MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Gun Control
 Group admin 
So this is a very touchy subject, If you want to debate about this, keep it clean, don't go Piers Morgan style on anyone.


TO HELP YOU GUYS OUT

So you don't have to do all that scrolling down: http://www.mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=22580&topicid=89488&message=comment_posted#comment-1208094
Gets you to near the bottom, anyways.

DEBATE!
Permalink
| May 29, 2013, 10:29 am
 Group admin 
I think of it this way. The bad guys get their guns illegally for the most part, so outlawing or over-regulating guns would be taking them from the good guys.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 2:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
I think of it this way. The bad guys get their guns illegally for the most part, so outlawing or over-regulating guns would be taking them from the good guys.

Yeah, but that solves nothing. I say, limit bullets and magazines, and limit guns. WHY do you need a gun? If you live in the wilderness, I understand. But otherwise, why?
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 3:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, but that solves nothing. I say, limit bullets and magazines, and limit guns. WHY do you need a gun? If you live in the wilderness, I understand. But otherwise, why?
It would be the good guys being limited. There are bad people out there that seek to do evil and people have to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones. In Switzerland the government gives each household a handgun and because of that they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. I think that speaks for itself.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 3:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, but that solves nothing. I say, limit bullets and magazines, and limit guns. WHY do you need a gun? If you live in the wilderness, I understand. But otherwise, why?
It would be the good guys being limited. There are bad people out there that seek to do evil and people have to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones. In Switzerland the government gives each household a handgun and because of that they have one of the lowest crime rates. I think that speaks for itself.

.....But it falls on mentality. The Sweds are NOTHING like Americans, (not offense to anyone). Its all controlling WHERE the gun goes; and frankly Americans can't keep the act together. And technically, when you "protect yourself" using a gun, aren't you using violence? Now, I know that many like to take the Constitution and wave it in the faces of anti-gun societies. But does anyone remember that section that BANS alcoholic drink? It was repealed, as it DIDN'T WORK. I am not advocating drunken states for anyone, but it proves that the Constitution, despite its awesome-ness, was written in a time LONG AGO. You needed a gun because of Native Americans (which settlers kinda provoked, so), and the acres of untracked land. And Britishers. Now we are living peacefully with the true Natives, we have GPS and most areas have been tracked. And the British are allies now. Again gun? What? Lastly, I need to take on the "I will use the gun to stop the government" clause. Please don't use that. We gave the government all the power in the world after the civil war. Try using a modified AR-15 against an Abrams tank.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 3:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So, you will just let the thief, who got his gun illegally, walk into your house steal your stuff and leave you on the floor dead?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns in the right hands prevent murder. But if you take the guns out of the right hands, how will the good people stop the criminals?

Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 3:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So, you will just let the thief, who got his gun illegally, walk into your house steal your stuff and leave you on the floor dead?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns in the right hands prevent murder. But if you take the guns out of the right hands, how will the good people stop the criminals?

Yes, but he has no bullets. Thats the point. LIMIT THE AMMO. Also, while it is legal to fight back if you are attacked (which is never a good idea, in my opinion; it leaves a whole lot of confusion in court) you will never need to if you limit ammo. Let me ask you this then. I know that people have to pull the trigger to kill other people. You can't control the people. What is the next step? Arm everyone? And risk the entire population to follow what the Mujahaden did back in the 70's and 80's?
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 3:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
The criminals get the guns illegally, and they get their ammo the same way. One doesn't even have to use the gun to stop the criminals, they won't break into someone's house if they know that person is ready. The people in Switzerland don't even have to touch their guns to keep the crime rate as low as it is. There are a ton more good and sensible people then dangerous crazies and as long as things stay that way the risk of unlawful death will actually go down.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 3:53 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
The criminals get the guns illegally, and they get their ammo the same way. One doesn't even have to use the gun to stop the criminals, they won't break into someone's house if they know that person is ready. The people in Switzerland don't even have to touch their guns to keep the crime rate as low as it is. There are a ton more good and sensible people then dangerous crazies and as long as things stay that way the risk of unlawful death will actually go down.

I really don't think that you can compare the Swiss to Americans. Like, I don't want to use any cruel (or any for that matter) stereotypes, but it seems that people from that region of the world are quite calm, cool, and collected. They don't have the, uh, fight mentality. Where as, many Americans are not like that. As fascinating as America is, and has great as it is, its population contains people that are quite violent. Adding more weapons to the mix is not going to be a road block; it will be like opening the floodgates. Also, let me ask, do you favor high powered Assault rifles as well as handguns?
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 3:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
This is all opinion. I don't think Americans are any more willing to fight then the Swiss. The wild west is long gone, today we deal with gangs that get their guns/ammo illegally, drug dealers that get their guns/ammo illegally, etc. Now you never answered my question. 'If you take the guns out of the right hands, how will the good people stop the criminals?'
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:05 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad

Okay.

Our firearms are used to protect ourselves and to have fun with. Not to be scared of.

The only thing limiting rounds in a magazine will do is make gun owners angry. And that's not smart.

Our "assault rifles" didn't kill the students at that school. The guy who used it, and heck he didn't even use IT, killed the students. Don't blame the guns. Blame the man.

Guns aren't scary. People who use guns to commit crime are scary.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
This is all opinion. I don't think Americans are any more willing to fight then the Swiss. The wild west is long gone, today we deal with gangs that get their guns/ammo illegally, drug dealers that get their guns/ammo illegally, etc. Now you never answered my question. 'If you take the guns out of the right hands, how will the good people stop the criminals?'

Let me take your question first, so I don't forget. I say use bats. But actually, my answer is to get rid of the bad guy's weapons. Now, let me say, you never answered the question, Should we just ban Assault Weapons, or also hand guns?
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
Okay.

Our firearms are used to protect ourselves and to have fun with. Not to be scared of.

The only thing limiting rounds in a magazine will do is make gun owners angry. And that's not smart.

Our "assault rifles" didn't kill the students at that school. The guy who used it, and heck he didn't even use IT, killed the students. Don't blame the guns. Blame the man.

Guns aren't scary. People who use guns to commit crime are scary.

Okay, wow. You think firearms are something to kid around with? Really? In hunting, I guess so. But even then. Already that sets up a problem. Now, guns aren't scary. So you would be willing to, say, walk down a street in Afghanistan (a street that is on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan)? Next, you say that limiting gun rounds will anger gun owners. That would be on the verge of a threat, I would say (not to me in specific, but to in general). The military would simply stop any uprising (Whiskey Rebellion, back when Washington was pres) blood or no blood. We can't, once again, control the people. Control the weapon.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So, you doing run at the criminal with a bat and he's going to shoot you with his gun. How do you plan on taking away the criminal's gun when he is getting it from an illegal source. The is always trying to stop these sources, but obviously it is not that easy. To answer your question, I don't think people need machine-guns to protect themselves but hand guns are necessary.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:25 pm
 Group admin 
When Australia banned guns, gun crime went down, while knife crime went simultaneously up. My dad knows a guy who was disa bled at the time, and still sort of is, who had an armed thug come into his house late at night, and had to kill him (with a pistol).
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
When Australia banned guns, gun crime went down, while knife crime went simultaneously up. My dad knows a guy who was disa bled at the time, and still sort of is, who had an armed thug come into his house late at night, and had to kill him (with a pistol).
Interesting. Are you for or against gun control?

Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So, you doing run at the criminal with a bat and he's going to shoot you with his gun. How do you plan on taking away the criminal's gun when he is getting it from an illegal source. The is always trying to stop these sources, but obviously it is not that easy. To answer your question, I don't think people need machine-guns to protect themselves but hand guns are necessary.

I was bring sarcastic about the bat. Stopping illegal guns, well, means that we must limit the border. Drug cartels are bringing the trouble. Also, going back, I believe that you will find that hand guns kill MORE than rifles. And finally, even in a defensive situation, someone dies. Its the fact. Saying that defending yourself is an argument means that you are not looking at the effect: that is, a death.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Also, let me ask, do you favor high powered Assault rifles as well as handguns?

What is an "assault weapon"? True assault weapons, machine guns, were banned in 1986.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Interesting. Are you for or against gun control?

Against
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
What is an "assault weapon"? True assault weapons, machine guns, were banned in 1986.

AR-15s, for a start. Weapons that are high powered, or can use high capacity magazines.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Quoting The Object of Legend
Interesting. Are you for or against gun control?

Against

I have no allies. :-(
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:44 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
AR-15s, for a start. Weapons that are high powered, or can use high capacity magazines.

High powered, as in a hunting gun? And AR 15s really don't have that much power. They have a small, underpowered bullet. The AR platform was designed to replace the M14 in the military, but the 5.56 ammo isn't getting the job done, so they're using M14s some now.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:47 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
People die, but if you ban guns you will see that it is the good guys who die. Look at the countries who have done it! Bad guys will get their weapons. It is a fact,again look at the countries.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
When Australia banned guns, gun crime went down, while knife crime went simultaneously up. My dad knows a guy who was disa bled at the time, and still sort of is, who had an armed thug come into his house late at night, and had to kill him (with a pistol).

There you go. We can't control knife crimes, but you CAN prevent those with a bat. Or a phaser. (kidding, of course)
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
People die, but if you ban guns you will see that it is the good guys who die. Look at the countries who have done it! Bad guys will get their weapons. It is a fact,again look at the countries.

What countries are we looking at?
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
High powered, as in a hunting gun? And AR 15s really don't have that much power. They have a small, underpowered bullet. The AR platform was designed to replace the M14 in the military, but the 5.56 ammo isn't getting the job done, so they're using M14s some now.

If I am not mistaken, you can modify -15s to be powerful. And also, how many rounds can the gun carry? How many bullets can it shoot in a minute?
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
What countries are we looking at?
The urbanized countries that have banned guns vs those that haven't or support guns.

Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:52 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
If I am not mistaken, you can modify -15s to be powerful. And also, how many rounds can the gun carry? How many bullets can it shoot in a minute?

They are usually made more powerful by hunters. And it's semi-auto, it shoots as fast as you can pull a 4ish pound trigger.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
What countries are we looking at?
The urbanized countries that have banned guns vs those that haven't or support guns.

I would like names, my friend. Like the UK, or South Africa, etc.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
They are usually made more powerful by hunters. And it's semi-auto, it shoots as fast as you can pull a 4ish pound trigger.

So they can be made powerful. And they can be made automatic. And how many bullets?
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I would like names, my friend. Like the UK, or South Africa, etc.
Compare the UK to Switzerland if you must. Just look up which countries have a gun ban. I have to go, though, nice debating with you.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 4:58 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I would like names, my friend. Like the UK, or South Africa, etc.
Compare the UK to Switzerland if you must. Just look up which countries have a gun ban. I have to go, though, nice debating with you.

Sure England has less GUN crime, but they have the 4th highest robbery rate, 5th highest burglary rate, and the EU named Britain the most violent country in the union.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I would like names, my friend. Like the UK, or South Africa, etc.
Compare the UK to Switzerland if you must. Just look up which countries have a gun ban. I have to go, though, nice debating with you.

Yeah, it was interesting, and I think clean. Make sure you find the way back though; this may put this group on the map.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Sure England has less GUN crime, but they have the 4th highest robbery rate, 5th highest burglary rate, and the EU named Britain the most violent country in the union.

Okay, well firstly where is the USA on that list (assuming the list is international)? And the important bit is GUN. Less GUN violence.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay, well firstly where is the USA on that list (assuming the list is international)? And the important bit is GUN. Less GUN violence.

We are 27ish last I heard (gun violence), first in ownership.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So they can be made powerful. And they can be made automatic.

Well if you make them automatic, jail for a decade. And you could make a rudime ntary machine gun in your basement if you had simple metalworking tools. People who want to do harm will figure out a way. Your argument is basically your average person can't be trusted, because they COULD do something bad. But average people go out of their way to obey all the reasonable gun restrictions.
I think mass shootings should be stopped with better mental health, since all of those people are really crazy anyway.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And how many bullets?

A heavily modified belt fed could theoretically have unlimited.

Good bye
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
We are 27ish last I heard (gun violence), first in ownership.

It.....what? And where is England, France, and Germany? And ownership is correct.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
It.....what? And where is England, France, and Germany? And ownership is correct.

Sorry, 26th. Europe is far less. I care more about violence in general, than that kind of weapon is used.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:19 pm
My take on this subject: Keep a record of how often people buy bullets - along with the fact if people who have hunting licenses are buying the bullets.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
My take on this subject: Keep a record of how often people buy bullets - along with the fact if people who have hunting licenses are buying the bullets.

I'd rather keep better track of ins ane people and criminals, the people who are doing these crimes.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Well if you make them automatic, jail for a decade. And you could make a rudime ntary machine gun in your basement if you had simple metalworking tools. People who want to do harm will figure out a way. Your argument is basically your average person can't be trusted, because they COULD do something bad. But average people go out of their way to obey all the reasonable gun restrictions.
I think mass shootings should be stopped with better mental health, since all of those people are really crazy anyway.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And how many bullets?

A heavily modified belt fed could theoretically have unlimited.

Good bye

Okay, but jail for a decade doesn't ever happen, as the person who modifies usually ends up dead after a horrific fire fight. Or other.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
My take on this subject: Keep a record of how often people buy bullets - along with the fact if people who have hunting licenses are buying the bullets.

So control?
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:43 pm
 Group admin 
It's been fun, but I have to go help make dinner.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:50 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
It's been fun, but I have to go help make dinner.

I understand. Feel free to come back whenever!
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 5:54 pm
Beats me. I can't really understand why some of you are so hard against some kind of gun license. You have those for cars, because cars can be dangerous if used improperly, or if handed to the mentally unstable. Regular citizens still get to use their cars on a regular basis. Until they're found unfit to keep using one.
Well, in the end I'm not American so thankfully, not my problem :)
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 6:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
Beats me. I can't really understand why some of you are so hard against some kind of gun license. You have those for cars, because cars can be dangerous if used improperly, or if handed to the mentally unstable. Regular citizens still get to use their cars on a regular basis. Until they're found unfit to keep using one.
Well, in the end I'm not American so thankfully, not my problem :)


People are so against this because it violates one of the guiding principles that helped shape the USA, that is, the Second Amendment to the US constitution, which allows citizens the right to bare arms. Its tricky, cause you kinda are going against history. Make sense?
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 6:18 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad

People are so against this because it violates one of the guiding principles that helped shape the USA, that is, the Second Amendment to the US constitution, which allows citizens the right to bare arms. Its tricky, cause you kinda are going against history. Make sense?

Not really, no.
When cars came out, there was no driving license. People got a car, hopped in it, and off they went.
In time, someone figured out that a carefree stance regarding a potentially lethal piece of technology was not the wisest option, and made laws about it to reduce the chance of accidents.
Again, people are pretty *moderated word* and some pretty evil, so you can't avoid accidents, only reduce them. You must decide if going through getting a license to get your gun is worth the lives it saves. Because see, in the end, you would indeed get your gun, if you really wanted it.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 6:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
Not really, no.
When cars came out, there was no driving license. People got a car, hopped in it, and off they went.
In time, someone figured out that a carefree stance regarding a potentially lethal piece of technology was not the wisest option, and made laws about it to reduce the chance of accidents.
Again, people are pretty *moderated word* and some pretty evil, so you can't avoid accidents, only reduce them. You must decide if going through getting a license to get your gun is worth the lives it saves. Because see, in the end, you would indeed get your gun, if you really wanted it.

That is what I am debating for. Practically everyone else on the thread (so far) has gone against this. You have licenses to cary guns in a concealed state, and you do have licenses to kill. But I feel that is not adequate, and these regulations are WAY to lax.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 7:11 pm
All I can say is this: we don't have guns here. They're mostly illegal, with some exceptions. There are still deadly shootings of course, but the good things is, if someone who is not supposed to have a gun tries to get one, that alone is a crime, and so one additional chance to stop the guy BEFORE he gets to use it.
Of course in our case, it doesn't really matter, what with corruption and Mafia so rampant at every level of our State... you get to do pretty much what the f you want.
Well, good night.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 7:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
Beats me. I can't really understand why some of you are so hard against some kind of gun license.

Will the thugs on the street get their licenses too? Or just the people who follow the laws anyway?
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 7:58 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Will the thugs on the street get their licenses too? Or just the people who follow the laws anyway?

If there are no guns, no one will get a license.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 9:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
If there are no guns, no one will get a license.

So you support NO guns? What about the 1.5-2 million times a year when privately owned guns are used for defense, many of those instances nobody even gets shot, the attacker backs off just because of the presence of the gun.
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 10:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting The Object of Legend
In Switzerland the government gives each household a handgun

Actually, it's a machine gun, one of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_SG_550
Permalink
| May 30, 2013, 10:31 pm
Quoting michael k.
Will the thugs on the street get their licenses too? Or just the people who follow the laws anyway?

I suppose they won't. Which will make it a crime, with an additional chance for cops to arrest them before they get to use them.
A problem that law-abiding citizens won't have.
What's more, a license would make sure that any citizen in possession of a gun recieves basic training in gun safety, reducing chance of incidents. It works for cars, I don't see why it couldn't for guns.
In the end it's up to you guys, if that's what you want, then by all means keep blowing yourselves away, I'm on the other side of the ocean :)
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 3:11 am
The majority of people screaming for more gun control are news anchors and scumbag "celebrities" who live in gated communities and have never had to live in the real world a day in their lives, and know absolutely nothing about guns. They consistently call suppressors "silencers", magazines "clips", and in some some rare cases, they call every single handgun, no matter what kind it is, a "revolver".

So, my question is... Do you want complete idi@ts talking about guns and what you should or shouldn't own? Why don't they do something about gangs? Why don't they do something about drugs? Why don't they do something about racism? Why are inanimate pieces of steel blamed for everything when you could try helping the society that you think is misusing them?

Society is the problem. And violence is the result. There's only one way to kill a weed. If you dig up the roots, you won't have to worry about it later. (violence being the weed, and society being the root)

*catches breath*
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 1:38 pm
Also, if you're a Hellywood actor who's used a gun even once in a movie or on TV, and you're screaming for more gun control now, you're a complete hypocrite.

I think if the anti gun crowd understood how much fun safe, responsible target shooting can be, there would be a lot less hostility toward gun owners right now. Just saying.



On a side note, can we ALL agree that knife laws are ridiculous? I find that that's usually the case, even among people with very different opinions of guns.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 1:45 pm
Some of my favorite pro-gun quotes from celebrities. I'm no fan of Ted Nugent, but I agree with what he says.


"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
- Clint Eastwood

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."
- James Earl Jones

"The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my Concealed Weapons Permit, period."
- Ted Nugent

"There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period."
- Ted Nugent

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."
- Ted Nugent

"An armed society is a polite society."
- Robert Heinlein

"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men."
- Robert A. Heinlein

"Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised."
- Charlton Heston

"We would just go out and line up a bunch of cans and shoot with rifles, handguns and at times, submachine guns... When I was a kid it was a controlled atmosphere, we weren't shooting at humans... we were shooting at cans and bottles mostly. I will most certainly take my kids out for target practice."
- Johnny Depp

"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you ... it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- Dalai Lama

"A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders."
- Larry Elder

"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
- G. K. Chesterton

" ... the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law."
- Martin Luther King

"In England, if you commit a crime, the police don't have a gun and you don't have a gun. If you commit a crime, the police will say 'Stop, or I'll say stop again.'"
- Robin Williams

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."
- Christian Slater
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
So you support NO guns? What about the 1.5-2 million times a year when privately owned guns are used for defense, many of those instances nobody even gets shot, the attacker backs off just because of the presence of the gun.

Get a fake gun. If no shot is fired, get a fake gun.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nate Andrews
Also, if you're a Hellywood actor who's used a gun even once in a movie or on TV, and you're screaming for more gun control now, you're a complete hypocrite.

I think if the anti gun crowd understood how much fun safe, responsible target shooting can be, there would be a lot less hostility toward gun owners right now. Just saying.



On a side note, can we ALL agree that knife laws are ridiculous? I find that that's usually the case, even among people with very different opinions of guns.

Oookay. Firstly, your categorization of callers for Gun control are hardly the case; are you seriously insulting the parent of Sandy Hook victims? Also, if you want to reduce and destroy gangs and the massive drug war on the border, eliminate 1/3 of the problem; guns. If you eliminate that form the equation, we can then move forward and take out drugs. (I am going to start a drug war thread soon, so). As for Knife control, I don't even know that was such a thing.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:10 pm
It will not stop anything....If you live in MT (USA) And someone attacks you,(a bad guy) you can shoot them and you will be thanked by the police! (if they are looking for him) This happened not far from where I live.


Ok. This guy was going to rob a house in CA. But then he did not because there are more police there... So he went to MT and almost robbed a guy in MT and the guy in the house (not the bad guy) Shot him (or stabbed him) And the guy was thanked by the police! If I were him I would have robbed CA because 1 in 7 people have a weapon in CA and and 6 out of 7 people have a weapon in MT! It's just D*mb...
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:38 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nate Andrews
Some of my favorite pro-gun quotes from celebrities. I'm no fan of Ted Nugent, but I agree with what he says.


"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
- Clint Eastwood

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."
- James Earl Jones

"The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my Concealed Weapons Permit, period."
- Ted Nugent

"There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period."
- Ted Nugent

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."
- Ted Nugent

"An armed society is a polite society."
- Robert Heinlein

"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men."
- Robert A. Heinlein

"Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised."
- Charlton Heston

"We would just go out and line up a bunch of cans and shoot with rifles, handguns and at times, submachine guns... When I was a kid it was a controlled atmosphere, we weren't shooting at humans... we were shooting at cans and bottles mostly. I will most certainly take my kids out for target practice."
- Johnny Depp

"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you ... it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- Dalai Lama

"A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders."
- Larry Elder

"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
- G. K. Chesterton

" ... the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law."
- Martin Luther King

"In England, if you commit a crime, the police don't have a gun and you don't have a gun. If you commit a crime, the police will say 'Stop, or I'll say stop again.'"
- Robin Williams

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."
- Christian Slater

The interesting thing about this comment (which was sent into moderation which required my approval) is that it contradicts your stance. Earlier you claimed that celebrities were the ones rooting for gun control. These quotes defeat that thought process entirely. Now, personally, I don't think that these hold any power. Literally all of these celebs can be found flanked with body guards. If other people have a gun is not really something they care about. Ted Nugent, rockstar and general activist for things that people like to stereotype about, has a few good views (HATE PETA) but guns? Yeah, you are American, and yes, you have rights. But the Second Amendment is not there to be thrown about. Its main purpose is not to allow people to openly buy guns; its for people to have weapons to use in the even the government got, frisky. At the time, the government was WAY more open about everything; states held more power than the government that supposedly controlled them. After the Civil War, however, it was shown that the country with the largest economy (America) needed a strong, central government. The citizens gave up any such ability to rebel against the government; its just to strong. Defense against your neighbor is a TERRIBLE argument. You wanna say that the US is not the "wild-wild-west"? Well that means no one needs a gun! No argument I see makes sense. If you think that you need a gun to stop an intruder, than thats more paranoia speaking than anything!
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:39 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oookay. Firstly, your categorization of callers for Gun control are hardly the case; are you seriously insulting the parent of Sandy Hook victims? Also, if you want to reduce and destroy gangs and the massive drug war on the border, eliminate 1/3 of the problem; guns. If you eliminate that form the equation, we can then move forward and take out drugs. (I am going to start a drug war thread soon, so). As for Knife control, I don't even know that was such a thing.
At what point did I mention Sandy Hook? Nothing that I said was meant to "insult" them. And many of the people involved there would agree with me. The whole thing could have been prevented, had the weapon(s) involved been locked up securely in a safe or something, instead of being within easy reach of the unstable person who shouldn't be anywhere near weapons.

If you don't think what I say about celebrities
and the media is true, then I suggest you do a bit of research. USA Today claims that gun owners "side with the devil". I'm a gun owner. And if I see the devil, I'll probably shoot him if that would make the writers at USA Today happy.

As for knife control, there's really no need for locking blades, butterfly knives, and switchblades to be so heavily restricted. They only seem dangerous because they've been portrayed that way in the movies and on TV. In the real world, they're not any more dangerous than the common pocket knife. Thanks to Hollywood, people are intimidated when a blade snaps open under spring tension, even if that blade is much smaller than the blade in the pocket knife your grandfather carried with him every day.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nate Andrews
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oookay. Firstly, your categorization of callers for Gun control are hardly the case; are you seriously insulting the parent of Sandy Hook victims? Also, if you want to reduce and destroy gangs and the massive drug war on the border, eliminate 1/3 of the problem; guns. If you eliminate that form the equation, we can then move forward and take out drugs. (I am going to start a drug war thread soon, so). As for Knife control, I don't even know that was such a thing.
At what point did I mention Sandy Hook? Nothing that I said was meant to "insult" them. And many of the people involved there would agree with me. The whole thing could have been prevented, had the weapon(s) involved been locked up securely in a safe or something, instead of being within easy reach of the unstable person who shouldn't be anywhere near weapons.

If you don't think what I say about celebrities
and the media is true, then I suggest you do a bit of research. USA Today claims that gun owners "side with the devil". I'm a gun owner. And if I see the devil, I'll probably shoot him if that would make the writers at USA Today happy.

As for knife control, there's really no need for locking blades, butterfly knives, and switchblades to be so heavily restricted. They only seem dangerous because they've been portrayed that way in the movies and on TV. In the real world, they're not any more dangerous than the common pocket knife. Thanks to Hollywood, people are intimidated when a blade snaps open under spring tension, even if that blade is much smaller than the blade in the pocket knife your grandfather carried with him every day.

No, you didn't mention and Sandy Hook parents, but I am saying that these folk are pushing for gun legislation, and they are not like the people you are mentioning are for gun control. Now frankly, I agree with you that the USA Today was well and truly wrong; gun owners don't side with the devil. I just believed that they are not quite thinking in the 21st Century. But once again, I believe that control should be put in. As for Knife Control, I totally agree. I mean, how am I suppose to eat a nice piece of chicken? Also, even though it is stated in the rules, I would like to make it clear that I AM NOT trying to offend anyone.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:46 pm
*sigh* There a 61-year-old man in the UK who was arrested for keeping a Swiss army knife in the glovebox of his car. And he was only using it to cut up fruit when he went on picnics with his wife.

Why would a non-locking knife with a 2 1/2 inch blade EVER be considered a weapon?!
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:47 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Isaac The Awesome!
It will not stop anything....If you live in MT (USA) And someone attacks you,(a bad guy) you can shoot them and you will be thanked by the police! (if they are looking for him) This happened not far from where I live.


Ok. This guy was going to rob a house in CA. But then he did not because there are more police there... So he went to MT and almost robbed a guy in MT and the guy in the house (not the bad guy) Shot him (or stabbed him) And the guy was thanked by the police! If I were him I would have robbed CA because 1 in 7 people have a weapon in CA and and 6 out of 7 people have a weapon in MT! It's just D*mb...

Look, I am saying take the gun out of the equation. Pretend that is doesn't exist. Now tell me, who will crime be committed? By knives? No one is blocking that (and rightfully so) and you can stop someone with a knife without a gun.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:48 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Look, I am saying take the gun out of the equation. Pretend that is doesn't exist. Now tell me, who will crime be committed? By knives? No one is blocking that (and rightfully so) and you can stop someone with a knife without a gun.

The Gov can take guns away! You can buy a permit so they can never takes them away! Ever! :)
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nate Andrews
*sigh* There a 61-year-old man in the UK who was arrested for keeping a Swiss army knife in the glovebox of his car. And he was only using it to cut up fruit when he went on picnics with his wife.

Why would a non-locking knife with a 2 1/2 inch blade EVER be considered a weapon?!

What? I agree with you. NO KNIFE CONTROL.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Isaac The Awesome!
The Gov can take guns away! You can buy a permit so they can never takes them away! Ever! :)

Yeah, they can. But are you REALLY going to fight the Feds? Face it, the people are hopelessly outmatched with the guns that are currently in circulation.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:53 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, they can. But are you REALLY going to fight the Feds? Face it, the people are hopelessly outmatched with the guns that are currently in circulation.

No. Yep! A spade (shovel) is made on the same thing! Duh!
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:56 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
What? I agree with you. NO KNIFE CONTROL.
I was kind of stressing the point that we both agree on knives. I can't shake hands with you through a computer.

Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:56 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Isaac The Awesome!
No. Yep! A spade (shovel) is made on the same thing! Duh!

Yeah, uh, the USAF has the most advanced fighters in the world. The American people have Cessnas. And Beechcrafts.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:58 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nate Andrews
Quoting Achintya Prasad
What? I agree with you. NO KNIFE CONTROL.
I was kind of stressing the point that we both agree on knives. I can't shake hands with you through a computer.

Oh. Well than. I don't wan't to hit the screen, so. Anyways, back to guns. Get rid of 'em.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 3:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oh. Well than. I don't wan't to hit the screen, so. Anyways, back to guns. Get rid of 'em.

Then what is your plan if you are ever the victim of a home invasion? Reformed gangsters will tell you they used to laugh at the idea of gun control, they know it won't stop them.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 4:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Then what is your plan if you are ever the victim of a home invasion? Reformed gangsters will tell you they used to laugh at the idea of gun control, they know it won't stop them.

Firstly, this ain't Home Alone. A "home invasion" is not something that happens to everyone. Also, if it were enforced, all I have to say is this: show me a gang that will go toe-to-toe with the National Guard. If necessary, troops will be deployed. And seeing how armed tanks aren't for sale, I doubt a gang can stand up.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 4:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Firstly, this ain't Home Alone. A "home invasion" is not something that happens to everyone.

I never said it was.

Quoting Achintya Prasad
Also, if it were enforced, all I have to say is this: show me a gang that will go toe-to-toe with the National Guard. If necessary, troops will be deployed. And seeing how armed tanks aren't for sale, I doubt a gang can stand up.

I meant small time crime, not that gangsters could rebel against the government, like in Mexico.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 4:52 pm
I see my post on celebrity gun quotes was finally cleared. My point with that post was not ALL celebrities are anti gun. The majority of celebrities and their stance on gun control are what inspired my original comment.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 5:12 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So control?

No, allow people to have guns, I just suggest keeping track to see where the bullets are going and how frequently. It might help, it might not, but we might as well try something.

The way I see it: you have the right to defend yourself wherever you are. If we ban guns....the bad guys will get them anyway.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 6:14 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay, well firstly where is the USA on that list (assuming the list is international)? And the important bit is GUN. Less GUN violence.

Guns don't kill people, people do.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 6:15 pm
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Guns don't kill people, people do.

Yes! That's what I was thinking!
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 6:18 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oh. Well than. I don't wan't to hit the screen, so. Anyways, back to guns. Get rid of 'em.

You'll have to ban bombs then as well....

Even if guns were banned, people would buy guns right at the end before they were banned, and even buy guns from oversees....The government wouldn't have solved anything because now more people than ever have guns in their houses. The government wouldn't go into millions of houses and confiscate guns...too unrealistic.


Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 6:21 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Guns don't kill people, people do.

So you want to control the people?
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 8:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
You'll have to ban bombs then as well....

