Gun nut brings assault rifle, Glock, ammo to JC Penney to “make a statement”

A registered gun owner in Utah yesterday caused a stir when he went to a shopping mall with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder along with an open carry pistol and plenty of ammo. Utah is an open carry state, so what he did was completely legal. As the line goes in The Big Lebowski, “you’re not wrong, you’re just an *sshole,” seems to be fitting.

Outside of fringe gun owners, who really thinks this is helping anyone or any cause? It’s much more likely that it only shows gun extremists to be more extreme and out of touch with the bulk of Americans who find this kind of behavior either scary or offensive. Maybe the owner feels inadequate in some way, so this helps him feel like a bigger man? If gun activists want to help discredit their precious cause, they should keep doing this.

gun-nut-jc-penney-utah

As a person who has traveled a number of times to Israel where you do see (or at least, used to see) soldiers going home on weekend leave with their guns, it just doesn’t give me any level of comfort seeing this guy with a gun over his shoulder.  Oh, and if there were another gun nut in the store preparing to open fire, guess who he’d take out first?

How would I know this guy is not a crazy gun preparing to kill people and really, why would the local police take him on his word? Have the police never heard of Meleanie Hain, the open -carry soccer mom that was killed by her open-carry husband, who then killed himself?

None of these open carry zealots make me feel safer.


An American in Paris, France. BA in History & Political Science from Ohio State. Provided consulting services to US software startups, launching new business overseas that have both IPO’d and sold to well-known global software companies. Currently launching a new cloud-based startup. Full bio here.

Share This Post

360 Responses to “Gun nut brings assault rifle, Glock, ammo to JC Penney to “make a statement””

  1. Doubro says:

    As long as he was not threatening anyone, his religion would be of no consequence. If he was screaming “Alu Akbar” and waving it around the room, then I’d have a problem.

  2. Mark says:

    Please, if that man was Muslim, you will start calling him a terrorist and immediately support gun control.

  3. RyansTake says:

    Dude, this post was six months old. Let it rest.

  4. Douglas Broccone says:

    He was making the point that its perfectly legal and shouldnt be offensive to simply display a weapon in public. What is offensive is people who think guns are the problem and demonize those who would carry concealed or open. The irony is that the author doesn’t get that we are all targets to criminals. The acknowledgement of the fact that guns exist and should be normalized as tools and respected as necessary is not extreme, even if it is sadly “fringe ” behavior. It shows the ignorance of the majority who holds that anyone with a gun is suspect unless they support the Authoritarian State. Mere plebeians like this guy showing their awareness of the reality of violence in the world are seen as threats to the mirage of law and order , and an affront to the illusion of a civil society, when they should be the norm and not marginalized as in the formative years of this country

  5. Guest says:

    He was making the point that its perfectly legal and should be offensive to simply display a weapon in public. What is offensive is people who think guns are the problem and demonize those who would carry concealed or open. The irony is that the author doesn’t get that we are all targets to criminals. The acknowledgement of the fact that guns exist and should be normalized as tools and respected as necessary is not extreme, even if it is sadly “fringe ” behavior. It shows the ignorance of the majority who holds that anyone with a gun is suspect unless they support the Authoritarian State. Mere plebeians like this guy showing their awareness of the reality of violence in the world are seen as threats to the mirage of law and order , and an affront to the illusion of a civil society, when they should be the norm and not marginalized as in the formative years of this country.

  6. Douglas Broccone says:

    You are clueless about why it was and is legal to carry weapons in public. Uninformed about civil rights as it relates to the means of coercion and the power the State assumes it has but doesn’t have to regulate it , and why

  7. AnarchyPrime says:

    “Outside of fringe gun owners, who really thinks this is helping anyone or any cause?”

    I see a photo with a man carrying firearms, threatening no one, and other people around him who don’t seem to be carrying. It doesn’t look like anyone is screaming or running away in terror. And as the reporter said, he’s done this before. So it seems he made his point: peaceful people own and carry guns. Of course it’s controversial and many people will dislike it. He wouldn’t have done it were it not controversial to do. Does it help his cause? You betcha. Here’s a peaceful member of society who carries firearms, serving as a stark counter-example to the news headlines about the occasional lunatic who goes on a shooting spree. Now these people have seen someone with an “assault rifle” going about his ordinary life in the same manner as every other person there. Now when they think of people who have assault rifles, they can think of someone other than the wild-eyed killers whose faces are endlessly displayed on the 24/7 news networks.

    “Maybe the owner feels inadequate in some way, so this helps him feel like a bigger man?”

    No, probably not.

    “If gun activists want to help discredit their precious cause, they should keep doing this.”

    It is being done with increasing frequency, and it hasn’t discredited them. How would hiding their guns at home be a credit to their argument, anyway?

    “How would I know this guy is not a crazy gun preparing to kill people and really, why would the local police take him on his word?”

    The same way you know this about anyone: He’s not doing anything threatening. He made no threats to anyone, verbally or otherwise. He attacked no one. If he were planning to kill people, why would he broadcast it before he could attempt it? Criminals hide their intentions until they’re ready to act on them. This man wasn’t hiding anything.

    “Have the police never heard of Meleanie Hain, the open -carry soccer mom that was killed by her open-carry husband, who then killed himself?”

    She was shot in the back, while at home while she was sitting in front of her computer, by her husband… a cop. So what does that have to do with open carry, aside from the fact that this woman had openly carried at times in the past? Her gun wasn’t even in the same room.

    “None of these open carry zealots make me feel safer.”

    Out of sight, out of mind? Are you more afraid of the guns you can see, or the guns you can’t see?
    Do you think the anti-self-defense zealots make the open carriers feel safer?

  8. wade says:

    By civilized countries do you mean ones like England that has more crime than the U.S, but it’s subjects are disarmed so instead of more gun crimes “Not that criminals there don’t use guns in crimes too”, but instead use other weapons like hammers, baseball bats, etc more often? Notice you said less gun crime, well how can it be less gun crime? Wasn’t England’s subjects disarmed decades ago? Do you mean to tell me that in spite of this some criminals still have access to guns to commit crimes with? Looks like all a gun ban does to me is, disarm law abiding citizens and cause some criminals to use baseball bats instead, and other blunt objects, but it don’t stop crime, and it never will. It won’t ever stop killings either. In England crimes happen regularly in broad daylight, because criminals know everyone is disarmed, so thy don’t care if you are even home while they rob you, is that what you want for us here in the U.S too?

