Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 06:36:50
Subject: Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Spacemanvic wrote:
My apologies. I took your post to mean that only the National Guard is the militia, when clearly it is not.
Fair enough. Kudos to you, apologies are rare on the internet.
But it seems we're on the same page.
Spacemanvic wrote:
Are you really going to try to curl yourself behind an engine block though? Especially since the skin around the block is paper thin? Maybe if you have absolutely no where to go, then yeah, maybe.
It depends on what's around. I'm no soldier, but I would take an engine block over a wall, assuming the enemy knew where to shoot, any day.
Granted, this is all me sitting in an office doing math, not fighting in the field.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 06:43:44
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Avoid the engine block. Either rounds going t punch through the skin or like I said someone going to ricochet rounds under the vehicle to get you. Or for the Hollywod effect the gas tank explode
|
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 06:53:05
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Makes sense. Thanks for the insight.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 09:40:20
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Jihadin wrote:To go out to a range and fire with your buddies and other weapon enthusists.
By that definition, this point still doesn't count because he repeated it numerous times for padding. Jihadin wrote:He's refering to semi assualt weapons
I have no reason to believe this. Jihadin wrote:Never hunted have you.
I have. I'm not the greatest shot, but at I'm not going to go firing full auto in to the woods. Jihadin wrote:How many rounds does a shotgun hold and do you really want that mob to be that close
Depends on the shotgun. And shotguns have more than enough range, just wielding one is viable to keep a mob away. Jihadin wrote:You have to reaquire the sight picture wasting time.
Sure, if you're not very good at using the bolt mechanism. Jihadin wrote:wrong...so wrong.
If you honestly think we'll ever be invaded by a military force in our lifetimes, you're probably delusional. Jihadin wrote:He's prior military.
I'm not changing my statement. Jihadin wrote:You ASSUME again that a human is the target
No I don't. Jihadin wrote:Wrong.
No it's not. Jihadin wrote:Your so wrong Mel. Its muzzle climb on a auto.
If you want to claim that muzzle climb isn't an effect of recoil, you should just go argue something else because you've already failed. Jihadin wrote:Depends on the distance between aggressor and you. SHotgun devastating closeup and say a M4 works well at all range
He said intimidation. A shotgun is intimidating. As is a magnum revolver. Jihadin wrote:Wrong.
Keep lying to yourself, Jihadin, it'll help you feel better. Jihadin wrote:He's refering to semi auto
There is no reason for me to believe this. Jihadin wrote:Its an assualt rifle Mel
However, it is not full auto, and it is perfectly legal to buy. Jihadin wrote:Your both out of your mind.
Thank you. Being insane is quite fun. Jihadin wrote:Thats a WMD and a flip answer Mel
Of course it's flippant. It was a stupid "point". The US government CAN regulate what we buy and don't buy, as can the states. each one to differing extent as the various constitutions allow. Kaldor wrote:Feeling like you have to defend yourself is the same as not trusting people.
I thought the nonsense in this thread was only going to come from spacemnavic.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 09:45:17
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 09:45:22
Subject: Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine
|
Compared to no cover or concealment, ill take my chance with the engine block
|
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, locationMagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 09:56:02
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight
|
Melissia wrote:I thought the nonsense in this thread was only going to come from spacemnavic.
Some precautions are sensible. Having readily accessible firearms for home defense is not one of them. Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense, but at least the owner is then in direct control of the firearm at all times.
|
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 09:56:44
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense
Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 09:57:29
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 10:00:03
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight
|
Melissia wrote:Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense
Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.
Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?
|
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 10:06:21
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Kaldor wrote:Is it really though?
Yes. The time and effort aren't really that great, as most weapons designed for concealed carry are simple to use and maintain to begin with. As for how likely, well, how likely am I to be hit by a flood in north Texas? And yet, it's still considered sensible to have house insurance that includes flood coverage. It's not likely to happen, but if it does happen, you'll be glad that you were prepared.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 10:06:33
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 10:21:14
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Spacemanvic wrote:Just found a story about a bunch of people who dont believe in things being beyond their paygrade:
The rebels have gone from being a ragtag defense force to an armed movement capable of attacking Syria's big cities, but they have been vastly out-gunned. That may be changing
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/world/meast/syria-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Damned peasants and their rifles
Oh, and someone else who went beyond their paygrade:
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
[b]Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store[/b]
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.
Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."
Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."
Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."
By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time."
Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. "Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me."
Police say right now they have no idea what caused the suspect to go on the dangerous rampage. (We will update as soon as we learn new information.)
So far, police have not released the names of the suspect, the victims or the man who pulled the gun.
These guys believed in the mediocrity of staying within their paygrade though:
Man drowned in shallow lake after firefighters 'not allowed' to rescue him
Charity shop worker died in Gosport, Hampshire, after rescuers said they could not enter water for health and safety reasons
Wednesday 22 February 2012 02.52 EST
A man who fell into a lake drowned after firefighters called to the scene said they could not enter the water if it was higher than ankle deep for health and safety reasons, an inquest has been told.
Simon Burgess, a 41-year-old charity shop worker died at Walpole Park, in Gosport, Hampshire, on 10 March. He is believed to have had an epileptic seizure either before or after falling into the water while feeding swans.
Witnesses raised the alarm, but the hearing was told on Tuesday that members of a fire crew refused to get to him because the water was more than ankle deep. Instead, they waited for a specialist water rescue team and Burgess was only taken out of the lake 28 minutes after the alarm was raised.
Gillian Hughes, 53, told the inquest, at Portsmouth coroners court, that she had phoned emergency services and urged them to rescue Burgess when they arrived. She said: "The firemen arrived with the police, and I said: 'He's only been there five or 10 minutes, so if you hurry you might save him.'
"He just said: 'We're not allowed', and I said: 'But that's your job.'
Hughes added: "I said to one of the firemen: Why don't you go in?' and he said they couldn't if the water was higher than ankle deep. I said: 'You're having a laugh'. He said: 'No, that's health and safety' – but I thought that was their job."
She said that another fire crew arrived and started walking around the lake, putting in a pole and measuring the depth but, by this time, Burgess had drifted from one side of the lake to the other.
Deborah Coles, the control room manager at Hampshire Fire and Rescue, told the inquest that she took the call from Hughes at 12.17pm and, within a minute, had sent a fire appliance, a water rescue trained crew and a water support unit.
"Police, ambulance and coastguard were also sent as standard for a water rescue," she added. "The specialist teams are there to deal with water which is over half a boot in depth. At 12.20pm, the fire crew confirmed attendance and at 12.25 they told us a male was floating face down."
"The water support unit arrived at 12.31pm. At 12.46, we received a message requesting our press officer attend the scene. At 12.52, an update came in saying a male had been recovered, and at 12.58 he was taken to hospital."
Burgess was pronounced dead at 1.42pm after he was taken to hospital.
Dr Bret Lockyer, the speciality registrar of histopathology, told the inquest there were signs that Burgess had fallen into the lake because of an epileptic seizure.
Burgess was diagnosed with the condition in 1987, and had unsuccessful brain surgery to ease the seizures. Lockyer said: "If he had been taken out of the water after 10 minutes, there is a slim chance he could have been resuscitated.
"It seems he had a seizure either before or while he fell into the water."
The hearing continues.
Yes, one cannot help but agree that this sort of thing would never happen if we all had guns.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 10:22:39
Subject: Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Yvan eht nioj
In my Austin Ambassador Y Reg
|
I agree, the answer to violence is most definitely more violence. The way to stop gun crime is for everyone to have more guns - after all, that approach won the cold war!
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 11:18:21
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought
Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany
|
Agree with what filbert is saying. "Now, what are we gonna do against all this gun violenve??"
"Get more guns!"
Why do so many americans not see that lots of guns = lots of gun violence? even more guns are not going to help
Melissia wrote:Jihadin wrote:Wrong.
No it's not.
Look what's hapened to this discussion....
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 12:40:43
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Your replies have been very disappointing Melissa, but expected from someone who has absolutely not a clue about the subject matter.
What many here fail to see is that more guns does not equate to more violence, its a myth begotten from ignorance and fear.