Even if guns were banned, people would buy guns right at the end before they were banned, and even buy guns from oversees....The government wouldn't have solved anything because now more people than ever have guns in their houses. The government wouldn't go into millions of houses and confiscate guns...too unrealistic.


Oh? You think so? Firstly, if we cut off these drug and gun runners so that they can't do business. Next, we cut off the ammo. A gun ain't that helpful without ammo. Now what are you going to do?
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 8:21 pm
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
You'll have to ban bombs then as well....

Even if guns were banned, people would buy guns right at the end before they were banned, and even buy guns from oversees....The government wouldn't have solved anything because now more people than ever have guns in their houses. The government wouldn't go into millions of houses and confiscate guns...too unrealistic.


Very true! The Gov might ban guns but what would that do?
Permalink
| June 1, 2013, 3:01 am
Part of it is that you know how many kids play Video-games where they kill people! Thats part of it! It's not like they are going to ban COD and halo and other games like that!
Permalink
| June 1, 2013, 3:03 am
Here is what I think. I had to do a report on Guns and Video games. Yes we did have a photo to write off of... But I don't have it... :(

Their kid who is playing a video game and killing people and screaming ďDIE! DIE! YOU @#&!# DIE!!Ē He is rotting his brain with guns, killing people, cruel words, and deadly video games! So the cartoonist is saying, parents need to be responsible, kids need to stop playing bad video games! Guns do not kill people, people shooting people kill. So there is no need to blame guns for killing people, because guns canít shoot them selfís. People have to shoot the gun to kill the person. I am not saying all video games are bad for you but you need to limit the time and play non-deadly video games.

Permalink
| June 1, 2013, 3:09 am
If a bad guy came up to you and he had a gun and you did not, would you want one? I would!
Permalink
| June 1, 2013, 3:10 am
Quoting michael k.
Actually, it's a machine gun, one of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_SG_550

That the way!
Permalink
| June 1, 2013, 3:12 am
A car is worse! They could just go to NY and just drive over lots of people and kill them!
Permalink
| June 1, 2013, 3:17 am
Quoting Isaac The Awesome!
A car is worse! They could just go to NY and just drive over lots of people and kill them!

That's why you need a driving license.
And if you misuse it, they take it away.
And if you drive anyway without one, you can get arrested BEFORE you make any victims.
Try applying it to guns, does it sound reasonable?
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 7:30 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
That's why you need a driving license.
And if you misuse it, they take it away.
And if you drive anyway without one, you can get arrested BEFORE you make any victims.
Try applying it to guns, does it sound reasonable?

Keeping a gun in your dresser is an entirely different matter than driving a car in public, where a bad driver even on an accident can kill a dozen people.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 7:52 am
Quoting michael k.
Keeping a gun in your dresser is an entirely different matter than driving a car in public, where a bad driver even on an accident can kill a dozen people.

Again, a bad gun owner would have no more a problem with that than a bad driver.
Once someone proves to be irresponsible with his gun, he shouldn't be allowed one legally.
Keep in mind I have no vested interest in this debate, I live in a different country. It just seems like the smart thing to do to me.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 8:33 am
 Group admin 
Do you anti-gunners think using a gun in self defense is ok?
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 10:31 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Isaac The Awesome!
A car is worse! They could just go to NY and just drive over lots of people and kill them!

That isn't a very a good analogy to use as a defense for guns. Cars are built solely for transportation. When misused, then can be deadly. A gun is made solely to kill. Its misuse is even more killing.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 10:32 am
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Do you anti-gunners think using a gun in self defense is ok?

Well, I don't, so. Just do what Indiana Jones' dad did back in the Last Crusade. He was in a confined space, and a Nazi had a gun to his head. Indy's dad pulled out a fountain pen, and neutralized the threat.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 10:33 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Nate Andrews
I see my post on celebrity gun quotes was finally cleared. My point with that post was not ALL celebrities are anti gun. The majority of celebrities and their stance on gun control are what inspired my original comment.

Majority of those quotes are from Ted Nugent. Now, I have actually met the current Dalai Lama (it was an accident; you will be surprised who you meet at the India Habitat Center in New Delhi, India). While all I really did was shake his hand, I could tell that he doesn't want violence.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 10:35 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
Again, a bad gun owner would have no more a problem with that than a bad driver.
Once someone proves to be irresponsible with his gun, he shouldn't be allowed one legally.
Keep in mind I have no vested interest in this debate, I live in a different country. It just seems like the smart thing to do to me.

Italy is your home country, right? So they have done, what? Block all guns? Allow them freely?
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 10:37 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, I don't, so. Just do what Indiana Jones' dad did back in the Last Crusade. He was in a confined space, and a Nazi had a gun to his head. Indy's dad pulled out a fountain pen, and neutralized the threat.

You can't be serious.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 10:38 am
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
You can't be serious.

No, I was being sarcastic there. I am just saying, that in close quarters, a gun is not always needed. Heck, learn Karate.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:01 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Italy is your home country, right? So they have done, what? Block all guns? Allow them freely?

You can get one if there's reasonable cause, otherwise only law enforcement and military can keep weapons.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:03 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
You can get one if there's reasonable cause, otherwise only law enforcement and military can keep weapons.

Okay. Well. No offense to you or anything, but I guess that kinda explains the financial crisis. Just givin' away all their weapons in the military! So reasonable cause would be, what?
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:07 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay. Well. No offense to you or anything, but I guess that kinda explains the financial crisis. Just givin' away all their weapons in the military! So reasonable cause would be, what?

If you receive threats, or have a risky job.
...
What does it have to do with the economical crisis?
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:27 am
It's not letting my post through. Be patient, it should appear eventually.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:39 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
It's not letting my post through. Be patient, it should appear eventually.

I had to moderate it. Dunno why it was flagged. Though this group has had quite a bit of comments flagged. Eh.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:43 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
If you receive threats, or have a risky job.
...
What does it have to do with the economical crisis?

It...was a little joke. Not really funny now. Or ever.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:44 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I had to moderate it. Dunno why it was flagged. Though this group has had quite a bit of comments flagged. Eh.

You can always get some MODs.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:47 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
You can always get some MODs.

Hint, hint?
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:55 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Hint, hint?

No no, please, I'm already MOD or ADMIN in more groups that I can name... my message box is always screaming for attention... and I have a huge contest to organize and judge... I just meant ask someone.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:59 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
No no, please, I'm already MOD or ADMIN in more groups that I can name... my message box is always screaming for attention... and I have a huge contest to organize and judge... I just meant ask someone.

Dang. I will demote you . Standby.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 12:02 pm
 Group admin 
Anyways, back to the debate.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 12:03 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Dang. I will demote you . Standby.

Thanks. I'll be glad to help, once the Bio Cup has ended.
Back to business :)
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 12:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
Thanks. I'll be glad to help, once the Bio Cup has ended.
Back to business :)

Alright. Let me know when that ends. ANYWAYS! Right. Guns. Remove em.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 12:06 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Alright. Let me know when that ends. ANYWAYS! Right. Guns. Remove em.


Hi, I'm new here, and I'm looking for a good friendly debate. Anyway, I found your point of 'removing guns' quite interesting. How would you plan on this, and if you did say; 'remove guns', how would you prevent criminals from obtaining these weapons through illegal means?

Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 10:45 pm
Also, in 2011 728 homicides where committed with 'hands, feet, fists etc' while firearm murderers only totaled to 679. So in order to neutralize the most deadly murderers, you must first outlaw and control peoples' bodies.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 10:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Thatch Gears

Hi, I'm new here, and I'm looking for a good friendly debate. Anyway, I found your point of 'removing guns' quite interesting. How would you plan on this, and if you did say; 'remove guns', how would you prevent criminals from obtaining these weapons through illegal means?

Firstly, get rid of ammo. Next. Well, guns will slowly be useless. Illegal guns can be controlled if you destroy the means those guns get into this country: drug trafficking.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:21 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Thatch Gears
Also, in 2011 728 homicides where committed with 'hands, feet, fists etc' while firearm murderers only totaled to 679. So in order to neutralize the most deadly murderers, you must first outlaw and control peoples' bodies.

No, you can't control people. But removing guns gets rid of 679 possible murders.
Permalink
| June 2, 2013, 11:24 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oh? You think so? Firstly, if we cut off these drug and gun runners so that they can't do business.
That's the first problem

Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 2:07 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So you want to control the people?

Wow, that's a broad accusation. . .
No, that would be impossible and it would be enforcing my will over them

My point is this: Guns aren't the problem, people will find a way around it for sure.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 2:10 pm
Quoting Yuri Fassio
Once someone proves to be irresponsible with his gun, he shouldn't be allowed one legally.

Yes - fail once with a gun, no more for that person, not everyone....

If he feels unsafe without the gun, he should have thought of that before he used the gun. Again, if he feels unsafe, move somewhere else.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 2:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Wow, that's a broad accusation. . .
No, that would be impossible and it would be enforcing my will over them

My point is this: Guns aren't the problem, people will find a way around it for sure.

..not an accusation. I am just asking. And yes, people will most likely find their way around the gun, but frankly, if it doesn't involve a gun, I think that the world will be safer.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 2:14 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oh? You think so? Firstly, if we cut off these drug and gun runners so that they can't do business.
That's the first problem

So we can agree with that. I think we should put stricter laws involving the Southern US border.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 2:15 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No, you can't control people. But removing guns gets rid of 679 possible murders.

You also remove guns from responsible people who just want to protect themselves against slight odds.

Removing guns would dramatically open wide the number of homes without possible hazards to criminals.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 2:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
You also remove guns from responsible people who just want to protect themselves against slight odds.

Removing guns would dramatically open wide the number of homes without possible hazards to criminals.

"...against slight odds." If they are slight, why do you need a gun? And let me pose this. If people have guns and use them for "self defense", then a simple, unknown-ing trespasser can get shot.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 2:19 pm
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Yes - fail once with a gun, no more for that person, not everyone....

If he feels unsafe without the gun, he should have thought of that before he used the gun. Again, if he feels unsafe, move somewhere else.

Not necessarily.
You know, after a DUI you can get a suspension, or your license can be taken, depending on the severity, but it's rare that a judge decides for "never again".
Why not something like that?
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 2:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Yuri Fassio
Not necessarily.
You know, after a DUI you can get a suspension, or your license can be taken, depending on the severity, but it's rare that a judge decides for "never again".
Why not something like that?

Because people would abuse such a system. If you just end up giving the gun back, people will continue to do wrong with it.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:31 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
"...against slight odds." If they are slight, why do you need a gun? And let me pose this. If people have guns and use them for "self defense", then a simple, unknown-ing trespasser can get shot.

Yes slight odds, in certain locations though, the odds are greater.
Need? I don't know if people need them. However, people shouldn't be kept from having them. Slight odds yes, but still, better safe than sorry. I mean, it's life and death that we are talking about here.

I don't think a trespasser would get shot for walking on the lawn, he'd get yelled at. A trespasser into a house though? Uh, yeah, they'd probably get shot. I wouldn't want to converse with someone who is "trespassing" in my house, I'd call it breaking in....
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:35 pm
Quoting Yuri Fassio
Not necessarily.
You know, after a DUI you can get a suspension, or your license can be taken, depending on the severity, but it's rare that a judge decides for "never again".
Why not something like that?

I definitely think that long suspensions should take place if someone purposely hurts someone with a gun (or tries to hurt someone with one). If it was an accident (like with hunting), I think the license is taken away for a bit.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Yes slight odds, in certain locations though, the odds are greater.
Need? I don't know if people need them. However, people shouldn't be kept from having them. Slight odds yes, but still, better safe than sorry. I mean, it's life and death that we are talking about here.

I don't think a trespasser would get shot for walking on the lawn, he'd get yelled at. A trespasser into a house though? Uh, yeah, they'd probably get shot. I wouldn't want to converse with someone who is "trespassing" in my house, I'd call it breaking in....

I don't doubt your sanity, but others are much less, sane. They could react with such ferociousness because you tread on one of their blades of grass. And really, think about the mental issues with shooting someone.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No, you can't control people. But removing guns gets rid of 679 possible murders.

When Australia banned guns, criminals just used knives instead.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:38 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
..not an accusation. I am just asking. And yes, people will most likely find their way around the gun, but frankly, if it doesn't involve a gun, I think that the world will be safer.

I think that without guns the world would be safer as well. The problem is is that too many people have them now. Since many people have guns, taking them away would increase the possibility of crime for those who hide their guns and such.

Only if all guns in the world could be destroyed, we'd be good. But that won't happen.
Although, we'd then be swords and such, I guess that's safer.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
When Australia banned guns, criminals just used knives instead.

Did we not cover this? Literally, you can stop someone attacking you with a knife by the means of a bat. A gun is WAY overkill.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
I think that without guns the world would be safer as well. The problem is is that too many people have them now. Since many people have guns, taking them away would increase the possibility of crime for those who hide their guns and such.

Only if all guns in the world could be destroyed, we'd be good. But that won't happen.
Although, we'd then be swords and such, I guess that's safer.

That point I fully take, and I see the logic (about guns). But if you limit the ammo, does that not slowly make the guns useless?
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:41 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I don't doubt your sanity, but others are much less, sane. They could react with such ferociousness because you tread on one of their blades of grass. And really, think about the mental issues with shooting someone.

Yes, they might react that way, but if someone does, the authorities could easily fix that. I haven't even heard of a story like that. It's much less likely for that to happen than for someone to break into a house with a gun.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
"...against slight odds." If they are slight, why do you need a gun? And let me pose this. If people have guns and use them for "self defense", then a simple, unknown-ing trespasser can get shot.

Criminals really fear armed people. Would you rather rob a house in new york, with few guns, or texas with many guns?
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Yes, they might react that way, but if someone does, the authorities could easily fix that. I haven't even heard of a story like that. It's much less likely for that to happen than for someone to break into a house with a gun.

Another thing, uh, don't robbers usually break in when no one is home? Them actually coming in when you are home changes the ball game by a lot; breaking in and robbing is a WAY less sentence then murder.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:43 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
That point I fully take, and I see the logic (about guns). But if you limit the ammo, does that not slowly make the guns useless?

I guess criminals will just be like, "OK ammo's illegal, we'd better stop committing crimes now." They'll find a way, much in the way cra ckheads aren't stopped by crac k bein illegal.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:45 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Criminals really fear armed people. Would you rather rob a house in new york, with few guns, or texas with many guns?

I wouldn't rob anywhere. And how do crims know when you are armed? And also, what about the people that now show up in full riot gear in public? You think that is appropriate?
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:45 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Another thing, uh, don't robbers usually break in when no one is home? Them actually coming in when you are home changes the ball game by a lot; breaking in and robbing is a WAY less sentence then murder.

They certainly try to break in when no one is home, but it could be that someone is home. I don't know, but I don't think shooting someone if the person broke into your house while you were home and you shot him would be considered a sentence of murder.

(some people carry hand guns for protection as well)

Here is a true story: A guy went into a movie theater and started shooting people (he got arrested).

What is curious is that there was a closer movie theater to his house, but he went to one farther away that had signs posted "No hand-guns (or weapons or something like that) allowed." The one closer to his home allowed hand-guns.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And how do crims know when you are armed?

That's the point. They don't know.

Quoting Achintya Prasad
And also, what about the people that now show up in full riot gear in public? You think that is appropriate?

The pro gun protesters? I haven't seen anyone in "full riot gear", but I wouldn't do that.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:49 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
That point I fully take, and I see the logic (about guns). But if you limit the ammo, does that not slowly make the guns useless?

People will still make ammunition illegally, or get it from oversees.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:49 pm
Quoting michael k.
That's the point. They don't know.
Exactly. If the criminals know that people don't....ouch, not safe.


Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
but he went to one farther away that had signs posted "No hand-guns (or weapons or something like that) allowed." The one closer to his home allowed hand-guns.

Exactly! They always go to "gun free zones". Strange how the signs never stop them.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 5:52 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
The pro gun protesters? I haven't seen anyone in "full riot gear", but I wouldn't do that.

I was exaggerating. But I mean like, how would you feel to be in, say, a mall, and having the possibility that the person next to you is armed?
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
They certainly try to break in when no one is home, but it could be that someone is home. I don't know, but I don't think shooting someone if the person broke into your house while you were home and you shot him would be considered a sentence of murder.

(some people carry hand guns for protection as well)

Here is a true story: A guy went into a movie theater and started shooting people (he got arrested).

What is curious is that there was a closer movie theater to his house, but he went to one farther away that had signs posted "No hand-guns (or weapons or something like that) allowed." The one closer to his home allowed hand-guns.

Its not what I meant, whether killing someone at your home for "self defense" is not murder. I mean in the mind. You have to live knowing you killed a person.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Exactly! They always go to "gun free zones". Strange how the signs never stop them.

A serious gun law would.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
People will still make ammunition illegally, or get it from oversees.

You know, there is a fully functional Coast Guard that protects the US. They wouldn't blink or stop to think of stopping an ammo-laden ship. And making it illegally? Huh?
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:09 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Quoting michael k.
That's the point. They don't know.
Exactly. If the criminals know that people don't....ouch, not safe.


And what if crims didn't have anything to fight with?
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:10 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Its not what I meant, whether killing someone at your home for "self defense" is not murder. I mean in the mind. You have to live knowing you killed a person.
I don't know what it's like, and I don't want to experience it.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:12 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You know, there is a fully functional Coast Guard that protects the US. They wouldn't blink or stop to think of stopping an ammo-laden ship. And making it illegally? Huh?

Why do drugs keep getting in then? If drugs, then ammunition as well.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:12 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And what if crims didn't have anything to fight with?

The problem is that the "if" won't exist.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Its not what I meant, whether killing someone at your home for "self defense" is not murder. I mean in the mind. You have to live knowing you killed a person.
I don't know what it's like, and I don't want to experience it.

And that is point I am making. Would you really raise a weapon to a person, what ever they are doing? This ain't the movies, kids. Doesn't matter if you have a trial; you are stuck with that thought.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
The problem is that the "if" won't exist.

Not if we have so many pro-gun people, we won't.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:14 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You know, there is a fully functional Coast Guard that protects the US. They wouldn't blink or stop to think of stopping an ammo-laden ship. And making it illegally? Huh?

Everything you're suggesting we're already doing in the dr ug war. People STILL manage to get dr ugs. Is it possible some people don't care about the laws?

Quoting Achintya Prasad
But I mean like, how would you feel to be in, say, a mall, and having the possibility that the person next to you is armed?

I wouldn't care. I know people who carry. In the mall shooting 3 days before Sandy Hook, there was a shopper carrying a gun, and when he pulled it out, the shooter saw it and killed himself. Only 2 people were killed, plus the shooter. It could have been much worse. Was that good or bad that it was stopped?
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:16 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Not if we have so many pro-gun people, we won't.

Not ever until Christ Returns
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Everything you're suggesting we're already doing in the dr ug war. People STILL manage to get dr ugs. Is it possible some people don't care about the laws?

Quoting Achintya Prasad
But I mean like, how would you feel to be in, say, a mall, and having the possibility that the person next to you is armed?

I wouldn't care. I know people who carry. In the mall shooting 3 days before Sandy Hook, there was a shopper carrying a gun, and when he pulled it out, the shooter saw it and killed himself. Only 2 people were killed, plus the shooter. It could have been much worse. Was that good or bad that it was stopped?

Let me ask you this. Did anyone die? Do you want death? Is that what you want? Self Defense or not, someone dies.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Not ever until Christ Returns

I hope we have ourselves more sorted than we are now, when it happens.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:19 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And that is point I am making. Would you really raise a weapon to a person, what ever they are doing? This ain't the movies, kids. Doesn't matter if you have a trial; you are stuck with that thought.
If that person had a gun ready as well, then yes. If the person is a good distance away without a gun, I'd point it and call the police - keeping the criminal at bay, minimizing the loss of life.

If I had to shoot (I pray that I will never have to in my entire life), I'd hope that it would make him unconscious. If the person died, I'd pray for his family and I would hope that it would decrease the crime in my area, showing that crime doesn't pay. (of course, I'd pray in any of those situations, I'd be praying before I shoot as well)

Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:22 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I hope we have ourselves more sorted than we are now, when it happens.

It's just going to get worse and worse, sadly.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Let me ask you this. Did anyone die? Do you want death? Is that what you want? Self Defense or not, someone dies.

Yes. Two innocent people unfortunately died. It could have been worse if there wasn't an armed citizen right there. When a mass shooting is stopped by a citizen, the average number of victims is 2.5 or so. When stopped by the police, usually around 15. There isn't, and never will be a cop on every corner to immediately stop crime. Police understand that, and 95% of Sheriffs in the national sheriffs association support legally armed citizens. There are thousands of crimes stopped by people who have legal concealed weapons every year.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And that is point I am making. Would you really raise a weapon to a person, what ever they are doing? This ain't the movies, kids. Doesn't matter if you have a trial; you are stuck with that thought.
If that person had a gun ready as well, then yes. If the person is a good distance away without a gun, I'd point it and call the police - keeping the criminal at bay, minimizing the loss of life.

If I had to shoot (I pray that I will never have to in my entire life), I'd hope that it would make him unconscious. If the person died, I'd pray for his family and I would hope that it would decrease the crime in my area, showing that crime doesn't pay. (of course, I'd pray in any of those situations, I'd be praying before I shoot as well)

I am sorry, I know you might be a pious person, but praying doesn't bring back lives.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Yes. Two innocent people unfortunately died. It could have been worse if there wasn't an armed citizen right there. When a mass shooting is stopped by a citizen, the average number of victims is 2.5 or so. When stopped by the police, usually around 15. There isn't, and never will be a cop on every corner to immediately stop crime. Police understand that, and 95% of Sheriffs in the national sheriffs association support legally armed citizens. There are thousands of crimes stopped by people who have legal concealed weapons every year.

Yeah, because shooting people in certain situations is alright.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, because shooting people in certain situations is alright.

Or course it is, as a last resort. You never want to have to, but if you are being assaulted, it's often kill or be killed. Which do you prefer?
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:31 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I am sorry, I know you might be a pious person, but praying doesn't bring back lives.

Of course not, God brings people back to life, if praying is all that it is, people would get credit....

I'd pray that other people's lives would be changed through the circumstance, I don't think God would bring the person back to life, but who knows, maybe He would. Why not ask?

I wouldn't describe myself as religious. The only difference between what most people describe as being religious is that one side believes in God, and the other does not. Being "religious" does not make an argument less strong.

To me, I think that the word "religion" should be dismissed when relating to debates. It's either people believe in God, or they don't. No need to separate God from the picture of politics.

"Separation of Church and State" basically says we won't allow God to come into the picture, only people who don't believe in God will be put into the picture. Nonsense I say, nonsense.


Anyway, back to the topic.
Permalink
| June 3, 2013, 6:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Of course not, God brings people back to life, if praying is all that it is, people would get credit....

I'd pray that other people's lives would be changed through the circumstance, I don't think God would bring the person back to life, but who knows, maybe He would. Why not ask?

I wouldn't describe myself as religious. The only difference between what most people describe as being religious is that one side believes in God, and the other does not. Being "religious" does not make an argument less strong.

To me, I think that the word "religion" should be dismissed when relating to debates. It's either people believe in God, or they don't. No need to separate God from the picture of politics.

"Separation of Church and State" basically says we won't allow God to come into the picture, only people who don't believe in God will be put into the picture. Nonsense I say, nonsense.


Anyway, back to the topic.

Okay. Well, all of you lot have focused on defense. Is the US THAT bad?
Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 4:04 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay. Well, all of you lot have focused on defense. Is the US THAT bad?

Correct, I have been focusing on defense, that's the only time I'd ever use it at a person. (of course, I'd never want to)

I don't understand what you mean by is the US that bad.....


Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 4:21 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
Correct, I have been focusing on defense, that's the only time I'd ever use it at a person. (of course, I'd never want to)

I don't understand what you mean by is the US that bad.....


I mean is the US SO dangerous that you have to have a personal arsenal?
Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 4:40 pm
I REALLY should not be commenting here because I will go into a massive plotical tyrade (and thats understating it).
It isnt the logic, its the principle. Now, there are a lot of things that need to be done to prevent comeplete nut-jobs from getting AKs but that aside, its in the constitution and that means the Gov't really cant touch that with a 10 foot pole. What they can do is keep the ILLEGAL guns off streets and keep INSANE people from getting them. That being said, I am done in this thread to preserve the sanity of myself and of everyone else.
Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 5:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
I REALLY should not be commenting here because I will go into a massive plotical tyrade (and thats understating it).
It isnt the logic, its the principle. Now, there are a lot of things that need to be done to prevent comeplete nut-jobs from getting AKs but that aside, its in the constitution and that means the Gov't really cant touch that with a 10 foot pole. What they can do is keep the ILLEGAL guns off streets and keep INSANE people from getting them. That being said, I am done in this thread to preserve the sanity of myself and of everyone else.

Shame. I was going to have fun with that comment. Let me just say this: the Second Amendment is there so that the people can overthrow the government in the event the government got, frisky. We gave up such power after the Civil War; the military and government is WAY to strong to over throw.
Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 5:47 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Shame. I was going to have fun with that comment. Let me just say this: the Second Amendment is there so that the people can overthrow the government in the event the government got, frisky. We gave up such power after the Civil War; the military and government is WAY to strong to over throw.

You are about to get me started on a massive f--- the US gov't rant. If you want to hear that, start another thread 'cause we can and will go for days on that one.

Story short, That is the master reset button on the US gov't. One we badly need to push. It's been going downhill since about Reagan and Obama is the final nail in the coffin. We are nearing the cliff of R.I.P. U.S.A.
Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 5:53 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
You are about to get me started on a massive f--- the US gov't rant. If you want to hear that, start another thread 'cause we can and will go for days on that one.

Story short, That is the master reset button on the US gov't. One we badly need to push. It's been going downhill since about Reagan and Obama is the final nail in the coffin. We are nearing the cliff of R.I.P. U.S.A.

I disagree. A lot. Reagan wasn't bad. Obama. Yeah. Bush. Yeah. Bill. Maybe (leaning to no). HW Bush. Eh.
The US government is nowhere near its "golden years" (you know, JFK, Eisenhower, Truman, etc), but it isn't failing completely. Also, that "reset button" has a cover on it. That cover being the US military. I D-double-dare you to try and take on the US military. Ten bucks says you lose.
Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 5:57 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I disagree. A lot. Reagan wasn't bad. Obama. Yeah. Bush. Yeah. Bill. Maybe (leaning to no). HW Bush. Eh.
The US government is nowhere near its "golden years" (you know, JFK, Eisenhower, Truman, etc), but it isn't failing completely. Also, that "reset button" has a cover on it. That cover being the US military. I D-double-dare you to try and take on the US military. Ten bucks says you lose.


The gov't is abusing their power and using said cover as a way to not be out of a job. If you want me to go conspiracy theorist, the gov knows their days are numbered and they are trying to prevent us from exectuting the rights granted to us in the constituition and in the declaration of independence.
Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 6:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes

The gov't is abusing their power and using said cover as a way to not be out of a job. If you want me to go conspiracy theorist, the gov knows their days are numbered and they are trying to prevent us from exectuting the rights granted to us in the constituition and in the declaration of independence.

USA thread buddy. Lets keep this on gun control. Get rid of 'em.
Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 6:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I D-double-dare you to try and take on the US military. Ten bucks says you lose.

I'm not one of the cra zy people who want to rebel against the government, but if there was something serious enough to warrant a large rebellion, wouldn't many military personnel desert the gov't and join the rebels?
Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 6:29 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
I'm not one of the cra zy people who want to rebel against the government, but if there was something serious enough to warrant a large rebellion, wouldn't many military personnel desert the gov't and join the rebels?

Thats what I though, until I realized this: firing off nuclear missiles require very little people.

Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 6:31 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Thats what I though, until I realized this: firing off nuclear missiles require very little people.

The sad thing is: you're right and that is something cowardly polititians would likely resort to.
Permalink
| June 5, 2013, 6:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
The sad thing is: you're right and that is something cowardly polititians would likely resort to.

Once again, lets put this on the USA thread, not the gun control thread.
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 1:25 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Once again, lets put this on the USA thread, not the gun control thread.

Or the nukes thread.
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 2:31 pm
 Group admin 
Anyways, back on topic guys. I propose that we get rid of Ammunition.
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 4:10 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Anyways, back on topic guys. I propose that we get rid of Ammunition.

I say track the ammunition.
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 5:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David the Fire Ninja Jedi
I say track the ammunition.

How though? Let me share a story here.
My mom was at (an unspecified giant super market that rhymes with Tallmart), and was in the checkout line. She paid, and then took her groceries home, no problem, everything fine and dandy. When she got home, she realized that one of the bags was rather heavy. Inside that bag was a black box. Originally, my mom just thought they were batteries. Inside were rows of bullets. Yeah. Callmart is selling ammo, and then mishandling it.
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 6:09 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
How though? Let me share a story here.
My mom was at (an unspecified giant super market that rhymes with Tallmart), and was in the checkout line. She paid, and then took her groceries home, no problem, everything fine and dandy. When she got home, she realized that one of the bags was rather heavy. Inside that bag was a black box. Originally, my mom just thought they were batteries. Inside were rows of bullets. Yeah. Callmart is selling ammo, and then mishandling it.

How is an isolated store mistake relevant?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 9:23 am
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
How is an isolated store mistake relevant?

Its relevant because it can happen. Such a story should have no chance in happening; yet it did. We never got any calls back, or anything, asking for the stuff to be returned. Our gardner knew a police officer, and we managed to get rid of the stuff.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 9:27 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I have no allies. :-(

no, you have!
Im not really extreme against guns itself but they belong to the hands of policemen, military, security staff, hunters and mabye to memerbers of sport-clubs.
Theres no really need for guns at home!
Facts from Germany:
In the year 2000 the police registered 2851 crimes with deaths and only 381 were made with guns. Germany has about 90 million inhabitants.
The USA have around 300million inhabitants and got 10,000 - 12,000 crimes with deaths done with guns.

Now you can say, if they have no guns they can use knifes or something to murder. thats correct. But things like Columbine arent possible with knifes.

Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 11:00 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Facts from Germany:
In the year 2000 the police registered 2851 crimes with deaths and only 381 were made with guns. Germany has about 90 million inhabitants.
The USA have around 300million inhabitants and got 10,000 - 12,000 crimes with deaths done with guns.

While it is true that less guns means less GUN crime, countries with more guns have lower OVERALL crime.
Quoting Locutus 666
Now you can say, if they have no guns they can use knifes or something to murder. thats correct. But things like Columbine arent possible with knifes.

School attacks in China have killed dozens, and wounded countless others in the last few years, and those attackers used a variety of sharp objects, no guns were used.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 11:37 am
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
School attacks in China have killed dozens, and wounded countless others in the last few years, and those attackers used a variety of sharp objects, no guns were used.

School attacks in China are different though. Yeah, they use "sharp objects" but schools here and there are different; the US has put a lot of money and time into safety of schools. Even in a gun attack, its not as easy to kill.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 11:46 am
Quoting michael k.
While it is true that less guns means less GUN crime, countries with more guns have lower OVERALL crime.

I dont think that, relative to the amount of inhabitants, the crime rate sinks when everyone can have a gun.
Did you know that if you carry a gun with you, the chance of being killed by a gun is higher then if you dont carry a gun with you?

