Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.

Wrong, convicts are not allowed to legally have weapons. But they do.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Melissia wrote:DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.

Probably because there are more people you would want to shoot there

Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.But that would be expensive so, yeah.

Almost every state does have increased mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. That doesn't seem to help, making your point invalid. Look stuff up before you make statements like that.

SilverMK2 wrote:

d-usa wrote:Did you read our constitution?

I was just pointing out that it is physically possible, which seemed to be the main stumbling block for people in this discussion.

And to the person saying that criminals don't hand back guns - congratulations, you win the obvious prize But it does make it a lot easier to see who is a criminal... anyone with a gun

I am sure that the law abiding citizen who had no means of defending himself is glad that his bullet holes made identifying the criminals easier.

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:If you take away guns, gun crime doesn't happen.

Why would criminals turn their guns in?

THEY'RE CRIMINALS.

They don't. Impose a mandatory prison sentance on gun ownership of 5 years.
Whenever some local rude boy gets pulled for a driving offense and he has a gun in the glove box, wham, 5 years inside.
Keep that up for a few years, say a decade to be sure, and crime will be far lower.

Guys, I'm gonna take this a step further and say that I'm pretty confident we could stop murder altogether if we just thought up some really harsh sentence for anybody who murders.

I vote we kill them.

CptJake wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.

Wrong, convicts are not allowed to legally have weapons. But they do.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Melissia wrote:DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.

Probably because there are more people you would want to shoot there

Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.But that would be expensive so, yeah.

Almost every state does have increased mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. That doesn't seem to help, making your point invalid. Look stuff up before you make statements like that.

Crimes involving a weapon!=the crime of owning a weapon in the first place.
In England if you get stopped by the police for any reason and you happen to be in posession of a firearm, you'll go strait to gaol.
Waiting until the criminal actually shoots someone is probably where the American police are going wrong...

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:

d-usa wrote:
Did you read our constitution?

Are you under the impression that words on paper are stronger than political will?

Isn't that the point of a constitution? Never seen the point myself.

That's what a lot of people consider the point to be, but reality never liked considering what people want.

Seaward wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:If you take away guns, gun crime doesn't happen.

Why would criminals turn their guns in?

THEY'RE CRIMINALS.

They don't. Impose a mandatory prison sentance on gun ownership of 5 years.
Whenever some local rude boy gets pulled for a driving offense and he has a gun in the glove box, wham, 5 years inside.
Keep that up for a few years, say a decade to be sure, and crime will be far lower.

Guys, I'm gonna take this a step further and say that I'm pretty confident we could stop murder altogether if we just thought up some really harsh sentence for anybody who murders.

I vote we kill them.

I doubt ~70% of the US public are murderers, do you?

Seaward wrote:

biccat wrote:What is your position on murder prohibition?

My position is that a motivated individual's going to figure out a way to kill someone if he wants to, most of the time.

I'm not sure that answers the question. Do you think murder should be prohibited even if we can't prohibit all murders?

Joey wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:If you take away guns, gun crime doesn't happen.

Why would criminals turn their guns in?

THEY'RE CRIMINALS.

They don't. Impose a mandatory prison sentance on gun ownership of 5 years.
Whenever some local rude boy gets pulled for a driving offense and he has a gun in the glove box, wham, 5 years inside.
Keep that up for a few years, say a decade to be sure, and crime will be far lower.

Guys, I'm gonna take this a step further and say that I'm pretty confident we could stop murder altogether if we just thought up some really harsh sentence for anybody who murders.

I vote we kill them.

I doubt ~70% of the US public are murderers, do you?

Non sequiturs confuse me.

Joey wrote:

CptJake wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.

Wrong, convicts are not allowed to legally have weapons. But they do.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Melissia wrote:DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.

Probably because there are more people you would want to shoot there

Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.But that would be expensive so, yeah.

Almost every state does have increased mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. That doesn't seem to help, making your point invalid. Look stuff up before you make statements like that.

Crimes involving a weapon!=the crime of owning a weapon in the first place.
In England if you get stopped by the police for any reason and you happen to be in posession of a firearm, you'll go strait to gaol.
Waiting until the criminal actually shoots someone is probably where the American police are going wrong...

I would hope that the Europeans in this thread do realize that even in our gun loving society in the majority of states it is illegal to have a loaded gun in your car or in your pocket unless you are specifically licensed to carry concealed?

