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.

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.

Knives are much more fun than guns.
If I say any more I'll look weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
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.
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.

These two facts are contradictory-
1.The firearms that criminals possess are illegal
2.The law enforcement is effective
Yet you're claiming both are true. You're claiming that criminals are breaking the law with these guns, so why are they never confiscated and imprisoned?

I've been stabbed as well, it's even worse than being shot at! I'd rather have a clean shot to the head than watch the blood trickle out of a knife wound!!!

SOFDC wrote: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?

Trained to do things - you know, keeping the peace, etc, etc. It's an 'I'd rather have the police (which we need) on the streets than the nuclear missiles (that we don't need) in the bunkers' kind of thing. But the comment seems to have been read out of context. Also love the reply. It would be funny, but well... it's not.

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.

CptJake wrote:
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.

I forgot that when discussing a topic we always look at the most extreme examples of everything. When talking about gun and knife use, instead of looking at the broad statistics we focus on emotive cases and singular examples of some 120lb psycho pumped up on steroids and methamphetamines.

Someone says that knives 'won't neutralise an intruder', I refuted this because knife stab wounds are actually quite serious. The response is "but, but, but what if you get attacked by the Wolverine?!" Why is that relevant? I don't worry about mass shootings just because there was a high profile one last year, I don't worry about terrorists because the odds of that happening are tiny. I'm certainly aware of risks on the street and apply some common sense, but I don't go out with weapons because the drug crazed maniac might attack me. If you apply this thinking else where you'd never get in a car, because your chances of dying behind the wheel are so much higher than being killed by an intruder in your home.

Please, how often are houses broken into and their occupants attacked by unstoppable raging meth-heads? Yes, certainly a gun would be useful at that moment should it ever arise, but you can't justify arming a whole society on the back of it. We have drug addicts too but oddly they do not run amok murdering people in their houses.

It's useful to know how to use a knife to get the best out of it as pointed out by Melissa, but that is true of a gun. People seem to think owning a gun makes you safer. It doesn't, because people are more frequently injured in accidents with guns that though malicious actions. There's those damn statistics again instead of coming up with singular examples of high profile cases. If you wake up in the night and have to grab a gun and some how get your mind together to use it properly you are at high risk of provoking an extreme reaction from an intruder or simply having an accident. It's only an 'equaliser' if you know what you are doing. I bet most people don't, they get the gun but don't spend long periods of time handling it, which is one difference between a civilian and a soldier. If you don't it'll either be ineffective in your hands or worse you'll just injure the wrong person and add to the significant number of other people contributing to statistics of accidents with firearms.

If I am in my legal residence with my legal gun then the guy entering illegally will get a legal bullet in his body.

Why should we change the laws to take legal guns out of legal peoples hands and give a benefit for people that break the law who now know that they wont get shot breaking into people's houses?

d-usa wrote:If I am in my legal residence with my legal gun then the guy entering illegally will get a legal bullet in his body.

Why should we change the laws to take legal guns out of legal peoples hands and give a benefit for people that break the law who now know that they wont get shot breaking into people's houses?

Would you rather the guy who broke into your home had a gun, or didn't?
You've answered your own question.

....Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place? What's up with using weapons that'll incapcitate them until they can be apprehended by the police? I mean what's the common range that people are being threatened at? Too far for a stun gun to fire? Or are we now going to get into a discussion over how dangerous non-lethal weapons are now too? ¬¬

Howard A Treesong wrote:

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.

CptJake wrote:
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.

I forgot that when discussing a topic we always look at the most extreme examples of everything. When talking about gun and knife use, instead of looking at the broad statistics we focus on emotive cases and singular examples of some 120lb psycho pumped up on steroids and methamphetamines.

Someone says that knives 'won't neutralise an intruder', I refuted this because knife stab wounds are actually quite serious. The response is "but, but, but what if you get attacked by the Wolverine?!" Why is that relevant? I don't worry about mass shootings just because there was a high profile one last year, I don't worry about terrorists because the odds of that happening are tiny. I'm certainly aware of risks on the street and apply some common sense, but I don't go out with weapons because the drug crazed maniac might attack me. If you apply this thinking else where you'd never get in a car, because your chances of dying behind the wheel are so much higher than being killed by an intruder in your home.