In areas of the United States where this notion that "gunz are evil" brings about gun bans or the curtailment of one's ability to carry a firearm, we see that gun violence actually increases. This makes sense as in those areas, those who are law abiding, abide by the law that you do not own/carry a gun, but those who are criminals do not. A criminal is then given free reign to exert his influence on an a defenseless public. This has been proven in all major American metropolitan areas time and again. The shooting in Aurora Colorado occurred in an area that had very strict and restrictive gun laws, and in a theatre that did not allow weapons. The law abiding people did not have weapons to defend themselves, and so were at the mercy of a madman who had no mercy.
A criminal is a coward. If a criminal suspects that he will be met with force, he will look for an easier mark. If you search hard enough, you will see news story upon news story of people defending themselves with a privately held firearm, more so than a policeman stopping a crime in progress. The police cannot be everywhere at once, and they weigh to much to carry around with you. Some say to use CCTV camera's everywhere and metals detectors every where, and patdowns everywhere etc, in the hope that that will bring about more security. At what point does one give up his or her liberty in exchange for the illusion of security?
In the US, this isnt a right or left issue, as the Patriot Act came about under a Republican Administration. The Patriot Act is an odious piece of legislation which, under a Democratic Administration, has been grown to include more government departments who have oversight on the day to day lives of the American citizen, and more intrusion into our personal lives. TSA is now expanded outside of airports, and into bus, train and some highway locations. At what point do we as US citizens say no to giving up our individual liberties in exchange for this veneer, this illusion of security?
As to relying solely on the police for protection, you do know that the police have no general duty to protect individuals, and because of this judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. As there are approximately 500,000 police in this country attempting to police over 240,000,000 citizens and stop 10,000,000 criminals, this is understandable.
There are court cases that aptly illustrate the shortcomings of expecting the police to provide protection:
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]
In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.
And a recent ruling which formally acknowledges that police are under NO duty to protect:
The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]
About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.
Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."
I hope that there are some here with intellectual honesty enough to question their stance on this issue. At least educate yourself enough to both understand your position and have the ability to defend it.
Guns are tools. They are not inherently evil. They do not go off on their own. There are in fact gun laws that need to be enforced to be effective. Had Holmes' mother excercised due diligence and not abrogated her responsibility as a mother to report her son or at the least taken him to a doctor, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun. Period.
Had the people in the theater been given the chance to defend themselves rather than present themselves as the unarmed targets that they were, at least they would have had the opportunity to defend themselves.
I understand that there are people who are afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves, that would rather leave it up to another "paygrade", Those people can wallow in self doubt and prostrate themselves to whatever fate has in store for them, there are people like that in a given population. But leave those of us alone who chose not to live in mediocrity, those of us who chose to carry the responsibility of self defence and actively engage in exercising our Constitutional right.
As a side note, the UN gun treaty went nowhere. As it should.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 12:49:02
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 13:07:10
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
It genuinely terrifies me when Americans talk about gun ownership. It's sensible to carry a gun around?! I got chewed out like hell when I was six for running with scissors.
Spacemanvic wrote:
I understand that there are people who are afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves, that would rather leave it up to another "paygrade", Those people can wallow in self doubt and prostrate themselves to whatever fate has in store for them, there are people like that in a given population. But leave those of us alone who chose not to live in mediocrity, those of us who chose to carry the responsibility of self defence and actively engage in exercising our Constitutional right.
Perfect example. Afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves. I've had to 'defend myself' a couple of times, the difference being that afterwards you can shake hands with the guy! It's like Travis Bickle is actually representatve of an entire country.
I read this today http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179995/A-mass-shooting-happens-FIVE-days-America-Interactive-map-shows-gun-violence-epidemic-sweeping-nation.html#ixzz21unjeb4x. I know data can be manipulated but I think it's fair to say that guns failed as a preventative measure to gun crime.
My own personal view is that carrying a weapon in the name of self defence is cowardly in the extreme. It's a comfort blanket that feeds childish fantasies
|
"If you don't have Funzo, you're nothin'!"
"I'm cancelling you out of shame, like my subscription to white dwarf"
Never use a long word where a short one will do. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 14:08:17
Subject: Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Spacemanvic wrote:Your replies have been very disappointing Melissa, but expected from someone who has absolutely not a clue about the subject matter.