Quoting michael k.
School attacks in China have killed dozens, and wounded countless others in the last few years, and those attackers used a variety of sharp objects, no guns were used.

Because maybe the police react slower?
Do you think a school attack will be such successful like Columbine if used a knife instead of a gun today?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 12:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Did you know that if you carry a gun with you, the chance of being killed by a gun is higher than if you don't carry a gun with you?

Where did you hear that? There are hundreds maybe thousands of instances where people who carry have stopped crime.
A prime example being the mall shooting in Oregon 2 days before Sandy Hook. During the shooting, a guy pulled out his gun, (he didn't shoot immediately because he didn't want to miss and hit a bystander), but when the shooter saw that he killed himself.

Quoting Locutus 666
Because maybe the police react slower?

I don't know if it's necessarily slower over here. I do agree though, police response to shootings and stabbings is slow (which is why we need school guards and concealed carry).
Quoting Locutus 666
Do you think a school attack will be such successful like Columbine if used a knife instead of a gun today?

Probably not, but a guy at a Texas college a few months went around cutting a dozen people's necks, nobody had a weapon to stop him; he was only stopped when his xacto knife broke, and they caught him walking around later. (again, slow response)
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 12:43 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Probably not, but a guy at a Texas college a few months went around cutting a dozen people's necks, nobody had a weapon to stop him; he was only stopped when his xacto knife broke, and they caught him walking around later. (again, slow response)

Thats not the story in Texas that I heard. Some people saw what he was doing, and ran after him. At least two guys tackled that guy to the ground. No guns were involved; they didn't need it.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 12:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Thats not the story in Texas that I heard. Some people saw what he was doing, and ran after him. At least two guys tackled that guy to the ground. No guns were involved; they didn't need it.

I think I might have heard that too. I think there were two recent attacks at Texas colleges.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 1:00 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Thats not the story in Texas that I heard. Some people saw what he was doing, and ran after him. At least two guys tackled that guy to the ground. No guns were involved; they didn't need it.
Do you know the only reason that the japanese didn't invade America in WWII? Because we can own guns, and we'll fight to keep our country. Also, Limiting magazines wouldn't work because magazines can be refilled. Please become educated on the subject before you debate about it.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 2:32 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Arnas Scheel
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Thats not the story in Texas that I heard. Some people saw what he was doing, and ran after him. At least two guys tackled that guy to the ground. No guns were involved; they didn't need it.
Do you know the only reason that the japanese didn't invade America in WWII? Because we can own guns, and we'll fight to keep our country. Also, Limiting magazines wouldn't work because magazines can be refilled. Please become educated on the subject before you debate about it.

You wanna debate like that? Let ME educate you then. Obviously, you don't know how history went forward. The Japs attacked Pearl harbor in an attempt to destroy the US carrier fleet in the Pacific. They failed to do that; but they did cripple the fleet. Also, during that time, the people had WAY less access to guns, due to Lend Lease. Now, keep your trash talk to yourself, and know the facts before you try and spit them out.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 2:38 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You wanna debate like that? Let ME educate you then. Obviously, you don't know how history went forward. The Japs attacked Pearl harbor in an attempt to destroy the US carrier fleet in the Pacific. They failed to do that; but they did cripple the fleet. Also, during that time, the people had WAY less access to guns, due to Lend Lease. Now, keep your trash talk to yourself, and know the facts before you try and spit them out.
yes the japanese attacked pearl harbor but did they do a frontal assault on the U.S's Mainland?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 2:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Arnas Scheel
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You wanna debate like that? Let ME educate you then. Obviously, you don't know how history went forward. The Japs attacked Pearl harbor in an attempt to destroy the US carrier fleet in the Pacific. They failed to do that; but they did cripple the fleet. Also, during that time, the people had WAY less access to guns, due to Lend Lease. Now, keep your trash talk to yourself, and know the facts before you try and spit them out.
yes the japanese attacked pearl harbor but did they do a frontal assault on the U.S's Mainland?

I am taking this in the USA thread. This is off topic. For the rest of you lot; let me pose this question: If you need self defense, explain why you need a full-fledged Assault Rifle?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 2:43 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I am taking this in the USA thread. This is off topic. For the rest of you lot; let me pose this question: If you need self defense, explain why you need a full-fledged Assault Rifle?
Can you tell me why I don't need an Assault Rifle? Because I can name plenty of reasons that I should own one. Such as;
1) Self-defense
2) Protecting others
and
3)Entertainment
So really, why SHOULDN'T we own them?

Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 2:45 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Arnas Scheel
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I am taking this in the USA thread. This is off topic. For the rest of you lot; let me pose this question: If you need self defense, explain why you need a full-fledged Assault Rifle?
Can you tell me why I don't need an Assault Rifle? Because I can name plenty of reasons that I should own one. Such as;
1) Self-defense
2) Protecting others
and
3)Entertainment
So really, why SHOULDN'T we own them?

Entertainment? You think an AR-15 is a joke, a play thing? What? If you want an entertaining gun, go get yourself a NERF gun. Now, pumping out hundreds of round a minute is NOT needed for self defense.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 2:52 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Entertainment? You think an AR-15 is a joke, a play thing? What? If you want an entertaining gun, go get yourself NERF gun. Now, pumping out hundreds of round a minute is NOT needed for self defense.
I never said the AR-15 is a joke, it is actually very far from that, and any gun owner respects what it really is. I said that shooting guns is entertaining. when shooting the gun for entertainment you also become a better shot (Hopefully :P) and if you are a better shot, you may better help the public. But still, you haven't replied to my question of "why shouldn't we own guns?"
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 2:56 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Arnas Scheel
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Entertainment? You think an AR-15 is a joke, a play thing? What? If you want an entertaining gun, go get yourself NERF gun. Now, pumping out hundreds of round a minute is NOT needed for self defense.
I never said the AR-15 is a joke, I said that shooting guns s entertaining. when shooting the gun for entertainment you also become a better shot (Hopefully :P) and if you are a better shot, you may better help the public. But still, you haven't replied to my question of "why shouldn't we own guns?"

I answer with a question: why should we? You are no doubt going to try and say self defense and Entertainment. For the latter, all I can say is wow. That is incredibly short sighted, in my opinion. Now, the former, wouldn't need to be there if all guns were removed.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 2:58 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I answer with a question: why should we? You are no doubt going to try and say self defense and Entertainment. For the latter, all I can say is wow. That is incredibly short sighted, in my opinion. Now, the former, wouldn't need to be there if all guns were removed.
If all guns were removed (which is basically the same as trying to remove all types of sugary treats because of an obesity problem) there wouldn't be any crime? Which is false. If I may use your own words. "That is incredibly short sited".
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 3:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Arnas Scheel
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I answer with a question: why should we? You are no doubt going to try and say self defense and Entertainment. For the latter, all I can say is wow. That is incredibly short sighted, in my opinion. Now, the former, wouldn't need to be there if all guns were removed.
If all guns were removed (which is basically the same as trying to remove all types of sugary treats because of an obesity problem) there wouldn't be any crime? Which is false. If I may use your own words. "That is incredibly short sited".

We aren't talking about food here. We need sugar to survive; its not the same. Man has lived without a gun for centuries. Why all of sudden think we can't? And also, I didn't say that all crime can be "cured" with all guns being removed. Read back over my comments; I never have said that.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 3:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Entertainment? You think an AR-15 is a joke, a play thing? What? If you want an entertaining gun, go get yourself a NERF gun. Now, pumping out hundreds of round a minute is NOT needed for self defense.

Are you saying having fun with guns is wrong? Or that It will lead to hurting people?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 3:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Are you saying having fun with guns is wrong? Or that It will lead to hurting people?

With a military grade rifle, yes.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 3:22 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
With a military grade rifle, yes.

You mean military looking. Once again, machine guns have been banned since '86.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 3:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
You mean military looking. Once again, machine guns have been banned since '86.

So those shootings we have had, those were carried out with no guns that can rapidly fire?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 3:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So those shootings we have had, those were carried out with no guns that can rapidly fire?

Yes, guns with less than half the RPM of "military grade" weapons.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 3:29 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Yes, guns with less than half the RPM of "military grade" weapons.

So what is the AR-15 based off of?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 3:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So what is the AR-15 based off of?

M16/M4
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 3:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
M16/M4

.....which is used by who?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 3:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
.....which is used by who?

It's based off a military gun, but that doesn't mean it is. The military get 900 RPM, but you could never pull the trigger that fast.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 3:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
It's based off a military gun, but that doesn't mean it is. The military get 900 RPM, but you could never pull the trigger that fast.

And if you have an automatic?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 4:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And if you have an automatic?

An unregistered automatic? Jail for a long time.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 4:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
An unregistered automatic? Jail for a long time.

You will notice that almost all of these mass shootings end with the gunner killing himself.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 4:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You will notice that almost all of these mass shootings end with the gunner killing himself.

Mass shootings with automatics? Not lately. And since 1934, there's only been 2 deaths with legal machine guns.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 4:17 pm
Quoting Arnas Scheel
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I am taking this in the USA thread. This is off topic. For the rest of you lot; let me pose this question: If you need self defense, explain why you need a full-fledged Assault Rifle?
Can you tell me why I don't need an Assault Rifle? Because I can name plenty of reasons that I should own one. Such as;
1) Self-defense
2) Protecting others
and
3)Entertainment
So really, why SHOULDN'T we own them?

1.) The need for such a "self defence" is nothing more then imagination. In europe nobody got something like a assault rifle. Theres no need for that. Besides that, a pistol or revolver would fullfil such a self defence.
2.) This is the job of the police or any other institution of a state and definitive not by private individuals.
3.) Entertainment or do you mean sport?

The main problem in this story is, that such kind of weapons never ever should have been sold to the public. The pandoras box is already opened.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 4:25 pm
Quoting michael k.
Where did you hear that? There are hundreds maybe thousands of instances where people who carry have stopped crime.
A prime example being the mall shooting in Oregon 2 days before Sandy Hook. During the shooting, a guy pulled out his gun, (he didn't shoot immediately because he didn't want to miss and hit a bystander), but when the shooter saw that he killed himself.

I heard that in a document. If u are the third person who watches a crime maybe u can stop it, but if you are the victim of an actual crime, your gun can lead to an escalation of the situation.

Quoting michael k.
I don't know if it's necessarily slower over here. I do agree though, police response to shootings and stabbings is slow (which is why we need school guards and concealed carry).

school guards or something like this is only dealing with actual symptoms. Dont you think its better to avoid any kind of illness as to wait for the headache and try to kill the pain this?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 4:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
I heard that in a document. If u are the third person who watches a crime maybe u can stop it, but if you are the victim of an actual crime, your gun can lead to an escalation of the situation.

As I mentioned above, we know a guy who had to kill a thug who came into his house. And how would it escalate? Y'all always talk about how people who carry are going to have their guns taken from them and used on them, but things like this just don't happen, certainly not with the frequency that they are portrayed.
Quoting Locutus 666
school guards or something like this is only dealing with actual symptoms. Don't you think its better to avoid any kind of illness as to wait for the headache and try to kill the pain this?

So it wouldn't help at all? Of course, a bad mental health system is at the core of the problem of mass shootings.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 4:43 pm
 Group admin 
BTW another crazy person shooting a California college just now.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 4:44 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
BTW another crazy person shooting a California college just now.

Wouldn't have happened if the gun wasn't available.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 5:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wouldn't have happened if the gun wasn't available.

Well of course, but they always get their guns, just like how crackheads always get their crack.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 5:38 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Well of course, but they always get their guns, just like how crackheads always get their crack.

.....Block off the US southern border. Make sure each state's national guard has helicopters and tanks monitoring the entire fence. Make the fence 50 ft tall, have it sloped inward towards Mexico, have barbed wire across the top, and then, just behind that wall, duplicate it, except leave a trench about 40 feet across, and have this wall slope outwards toward the USA.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 5:42 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
We aren't talking about food here. We need sugar to survive; its not the same. Man has lived without a gun for centuries. Why all of sudden think we can't? And also, I didn't say that all crime can be "cured" with all guns being removed. Read back over my comments; I never have said that.
Of course man didn't need huh a when there weren't any guns. That's basically saying we didn't have litter because there was no trash. (Candy wrappers, plastic, junk ect.) We can survive without guns. Luckily most people haven't ha the need to use them! But, if a man breaks into your house, and is threatening you am your family with a gun, I'd want a gun to fight back. Bow and arrows are cool, so are crossbows. One is more powerful than the other. They are basically guns with long bullets that don't explode. Should we ban those too? And think of illegal c|rugs for a second. They are illegal, right? Why are there so many crooks smoking it then? BECAUSE THEY ARE CROOKS. Garsh, you people's just don't get it. ((-)) ((-))
_____

Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 5:43 pm
Australia's solution works pretty well, we have very little gun violence. In major population centers (cities), it is almost impossible to even acquire a gun. So you never face the "Man breaks into your house with a gun" problem.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 5:46 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
.....Block off the US southern border. Make sure each state's national guard has helicopters and tanks monitoring the entire fence. Make the fence 50 ft tall, have it sloped inward towards Mexico, have barbed wire across the top, and then, just behind that wall, duplicate it, except leave a trench about 40 feet across, and have this wall slope outwards toward the USA.

That would cut off Obama's stream of voters, and he'd never do that.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 5:47 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Australia's solution works pretty well, we have very little gun violence. In major population centers (cities), it is almost impossible to even acquire a gun. So you never face the "Man breaks into your house with a gun" problem.

Lets not also forget in Australia when gun crime went down, knife crime went up.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 5:48 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Australia's solution works pretty well, we have very little gun violence. In major population centers (cities), it is almost impossible to even acquire a gun. So you never face the "Man breaks into your house with a gun" problem.

Australia doesn't have a billion guns in the wrong hands already though.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 5:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David .
Australia doesn't have a billion guns in the wrong hands already though.

You probably mean millions. There's only 300M guns in the whole country, but what you're saying is basically true.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 5:51 pm
Quoting michael k.
Well of course, but they always get their guns, just like how crackheads always get their crack.

In Germany weve had in the last 20 Years "only" 3 attacks made with guns. 1999, 2002 and the last one in 2009. All 3 were made with legal guns. After them, nobody shouts for more weapons, they shouted for addional restrictions!
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
In Germany we've had in the last 20 Years "only" 3 attacks made with guns. 1999, 2002 and the last one in 2009. All 3 were made with legal guns. After them, nobody shouts for more weapons, they shouted for additional restrictions!

Those shootings were worse than we have, probably because nobody else had a gun to stop them. More laws, in your country would make no sense because 3 mass shootings in 20 years is about the lowest you could even get. Germany has always had low crime anyway.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting David .
Quoting Achintya Prasad
We aren't talking about food here. We need sugar to survive; its not the same. Man has lived without a gun for centuries. Why all of sudden think we can't? And also, I didn't say that all crime can be "cured" with all guns being removed. Read back over my comments; I never have said that.
Of course man didn't need huh a when there weren't any guns. That's basically saying we didn't have litter because there was no trash. (Candy wrappers, plastic, junk ect.) We can survive without guns. Luckily most people haven't ha the need to use them! But, if a man breaks into your house, and is threatening you am your family with a gun, I'd want a gun to fight back. Bow and arrows are cool, so are crossbows. One is more powerful than the other. They are basically guns with long bullets that don't explode. Should we ban those too? And think of illegal c|rugs for a second. They are illegal, right? Why are there so many crooks smoking it then? BECAUSE THEY ARE CROOKS. Garsh, you people's just don't get it. ((-)) ((-))
_____

I quite understand its illegal. But cut off how these illegal guns are brought in. And why is that you all believe that you a lot will be held up and almost killed? Its kinda self centered.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Those shootings were worse than we have, probably because nobody else had a gun to stop them. More laws, in your country would make no sense because 3 mass shootings in 20 years is about the lowest you could even get. Germany has always had low crime anyway.

"Low crime anyway" Boy, do you even remember when Germany was East and West? And how can you say that those crimes could have been stopped, had there been a gun?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:09 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
That would cut off Obama's stream of voters, and he'd never do that.

Well, all I can say is that he is leaving in 2016, regardless of what voters want.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:10 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Australia's solution works pretty well, we have very little gun violence. In major population centers (cities), it is almost impossible to even acquire a gun. So you never face the "Man breaks into your house with a gun" problem.

May I remind you that the Aussies don't border an unstable country that is run by drug lords?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
"Low crime anyway" Boy, do you even remember when Germany was East and West? And how can you say that those crimes could have been stopped, had there been a gun?

I don't remember because I wasn't alive.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:16 pm
Quoting michael k.
Those shootings were worse than we have, probably because nobody else had a gun to stop them. More laws, in your country would make no sense because 3 mass shootings in 20 years is about the lowest you could even get. Germany has always had low crime anyway.

Do you have an idea WHY we have such low shootings? Is it possible that there are only just a few people (in relation to the USA) that have guns?
Another thing to the last shooting in 2009: these legal guns were taken by a son. His dad was member of a shoting club. Question: How much sons in the USA have dads which have guns at home and are able to do this the same way?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
I don't remember because I wasn't alive.

Neither was I. But its clear from the history it wasn't clean. Actually, Locutus, you live in Germany, how was it (assuming you were there back in the Cold War)?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Do you have an idea WHY we have such low shootings? Is it possible that there are only just a few people (in relation to the USA) that have guns?
Another thing to the last shooting in 2009: these legal guns were taken by a son. His dad was member of a shoting club. Question: How much sons in the USA have dads which have guns at home and are able to do this the same way?

Very high, I know that. A lot of Americans are hunters (for the sport), so getting a gun is VERY easy. Which should be prevented.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:18 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Neither was I. But its clear from the history it wasn't clean. Actually, Locutus, you live in Germany, how was it (assuming you were there back in the Cold War)?

i dont have any memorys due to the fact that i was just 8 when the wall was broken. But as far as i know, the cold war was a really feared. Because everyone knew, if west and east will get in real trouble, you can count on it that a war will take place in germany.
But i think this is an own topic.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
i dont have any memorys due to the fact that i was just 8 when the wall was broken. But as far as i know, the cold war was a really feared. Because everyone knew, if west and east will get in real trouble, you can count on it that a war will take place in germany.
But i think this is an own topic.

Yeah, it is. But judging from the state of the wall, and the less-than-free nature of East Germany, I conclude that it wasn't a very, safe, place. Besides, Berlin was filled with spies.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:29 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Do you have an idea WHY we have such low shootings? Is it possible that there are only just a few people (in relation to the USA) that have guns?

Your rate of mass shootings is about the same as it is over here. We've had about the same, 3 in the last 20 years. Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook. Most gun deaths are in small time crime that never make national or international news, and that is where everything really matters. There are countless incidents of things that could have been mass shootings, but weren't.
About 15 years ago, some kid shot 2 or so people in a high school, then tried to go shoot up the middle school, but was stopped by an armed principal.
The mall incident I've twice mentioned above.
10 years ago when some guy tried to shoot up a mega church, armed with a bunch of guns and a thousand bullets, was stopped after shooting only 2 people by a lady with a legal gun.
Quoting Locutus 666
Another thing to the last shooting in 2009: these legal guns were taken by a son. His dad was member of a shooting club. Question: How much sons in the USA have dads which have guns at home and are able to do this the same way?

Countless. But it never happens, besides when the Sandy Hook shooter took his mom's guns. She knew he was crazy and was stupid for not locking them away from him. Switzerland proves that gun crime isn't connected to number of guns. Over there, all adult men have gov't issued machine guns, yet they have the lowest rate of gun crime.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:38 pm
Quite a debate here! All very interesting points on both sides. Of course it's difficult to compare the United States to other countries, since our history is so different. As others have mentioned, the right to bear arms is second only to free speech. The concept of a citizen militia, where free people take up arms against tyranny, is part of that history. Self reliance to actively protect the safety of your family or property against criminals or the government is part of that founding concept as well. Naturally, reasonable licensure has to be included, just as there are limits on free speech (yelling fire in theater, etc.).
But the US is a very different place now. In many ways it's more dangerous than it's ever been.
And the zombies are coming...
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 6:55 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
.....Block off the US southern border. Make sure each state's national guard has helicopters and tanks monitoring the entire fence. Make the fence 50 ft tall, have it sloped inward towards Mexico, have barbed wire across the top, and then, just behind that wall, duplicate it, except leave a trench about 40 feet across, and have this wall slope outwards toward the USA.

Who's gonna pass that law? They'll move to the water.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 7:06 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wouldn't have happened if the gun wasn't available.

The point is, there are guns around, they are available, and passing a law banning them (or the ammunition) will be useless.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 7:07 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Australia's solution works pretty well, we have very little gun violence. In major population centers (cities), it is almost impossible to even acquire a gun. So you never face the "Man breaks into your house with a gun" problem.

Yeah, lets all move to Australia guys!

The problem here, the guns are already here in much larger quantities, and we have other countries with different laws above and below us, you guys have it nice and by yourself :)

I want to rule an island all for me and my family XD
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 7:09 pm
Quoting El Barto !
Quite a debate here! All very interesting points on both sides. Of course it's difficult to compare the United States to other counties, since our history is so different. As others have mentioned, the right to bear arms is second only to free speech. The concept of a citizen militia, where free people take up arms against tyranny, is part of that history. Self reliance to actively protect the safety of your family or property against criminals or the government is part of that founding concept as well. Naturally, reasonable licensure has to be included, just as there are limits on free speech (yelling fire in theater, etc.).
But the US is a very different place now. In many ways it's more dangerous than it's ever been.
And the zombies are coming...

Yes, it is definitely interesting. Stopping guns now would do more harm than good now. I think both sides have explained their sides quite well, and I feel that this isn't going to go any farther because no one is going to change sides through these arguments.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 7:15 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I quite understand its illegal. But cut off how these illegal guns are brought in. And why is that you all believe that you a lot will be held up and almost killed? Its kinda self centered.

I was using my self as an example. Sheesh.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 7:55 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
1.) The need for such a "self defence" is nothing more then imagination. In europe nobody got something like a assault rifle. Theres no need for that. Besides that, a pistol or revolver would fullfil such a self defence.
2.) This is the job of the police or any other institution of a state and definitive not by private individuals.
3.) Entertainment or do you mean sport?

The main problem in this story is, that such kind of weapons never ever should have been sold to the public. The pandoras box is already opened.

1)The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle.
2)What if the police aren't there? Would you let the murder/criminal get away?
3)Sport, target shooting, things like that.

Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 8:25 pm
 Group admin 
That shooting in California today, he used an assault-style rifle. Strange how those are illegal over there, but he used on anyway.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 8:39 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
In Germany weve had in the last 20 Years "only" 3 attacks made with guns. 1999, 2002 and the last one in 2009. All 3 were made with legal guns. After them, nobody shouts for more weapons, they shouted for addional restrictions!

That's the difference, isn't it. Some look to the government, some look to themselves. It's not a coincidence that the history of the US and Germany has been quite different. You also have to understand that some of these restrictions had been imposed as part of the Allied Occupation and reconstruction. That's why you guys make such awesome cars: We don't let you make tanks anymore ;)
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 9:43 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
That's the difference, isn't it. Some look to the government, some look to themselves. It's not a coincidence that the history of the US and Germany has been quite different. You also have to understand that some of these restrictions had been imposed as part of the Allied Occupation and reconstruction. That's why you guys make such awesome cars: We don't let you make tanks anymore ;)

Thats not strictly true (they make the Leopard series of tanks). You do bring up a good point though; do you look at the government or the people? Whats your position on this?
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 10:24 pm
Quoting El Barto !
That's the difference, isn't it. Some look to the government, some look to themselves. It's not a coincidence that the history of the US and Germany has been quite different. You also have to understand that some of these restrictions had been imposed as part of the Allied Occupation and reconstruction. That's why you guys make such awesome cars: We don't let you make tanks anymore ;)

Thats not correct. The Leopard 1 was developed in the 1960s and become one of the best tanks within the NATO at that time. The actual Leopard 2 is known as one of the best tanks in the world. ;)
If german cars are the best is a question of how you define the "best car". As a german i dont think so but thats also another topic.
Yes history of germany/europe and the USA is different. But german/europes history could also been taken as a reason for more guns for the people but nobody do it.

Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 5:55 am
Yes, yes, the Leopard tank. But under strict supervision. What I was getting at, though, was a difference in the fundamental belief of what the states' role in society was, say, in 1936. What I find scary at this point is how we've changed so much in such a short time. Blindly following a leader for his grand rhetoric and promises, continuing to blame others for all of our problems. Sound familiar?
And I didn't say "the best" cars, just awesome. At least I like them.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 9:38 am
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
Yes, yes, the Leopard tank. But under strict supervision. What I was getting at, though, was a difference in the fundamental belief of what the states' role in society was, say, in 1936. What I find scary at this point is how we've changed so much in such a short time. Blindly following a leader for his grand rhetoric and promises, continuing to blame others for all of our problems. Sound familiar?
And I didn't say "the best" cars, just awesome. At least I like them.

Wait, wait, does all this "grand rhetoric", does this refer to Germany or the USA? By the way, BMW FTW, anyways, back to gun control.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 10:51 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wait, wait, does all this "grand rhetoric", does this refer to Germany or the USA? By the way, BMW FTW, anyways, back to gun control.

'Grand rhetoric' read from a teleprompter, 'nuff said. I'm a quatro guy myself.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 12:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
'Grand rhetoric' read from a teleprompter, 'nuff said. I'm a quatro guy myself.

Sorry. I have no idea what that means (I can be a bit slow sometimes) Anyways, guns in the USA- no.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 1:50 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
While all I really did was shake his hand, I could tell that he doesn't want violence.
I don't think anybody truly "wants" violence. But even the Dalai Lama has said before that he thinks it makes sense to defend yourself with a gun if a person is trying to harm you. He also said that he thinks you should try to avoid killing them if possible. And I agree with him. I think you have to be one sick so-and-so to actually want violence, or to actually want to harm somebody. My dad and I own several guns, and we hope that we NEVER have to use them in self defense. Instead, they're mostly for target shooting, which can be tons of fun when it's done safely and responsibly. (which it always is in our case) Again, I think if the anti-gun crowd understood the recreational side of owning a firearm, there wouldn't be nearly as much hostility toward gun owners as there has been lately. I hope I've made some sense here.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 10:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nate Andrews
Quoting Achintya Prasad
While all I really did was shake his hand, I could tell that he doesn't want violence.
I don't think anybody truly "wants" violence. But even the Dalai Lama has said before that he thinks it makes sense to defend yourself with a gun if a person is trying to harm you. He also said that he thinks you should try to avoid killing them if possible. And I agree with him. I think you have to be one sick so-and-so to actually want violence, or to actually want to harm somebody. My dad and I own several guns, and we hope that we NEVER have to use them in self defense. Instead, they're mostly for target shooting, which can be tons of fun when it's done safely and responsibly. (which it always is in our case) Again, I think if the anti-gun crowd understood the recreational side of owning a firearm, there wouldn't be nearly as much hostility toward gun owners as there has been lately. I hope I've made some sense here.

At the rate that weapons are considered toys, I would imagine in about a hundred years, all kids want a nuke, or something. You all think its fun an games, but even with "excellent" supervision and safety, there is serious danger.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 10:06 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
At the rate that weapons are considered toys, I would imagine in about a hundred years, all kids want a nuke, or something. You all think its fun an games, but even with "excellent" supervision and safety, there is serious danger.
What happened to not going the way of Piers Morgan? You completely overlooked everything else I said to say that I think guns are toys. (which I don't) Does anybody see my point? Is it really so shocking that I don't want violence, even though I'm a gun owner?
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 10:34 pm
I'm with you, Nate. He wasn't paying attention. Target shooting IS fun.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 10:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
At the rate that weapons are considered toys, I would imagine in about a hundred years, all kids want a nuke, or something. You all think its fun an games, but even with "excellent" supervision and safety, there is serious danger.

Nobody thinks guns are toys. If you'd ever shot a gun before, you'd want to do it again and again. Even Piers Morgan didn't deny it was exhilarating.
You act like all gun owners are like this
http://legacy-cdn.smosh.com/smosh-pit/092010/idiot-gun-24.jpg
Any you say even with gun safety it's dangerous. Cars are even more dangerous than guns, and they can be used safely.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 10:43 pm
Somebody understands!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz0s6H2tWqo

Anti-gunners have already lost the argument if all they have for pro-gunners is insults.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 10:51 pm
Quoting Nate Andrews
Somebody understands!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz0s6H2tWqo

Anti-gunners have already lost the argument if all they have for pro-gunners is insults.

Noboday insults gun owners here. But its a fact that the USA very liberal gun restrictions have an incredible amount of crime done with guns and countrys with more restrictions have a very lower rate of crime with guns.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 4:57 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Nobody insults gun owners here. But its a fact that the USA very liberal gun restrictions have an incredible amount of crime done with guns and countries with more restrictions have a very lower rate of crime with guns.

That is true, but are you only concerned about crime with guns? Overall crime is lower with more guns, because burglars know that if they break into someone's house, theres a 50/50 chance that they'll have their head blown off. A gun is the only thing that puts a 70 year old gramma on the level as a pair of gangsters.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 8:21 am
Quoting michael k.
That is true, but are you only concerned about crime with guns? Overall crime is lower with more guns, because burglars know that if they break into someone's house, theres a 50/50 chance that they'll have their head blown off. A gun is the only thing that puts a 70 year old gramma on the level as a pair of gangsters.

If the hosue owner is at home, possibly yes. In europe we see an increasing amount of "proffessional burglars" (mostly gangs from the eastern parts of europe) which choose houses they know that the people who live there, arent at home. In that case, a gun dont change anything.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 8:41 am
Quoting Locutus 666
Noboday insults gun owners here. But its a fact that the USA very liberal gun restrictions have an incredible amount of crime done with guns and countrys with more restrictions have a very lower rate of crime with guns.

But the areas within the US that have the strictest gun laws (Chicago) have the highest crime/murder rates. The areas with the fewest constraints have the least (rural America). That's a fact proven over and over. Criminals know where it's easy pickins.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 8:45 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
If the house owner is at home, possibly yes. In Europe we see an increasing amount of "professional burglars" (mostly gangs from the eastern parts of europe) which choose houses they know that the people who live there, aren't at home. In that case, a gun don't change anything.

For small time burglars who just want your TV, yes, but there are large portion of instances where burglars who mean you harm, and come at night when they know you're home.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 8:49 am
Quoting El Barto !
But the areas within the US that have the strictest gun laws (Chicago) have the highest crime/murder rates. The areas with the fewest constraints have the least (rural America). That's a fact proven over and over. Criminals know where it's easy pickins.
Exactly. They tried to completely ban handguns in Chicago a couple of years ago. And surprise, surprise. Criminals were the only ones with handguns, and the city's crime rate went through the roof. As I understand, it wasn't too long before they made handguns legal again, and it very quickly came back down. People are safer if criminals have to consider the possibility of being shot. Armed citizens take the fear factor out of neighborhoods and put it into criminals.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 9:47 am
Gun laws vary greatly in the US. Not just by state, but even within states. That makes it difficult to generalize about our laws. Vermont, for example, has no restrictions on carrying concealed firearms. No permit whatsoever. So there you go.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 10:08 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Nate Andrews
Quoting El Barto !
But the areas within the US that have the strictest gun laws (Chicago) have the highest crime/murder rates. The areas with the fewest constraints have the least (rural America). That's a fact proven over and over. Criminals know where it's easy pickins.
Exactly. They tried to completely ban handguns in Chicago a couple of years ago. And surprise, surprise. Criminals were the only ones with handguns, and the city's crime rate went through the roof. As I understand, it wasn't too long before they made handguns legal again, and it very quickly came back down. People are safer if criminals have to consider the possibility of being shot. Armed citizens take the fear factor out of neighborhoods and put it into criminals.