Almost every state does have increased mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. That doesn't seem to help, making your point invalid. Look stuff up before you make statements like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


My face when the anti-gun crowd realizes that most of their little "fixes" for getting rid of guns and gun crimes are actually already laws and didn't really have the effect that they think they will have.

d-usa wrote:I am sure that the law abiding citizen who had no means of defending himself is glad that his bullet holes made identifying the criminals easier.

And I'm sure the hypothetical innocent husband, wife and kids who are gunned down in the street when two gangs with readily available weapons open up on each other will be happy to know that if they had a gun they could have magically defended themselves.

Joey wrote:

CptJake wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.

Wrong, convicts are not allowed to legally have weapons. But they do.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Melissia wrote:DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.

Probably because there are more people you would want to shoot there

Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.But that would be expensive so, yeah.

Almost every state does have increased mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. That doesn't seem to help, making your point invalid. Look stuff up before you make statements like that.

Crimes involving a weapon!=the crime of owning a weapon in the first place.
In England if you get stopped by the police for any reason and you happen to be in posession of a firearm, you'll go strait to gaol.
Waiting until the criminal actually shoots someone is probably where the American police are going wrong...

Perhaps you missed it when I stated:

convicts are not allowed to legally have weapons. But they do.

If they get caught, they do go to jail. But we also have this thing in the Constitution where cops can't just come up and search a person without probable cause. For example, a known convict ges pulled over for speeding. That alone is not probable cause to search his vehicle or even his person. Often, since the typical crap baf is not dumb enough to go walking down the treet carrying an unconcealed firearm this means that until a crime is being committed and the firearm comes out, well... you should get the picture.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:

d-usa wrote:I am sure that the law abiding citizen who had no means of defending himself is glad that his bullet holes made identifying the criminals easier.

And I'm sure the hypothetical innocent husband, wife and kids who are gunned down in the street when two gangs with readily available weapons open up on each other will be happy to know that if they had a gun they could have magically defended themselves.

In your scenario, the gang bangers are most likely not legally armed. That being the case, MORE laws for them to ignore tends to not be the answer.

CptJake wrote:In your scenario, the gang bangers are most likely not legally armed. That being the case, MORE laws for them to ignore tends to not be the answer.

Of course, but that was not my point, although the fact that there are so many guns out there makes it easier to buy them illegally (or steal them (perhaps from legal owners!? :O), if all the threads about 40K armies being stolen because they were in gun cases are any indication)

Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.

No. While I do have several gripes (Get to those in a minute.) about LEOs, the USA actually has pretty good law enforcement, unfortunately there is this little thing called "Reality" that steps in, and no amount of saying "WELL JUST GET BETTER COPS!" actually improves the situation. Small details like "Physical distance" "Time lost between initial dispatch and arrival of officers" and "Where the <CENSORED> is this apartment unit/dorm room/farmhouse" come into play.

Second....No, you won't. We might see a revolution though.

In fact it works the other way round. Its not the women who buy the weapons, but the men.

I am shocked. By the way, consider this: If my 6`3, 230 pound body gets in a fistfight with someone half my weight and a head shorter than me, I am going to go out on a limb here and posit that I am probably going to win, and after having won, do whatever I please. If however, the person half my size has a FIREARM...well...I think I need to find something better to do with my time. If -I- have a gun, and so does the other person (Really important bit, pay attention!)

The other person is at no greater disadvantage than when no firearms are present.

Everybody. Everybody can loose its temper. When you family is hurt or destroyed, people cant handle this. People should not have weapon around when this happens.

Yes. Everyone can lose their temper. However, the whole "People will flip out and shoot each other in the grocery store lines when they get mad!" argument just does not hold water in the face of history. Perhaps Germany is plagued with people who immediately go from "Life sucks!" to "I'm going to kill everyone I see!" but the people who actually DO behave in this manner in the US is a very tiny portion of the total US gunowners, and an even smaller portion of the people who carry guns around legally (BOTH police and CCW holders.)

The fact is that humans are just not able enough to be able to deal with the power of taking away another human's life, it's best left to the armed forces.

Clearly, the peasantry is too dim to have that much power. Instead, it should be properly placed in the hands of corrupt politicians, inept governments, and ham fisted militaries.

Then someone says the wrong thing and some poor mother's son is killed like a dog in a heartbeat.