I'd ask you to put forth intelligent conversation on the matter, but it's quite too late for that. In this thread I have not advocated for stronger gun control, but rather, for more effectively using the control we have to try to prevent criminals and the insane from getting guns in the first place. NOT to prevent law abiding citizens. In fact, I plan on purchasing one myself, and my family owns them. I have used many of them over the course of my life, both in target shooting of various kinds, and in hunting-- and quite enjoyed it. In this thread, I've done little other than advocated FOR gun rights. Just because you made a lot of inane statements (and continue to make them) doesn't mean I'm somehow a gun control fanatic. It just means you have no clue what you're talking about. Your list of 100 things that require an assault rifle was mostly nonsense and padding. Hell, you haven't even bothered to read my posts yet in the first place, you just dismiss them outright because you refuse to read the posts of someone who you think might possibly disagree with your insane ramblings. Davylove21 wrote:My own personal view is that carrying a weapon in the name of self defence is cowardly in the extreme.
If you expect me to act stupid and attempt to enter fisticuffs with a guy who has sixty pounds and half a foot on me (27 kg and 15 cm, appx), you probably don't have much of a head on your shoulders.
|
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2012/07/28 14:30:49
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 14:31:21
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
MrMerlin wrote:Agree with what filbert is saying. "Now, what are we gonna do against all this gun violenve??"
"Get more guns!"
Why do so many americans not see that lots of guns = lots of gun violence? even more guns are not going to help
Technically, it did. Russia having nukes ensured that we would not use ours. We sweated it out a few times, but it may have been the best possible outcome.
Mutually Assured Destruction is a very fine concept. Very rarely(and very unsuccessfully) do people try to rob a gun store.
(To the last bit)An argument on the internet is not comparable to two armed people in an argument.
What I'm surprised no one has brought up(forgive me if it has...the 101 points thing was annoyingly long) is that if someone has intent to rob or harm someone then they are likely to do it when the person is the most vulnerable, aka not armed. Following this logic guns would be unable to defend you.
(To Davy)What I want is a statistic on mass shooting where the victim had a gun versus shootings where only the assailant had a gun.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 14:37:40
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 14:37:00
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
xole wrote:MrMerlin wrote:Agree with what filbert is saying. "Now, what are we gonna do against all this gun violenve??"
"Get more guns!"
Why do so many americans not see that lots of guns = lots of gun violence? even more guns are not going to help
Technically, it did. Russia having nukes ensured that we would not use ours. We sweated it out a few times, but it may have been the best possible outcome.
Mutually Assured Destruction is a very fine concept. Very rarely(and very unsuccessfully) do people try to rob a gun store.
(To the last bit)An argument on the internet is not comparable to two armed people in an argument.
What I'm surprised no one has brought up(forgive me if it has...the 101 points thing was annoyingly long) is that if someone has intent to rob or harm someone then they are likely to do it when the person is the most vulnerable, aka not armed. Following this logic guns would be unable to defend you.
I brought up that salient point earlier to deaf ears:
A criminal is a coward. If a criminal suspects that he will be met with force, he will look for an easier mark. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:Spacemanvic wrote:Your replies have been very disappointing Melissa, but expected from someone who has absolutely not a clue about the subject matter.
I'd ask you to put forth intelligent conversation on the matter, but it's quite too late for that.
In this thread I have not advocated for stronger gun control, but rather, for more effectively using the control we have to try to prevent criminals and the insane from getting guns in the first place. NOT to prevent law abiding citizens. In fact, I plan on purchasing one myself, and my family owns them. I have used many of them over the course of my life, both in target shooting of various kinds, and in hunting-- and quite enjoyed it. In this thread, I've done little other than advocated FOR gun rights.
Just because you made a lot of inane statements (and continue to make them) doesn't mean I'm somehow a gun control fanatic. It just means you have no clue what you're talking about. Your list of 100 things that require an assault rifle was mostly nonsense and padding. Hell, you haven't even bothered to read my posts yet in the first place, you just dismiss them outright because you refuse to read the posts of someone who you think might possibly disagree with your insane ramblings.
Davylove21 wrote:My own personal view is that carrying a weapon in the name of self defence is cowardly in the extreme.
If you expect me to act stupid and attempt to enter fisticuffs with a guy who has sixty pounds and half a foot on me (27 kg and 15 cm, appx), you probably don't have much of a head on your shoulders.
Im sorry, you havent.
Your first interaction with me in this thread was an attack BY you regarding a post I made.