Okay. Nice. But for self defense, do you need an AR-15? Do you need that particular weapon? Does a handgun not suffice? (Not that I think anyone should have a gun.)
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 1:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
For small time burglars who just want your TV, yes, but there are large portion of instances where burglars who mean you harm, and come at night when they know you're home.

Thats just paranoid. Why would you think every criminal wants to kill? (not defending any crims, but you know). Murder is a pretty heavy offense; one that is resolved often by the death penalty.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 1:14 pm
Quoting michael k.
For small time burglars who just want your TV, yes, but there are large portion of instances where burglars who mean you harm, and come at night when they know you're home.

Sometimes the TV-news or local newspapers report about burglars. Actual I cant remember that they killed someone. There are cases, they were stopped without any gun usage due to the fact that they were suprised by the house owners or just catched by the police. But as i already told, burglars are interested in getting worthy stuff like money, electronics or others.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 1:32 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Thats just paranoid. Why would you think every criminal wants to kill? (not defending any crims, but you know). Murder is a pretty heavy offense; one that is resolved often by the death penalty.

The idea of murdering someone is unimaginable to good people like us. The truth is that there are bad people out there. And the idea that being robbed is a one in a million event is silly, there is an armed robbery every 5 seconds. Of the 14,000 gun deaths every year in the US, 8000 are by police or regular people protecting themselves.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 3:58 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Sometimes the TV-news or local newspapers report about burglars. Actual I cant remember that they killed someone. There are cases, they were stopped without any gun usage due to the fact that they were suprised by the house owners or just catched by the police. But as i already told, burglars are interested in getting worthy stuff like money, electronics or others.

Agreed. I don't have first hand experience, but I would imagine that when robbing a house, you are quite, jumpy. Just a simple ADT alarm could scare off a criminal.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 3:58 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
The idea of murdering someone is unimaginable to good people like us. The truth is that there are bad people out there. And the idea that being robbed is a one in a million event is silly, there is an armed robbery every 5 seconds. Of the 14,000 gun deaths every year in the US, 8000 are by police or regular people protecting themselves.

See my comment below. In close quarters, do you really want a rifle? What about ricochets?
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 3:59 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Sometimes the TV-news or local newspapers report about burglars. Actual I cant remember that they killed someone. There are cases, they were stopped without any gun usage due to the fact that they were surprised by the house owners or just catched by the police. But as i already told, burglars are interested in getting worthy stuff like money, electronics or others.

Yes, the small time robbers with no guts, but burglars often don't care who they have to shoot to get comparatively amounts of things and money.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 4:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
See my comment below. In close quarters, do you really want a rifle? What about ricochets?

A high powered rifle wouldn't be my first choice for home defense. And ricochets off a plaster wall? They'd go through it, precisely why you want buckshot or pistol rounds.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 4:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
A high powered rifle wouldn't be my first choice for home defense. And ricochets off a plaster wall? They'd go through it, precisely why you want buckshot or pistol rounds.

You know, you can defeat your weapons with something simple: a bullet proof vest. If you are so scared, just wear one. Also, a bullet may not have that same affect if it hits, say, a refrigerator.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 4:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You know, you can defeat your weapons with something simple: a bullet proof vest. If you are so scared, just wear one. Also, a bullet may not have that same affect if it hits, say, a refrigerator.

I've never seen a bullet proof vest that covers your whole body, so good luck saying to an armed burglar, "Ha, beat my ballistic vest!" An with regards to criminals wearing them, they protect just your vital organs, and even if it doesn't penetarte, it might knock you over, and with soft armor, the shockwave will still hurt you, again, you don't want to kill people, just stop them, if you can avoid it. And run-of-the-mill criminals don't have ballistic vests anyway. And rifle bullets go through refrigerators, bricks, cinder blocks, and all basic building materials. Exactly why you don't want a 30'06 rifle for home defense that will go through a robber, a wall, another wall, and into a neighbor's house.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 4:15 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
I've never seen a bullet proof vest that covers your whole body, so good luck saying to an armed burglar, "Ha, beat my ballistic vest!" An with regards to criminals wearing them, they protect just your vital organs, and even if it doesn't penetarte, it might knock you over, and with soft armor, the shockwave will still hurt you, again, you don't want to kill people, just stop them, if you can avoid it. And run-of-the-mill criminals don't have ballistic vests anyway. And rifle bullets go through refrigerators, bricks, cinder blocks, and all basic building materials. Exactly why you don't want a 30'06 rifle for home defense that will go through a robber, a wall, another wall, and into a neighbor's house.

Pepper spray. Nuff said.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 4:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Pepper spray. Nuff said.

Not effective past point blank. And what if they have glasses?
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 4:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Not effective past point blank. And what if they have glasses?

Taser? Look, the point is that arming up to "take on" an intruder, its just. Why?? You are assuming they want to kill. Why do you think that? Robberies more often happen when people aren't home, as it reduces the chance of the robber being seen. When someone is home, it changes the whole thing. And do you think its a good idea to have a FIREFIGHT in your own home?
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 6:29 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Taser? Look, the point is that arming up to "take on" an intruder, its just. Why?? You are assuming they want to kill. Why do you think that? Robberies more often happen when people aren't home, as it reduces the chance of the robber being seen. When someone is home, it changes the whole thing. And do you think its a good idea to have a FIREFIGHT in your own home?

I have to agree. There's this whole school of thought that says "I need a gun becasue I want to k-i-ll people who come into my home." That's st*pid. TASER - Yes. K-i-ll - No.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 6:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Taser? Look, the point is that arming up to "take on" an intruder, it's just. Why??

Tasers don't work though thick clothes.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You are assuming they want to kill.

No. They kick down your door to give you cookies. duh.
There ARE evil people in the world that don't care who they kill to get money.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Why do you think that? Robberies more often happen when people aren't home, as it reduces the chance of the robber being seen.

Unlike my dad's friend, who had to shoot an intruder when he reached for a weapon.
I could type you a dozen stories when the robbers keep kicking the door down, even if they know someone's home. Shooting them usually isn't necessary, often they flee just by seeing a gun in your hand.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And do you think its a good idea to have a FIREFIGHT in your own home?

Hopefully not, but better than being tied up and robbed, or dead.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 7:24 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Hopefully not, but better than being tied up and robbed, or dead.

.....really? Thick clothing, murderous, armed, and you are home? The chances of that are..... Also, from my understanding, you can Taser somebody wherever on their body; heck do it on their face, if it comes to that. But a firefight? I mean, by the time thats over, it would have been cheaper if you were robbed.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 8:25 pm
Quoting michael k.
Yes, the small time robbers with no guts, but burglars often don't care who they have to shoot to get comparatively amounts of things and money.

hmm my first post runs into moderation. I wonder why...

Here again (hopefully this time it works):
Is it possible that u live in constant fear? Im do now live about 30 years without a gun for self defense, no none-killing stuff like tasers or peper spray etc, no futher locking systems at the door.
Amount of being robbed: 0
Amount of burglars in the house: 0
Amount of being killed by bad boys: 0 :P

If u have a real reason to fear burglars get a dog!
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 4:13 am
Quoting Locutus 666
get a dog!

True. If you ahve ever robbed anyone, you know that hearing a dog is the scariest thing in the world then. And if you shoot a dog you just leave evidence and get ccused of more things, without killing a witness.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 6:13 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Here again (hopefully this time it works):
Is it possible that u live in constant fear?

I am not paranoid, but a free people have the right to be safe, and to defend themselves. You say it will never happen, in the US, a bit over 1% were victims of violent crime, bit over 5% victims of property crime each year. Now I know you'll say "1% that's tiny!" The chance that you will be a victim rises every year, so by the time I'm 60, there's a 70% chance I will be a victim.
Quoting Locutus 666
no none-killing stuff like tasers or pepper spray etc, no further locking systems at the door.

So you're completely defenseless? Makes robbers jobs that much easier, of course they will never turn in their guns.
Quoting Locutus 666
If u have a real reason to fear burglars get a dog!

I do. She's the burglar alarm.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 6:50 am
Quoting michael k.
I am not paranoid, but a free people have the right to be safe, and to defend themselves.

But it sounds you are. The stats you presented, do you think that every house will be robbed and its just a question of date and time?
Quoting michael k.
So you're completely defenseless?

No. I have myself, 3 hungry-cats, knifes in the kitchen and my Lego Battleaxe! :P Okay just kidding, i dont fear any burglars.

Quoting michael k.
I do. She's the burglar alarm.

Seems you bought a dog which is too small. :D
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 7:11 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
But it sounds you are. The stats you presented, do you think that every house will be robbed and its just a question of date and time?

No, most will never be robbed or assaulted. That's no reason not to be prepared.
Quoting Locutus 666
knifes in the kitchen

Why not in your dresser? If people don't want guns, I think It'd be a good idea to at least have a knife in easy reach, just in case.
Quoting Locutus 666
Seems you bought a dog which is too small. :D

Medium. A beagle.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 7:17 am
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Medium. A beagle.

This is starting to get very, very, hypothetical. You are giving SO many circumstances that should lead you to have a weapon. Really?
And what if your gun jams? Last time I checked, dogs don't "jam". If you are so scared, get a dog. Get a security system. YOU DON'T NEED A GUN. Oh, they might come in and kill you. What are the chances of that?
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 9:51 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay. Nice. But for self defense, do you need an AR-15? Do you need that particular weapon? Does a handgun not suffice? (Not that I think anyone should have a gun.)
AR-15's aren't exactly practical in that roll. They're much too big, and they don't shoot a very powerful round, contrary to what the media tells you. So handguns would be much better in this role, while AR-15's are meant more for target shooting, which I've already discussed. ^^
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 1:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And what if your gun jams?

Have many guns, but most jams are fixed by pulling the bolt and letting it fly forward again.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
YOU DON'T NEED A GUN. Oh, they might come in and kill you. What are the chances of that?

Low, but that's like saying we don't need seatbelts and airbags because most people will never get in a car crash. The reason most people will never be robbed or assaulted is because criminals fear the possibility of armed people. Ban the gans, and it will embolden criminals, who are now sure their victims are defenseless. You'll say, "Well if guns are banned criminals won't have them either." That assumes criminals follow the law. I guess all the gangsters can't wait to turn in their "assault weapons" to the police.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 1:52 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
This is starting to get very, very, hypothetical. You are giving SO many circumstances that should lead you to have a weapon. Really?
And what if your gun jams? Last time I checked, dogs don't "jam". If you are so scared, get a dog. Get a security system. YOU DON'T NEED A GUN. Oh, they might come in and kill you. What are the chances of that?


Clearly you're missing the point. It's our right to own firearms. Period. King George III put a ban on all firearms and ammunition just prior to the Revolution. We won, he lost. Owning a gun in the United States is no different than voting. Free Speech, Right to bear arms. There are people who choose not to vote, there are people who choose not to own a gun. But no one can take either of those rights away.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 1:53 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !

Clearly you're missing the point. It's our right to own firearms. Period. King George III put a ban on all firearms and ammunition just prior to the Revolution. We won, he lost. Owning a gun in the United States is no different than voting. Free Speech, Right to bear arms. There are people who choose not to vote, there are people who choose not to own a gun. But no one can take either of those rights away.

So you are comparing our second amendment to the right to vote? That. Its not the same thing. Voting doesn't kill anyone; and isn't violent. Its actually peaceful. And owning a gun is, uh. Not the same. This is one of those things that change with the progress of time. We hold our Bill of Rights and Constitution dear, which is good, but at the same time, you have to realize that these were written in the late 1700's. Times were different.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 2:10 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Low, but that's like saying we don't need seatbelts and airbags because most people will never get in a car crash. The reason most people will never be robbed or assaulted is because criminals fear the possibility of armed people. Ban the gans, and it will embolden criminals, who are now sure their victims are defenseless. You'll say, "Well if guns are banned criminals won't have them either." That assumes criminals follow the law. I guess all the gangsters can't wait to turn in their "assault weapons" to the police.

Firstly, a car crash is not a good example AT ALL. Car crashes are MUCH more common than murders, and its important to note that those are ACCIDENTS. A murder is NOT AN ACCIDENT. Once again, I say block ammo. Doesn't matter if you have a mini gun; you ain't going to be able to shoot it.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 2:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nate Andrews
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay. Nice. But for self defense, do you need an AR-15? Do you need that particular weapon? Does a handgun not suffice? (Not that I think anyone should have a gun.)
AR-15's aren't exactly practical in that roll. They're much too big, and they don't shoot a very powerful round, contrary to what the media tells you. So handguns would be much better in this role, while AR-15's are meant more for target shooting, which I've already discussed. ^^

I think you have overlooked this. Firstly, we agree that a firefight in one's home with an AR-15 is not a good idea, right? If that is true, why are your honing your skills with a useless gun?
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 2:14 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Firstly, a car crash is not a good example AT ALL.

OK, it was a bad example, but what keeps crime as infrequent as it is is that, again, the fear of being shot keeps criminals away. If there's no guns (or ammo) they'll be emboldened, now their victims are disarmed and defenseless.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 2:24 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
OK, it was a bad example, but what keeps crime as infrequent as it is is that, again, the fear of being shot keeps criminals away. If there's no guns (or ammo) they'll be emboldened, now their victims are disarmed and defenseless.

But it doesn't work. If you think that criminals don't do crime because they are afraid, how are they criminals to begin with? The guns obviously haven't abolished crime, now have they?
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 2:28 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
But it doesn't work. If you think that criminals don't do crime because they are afraid, how are they criminals to begin with? The guns obviously haven't abolished crime, now have they?

There are some whose want of money will override their fear. When Australia banned guns, murder didn't change much, but robberies exploded, from 6,000 a year, to 10,000. If there is no risk to them, they'll run rampant
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 2:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
There are some whose want of money will override their fear. When Australia banned guns, murder didn't change much, but robberies exploded, from 6,000 a year, to 10,000. If there is no risk to them, they'll run rampant

Yeah, but once again. You need a gun to protect yourself? Is a Taser not enough? And do you actually think that the process of buying a gun is secure right now?
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 2:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, but once again. You need a gun to protect yourself? Is a Taser not enough?

Again, the shooting tasers don't work through thick clothes (coats). Don't get me wrong, if someone really isn't comfortable with a gun, a taser is better than nothing.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And do you actually think that the process of buying a gun is secure right now?

The background check system doesn't always catch insane people, and there's not much coordination between it and local LE, and it could be improved in that respect.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 2:50 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I think you have overlooked this. Firstly, we agree that a firefight in one's home with an AR-15 is not a good idea, right? If that is true, why are your honing your skills with a useless gun?
Again, you don't understand the recreational side of shooting when you call AR-15's "useless". An AR-15's accuracy makes it excellent for target shooting, while the less powerful round makes it a great choice for hunting small game when a more powerful round would be overkill.

And before anybody brings up the magazine capacity argument when it comes to hunting, I think most states already have laws in place so you can't hunt with a "super scary 4,000 round drum clip magazine thingy" as the media likes to call them.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 3:04 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So you are comparing our second amendment to the right to vote? That. Its not the same thing. Voting doesn't kill anyone; and isn't violent. Its actually peaceful. And owning a gun is, uh. Not the same. This is one of those things that change with the progress of time. We hold our Bill of Rights and Constitution dear, which is good, but at the same time, you have to realize that these were written in the late 1700's. Times were different.

A right is a right, it doesn't matter what it is on the list, and it doesn't matter what era we're in. You're mistakenly associating guns with violence. Free speech can lead to violence just as easily. And often on a larger scale. I don't intend to shoot anyone with my guns, anymore than I would say something hateful to incite a riot. I got them because I wanted them. No different than a good snow blower or weed whacker.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 3:19 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
A right is a right, it doesn't matter what it is on the list, and it doesn't matter what era we're in. You're mistakenly associating guns with violence. Free speech can lead to violence just as easily. And often on a larger scale. I don't intend to shoot anyone with my guns, anymore than I would say something hateful to incite a riot. I got them because I wanted them. No different than a good snow blower or weed whacker.

Firstly, law care is not the same as killing a person, which so far is the only excuse (other than "recreation") that I see popping up. Did you know that back in the late 1700's, "booze" was illegal in the USA? In fact, President Washington sent an armed battalion of soldiers to stop several disgruntled farmers out in Pennsylvania? Now, of course, the law is no longer in service; it was repealed. Let me ask you this. Why was the gun invented? Was it for violence? But more importantly, how are most guns around the world used? Also, you bough a gun because you wanted one. Okay, fair enough. How does that excuse people, and allow them to buy an AR-15?

Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 3:29 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nate Andrews
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I think you have overlooked this. Firstly, we agree that a firefight in one's home with an AR-15 is not a good idea, right? If that is true, why are your honing your skills with a useless gun?
Again, you don't understand the recreational side of shooting when you call AR-15's "useless". An AR-15's accuracy makes it excellent for target shooting, while the less powerful round makes it a great choice for hunting small game when a more powerful round would be overkill.

And before anybody brings up the magazine capacity argument when it comes to hunting, I think most states already have laws in place so you can't hunt with a "super scary 4,000 round drum clip magazine thingy" as the media likes to call them.

Then how about this: keep AR-15s locked up and only accessibly by hunters in land used for hunting. Thats it. But no. You all want to buy these guns, and then go forth hold pride in buying one. This is not the wild west my debate colleagues; this is 21st Century America, and it is WAY different than in 1776.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 3:36 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Firstly, law care is not the same as killing a person, which so far is the only excuse (other than "recreation") that I see popping up. Did you know that back in the late 1700's, "booze" was illegal in the USA? In fact, President Washington sent an armed battalion of soldiers to stop several disgruntled farmers out in Pennsylvania? Now, of course, the law is no longer in service; it was repealed. Let me ask you this. Why was the gun invented? Was it for violence? But more importantly, how are most guns around the world used? Also, you bough a gun because you wanted one. Okay, fair enough. How does that excuse people, and allow them to buy an AR-15?

I thought about getting one of those, too, but I ended up spending the money on Lego instead. And it would be for the same reason: because I wanted to. What others choose to do is their business, certainly not yours. Most guns are owned by private citizens who never commit a crime. You should focus more on the people who cause all of these problems in society, not what they use.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 3:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
I thought about getting one of those, too, but I ended up spending the money on Lego instead. And it would be for the same reason: because I wanted to. What others choose to do is their business, certainly not yours. Most guns are owned by private citizens who never commit a crime. You should focus more on the people who cause all of these problems in society, not what they use.

"And not what they use". Okay. Well you just contradicted yourself. If I am not concerned about the guns that others buy, how will I know if I am safe? Exactly.
Controlling society, hmm. If you want to continue that discussion, maybe we can take in the USA? thread.


Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 3:41 pm
 Group admin 
Folks, just a quick announcement. This is our most popular thread, and I need to reach out to everyone. Please head to the "Important Announcement" thread, and take a look at my comment. It concerns us voting for something. Thank you. Lets get back to gun control. Get rid of 'em.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 3:43 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
"And not what they use". Okay. Well you just contradicted yourself. If I am not concerned about the guns that others buy, how will I know if I am safe? Exactly.
Controlling society, hmm. If you want to continue that discussion, maybe we can take in the USA? thread.


You must have misread that. What I was saying was that YOU are focused on guns as being the problem. It's a waste of time. It's like saying take cars away because of drunk drivers. Okay, just big cars, or fast cars, wait no, red cars. It's the same argument. I say guns aren't the issue. It's criminals, addicts, the mentally disturbed, etc. Deal with those people, put them in jail, get them help. Keep them from getting guns, drugs, woodchippers, turkey basters, whatever.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 4:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
You must have misread that. What I was saying was that YOU are focused on guns as being the problem. It's a waste of time. It's like saying take cars away because of drunk drivers. Okay, just big cars, or fast cars, wait no, red cars. It's the same argument. I say guns aren't the issue. It's criminals, addicts, the mentally disturbed, etc. Deal with those people, put them in jail, get them help. Keep them from getting guns, drugs, woodchippers, turkey basters, whatever.

Cars and guns ARE NOT THE SAME. Please, stop using that as a way to prove your point. A car is built as machine that transports people and goods from point A to point B. A GUN is used to discharge a metal (or in some cases, uranium) pellet in the hopes of killing or destroying something. Now, you have listed Criminals, mental disturbed, and addicts. How do you plan on controlling? You CLAIM that you want a gun to defend yourself, right? If thats true, how are you going to control crims? And that is the whole point here. Gun ownership INSTIGATES crime, as more bullets are exchanged, and those more bullets can kill more people.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 5:09 pm
You are correct. The things are NOT the same, but your flawed liberal logic is. Liberals never understood the concept of peace through strength, aka deterrence. Reagan was going to start a war with the Russians, and all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth could be heard around the world. And then they collapsed. Two terms of Obama has generated record sales of guns and ammo across the country. And in spite of the horrific economy and record unemployment, crime has actually gone down dramatically. Oh, except for the places with strict gun laws like Chicago. Oops.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 8:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
You are correct. The things are NOT the same, but your flawed liberal logic is. Liberals never understood the concept of peace through strength, aka deterrence. Reagan was going to start a war with the Russians, and all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth could be heard around the world. And then they collapsed. Two terms of Obama has generated record sales of guns and ammo across the country. And in spite of the horrific economy and record unemployment, crime has actually gone down dramatically. Oh, except for the places with strict gun laws like Chicago. Oops.

Well, firstly, I am a huge fan of Reagan (and Gorbachev, for that matter), but lets not forget this: was Reagan not shot? Did he not have an attempted attempt.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:16 pm
Quoting El Barto !
Two terms of Obama has generated record sales of guns and ammo across the country.


http://goo.gl/BLHpv

Couldn't resist.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:27 pm
Quoting michael k.
OK, it was a bad example, but what keeps crime as infrequent as it is is that, again, the fear of being shot keeps criminals away. If there's no guns (or ammo) they'll be emboldened, now their victims are disarmed and defenseless.

If the criminals have to fear an armed victim, why is there still this big crime rate?
Permalink
| June 11, 2013, 2:42 am
Quoting Nate Andrews

http://goo.gl/BLHpv

Couldn't resist.

Good one!
Permalink
| June 11, 2013, 8:55 am
Quoting Locutus 666
If the criminals have to fear an armed victim, why is there still this big crime rate?

You're ignoring the difference between areas of high crime rates (more gun restrictions) and areas of low crime rates (fewer). This is a big country with lots of different rules.
Permalink
| June 11, 2013, 8:57 am
Quoting El Barto !
You're ignoring the difference between areas of high crime rates (more gun restrictions) and areas of low crime rates (fewer). This is a big country with lots of different rules.

And you are ignoring the difference between countries with high crime rate and with low crime rates. This is a big world with lots of different rules.
Permalink
| June 11, 2013, 1:06 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
If the criminals have to fear an armed victim, why is there still this big crime rate?

Precisely my point! You all are pointing to Chicago as "proof", right? Well with guns, I think crime is still there. Guns can help INSTIGATE more crime, rather than "prevent" it.
Permalink
| June 11, 2013, 1:08 pm
 Group admin 
EDIT:
Forgot, folks, please post this banner onto your home page. I really want this group to expand even more:
<a href="http://www.mocpages.com/group.php/22580"><img src="http://images.mocpages.com/user_images/67267/1369943972m_SPLASH.jpg";;; border="0" width="400" height="200" alt=""></a>
Permalink
| June 11, 2013, 1:10 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
If the criminals have to fear an armed victim, why is there still this big crime rate?

That's preposterous. You can't deter everyone. That's like saying "How come people commit crimes if we have jail?"
Permalink
| June 12, 2013, 5:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
That's preposterous. You can't deter everyone. That's like saying "How come people commit crimes if we have jail?"

If crims aren't deterred by the large gun ownership, then how do guns make any impact on controling violence?
Permalink
| June 12, 2013, 6:12 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
If crims aren't deterred by the large gun ownership, then how do guns make any impact on controling violence?

Thats a good question. To better answer that, I am going to see if I can find out how many home invasion suspects were shot on site.
Permalink
| June 12, 2013, 6:15 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
If crims aren't deterred by the large gun ownership, then how do guns make any impact on controlling violence?

So if criminals were 100% sure they won't be shot, as opposed to 50%, they wouldn't be just a BIT more bold. On my trip, we went to a friend's house who runs a guns business out of his house, and has numerous machine guns. There's also a sign out front that says something like _____'s Guns and Military Collectibles. Wouldn't it be rather stupid to rob that house?
Permalink
| June 12, 2013, 6:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
So if criminals were 100% sure they won't be shot, as opposed to 50%, they wouldn't be just a BIT more bold. On my trip, we went to a friend's house who runs a guns business out of his house, and has numerous machine guns. There's also a sign out front that says something like _____'s Guns and Military Collectibles. Wouldn't it be rather stupid to rob that house?

It might not (if the "military collectibles" work) but in that case, why don't people just put signs saying they own a gun? If you live in a risky area, and your theory is correct, why don't you just put a sign saying you have a gun then?
Permalink
| June 12, 2013, 7:12 pm
 Group moderator 
Guns are pointless, in my opinion. Used to kill viciously. Why? Why was something used to study the art of killing invented? I have a depressing story to prove my point. Beware, this is a very sad story...but true

A woman bought a gun to protect herself, and kept in her drawer at night. Then, one night, she heard a noise downstairs. She grabbed the gun, ran down the stairs, and fired in the dark...she flipped the lights, and saw what she had shot...her 8 year old daughter.

That's why guns should be illegal, in my opinion.
Permalink
| June 12, 2013, 8:22 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting A Sargent
Guns are pointless, in my opinion. Used to kill viciously. Why? Why was something used to study the art of killing invented? I have a depressing story to prove my point. Beware, this is a very sad story...but true

A woman bought a gun to protect herself, and kept in her drawer at night. Then, one night, she heard a noise downstairs. She grabbed the gun, ran down the stairs, and fired in the dark...she flipped the lights, and saw what she had shot...her 8 year old daughter.

That's why guns should be illegal, in my opinion.

Its a grim story. But it also serves as another point that I myself haven't made; that is, accidents.
Permalink
| June 12, 2013, 9:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting A Sargent
Guns are pointless, in my opinion. Used to kill viciously. Why? Why was something used to study the art of killing invented? I have a depressing story to prove my point. Beware, this is a very sad story...but true

A woman bought a gun to protect herself, and kept in her drawer at night. Then, one night, she heard a noise downstairs. She grabbed the gun, ran down the stairs, and fired in the dark...she flipped the lights, and saw what she had shot...her 8 year old daughter.

That's why guns should be illegal, in my opinion.

That's one example against. I'll give you 4 pro gun.
(Recent story, day or 2 ago) A 72 year old gramma, wife of a disabled WWII vet, called the police one night because someone (a burglar with a history) was breaking into her back door. She fired a shot through the door, barely missing the burglar's cheek. He apologized and said he was leaving.

You remember where you were when Sandy Hook happened, but almost nobody remembers the mass-shootings-that-weren't, stopped by armed citizens, like,
-2 days before Sandy Hook, a man walked into a mall with a rifle and started shooting. Two people were killed, and when a shopper pulled out his legally concealed weapon, the shooter saw that, he killed himself, ending the shooting.
-About 15 years ago, a kid walked into a Mississippi high school, shot 9 people, killing 2. Then got in his car to go shoot up the middle school, where he was stopped by the armed vice principal.
-On a Sunday morning, a man armed with three guns and a thousand bullets killed 2 people at a christian center, then went to a megachurch packed with thousands of people, killed 2 more in a parking lot. Before he could start shooting in the church, he was shot by a woman with a legally concealed handgun, after that, he killed himself.
Now I know you'll say, "Well if there wasn't a gun in the first place, it wouldn't have happened." We've already established criminals will get guns no matter what guns laws you make, since they don't care about the laws, and will smuggle them in anyway. The majority of gun deaths every year are to people who had it coming.
Permalink
| June 12, 2013, 9:42 pm
Quoting michael k.
That's one example against. I'll give you 4 pro gun.
(Recent story, day or 2 ago) A 72 year old gramma, wife of a disabled WWII vet, called the police one night because someone (a burglar with a history) was breaking into her back door. She fired a shot through the door, barely missing the burglar's cheek. He apologized and said he was leaving.

You remember where you were when Sandy Hook happened, but almost nobody remembers the mass-shootings-that-weren't, stopped by armed citizens, like,
-2 days before Sandy Hook, a man walked into a mall with a rifle and started shooting. Two people were killed, and when a shopper pulled out his legally concealed weapon, the shooter saw that, he killed himself, ending the shooting.
-About 15 years ago, a kid walked into a Mississippi high school, shot 9 people, killing 2. Then got in his car to go shoot up the middle school, where he was stopped by the armed vice principal.
-On a Sunday morning, a man armed with three guns and a thousand bullets killed 2 people at a christian center, then went to a megachurch packed with thousands of people, killed 2 more in a parking lot. Before he could start shooting in the church, he was shot by a woman with a legally concealed handgun, after that, he killed himself.
Now I know you'll say, "Well if there wasn't a gun in the first place, it wouldn't have happened." We've already established criminals will get guns no matter what guns laws you make, since they don't care about the laws, and will smuggle them in anyway. The majority of gun deaths every year are to people who had it coming.

THANK YOU!!!!! LOGIC!!!! AND FACTS!!!
Permalink
| June 12, 2013, 9:47 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
It might not (if the "military collectibles" work)

WHAT?
Quoting Achintya Prasad
but in that case, why don't people just put signs saying they own a gun? If you live in a risky area, and your theory is correct, why don't you just put a sign saying you have a gun then?

You don't advertise gun ownership, or lack thereof in public. Some people like to steal guns, some like to target people with no guns. Again, the uncertainty gives you an advantage. Most criminals confronted by armed people are caught off guard.
Permalink
| June 12, 2013, 9:50 pm
Quoting michael k.
That's one example against. I'll give you 4 pro gun.
(Recent story, day or 2 ago) A 72 year old gramma, wife of a disabled WWII vet, called the police one night because someone (a burglar with a history) was breaking into her back door. She fired a shot through the door, barely missing the burglar's cheek. He apologized and said he was leaving.