Please, how often are houses broken into and their occupants attacked by unstoppable raging meth-heads? Yes, certainly a gun would be useful at that moment should it ever arise, but you can't justify arming a whole society on the back of it. We have drug addicts too but oddly they do not run amok murdering people in their houses.

It's useful to know how to use a knife to get the best out of it as pointed out by Melissa, but that is true of a gun. People seem to think owning a gun makes you safer. It doesn't, because people are more frequently injured in accidents with guns that though malicious actions. There's those damn statistics again instead of coming up with singular examples of high profile cases. If you wake up in the night and have to grab a gun and some how get your mind together to use it properly you are at high risk of provoking an extreme reaction from an intruder or simply having an accident. It's only an 'equaliser' if you know what you are doing. I bet most people don't, they get the gun but don't spend long periods of time handling it, which is one difference between a civilian and a soldier. If you don't it'll either be ineffective in your hands or worse you'll just injure the wrong person and add to the significant number of other people contributing to statistics of accidents with firearms.

And how many people who suggest that guns are sufficient spend any amount of combat training with them?

I am at the range shooting at least once a month, handling my guns and keeping proficient. Most people who own guns like shooting them, sothey will be familiar with them. When was the last time you guys practiced stabbing an intruder in the dark?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My examples are also real world experiences, not "what if" scenarios. You can say "that never happens", but I have seen it happen multiple times. I will take my own experiences over your "people make stuff up to present worst case scenarios" any day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

d-usa wrote:If I am in my legal residence with my legal gun then the guy entering illegally will get a legal bullet in his body.

Why should we change the laws to take legal guns out of legal peoples hands and give a benefit for people that break the law who now know that they wont get shot breaking into people's houses?

Would you rather the guy who broke into your home had a gun, or didn't?
You've answered your own question.

Criminals are already not legally able to own a weapon. So please tell me how making people give up their legally owned weapons is going to take them away from the guy who already is breaking the law?

d-usa wrote: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...

Who said this?

...and then turn around and tell people to just kill an intruder with a knife instead...

Nope try harder.

I've not no love for the burglar and if they end up dead I don't care. But I am commenting on the gung-ho attitude of some people that guns are a cure all, that you *need* them to protect yourself against all these threats because knives aren't effective, that there's no safer way to defend yourself, etc. They aren't essential, the pro-gun people make an argument based on outright wrong statements that things like 'stabbing people with knives isn't effective', or coming up with improbable 'what if' scenarios. I don't think that the threat from intruders actually outweighs the general risk from owning the gun in the first place, in fact the statistics support that. Owning a gun is a matter of personal preference rather than through any necessity. And given the option, arming society is not particularly logical given the risks and benefits.

So when threatened by a gun it would be preferred to have one yourself? Is this better than their only being a gun in the criminal's hands? What I'm saying is that you'd just end up in a stand off between the two of you, with the criminal probably getting gittery at the fact that your pointing a gun at them. In the UK I don't think that its really that common for people to be held up at gunpoint. You give the guy your stuff and count it as a loss, you can cancel your bank cards etc, and hopefully the police'll take care of everything else. Would you prefer to kill the person that's robbing you instead of this? I can understand that people want to defend themselves because the criminal may choose to just shoot you anyway even if you comply though, but must you really defend yourself by doing the exact thing to them? Sorry but if you feel that you have to kill someone to defend yourself I'm counting that as manslaugter in my books. Criminals may choose to use weapons to extort you, but you don't need to use them to defend yourself properly.

We don't really live in a society here in GB where we're scared about being mugged in the street everytime we go out or having home-invasions every night. Sure there less common here, but hell they still happen, we're just less paranoid about them. =/

d-usa wrote:
My examples are also real world experiences, not "what if" scenarios. You can say "that never happens", but I have seen it happen multiple times. I will take my own experiences over your "people make stuff up to present worst case scenarios" any day.