Some mother's sons might as well be dogs. I am not going to cry into my beer over two drug dealers getting angry at each other and one popping the other one center mass a few times.

I'd much rather have more trained police than untrained, armed citizenry.

Ya know, I hear this one a lot. What exactly do you think the extent of police firearms training is? How far do you think they take education on deadly force law? Do you think this is a long, involved process, involving climbing 50,000 steps to the monastery, where a master will teach you in the ways of law and firearms to a jedi-like level of ability that mere humans cannot hope to obtain? How much time, effort and money do you think these steely-eyed paladins direct towards maintaining their godlike capabilties?

Guns are simple machines, even the anti- side of the argument concedes this (Except when it doesn't conveniently play into a fit of emotionally charged hyperbole, in which case the argument flips to "Only the blah blah blah are trained well enough to handle them!)...it does NOT take a great deal of time, effort, or money to get someone who has never laid hand on one in their life to a point where you could reasonably count on them to cover you. Deadly force law, thanks to being written in plain english, is ALSO understandable by the average mind with a few hours of instruction, thus teaching that person WHEN to cover you.

The whole mess is so easy that one human being without a badge can even teach it to another human being without a badge. It's amazing.

SOFDC wrote:Perhaps Germany is plagued with people who immediately go from "Life sucks!" to "I'm going to kill everyone I see!"

I can think of one.

Ya know, I hear this one a lot. What exactly do you think the extent of police firearms training is? How far do you think they take education on deadly force law? Do you think this is a long, involved process, involving climbing 50,000 steps to the monastery, where a master will teach you in the ways of law and firearms to a jedi-like level of ability that mere humans cannot hope to obtain? How much time, effort and money do you think these steely-eyed paladins direct towards maintaining their godlike capabilties?

This is an excellent point. An awful lot of police officers qualify when they have to, and otherwise ignore it. Search for some police ND videos on YouTube sometime.

That's not to say that police officers, on the balance of things, aren't good to have around, and have around armed. Just that they're not the answer to every problem.

SilverMK2 wrote:

CptJake wrote:In your scenario, the gang bangers are most likely not legally armed. That being the case, MORE laws for them to ignore tends to not be the answer.

Of course, but that was not my point, although the fact that there are so many guns out there makes it easier to buy them illegally (or steal them (perhaps from legal owners!? :O), if all the threads about 40K armies being stolen because they were in gun cases are any indication)

It isn't particularly hard to get hold of illegal guns in the UK.

It's just that criminals don't tend to want to use them so much.

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't particularly hard to get hold of illegal guns in the UK.

It's just that criminals don't tend to want to use them so much.

Which is more of a cultural thing than anything to do with gun control laws I think.

Exactly.

d-usa wrote:3) A stab with a knife is not going to neutralize the intruder.

Real life isn't like the movies, the human body is fairly fragile. A stab with even a small knife can often be life threatening.

Slash someone with a knife and that's less effective, but stick it in as much as one inch and they'll quickly need a hospital. Real criminals are not like Michael Myers.

Still problems with knives.

1: I have to get within stabbing distance.

2: Hands wielding knives are easier to catch or deflect than bullets.

3: I have to get within stabbing distance.

If I am close enough to use a knife, then the bad guy is also close enough to use a knife.

Melissia wrote:Still problems with knives.

1: I have to get within stabbing distance.

2: Hands wielding knives are easier to catch or deflect than bullets.

3: I have to get within stabbing distance.

I appreciate that. The person with the knife has a much greater advantage on an unarmed person though, but I'm not recommending it as a choice for home defence.

But the point was that knives are effective weapons, the suggestion that they won't work because people will shrug off stab wounds is just absurd. You will certainly 'neutralise' an intruder be it a combat knife or a regular kitchen knife, stick a knife in anyone and they'll go down like a sack of spuds.

The ability to effectively wield a knife basically relies on the physical prowess of the wielder, which is why it's not very useful for self defense by the average person. A gun does not require much physical prowess to use properly. Point and shoot. Knives are useful for, say, soldiers or commandos or specops, or knife fighting thugs or martial artists-- but for someone like me, feth that, I'll take a gun.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

d-usa wrote:3) A stab with a knife is not going to neutralize the intruder.

Real life isn't like the movies, the human body is fairly fragile. A stab with even a small knife can often be life threatening.

Slash someone with a knife and that's less effective, but stick it in as much as one inch and they'll quickly need a hospital. Real criminals are not like Michael Myers.