You remember where you were when Sandy Hook happened, but almost nobody remembers the mass-shootings-that-weren't, stopped by armed citizens, like,
-2 days before Sandy Hook, a man walked into a mall with a rifle and started shooting. Two people were killed, and when a shopper pulled out his legally concealed weapon, the shooter saw that, he killed himself, ending the shooting.
-About 15 years ago, a kid walked into a Mississippi high school, shot 9 people, killing 2. Then got in his car to go shoot up the middle school, where he was stopped by the armed vice principal.
-On a Sunday morning, a man armed with three guns and a thousand bullets killed 2 people at a christian center, then went to a megachurch packed with thousands of people, killed 2 more in a parking lot. Before he could start shooting in the church, he was shot by a woman with a legally concealed handgun, after that, he killed himself.
Now I know you'll say, "Well if there wasn't a gun in the first place, it wouldn't have happened." We've already established criminals will get guns no matter what guns laws you make, since they don't care about the laws, and will smuggle them in anyway. The majority of gun deaths every year are to people who had it coming.

So what you are saying is you need less guns and more police?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 3:07 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
So what you are saying is you need less guns and more police?

He wants to say, that more guns will bring more peace.
Statistics say that nearly every american has minimum one gun at home (just by the statistics!)
I cant imagine how mroe guns can bring the peace, or better asked, how much additional guns are needed to get the peace. :/
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 5:28 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
So what you are saying is you need less guns and more police?

More civilian guns, and more police. Those stories were armed citizens that stopped potential mass shootings when the police couldn't be there immediately. There never will be a cop on every corner, and that's why 95% of police support lawfully armed citizens. The knowledge that half of Americans have guns is a deterrent to people who would be burglars, or to criminals who aren't as bold as a result.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 8:25 am
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
So what you are saying is you need less guns and more police?

You can't have cops everywhere. Unless there's a police bodyguard for everyone in a country, there's going to be a delay between the commission of a crime and the police arriving to sort everything out. Until then, the criminal has free rein to do anything he feels like.

When it comes down to it, the victim is the first responder, and in most countries they're also the most likely to get maimed and/or killed.

So; how can a wheelchair-bound amputee fend off a professional lowlife?

It's simple.

With fire.


You empty a magazine into the world's toughest wrestler, he'll die just like anyone else.




This sort of thing is really less of a legal issue and more of a moral one.

Is it right for someone to protect themselves in a crisis, or should they be expected to rely on the mercy of people who've already declared complete disregard for human life?



Not to mention that sometimes a government gets just a teeny-tiny bit too oppressive and needs to be sorted out. Ex. Red China, Soviet Russia, National Socialist Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North Korea, Iraq, Chile, Zimbabwe, half of the african continent.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:02 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
You can't have cops everywhere. Unless there's a police bodyguard for everyone in a country, there's going to be a delay between the commission of a crime and the police arriving to sort everything out. Until then, the criminal has free rein to do anything he feels like.

When it comes down to it, the victim is the first responder, and in most countries they're also the most likely to get maimed and/or killed.

So; how can a wheelchair-bound amputee fend off a professional lowlife?

It's simple.

With fire.


You empty a magazine into the world's toughest wrestler, he'll die just like anyone else.




This sort of thing is really less of a legal issue and more of a moral one.

Is it right for someone to protect themselves in a crisis, or should they be expected to rely on the mercy of people who've already declared complete disregard for human life?



Not to mention that sometimes a government gets just a teeny-tiny bit too oppressive and needs to be sorted out. Ex. Red China, Soviet Russia, National Socialist Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North Korea, Iraq, Chile, Zimbabwe, half of the african continent.

Okay, all the countries you have listed here, the people had their own problems; and their collapse will be from countries OUTSIDE. Otherwise, it wasn't a massive Coup that killed thousands.
Its important to note that a nuclear missile, or a tank, is not stopped by a small bullet.

Now, if you control the ammunition in a place, then you will find that both the good and the bad will not have anything to fire. True or false?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:33 am
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
More civilian guns, and more police. Those stories were armed citizens that stopped potential mass shootings when the police couldn't be there immediately. There never will be a cop on every corner, and that's why 95% of police support lawfully armed citizens. The knowledge that half of Americans have guns is a deterrent to people who would be burglars, or to criminals who aren't as bold as a result.

BUT, this "intimidation" obviously doesn't work. There is crime out here, and the mass shootings haven't stopped either.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:35 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
So what you are saying is you need less guns and more police?

I am saying less ammo, less guns, and less crime.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:36 am
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
You don't advertise gun ownership, or lack thereof in public. Some people like to steal guns, some like to target people with no guns. Again, the uncertainty gives you an advantage. Most criminals confronted by armed people are caught off guard.

No, that, no. There is a 50% chance a person has a gun, and a 50% chance he doesn't (I think). If we follow your logic, then a person shouldn't attack or commit crime because he KNOWS that a person has a gun.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:38 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I am saying less ammo, less guns, and less crime.

Hmm... Legal guns... But illegal ammo? That could work. Legal blanks.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:45 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Hmm... Legal guns... But illegal ammo? That could work. Legal blanks.

Exactly. Eventually, of course, I still want these guns gone, but this could be a nice stepping stone.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:47 am
I shall say this here and now:

Gun control = more crime.

Why you ask? Us legal gun owners will have our guns taken away. The illegal gun owners will still have them, and a regular citizen can't stop them.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:54 am
Quoting Jayarbe .
I shall say this here and now:

Gun control = more crime.

That has been said many times already. All times it was incorrect.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:56 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
I shall say this here and now:

Gun control = more crime.

And less guns means less killings.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:57 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
I shall say this here and now:

Gun control = more crime.

Why you ask? Us legal gun owners will have our guns taken away. The illegal gun owners will still have them, and a regular citizen can't stop them.

Taser, pepper spray, fake (not real) guns, security systems in your own home.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:58 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And less guns means less killings.

That is incorrect. If you take guns away from legal gun owners, there will be more crime. You can't take away criminals' guns by the snap of a finger.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:59 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
That is incorrect. If you take guns away from legal gun owners, there will be more crime. You can't take away criminals' guns by the snap of a finger.

Take a look above.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 11:01 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Taser, pepper spray, fake (not real) guns, security systems in your own home.

Okay. You have your security system and someone is breaking in. You don't have anything to protect you and the intruder has a weapon. What do you do now?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 11:03 am
Quoting Jayarbe .
Okay. You have your security system and someone is breaking in. You don't have anything to protect you and the intruder has a weapon. What do you do now?

run and jump out a window
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 11:15 am
Quoting Seamus M.
run and jump out a window

Well, you could do that, but what about your possessions?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 11:18 am
Quoting Jayarbe .
Well, you could do that, but what about your possessions?

I didn't think about that, I guess you might just have to let them be stolen, in order to save your life.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 11:23 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Seamus M.
I didn't think about that, I guess you might just have to let them be stolen, in order to save your life.

So people should agree to be victims? Let criminals walk all over you? If they want your possessions, just hand them over? Or defend yourself, knife, gun, sword, club.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 11:31 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
BUT, this "intimidation" obviously doesn't work. There is crime out here, and the mass shootings haven't stopped either.

This is about the 3rd or 4th time we've been over this. You won't deter EVERYONE. That's almost like saying we should get rid of jail, because threat of jail hardly stops anyone.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 11:33 am
Quoting michael k.
So people should agree to be victims? Let criminals walk all over you? If they want your possessions, just hand them over? Or defend yourself, knife, gun, sword, club.

Yes but what if you don't have a knife, gun, sword, club ect.? I would rather save my life than have my credit card taken. (I know it is a big risk, but against saving your life?)
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 11:37 am
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
This is about the 3rd or 4th time we've been over this. You won't deter EVERYONE. That's almost like saying we should get rid of jail, because threat of jail hardly stops anyone.

If the threat of jail doesn't stop anyone, then how does the threat of a gun stop someone? THAT is the point I am making; how can one threat that works on the same principle of another not work?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 12:15 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
So people should agree to be victims? Let criminals walk all over you? If they want your possessions, just hand them over? Or defend yourself, knife, gun, sword, club.

Since when did our possessions become more important than our lives? I would rather "cowardly" hide and save my life, than risk it in a firefight. "Defend yourself KNIFE, gun, SWORD, CLUB". Well there you have it. Three other weapons you can use instead of a gun.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 12:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
Well, you could do that, but what about your possessions?

Possessions always equal people, don't they?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 12:19 pm
Quoting Seamus M.
Yes but what if you don't have a knife, gun, sword, club ect.? I would rather save my life than have my credit card taken. (I know it is a big risk, but against saving your life?)

Everyone has at least 1 knife or club. You could use a kitchen knife or a baseball bat.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 12:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BrickCity101 11
Everyone has at least 1 knife or club. You could use a kitchen knife or a baseball bat.

True, but if you are held up in a corner, or otherwise not able to reach for that weapon, then what?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 12:27 pm
Quoting Seamus M.
I didn't think about that, I guess you might just have to let them be stolen, in order to save your life.

Call the cops. There's got to be at least one cop nearby who could be there within 2 minutes. Unless the intruder has been in your house before and know what their going to steal, their gonna search every inch of your house. When the cops get there, they'll point their guns at the intruder and if the intruder shoots at them, they will probably kill the intruder.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 12:35 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
True, but if you are held up in a corner, or otherwise not able to reach for that weapon, then what?

You could tell the intruder that they can take whatever they want from you as long as they let you go, and then when their backs are turned grab the weapon and attack them from behind. Whacking someone over the head with a baseball bat will knock them out and stabbing someone in the back will probably either kill them or cause them to drop to the floor in extreme pain at which point you grab their weapon and wait until the cops get there.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 12:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BrickCity101 11
You could tell the intruder that they can take whatever they want from you as long as they let you go, and then when their backs are turned grab the weapon and attack them from behind. Whacking someone over the head with a baseball bat will knock them out and stabbing someone in the back will probably either kill them or cause them to drop to the floor in extreme pain at which point you grab their weapon and wait until the cops get there.

Eh. I don't think that an intruder could be that dumb and turn their back to you. I would run.

But anyways, its important to note that an armed robbery while you home is not common; and its something that is dependent on the neighborhood. Guns aren't needed.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:00 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Since when did our possessions become more important than our lives? I would rather "cowardly" hide and save my life, than risk it in a firefight. "Defend yourself KNIFE, gun, SWORD, CLUB". Well there you have it. Three other weapons you can use instead of a gun.

What if the intruder has a gun?

Never bring a sword to a gun fight.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
What if the intruder has a gun?

Never bring a sword to a gun fight.

Indiana Jones? Yeah okay. But remember, this is close quarters combat. A house is usually cluttered with stuff, like couches and what not. A robber is aiming to steal; why would he shoot up his haul? In close quarters, a paint gun could easily stop someone from advancing.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:03 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Indiana Jones? Yeah okay. But remember, this is close quarters combat. A house is usually cluttered with stuff, like couches and what not. A robber is aiming to steal; why would he shoot up his haul? In close quarters, a paint gun could easily stop someone from advancing.

And how could a paint gun stop someone from advancing on you?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:06 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Eh. I don't think that an intruder could be that dumb and turn their back to you. I would run.

But anyways, its important to note that an armed robbery while you home is not common; and its something that is dependent on the neighborhood. Guns aren't needed.

If you tried to run while being cornered by a intruder, wouldn't they just block you or shoot you? I do agree though that armed robberies while people are home is very uncommon.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
And how could a paint gun stop someone from advancing on you?

Pain. Shoot someone in the face, at near point black range, would hurt someone enough for them to consider leaving, or for you to run. In fact, in that time, you could disarm the perp.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BrickCity101 11
If you tried to run while being cornered by a intruder, wouldn't they just block you or shoot you? I do agree though that armed robberies while people are home is very uncommon.

Well let me say this. Would you carry a gun around with you, even at home? Lets say you have a hand gun. Are you just going to walk around at your place, with an armed gun in your pocket, just in case? Really?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:14 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Pain. Shoot someone in the face, at near point black range, would hurt someone enough for them to consider leaving, or for you to run. In fact, in that time, you could disarm the perp.

I'm going to ask you this. Why do you want the guns taken from the good guys?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:15 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
I'm going to ask you this. Why do you want the guns taken from the good guys?

Because they have posed a danger to the public. "Good people" have had their guns stolen, and later unlawfully used in mass shootings. And even if "good people" can handle a gun, there is always the possibility of an accident; "friendly fire" or otherwise. Its just dangerous.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:17 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Because they have posed a danger to the public. "Good people" have had their guns stolen, and later unlawfully used in mass shootings. And even if "good people" can handle a gun, there is always the possibility of an accident; "friendly fire" or otherwise. Its just dangerous.

Never put a gun into the wrong hands. This is why we have steel safes. We put our valuables and firearms in there.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:18 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well let me say this. Would you carry a gun around with you, even at home? Lets say you have a hand gun. Are you just going to walk around at your place, with an armed gun in your pocket, just in case? Really?

If a intruder wants to kill you, chances are they aren't going to let you go. That's what I meant by them blocking or shooting.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:19 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
Never put a gun into the wrong hands. This is why we have steel safes. We put our valuables and firearms in there.

Okay, then. You have a safe with your gun in there. But if you, like many other pro-gun people say, need to "defend" yourself, do you think you will have enough time to get to your safe, open it, load your gun, and then turn it to your intruder?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:20 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Because they have posed a danger to the public. "Good people" have had their guns stolen, and later unlawfully used in mass shootings. And even if "good people" can handle a gun, there is always the possibility of an accident; "friendly fire" or otherwise. Its just dangerous.

What about the cops? They need guns.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BrickCity101 11
If a intruder wants to kill you, chances are they aren't going to let you go. That's what I meant by them blocking or shooting.

Then why do you need a gun to block? Shooting, paintball gun.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BrickCity101 11
What about the cops? They need guns.

I am not talking about law enforcement. I mean, if you take my ideal literally, then every single military base in the USA has no guns, which is really, dumb, in my opinion. Law enforcement are much more trained with guns, and are the ones that hold up the law.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:22 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Then why do you need a gun to block? Shooting, paintball gun.

I meant the intruder blocking you from escaping if they didn't want to shoot point blank.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:23 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay, then. You have a safe with your gun in there. But if you, like many other pro-gun people say, need to "defend" yourself, do you think you will have enough time to get to your safe, open it, load your gun, and then turn it to your intruder?

Smart gun owners would pre-load their defense magazines, so you only have to put the code into the safe, grab your gun, and put the magazine in.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
Smart gun owners would pre-load their defense magazines, so you only have to put the code into the safe, grab your gun, and put the magazine in.

.....But you still have put in a code, grab your gun, turn off the safety, aim, and then fire. It makes no sense to me.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:24 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
.....But you still have put in a code, grab your gun, turn off the safety, aim, and then fire. It makes no sense to me.

Because you've never done it.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BrickCity101 11
I meant the intruder blocking you from escaping if they didn't want to shoot point blank.

If they don't want to shoot point black, then just pump 'em. Go karate style on them.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
Because you've never done it.

You are right, I haven't. If someone is bent upon killing you, do you think the will let you run to your gun safe, do the after mentioned process, and still let you take a crack at them? Its logical to assume that it takes too long, and you might as well take the faith of being shot.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:27 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
If they don't want to shoot point black, then just pump 'em. Go karate style on them.

What would happen if you missed? They become angry that you tried to attack them, and would just go after you.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:30 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BrickCity101 11
What would happen if you missed? They become angry that you tried to attack them, and would just go after you.

You don't stop fighting. Keep punching and kicking.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:33 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You don't stop fighting. Keep punching and kicking.

True. Another thing you could do is keep a pocket knife on you at all times. That way if you are cornered and don't know karate, you would just whip out your knife and attack.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:46 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BrickCity101 11
True. Another thing you could do is keep a pocket knife on you at all times. That way if you are cornered and don't know karate, you would just whip out your knife and attack.

Yeah, Swiss Army is actually a good idea (honest). Maybe, you could buy a laser, and if, you needed to, just shoot the beam into someone's eye. That should make 'em run.

So why does the public need guns, again?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:48 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, Swiss Army is actually a good idea (honest). Maybe, you could buy a laser, and if, you needed to, just shoot the beam into someone's eye. That should make 'em run.

So why does the public need guns, again?

For defense, I guess.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 1:50 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Since when did our possessions become more important than our lives?

Our possessions are more important than their (criminals) lives. My point was why should we have to hand over our hard earned possessions to a thug just cause he wants it?
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I would rather "cowardly" hide and save my life, than risk it in a firefight.

This woman hid "cowardly" and was found anyway.
http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/01/georgia-mom-shoots-home-intruder/
Do a Google search for "home invasion gun fight. The homeowner almost always wins.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
"Defend yourself KNIFE, gun, SWORD, CLUB". Well there you have it. Three other weapons you can use instead of a gun.

As an alternative. If someone isn't personally comfortable with a gun. Gun is most useful, of course.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 2:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, Swiss Army is actually a good idea (honest).

Again, better than nothing. At least have a bayonet or clever in reach.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Maybe, you could buy a laser, and if, you needed to, just shoot the beam into someone's eye. That should make 'em run.

wow.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So why does the public need guns, again?

So you'd rather criminals have guns, and the good guys have none, than for them both to be armed?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 2:22 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
If they don't want to shoot point black, then just pump 'em. Go karate style on them.


Like my dad's disabled friend? He had no alternative but a gun (or to die)

or this old lady (perhaps too old to do karate?)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/12/grandma-72-shoots-at-intruder-misses-in-calif/

Or too young for karate?
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/son-uses-dads-ar-15-to-defend-home/
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 2:30 pm
Quoting Jayarbe .
I'm going to ask you this. Why do you want the guns taken from the good guys?

Because there are no "good" and/or "bad" people. People are humans and those can change their mind within seconds to become a bad one. So tell me, how much "good" people do actual exist?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 3:24 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.

Like my dad's disabled friend? He had no alternative but a gun (or to die)

or this old lady (perhaps too old to do karate?)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/12/grandma-72-shoots-at-intruder-misses-in-calif/

Or too young for karate?
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/son-uses-dads-ar-15-to-defend-home/

No one is too young for karate (even a few kicks can be effective). In the other instances, is it really difficult to use a paintball gun?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 3:26 pm
Quoting Areetsa C
Not to mention that sometimes a government gets just a teeny-tiny bit too oppressive and needs to be sorted out. Ex. Red China, Soviet Russia, National Socialist Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North Korea, Iraq, Chile, Zimbabwe, half of the african continent.

Nice list of countrys. Lets have a closer look:
-Ex. Red China: is still red
-Soviet Russia: failed without guns for the people
-National Socialist Germany: lost a war, soem people had guns but too much stand behind the regime.
-North Korea: still exist, people are indocrinated, stand behind the regime
-Iraq: was crimely invaded by USA now people have guns and much more bombs to kill each other
-Chile: leaders supported by USA
-Zimbabwe, half of the african continent: have all guns, warlords have guns too, kid-soldiers kill other kids, civil wars for decades, people die because have no food but guns and ammo....
-Khmer Rouge Cambodia: killed millions of citizens, supported by western countrys

Last but not least, a failed government which was removed WITHOUT ANY GUNS (!!!!):

East Germany (known as GDR)
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 3:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Nice list of countrys. Lets have a closer look:
-Ex. Red China: is still red
-Soviet Russia: failed without guns for the people
-National Socialist Germany: lost a war, soem people had guns but too much stand behind the regime.
-North Korea: still exist, people are indocrinated, stand behind the regime
-Iraq: was crimely invaded by USA now people have guns and much more bombs to kill each other
-Chile: leaders supported by USA
-Zimbabwe, half of the african continent: have all guns, warlords have guns too, kid-soldiers kill other kids, civil wars for decades, people die because have no food but guns and ammo....
-Khmer Rouge Cambodia: killed millions of citizens, supported by western countrys

Last but not least, a failed government which was removed WITHOUT ANY GUNS (!!!!):

East Germany (known as GDR)

Which invasion of Iraq? First or second?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 3:40 pm
Quoting michael k.
good guys

That was so prejudous that even I find it offensive.

"Good guys"...
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 3:47 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Which invasion of Iraq? First or second?

both
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 4:09 pm
This country is most definitely going to split into two with a second civil war.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 4:27 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
May I remind you that the Aussies don't border an unstable country that is run by drug lords?

I'm sorry but if bordering Mexico is your argument, that's irrelevant. The US government is part of the problem. Take a look at operation Fast and Furious for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

You want the government to take away guns when the government is actually supplying guns to the criminals. This also shows that no mater how hard you try to track guns or ammunition, once the criminals have them they are as good as gone.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 5:59 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jayarbe .
This country is most definitely going to split into two with a second civil war.

No, not it won't. Patriotism (and the powerful military) will keep this country bound. We can fix the gun problem; yet everyone continues to block it.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 6:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
both

Move that to the USA thread.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 6:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Randy R
I'm sorry but if bordering Mexico is your argument, that's irrelevant. The US government is part of the problem. Take a look at operation Fast and Furious for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

You want the government to take away guns when the government is actually supplying guns to the criminals. This also shows that no mater how hard you try to track guns or ammunition, once the criminals have them they are as good as gone.

You didn't read past the first sentence. This was an attempt to find illegal drug cartels, so.
And once again, I am saying, limit (or ban) the ammo.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 6:38 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You didn't read past the first sentence. This was an attempt to find illegal drug cartels, so.
And once again, I am saying, limit (or ban) the ammo.

Actually I have read the whole thing multiple times. The point is, they (guns and ammo) can't be tracked, even with serial numbers.

Let's say that they did ban ammo, you still have plenty of objects that could be used to kill at long range; i.e. crossbows, slingshots, bows and arrows, and finally the Mk. 1 rock (worlds oldest weapon :p). My point is that even if you ban guns, there are plenty of other 'powerful' weapons that could kill people from a distance.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 7:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Randy R
Actually I have read the whole thing multiple times. The point is, they (guns and ammo) can't be tracked, even with serial numbers.

Let's say that they did ban ammo, you still have plenty of objects that could be used to kill at long range; i.e. crossbows, slingshots, bows and arrows, and finally the Mk. 1 rock (worlds oldest weapon :p). My point is that even if you ban guns, there are plenty of other 'powerful' weapons that could kill people from a distance.

So, you robbers are going to try and rob a house with a rock. With that logic, a pencil would also be effective.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 8:40 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So, you robbers are going to try and rob a house with a rock. With that logic, a pencil would also be effective.

That would depend on the range. I'm confused as to why exactly you want gun control, to save people's lives? If so, why not just ban everything, in the hands of a trained person even a paperclip could be used to kill someone. So why do people readily attack guns?
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 9:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Randy R
That would depend on the range. I'm confused as to why exactly you want gun control, to save people's lives? If so, why not just ban everything, in the hands of a trained person even a paperclip could be used to kill someone. So why do people readily attack guns?

Well, like you said: range, and availability. To me, we (at the very least) have pretty terrible laws that deal with the sale of guns and bullets. At the very least.
Permalink
| June 13, 2013, 10:15 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Last but not least, a failed government which was removed WITHOUT ANY GUNS (!!!!):

East Germany (known as GDR)

The Soviets were economically on their last leg anyway.
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 10:40 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
That was so prejudous that even I find it offensive.

"Good guys"...

(facepalm)
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 10:42 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You didn't read past the first sentence. This was an attempt to find illegal drug cartels, so.

Bush had a similar program, but he saw the error of it and shut it down before anyone died. If it's such a good idea, why was there such a coverup, and stonewalling?
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 10:43 am
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Bush had a similar program, but he saw the error of it and shut it down before anyone died. If it's such a good idea, why was there such a coverup, and stonewalling?

I didn't say it was a good idea; I was just saying that the outcome, the idea behind it, what was suppose to happen, was good. This plan's execution, though, was horrible.
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 10:56 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Taser, pepper spray, fake (not real) guns, security systems in your own home.

None of those actually WORK. Plenty of people have been pepper sprayed and ignored it, and while tasers work while you're using them, the moment you let up on the trigger they'll be back on their feet.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
If the threat of jail doesn't stop anyone, then how does the threat of a gun stop someone? THAT is the point I am making; how can one threat that works on the same principle of another not work?

The threat doesn't stop them. The bullet does.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
BUT, this "intimidation" obviously doesn't work. There is crime out here, and the mass shootings haven't stopped either.

Minor point: mass shootings are statistical outliers, and you get them everywhere. That one in Norway, f'rinstance, where they have weapon laws that'd make Hitler say "that's a bit much, don't you think"? but it still happened.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay, all the countries you have listed here, the people had their own problems; and their collapse will be from countries OUTSIDE. Otherwise, it wasn't a massive Coup that killed thousands.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Its important to note that a nuclear missile, or a tank, is not stopped by a small bullet.

Someone has to control those things.
Besides, look at Afghani-land; a couple thousand goat-herders held off half a dozen of the world's self-proclaimed "best" militaries for years. No tanks, no jets, no siege guns, but they still won.

Quoting Achintya Prasad
Now, if you control the ammunition in a place, then you will find that both the good and the bad will not have anything to fire. True or false?

Absolute twaddle. Half the cartridges in the world can be quite functional when loaded with black powder, and if a gang can get cocaine into a country, it's a pretty safe bet they can slip a shipping container or fifty full of 7.62 Soviet in as well.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Since when did our possessions become more important than our lives? I would rather "cowardly" hide and save my life, than risk it in a firefight.

So, you're not willing to fight for your property. Why then should everyone else be prevented from doing it if they want to?

Besides, your property IS your life. Everything you own was purchased with money; money that was earned with hours, days and weeks of your life that you can NEVER get back.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
"Defend yourself KNIFE, gun, SWORD, CLUB". Well there you have it.
Three other weapons you can use instead of a gun.

Maybe he can, but can your grandmother?
Quoting BrickCity101 11
You could tell the intruder that they can take whatever they want from you as long as they let you go, and then when their backs are turned grab the weapon and attack them from behind. Whacking someone over the head with a baseball bat will knock them out and stabbing someone in the back will probably either kill them or cause them to drop to the floor in extreme pain at which point you grab their weapon and wait until the cops get there.

Except that you're depending on the mercy of someone who's already decided he'd rather threaten a complete stranger's life than work for a living.

Besides, plenty of people have sustained fatal injuries and not even noticed until an hour later.

There's stories out their from police and doctors about lowlifes who've had half their heads blown away before walking themselves to an ambulance.

People are hard to kill. I've done the research.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well let me say this. Would you carry a gun around with you, even at home? Lets say you have a hand gun. Are you just going to walk around at your place, with an armed gun in your pocket, just in case? Really?

I would.
Plenty of other people already do.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You don't stop fighting. Keep punching and kicking.

Or, y'know, just shoot 'em and have done with it.

You don't seem to have a problem with fighting OR killing in self defense, so I really don't get why you have a problem with firearms. A knife is every bit as likely to hurt you if mishandled; more, actually, because if you trip over and land on your gun it won't stab you.

Some people have been irresponsible in the past, yes. Some people have died as a result.

So; how many, precisely, die each year because a drunk gets behind the wheel of a car?
The vast majority of firearm owners are decent, skilled and law abiding.

But you don't hear about them in the news, because while they go out every day with a pistol under their jacket, nobody gets hurt.

Because they have brains.
Quoting Locutus 666
Nice list of countrys. Lets have a closer look:
-Ex. Red China: is still red
-Soviet Russia: failed without guns for the people
-National Socialist Germany: lost a war, soem people had guns but too much stand behind the regime.
-North Korea: still exist, people are indocrinated, stand behind the regime
-Iraq: was crimely invaded by USA now people have guns and much more bombs to kill each other
-Chile: leaders supported by USA
-Zimbabwe, half of the african continent: have all guns, warlords have guns too, kid-soldiers kill other kids, civil wars for decades, people die because have no food but guns and ammo....
-Khmer Rouge Cambodia: killed millions of citizens, supported by western countrys

Last but not least, a failed government which was removed WITHOUT ANY GUNS (!!!!):

East Germany (known as GDR)

You know what the consistent thread in those countries was and in some cases is? Thousands, in some cases millions, of people murdered by their own government.

Just ask a jew; better to have fought and died, or never to have fought at all?
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 12:22 pm
Quoting Areesta C.


Besides, your property IS your life. Everything you own was purchased with money; money that was earned with hours, days and weeks of your life that you can NEVER get back.

True. But if you get shot and killed in the firefight and die, your property isn't going to die with you. The intruder will just take your stuff and leave you dead. Now your property is gone and the rest of your family has to live without you. If you can snap a photo of the intruder plates, you can send it to the cops and eventually they'll find it. I would much rather stay alive and get my stuff back 3-4 weeks later than attempt to get it back while the intruder is still in my house and possibly die trying. Just my opinion.
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 1:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
None of those actually WORK. Plenty of people have been pepper sprayed and ignored it, and while tasers work while you're using them, the moment you let up on the trigger they'll be back on their feet.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
If the threat of jail doesn't stop anyone, then how does the threat of a gun stop someone? THAT is the point I am making; how can one threat that works on the same principle of another not work?

The threat doesn't stop them. The bullet does.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
BUT, this "intimidation" obviously doesn't work. There is crime out here, and the mass shootings haven't stopped either.

Minor point: mass shootings are statistical outliers, and you get them everywhere. That one in Norway, f'rinstance, where they have weapon laws that'd make Hitler say "that's a bit much, don't you think"? but it still happened.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay, all the countries you have listed here, the people had their own problems; and their collapse will be from countries OUTSIDE. Otherwise, it wasn't a massive Coup that killed thousands.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Its important to note that a nuclear missile, or a tank, is not stopped by a small bullet.

Someone has to control those things.
Besides, look at Afghani-land; a couple thousand goat-herders held off half a dozen of the world's self-proclaimed "best" militaries for years. No tanks, no jets, no siege guns, but they still won.

Quoting Achintya Prasad
Now, if you control the ammunition in a place, then you will find that both the good and the bad will not have anything to fire. True or false?

Absolute twaddle. Half the cartridges in the world can be quite functional when loaded with black powder, and if a gang can get cocaine into a country, it's a pretty safe bet they can slip a shipping container or fifty full of 7.62 Soviet in as well.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Since when did our possessions become more important than our lives? I would rather "cowardly" hide and save my life, than risk it in a firefight.

So, you're not willing to fight for your property. Why then should everyone else be prevented from doing it if they want to?

Besides, your property IS your life. Everything you own was purchased with money; money that was earned with hours, days and weeks of your life that you can NEVER get back.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
"Defend yourself KNIFE, gun, SWORD, CLUB". Well there you have it.
Three other weapons you can use instead of a gun.

Maybe he can, but can your grandmother?
Quoting BrickCity101 11
You could tell the intruder that they can take whatever they want from you as long as they let you go, and then when their backs are turned grab the weapon and attack them from behind. Whacking someone over the head with a baseball bat will knock them out and stabbing someone in the back will probably either kill them or cause them to drop to the floor in extreme pain at which point you grab their weapon and wait until the cops get there.

Except that you're depending on the mercy of someone who's already decided he'd rather threaten a complete stranger's life than work for a living.

Besides, plenty of people have sustained fatal injuries and not even noticed until an hour later.

There's stories out their from police and doctors about lowlifes who've had half their heads blown away before walking themselves to an ambulance.

People are hard to kill. I've done the research.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well let me say this. Would you carry a gun around with you, even at home? Lets say you have a hand gun. Are you just going to walk around at your place, with an armed gun in your pocket, just in case? Really?

I would.
Plenty of other people already do.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You don't stop fighting. Keep punching and kicking.

Or, y'know, just shoot 'em and have done with it.