Why should I give you the time of day?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Davylove21 wrote:It genuinely terrifies me when Americans talk about gun ownership. It's sensible to carry a gun around?! I got chewed out like hell when I was six for running with scissors.
Spacemanvic wrote:
I understand that there are people who are afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves, that would rather leave it up to another "paygrade", Those people can wallow in self doubt and prostrate themselves to whatever fate has in store for them, there are people like that in a given population. But leave those of us alone who chose not to live in mediocrity, those of us who chose to carry the responsibility of self defence and actively engage in exercising our Constitutional right.
Perfect example. Afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves. I've had to 'defend myself' a couple of times, the difference being that afterwards you can shake hands with the guy! It's like Travis Bickle is actually representatve of an entire country.
I read this today http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179995/A-mass-shooting-happens-FIVE-days-America-Interactive-map-shows-gun-violence-epidemic-sweeping-nation.html#ixzz21unjeb4x. I know data can be manipulated but I think it's fair to say that guns failed as a preventative measure to gun crime.
My own personal view is that carrying a weapon in the name of self defence is cowardly in the extreme. It's a comfort blanket that feeds childish fantasies
I am not shaking hands with someone who has tried to do me harm. I have had to provide aid to them afterwards however.
And no, it is asinine to think that guns do not prevent crime.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/07/28 14:54:07
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 14:54:16
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Spacemanvic wrote:
In areas of the United States where this notion that "gunz are evil" brings about gun bans or the curtailment of one's ability to carry a firearm, we see that gun violence actually increases.
Not really.
Spacemanvic wrote:
This makes sense as in those areas, those who are law abiding, abide by the law that you do not own/carry a gun, but those who are criminals do not. A criminal is then given free reign to exert his influence on an a defenseless public.
Again, not really:
Spacemanvic wrote:
A criminal is a coward.
Not by necessity. Often they're quite brave, you might even argue that they need to be in order to ignore the law.
Spacemanvic wrote: At what point does one give up his or her liberty in exchange for the illusion of security?
So you're implying that guns make you secure?
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:21:32
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Spacemanvic wrote:[some stuff]
I see that my arguments are so superior to yours that you haven't even bothered to respond to them,knowing that such a response would be futile.
Obviously, this has boosted my ego to Steve Jobs levels.
|
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 21:36:54
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
dogma wrote:Spacemanvic wrote:
In areas of the United States where this notion that "gunz are evil" brings about gun bans or the curtailment of one's ability to carry a firearm, we see that gun violence actually increases.
Not really.
Spacemanvic wrote:
This makes sense as in those areas, those who are law abiding, abide by the law that you do not own/carry a gun, but those who are criminals do not. A criminal is then given free reign to exert his influence on an a defenseless public.
Again, not really:
Spacemanvic wrote:
A criminal is a coward.
Not by necessity. Often they're quite brave, you might even argue that they need to be in order to ignore the law.
Spacemanvic wrote: At what point does one give up his or her liberty in exchange for the illusion of security?
So you're implying that guns make you secure?
A criminal usually when faced with resistance will look for an out. Personal experience has taught me that. Any number of surveillance videos of robberies in progress also attest to the criminal abandoning his enterprise when faced with resistance.
But, since we are looking for empirical data....
Granted the following study comes from a conservative leaning group but:
When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
One of the most divisive issues in American politics is that of gun control. Many who oppose gun licensing for citizens do so because they believe that guns do more harm to a populace than good. They emphasize incidents of accidental death in which one's incompetence cost them their life. They also argue that increased gun ownership will result in increased gun use in cases of anger or passion, say Clayton E. Cramer, a history teacher at the College of Western Idaho, and David Burnett, the director of public relations for Students for Concealed Carry.
However, such incidents have been overblown in severity and frequency, and cloud the debate over gun control. Specifically, they draw attention away from the fact that, by prohibiting the ownership of guns by private individuals, the government would leave its citizens more vulnerable to criminal activity. The government should recognize this fact and allow for one of the most basic of human rights: the right to self-defense.
The most widely known study of gun-related self-defense, by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, was completed in the 1990s and found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million defensive gun uses per year in the United States.
Another prominent study, by the National Crime Victimization Survey, found that there were about 108,000 defensive gun uses per year.