  9. wade says:

    You are putting up a straw man argument that won’t fly. Most guns, and this especially goes for Semi Auto style Assault type looking weapons, have killed nothing but paper. Do you want us to just use them for what they were designed for, you sure? Ban them, and your wish will come true.

    I’ll answer the questions you asked answered:

    (1) We arm our Military with guns instead of hammers for the same reason we don’t all CCW a hammer, a Rifle is more effective at a longer distance. As to would I rather the guy have a gun than a hammer if I was in a fight with him, well that depends on distance. Up close inside 12 feet I would rather he had a rifle in his hands.

    (2) The utility of the Assault Rifle or any magazine feed High Capacity style rifle also outweighs any negative impacts. You got your opinion, and I got mine.If I am ever anywhere where a mass shooting is happening, I sure as hell would want an assault rifle in my hand too. People t those events didn’t die because of what ever gun the perp had in his hands, they died because they gave up Liberty for a false sense of perceived safety, and didn’t protect themselves properly as per the Second Amendment. I know, I know, the Cops will protect us right? Well let me know how that works out for you, hopefully better than it has at all th other mass shootings for those people. Had they been armed to begin with, there wouldn’t of been a mass shooting. Yea, I want my hunting Shotgun, I also want my hunting rifles, my handguns, and my fighting arms, and I will keep all f them till death, thank you.

    (3) You want to ban assault styled rifles, well good luck with that. I’m not going to name all the people that have proposed banning Assault style rifles, one will do, Barack Hussein Obama. Do your own research, there are plenty out there proposing this.

    (4) Doesn’t matter weather we would like to subject ourselves to rules about driving a car or not, we all are already subjected to them, same for all the gun laws we already have, what is the question? There already are thousands of gun laws on the books, criminals don’t follow gun laws, law abiding gun owners do, and they are not the problem.

  10. wade says:

    So when you see a Cop with his big bad Glock strapped to his side does that panic you too? I’m sure when you Parents conceived you they had no intentions of having a Son who was such a scared girl either, but what is your point, If seeing someone buying something with a gun strapped to their back or securely in their holster scares and panics you, then maybe you should grow some nuts and stop being paranoid all the time. Stay out of the military too, they all got guns.

  11. wade says:

    Maybe to you, but most people with brains understand it just fine. You can’t just shoot someone because you are a pussy and scared of things you don’t understand. Now if the guy has a gun and threatens you, and goes to point it at you while doing so, then yea, then you would be justified killing him, but nobody has to worry about that from you do we? You are scared of guns and don’t own one, it’s obvious.

  12. Ballistics and gun knowledge are two very different beasts. My knowledge on guns is not all inclusive, but it is sufficient. I am a combat veteran whose focus was combat arms. My specialty was heavy weapons. I have shot just about every weapon a soldier uses. I qualified gold in the German Expert Infantry test which required expert handling of their weapons which I was unfamiliar with.

    My experience with handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, squad level machine guns, crew serve weapons (M2 .50 caliber machine gun and MK19 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher), sniper rifles, and 2 generations of the TOW Missile System are surpassed by few of my peers.

    My best friend was the armorer and I learned my fair share of high level weapons maintenance from one of the best armorers in our nation.

    So did you have a question that is about guns or were you once again trying to be argumentative?

    EDIT: On the subject of ballistics, I know general ballistics. Mainly my knowledge of ballistics was restricted to the weapons I used and as I have not had much direct need for understanding ballistics recently I have forgotten much of my knowledge on the subject. I can list off the generic ballistic properties of the rounds fired from each of the weapons I mentioned, but do I really need to whip mine out to show you whose is bigger?

  13. caphillprof says:

    It’s akin to gaydar. Ye shall know them by their desperation.

    Subject: [americablog] Re: Gun nut brings assault rifle, Glock, ammo to JC Penney to “ make a statement”

  14. Thank you for your statements Ibmiel. To be honest, I am one of those that believed you to be male, but it is refreshing to hear a female point of view that is not simply, “I hate guns because they are loud.”

    Thank you for also taking time to clarify my statistic. Based on my estimates I figured I was actually higher than the truth. I was actually hoping one of my opponents on this matter would have done the research to solidify the statistic, which is why I had mentioned the statistic to be an estimate. I hoped that in the process of trying to prove me wrong that I might have influenced someone into a shocking revelation about assault rifles.

    It goes without saying, or maybe it isn’t actually said enough by the gun owners, but we can all agree that the taking of innocent life in any amount is unacceptable. As with our medical system, the focus seems to be on treating the symptom and not the cause.

    The gun by no means is the cause of violence as displayed by the multitude of countries that have a much higher per capita violent crime rate and no guns. The gun is the tool used. Does it make it easier to commit violence at scale? Yes. Is it the only means to commit violence at scale? No.

    Sadly, the uneducated sector that blanket sides with the ‘left’ (generic statement I know, but it is hard to deny that the vast majority of anti-gun people side to the left and I am referring to uneducated as those that take all information from the media instead of real research), is having a knee jerk reaction. Two recent shootings had assault rifles used and the media, also primarily left minded, has sensationalized the usage of the assault rifle. If anyone wants to deny that the media is primarily left minded then just think of the sole media outlet that has employed every last one of the people you blanket hate for being Republican. One outlet on the national scale for the right and the rest for the left and I apologize for getting off topic.

    The point is that there is plenty we can and should do to help prevent violence of all types. The weapon of choice is not the problem. The problem is the whatever the root cause for people not being able to cope with situations with other means than violence. Does that mean do nothing in relation to guns? No. That means making decisions about guns based on real facts and justifying the decisions made with some sort of logic. Still, not a single person has explained how an assault rifle and 30-round magazine ban will make anyone safer.

    The argument is made, as the only justification to an assault rifle ban, that there is no need for me to own an assault rifle. I say that isn’t justification at all. There are many luxuries that we have in life that are not needed. Personally I used an assault rifle in war. I enjoy shooting guns of all types. It is therapeutic to me as a hobby. I don’t presume that my right to a therapeutic hobby is paramount or more important than the right to the safety of others, but at the same time the statistics on gun violence, the real statistics from unbiased collections, don’t lie.