You don't seem to have a problem with fighting OR killing in self defense, so I really don't get why you have a problem with firearms. A knife is every bit as likely to hurt you if mishandled; more, actually, because if you trip over and land on your gun it won't stab you.

Some people have been irresponsible in the past, yes. Some people have died as a result.

So; how many, precisely, die each year because a drunk gets behind the wheel of a car?
The vast majority of firearm owners are decent, skilled and law abiding.

But you don't hear about them in the news, because while they go out every day with a pistol under their jacket, nobody gets hurt.

Because they have brains.
Quoting Locutus 666
Nice list of countrys. Lets have a closer look:
-Ex. Red China: is still red
-Soviet Russia: failed without guns for the people
-National Socialist Germany: lost a war, soem people had guns but too much stand behind the regime.
-North Korea: still exist, people are indocrinated, stand behind the regime
-Iraq: was crimely invaded by USA now people have guns and much more bombs to kill each other
-Chile: leaders supported by USA
-Zimbabwe, half of the african continent: have all guns, warlords have guns too, kid-soldiers kill other kids, civil wars for decades, people die because have no food but guns and ammo....
-Khmer Rouge Cambodia: killed millions of citizens, supported by western countrys

Last but not least, a failed government which was removed WITHOUT ANY GUNS (!!!!):

East Germany (known as GDR)

You know what the consistent thread in those countries was and in some cases is? Thousands, in some cases millions, of people murdered by their own government.

Just ask a jew; better to have fought and died, or never to have fought at all?

That a plenty long comment, and one that I doubt I can match (in terms of answering so many comments). Anyways, here I go. You can get a gun easily here in the USA; and that is something that needs to be changed. Simple as that.
Now, your comment on Afghanistan is interesting; cause it isn't true. They didn't have to counter nukes; and I don't think that the USA really put much effort into that war; had we though....
Another thread though!
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 1:43 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BrickCity101 11
True. But if you get shot and killed in the firefight and die, your property isn't going to die with you. The intruder will just take your stuff and leave you dead. Now your property is gone and the rest of your family has to live without you. If you can snap a photo of the intruder plates, you can send it to the cops and eventually they'll find it. I would much rather stay alive and get my stuff back 3-4 weeks later than attempt to get it back while the intruder is still in my house and possibly die trying. Just my opinion.

Its pretty sad that you all actually value your "worldly" items more than your life. I mean, I wouldn't want to abandon my LEGO stock, but I would rather run, live to the tell tale, and eventually buy back, what I lost than just die there.

Also, you all are really making it sound like as if people are always killed in robberies. The simple fact is that more robberies take place when people aren't home.
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 1:45 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Its pretty sad that you all actually value your "worldly" items more than your life. I mean, I wouldn't want to abandon my LEGO stock, but I would rather run, live to the tell tale, and eventually buy back, what I lost than just die there.

Also, you all are really making it sound like as if people are always killed in robberies. The simple fact is that more robberies take place when people aren't home.

I don't value my stuff more than my life at all. I would much rather get out okay than die fighting for my stuff. Also, I was talking about incidents where the homeowner pulls a gun on the intruder and the intruder happens to have a gun on them. I know most robberies happen when your not at home but there are some intruder's who are so d@mb they will break into a house while the owner is home.
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 1:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BrickCity101 11
I don't value my stuff more than my life at all. I would much rather get out okay than die fighting for my stuff. Also, I was talking about incidents where the homeowner pulls a gun on the intruder and the intruder happens to have a gun on them. I know most robberies happen when your not at home but there are some intruder's who are so d@mb they will break into a house while the owner is home.

Well, all robbers are dumb. But its important to note, in all the above mentioned incidents of "self defense" there seems to be a firefight going on. Do you think your stuff will survive that? I have seen pictures of houses before and after a firefight; and it ain't pretty.
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 1:58 pm
Quoting BrickCity101 11
True. But if you get shot and killed in the firefight and die, your property isn't going to die with you. The intruder will just take your stuff and leave you dead. Now your property is gone and the rest of your family has to live without you. If you can snap a photo of the intruder plates, you can send it to the cops and eventually they'll find it. I would much rather stay alive and get my stuff back 3-4 weeks later than attempt to get it back while the intruder is still in my house and possibly die trying. Just my opinion.

Except that if they're in your house without your permission with a weapon while you're there, they're ALREADY threatening your life.

As well as the lives of anyone else living with you. What if they decide they'd like to reenact SAW?

I'm not saying I think blood is always the answer- a lot of firearm-related defenses end with the criminal dropping everything and running for it -but it should definitely be an option if the goblin gets rough, and firearms are the safest and most reliable method.

And- and this is more philosophy than proven fact -the way I see it, if someone assaults you and you have a chance to stop them, but you don't, you're responsible for anyone else who gets hurt by them in the future, because you had a chance to stop it and didn't.

Police don't really matter. Robbery, IIRC, has an extremely low arrest rate, because the thug doesn't usually have any sort of link to the victim.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
That a plenty long comment, and one that I doubt I can match (in terms of answering so many comments). Anyways, here I go. You can get a gun easily here in the USA; and that is something that needs to be changed. Simple as that.

So your problem isn't that people have firearms, it's that POOR people have firearms?

Besides, it isn't that easy.

Have a gander:
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.co.nz/2006/03/boomsticks-weekly-check-on-lies-bias.html
This is someone who spent years behind the counter. I don't know- or care -about the details, but she does.

And if you're thinking of using the words "gun show loophole", you deserve to have your internet privileges taken away, because it doesn't exist and never did.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, all robbers are dumb. But its important to note, in all the above mentioned incidents of "self defense" there seems to be a firefight going on. Do you think your stuff will survive that? I have seen pictures of houses before and after a firefight; and it ain't pretty.

Doesn't matter; you don't break into a house with a weapon if you aren't willing to murder someone.

The reason for the firefights is because most of the criminals who AREN'T willing to kill someone- the ones who are dumb rather than evil -RUN AWAY when they find themselves staring down the barrel of a Saiga.

Or drop to the floor and wet themselves. Either's good.


You don't need the quotes around self defense, either. Someone tries to kill you, anything you do to them is automatically self defense.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Now, your comment on Afghanistan is interesting; cause it isn't true. They didn't have to counter nukes; and I don't think that the USA really put much effort into that war; had we though....

Neither would rebels. Nuking your own country is a great way to get the rest of the world to join the rebels.
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 10:39 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, like you said: range, and availability. To me, we (at the very least) have pretty terrible laws that deal with the sale of guns and bullets. At the very least.

IF you think that 'we have terrible laws, why don't you move to California where I live. I guarantee that you won't find any laws that are more ridiculous in any of the other 49 states.

Now I will repeat what I said/asked before, because I am kind of interested in what your answer might be: 'I'm confused as to why exactly you want gun control, to save people's lives? If so, why not just ban everything, in the hands of a trained person even a paperclip could be used to kill someone. So why do people readily attack guns?'
Permalink
| June 14, 2013, 11:36 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I didn't say it was a good idea; I was just saying that the outcome, the idea behind it, what was suppose to happen, was good. This plan's execution, though, was horrible.

You are saying that the outcome was good? Are you serious? Over 2,000 guns were used in this attempted sting, and only 710 were recovered (most at crime scenes). Maybe that was just a typo, but it looks a lot worse than you probably meant it to.
Permalink
| June 15, 2013, 12:01 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Randy R
You are saying that the outcome was good? Are you serious? Over 2,000 guns were used in this attempted sting, and only 710 were recovered (most at crime scenes). Maybe that was just a typo, but it looks a lot worse than you probably meant it to.

No. I was saying that the PLANNED outcome was a good idea. But the actual event, the outcome, the final result, wasn't good at all.
Control ammo, and you can do a lot.
Permalink
| June 17, 2013, 12:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Randy R
IF you think that 'we have terrible laws, why don't you move to California where I live. I guarantee that you won't find any laws that are more ridiculous in any of the other 49 states.

Now I will repeat what I said/asked before, because I am kind of interested in what your answer might be: 'I'm confused as to why exactly you want gun control, to save people's lives? If so, why not just ban everything, in the hands of a trained person even a paperclip could be used to kill someone. So why do people readily attack guns?'

-Guns also kill.
-Your paperclip, or whatever object you wanna use here, are designed primarily for, say, holding papers together. Making a paperclip into a weapon hardly counts, as its main intention, and use, is simply to organize papers.
-People readily attack because they can get their hands on guns, and the know that you could get away from a murder by using a gun.
Permalink
| June 17, 2013, 12:36 pm
 Group admin 
This is why we need guns

http://youtu.be/8Ie97bJh9Vs?t=15s
Permalink
| June 17, 2013, 12:46 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No. I was saying that the PLANNED outcome was a good idea. But the actual event, the outcome, the final result, wasn't good at all.
Control ammo, and you can do a lot.

Okay, how would you control ammo? Anyone could easily make their own ammo with just a spent shell casing. They're called 'reloads', all you need is black powder, a spent shell casing, and a bullet.
Permalink
| June 17, 2013, 1:43 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Randy R
Okay, how would you control ammo? Anyone could easily make their own ammo with just a spent shell casing. They're called 'reloads', all you need is black powder, a spent shell casing, and a bullet.

It can only last for so long. People don't usually save their spent ammunition, and making accurate bullets is not easy. A lot of ammo is imported; stop the import. Simple.
Permalink
| June 17, 2013, 2:24 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
It can only last for so long. People don't usually save their spent ammunition, and making accurate bullets is not easy. A lot of ammo is imported; stop the import. Simple.

You don't make the bullets accurate. As long as it is in the casing correctly, i.e. straight, the barrel/rifling in the gun will take over and make it accurate. It's the same with guns, if you try to ban ammo more people are going to buy as much ammo as they could before it was banned. This wouldn't solve anything, it would only hurt the companies that make the ammo and put a lot of people out of business.
Permalink
| June 17, 2013, 2:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
A lot of ammo is imported; stop the import. Simple.

OK, you mean the LEGAL import. The gangsters and cartels, who don't care about the laws in the first place, will smuggle it in by the ton, just like they do pot.
Permalink
| June 17, 2013, 6:36 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
-People readily attack because they can get their hands on guns, and the know that you could get away from a murder by using a gun.

If people are inclined to murder, they will. More people are stabbed or beaten to death than shot, and all banning firearms could do is punish everyone who isn't a professional lowlife.

Thugs spend their whole lives training; doesn't matter if you've got all the black belts in the world, they've got more practice hitting- and being hit -than you will.

For a martial artist, fighting is something he practices as a hobby when not at work. For a thug, fighting IS his work.


Leading to: why do you want billions of people to be helpless, and why do you think the actions of a handful of maniacs should be a viable excuse?

More than ten million people went about all day with a pistol by their side yesterday, and not one of them committed a murder or started a shootout over a parking spot.
Permalink
| June 17, 2013, 10:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
If people are inclined to murder, they will. More people are stabbed or beaten to death than shot, and all banning firearms could do is punish everyone who isn't a professional lowlife.

Thugs spend their whole lives training; doesn't matter if you've got all the black belts in the world, they've got more practice hitting- and being hit -than you will.

For a martial artist, fighting is something he practices as a hobby when not at work. For a thug, fighting IS his work.


Leading to: why do you want billions of people to be helpless, and why do you think the actions of a handful of maniacs should be a viable excuse?

More than ten million people went about all day with a pistol by their side yesterday, and not one of them committed a murder or started a shootout over a parking spot.

Firstly, the population of the USA is over 320 Million, no "Billion" involved. Now, the fact is that if you reduce or remove one form of weapon, whatever crimes that are committed with guns will also reduce. A ban on guns would be hard on a criminal, whether or not they manage to smuggle in whatever they need (you are forgetting that bringing in rifles and bullets is not easy; this isn't a drug trade). Now, how do you feel about the all the murders or shootings that are going on, or about to happen, today?
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 11:41 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Firstly, the population of the USA is over 320 Million, no "Billion" involved.

Frak the amerilanders. I don't recall anyone saying they're the only ones whose lives matter.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Now, the fact is that if you reduce or remove one form of weapon, whatever crimes that are committed with guns will also reduce.

Except no, the exact OPPOSITE has happened every time.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-control-fails-say-statistics-from-gun-control-advocates/
Quoting Achintya Prasad
A ban on guns would be hard on a criminal, whether or not they manage to smuggle in whatever they need (you are forgetting that bringing in rifles and bullets is not easy; this isn't a drug trade).

Riiiight.

Google "khyber pass copy".

Even without that, England has absurd firearms laws, yet it's easier to get a black market pistol NOW than it was before they tried to ban them.

Australia followed along in their footsteps like a good little socialist puppet-state, and your chances of being killed in a driveby have only gone up.

Again, murdering someone isn't difficult.
NOT being murdered is the hard part.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 2:06 am
Quoting Areetsa C

Have you ever killed a man? Do you have any idea what it feels like to kill a human being? Even in self-defence, it does not matter, because it ruins you forever.

What are you even thinking when you are promoting lethal self-defence? Are you really incapable of thinking about what would happen if you were actually to succeed? You have no idea about life and should seriously rethink your statements before you say something that will sooner or later turn out very wrong for you.

But I dare you. Kill a person and stay sane. We will see how you do.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 6:28 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Have you ever killed a man? Do you have any idea what it feels like to kill a human being? Even in self-defence, it does not matter, because it ruins you forever.

What are you even thinking when you are promoting lethal self-defence? Are you really incapable of thinking about what would happen if you were actually to succeed? You have no idea about life and should seriously rethink your statements before you say something that will sooner or later turn out very wrong for you.

But I dare you. Kill a person and stay sane. We will see how you do.

I'm thinking some people just need killing, and it's better them than me.

Including you, since you seem to think self defense and murder are the same thing.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 7:40 am
Quoting Areetsa C
I'm thinking some people just need killing, and it's better them than me.

Including you, since you seem to think self defense and murder are the same thing.

Of course they are not, considering laws and society, but for you it does not matter much why you killed a person.

And I will not say that some people need killing, but doing it is something very different than just thinking it.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 10:08 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Of course they are not, considering laws and society, but for you it does not matter much why you killed a person.

And I will not say that some people need killing, but doing it is something very different than just thinking it.

Osama Bin Laden
Kin Jung Un
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler

There are people in this world that need to be killed (some already taken care of). If a guy breaks down my door and tries to rob me, I will shoot at him. In several states (Florida, Kentucky, keep going . . . ), you have the right to shoot to kill of a person comes in your house and some states even extend that to the property line.
We have the second amendment for a reason. If a mob hitman team is after me (not that it would be *checks over shoulder*), I want a bada-- rifle in my hand.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 10:13 am
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Osama Bin Laden
Kin Jung Un
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler

There are people in this world that need to be killed (some already taken care of). If a guy breaks down my door and tries to rob me, I will shoot at him. In several states (Florida, Kentucky, keep going . . . ), you have the right to shoot to kill of a person comes in your house and some states even extend that to the property line.
We have the second amendment for a reason. If a mob hitman team is after me (not that it would be *checks over shoulder*), I want a bada-- rifle in my hand.

Agreed. Same in Montana!
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 10:16 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Of course they are not, considering laws and society, but for you it does not matter much why you killed a person.

And I will not say that some people need killing, but doing it is something very different than just thinking it.

And I'm not saying it isn't. I AM saying that banning the means to do so is shortsighted at best and evil at worst.
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
...If a guy breaks down my door and tries to rob me, I will shoot at him...

And, ethically, to my way of mind, you wouldn't be morally responsible for his death any more than a power pole is responsible for the death of a drunk driver.

YOU, after all, wouldn't have done anything.
The initiative would've been the criminal's.

A sort of 'suicide by homeowner', if you will.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 10:24 am
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Osama Bin Laden
Kin Jung Un
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitlergy

There are people in this world that need to be killed (some already taken care of). If a guy breaks down my door and tries to rob me, I will shoot at him. In several states (Florida, Kentucky, keep going . . . ), you have the right to shoot to kill of a person comes in your house and some states even extend that to the property line.
We have the second amendment for a reason. If a mob hitman team is after me (not that it would be *checks over shoulder*), I want a bada-- rifle in my hand.

1. Reread my post.

2. Why would anyone even brake into your house? If there is one break-in in my country in a year, it is an outrage. Why are your countries so different? (I know why.)

3. O.K. Shoot a person and tell me how you feel. Even if you decide it was moraly right (seek help if you do, because from a purely biological standpoint, there is something wrong with you), you will realize that I may not be moral, but I definetely am right myself.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 3:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
1. Reread my post.

2. Why would anyone even brake into your house? If there is one break-in in my country in a year, it is an outrage. Why are your countries so different? (I know why.)

3. O.K. Shoot a person and tell me how you feel. Even if you decide it was moraly right (seek help if you do, because from a purely biological standpoint, there is something wrong with you), you will realize that I may not be moral, but I definetely am right myself.

My point all along. The people you mentioned should receive their designated fate, but how can you use that to justify shooting someone? What's more, you and anyone at your house would experience the trauma, regardless of your rights.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 3:08 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
1. Reread my post.

2. Why would anyone even brake into your house? If there is one break-in in my country in a year, it is an outrage. Why are your countries so different? (I know why.)

3. O.K. Shoot a person and tell me how you feel. Even if you decide it was moraly right (seek help if you do, because from a purely biological standpoint, there is something wrong with you), you will realize that I may not be moral, but I definetely am right myself.

1) I know what you said.
2) I'm in America. Needless to say, street thugs are plentiful in must areas.
3)If someone does break in, I don't think, I react and therefore don't feel. That reaction just so happens to be grab and use the first weapon within reach, including a hip holstered pistol. It doesn't matter what I feel. If someone intends to do harm to me, I have the right to stop them and if that means they have to take two to the chest, so be it.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 3:25 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
1) I know what you said.
2) I'm in America. Needless to say, street thugs are plentiful in must areas.
3)If someone does break in, I don't think, I react and therefore don't feel. That reaction just so happens to be grab and use the first weapon within reach, including a hip holstered pistol. It doesn't matter what I feel. If someone intends to do harm to me, I have the right to stop them and if that means they have to take two to the chest, so be it.

1. If you knew what I said, why did you have to write names of people YOU BELIEVE should be killed?
2. Do you know why there are thugs?
3. O.K. you do not feel anything. What about later? Like an hour, a day, a year? If you still do not feel anything, I would not be insulting you if I called you a sociopath. By definition.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 3:51 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
1. If you knew what I said, why did you have to write names of people YOU BELIEVE should be killed?
2. Do you know why there are thugs?
3. O.K. you do not feel anything. What about later? Like an hour, a day, a year? If you still do not feel anything, I would not be insulting you if I called you a sociopath. By definition.

I feel plenty of stuff. But I won't lose sleep over having to shoot a guy in the face who was trying to beat me in the head with a crowbar.

Why are you so hung up on what people feel after the damage is done? I fail to see how that pertains to gun control as the gun may have just saved their life.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:10 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
I feel plenty of stuff. But I won't lose sleep over having to shoot a guy in the face who was trying to beat me in the head with a crowbar.

Why are you so hung up on what people feel after the damage is done? I fail to see how that pertains to gun control as the gun may have just saved their life.

Dude. I am not a psychologist (NOBODY IS.) But I know what happens in life and trust me, you do not want to kill a person. Maybe maim in ahnd-to-hand combat, but not kill unless you are fully preaired to sacrifice your further life for it. When you do, you can continiue killing. It will get worse, but if you do not care about that, go ahead. I have a list of people who need a nice killing myself. Spans on a few billion. Artificial selection and stuff.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:15 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Dude. I am not a psychologist (NOBODY IS.) But I know what happens in life and trust me, you do not want to kill a person. Maybe maim in ahnd-to-hand combat, but not kill unless you are fully preaired to sacrifice your further life for it. When you do, you can continiue killing. It will get worse, but if you do not care about that, go ahead. I have a list of people who need a nice killing myself. Spans on a few billion. Artificial selection and stuff.

You're still beating around the bush. What happens after isn't the issue on the table here. Are you next going to suggest that for the reasons you've been pushing here that we should ban firearms? If your reasons are so true then why do not all people in the military who've gone to war experience PTSD?

And you're wrong. People are psychologists and they study for years in college to understand how people's minds work. Everyone's works differently so unless there is a masters degree in psychology hanging on your wall, you can say you know people all you want but facts will not support you.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:25 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes

And you're wrong. People are psychologists and they study for years in college to understand how people's minds work.


I have met many psychologists and read many books about psychology. Nobody and no book knew anything about people.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:29 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus

I have met many psychologists and read many books about psychology. Nobody and no book knew anything about people.

This statement implies you actually know stuff they spend years studying with no college training.
How many did you meet and how many books did you read?
Now compare that to how many exist in the world today.
You are insinuating that you, someone who is not a psychologist and is not in a country where firearm based defense is commonplace, know more about what happens to peoples minds after self defense by lethal force than someone who was part of a study on the very same thing (I've heard of several).
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:34 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
This statement implies you actually know stuff they spend years studying with no college training.
How many did you meet and how many books did you read?
Now compare that to how many exist in the world today.
You are insinuating that you, someone who is not a psychologist and is not in a country where firearm based defense is commonplace, know more about what happens to peoples minds after self defense by lethal force than someone who was part of a study on the very same thing (I've heard of several).

I have a brain, experience and friends.

But tell me, why should your country be so bad that you need weapons to live safely within it?
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:40 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
I have a brain, experience and friends.

But tell me, why should your country be so bad that you need weapons to live safely within it?

Clearly you've never been to a large American city.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:42 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Clearly you've never been to a large American city.

Now that we have established that, explain to me why you are not making your country better.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:46 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Now that we have established that, explain to me why you are not making your country better.

Obama.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:48 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Now that we have established that, explain to me why you are not making your country better.

legit answer:
the real problem with america is the two party system and they are constantly fighting which makes this joke by Nate Andrews sadly true:
If pro is the opposite of con, then progress is the opposite of congress.

That aside, the only way to pry these two power hungry organizations from the gov't is to completely rebuild the gov't from the ground up and make all former politicians ineligible to hold office.
Unfortunately, there really isnt a peaceful solution since several laws set it up to make it almost impossible for independent candidates to run and existing politicians won't listen to us demanding they all resign.
That unfortunately puts armed rebellion as the only major solution left I can think of and that is kept at bay by politicians pushing gun control and maintaining control over the military.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 4:58 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Dude. I am not a psychologist (NOBODY IS.) But I know what happens in life and trust me, you do not want to kill a person. Maybe maim in ahnd-to-hand combat, but not kill unless you are fully preaired to sacrifice your further life for it. When you do, you can continiue killing. It will get worse, but if you do not care about that, go ahead.


Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
But tell me, why should your country be so bad that you need weapons to live safely within it?

Every country in the world has robberies and murders. Even if only one person in a hundred thousand gets attacked, if it's you whose number got called you'd want to be prepared.

Well, maybe YOU wouldn't, but as long as / can be I don't really care about how little you value your life.

But it isn't that simple, is it?
Because people like you can never resist the temptation to interfere with other people's lives.


First your type say "you can't carry a gun, you might miss and hit the wrong person", then you say "you can't carry a sword, you might get angry and hurt someone", and then you say "you can't have bars over your windows, burglars breaking in might hurt themselves".

I have no problem with you thinking your life is worth less than your peace of mind, but I take offense at the suggestion that mine is too.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 4:22 am
Quoting Areetsa C
Every country in the world has robberies and murders.

Yes, it has. Question is, where do you statistically spend more money on agun tahn you would lose if you got robbed.

And where there is ever any murders. I do not value my life, that is true, and I also do not value yours, to be honest, but what if there is more deaths happening by cleaning weapons than being murdered?

Also, in my country, a large majority of murders (that is like 10 or so) happened within the family or neighbourhood, meaning a murderer could easily steal your weapons to even gain the option to shoot.

But actually, we just had a murder this week. It is so big news and everybody is completely outraged by it. Which reminds me, majority of murders that happened in my country ended with a suicide, so having a weapon hardly helps if you are not fast enough. Which you are not.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 4:37 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Yes, it has. Question is, where do you statistically spend more money on agun tahn you would lose if you got robbed.

I don't give a flying frak about statistics, I'm not going to put my life in the hands of someone who's already declared that they don't value it.
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
And where there is ever any murders. I do not value my life, that is true, and I also do not value yours, to be honest, but what if there is more deaths happening by cleaning weapons than being murdered?

Anyone who cleans a firearm without properly clearing it first is a fool. Guns don't "just go off". If one "just goes off", it means someone was being less-than-clever with it.
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Also, in my country, a large majority of murders (that is like 10 or so) happened within the family or neighbourhood, meaning a murderer could easily steal your weapons to even gain the option to shoot.

If your family is inclined to murder you and you allow them access to your house, you deserve it.
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
But actually, we just had a murder this week. It is so big news and everybody is completely outraged by it. Which reminds me, majority of murders that happened in my country ended with a suicide, so having a weapon hardly helps if you are not fast enough. Which you are not.

Again: I'd rather take the chance than just sit around like a cow and get killed.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 4:50 am
Quoting Areetsa C
I'd rather take the chance

That is called paranoia. That chance you are taking is a low multiple-digit decimal number.

And if it is larger in your country - hahahahahaha!
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 4:54 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
That is called paranoia. That chance you are taking is a low multiple-digit decimal number.

And if it is larger in your country - hahahahahaha!

Nnno, that is called 'being prepared'. Your chances of having your house catch fire aren't that much higher, but it's still seen as a good idea to have an extinguisher handy.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 7:19 am
The reality, D, and what we are so trying to get you to realize, is that this world is far from perfect and frankly, we'd all rather live and be safe than take the chance and die with a perfect conscience (at least I would).
Now I don't know what country has the low murder rates you brag about but most of us aren't there. In an average large american city, there can be (and these facts are from the Philadelphia police dept.) 30+ shootings and ~10 fatalities. The one weekend I was there, the exact numbers were 35 and 7. only 6 of the shootings were the assailant being the one shot and only 1 of them died.
That would never happen in my town cuz I am in the middle of nowhere way south of the Mason-Dixon so if you broke in and tried to kill someone, you wouldn't just get shot in the face, you'd get your head blown off by an angry redneck with a shotgun.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 9:24 am
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
...That would never happen in my town cuz I am in the middle of nowhere way south of the Mason-Dixon so if you broke in and tried to kill someone, you wouldn't just get shot in the face, you'd get your head blown off by an angry redneck with a shotgun.

There's an oddity; "it can't happen here!" backed up with an actual reason.

Apart from that; shotguns can't actually do that.
They could definitely make a mess, but the neck is a pretty sturdy structure.

I suppose a double-barrel at spitting distance might have a decent go, but to have much chance of it happening you'd probably need one of those 18th Century 'duck's-foot' boarding guns.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 9:52 am
Quoting Areetsa C
There's an oddity; "it can't happen here!" backed up with an actual reason.

Apart from that; shotguns can't actually do that.
They could definitely make a mess, but the neck is a pretty sturdy structure.

I suppose a double-barrel at spitting distance might have a decent go, but to have much chance of it happening you'd probably need one of those 18th Century 'duck's-foot' boarding guns.

I dunno. Houses here are not 3 story mansions. Small houses, and a lot of double wides. There's a high probability that it would be point blank and shotgun to the face at point blank = good chance of head exploding.

EDIT: If I lead you to believe the head would come off, then I messed up. The neck would probably be still together. Head would explode.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 10:27 am
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
I dunno. Houses here are not 3 story mansions. Small houses, and a lot of double wides. There's a high probability that it would be point blank and shotgun to the face at point blank = good chance of head exploding.

EDIT: If I lead you to believe the head would come off, then I messed up. The neck would probably be still together. Head would explode.

I think there's probably tests on youtube with pig heads or something; you'll have to check yourself, as it's blocked for me at the moment.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 10:54 am
 Group admin 
Few guns would actually decapitate you, but most medium - high powered guns would leave your face in multiple pieces.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 12:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Few guns would actually decapitate you, but most medium - high powered guns would leave your face in multiple pieces.

I believe that in several US states, you can buy a 50 cal gun. Even the Secret Service were concerned about that weapon, when they built the Beast, the president's armored limo. I am sure that it might take the whole body with the bullet.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 2:38 pm
If nobody's allowed a gun, then citizens who have a bad day, go insane, or decide to take their parent's rifle to go shoot up a mall/school/whatever will be highly limited. The majority of actual shootings are rash decisions by people who aren't connected to criminals. On the other hand, gun crimes by people who are involved with higher level criminals are often robberies and other crimes which rarely leave people dead.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 5:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I believe that in several US states, you can buy a 50 cal gun.

In all states. Federally, however, you need a class 3 licence for anything above .50
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Even the Secret Service were concerned about that weapon, when they built the Beast, the president's armored limo.

The discovery channel or something did a test, shooting a .50 cal at what they guess that limo is protected with. They say it's got 6 inch glass, and even an armour piercing .50 couldn't get through. That surprised me.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I am sure that it might take the whole body with the bullet.

What do you mean, just disintegrate you?
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 7:05 pm
A .50 cal can blow a 4 inch diameter hole though a human torso. (it might actually be 3 but I know it's a big hole). Therefore, a .50 cal leaves very little in the way of forensics because of how little body is left.
Permalink
| June 21, 2013, 8:06 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
A .50 cal can blow a 4 inch diameter hole though a human torso. (it might actually be 3 but I know it's a big hole). Therefore, a .50 cal leaves very little in the way of forensics because of how little body is left.

BMG or muzzle-loader? A lot of repro matchlocks are above .70, IIRC. Not so hot for penetration, but supposedly they'll make quite a mess of any deer they hit.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I believe that in several US states, you can buy a 50 cal gun. Even the Secret Service were concerned about that weapon, when they built the Beast, the president's armored limo. I am sure that it might take the whole body with the bullet.

Riiight.

You evidently don't know that field pieces aren't regulated over there.

By 'field piece' I mean cannon.

As in, anything from a two pounder to a siege gun.


And yet, you never hear about some determined crazy with an aptitude for trajectories shelling a school or bridge.

Wonder why?
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
If nobody's allowed a gun, then citizens who have a bad day, go insane, or decide to take their parent's rifle to go shoot up a mall/school/whatever will be highly limited. The majority of actual shootings are rash decisions by people who aren't connected to criminals. On the other hand, gun crimes by people who are involved with higher level criminals are often robberies and other crimes which rarely leave people dead.

Sources?

I can tell you this, there's plenty of people out there who have ready access to guns and can have a bad day without murdering anyone.

More to the point: how OFTEN people get murdered is irrelevant. The fact is that sometimes it happens anyway, and if ordinary people aren't allowed to have weapons, they won't be able to do anything to protect themselves.


Try doing some actual research; there's plenty of security camera videos of robberies and/or shootings that've been prevented by one of the intended victims having a pistol.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 2:06 am
Quoting Areetsa C
BMG or muzzle-loader? A lot of repro matchlocks are above .70, IIRC. Not so hot for penetration, but supposedly they'll make quite a mess of any deer they hit.

I was thinking more along the lines of Desert Eagle or Barrett rifle.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 7:29 am
Quoting Areetsa C
I can tell you this, there's plenty of people out there who have ready access to guns and can have a bad day without murdering anyone.