I didn't say it never happens, I said it was improbable. There is a difference. Also it's not about making up cases, you are exemplifying confirmation bias and focusing on a few cases beyond the norm. Just because you've met a few people who are difficult to restrain doesn't mean you are at risk of A) someone breaking into your house and attacking you and B) them being the sort of person only a few bullets will stop.

In the UK people worry about knife crime, but the overwhelming number of people being seriously assaulted and left in life-threatening conditions are not injured by firearms or knives but have been involved in fighting after having a few too many drinks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyrmalla wrote:We don't really live in a society here in GB where we're scared about being mugged in the street everytime we go out or having home-invasions every night. Sure there less common here, but hell they still happen, we're just less paranoid about them. =/

The other issue that most have ignored until now is the most burglaries take place during the day and target empty houses because most criminals don't want a confrontation of any sort.

I haven't ignored it. That's part of the reason we have an alarm for our doors and windows.

I also work at nights, so when people think my house is empty I am actually sleeping in it.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:We don't really live in a society here in GB where we're scared about being mugged in the street everytime we go out or having home-invasions every night. Sure there less common here, but hell they still happen, we're just less paranoid about them. =/

The other issue that most have ignored until now is the most burglaries take place during the day and target empty houses because most criminals don't want a confrontation of any sort.

Indeed, the discussion seems to focus on the minority of instances where they occur when a person is actually there. A few of my neighbours has their houses broken into a while ago. When the burglars eventually made it into the house next to me, after creating a racket breaking in by smashing a few windows, the home owner came down stairs and confronted them. The guy just stared at her and casually walked out, cutting his losses. He could have pulled out a kitchen knife and attacked her to take her stuff, but instead he decided that he didn't want to add assault to his list of charges if he did get caught. He and the other guy were arrested however when they broke into the police officer's house a few streets away when the home owner had his silent alarm triggered.

Now it turned out that one of them, the driver and not the one who broke into my neighbour's house, had a knife. He didn't use it however when confronted however, so maybe the fact that he may have had the sence to give a damn about the consequences struck him apart from the American norm.

Melissia wrote: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.

Yeah, I agree. If someone was breaking into my house, I would try my best to stab the intruder, but a gun would be a lot simpler. Just peak around the corner, and blam.

Of course, my kabar is just begging to taste blood.... Maybe I'll shoot him and then stab him until he stops breathing. Bwuahahahahahahahahahah.



In other countries, guns don't seem to be used for recreation as much as we use them.

Not true Samus. Probably the best F/TR shooter in the world is Irish.

So when threatened by a gun it would be preferred to have one yourself?

Yes.

Is this better than their only being a gun in the criminal's hands?

Yes.

What I'm saying is that you'd just end up in a stand off between the two of you, with the criminal probably getting gittery at the fact that your pointing a gun at them.

Explain to me why I am pointing a firearm at a human being (The very act of which is considered almost US-wide to be the same as squeezing the trigger.) and not firing? That's a great way to earn yourself a sucking chest wound.

You give the guy your stuff and count it as a loss, you can cancel your bank cards etc, and hopefully the police'll take care of everything else. Would you prefer to kill the person that's robbing you instead of this?

I don't care one whit about cards I can cancel, cash I can replace, or a jacket that means little to me. What I care about is whether or not I think this donkey cave will be the type to leave no witnesses, or just plain psycho, or is actually after my girlfriend`s booty. If I think any of those last bits are closer to the truth, Sorry buddy, I think I intend for you to have a worse day than I am very shortly.

You are talking about people who victimize others at the point of a weapon. Depending on their mercy for your continued survival is not a smart idea.

Sorry but if you feel that you have to kill someone to defend yourself I'm counting that as manslaugter in my books.

Ok. That's why the jury is made up of more than one person.

We don't really live in a society here in GB where we're scared about being mugged in the street everytime we go out or having home-invasions every night.