    Rifles and shotguns account for 3% of the violence. For all the screaming about assault rifles and how much more dangerous they are than the other guns that aren’t targeted it is rather amazing that anyone can rationalize that the assault rifle needs banned with those numbers. Then again, the people that are screaming for the ban have either neglected to do any research at all or are so against guns that they have intentionally disregarded the facts.

    So what is the solution one might ask? That is a very loaded question (pun intended). First, gun education. Whether a person likes guns or not, to be involved in the decision making they must be educated on the topic at hand. Better mental health options in the country may help, but once again I would point out that the vast majority of shootings have nothing to do with mental health to begin with.

    Perhaps letting the CDC do more research, but under strict supervision. The reason the CDC has been prevented from doing the research is because the last time they did research into gun violence they nearly destroyed their reputation through biased fact collections and pushing a clear anti-gun agenda. The CDC is not a platform for the anti-gun crowd to use to push their agenda. Blame the Republicans and the NRA all you want for putting a stop to the CDC, but if you actually look at it from an unbiased place you will see that the measures taken to stop the CDC actually saved the CDC.

    The number one solution in my book? Hold the media and politicians responsible for the lies that they continue to spew. The media sensationalizes based on false information. 20 years ago that was not allowed. I remember Connie Chung losing her entire career for using a source that was later found to be lying. That wasn’t even intentional, but she was held accountable. What has happened to that?

    The President released a proposal on gun control. That proposal is filled with false statistics. We need to demand more. The ends do not justify the means and even if some people believe they do, we didn’t elect a President with the theory that he will only tell the truth when he decides that the truth supports his agenda. Pushing his gun control proposal with the false information in it is a travesty and he should be ashamed that he would compromise the trust we have in the Office of the President in such a manner.

    Until both sides are willing to debate using real information instead of what we have been seeing recently, then sadly there is nothing we can do. False information leads to false solutions. False solutions lead to wasted time and money, not to mention no impact on the loss of life. Is that what we really want?

  15. RyansTake says:

    We’re better than Mexico, Colombia and Venezuala!

    Yay??

    You’d think you’d want us to compare more favorably with *safe* and fully developed countries, not countries that are or were a part of the third world until recently. (Brazil is developing quick, but its development is uneven and far from complete.)

    What all of these countries actually have in common, including our own, is the black market drug trade that we’ve propagated from the policies we’ve created in the decades of our ludicrous “Drug War.”

    A huge swath of the murders in our country come from gang violence in inner cities — thousands of deaths a year — but you’re right, that violence pales in comparison to the violence we’ve created in other countries.

    Yet, that Venezuela, Colombia and other countries in that region may have higher levels of gun violence per capita than us, that’s not a defense of our country’s policies. It’s an indictment of it.

    A lot of people may not want to include it, but our “Drug War” absolutely has to be a part of the conversation of gun violence in this country and elsewhere, because that’s the cause of so much of it, the disease causing a lot of other symptoms.

  16. RyansTake says:

    Ignoring decades of rational arguments and oodles of facts and figures by creating a straw man is not a rational argument, either. I agree, dismissing the manhood of these dudes isn’t a particularly great argument, but it’s a perfectly reasonable expression of frustration given the gun nuts’ propensity to ignore facts and reality, or utterly disregard them for their own selfish reasons.

  17. RyansTake says:

    “When I wear my gun openly, I am not intending to deceive you nor am I intending to panic you.”

    What you may or may not be trying to do is immaterial. What you are doing, if you carry a gun around like that, is certainly a behavior that can and will cause panic, regardless of your intentions.

    You know what won’t cause panic? If you go and buy your clothes without wielding your assault weapons around like an overzealous maniac.

  18. RyansTake says:

    I believe you meant to say penises. That’s the plural form.

  19. RyansTake says:

    To be perfectly honest, I’d rather nuts like these carry guns around like the maniacs that they are, than try to hide their mania behind a concealed license. That way, if I’m at that mall and there’s a nut walking around with a gun slung over their shoulder, I can very quickly make my exit.

    All that said, there’s no reason for a gun like that to exist in the hands of a civilian population.

  20. FatRat says:

    Criminals shouldn’t have guns and sadly normal people with guns are more likely to commit suicide or accidentally shoot a loved one. If you are carrying a gun you will much more likely to perceive the other person as holding a weapon, instead of whatever was in their hand. Guns give people the illusion of safety, nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t own any guns myself, but my family is a different story. Military and law enforcement run rampant in my family. I can got into their homes and find rifles, shotguns and handguns, but for some reason never the tool kit. Here’s some good advice for you, if mugged surrender your wallet, don’t make eye contact. You will never get your gun out before they shoot you. Advice given to my by a relative who used to be a deputy. Don’t matter if your are nuts, drunk, angry, suicidal, homicidal, depressed, careless, scared or whatever, when you have a gun you can make life altering decisions. A vid for all the LEOs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XiYUYcpsT4 Bob Marley – I Shot The Sheriff

  21. Igor Darkman says:

    If you’ve ever been assaulted by the women at the fragrance section with their military grade atomizers you know you can never pack enough heat.

  22. lbmiel says:

    Hi Michael, I’ve been reading all the comments, you are very intelligent and compose your rebuttals very well. I did do research, it’s closer to 3% for rifles and shotguns together. For the last 5 years shotgun deaths were higher than rifle except for 2010 rifles were 367 shotguns 366. From the 62 mass shootings since 1982 there have been 988 injured, out of those injured, 513 died. That is for the last 30 years, statistically that is very small, but that doesn’t make it acceptable or mean we shouldn’t look for ways to reduce those numbers. One way I know won’t work is by banning guns and ammunition. I’ve done enough research to realize that. Britain is held up as example of a gun ban working. It’s true that their gun violence/murder is extremely low, but the total violent crime rate is more than 3 times ours. Britain 2034/100000 U.S. 466/100000. The article is from 2009. When people say if you take guns away the criminal will just use another weapon they are right. Contrary to what the posters in this thread have assumed, I am female, I don’t own a gun, never shot or even held one. I know they are a tool, a very effective tool, used to save and defend people; also a very effective tool to kill people. It’s very hard for me to comprehend people not understanding that the weapon isn’t to blame. I have also been very surprised at the vehemence expressed on both sides. The name calling, the threats, just the vitriol being spewed. The hatred for the NRA, I have no background in guns, so I have no idea what they’ve done that is so awful. When I started checking this, I discovered that the guns they want to ban are not the mass killing weapons they are held out to be.

