 43 are suicides, 4.6 are classified as criminal homicides, and 1.3 were classified as accidents.[35] Kellermann and Reay, the authors of the study have stated themselves that "cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm [and] cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed.."[35] should be included as a benefit. BUT, when they calculated their comparison they did NOT include those cases. They therefore undercounted protection uses by at least 500 times.[36] If the purpose is to compare defensive uses verses misuse, all defensive uses should be counted, not just the 0.2% of time when a defensive use results in the death of an attacker. You measure defensive uses by lives saved, not criminals killed, after all, the purpose of self defense is to prevent or stop a criminal attack, not kill the attacker. Homicides that were found to be self-defense in a court of law were counted as criminal homicides by this study, thus over stating the number of criminal homicides, and under stating the number of self-defense homicides. In addition, homicides committed by armed intruders are included in the criminal homicides statistic.



"Someone you know" is often described as friends or even "loved ones", but in reality this includes rival gang members, drug dealers, abusive spouses and acquaintances, and so on. Those who proclaim the 43-1 statistics will often imply that only dear friends, loved family members, and small innocent children are the ones being killed, an obviously misleading statement.



The study failed to distinguish between households or environs populated by people with violent, criminal, or substance-abuse histories -- where the risk of death is very high -- versus households inhabited by more civil folk (for example, people who avoid high-risk activities like drug dealing, gang banging and wife beating) -- where the risk is very low indeed. In actuality, negligent adults allow fatal but avoidable accidents; and homicides are perpetrated mostly by people with histories of violence or abuse, people who are identifiably and certifiably at ~high risk~ for misadventure.



The Hart Poll in 1981 found 644,000 defensive uses with handguns per year. The Mauser Poll in 1990 found 691,000 defensive uses per year. The Field Poll in California in 1978 found 1.2 million handgun defensive uses per year. The Time/CNN Poll in 1989 found over 908,000 defensive uses per year. Gary Kleck estimated the yearly defensive use of firearms by civilians to be at about 1,000,000 per year. A more recent study by Gary Kleck put the yearly total at approximately 2,400,000 defensive uses. Yet the total deaths by firearm in the USA only runs about 25,000 to 30,000 per year, and that includes accidents, murders, suicides and self defense homicides. That means a gun is 30-40 times more likely to defend against an assault or other crime than kill anybody. As accidental firearm's related deaths is about 1400 per year, including hunting accidents, the defensive use verses accidental death ratio is about 700-800 to 1. A study by Simon Fraser University professor Gary Mauser shows Canadians use guns in self-defense against assailants more than 32,000 times a year.



------------------

I heard this from at least two different people...
Person1: Why do you like guns so much?
Person2: (Talking right over me) Because he's violent.

Don't you love the logic? (And I only Target Shoot!)