http://www.cbc.ca/...08/09/us-crotch-shot.html

xD

who actually carries their gun in a waistband anyways?

hip or armpit holsters with trigger guards ftw. or just get a glock with the trigger safety

Or just don't carry a gun.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

i have carried a gun with me for 4 years without incident, and im sure there are many that have for much much longer.

that gun didnt shoot that guys fluff off, that idiot shot his own fluff off when he mishandled a gun.

thats like saying we cant use table saws anymore because idiots cut their fingers off.

I was simply proposing another potential solution.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

/me buys Foog a table saw

if he shot himself in the fluff that means he was carrying the gun in the front of his waist. only retards and wanna be thug lyfe homos carry a gun in that spot.

i carry a pistol in my best unholstered all the time and ive never had an issue, i can even run with it like that and it doesnt move.

It wasn't his gun, it was his girlfriend's gun. I am guessing there wasn't a holster because she normally carries it in her purse.

yep

I couldn't figure out what you meant so I fixed it for you as best I could

Gotta happen to someone.. Wonder if vincent or jules had this problem..

http://www.collegehumor.com/...oots-himself-in-the-penis

Guns aren't evil, it's the people who have them.

Some people are too freaking stupid/careless to own a gun.

ND radical vasectomy FTW!

(what a tard, probably could not be trusted with a butter knife)

I have carried CCW for several years and the closest I have ever come to tragedy is a sweaty hip.

Gee, do they not teach basic firearms safety nowadays?

http://www.darwinawards.com/

not sure what happened there either, l is pretty far from s lol. i guess your version is more practical :P

what y'all need guns for? i kinda like them, but never really could find a reason to spend money on one since the cops usually carry them around for me.

right, because even a stellar response time of 3 minutes for the police helps you in no way in a situation that would require you to have a gun.

that and i doubt your assailant would allow you to call timeout and call the cops. you continue to amaze me with your blatant stupidity.


of the 7 guns that i own, 4 are for hunting, 1 is for fun, and 2 are for defense.

you're confused. it's that i'll always know where to go find a gun when i need one. my assailant? who'd be done enough to try it? how many guns would they need to bring? how many other gang members? pffft. not really wise to make me angry, you wouldn't like me when i'm angry.

oh, and if you're going to pursue the route that police are ineffectual, give me my tax money back and can their unionized asses. then i'll have to go buy a gun. or a decent katana.

Only a idiot with little to no training ( not to mention lack of brains ) carries a gun in fashion. safety first, guns are not evil, people are evil... or in this case stupid

I own a gun because I think it's a good idea to be prepared for the unexpected.

I own lots of guns because I like making Canadians nervous . . .

Saying you have a gun for defence is just stupid.

You have a gun because, on some level, you think it's neat.

I know this because the odds of you ever requiring a gun for defence are extremely remote -- and guns are not unique in their potential to save your life when faced with extremely unlikely circumstances.

There are thousands of items which may, under some remote circumstance, save your life. Yet you do not choose to purchase them or carry them with you. A year's supply of canned goods, scuba gear... what-have-you. There is literally no item which has such a high cost, is of so little utility and yet is owned by so many people.

I wouldn't be surprised if we could come up with a hundred items that are as or less expensive than a gun, but statistically more likely to save your life if carried with you as often as the average owner carries their gun.

Having said that, I actually don't have anything against gun ownership. I think guns are neat too. I've enjoyed the time I've spent on ranges and generally liked the people I've met there. Within the next couple years, I plan to get my gun licence and purchase a hand-gun. I'll never carry it though, it will be kept in a locked case in my house, and it will stay in that locked case until I get to the range whenever I go.

It's not actually that I don't think responsible people shouldn't have guns (though I tend to support stronger gun controls). I just think that the "I need it for defence" argument is paranoid and ill-founded.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

foogl thats a valid arguement, most people will never need the gun they are carrying. i dont carry it cause i feel cool, hell 90% of the time i dont even think about having it its just a routine everyday i grab my wallet, keys, phone, gun. but the fact remains id rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it. would you not agree thats a fair statement?

US annual Scuba fatalities - 90
US annual Starvation fatalities - 2500
US annual Homicide fatalities - 18,000

I wear my seatbelt, I don't climb unsecured ladders, my tractor has a roll-bar, I don't swim after eating or drinking, and I tend to work long hours in some very high crime areas, usually alone. If they made a seatbelt for that- I'd wear it, they don't so I carry.

