Then you must have been either piss poor farmers or had a piss poor farm just like all my ancestors did. They were ranchers and ate a lot of deer and antelope as well because they were always broke because they always got really busy on Sundays and at sundown. They were also the absolute exception within a 50 mile radius I can assure you of that.

They ate deer while all their neighbors would shoot them and leave them for coyote bait.

But you do realize don't you that this whole conversation evolved from the mythological belief that real working cowboys carried guns when they worked. That's just a cherished and romantic notion that never was.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Did you pack your six gun with you everyday down on the farm? Carry a rifle with you everywhere you went? Ride horse back with a rifle in a scabbard and a hand gun on your hip?

 

Man you sure have reading comprehension problems don't you KYDave?

First, I'm the one who said that the gun totting cowboy was mostly just a myth. Some idiot tried to tell me that wasn't true because ranchers and farmers had to hunt game to eat.

I then pointed out it was pretty stupid and culturally very rare for people who raised beef, pork and mutton to eat wild game instead of what they raised

Then you come along with this statement (which is now highly suspect since you now claim you only held a gun once on the job at the farm).

And then I was the one who predicted you must have been poor farmers or had a very poor farm if you ate deer. Which you now come full circle and admit after being lost every step of the way.

I swear you just crack me up with the things you're willing to put in writing.:excited:

 

totally not reading every post...but to me its simple...you should be allowed to have gun's, until you prove you dont deserve that right, and when you do if you commit a crime using said gun, you should automatically get a very severe penalty, additionally so you cant argue "well what if someone steals it" in that case you are considered accessory and given a reduced penalty than the actual offender...i think this would severely limit:

1. Who wants to actually own a gun (those who do would know the risks and would most likely be much more protective of their guns)

2. Gun crimes, because if say armed robbery with a gun is an automatic 15 year sentence no chance of parole (and thats just if nobody is hurt) well then i have a feeling a lot less people would risk it

 

lol...i doubt youd like me as president...though id have one hell of a time

EDIT: though i still stand by my gun rights comments i think thatd be a good philosophy to make people responsible for what happens with them whether you used it or someone else

 

lol no not quite in that way, but in the...Rainbow Six/ Swordfish (movie) method of be a good country but if someone fucks with you, you deal with it fast and sure

 

Actually crime has been declining or steady for the past decade at least but might be getting worse with the economy.

However, its not gun crimes I see increasing and not what has got me the most concerned. What I see increasing around me is gun carelessness and a total lack of responsibility.

Right on this thread there's the incident of a high school student taking a gun to school in his back pack. He dropped the back pack the gun goes off and two students are accidentally shot.

About the same week a loaded pistol falls out of a first graders pocket at school.

And about a week or so later some fool accidentally discharges a fire arm at a gun show for Christ's sake and accidentally shoots another couple of people.

I don't think that's acceptable and I don't think our society is going to put up with it for very long before they really crack down on gun owners. And if they do it will be gun owners own fault because we gun owners failed to meet the safety standards and responsibilities of owning guns.

 

Every day there are thousands of accidents, automobile, aircraft, on-the-job, falls, DIY cuts, etc. We can never erase stupid, we can never control all aspects of life to eliminate accidents.

What we can do is to stop excusing accidental injury to innocent bystanders, a guy who runs into a crowd with his pick up truck, should be charged with a violation of vehicle laws and be held responsible.

The guy who carelessly allows his firearm to fall into the wrong hands, should likewise be charged and held accountable. One thing is very clear to me, the number of citizen owned firearms in the US is in the hundreds of millions, the number involved in accidental shootings is a remarkably low percentage of them.

The whole argument is blown way out of proportion by the press and by gullible do-gooders.

 

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

 

If you really look at that chart it shows that all accidental gunshot deaths are at a rate of less the 0.25/100,000 people. That is 25/100th of one percent, do you think that that is significant? The accidental death rate for automobiles is over 11.0/100,000 or 44 times more than by gunshot.

There are .5 privately owned guns for every privately owned vehicle, vehicle are therefore 22 times more dangerous than guns.

 

I thought your speed limit was 55 mph.
In Canada, 25? years ago we too had the 70mph speed limit, 60 for trucks.

 

I'm pretty sure the fallacies of your rather ridiculous argument that automobiles are more dangerous than guns because more people are injured accidentally by them are self evident but I don't mind pointing them out.

What makes your argument senseless is that vehicles are absolutely essential in this country. We cannot really move our goods and ourselves without them. So vehicles are not only necessary for our everyday existence the family cars are used almost every day. That really drives up the odds and probability of an accident.

On the other hand guns are not essential to our everyday life. In fact if all guns were to suddenly disappear that would not effect our daily lives at all because then even the criminals wouldn't have guns.

And while cars and trucks are used everyday the guns we do have are rarely used and in fact spend most the sitting idle someplace until some kid comes along and finds it.

I think that's obvious because I bet you can't find hardly anyone who wants to restrict or ban automobiles but lots of people are beginning to call for restrictions and bans on guns.

I also find your argument just simply laughable when we consider everything a person has to do to own and drive a car when we require virtually nothing for a person to own and operate a gun. Just laughable.

 

I don't know KY but tell you what why don't you find out by trying to drive 140 mph on a US "freeway" or highway and see how well it works out for ya.

Because I think cars that go 140 mph in a country that has highways that won't even tolerate that speed are like guys who buy great big guns.

Both of them are actually a psychological extension of their dick and a sure sign they don't know how to use their real one.

 

LOL it takes nothing to own and operate a car...just some money and 2 pieces of mail to get a license and thats assuming you are going to bother with a license...oh and dont forget the fact that i have stood at a dmv while an old person was taking the vision test to check your peripheral vision (flashing lights on both sides of the head you tell them which side its on) person kept saying left the tester kept asking them are you SURE, person said yeah left...tester asked again are you SURE its on the left...so the person said uh right...and they gave that person a license