The National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms, performed in 1994, arrived at a figure of 1.5 million incidents of self-defense with a firearm.
The wide variation between surveys is inherent in the type of information that is being ascertained. People often exaggerate, forget the date of the incident or fail to classify themselves as a "victim of a violent crime" (as one survey put it), creating systemic under- and overestimates.
Nevertheless, the idea that so many confrontations end with a "positive" outcome, in which the criminal is killed, forced to flee or held for the police, makes the continued availability of guns for the populace at large an attractive option.
Source: Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett, "Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens," Cato Institute, February 2, 2012.
For text:
Those maps are suspect as they are provided by known anti-gun groups. So, while furthering their sides perspective, overall not advancing the argument. We would need a party that has no "dog in the fight".
Here's an interactive map from the UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics
However, maybe a study by Harvard holds more credence:
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:
If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:
[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.
Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.
So you're implying that guns make you secure?
Does a lock secure a door? Is having the appropriate tool for the task at hand prudent?
A podcast of a nationally syndicated show here in the states discussing the Aurora shooting:
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/e/a/5/ea5bdf094fca94d0/Podcast_Aurora_shooting_S.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01cc8432d0ca5b3013&c_id=4725969
Again, another podcast of the same show regarding Aurora, but the perspective gained a week later. The shooter DID NOT have body armor, just a tac vest.
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/3/a/f/3af22a0d20e8c581/Bonus_Podcast_MONO_S_7-27-12.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01cc8432d0ca549403&c_id=4758448
This one always gives me a chuckle:
|
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2012/07/28 21:59:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/29 04:45:39
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight
|
Spacemanvic wrote:As to relying solely on the police for protection, you do know that the police have no general duty to protect individuals
An educated and well policed society drastically reduces the need for the individual to protect themselves.
Had the people in the theater been given the chance to defend themselves rather than present themselves as the unarmed targets that they were, at least they would have had the opportunity to defend themselves.
They also would have had the opportunity to turn it into an industrial grade cluster feth.
I understand that there are people who are afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves, that would rather leave it up to another "paygrade", Those people can wallow in self doubt and prostrate themselves to whatever fate has in store for them, there are people like that in a given population. But leave those of us alone who chose not to live in mediocrity, those of us who chose to carry the responsibility of self defence and actively engage in exercising our Constitutional right.
As a side note, the UN gun treaty went nowhere. As it should.
I understand there are those that live in fear, so obsessed with the idea of a vicious criminal accosting them during their day to day lives that they feel the need to arm themselves and leave firearms accessible in their homes, needlessly causing the deaths of innocent people every day. If they wish to wallow in fear and paranoia that is their choice, but do not endanger those of us who wish to live without that needless, unfounded and deranged point of view. Automatically Appended Next Post: Spacemanvic wrote:[The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
Oh please.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/howards-gun-legacy--200-lives-saved-a-year-20100829-13xne.html
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/07/29 04:52:25
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/29 05:05:50
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Sticking to their guns: Marines place $22.5M order for the Colt .45 M1911
It’s been called the greatest handgun ever made, and it has barely changed sine 1911, when the legendary John Browning designed it especially for the U.S. Military.
And now, the Colt .45 M1911 is making a big comeback, now that the U.S. Marines have placed a $22.5 million order for the Connecticut-made pistols.
The gun, which has been wielded on film by John Wayne and in real life by Sgt. Alvin York and Maj. Audie Murphy, was the standard-issue sidearm in the military for decades, until it was replaced by the Beretta M9 in 1985.
"It just became an iconic part of military and American history."
- Gerry Dinkel, CEO and president of Colt Defense
"It just became an iconic part of military and American history," Gerry Dinkel, CEO and president of Colt Defense, told FoxNews.com.
The gun, one of the most successful pistols ever used at Camp Perry's National Matches, a competition known to be the main world event in artillery sports, has barely changed since it's creation. Dinkel says that shows the gun's "elegant design" just can't be improved on. And firearms experts agree.
"You can’t beat a .45 cartridge," Jack Lewis, firearms director for Cowan's Auctions, told FoxNews.com. "Some things are hard to replace," he said.