  23. lbmiel says:

    Of course you have those rights. A person has to actually commit a crime – being afraid, suspicious, or disliking what the person is doing is not the standard by which we restrict people.

  24. lbmiel says:

    The law was loosened for some, Jews and other classes were prohibited from owning guns.

    The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book
    basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions
    completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and
    shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more
    categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from
    gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase
    was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one
    year to three years.The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general.

    The author’s last sentence is very interesting – he says just because hitler kept the jews and others from owning guns doesn’t mean gun control is bad. No, of course not, the fact that he massacred them after keeping them from owning guns is pure coincidence.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

  25. lbmiel says:

    I believe that Saddam was a dictator and Iraq didn’t have a constitution. As a dictator he made people do what he wanted by force. There were no rights for the people – quite different from our republic. States all over the country are preparing or have passed state laws against new gun control and sheriffs all over are letting people know that they won’t enforce a federal ban or assist government agents in doing so. The people aren’t at the mercy of a corrupt government like many other countries are.

  26. lbmiel says:

    You’re making a couple of assumptions with your statement that is simply not borne out by the facts. A rampaging gunman who sees or is confronted by an armed bystander does not stand there having a shoot out. When there is someone else on the scene with a gun, they leave. Clackamas mall shooting – a shopper heard gunshots, drew his weapon, approached the gunman. The shopper saw bystanders behind the shooter and did NOT shoot, he moved off into a store. After the gunman was approached by the shopper he moved off and shot himself. That is what most shooters do when there is another armed person on the scene. These shooters are cowards, they want to be the only armed person there. People use their guns in defense of themselves and others all the time.

    http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

    John Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime, here is the book description:

    On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime
    drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later,
    it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control
    laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever
    been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns
    mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data
    analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the
    book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of
    guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an
    additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the
    effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book
    fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention.

  27. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what a, lets say mathematical apparatus, has to do with my reasoning there? I am truly intrigued as I am not seeing the link (no pun intended).

    I figured you would be happy that someone you were debating with was actually willing to state you are correct and that the initial blanket statement I made may not have applied to the entirety of the initial statement.

    I would like clarification though. If I disagree with you then I am wrong, but when I agree with you I am wrong as well? If that is the case, then logically that means your statement was wrong to begin with. I am not thinking that is what you were going for, but in the end that is the way it is.

    That seems to be the same mentality as the anti-gun folks. For years they have screamed about a link between video games and violence. The NRA says it and they are absolutely wrong and chastised for saying it. Two weeks later, the anti-gun crew is saying it again while still chastising the NRA for saying it. Perhaps you can tell me how that makes sense.

  28. Chaos is structured random behavior of a non-linear, complex, dynamical system. The behavior over long-time scales is (1) unpredictable, (2) seemingly random but not arbitrarily so, (3) sensitive to initial conditions, and (4) characterized by a strange attractor that is often a fractal. Chaotic behavior is different from random behavior in that it is not completely random and the strange attractor governs its structure.

    That doesn’t really refute that most accidents happen due to some sort of negligence. If you would like to apply that to car accidents, or house fires, or any other sort of accident then it would also encompass accidental weapon discharges.

  29. lbmiel says:

    Well, it’s probably because one deals with self defense of oneself and others and the other one deals with murder.

  30. lbmiel says:

    Carrying a gun also saves people.

    Estimates of frequency

    Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study’s population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz cite between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64-65[2][3] Low end estimates by Hemenway cite approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey, vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked.[7]

    Media under-reporting

    Researcher John Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that media coverage of defensive gun use is rare, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that “[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police”.

    Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that “national surveys” suggested that “98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.” In that same paragraph he also wrote that “[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses
    are never even reported to the police.” The higher the rate of defensive gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the media without reference to media bias. Lott cited the figure frequently in the media, including publications like the Wall Street Journal[8] and the Los Angeles Times.[9]

    In 2002, he repeated the study, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent.[10] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz’s 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together.[11] Lott explained the lower rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked.[12] The other surveys all asked people to recall events over the previous five years, while Lott had only asked people about events that had
    occurred during just the previous year.

    http://usliberals.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=usliberals&cdn=newsissues&tm=35&f=20&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=15&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

  31. lbmiel says:

    These are just a couple of stories were an armed person defending him/herself with a gun.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9ycMq9_5BU

    http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2012/09/26/news/doc50634fcd241e9197724730.txt

    http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8844626

    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Burglary-suspect-shot-and-wounded-in-east-Houston-3936367.php

    http://www.kxxv.com/story/19797145/theft-suspects

    http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/201210110091

    http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/report-robbery-suspect-shot-at-restaurant/nSchc/

    http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/19815203/man

    Estimates of frequency

    Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly,
    depending on the study’s population, criteria, time-period studied, and
    other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz cite between 1 to
    2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64-65[2][3] Low end estimates by Hemenway cite approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey, vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked.[7]

    Media under-reporting

    Researcher John Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that media coverage of defensive gun use is rare, noting that in
    general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news
    stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that “[s]ince in
    many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is
    harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police”.

    Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the
    book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that “national surveys”
    suggested that “98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively,
    they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.” In that
    same paragraph he also wrote that “[s]ince in many defensive cases a
    handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses
    are never even reported to the police.” The higher the rate of defensive
    gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the
    easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the
    media without reference to media bias. Lott cited the figure frequently
    in the media, including publications like the Wall Street Journal[8] and the Los Angeles Times.[9]

    In 2002, he repeated the study, and reported that brandishing a
    weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other
    researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of
    1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that
    the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80
    percent.[10] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz’s 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together.[11] Lott explained the lower rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked.[12] The other surveys all asked people to recall events over the previous
    five years, while Lott had only asked people about events that had
    occurred during just the previous year.

    http://usliberals.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=usliberals&cdn=newsissues&tm=35&f=20&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=15&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

  32. karmanot says:

    Reasoning on a Mobius Strip.