Foog, you say some of the smartest most insightful things on these boards, but this time you are just trolling.

Three lessons:

1. Better for your girlfriend to put your gun in her pants than for have it shoot off in your pants

2. If your girlfriend has a gun... be careful where you put the thing... not that there's anything wrong with that....

3. Always practice safe gun handling

And in response to Foog I will cite CBS news:

"Gunpoint confrontations in which armed private citizens turn the tables on violent criminals occur with explosive swiftness hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times each day in the United States. This guerrilla shooting war is almost invisible to the public, experts say, because combatants on both sides have qualms about publicity. While public debate focuses on the danger of citizens defending themselves, the media tend to ignore foiled crimes as unnewsworthy."

http://findarticles.com/...571/is_22_15/ai_54882056/

I'm not actually trolling archaic. I actually agree with what I'm saying and am not simply saying it to upset anyone. I definitely chose to post when I could have chosen not to -- but that's true of everyone in this thread, right?

I will confess to this though. The argument I just gave was new to me in this thread. It wasn't something I'd thought of before, or read elsewhere. I assume it's not actually original, because it seems obvious now, but I don't actually know.

For that reason, this forum is serving me how it always does. I post to refine ideas and arguments. Maybe there's a better way of making that case. Perhaps the better way to make the point is that you carry a gun but not a vest -- when both are a potential (but neither is a certain) defence against the same threat.

Or maybe I just need to go look up better death statistics, so I can give examples where the numbers are more comparable. I haven't done that for this argument yet -- though I would argue that your stat for scuba deaths is irrelevant, since they already had scuba gear. It's drowning deaths (of which I believe the number is in the 3000s annually) which is the rightful comparison, since those are the people who might have been saved by scuba gear... or a life jacket.

Gary, I didn't have time to read the entire article yet (I will in the next couple days), but the range of numbers given in the second paragraph offer a variance of over 3500% without giving any citation. That looks like a clear indicator of a guess to me.

If the numbers are factual, they certainly have a place in this discussion. But it's hard for me to take numbers like that seriously.

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge that I'm very much a product of my environment on this issue. I live in Canada, where practically no one carries a gun. I know that impacts my outlook on this. But I still think that, for a majority of gun owners (if not all), the "neat" factor is the reason they carry a gun and the "self-defence" factor is the justification or excuse given to others.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

The firearm owners I know by and large own their firearms for self-protection or hunting. When you go to their homes you don't see them displaying every gun to you. It's not like they're hanging on the wall. If anything, you would probably guess half of them don't own guns.

The neat argument may be more adequate for something such as the type and model of a car you buy. Do you really need lights underneath the undercarriage or 0-60 in 4 seconds? You can take this point to many things in life. Sure some firearm owners have the neat factor (more collectors than others), but I think most genuinely have them for other purposes.

Guns are NOT Evil, they just are.

Q. If you take the gun away from a murderer, what do you have left?

Ans. A murderer, who will just have to find another way.

Guns are only as evil as the people who wield them.

Society in the US doesn't have a gun problem, it has a people problem.

Oh, and by the way, he did us all a fovor by shooting his fluff off. He removed himself from the gene pool.

One more moron bites the dust. :) Yipppeeee!

haha good point cerb.

*TRoll comment here*

Fooglmog, it is refreshing to see such an open and intelligent post here!

Yes, the numbers for self-defense are all guesses -- there is no reliable statistic being collected. With many instances never even being reported. That is why I cited CBS News -- a decidedly liberal source with a general anti-gun bias. I could get into the NRA database and find lots of specific numbers. There was one actual study done by a rather large sample size survey where the authors started with a hypothesis to prove the danger of personal gun ownership and instead discovered a rather large number of self-defense uses. While I found the methodology pretty fair it is reflexively rejected by mainstream media - like CBS News. So I went with CBS to avoid the controversy of the source and highlight the reality that a lot of people really do use personal firearms for self-defense.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I know its cliche, but its the truth. Guns are not evil, or violent, they are objects. you are trying to personify a non-living object. If you take all the guns away from average citizens, you'll just have an unarmed populous unable to defend itself from the violent criminals that will still be able to obtain firearms illegally, as they already do. That's not to even mention the unlikely, but possible chance of an attack on our country, or the possibility of anarchy, which would leave our population thoroughly unable to defend itself.