Colt Defense, based in Hartford, Conn., will supply as many as 12,000 of the 200,000 U.S. Marines with semi-automatic, tan-colored M45 Close Quarter Battle Pistols, and they will include spare parts and logistical support. The gun has long been the weapon of choice for special operations agents, thanks to its reliability and the stopping power of its massive bullets.
"I'm really glad that they're keeping it in the American economy," Lewis, who used the gun while he was in the armed forces, said. "I was quite upset when they went to the Beretta," Lewis said.
Some reports suggest Marines are not happy with their main Beretta M9s for their lack of accuracy and stopping power. With M1911's now supplying Special Ops, growing interest may lead to a better solution.
"To have the 1911 selected again for U. S. Forces 101 years after its initial introduction is just an incredible testament to the timeless design and effectiveness of the Colt 1911," Dinkel said. "This is truly a gratifying contract award."
I better buy a 45 now before prices jump if it hasn't already. Fired a 45 once. Was a lot of fun spinning bowling pins
edit
An educated and well policed society drastically reduces the need for the individual to protect themselves
Iceland  wait,,,didn't their government tanked a few months/years ago?
They also would have had the opportunity to turn it into an industrial grade cluster feth
.
Agreed 110 percent.
understand there are those that live in fear, so obsessed with the idea of a vicious criminal accosting them during their day to day lives that they feel the need to arm themselves and leave firearms accessible in their homes, needlessly causing the deaths of innocent people every day. If they wish to wallow in fear and paranoia that is their choice, but do not endanger those of us who wish to live without that needless, unfounded and deranged point of view.
Not obsessed, nor live in fear,I also know "escalation of force" and "Deadly Force" unlike a majority. I'm also quite capable of fire discpline. I'm all ready to take a Wraith out with extreme justice. If Micheal was walking down the street well.....triple tap will insue. Anyway I enjoy a select few firearms and I didn't purchase mine in "fear" nor do I carry and conceal. I don't need a reminder of my fun filled trips to "Paradise" popping in my head any given time of the day.
What the Heck is going on in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/howards-gun-legacy--200-lives-saved-a-year-20100829-13xne.html
Nice to know that 200 lives are saved from suicide a year in Australi from fire arms.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/07/29 05:26:32
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/29 06:25:25
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Spacemanvic wrote:
Those maps are suspect as they are provided by known anti-gun groups.
And because the internet isn't a thing, and you're lazy, the numbers cannot be verified.
Or, to rephrase, "Bitch, moan, bitch bitch, moan."
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/29 06:26:19
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/29 09:11:42
Subject: Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
If the Harvard study is correct, then the USA, with its massive level of tooled-upness, should have practically zero murder and violent crime.
But it doesn't.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/29 09:48:31
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
That says that lives were saved from guns being banned and I had to mention it because it's unclear to me whether or not you realise that.
I'd never want to live in a world where even the average policeman was carrying a gun, primarily because you could have the training and the cool of John Rambo and still make a mistake. Also because I don't think anybody should be killing anybody else. And like I said before, I think wanting a firearm is a cowardly reaction to fear. Just my opinion.
Wikipedia wrote:Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period).[65] This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period.
The other thing I see with the whole "I needs mah gun to defends mahself" thing is; who gave you the right to use lethal force because someone cut you off on the motorway, or punched you in the face? If they're trying to kill you it becomes situational, but I doubt most people with a gun aim to shoot a would-be attacker in the legs no matter what the situation and I'm certain most people with a gun turn to it as plan A.
|
"If you don't have Funzo, you're nothin'!"
"I'm cancelling you out of shame, like my subscription to white dwarf"
Never use a long word where a short one will do. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/29 10:21:01
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight
|
Davylove21 wrote: And like I said before, I think wanting a firearm is a cowardly reaction to fear. Just my opinion.
Let's not generalise too much. Guns are fun. I've been a shooter since I was a kid, and enjoy pistol shooting, trap and skeet shooting, rifle target shooting, and many forms of hunting.
Wikipedia wrote:Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period).[65] This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period.
The other thing I see with the whole "I needs mah gun to defends mahself" thing is; who gave you the right to use lethal force because someone cut you off on the motorway, or punched you in the face? If they're trying to kill you it becomes situational, but I doubt most people with a gun aim to shoot a would-be attacker in the legs no matter what the situation and I'm certain most people with a gun turn to it as plan A.