Bull crap. Read the topic where it took some kid 12 stabs to kill a bully. Now imagine instead of a school yard bully you are dealing with a meth head. Even a good stab to the kidney is going to take over 30 seconds to bleed you out. A methed out crap bag can do a lot of damage in those 30 seconds, and he is not feeling the pain. It takes a long time for most stab wounds to kill a person, and they do not automatically stop a person from attacking either.

Conversely, if Mr Mossberg delivers a couple 12 gauge love taps to his lower abdomen/pelvic area the guy is going down. You can't stand without a pelvis even if you don't feel the pain.

I I've got to help take down a guy on PCP. 3 cops and 5 nurses took 20 minutes to put a guy in handcuffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In all my time working on the ambulance and emergency room I quickly learned that it is not that easy to take people down. Watched people tear through leather restraints, ignore being tazered, ignore peppe spray and even ignore getting shot.

When faced with a strung out bad guy I want the best possible option available to me.

d-usa wrote:I I've got to help take down a guy on PCP. 3 cops and 5 nurses took 20 minutes to put a guy in handcuffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In all my time working on the ambulance and emergency room I quickly learned that it is not that easy to take people down. Watched people tear through leather restraints, ignore being tazered, ignore peppe spray and even ignore getting shot.

When faced with a strung out bad guy I want the best possible option available to me.

Funny you mention that, I helped a security guard take downa dn cuff a meth head. It took me, the security guard (who was my size but in better physical shape) a buddy of mine who is about 6'2 and probably a good 250, and 2 store employees. All of that, just to "control" (I say that loosely) the guy enough to get cuffs on him. Keep in mind, he was about 5'8 and MAYBE 120 pounds. It was incredible. Id much rather the option to pop a few rounds center mass then try and fight one of them off with my awesome manlyness and mad knife skills.

Again, its a cultural thing, and unless your American, you cant possibly grasp the concept, and all these threads do, is just cause flame wars and Europeans know better then Americans.

Having been shot at before, it's not a good place to be

I think the gun situation in America is unique comnpared to other countries with guns, due to the social politics of the place. America, due to it's creation myths, is more individulistic in it's outlook compared to Scandinavia and Switzerland. An old cliche, but an accurate one IMO.

Travelling through New England last summer, I seen a lot of nice of nice places with a lot of guns, and wondered what kind of crime they were suffering. Most of these places look as though a parking ticket was the most serious offence.

I think American society is governed more by fear, compared to other countries. I remember months after 9/11 watching a news feature about local people in Virginia getting extra training to deal with a terrorist attack. Bear in mind this was a town in the middle of nowhere.

Anyway, it's not for us to judge. If American society wants guns, good luck to them. Similary keep your damn dirty hands out of our business

Finally, I've never believed in using guns for hunting. Too easy to point a trigger at a deer and shoot. Now, if you were to carve yourself a flint knife, track the deer, run it down, drink its blood and eat its heart...I would be impressed.

and all these threads do, is just cause flame wars and Europeans know better then Americans.

We have come a long way in 237 years if all that starts is a flame war over this issue.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Having been shot at before, it's not a good place to be

Been there too.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think American society is governed more by fear, compared to other countries..

I think you may very well not be understanding, and it may be a cultural thing that you are not. Partially because I have a concealed permit and firearms at the house there is no reason for my family and I to feel fear. We instead feel comfortable that we can handle the worse case though we pray it never happens. Other folks I know who also carry are the same. There is a sense of capability vice fear. A sense of not having to rely on a cop to show up in time. A sense of not having to depend on someone else for my family's safety.


Fear is removed partially because I have the tools to enable me.

Don't mean to sound cruel, but I don't really care that much for what goes on in America. Years of watching presidential elections has bored the backside off me I have no stake in American society, so if they want to walk around with guns, that is for them to decide. Obviously, I have a keen interest in American history, but if they want to shoot the hell out of each other, then good luck to them. I say this in the best possible sense.
When I go there on holiday I respect their laws and respect their society. If I lived there I would campaign for an end to gun ownership, but I don't so I'm not.
We in the UK need to roll up our sleeves and fix our own problems.

I also like how a certain crowd here can use the argument that guns serve no other purpose than to kill people so they should be outlawed, and then turn around and tell people to just kill an intruder with a knife instead...