I have a gun problem... need suggestions

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Oh, and another thing...

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

I'm posting the link instead of embedding because the video contains the f bomb.

[mrjamwin]

Oh, and another thing...

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

I'm posting the link instead of embedding because the video contains the f bomb.

So true, So true! Thanks MD for posting that.

[[m'kay]]

People that 'know' you have guns in the house, likely won't attempt to enter without permission. Dogs are also a great front line deterrent and is the best house alarm there is, as burglars are acutely aware that Dogs will not hesitate to defend a family and can hear a cat fart 2 blocks away. However, burglars usually case homes to see when/where the best time to strike is. Others, especially drug users, don't think about where to strike beforehand very much, then there's others who will rape defenseless women in the process of the burglary. Hmmm...shoot the burglar in the head, or go thru life as a woman forever emotionally damaged knowing you were sexually assaulted because you could not defend yourself....Seems easy...I'd pick blow the [m'kay] head off!

So, how is life in Liberty City these days?

[Darth Crater]

My point is that, any published "study" is, indeed, biased. Theres an agenda of the people doing the study; there is a conclusion they want to draw before they start. A hypothesis they have which they want to prove. It goes both ways- I wouldnt be quick to swallow any "studies" from the NRA either.
This isnt laboratory science where x is x and y is y. The people conducting the research are picking and choosing what data they use and where they get it from.

So, do you have any reasoning for assuming this particular study is biased, other than assuming that since it doesn't support your position it must somehow have been deliberately falsified?

[mrjamwin]

My point is that, any published "study" is, indeed, biased. Theres an agenda of the people doing the study; there is a conclusion they want to draw before they start. A hypothesis they have which they want to prove. It goes both ways- I wouldnt be quick to swallow any "studies" from the NRA either.
This isnt laboratory science where x is x and y is y. The people conducting the research are picking and choosing what data they use and where they get it from.

So, do you have any reasoning for assuming this particular study is biased, other than assuming that since it doesn't support your position it must somehow have been deliberately falsified?

Really Crater? The answer to your own question is right there.

[NiteRunner81]

Since I've solved my own problem feel free to open this topic up as the debate topic that Hermit wanted... Just play fair.. Please no gunwaving (or dickwaving.. or wait.. thats the same thing. )....

Haas is 100% right about objectivity and bias's of gun studies...

If a group (the NRA, or anti-NRA, ???) SPONSOR (Pay for) a study, there is automatically the bias of being paid to complete the study. More often the NRA surveys their own members for things which is automatically a breach of objectivity. A more accurate approach to subjects like this and studying them would be to do a gun census of everyone in the country.... even if you were to do this study in Tillamook County, OR you're bias cause Tillamook County Oregon has a high rate of hunters in the county.

[haasd0gg]

My point is that, any published "study" is, indeed, biased. Theres an agenda of the people doing the study; there is a conclusion they want to draw before they start. A hypothesis they have which they want to prove. It goes both ways- I wouldnt be quick to swallow any "studies" from the NRA either.
This isnt laboratory science where x is x and y is y. The people conducting the research are picking and choosing what data they use and where they get it from.

So, do you have any reasoning for assuming this particular study is biased, other than assuming that since it doesn't support your position it must somehow have been deliberately falsified?

I can't reiterate it again. Honestly, my 2 year old has better comprehension.

[Darth Crater]

I'm done trying to figure out what pre-Renaissance moon logic you operate under where people somehow always find what they like and like what they find. Go ahead, put your family at risk. It's become clear I am incapable of saving anyone here.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

I'm done trying to figure out what pre-Renaissance moon logic you operate under where people somehow always find what they like and like what they find. Go ahead, put your family at risk. It's become clear I am incapable of saving anyone here.

You really need to get out and experience the world dude. No offense.

[CommanderOtto]

I don't understand why people can own so many guns. Like, why are normal people allowed to have an arsenal at home? Why won't one revolver do to defend your house? No, people think it's a good idea to have automatic weapons, like the ones used in a war and keep them in their homes.

then we have maniacs who buy these weapons and use them in schools. I feel outraged at the mom of the kid from the connecticut massacre. Not only did she give him access to 5 weapons (which is a total and complete exaggeration) but she also took him to the gun range at a young age. You don't give guns to kids!! It's incredible how normal citizens have war-like weapons at home, sometimes better than those used by the police. I feel so sad for those kids at that school... if only this would never happen again. And what about the a-hole from the cinema shooting in the batman movie? The guy even had tear gas. Why are people allowed to buy tear gas? Only the military or police officers should be allowed to buy those type of things. So, at least if no one is going to ban guns, at least add control to limit the type of weapons that are being sold out there. No one should have or be able to have grenades or automatic weapons... Arsenals are only for the government.