Part of the problem is that guns used in defence during a crime is an incredibly nebulous stat.
For example, I'm willing to bet that 99% of the people who defend themselves from a crime were wearing shoes.
Ergo, shoes are a useful deterrent to crime.
Now that's not a perfect analogy, but any stat that references use of guns as a means of defence from crime is a useless stat.
We need to narrow the field to situations where the victim could only have defended themselves or prevented the crime by the use of a firearm.
|
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/29 11:53:57
Subject: Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
We seem to be retreading old ground here. Some people are under the mistaken impression that if other people in the cinema were armed, the tradegy could have been adverted! Thank god for other sensible posters pointing out how flawed that view is.
This is what I wrote about it earlier, which I'll re-post:
As I've mentioned before, due to previous miltary service, I'm more qualified than most on this site to comment on gun battles. Even with training, even with friends backing you up, being shot at is not nice!!!
Imagine if the situation was slightly different and that one or two people were armed and decided to return fire. Chances are, these people would not have been in a combat situation before, or even had so much as a parking ticket. Their hands are sweaty, heart is beating like a drum, tunnel vision kicks in and their wrestling with morality i.e can I take a life? You want people like that returning fire in a packed cinema I don't blame people for running to the exit. Some people rise above this, they don't think, they just shoot, because survival instincts are strong. but IMO people without training or experience in that kind of situation would make it worse. They would kill the wrong person or get killed themselves.
But despite what I said, people should still be able to defend their shops and homes and shoot down crooks threatning their lives. If it's 3am and somebody bursts into my house wanting to rob the place, and they're packing a pistol, you bet your ass I want to return fire!!! In this regard, the Americans have got it spot on!
But on a final note, having seen first hand what a small piece of metal travelling at a 1000 metres per second (or whatever) can do to a person, I do my best to avoid any violence these days and guns (unless a plastic soldier is carrying them)
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/29 13:04:13
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
xole wrote:MrMerlin wrote:Agree with what filbert is saying. "Now, what are we gonna do against all this gun violenve??"
"Get more guns!"
Why do so many americans not see that lots of guns = lots of gun violence? even more guns are not going to help
Technically, it did. Russia having nukes ensured that we would not use ours. We sweated it out a few times, but it may have been the best possible outcome.
Mutually Assured Destruction is a very fine concept. Very rarely(and very unsuccessfully) do people try to rob a gun store.
(To the last bit)An argument on the internet is not comparable to two armed people in an argument.
What I'm surprised no one has brought up(forgive me if it has...the 101 points thing was annoyingly long) is that if someone has intent to rob or harm someone then they are likely to do it when the person is the most vulnerable, aka not armed. Following this logic guns would be unable to defend you.
(To Davy)What I want is a statistic on mass shooting where the victim had a gun versus shootings where only the assailant had a gun.
Interesting point about gunshops, but I do have a query and please forgive my ignorance if I understand this incorrectly. Although a gunshop sells plenty of guns and ammo, aren't they by law supposed to be held in seperate secure ares? If this is the case what makes they any more secure then any other shop? Criminal walks in with a loaded handgun in their jacket, nobody is aware of this when the perp walks in, perp pulls loaded handgun and suprises shop staff. At which point does have having hundreds of guns and 50,000 rounds of ammo help out?
At face value the point seems a valid one, but does it really hold up? Or are criminals actually caught up in this assumption and are scared off at the idea of there being loads of loaded weapons being ready to shoot them down in a hail of lead?
|
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
www.wulfstandesign.co.uk
http://www.voodoovegas.com/
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/29 15:53:55
Subject: Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Many of them have bulletproof glass just in case. Or a gun at the ready just in case.
|
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/29 16:45:26
Subject: Re:Discussion of US gun laws
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Many of them have bulletproof glass just in case. Or a gun at the ready just in case.
All the gun shops I've been into are very well secured.. Ammo are located on the shelves and the weapons behind the counters on walls are locked in place or in glass veiwing cases. You cannot handle a weapon in the store without the presence of one of theworkers.
Also everyone uder the impression of killing the individual/suspect/criminal/nutjob is the only way (in a cronfrontation)
The seperation of weapon and ammo is at the home.
|
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
 |
 |
|
|