  33. karmanot says:

    :) and thank you for using Xmas.

  34. karmanot says:

    I take back the troll part. :)

  35. karmanot says:

    Well done!

  36. karmanot says:

    Occam’s Razor would concur.

  37. karmanot says:

    “and I want to help you understand” Thank you, but no. That would constitute a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

  38. karmanot says:

    LOL

  39. I never claimed to be an expert on global warming. Let’s just get that one knocked out. As to the rest of your statements, it has become apparent that unless I write a novel to you that you will bash with no actual intent to do anything other than bash.

    I can overcomplicate this discussion in ways that would astound you, but that wouldn’t change or solve anything. I don’t need to make attempts to sound extremely intelligent and all knowing to prop myself up in this discussion.

    You have made assumption after assumption about me. Frankly I grow weary of spending energy trying to get you on topic. You have not successfully proven anything I have said wrong. You sure talked a lot, but I see no sources to support a single one of the statements about global warming that you have made.

    I was having a generic conversation in relation to this matter. Mostly it was a non-scientific discussion in the sense that I wasn’t using sources. You have proved my point about theory over and over again. The point, if you remember, is that theory is not absolute fact and that the full concept of global warming does not stand up to scrutiny. It doesn’t. You have not shown it does. By your own definition of scientific theory, global warming doesn’t stand up. Certain portions of the theory have merit, but the concept as a whole comes to conclusions that have not been proven and those conclusions continue to change. Changing conclusions in a theory based on both new information and conclusions from old information being disproven is not a fallacy.

    In the end, I think we are debating two very different things here. You are debating scientific terms and I am debating the conclusions that are being drawn by the theories that encompass global warming. If you would like to debate global warming with me then do so, but you are not debating that. You are just attacking me instead of making relevant talking points.

  40. karmanot says:

    I really doubt, in the end that this ruckus amounts to much. Nor do I believe that any ‘rights’ will be abridged. It’s yet another propaganda circus.

  41. karmanot says:

    Wrong. You need to review the concept of Chaos.

  42. karmanot says:

    I heard that Sponge Bob and Pinky can confirm that what you say is so!

  43. karmanot says:

    Bravo, absolutely bravo!

  44. Once again I would point out that debates in writing creates issues at times. While you are thinking I am falling prey to a multitude of fallacies and lack certain skills in critical thinking I would have to disagree. My focus in the debate and yours has been quite different.

    You have tried to show that my statements at face value, regardless of the low level arguments I am trying to present, are incorrect. You are trying to take the discussion to a level in which a full scientific discussion would ensue, but are doing so without showing any relevant data to disprove the intent of my statements.

    As I said before, there are different levels of debate with different levels of intellect and knowledge. I am debating to the low end of the spectrum as I don’t have specific sources to site at this time to support my arguments and there is no point speaking outside of the general intellect of those that might participate in the discussion.

    The scientific definition of theory is nothing more than what I have already stated. You used a more scientifically sound way of saying the same thing I have been saying all along. You are also attempting to twist the low level comments I have made by analyzing them at a high level and making high level assertions about the low level speech.

    You said, “In science, it only becomes a “theory” when it rests on a mountain of facts and all attempts to make new predictions based on the theory are accurate, and all attempts to falsify the theory are failures.” I would say that to this date I have not seen any accurate predictions from the theory of global warming. I have not heard any predictions as to what level of warming we will see in increments. I have not heard of accurate predictions of the changing weather patterns that are attributed to the climate shifts.

    The list of ‘predictions’ that have not been accurate can go on and on. Perhaps you have links to these predictions that have been accurate and I have missed relevant data on the subject. You continuing to try and discredit me through intelligently calling me stupid doesn’t change the absence of that supporting data though.

    Essentially, you are attempting to put words in my mouth. As a side note, even if what you proclaim is true in relation to my level of knowledge, ignorance to the scientific definition of theory has very little to do with the level of knowledge I have in relation to critical thinking. Comparing the two is like comparing horses and apples.

    If there is relevant data that you can present for me to review, and upon my review of the data I exhibited no critical thinking, then you might have a leg to stand on. As of now, you have your opinion and I have mine, and a difference in opinion doesn’t automatically equal a lack of critical thinking skills.

  45. karmanot says:

    True, but sometimes hearsay is admitted as evidence in a civil trial and god only knows that these threads are often a civil trial.

  46. karmanot says:

    They don’t have a government.

  47. karmanot says:

    Trope is my favorite color!

  48. karmanot says:

    :)

  49. lbmiel says:

    I’m baffled how you could conclude I like violence based on anything I have said. What is it that makes you think that?

  50. lbmiel says:

    I have no idea why you mention political party, people from all different political parties own guns.

  51. lbmiel says:

    Criminals with guns kill people, too. That’s the point of all this. People own guns because they like them, they feel safer with one, or maybe target or sport shooting, or maybe they collect antique guns. Also, I’m a woman and I don’t own a gun, have never held or shot one. However, I know that just because someone owns a gun doesn’t mean they are nuts. One person being irresponsible with a gun doesn’t mean all gun owners are like that.

  52. lbmiel says:

    Here in this country we don’t arrest people without probable cause, we hold trials where people are presumed innocent until they are convicted by a jury. People are free to do what is within the law until they commit an act. We don’t punish or penalize people based on ‘what ifs’ or ‘could happen’ or prohibit people based on what others have done. What greatly concerns me is when people believe they have the authority to decide for others what can and can’t be owned based on the actions of a few. Also when they stigmatize an object, deem it to be bad or evil, because a person chose to use it that way. The outcry from gun owners is because they understand what so many fail to – the person is responsible, not what he used. You think people are safer when there are gun bans? They’re not.

  53. lbmiel says:

    Terrorists and conspiracy theories???? No idea why you mention them. Gun owners don’t have guns because of terrorists or conspiracy theories. People own and carry guns because of criminals or just because they want to. Your reasoning isn’t making much sense.