More to the point: how OFTEN people get murdered is irrelevant. The fact is that sometimes it happens anyway, and if ordinary people aren't allowed to have weapons, they won't be able to do anything to protect themselves.


Try doing some actual research; there's plenty of security camera videos of robberies and/or shootings that've been prevented by one of the intended victims having a pistol.

True enough, having a gun may prevent petty crime. Stopping a shooting on the other hand, is trickier. By the time the "good guys" get their guns out, many people are already dead, and a bunch of "heros" trying to shoot into the chaos could do more harm. With 5 guys blasting away, how do the police know which one's the shooter?
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 10:03 am
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
What do you mean, just disintegrate you?

Yeah, I mean that the Secret Service managed to protect the president, but it ain't easy.
The power of a fifty cal might not disintegrate you, but really mess you up.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:19 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
BMG or muzzle-loader? A lot of repro matchlocks are above .70, IIRC. Not so hot for penetration, but supposedly they'll make quite a mess of any deer they hit.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I believe that in several US states, you can buy a 50 cal gun. Even the Secret Service were concerned about that weapon, when they built the Beast, the president's armored limo. I am sure that it might take the whole body with the bullet.

Riiight.

You evidently don't know that field pieces aren't regulated over there.

By 'field piece' I mean cannon.

As in, anything from a two pounder to a siege gun.


And yet, you never hear about some determined crazy with an aptitude for trajectories shelling a school or bridge.

Wonder why?
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
If nobody's allowed a gun, then citizens who have a bad day, go insane, or decide to take their parent's rifle to go shoot up a mall/school/whatever will be highly limited. The majority of actual shootings are rash decisions by people who aren't connected to criminals. On the other hand, gun crimes by people who are involved with higher level criminals are often robberies and other crimes which rarely leave people dead.

Sources?

I can tell you this, there's plenty of people out there who have ready access to guns and can have a bad day without murdering anyone.

More to the point: how OFTEN people get murdered is irrelevant. The fact is that sometimes it happens anyway, and if ordinary people aren't allowed to have weapons, they won't be able to do anything to protect themselves.


Try doing some actual research; there's plenty of security camera videos of robberies and/or shootings that've been prevented by one of the intended victims having a pistol.

Addressing your comment to me. I was pointing out that you can get a fifty cal here in the states, and even the Secret Service keep that in mind.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:21 am
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
True enough, having a gun may prevent petty crime. Stopping a shooting on the other hand, is trickier. By the time the "good guys" get their guns out, many people are already dead, and a bunch of "heros" trying to shoot into the chaos could do more harm. With 5 guys blasting away, how do the police know which one's the shooter?

By the time the cops show up it's all over anyway. Apart from that, they recognize the shooter because he's the one lying on the ground in a puddle of blood, instead of, say, waving a cellphone while wearing a holstered pistol.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Addressing your comment to me. I was pointing out that you can get a fifty cal here in the states, and even the Secret Service keep that in mind.

You can get a 20mm anti-tank rifle without much hassle. You can get a 12 pounder without any hassle. Any armour that'll fit on a car and leave it capable of movement probably won't do the trick. Heck, making napalm is as easy as mixing petrol and polystyrene; the Presidentemobile might be able to stop rifle fire, but how well do you think it'll do when ON fire? Or frak, making poison gas is easy enough that people have done it by ACCIDENT; wait for a breeze when he's doing the meet and greet, then pop the stopper, or even just take a plane and ram him.

The only reason a Royal Personage isn't assassinated every day is because none of them have ticked off enough people yet. It's as easy as loading a cropduster with bleach and ammonia and overflying a rally.

Last I checked, the Secret Service doesn't have FlAK batteries.


You get a few attempts from time to time, but they're all maniacs; if and when a government starts to inspire resentment among rational people, THEN you'll see some bodies.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
By the time the cops show up it's all over anyway. Apart from that, they recognize the shooter because he's the one lying on the ground in a puddle of blood, instead of, say, waving a cellphone while wearing a holstered pistol.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Addressing your comment to me. I was pointing out that you can get a fifty cal here in the states, and even the Secret Service keep that in mind.

You can get a 20mm anti-tank rifle without much hassle. You can get a 12 pounder without any hassle. Any armour that'll fit on a car and leave it capable of movement probably won't do the trick. Heck, making napalm is as easy as mixing petrol and polystyrene; the Presidentemobile might be able to stop rifle fire, but how well do you think it'll do when ON fire? Or frak, making poison gas is easy enough that people have done it by ACCIDENT; wait for a breeze when he's doing the meet and greet, then pop the stopper, or even just take a plane and ram him.

The only reason a Royal Personage isn't assassinated every day is because none of them have ticked off enough people yet. It's as easy as loading a cropduster with bleach and ammonia and overflying a rally.

Last I checked, the Secret Service doesn't have FlAK batteries.


You get a few attempts from time to time, but they're all maniacs; if and when a government starts to inspire resentment among rational people, THEN you'll see some bodies.

I found your comment entertaining. Attacking the president. Wow. You. The Limo has a filtration system built in it. It has it's own armed convoy. It is rumored to have flares and chaff systems. The aerospace above the president is off limits; violate it, and some angry Air Force men are coming after you.


Before you attempt to try and come up with plans on attacking the president, take a look at the many Secret Service protocols.
Permalink
| June 22, 2013, 11:08 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I found your comment entertaining. Attacking the president. Wow. You. The Limo has a filtration system built in it. It has it's own armed convoy. It is rumored to have flares and chaff systems. The aerospace above the president is off limits; violate it, and some angry Air Force men are coming after you.


Before you attempt to try and come up with plans on attacking the president, take a look at the many Secret Service protocols.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding my post accidentally or deliberately.

What I'm actually SAYING is that attack with a direct-fire rifle isn't just a minor possible threat, it's among the least likely to be successful. Mortar and rocket fire wouldn't just be more likely to succeed, it'd be easier to set up as well.

Restricting large-bore firearms as some sort of insane 'national security risk' is nuts. The only reason they're restricted in places like, say, the Democratic People's Republic of California is because they're big and scary.

Besides that, it's never about 'guns', it's about control. F'rinstance, New York City: nutso firearms regulations, plenty of violent crime, they've banned bake sales and now they're limiting how large a coke bottle you can have.

And yes, their mayor IS a fascist, but so are most of the world's politicians.
Permalink
| June 23, 2013, 4:44 am
Quoting CY-EV .

I get the impression it's not a discussion that's inclined to have much effect.
Not quite 'reasoned discourse' but not exactly going anywhere but in circles.
Permalink
| July 22, 2013, 1:17 pm
I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the number of gun crimes in the United States committed with a semi-automatic rifle with a clip size of more than 7 rounds is so small that it isn't even considered an influence on gun crime statistics as a whole.
Permalink
| July 22, 2013, 2:52 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the number of gun crimes in the United States committed with a semi-automatic rifle with a clip size of more than 7 rounds is so small that it isn't even considered an influence on gun crime statistics as a whole.

Oh yeah, there's more murders from hammers and baseball bats than with "assault weapons".
Permalink
| July 22, 2013, 3:09 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I really don't think that you can compare the Swiss to Americans. Like, I don't want to use any cruel (or any for that matter) stereotypes, but it seems that people from that region of the world are quite calm, cool, and collected. They don't have the, uh, fight mentality. Where as, many Americans are not like that. As fascinating as America is, and has great as it is, its population contains people that are quite violent. Adding more weapons to the mix is not going to be a road block; it will be like opening the floodgates. Also, let me ask, do you favor high powered Assault rifles as well as handguns?

There are few things wrong with this comment.
First of all, semi-automatic rifles are not assault rifles. Some are made to LOOK like assault rifles, but lack a fire selector that enables the rifle to fire in a fully automatic mode. Just because an orange is painted to look like an apple, it doesn't mean it's an apple.
Secondly, having firearms on the market does not open the flood gates to criminals. If you're referring to mass shootings like Sandy Hook, you have to know that there have only been around 35 "mass shootings" in the entire history of the United States. So if firearms are opening up the flood gates, where is the flood?
I suggest you check out a book called "Control" by Glenn Beck, it touches up on all the gun control arguments with pretty solid statistics.
Permalink
| July 22, 2013, 3:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
I suggest you check out a book called "Control" by Glenn Beck, it touches up on all the gun control arguments with pretty solid statistics.

I love that book.
Permalink
| July 22, 2013, 7:29 pm
Unfortunately the logic in that argument, so obvious to us, is completely lost on the liberal mind.
Permalink
| July 22, 2013, 8:46 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
"...against slight odds." If they are slight, why do you need a gun? And let me pose this. If people have guns and use them for "self defense", then a simple, unknown-ing trespasser/burglar/r*pist/psycho can get shot.

And the problem would be...?
Permalink
| July 22, 2013, 8:52 pm
Quoting El Barto !
Unfortunately the logic in that argument, so obvious to us, is completely lost on the liberal mind.

Actually, IIRC, having people need to call in a government licenced manipulation technician to open doors for them would probably be a GOOD thing as far as governments are concerned. More stuff to tax.
Permalink
| July 22, 2013, 10:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting CY-EV .

Why do we need people telling us what we do and do not need? I may never have the desire or interest to publish a piece of news media in my life, but the moment that the gov't has the nerve to tell me I don't "need" freedom of press, I'm gonna take issue with it and publish politically rebellious material just to stick it to them.

You go live your life how you want it, and let me live mine how I want. And as long as neither hurts the other, then the two of us ought to have no problem between us.

Quoting Achintya Prasad If people have guns and use them for "self defense", then a simple, unknown-ing trespasser can get shot.


That's the idea. If you decide to violate my right to property or life, then by your actions, you forfeit your own right to life and/or freedom. A burglar/mugger that gets shot has signed his own verdict the moment he decided he was entitled to take the property of another and followed through with that evil plan.

The phrase "your right to throw a punch ends where my face begins" signifies a social equilibrium. That means that you are free to exercise your rights to whatever capacity you want as long as in doing so you do not infringe upon the rights of others. You can speak your mind - however offensively - but you cannot force me to listen. You can follow whatever religion (or lack thereof) you want, but you cannot force your beliefs on me. You can choose to own a gun or not, but you're not free to shoot people if it's not in self-defense.

You can walk anywhere that's public property, but if you break into my house and try to steal my stuff or harm my family, you've given up your right to walk around unharassed, and you cannot expect to leave in one piece.

Sir, firstly let me state that making personal attacks are an explicit violation of the rules created for this group; in the interest of fairness, I will allow you to continue to post; failure to comply with this rule we force me to remove you from this group, despite the very, very interesting points you have brought up, thank you.

Alright. Hmm. Man I wish I had more on my side in this debate :-)

The problem is that not everyone is as rational as you are. The fact is that getting a gun here in the US is too easy. I understand, you want to have control over a situation where your life might be threatened, but there is more to "self defense" than claiming to have fended off an invasion into your home.

As I brought up earlier (which actually was a while back, since this thread has only just recently came back), there are psychological effects to pulling the trigger on someone. There is shame (yes, believe it or not, as tough as you are, you will feel guilt in killing someone), horror, and, well pain. Having a population ignore that in the name of "self defense" is not good.....

Now, you were in the military, so you know how to handle a weapon, and (hopefully) know of the psychological effects of injuring/killing someone. You can appreciate these things, right? Then, looking at these effects to your life, do you really think that gun ownership should come so quickly, and so easily, to the population? Really?
Permalink
| July 22, 2013, 10:30 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad

(I am getting my two cents in here a little late, so forgive me if I'm echoing someone else in the earlier stages of this debate, but this subject is one that I am passionate about, so bear with me).

Seconded, Achintya! America is not a very friendly place for those in favor of a more strict set of laws enforcing some form of gun control. Well done in taking that position and defending the position well.

The way I see it is that guns bring death. I know, I know, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Iíve heard it a million times, and I can actually respect the statement, but my argument to it is that guns make people killing people a lot easier.

Put two men in a room. Give one a gun and the other a butter knife. Tell them to fight to the death.

Any bets?

Personally, I don't have a problem with guns meant for hunting. It is an age-old human tradition and there is something very honorable about hunting your own food. I will also mention, however, that I have more of a respect for the bow hunter. Evens the odds a bit, if you follow me.

My problem is weapons meant to injure/kill other human beings. The problem isn't so much the criminals that are walking around "packing." I can at least understand the fear that motivates one to arm oneself under such circumstances. In all fairness, though, that fear doesn't motivate me to bring a weapon around my family, for the same reason that I don't put cancer in my body just in case I ever get a tumor. A bit extreme, but you get the point.

The problem is the ease of obtaining an assault weapon. A weapon whose sole purpose is to harm another human being. Columbine, West Virginia University, Aurora, Sandy Hook, just to name a few. The people that brought these weapons into the public and opened fire on crowds of innocent people, (in the case of Sandy Hook, innocent elementary school students), were sick. Mentally disturbed and carrying. Background checks, (or in a few cases, responsible gun ownership or even home ownership), should have stopped these folks from having the chance to harm so many. Guns can be purchased at gun shows on a cash-and-carry basis. No background check. No waiting period. And can you blame the sellers? They are in the business of selling weapons and making the mighty buck. Tell them that they can sell their weapons quickly and then hope that the right decisions will be made every time? Sure. Okay. It's like every other job, I think. If you're a server in a restaurant, you may bring someone the wrong order, or their steak may be overcooked, but you can laugh about it later. You give the wrong guy an assault rifle, though? That's not funny.

Permalink
| July 22, 2013, 11:49 pm
Quoting Tim C
Quoting Achintya Prasad


The way I see it is that guns bring death.

Exactly. That's why they're used in self defense.
I'd also like to point out that these so called "assault weapons" are anything but. Semi-automatic rifles are not assault rifles.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 12:38 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
The problem is that not everyone is as rational as you are. The fact is that getting a gun here in the US is too easy. I understand, you want to have control over a situation where your life might be threatened, but there is more to "self defense" than claiming to have fended off an invasion into your home.

Again: so your problem isn't the guns, it's the poor people having them?

Not sure I see the "claiming" part, either; if someone's in your house without your permission, that's an invasion.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
As I brought up earlier (which actually was a while back, since this thread has only just recently came back), there are psychological effects to pulling the trigger on someone. There is shame (yes, believe it or not, as tough as you are, you will feel guilt in killing someone), horror, and, well pain. Having a population ignore that in the name of "self defense" is not good.....

Of course there's consequences. One of the big ones is BEING ALIVE to second guess yourself.

Even then, the majority of armed self-defenses don't get reported to the police because nobody gets shot because the rational, non-murderous criminals RUN AWAY when they find themselves facing a weapon.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Then, looking at these effects to your life, do you really think that gun ownership should come so quickly, and so easily, to the population? Really?

I think you'll find, if you do some research, that the people who own firearms tend to be a lot more responsible than the average. Yes, there are outliers, yes, they are concerning, and if you look a bit closer, you'll find their peers think they're dangerously irresponsible and wouldn't associate with them.


Apart from that, 'quickly and easily'? In the 'states, there's a week-long waiting period. That's not 'quick'. Then, to carry it on your person, you need a permit. And, if you're a responsible person, a set of lengthy classes to learn how to use it.

If you're NOT a responsible person, you're probably not concerned about breaking a few laws.
Quoting Cade .
Exactly. That's why they're used in self defense.
I'd also like to point out that these so called "assault weapons" are anything but. Semi-automatic rifles are not assault rifles.

REAL assault rifles:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Kovpak_partisanki.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Men_of_the_2-9th_Gurkha_Rifles.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Martini-Henry_m1871_-_England_-_AM.032017.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:West_German_FN_FAL.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Mauser_m98.jpg

A rifle is a rifle, and sorting them into 'assault rifles' and, oh, I don't know, 'kitten-snuggling rifles' is simply absurd.

Even then, it's not like a rock-and-roll switch really adds much in the way of functionality to a weapon; even when they've got it, most people prefer to go with single shots instead.
Something about how spraying half your magazine into the ceiling isn't very effective at winning battles.


A spade is a spade, and banning 'mining spades' while allowing 'gardening spades' is a step on the road to ensuring that only government agents can operate spades.
Quoting Tim C
Well done in taking that position and defending the position well.

"Well"? He says the same things again and again while ignoring the answers he gets.
Quoting Tim C
...but my argument to it is that guns make people killing people a lot easier.

Put two men in a room. Give one a gun and the other a butter knife. Tell them to fight to the death.

Any bets?

That's the whole fething point.

Most people can't win a fair wrestling match with a professional thug. So they either die or they cheat. Most effectively, with a gun.
Quoting Tim C
Personally, I don't have a problem with guns meant for hunting. It is an age-old human tradition and there is something very honorable about hunting your own food. I will also mention, however, that I have more of a respect for the bow hunter. Evens the odds a bit, if you follow me.

In other words, you want them banned first for protecting yourself and then, eventually, for hunting.
Quoting Tim C
The problem is the ease of obtaining an assault weapon. A weapon whose sole purpose is to harm another human being. ... The people that brought these weapons into the public and opened fire on crowds of innocent people ... were sick. Mentally disturbed and carrying. Background checks, (or in a few cases, responsible gun ownership or even home ownership), should have stopped these folks from having the chance to harm so many. Guns can be purchased at gun shows on a cash-and-carry basis. No background check. No waiting period. And can you blame the sellers? They are in the business of selling weapons and making the mighty buck. Tell them that they can sell their weapons quickly and then hope that the right decisions will be made every time? Sure. Okay. It's like every other job, I think. If you're a server in a restaurant, you may bring someone the wrong order, or their steak may be overcooked, but you can laugh about it later. You give the wrong guy an assault rifle, though? That's not funny.

You know absolutely nothing, you understand absolutely nothing and you obviously haven't even tried to read the points made earlier in this same. FETHING. THREAD. to answer the EXACT. FETHING. SAME. ARGUMENT.

Prasad may be wilfully obtuse, but at least HE doesn't rattle off cliches written by brain-dead politicos like they're holy writ.

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2013/05/10/the-zomg-gun-show-loophole-and-other-asserted-lies-debunked-by-the-government/
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.co.nz/2006/03/boomsticks-weekly-check-on-lies-bias.html
http://jeffcarryoncolorado.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/debunking-gun-control-universal-background-checks-gun-show-loophole/
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 4:51 am
Quoting Areetsa C
[...]

Areetsa, did I understand you correct that you argument to have guns because to protect yourself from a problem that comes with guns?
If so, maybe you can answer my question.
How much addiotional guns are needed to end the annual incredible amount of killed people by guns in the USA?

Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 6:58 am
Quoting CY-EV .
So guns are dangerous, and tougher laws help keep them off the street? Well meth and heroin are dangerous too, maybe we should make laws against those as well!

During the Prohibition era, people didn't stop drinking alcohol simply because the government told them to. They just obtained it illegally and the Mob made all the booze money that would have otherwise gone to legitimate merchants. Oh hey, the taxes off that booze might have helped offset the Great Depression that followed, too!

Your argument is good but fails in the so called realitiy. Other countrys have problems with drugs too, even they are forbidden.
But the same countrys have much stronger laws and gun controls and have a very lower rate of killed people by gun in relation to the inhabitants each year (compared to the USA).
How would you explain that?
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 7:04 am
Quoting Locutus 666
Areetsa, did I understand you correct that you argument to have guns because to protect yourself from a problem that comes with guns?
If so, maybe you can answer my question.
How much addiotional guns are needed to end the annual incredible amount of killed people by guns in the USA?

Your grammar is beyond execrable.

And no, I think weapons are necessary to protect against problems inherent to being human.


As for "annual incredible amount of killed people by guns in the USA": http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Firearms aren't the problem.

VIOLENCE is the problem, and it's not a problem that'll just go away if you can only ban weapons.
People die in droves of kicks and punches and blows to the head from whatever improvised bludgeon happens to be near to hand; all weapons do is make it easier for the disadvantaged to fight back.

http://cursesfoiledagain2.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=2581
http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/01/04/a-world-without-guns/
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/the-ethics-of-going-armed/

http://www.mskousen.com/persuasion-vs-force-by-mark-skousen/
http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2007/02/persuasion-versus-force.html
Quoting Locutus 666
...But the same countrys have much stronger laws and gun controls and have a very lower rate of killed people by gun in relation to the inhabitants each year (compared to the USA).
How would you explain that?

Quick question: how do their OVERALL murder rates compare?
The proper ones, too. A lot of government agencies will massage statistics to lower crime rates; England, fr'xample, only counts a murder as a murder if the criminal gets caught and convicted; otherwise it's just an unexplained death that goes in a different category, so nobody cares about it.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 7:37 am
Quoting Tim C
(I am getting my two cents in here a little late, so forgive me if I'm echoing someone else in the earlier stages of this debate, but this subject is one that I am passionate about, so bear with me).

I agree completely. Despite what people like Areetsa are saying, it takes a lot longer to kill a bunch of people with knives than assault rifles, and it's a lot more personal too. You get angry and shoot someone - they scream out and die after a couple minutes. Pull out a knife and grapple with someone, trying to stab them, and if you succeed you're right there as the person bleeds out - a lot of people can't handle that and unlike with a gun they can stop before the other guy dies. Plus, if there are any bystanders they can intervene - it's a lot tougher to stop a bullet.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:22 am
Quoting Areetsa C
Quick question: how do their OVERALL murder rates compare?
The proper ones, too. A lot of government agencies will massage statistics to lower crime rates; England, fr'xample, only counts a murder as a murder if the criminal gets caught and convicted; otherwise it's just an unexplained death that goes in a different category, so nobody cares about it.

At first, im not a native english speaker. Performing debates in an other language isnt that easy.

Now the guns arent the problem but violence?
Guns make violence more easier.

Statistics are often manipulated but you will find no country within europe with such a high rate of crimes with guns!

You still think, the gun-problem should be fight with more guns.
This sounds to me like fighting a fire with oil.
You didnt answer my question how many more guns are needed to solve the problem.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 10:15 am
Quoting Locutus 666
Now the guns arent the problem but violence?
Guns make violence more easier.

Exactly. How many grandparents out there can wrestle a fit 20-something thug to the ground?
Quoting Locutus 666
Statistics are often manipulated but you will find no country within europe with such a high rate of crimes with guns!

But they definitely have violent crime and quite a lot of it, and the people getting crippled, brain damaged, raped and/or killed AREN'T the criminals.
Quoting Locutus 666
You still think, the gun-problem should be fight with more guns.
This sounds to me like fighting a fire with oil.
You didnt answer my question how many more guns are needed to solve the problem.

There IS no 'gun problem'. The problem is the violent people.

As for number of guns, well, some problems can't really BE solved. I definitely believe, however, that if every potential robbery carries with it the occupational risk of acute lead poisoning, would-be criminals are a lot less likely to embark on a life of crime. And at least some of the ones who do, being inexperienced in the art of murder, would find themselves with plenty of time to contemplate alternate careers in hospital.

Yes, people would still get murdered, but at least they'd have a chance to fight back meaningfully.
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
I agree completely. Despite what people like Areetsa are saying, it takes a lot longer to kill a bunch of people with knives than assault rifles, and it's a lot more personal too. You get angry and shoot someone - they scream out and die after a couple minutes. Pull out a knife and grapple with someone, trying to stab them, and if you succeed you're right there as the person bleeds out - a lot of people can't handle that and unlike with a gun they can stop before the other guy dies. Plus, if there are any bystanders they can intervene - it's a lot tougher to stop a bullet.

No, actually. A knife in close quarters is significantly harder to stop than a firearm; a gun has to be aimed. A knife is just a matter of stabbing wildly, especially if the target doesn't know it's coming.
Most people aren't determined enough or drunk enough or drugged enough to shrug off wounds and, while no-one can truly 'win' a knife fight (at least, when both sides have knives) the larger, stronger person has a serious advantage. Hence the firearm.

I'm not talking about 'murdering a bunch of people', either; mass killings are statistical outliers, and are more likely to involve explosives or fire than any other weapon.


Let's have a thought experiment here: it's late at night, you're out for a walk/on your way to the pub/going to the theater/whatever, and a large burly type grabs you by the jacket and demands your wallet, ipod and cellphone under pain of, well, pain.
Since you live in HappyFuzzyBunnyLand, where anything that goes 'bang' or even 'pop' is more illegal than incest, you're not carrying a pistol.

Since countries that ban self defense with firearms often tend to ban self defense with any other object, often to the extent of criminalizing the carrying on one's person of a knife of useful length without 'fit and proper purpose', you'd be unarmed. Maybe you have a pocket knife (but not one of those assisted-opening ones; it's thumbnail grooves or nothing for you, peasant) but the other guy has a carving knife.

So what do you- nope, he's decided you're taking too long and started giving you a field cardiectomy. Too late.



I'm not saying firearms are some magic talisman of +5 Protection From Rogues, but when some of the people in a country are armed, criminals are more likely to be cautious on the assumption that their planned victim PROBABLY doesn't have a gun, but maybe, just maybe, might.


Relying on bystanders to step in and help out is not a safe approach to life. Most people are inclined to look out for number one; take, for example, that recent murder in England where the islamofascist carved up the young soldier; dozens of people were hanging around listening to him rant, and not one of them stepped in.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 11:24 am
Quoting Locutus 666
At first, im not a native english speaker. Performing debates in an other language isnt that easy.

Now the guns arent the problem but violence?
Guns make violence more easier.

Statistics are often manipulated but you will find no country within europe with such a high rate of crimes with guns!

You still think, the gun-problem should be fight with more guns.
This sounds to me like fighting a fire with oil.
You didnt answer my question how many more guns are needed to solve the problem.

You do a lot better than most native English speakers, at least here in the States!
But to address your point, you can't compare Europe to the US. All the big cities with the toughest gun laws have the most crime, and the rural areas with little or no laws, have the least. When the law abiding citizens are well armed, criminals look for easier prey.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 11:41 am
Problem is, if you compare us to a European country, our history of "freedom" and "rights" comes with the benefit of firearms. As opposed to in Europe, where kings and monarchs ruled for ages and wanted to uprsings. Forgive me if this was already mentioned, I don't have the time to read this whole thing.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 11:45 am
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
I agree completely. Despite what people like Areetsa are saying, it takes a lot longer to kill a bunch of people with knives than assault rifles, and it's a lot more personal too. You get angry and shoot someone - they scream out and die after a couple minutes. Pull out a knife and grapple with someone, trying to stab them, and if you succeed you're right there as the person bleeds out - a lot of people can't handle that and unlike with a gun they can stop before the other guy dies. Plus, if there are any bystanders they can intervene - it's a lot tougher to stop a bullet.

1. How many times do I have to make it clear that SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES are not assault rifles? Clearly, no one is listening.
2. Knives still kill more people in the United States annually.
3. There have been plenty of incidences where an individual used something like a large knife or machete to stab/hack 50+ people, and no one tried to intervene then. Why? Because there weren't any guns around to stop it.
4. "Stop before the other guy dies." That's what being responsible with a firearm means in the first place.

Common sense and statistics just aren't in the gun control's favor.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 11:52 am
Quoting Cade .
How many times do I have to make it clear that SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES are not assault rifles? Clearly, no one is listening.

But they're scary!
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 12:21 pm
Quoting Areetsa C
Quoting Cade .
How many times do I have to make it clear that SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES are not assault rifles? Clearly, no one is listening.

But they're scary!

I know they're scary. It's okay, Areetsa. There aren't any under the bed. I promise.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 12:22 pm
Quoting Cade .
I know they're scary. It's okay, Areetsa. There aren't any under the bed. I promise.

That's not what I'm saying.

I can't have one of my own, so I'm bloody well not going to let YOU have any!






...</sarcasm>, just in case it's not obvious.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 12:29 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
1. How many times do I have to make it clear that SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES are not assault rifles? Clearly, no one is listening.
2. Knives still kill more people in the United States annually.
3. There have been plenty of incidences where an individual used something like a large knife or machete to stab/hack 50+ people, and no one tried to intervene then. Why? Because there weren't any guns around to stop it.
4. "Stop before the other guy dies." That's what being responsible with a firearm means in the first place.

Common sense and statistics just aren't in the gun control's favor.


1) Point taken, though I don't quite see how that allows weapons to be freely given out.
2) How many killings are done with specialized knives that are made to kill humans?
3) What? That a very false statement and assumption. Do you have any proof of one event connecting to another?
4) Well, the problem is that not everyone can have the much "self control".
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 12:46 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
1) Point taken, though I don't quite see how that allows weapons to be freely given out.

The usual process is to ban "assault rifles" and then to extend the definition to the point where anything that fires bullets qualifies.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
2) How many killings are done with specialized knives that are made to kill humans?

All knives are designed to cut. While daggers are better suited to the military arts, anything with an edge can do in a pinch.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
3) What? That a very false statement and assumption. Do you have any proof of one event connecting to another?

The Ugandan Genocide, for a start.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
4) Well, the problem is that not everyone can have the much "self control".

Hence why the other people have guns.
To make them, if they can't control themselves.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 12:50 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
Hence why the other people have guns.
To make them, if they can't control themselves.

1) All guns are made to kill.
2) Huh? So in that sense, a pencil should be considered a weapons, as well as paper, right? No, the problem is that in those crimes, how many were committed with knives MADE TO KILL, SPECIFICALLY?
3) I'll need more research on that particular topic, but so far as I can work out, my point still stands. This implies -----> this is a really hard analogy/idea to use to prove a point; and as far as I can work out, I don't see how one points to another.
4) Having a gun around is tempting, it just is.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 12:53 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
1) All guns are made to kill.

Actually sporting guns are made to quick shoot and score a bullseye. Not to kill people. Just saying.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 12:56 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
1) All guns are made to kill.
2) Huh? So in that sense, a pencil should be considered a weapons, as well as paper, right? No, the problem is that in those crimes, how many were committed with knives MADE TO KILL, SPECIFICALLY?
3) I'll need more research on that particular topic, but so far as I can work out, my point still stands. This implies -----> this is a really hard analogy/idea to use to prove a point; and as far as I can work out, I don't see how one points to another.
4) Having a gun around is tempting, it just is.

1. They may be made to kill but that doesn't mean they have to be used that way. About 99.9% of gun owners don't use firearms to kill each other.
2. You're comparing apples and oranges. A pencil is made to make marks on a paper, while a knife is made to cut. Sure, knives aren't made to kill, but their purpose does allow for someone to get hurt.
3. It proves our point because no one was able to fight back. No one had any weapons, so they were pretty much at the mercy of a machete wielding maniac. You should really do more research into these kinds of events, because they apparently happen all over the world all the time.
4. I own firearms and I am not tempted to kill with them.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:01 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
1) All guns are made to kill.

As I've said at least four times before, that's the whole point.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
2) Huh? So in that sense, a pencil should be considered a weapons, as well as paper, right? No, the problem is that in those crimes, how many were committed with knives MADE TO KILL, SPECIFICALLY?

Any involving a knife of the 'ka-bar' variety or a derivative thereof, at the very least.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
3) I'll need more research on that particular topic, but so far as I can work out, my point still stands. This implies -----> this is a really hard analogy/idea to use to prove a point; and as far as I can work out, I don't see how one points to another.

IIRC it was carried out almost exclusively with machetes.

There was also a Chinese fellow who got nearly two dozen with a knife, though I can't recall precise details. Google would help, but I have to retire soon.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
4) Having a gun around is tempting, it just is.