Does one need to be terrified to be prepared? I am not generally afraid of getting in a car crash, but funny thing I still wear my seatbelt. I am not afraid that my house will burn down one day, but I own a fire extinguisher.

I cannot be prepared for EVERY eventuality, but those I can, I try to be. If I could see into the future and KNOW what I would need/not need to expect, I wouldn't be on the internet. I would be plucking lotto numbers from the ether and chasing a team of swimsuit models across the acreage of my new mansion.

Samus_aran115 wrote:
In other countries, guns don't seem to be used for recreation as much as we use them.

In the UK guns are owned mostly by those in rural areas (farmers) or by people that are part of clay pigeon shooting, are rarer bird shooting groups. I'd say that the weapons used are just modifications of those that were around at the turn of the last century, rather than the hi-tech arsenal that you see people toting out when they go hunting in places like South Africa or the US. I guess that here we just let other recreational sports that are easier to participate in take presidence. By that I mean that in a wargamers club there's only about a half dozen at most lads out of say fifty or so that have actually fired a gun, and I only know one who's done it recreationally (as part of a clay pigeon shooting day that he went on once), the others working in the police are being in the military.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@SOFDC

Wyrmalla wrote:....Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place? What's up with using weapons that'll incapcitate them until they can be apprehended by the police? I mean what's the common range that people are being threatened at? Too far for a stun gun to fire? Or are we now going to get into a discussion over how dangerous non-lethal weapons are now too? ¬¬

Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place?

Should it ever come to that, possibly because they continued their attack until they died.

What's up with using weapons that'll incapcitate them until they can be apprehended by the police?

Do you think that multiple gunshot wounds won't incapacitate an attacker?

I mean what's the common range that people are being threatened at? Too far for a stun gun to fire? Or are we now going to get into a discussion over how dangerous non-lethal weapons are now too? ¬¬

Ask a US policeman that, sometime. On the one hand, you have a service pistol with 8-18 rounds on tap, and will quite happily stop a fight. On the other, you have a TASER, which is effective...if both electrodes hit. If they hit in a place where involuntary muscle contraction doesn't leave them still able to stand and fight with some capacity. (It does happen! Go research why SOP with tasers is to have a wingman...WITH A GUN(!) in case said taser...well..fails.)

Don't get me wrong, useful tool. Good second choice to a pistol. A pistol is still the more desirable option where practical.

CptJake wrote:
Bull crap. Read the topic where it took some kid 12 stabs to kill a bully.

Well, sort of. The kid stabbed him 12 times, when he was incapacitated is another matter.

CptJake wrote:
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.

This is where the whole "Knowing where to stab someone." thing comes into play.

That there diaphragm doesn't work very well when punctured.

@ SOFDC

Oh I know that a gun can quite capably incapacited someone, I'm just suggesting that weapons that don't cause so much physical harm may be a better route though. Sure weapons like tazers would need an increased shot capacity and need to have a much higher chance of disarming your opponent than just winding them for them to fully suit the lethality that people expect from guns. Wouldn't just rendering someone unconscious have the same affect as killing them if they didn't stop threatening you (and how could a person with a gunshot to each of their extremities still threaten you, being an exteme example) ? I find it a bit wierd that those who are advocating firearms are so willing to take a life to defend themselves. How difficult is it to disarm your assailent? Easier than just shooting them in the head right?

....Isn't there a mandatory class in how to effectively use a gun in place throughout the states anyhow? Youknow, a car being a deadly weapon too if you don't know how to use it properly, thus safety being part of the driving tests.

I wonder what the crime rate was when people were walking about with swords instead of guns? Was there the same argument of whether it was necesarry to carry a weapon to protect yourself as prevalent then (with just the same reasons being put forward by both sides). Probably not, but I guess our problems really haven't changed in the centuary or two since then. =/

Seaward wrote:Which is, as I said way back on page 1, very likely an impossible proposition in the US at this point.

So let's deal with the reality of the situation. Britain doesn't have a lot of guns, huzzah for Britain. They can have bobbies going about helping old ladies un-tree their cats.