  54. lbmiel says:

    I agree, government should take unsafe drivers off the road. Government doesn’t take away a driver’s license until you have committed a driving offense. Guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed or not competent people. For government to be able to do this the person has to have a record, they have to already have broken the law. There needs to be evidence that someone isn’t mentally competent, you can’t tell just by looking at them (well some you might be able to,lol). Semi-automatics are rifles and ordinary handguns. They are used for sport/target shooting, hunting, and for self defense. When a crime is committed, the person is held responsible, not what was used. Violence will not be reduced until the cause is addressed. Banning guns, besides being wrong and ineffective, gives people a false sense of security. People think banning the gun fixed it so nothing is done about why people hurt others.

  55. lbmiel says:

    Hi Tux, the U.S. has the highest gun ownership in the world – 89 guns/100 people. We aren’t the worst country in terms of gun murders. The U.S. has a gun murder rate of 3/100,000 that is very far down the list. We are 5th in terms of the number of gun homicides 9,146. We should definitely be working to reduce that number. Gun bans are not how to do it. Getting rid of guns only causes a criminal to choose another weapon. Addressing the reasons people hurt each other and fixing those is what will help.

    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/us-heads-toward-gun-control-debate/123

    Would you agree that Great Britain is a good example to use to compare to the U.S.? I know a lot of people use them as an example. Some people believe that getting rid of guns will get rid of violence. It does greatly reduce gun violence (doesn’t get rid of it because criminals will still have guns) but not total violence.

    Here are some interesting statistics. This story is from 2009 so I’m sure the numbers have changed some. This shows what is going on in Britain. Their violent crime rate is astronomical, a gun ban did nothing to stop violence.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

    In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677. The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: ‘This is a damning indictment of this government’s comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.
    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2IfB5j61A

    The idea I’m trying to get across is that it’s not the tool we need to regulate, we need to help people.

  56. lbmiel says:

    Hi nicho, I don’t know of any place where you can walk in and buy a bomb. However, materials used to make something explode are available for anyone to buy. Also, gas tanks, propane tanks, propane heaters can explode. They have instructions for people to follow so the chance of exploding is reduced, but they aren’t banned – they are useful tools. If someone does use them to commit a crime, the person is held responsible not the tool. The point I’m making is that many items are dangerous in the wrong hands. When people use these tools to commit crimes the person is held responsible, not the tool used. Wanting to ban specific firearms and limiting magazine quantities blames the tool and not the people who misuse them. It also punishes people who haven’t broken the law in any way. Bans also don’t address the reason people do this. That is what needs to be done.

  57. lbmiel says:

    Finally found it, took me awhile. This information is contained in an article on the HawaiiReporter.
    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/us-heads-toward-gun-control-debate/123

    The statistics in the story are from the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC). The online article sites the source of their information as being from the UNODC and Small Arms Survey of 2010. Here is the link to the UNDOC page titled UNDOC Homicide Statistics http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html On this page is a link to homicides by firearm. I would include the link to that but it is a microsoft excel worksheet.

    A look at how the U.S. ranks in comparison to the rest of world when it comes guns and gun violence.

    The U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate in the world.

    GUN OWNERSHIP PER 100 PEOPLE

    1. United States – 89

    2. Yemen – 55

    3. Switzerland – 46

    4. Finland – 45

    5. Serbia – 38

    ——————————————–

    Despite the high number of guns, because of its large population, the U.S. does not have the worst firearms murder rate.

    GUN MURDERS PER 100,000 PEOPLE

    1. Honduras – 69

    2. El Salvador – 40

    3. Jamaica – 39

    4 Venezuela – 39

    5. Guatemala – 35

    The United States ranks 28th, with a rate of 3 per 100,000 people

    —————————————–

    *The U.S. is one of the leading countries in the number of deaths attributed to guns.

    NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED BY FIREARMS IN 2010

    1. Brazil – 34,678

    2. Colombia – 12,539

    3. Mexico – 11,309

    4. Venezuela – 11,115

    5. United States – 9,146

    Source: UNODC & Small arms survey of 2010

  58. Actually, yes. All you have to know is what the various types of weapons are intended for and what they can do (disclaimer: I am a former owner of revolvers, pistols, rifles, and a shotgun, so I’m not totally an amateur).

    You don’t have to know a carbeuretor from a fuel injector or whether your SUV’s locking differential uses a viscous coupling unit or a multi-plate clutch to account for slippage on turns in order to know what types of cars are intended for what usage and understand the difference between safe driving and dangerous driving.

    I wonder just how educated YOU are on the subject of guns. You can, no doubt, grasp the concept of a decocker and the differences among various types of cartridges, but just how deep does your knowledge go?

    When I was shooting, I got interested in the physics of ballistics. For example, to calculate the Kinetic Energy (KE) of a bullet when it leaves the muzzle, the simple formula is

    (KE) – 1/2 MV² (I’m not sure the superscript 2 will show on all fonts, but it is the “squared” sign).

    where KE is kinetic energy, M is mass in pounds, and V² is the square of the velocity in fps.

    So, given that drag is difficult to measure, to calculate the Kinetic Energy when the bullet hits its target, what do they use instead? It’s a simple formula to derive it – do you know it?

  59. It wasn’t ad hominem abusive, because I wasn’t attacking you, just your lack of knowledge about a subject of which you apparently know nothing. The acknowledgement that global warming is real is NOT a proactive judgement based on anecdotal evidence (although the global-warming denial movement tends to be). As for theory vs fact I just posted a lengthy explanation about the Fallacy of Equivocation in which you use a non-scientific definition of “theory” which is VERY different from the meaning of the word in scientific discussions. In science, a “hypothesis” (what you think of as a theory) doesn’t get accepted as a “theory” until a mountain of facts support it and none falsifies it. So, enough facts = theory in science.

    As for talking about your liberal use of logical fallacies and your complete ignorance of real science and the scientific method, you show it by not even distinguishing between “theory as opinion” and “theory as a scientitic explanation that accounts for ALL of the known facts (and there have to be a truly significant number of facts before scientists accept it as a valid theory). That is the Logical Fallacy of Equivocation.

    It ain’t ad hominem if it is true…sigh, what has become of education in the last 40 years? I started to learn critical thinking and logical fallacies in high school English and Debating classes and continued to study critical thinking and the Scientific Method all through High School, College, and Graduate School.