Not sure what you're getting at there, but if a person is lawful and carrying a firearm, they're no threat; if they're unlawful and carrying a firearm, the likely presence of a lawfully armed person acts to restrict what they can do, since they have no way of knowing who around them might gun them down if they draw their own weapon.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
1. They may be made to kill but that doesn't mean they have to be used that way. About 99.9% of gun owners don't use firearms to kill each other.
2. You're comparing apples and oranges. A pencil is made to make marks on a paper, while a knife is made to cut. Sure, knives aren't made to kill, but their purpose does allow for someone to get hurt.
3. It proves our point because no one was able to fight back. No one had any weapons, so they were pretty much at the mercy of a machete wielding maniac. You should really do more research into these kinds of events, because they apparently happen all over the world all the time.
4. I own firearms and I am not tempted to kill with them.

Okay, I am combining points 1 &2, because they prove my point. A pencil is meant to write, but it can kill, right? There you go. Most knives are made to cut up your dinner, not a person (shudders). GUNS, on the other hand, ARE made to kill. Doesn't matter how many people use guns for what reason, (and you 99.9% isn't correct) they are killing devices that are in the public.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:05 pm
Quoting Bob the Almighty
Actually sporting guns are made to quick shoot and score a bullseye. Not to kill people. Just saying.

But in a pinch they'll slot the feth out of someone.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
Quoting Achintya Prasad
1) All guns are made to kill.

As I've said at least four times before, that's the whole point.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
2) Huh? So in that sense, a pencil should be considered a weapons, as well as paper, right? No, the problem is that in those crimes, how many were committed with knives MADE TO KILL, SPECIFICALLY?

Any involving a knife of the 'ka-bar' variety or a derivative thereof, at the very least.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
3) I'll need more research on that particular topic, but so far as I can work out, my point still stands. This implies -----> this is a really hard analogy/idea to use to prove a point; and as far as I can work out, I don't see how one points to another.

IIRC it was carried out almost exclusively with machetes.

There was also a Chinese fellow who got nearly two dozen with a knife, though I can't recall precise details. Google would help, but I have to retire soon.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
4) Having a gun around is tempting, it just is.

Not sure what you're getting at there, but if a person is lawful and carrying a firearm, they're no threat; if they're unlawful and carrying a firearm, the likely presence of a lawfully armed person acts to restrict what they can do, since they have no way of knowing who around them might gun them down if they draw their own weapon.

Why would you carry a gun, that is made to kill? You all say, to defend yourself. But you still kill someone. You yourself, Areetsa, don't support killings (at least I hope not) of innocent people. If you made a wrong choice, does that mean death? Few people in history are "worthy" of the death penalty (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Jong-un, Jong-il, etc), but burglar doesn't show up in that list.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:08 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
GUNS, on the other hand, ARE made to kill. Doesn't matter how many people use guns for what reason, (and you 99.9% isn't correct) they are killing devices that are in the public.

For the twentieth time, that is the whole point to having them for self defense. They kill. It doesn't mean they have to kill. But you somehow neglect that fact. And yes, that 99% is accurate. You don't seem to realize how many weapons there are in the United States, and how many are actually used in crimes.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:10 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay, I am combining points 1 &2, because they prove my point. A pencil is meant to write, but it can kill, right? There you go. Most knives are made to cut up your dinner, not a person (shudders). GUNS, on the other hand, ARE made to kill. Doesn't matter how many people use guns for what reason, (and you 99.9% isn't correct) they are killing devices that are in the public.

More like %99.9999, especially if you're only counting ones who have them legally.


I think this conversation has gone off track.

Let's get down to brass tacks, shall we?
Everything more than this one question is just details, really.



Do you believe that it is morally wrong to kill someone to protect the life of yourself or another person?
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Why would you carry a gun, that is made to kill? You all say, to defend yourself. But you still kill someone. You yourself, Areetsa, don't support killings (at least I hope not) of innocent people. If you made a wrong choice, does that mean death? Few people in history are "worthy" of the death penalty (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Jong-un, Jong-il, etc), but burglar doesn't show up in that list.

If someone's in your house without your permission while you're at home, they are a threat to your safety. I'm all for holding them until the police arrive, but I'm not going to risk my life to protect theirs.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:10 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
For the twentieth time, that is the whole point to having them for self defense. They kill. It doesn't mean they have to kill. But you somehow neglect that fact. And yes, that 99% is accurate. You don't seem to realize how many weapons there are in the United States, and how many are actually used in crimes.

YES, I know you are saying for Self Defense, but do you have the right to kill someone? NO, no matter what the constitution says, killing someone is not the correct course of action, no matter what you believe. A gun is a weapon. And a weapon is for killing. 99% of the population is not accurate, I am sorry, it just isn't. I realize that there are more guns here in the US in the public's hands than in Iraq (which was/is a war zone), but once again, many are acquired, way to easily, and are used to kill.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:13 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Why would you carry a gun, that is made to kill? You all say, to defend yourself. But you still kill someone. You yourself, Areetsa, don't support killings (at least I hope not) of innocent people. If you made a wrong choice, does that mean death? Few people in history are "worthy" of the death penalty (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Jong-un, Jong-il, etc), but burglar doesn't show up in that list.

Self defense doesn't mean you just straight up end someone's life because they looked at you funny. You seem to think that burglars come in saying, "Hey man, I'm just here to take your stuff, not harm your family or anything." What if they are there to harm your family? You just let them? I don't know about you, but it seems to me that someone who wants to harm my family should be next on death row, not me.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:14 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
More like %99.9999, especially if you're only counting ones who have them legally.


I think this conversation has gone off track.

Let's get down to brass tacks, shall we?
Everything more than this one question is just details, really.



Do you believe that it is morally wrong to kill someone to protect the life of yourself or another person?
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Why would you carry a gun, that is made to kill? You all say, to defend yourself. But you still kill someone. You yourself, Areetsa, don't support killings (at least I hope not) of innocent people. If you made a wrong choice, does that mean death? Few people in history are "worthy" of the death penalty (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Jong-un, Jong-il, etc), but burglar doesn't show up in that list.

If someone's in your house without your permission while you're at home, they are a threat to your safety. I'm all for holding them until the police arrive, but I'm not going to risk my life to protect theirs.

Answer to your question: yes, yes it is wrong. You can stop someone without having to end their life. NO need for you all to go and kill someone! Hit with a chair, get some Mega Bloks, throw those abominations at their face (last one was a bit sarcastic), but for goodness sakes, you don't need to kill 'em!
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Self defense doesn't mean you just straight up end someone's life because they looked at you funny. You seem to think that burglars come in saying, "Hey man, I'm just here to take your stuff, not harm your family or anything." What if they are there to harm your family? You just let them? I don't know about you, but it seems to me that someone who wants to harm my family should be next on death row, not me.

See comment that I put to Areetsa to answer that.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:17 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Answer to your question: yes, yes it is wrong. You can stop someone without having to end their life. NO need for you all to go and kill someone! Hit with a chair, get some Mega Bloks, throw those abominations at their face (last one was a bit sarcastic), but for goodness sakes, you don't need to kill 'em!

Shooting someone isn't a death sentence. Actually, it's not very hard to shoot someone in a spot that won't kill them right away.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:19 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Shooting someone isn't a death sentence. Actually, it's not very hard to shoot someone in a spot that won't kill them right away.

Oh, but that is what many people are saying in self defense! They say to protect yourself, you need to eliminate the "enemy". Killing them. Also, I doubt you will give this person a band-aid, or call them an ambulance, so they could die from blood loss. Shooting someone, regardless of where, can kill them.

Also, let me ask, should I lock this thread up, and open up Gun Control 2? Its getting kinda long, so. Its up to you all though.....
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:23 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Answer to your question: yes, yes it is wrong. You can stop someone without having to end their life. NO need for you all to go and kill someone! Hit with a chair, get some Mega Bloks, throw those abominations at their face (last one was a bit sarcastic), but for goodness sakes, you don't need to kill 'em!

Then we are inherently opposed to one another's viewpoints on grounds of fundamental philosophy.

I believe that if someone attacks me, I have the right to take any steps I feel are necessary to make them sit down and stop doing it, up to and including spilling their guts all over the carpet if nothing less will do the trick.

You believe I should be restricted to making some half-hearted token wave in the general direction of self-defense by poking them with a stick before letting them do whatever they want to me and anyone else in the house; that anything that I might use that could actually HURT the scum should be banned.




Apart from that, if you think hitting someone with a chair can't kill them, you obviously haven't done the research.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:25 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oh, but that is what many people are saying in self defense! They say to protect yourself, you need to eliminate the "enemy". Killing them. Also, I doubt you will give this person a band-aid, or call them an ambulance, so they could die from blood loss. Shooting someone, regardless of where, can kill them.

Also, let me ask, should I lock this thread up, and open up Gun Control 2? Its getting kinda long, so. Its up to you all though.....

Well actually, you're pretty much required to call 911 after shooting someone in self defense. So there is a high possibility of the intruder surviving the gunshot wound. "Eliminating" =/= Killing.

I guess I'd be okay with a new thread. This one is getting pretty long.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
Then we are inherently opposed to one another's viewpoints on grounds of fundamental philosophy.

I believe that if someone attacks me, I have the right to take any steps I feel are necessary to make them sit down and stop doing it, up to and including spilling their guts all over the carpet if nothing less will do the trick.

You believe I should be restricted to making some half-hearted token wave in the general direction of self-defense by poking them with a stick before letting them do whatever they want to me and anyone else in the house; that anything that I might use that could actually HURT the scum should be banned.




Apart from that, if you think hitting someone with a chair can't kill them, you obviously haven't done the research.

Hit on the side with a chair; look that isn't the point.

You don't need to kill someone! Taking someone's life, regardless if its in the name of the law, is a pretty heavy burden to carry around afterwards. I don't think that killing someone should be something that people back; you are KILLING someone.....

By the way, did you want a new thread for this, or to continue here?
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:29 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oh, but that is what many people are saying in self defense! They say to protect yourself, you need to eliminate the "enemy". Killing them. Also, I doubt you will give this person a band-aid, or call them an ambulance, so they could die from blood loss. Shooting someone, regardless of where, can kill them.

You need to make them STOP. Whether you let them bleed out afterwards depends on how likely you think it is that they'll try to kill you if you get within reach.

More to Cade's point, there's a world of difference between a death sentence handed down by a court and a person killed in self defense. The former is the logical conclusion to someone being proven unsafe to be allowed in civilized society; the latter is a dangerous person being forcibly subdued and dying of their wounds.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Well actually, you're pretty much required to call 911 after shooting someone in self defense. So there is a high possibility of the intruder surviving the gunshot wound. "Eliminating" =/= Killing.

I guess I'd be okay with a new thread. This one is getting pretty long.

Yeah, you are. But still, in that much time, how would bleeding from your stomach not kill? Also, the eliminating=killing is more to people that actually believe that (like Areetsa). In that moment of time, in your self defense mode with a gun, can't you be so nervous you actually kill someone from an unsteady hand? And in close quarters, why do you need, say, an AR-15? A pistol would work, but people buy up assault rifles! (Though I don't support the pistol, so)
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:32 pm
Quoting Areetsa C
There IS no 'gun problem'. The problem is the violent people.

I cant take away people but i can take away guns.
Everyone can become one of those violent people. So lets secure that they do not have a gun hmm?

Quoting Areetsa C
As for number of guns, well, some problems can't really BE solved. I definitely believe, however, that if every potential robbery carries with it the occupational risk of acute lead poisoning, would-be criminals are a lot less likely to embark on a life of crime. And at least some of the ones who do, being inexperienced in the art of murder, would find themselves with plenty of time to contemplate alternate careers in hospital.

Action and reaction. If a potential robebr has to fear to encounter someone with a gun he organize an own gun.
A robbery (f.e. a bank) in europe results in a less count of deaths. All robebrs will be catched by the police.
In the USA it turns out in a little war with lots of deaths (robbers, victims and policemen) because too much people with guns are present.

Quoting Areetsa C
Yes, people would still get murdered, but at least they'd have a chance to fight back meaningfully.

If so, why is there still a such HUGE AMOUNT of deaths by guns?? Explain it pls.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:34 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You don't need to kill someone! Taking someone's life, regardless if its in the name of the law, is a pretty heavy burden to carry around afterwards. I don't think that killing someone should be something that people back; you are KILLING someone.....

And it's a big deal, yes, but sometimes the only way to stop an attack is with lethal force. Some people simply aren't reasonable, and a certain subset of them are too drunk or too hostile to understand that when a gun is pointed at you, you should sit down quietly and wait for the nice man in the blue uniform.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
By the way, did you want a new thread for this, or to continue here?

This one's fine.

A new thread would probably be better titled "Morality Of Killing" or something like that, since that's what this really boils down to.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:35 pm
Quoting El Barto !
You do a lot better than most native English speakers, at least here in the States!
But to address your point, you can't compare Europe to the US. All the big cities with the toughest gun laws have the most crime, and the rural areas with little or no laws, have the least. When the law abiding citizens are well armed, criminals look for easier prey.

Well thanks. :)
Europe has a lot of big cities too. Mostly the crime rate is much higher compared to the rural regions. Everywere are the same laws.
See my answer to areetsa, this is an effect of action and reaction. The more guns are ingame, the more deaths by guns result.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:38 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
This one's fine.

A new thread would probably be better titled "Morality Of Killing" or something like that, since that's what this really boils down to.

Alright. I well, its kinda like a vote right now, so right now its neutral, which means nothing will be changed.

I simply can't see how you can justify killing someone, for whatever reason (short of the aforementioned evil folk).
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:39 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, you are. But still, in that much time, how would bleeding from your stomach not kill? Also, the eliminating=killing is more to people that actually believe that (like Areetsa). In that moment of time, in your self defense mode with a gun, can't you be so nervous you actually kill someone from an unsteady hand? And in close quarters, why do you need, say, an AR-15? A pistol would work, but people buy up assault rifles! (Though I don't support the pistol, so)

A reason you want an AR for home defense: They're accurate. Even if you're the worst shot this side of the world, you can still hit a target with one. Plus, there are rounds called hollowpoints. When they hit an intruder, they either stay inside of the unlucky S.O.B. or they hit the wall behind him and stop. This reduces the chance of the bullet penetrating a wall and hurting someone else. AR-15s are also useful because of their standard clip capacity, usually 20-30 rounds. Sometimes one shot isn't enough, especially if dealing with a gang of intruders.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:39 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
The more guns are ingame, the more deaths by guns result.

Maybe that's the way it is in Europe, but not here. Actually, in areas with the most gun ownership, there is less crime.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:40 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
If so, why is there still a such HUGE AMOUNT of deaths by guns?? Explain it pls.

I'm having a field day, here!

Most gun deaths are actually suicide or the result of the poor barrel management.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
A reason you want an AR for home defense: They're accurate. Even if you're the worst shot this side of the world, you can still hit a target with one. Plus, there are rounds called hollowpoints. When they hit an intruder, they either stay inside of the unlucky S.O.B. or they hit the wall behind him and stop. This reduces the chance of the bullet penetrating a wall and hurting someone else. AR-15s are also useful because of their standard clip capacity, usually 20-30 rounds. Sometimes one shot isn't enough, especially if dealing with a gang of intruders.

One shot not enough? Okay, lets riddle this person with 30 bullet holes. Also, how are you suppose to maneuver such a large barrel and gun around in a such a tight place? Why not use a shot gun? A couple of slugs, there you go.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:43 pm
Quoting Areetsa C
And it's a big deal, yes, but sometimes the only way to stop an attack is with lethal force. Some people simply aren't reasonable, and a certain subset of them are too drunk or too hostile to understand that when a gun is pointed at you, you should sit down quietly and wait for the nice man in the blue uniform.

If the victim would have a gun in his/her pocket, these kind of situations like to turn out in a shooting.
If the robebry points a gun at you and asks you for your money, do you think its smart to try to take your own gun? Have you ever heard of trying some "de-escalation"?
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:44 pm
Quoting Cade .
I'm having a field day, here!

Most gun deaths are actually suicide or the result of the poor barrel management.

Two more reasons to restrict guns.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:48 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
One shot not enough? Okay, lets riddle this person with 30 bullet holes. Also, how are you suppose to maneuver such a large barrel and gun around in a such a tight place? Why not use a shot gun? A couple of slugs, there you go.

Well, again, I bring up the gang of intruders point. Also, one bullet probably isn't going to stop a large male (or gang of large males) hopped up on methamphetamines.
And there's also a few problems with shotguns. Shotguns kick a whole lot, they're heavy, and most are larger than AR-15s (since most AR-15s come with an adjustable stock). Oh, and slugs have more of a chance of penetrating through the intruder and going through a few walls, AND more of a chance to actually kill the fellow if you shoot him in the belly.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:49 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
Two more reasons to restrict guns.

It's not the guns fault, it's the people's fault.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:50 pm
(This post probably makes the same point a few times; I was going through posts from oldest to newest and I think some topics were answered twice.)
Quoting Locutus 666
Well thanks. :)
Europe has a lot of big cities too. Mostly the crime rate is much higher compared to the rural regions. Everywere are the same laws.
See my answer to areetsa, this is an effect of action and reaction. The more guns are ingame, the more deaths by guns result.

Farmers pretty much always have firearms.

And yes, more guns does indeed = more bodies with bullets in them. The difference is that some of those bodies deserved to catch a bullet.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, you are. But still, in that much time, how would bleeding from your stomach not kill?

IIRC, someone with a gunshot wound who lives long enough to reach a hospital has a %95 chance of survival. Gut wounds are certain death, yes, WITHOUT medical help. With it, they're extremely unpleasant but relatively low risk. Assuming the bullet didn't strike anything delicate, like the liver, spleen or aorta.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Also, the eliminating=killing is more to people that actually believe that (like Areetsa).

I believe in stopping an attack at minimum risk to yourself. If that involves telling them to go away and it works, well, great! If it doesn't, though, I believe it's best that there be a more effective means of defense waiting to repel further attack.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
In that moment of time, in your self defense mode with a gun, can't you be so nervous you actually kill someone from an unsteady hand? And in close quarters, why do you need, say, an AR-15? A pistol would work, but people buy up assault rifles! (Though I don't support the pistol, so)

Maybe.

Besides that, rifles are simply easier to use than pistols. They 'point' better.
Quoting Locutus 666
I cant take away people but i can take away guns.
Everyone can become one of those violent people. So lets secure that they do not have a gun hmm?

Action and reaction. If a potential robebr has to fear to encounter someone with a gun he organize an own gun.

But the victim at least has the CHANCE to fight back. A criminal who wants a weapon can get it, regardless of laws; please see my former comments on the subject of 'Khyber Pass' firearms.

Firearms are a technology a thousand years old; a genie that simply CAN'T go back in the bottle.
Quoting Locutus 666
A robbery (f.e. a bank) in europe results in a less count of deaths. All robebrs will be catched by the police.
In the USA it turns out in a little war with lots of deaths (robbers, victims and policemen) because too much people with guns are present.

No, because by the time the police arrive, things are all over; one way or the other.

Unless the cop-shop is literally right next door, they'll take up to half an hour to arrive. Especially if they wait for the ninja squad to grab all their kit.
Quoting Locutus 666
If so, why is there still a such HUGE AMOUNT of deaths by guns?? Explain it pls.

I'm not sure if your misunderstanding is deliberate or not. I'm saying that A: There aren't that many, all things considered and that B: the 'cure' (rendering people helpless) is infinitely worse than the 'disease' (violent criminals with illegal firearms).
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I simply can't see how you can justify killing someone, for whatever reason (short of the aforementioned evil folk).

Every person has the right to live as they wish, provided they don't interfere with someone ELSE'S right to live as they wish.

Sound fair?


But if you interfere with someone's life (by, say, assaulting them for their car keys) they have the right to make you back off. Ideally this would consist of telling you "please don't do that" and you'd stop, but some people aren't that reasonable.

Some people are, in fact, very UNreasonable, and anything short of violence won't make them back down.

The trouble is that violence is dependent on physical condition and skill; violent, unreasonable people tend to be well practiced at it, so they'll probably win.

This is where weapons come in: a knife gives a weak person an advantage, if perhaps slight. A spear gives them a big advantage, because now they don't have to get in close.

The trouble is, they need practice and strength and mobility to use, practice and strength and mobility that not everyone has.

A firearm is the ultimate leveler; before the bullet, the king is the same as the cleaner; the karate expert is the same as the fat man; the fit twenty-something is the same as the middle-aged amputee; the strong is the same as the weak. Not only that, but everyone knows it.

A person who will press an attack when told to stop is a person who places no value on human life that isn't their own, and a person who needs to be stopped.

They might get hurt or even killed in the process. It's a little sad, but they brought it on themselves.


There's also the element of responsibility; to my mind, if someone proves to you that they see nothing wrong with beating someone up for their wallet and you don't stop them, you're partly responsible for every beating they commit until the police catch up to them.


I linked to some articles elsewhere in the thread; you may want to read them. Particularly the ones on persuasion vs. force.
Quoting Locutus 666
If the victim would have a gun in his/her pocket, these kind of situations like to turn out in a shooting.
If the robebry points a gun at you and asks you for your money, do you think its smart to try to take your own gun? Have you ever heard of trying some "de-escalation"?

If they point a gun at you and demand your money, they're proving that they don't believe your life has value. Negotiation is one thing, but sometimes it doesn't work.

At least in a shoot-out the victim has a chance to avenge themselves, instead of simply being another person shot in a robbery.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
One shot not enough? Okay, lets riddle this person with 30 bullet holes. Also, how are you suppose to maneuver such a large barrel and gun around in a such a tight place? Why not use a shot gun? A couple of slugs, there you go.

They're not that big, and many of them are in fact a lot more wieldy than a shotgun. AR pattern firearms are remarkably light and controllable, and their weight balance is towards the stock. Shotguns usually have a long and heavy barrel, with a tubular magazine. Not ideal for close-quarters.
Quoting Locutus 666
Two more reasons to restrict guns.

Suicide tends to happen anyway.

The other thing he mentioned is the result of simple carelessness. Something I feel is made worse by 'safety features' because people feel complacent around a firearm they believe to be harmless. "It's okay, it's not loaded!" has led to a great many deaths over the years, and every one was preventable. By education. Not some nanny-state interference.

A person who's careless in one aspect of their life is likely to be careless in another; by driving like a maniac, for example.

Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 2:05 pm
Time for me to go. Back tomorrow at some point.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 2:08 pm
Quoting Areetsa C

IIRC, someone with a gunshot wound who lives long enough to reach a hospital has a %95 chance of survival.

I actually read that statistic on Cracked, but I thought that if I brought it up I would be laughed out of the debate.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 2:10 pm
If there weren't any guns, there would be reduced amounts of killings and crimes.
Your response: But then criminals with guns can't be stopped!
The answer: Anyone found with a gun is jailed for life, fined $100,000, and anyone who sells out a gun holder receives a $25,000 reward. No more guns.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 2:23 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
If there weren't any guns, there would be reduced amounts of killings and crimes.
Your response: But then criminals with guns can't be stopped!
The answer: Anyone found with a gun is jailed for life, fined $100,000, and anyone who sells out a gun holder receives a $25,000 reward. No more guns.

Still, criminals with guns wouldn't be stopped. Criminals with ANY weapons couldn't be stopped. We already have laws against the illegal sale and purchase of firearms, but that doesn't stop anyone from getting them. And the only way you could really jail someone for having an illegal firearm is AFTER they commit a crime, given that they don't kill themselves first.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 2:27 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
If there weren't any guns, there would be reduced amounts of killings and crimes.
Your response: But then criminals with guns can't be stopped!
The answer: Anyone found with a gun is jailed for life, fined $100,000, and anyone who sells out a gun holder receives a $25,000 reward. No more guns.

Jailed for life at least makes sense. If a person is dangerous, he or she must be quarantined. Sadly, that takes away the freedom of that person, but better than the lives and well-being of others.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 2:28 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
If there weren't any guns, there would be reduced amounts of killings and crimes.
Your response: But then criminals with guns can't be stopped!
The answer: Anyone found with a gun is jailed for life, fined $100,000, and anyone who sells out a gun holder receives a $25,000 reward. No more guns.

When Australia banned guns criminals used knives instead.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 2:59 pm
If this were a perfect world, only the police should have guns. Somebody breaks into your house with a broomstick? Call the police. Done.

The problem with banning guns is, as said earlier, leaving out the ones from illegal sources. But if there weren't any public guns in the first place, where would they get them from?
I think that guns should be banned, despite the 222 year old amendment. Eventually, the guns would all be brought back to people who can be trusted with them (the military, police) and the problem would, for the most part, be solved.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 3:01 pm
Quoting Brick Munky
If this were a perfect world, only the police should have guns. Somebody breaks into your house with a broomstick? Call the police. Done.

The problem with banning guns is, as said earlier, leaving out the ones from illegal sources. But if there weren't any public guns in the first place, where would they get them from?
I think that guns should be banned, despite the 222 year old amendment. Eventually, the guns would all be brought back to people who can be trusted with them (the military, police) and the problem would, for the most part, be solved.

The police arrive after a crime has already been committed. So no, it would not solve any problems. Plus, people would still kill people. So either way, problem NOT solved.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 3:18 pm
Quoting michael k.
Our possessions are more important than their (criminals) lives.

I'm speechless.
I would never say that anything that isn't living is more important than something that is, I don't care if they want your money, your TV, or your laptop, people are more valuable than any inanimate objects.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 3:27 pm
Quoting Cade .
The police arrive after a crime has already been committed. So no, it would not solve any problems. Plus, people would still kill people. So either way, problem NOT solved.

Without guns, what are you going to kill people with? I've heard that Australia's people substituted guns with knives, but I'm sure the number was a lot less than with guns.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 3:29 pm
Quoting Brick Munky
I'm speechless.
I would never say that anything that isn't living is more important than something that is, I don't care if they want your money, your TV, or your laptop, people are more valuable than any inanimate objects.

I think that was meant in a 'me-or-them' kind of context, so in that case, not a difficult decision. But some states have different rules on that issue, the defend your castle scenario. And once they start running away, and get out the door, you can't still shoot them. Even if you drag them back into your house. They can tell... If they choose to.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 3:36 pm
Quoting El Barto !
I think that was meant in a 'me-or-them' kind of context, so in that case, not a difficult decision. But some states have different rules on that issue, the defend your castle scenario. And once they start running away, and get out the door, you can't still shoot them. Even if you drag them back into your house. They can tell... If they choose to.

Well, if it was the me or them scenario, I'm for it. But if you're killing somebody who tried to take your waffle-iron, I'd think that you're worse than the criminal.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 3:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Brick Munky
I'm speechless.
I would never say that anything that isn't living is more important than something that is, I don't care if they want your money, your TV, or your laptop, people are more valuable than any inanimate objects.

Let me rephrase that. If someone is invading your house, whatever the motive, they deserve whatever happens to them. If someone is running away from your house with your TV, shooting them in the back of the head wouldn't be OK. If they're still in your house, whether they're stealing something or coming for you, shooting is OK. You can't just say "Mr Thug, if all you want is my TV, help yourself."
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 3:45 pm
Quoting Michael K.
Let me rephrase that. If someone is invading your house, whatever the motive, they deserve whatever happens to them. If someone is running away from your house with your TV, shooting them in the back of the head wouldn't be OK. If they're still in your house, whether they're stealing something or coming for you, shooting is OK. You can't just say "Mr Thug, if all you want is my TV, help yourself."

A taser would be a nice alternative.
It's not worth killing somebody for your TV, that's all I'm trying to say.
You don't need to kill somebody to keep them from becoming a threat.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 3:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Brick Munky
A taser would be a nice alternative.
It's not worth killing somebody for your TV, that's all I'm trying to say.
You don't need to kill somebody to keep them from becoming a threat.

Tasers don't work through thick clothes, or if the person is high or drunk, or very strong, and wouldn't be smart against a thug with a lethal weapon. I've said already, if, for example, someone with small kids isn't personally comfortable with a gun, a taser is better than nothing, but preferably something lethal, like a sword, large knife, or cleaver. To kill isn't the first intention. Meeting force with force is the intention.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 3:55 pm
Quoting Michael K.
To kill isn't the first intention. Meeting force with force is the intention.

Alright, that was what I was looking for.
If you put it that way, I agree fully.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 4:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
.....To kill isn't the first intention. Meeting force with force is the intention.

THAT is something that the American people refuse to acknowledge, as a whole. The problem is that the people put their possessions before peoples' lives. Its a selfish society, and guns are one of the creators of such a problem.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 5:39 pm
Quoting Brick Munky
A taser would be a nice alternative.
It's not worth killing somebody for your TV, that's all I'm trying to say.
You don't need to kill somebody to keep them from becoming a threat.

If they're in your house, you don't know what they're capable of. Asking questions is not an option. Shooting people in the kneecaps is harder than it looks. Two in the chest is the way to go. That is, unless they're standing in front of your TV.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 7:59 pm
Quoting Areetsa C

Good day, Areetsa,

Youíll be happy to know that I have finished crying in a corner and I think I have been able to pull it together enough to address your statements;)

Iím faced with a challenge, though. I presented my personal views based on the facts as I know them and what you presented as a counter was venomous insults and links to articles, presumably to do your speaking for you. Iím not exactly sure how to offer a rebuttal when there really isnít a debate going on between you and me. A debate is point and counterpoint and you really havenít countered anything that I said with anything aside from, as I mentioned before, insults and othersí statements. But, as I was a smidge offended by your scathing comments, Iím going to give it a go anyhow. I will apologize now for the length, but you said a lot with the few words that you used, and I have quite a bit to say in return.

First off, to get this out of the way, I said at the very beginning of my comment that I was aware of how late in the game I was entering, and I asked forgiveness if I mentioned anything mentioned before. Of course I wasnít going to ďeven tryĒ to read the whole thread. Itís a mile long. Why would I do that? As I said, I was simply submitting my personal views.

Quoting Areetsa C They either die, or they cheat. Most effectively, with a gun.

It was my understanding that one should own a gun to protect oneself against another with a gun. At least thatís the number one reason that I always hear when it comes to the justification of handgun ownership. It would seem to me that your statement is saying that you should use a gun if youíre in a losing ďwrestling match.Ē Iím hoping that this was just a figure of speech, but even if it was, I still hear, ďif youíre losing the fight, itís justifiable to shoot.Ē No matter how I read it, that doesnít sound like responsible gun ownership to me.

Quoting Areetsa C In other words, you want them banned first for protecting yourself and then, eventually, for hunting.

Never said that. Donít remember ever even saying the word, ďbanned.Ē If youíre going to fuel your argument by imagining words that I said, it really makes this whole thing unfair for me, wouldnít you say? The truth is, Iím not for the banning of guns unconditionally. Iím not that naÔve. I really have no problem with the responsible gun owner. Maybe I didnít state that enough in my first comment, but I did say that I understand the motivation for owning a gun. All I want is stricter laws governing the sale of guns. Think I at least clearly suggested that.

Quoting Areetsa C You know absolutely nothing, you understand absolutely nothingÖ

...and so on. This is where you let your anger at another human for just having beliefs that contradict your own color your