The US has gakloads of guns, boo for the US. As someone living here, and as someone living here who's lived in really bad neighborhoods, I'll take any possible self-defense tools I can get in that environment.

Im in total agreement here, I feel its a better environment in the UK, but it doesnt mean I think the issue can be fixed in the US. I agree with Seaward, I dont think its fixable now.

Ergo, sorry chaps but you lose in this department, be happy in the knowledge you have a better chance of survivng cancer, better food, and better beaches.

For myself, if we move back here im getting a sweet HK P7M8!

Howard A Treesong wrote:I forgot that when discussing a topic we always look at the most extreme examples of everything. When talking about gun and knife use, instead of looking at the broad statistics we focus on emotive cases and singular examples of some 120lb psycho pumped up on steroids and methamphetamines.

A single stab wound won't take down someone unless it's particularly deep or in a vital area. You don't have to be pumped up on steroids and meth to ignore a minor wound.

Howard A Treesong wrote:It doesn't, because people are more frequently injured in accidents with guns that though malicious actions. There's those damn statistics again instead of coming up with singular examples of high profile cases.

1100 fatal firearm accidents per year (includes hunting accidents which would probably be a large number of them)

There were 440,000 residential burglaries at night in 2009. If only 1 in 400 results in malicious actions then the statistics would seem to not support your point.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

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.

CptJake wrote:
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.

I forgot that when discussing a topic we always look at the most extreme examples of everything. When talking about gun and knife use, instead of looking at the broad statistics we focus on emotive cases and singular examples of some 120lb psycho pumped up on steroids and methamphetamines.

Someone says that knives 'won't neutralise an intruder', I refuted this because knife stab wounds are actually quite serious. The response is "but, but, but what if you get attacked by the Wolverine?!" Why is that relevant? I don't worry about mass shootings just because there was a high profile one last year, I don't worry about terrorists because the odds of that happening are tiny. I'm certainly aware of risks on the street and apply some common sense, but I don't go out with weapons because the drug crazed maniac might attack me. If you apply this thinking else where you'd never get in a car, because your chances of dying behind the wheel are so much higher than being killed by an intruder in your home.

Please, how often are houses broken into and their occupants attacked by unstoppable raging meth-heads? Yes, certainly a gun would be useful at that moment should it ever arise, but you can't justify arming a whole society on the back of it. We have drug addicts too but oddly they do not run amok murdering people in their houses.

It's useful to know how to use a knife to get the best out of it as pointed out by Melissa, but that is true of a gun. People seem to think owning a gun makes you safer. It doesn't, because people are more frequently injured in accidents with guns that though malicious actions. There's those damn statistics again instead of coming up with singular examples of high profile cases. If you wake up in the night and have to grab a gun and some how get your mind together to use it properly you are at high risk of provoking an extreme reaction from an intruder or simply having an accident. It's only an 'equaliser' if you know what you are doing. I bet most people don't, they get the gun but don't spend long periods of time handling it, which is one difference between a civilian and a soldier. If you don't it'll either be ineffective in your hands or worse you'll just injure the wrong person and add to the significant number of other people contributing to statistics of accidents with firearms.

Around here the odds of a mugging or a beak in being done by a hopped up perp are pretty good.

And the bottom line is I don't need to justify arming a whole society based on anything other than this whole society wrote the right to arm themselves into their constitution. Again, who the feth are you or anyone else to give a toss about what anyone else collects/buys/has? Free people can do what they want. No one here forces someone to buy a gun, new 40k army, rare coins, comic books, or anything else.

CptJake wrote:
And the bottom line is I don't need to justify arming a whole society based on anything other than this whole society wrote the right to arm themselves into their constitution. Again, who the feth are you or anyone else to give a toss about what anyone else collects/buys/has? Free people can do what they want. No one here forces someone to buy a gun, new 40k army, rare coins, comic books, or anything else.

Wasn't the line in the constitution so as a militia could be raised in case of an invasion? Odd application nowadays....