    You are making an argument that is nothing more than an uninformed opinion when you falsely accuse the community of Climatologists are doing the same. If you read a couple dozen books BY Climatologists and followed the papers in the journals, methinks you would not be so cocksure.

    “Every man takes the limits of his own vision as the limits of the world.”
    — Arthur Schopenhauer

    I would kindly suggest that you make an honest attempt to stretch the limits of your vision before judging the rest of the world. Study, study, study…

  60. There are two diametrically opposed definitions for the word “theory.” In the non-scientific world, theory is usually used to express an opinion, as in “Since every time I’ve passed a burning building, I’ve seen all these red trucks pouring some sort of liquid into the building. It is my theory that these red trucks go around burning buildings down.” Incidentally, that is a classic logical fallacy assuming the wrong causation from the correlation. It is usually referred to as “Confusing Cause And Effect.”

    In science, the word “hypothesis” is used to refer to an unproven guess based on some observations and data. Once the data and experimentation (the “facts”) are in overwhelming agreement, then the hypothesis is acknowledged to be a “theory.” As in “the theory of special relativity,” “the theory of electro-magnetic force,” “the theory of quantum mechanics,” “the theory of evolution,” or “THE THEORY OF GOLBAL WARMING.” In science, it only becomes a “theory” when it rests on a mountain of facts and all attempts to make new predictions based on the theory are accurate, and all attempts to falsify the theory are failures.

    You are falling prey to a common logical fallacy called “Equivocation,” where a word can have more than one meaning and you are using the inappropriate meaning. It is one of several “Fallacies of Ambiguity.” People ignorant of the Scientific Method use this fallacy over and over to try to discredit or belittle conclusions (theories) based on massive bases of facts.

    An amusing example of the Equivocation Fallacy:

    “But, Your Honor, I don’t deserve this parking ticket. The sign said “Fine for Parking,” so I thought it was a good place to park.”

    Expressed as a syllogism, an example of the Equivocation might be:

    Major premise: A plane is a woodworker’s tool.
    Minor premise: Boeing builds planes.
    Conclusion: Boeing builds woodworker’s tools.

    Your ignorance of the scientific definition of “theory” reveals an all-encompassing lack of knowledge of even the basics of critical thinking, particularly as it pertains to applying the “Scientific Method.”

  61. It would be hilarious if I wasn’t so convinced the individual is serious…rofl

  62. Graham Boyken says:

    JCPenney or mall security should have asked this guy to leave. He is afforded the right to carry a firearm anywhere in Utah, apparently, which is fine with me. Same here in VT (openly or concealed, no regulation). But there is no need to have a 2 guns that combined probably carried 42 rounds of ammo to buy some underwear in a JCPenney store (ok i have no idea what he was doing there other than making a statement, but who really knows)Stores and malls aren’t public property and reserve the right not to allow guns

    I wouldn’t take the fact that he was allowed to stay in the store for so long as an implication of tacit allowance and acceptance of his rights to express himself and carry in accordance with Utah law… But it’s rather more likely that no one wanted to approach the big dude with two guns strapped to himself and ask him what he was doing with two guns in a department store…

  63. You can intentionally blur the lines here all you want, but this discussion is addressing a specific individual’s assertion that the difference in opinion on gun control equals delusional thinking.

    Can rational and logical arguments be used to support a delusional conclusion? Yes. Is that the case in this discussion? No.

    I really wish you would contribute something to the discussion rather than being intentionally evasive in relation to the discussion at hand.

  64. samizdat asserted that AdonisArmor was delusional. The assertion was based purely on the existence of a difference of opinion and not based on any sort of clinically relevant standards in relation to delusional thinking. Thus, the difference to learn, as already stated, is between delusional thinking and difference of opinion.

    I rarely see a person that is debating from the ‘right’ claim that a person from the ‘left’ is delusional simply because of a difference of opinion. I do frequently see the opposite though. In this case, it is clear that instead of making a relevant argument, samizdat just pulled from the one-liner playbook. Either samizdat is intentionally obtuse or doesn’t know that a difference in opinion does not equal delusional thinking.

    Do you honestly think AdonisArmor’s comment was delusional? I would be willing to bet you don’t see it as delusional. I would be willing to bet that no medical professional would say it was delusional. Therefore your response pointing out that there can be a difference of opinion concerning a delusion was intentionally argumentative and irrelevant to the current discussion.

  65. Sadly, you already know that nobody is going to actually demonstrate anything. They will just say you are wrong over and over without any sort of relevant talking points. It seems that is the case when debating with the ‘left’ in my experience. I make 20 points and they blanket deny all points without any sort of logic or supporting evidence.

  66. I a pretty sure ‘facts cannot be refuted’ was the exact stance I took on the matter. The so-called ‘facts’ of global warming can and have been refuted. Let’s be clear here. I do not refute most of the data as being factual, I refute the conclusions of that data as being a known.

    The conclusions of the data are continuously changing. The timeline of global warming is constantly changing. The ‘too much damage has been done there is no going back’ line in relation to the damages caused by contributing factors keeps changing.

    I am not refuting there are consequences, just that the relevant data and the interpretation of that data is theory and not fact. I really don’t know how to be more clear than that.

  67. Dano2 says:

    Please. The ‘fire in a theater’ is what all sane people use as an example of we are not completely free and have responsibilities to others.

    You are trying too hard. Many people don’t need to have hee-rows walking around ready to save us at the drop of a cowboy hat, and don’t want to have anything to do with people who need to be armed. Its comical, really, when it isn’t sad.

    Best,

    D

  68. AdonisArmor says:

    The old, tired “fire in a theater”. Was wondering when this would make it’s appearance. Well, allow me my usual retort. Yelling “fire” in a theater implies deception, in that, I know that there is no fire. When I wear my gun openly, I am not intending to decieve you nor am I intending to panic you. In fact, I want as little to do with you as possible. Not to mention that it is fully appropriate to yell fire in a theater that is, in fact, on fire.

  69. AdonisArmor says:

    The rational argument being…what? Your tired tropes that have been disproven time and time again? Or perhaps your outright lies and bloated statistics that have been disproven time and time again?

    “We determined, we were right”…what are you? Borg? Ah, yes, it seems you’re managed to surmise very little on your own your entire life. Borg seems appropriate.

    Before you even start, let’s get your weak ad hominem assumptions out of the way. I don’t belong to the NRA. I’m anti-war. I’m pro gay rights. I’m nice in person. I’m not overweight, nor a redneck. I don’t watch Fox News.

  70. Well I try to afford other people’s incomplete logic some sort of thought on my end. As we all know, writing can be a very difficult medium to debate with. Not to mention that these are intended to be short responses (as short as they can be made) which leaves some things lost in translation.

    There are many causes I take up and debate about. A lot of the time I intentionally leave thoughts incomplete to test the individual I am debating. For instance, not a single person has actually refuted my ‘assault rifles account for less than 5% of shootings statistic’ that I have used in multiple different responses here on this page. Perhaps I was close enough with my estimate, but that statistic is an educated guess on my part based on the number crunching in my head. Yet I am the one to state the statistic is not wholly accurate without anyone actually confronting me.

    This shows that people are not willing to do research on the matter of their own. And to those that have not done any research or fact checking, I submit to you it is time you do and that you hold off on full support to either side until a time in which you educate yourself. Both sides may stretch the truth, but only 1 side of this specific debate actually benefits from inflating the statistics.

    Here is an example of an inflated statistic that is being used by politicians of the Democrat persuasion: 181 major school shootings have happened since the Columbine shooting. Let’s break that down:

    The statistic comes from the Brady Campaign. Of the 181 major shootings on that list, 16 of them did not happen on or around school grounds. 12 of ‘shootings’ in fact were not even shootings at all. 60 of the ‘major shootings’ involved 1 person being shot.

    The real number of ‘major school shootings’ since Columbine, based on the definition of major school shooting being more than 1 person being shot and injured or killed (2+ victims), is 62. The real number is 62, but the politicians and anti-gun agenda crew reports 181.

    There is a significant difference between the truth and the number being used. Regardless of the opinion on whether 62 is still too many shootings, don’t you think that you deserve better than a statistic that gives you triple the truth? If you would like generic numbers, Columbine happened in 1999. 13 years, 62 major shootings, 100k schools in the nation. The real numbers are quite less alarming than the ones used in the media.

    So in the end, it would seem strange that a person that seems at least relatively sane, regardless of whether you agree with my opinion on the matter, would fight so hard to keep such small changes from being made to the 2nd Amendment.

    The reason I am willing to fight is because the decision appears to be based on misrepresentation of the facts and the unwillingness to even attempt to gain the smallest amount of education on the matter. I am all for educated decision making, regardless of whether a person sides with me, but not for fear induced decision making based on misrepresentation of the facts.

  71. AdonisArmor says:

    …really. In the absence of evidence to the contrary. And the only evidence that you guys have supplied is that you are a somewhat nice, but horrifyingly misled group of people.

  72. AdonisArmor says:

    Well, get to demonstrating then. Somalia has some pretty strict gun laws, they just aren’t enforced.

  73. AdonisArmor says:

    A threat to debate people..oooh. I wish you well in real life, as well. Your ideas as espoused on here are just backwards and wrong, and I want to help you understand.

  74. I actually just contacted my niece and have a time set up next week for her to teach me how to roll my eyes like a 13-year-old girl. Should be fun times! :)

  75. It is an Xmas miracle folks! Karmanot and myself agreed on something!!! ;)

  76. The same could be said about accidental ANYTHING. Most accidents happen as a result of some sort of negligence. You can’t refute that and your point has no bearing.

  77. Yet nobody has shown me that I am wrong in stating theory is not necessarily fact. How dare I ask that people not misrepresent theory as fact. I should be flogged for being so insane as to request people make their case with accurate portrayals of the data they wish to use.

  78. So let me understand your stance. While theory is indeed considered to be less than fact, I am ignorant for stating that I disagree with the portrayal of theory as fact. Apparently the truth makes me ignorant and your denial of the truth makes you not?

  79. Jafafa Hots says:

    She never has to worry about scary brown-skinned armed intruders now.

  80. Jafafa Hots says:

    A simplistic argument is better than a demonstrably fallacious one.

  81. FLL says:

    Ok, you tell me if I’m being too critical. Watch the video and take note at the :50 mark and the 1:42 mark; what is most pronounced is not the “big muscles” that 2patricius2 notices, but the large pot belly that hangs over his belt.

    History Note: The Celtic culture of ancient Gaul—both among warriors and civilians—was marked by exuberant homoeroticism, as was noted by many Roman writers and historians of ancient times. Did you know that in ancient Gaul, if a young man’s belly hung over his belt, he was punished? (He was probably punished until he got with the program and worked off the pot belly.)

    I know I’ve asked this before. What would you do without me to add some sunshine to your day?

  82. Jafafa Hots says:

    Fear of the unknown.

    I never carry a gun, I live in one of the top ten most violent cities in the country, and have NEVER felt the fear or need to carry a gun.

    Never.

    A tin-foil hat is the same kind of insurance. I’ll sell you one.

  83. Jafafa Hots says:

    Effectiveness for shopping at JC Penney?

    I’d say ALL are pretty ineffective and stupid to be carrying.

  84. Jafafa Hots says:

    We tried the rational argument, you people don’t listen to them.
    We determined then that simple insults and shaming might get through.

    We were right. You do respond to that. And you’re scared.
    That’s why all of the “brave defenders of freedom” are in a gun-buying panic now. Because that’s what brave people do.

    Panic.

  85. Jafafa Hots says:

    Well if there is a mass killer, this guy is getting shot first, and he looks like his corpse would be big enough to hide behind.

  86. Jafafa Hots says:

    Is Utah a “stand your ground state?” Because if it is, and seeing him make you feel threatened, you can kill him.

    Right wing logic is confusing, isn’t it?

  87. mike31c says:

    Your statement of “I have a small penis and an even smaller brain” is not much of a statement :p

  88. karmanot says:

    I can just see her blasting away that chocolate Easter bunny that broke into her living room. Poor thing.

  89. Jafafa Hots says:

    Accidental gunshots do not happen.
    Gunshots resulting from gunowner negligence are what these “accidents” are.

  90. Jafafa Hots says:

    You sound just as ignorant as a creationist.
    Please look up the SCIENTIFIC definition of “theory.”
    It does NOT mean “unsupported, wild-assed guess.”