Anyhow I personally would be deeply concerned if my neighbour were to have an armoury in their back room rather than a studio or gym. Don't compare gun collecting to something that's non lethal. I mean you can't exactly kill someone with a paint brush very effectively can you? The whole thing about having the freedom to buy a gun's kind of counteracted by people saying that they feel that they have to buy one to defend themselves because of the society that they live in now isn't it?

Howard A Treesong wrote:

d-usa wrote: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...

Who said this?

...and then turn around and tell people to just kill an intruder with a knife instead...

Nope try harder.

I've not no love for the burglar and if they end up dead I don't care. But I am commenting on the gung-ho attitude of some people that guns are a cure all, that you *need* them to protect yourself against all these threats because knives aren't effective, that there's no safer way to defend yourself, etc. They aren't essential, the pro-gun people make an argument based on outright wrong statements that things like 'stabbing people with knives isn't effective', or coming up with improbable 'what if' scenarios. I don't think that the threat from intruders actually outweighs the general risk from owning the gun in the first place, in fact the statistics support that. Owning a gun is a matter of personal preference rather than through any necessity. And given the option, arming society is not particularly logical given the risks and benefits.

Compared to a gun, a knife is very ineffective. Unless you are highly trained or a very big person, you wont be able to inflict any serious damage with a knife without coming very close to the attacker.

And most knife wounds wont kill someone quickly. Vital Organs are hard to hit, our bodies are built this way for a reason.


There is no way to stop criminals from having guns.

So the banning of guns (Which would result in all NON-Legal firearms being confiscated) Would leave only the criminals with firearms.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyrmalla wrote:

CptJake wrote:
And the bottom line is I don't need to justify arming a whole society based on anything other than this whole society wrote the right to arm themselves into their constitution. Again, who the feth are you or anyone else to give a toss about what anyone else collects/buys/has? Free people can do what they want. No one here forces someone to buy a gun, new 40k army, rare coins, comic books, or anything else.

Wasn't the line in the constitution so as a militia could be raised in case of an invasion? Odd application nowadays....

Anyhow I personally would be deeply concerned if my neighbour were to have an armoury in their back room rather than a studio or gym. Don't compare gun collecting to something that's non lethal. I mean you can't exactly kill someone with a paint brush very effectively can you? The whole thing about having the freedom to buy a gun's kind of counteracted by people saying that they feel that they have to buy one to defend themselves because of the society that they live in now isn't it?

Do you hate sword collectors? Chefs? Farmers? Car Collectors? All these people have collections of very dangerous tools but doesn't mean they will use them to kill.

CptJake wrote:
And the bottom line is I don't need to justify arming a whole society based on anything other than this whole society wrote the right to arm themselves into their constitution.

Well, the whole society didn't do it, some old dudes did it back in the day, and the whole society went along with it.

CptJake wrote:
Again, who the feth are you or anyone else to give a toss about what anyone else collects/buys/has?

So you endorse the freedom of people to possess child porn?

CptJake wrote:
Free people can do what they want.

Then why can't I steal your things?

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:
And the bottom line is I don't need to justify arming a whole society based on anything other than this whole society wrote the right to arm themselves into their constitution.

Well, the whole society didn't do it, some old dudes did it back in the day, and the whole society went along with it.

CptJake wrote:
Again, who the feth are you or anyone else to give a toss about what anyone else collects/buys/has?

So you endorse the freedom of people to possess child porn?

CptJake wrote:
Free people can do what they want.

Then why can't I steal your things?

1. They may have wrote it but now it's mine
2. Yes
3. Because I'll shoot you

Wyrmalla wrote:
Anyhow I personally would be deeply concerned if my neighbour were to have an armoury in their back room rather than a studio or gym. Don't compare gun collecting to something that's non lethal.

This is a good point as well. I'm not concerned about a man holding a beer can, but a man holding a beer can and a gun, or just a gun, is cause for notice.

CptJake wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Criminals in the USA must be heavily armed....
In the Netherlands our Dutch criminals that do break ins arent armed. Maximum some tools or... a knife!
And our East-European criminals are... well. Not armed.

East European criminals are not armed?

Wrong. Very wrong.

I concur,