<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Woah slow down there Wyatt Earp. Criminals are a problem that the police look after. Citizens don't stop criminals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did I imply that citizens should stop criminals?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In terms of self-defense, there is little reason to own a gun. Chances are you're far more likely to kill a family member than an intruder in your house.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what basis do you have for this? Experience? Valid sources? Or just your opinion?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On that note, burglars arn't bent on slaughter. They try to sneak in and get out without being seen. They don't carry guns. You walking downstairs and shoutng "hey you!" will generally cause an intruder to run away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this criminal carries a gun, which is a possibility regardless of whether firearms are banned or not, shouting at him is a good way to get yourself shot. An alarmed burgler, thinking he is cornered, is a very dangerous situation to be in.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Any illusion of added protection is just that: an illusion. Having a gun won't protect you against a real attacker. They'll be coming when you least expect it, striking whilst you sleep, knocking you unconcious on drugging you. No time to draw your sidearm and shoot. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Makes beautiful sense, but not always true, as seen by quite a few cases of homeowners succesfully defending their home. No, you can't stop all crime and in only very limited situations is a gun useful. Knowing and understanding this is something that comes with experience and a responsible owner.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Michael Moore's conclusion that Americans are paranoid probably does hold a lot of truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps, but I know maybe one person that could be considered paranoid of all the people I know who own firearms. My grandfather- but much of that comes from his experiences in the korean war. Most of the other gun owners I know aren't paranoid. Most just collect, hunt, or shoot as a hobby like me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In terms of gun laws, what works in Australia, the UK and Canada may not work in the US. However, what the US currently has does not work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The thousands of gun deaths each year and rampant crime despite almost total gun ownership is stark proof of that. Argueing that an armed populace prevents crime is rather difficult given the very high crime rates in the US. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont' believe I've argued that an armed populace prevents crime until this reply, although it does in some cases. While many people own guns here, reletively few actually have a carry permet and VERY few actually carry weapons on their person. I do not personally.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Effective police forces are the answer to crime, coupled with education and elimination of poverty areas.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, absolutely. Yet, abolishing our right to own firearms isn't in the statement. Neat how it can be worked out without taking away guns from average people. Too bad we're not doing a very good job of accomplishing those goals. I hope we have better success in the future.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 28 2003, 06:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 28 2003, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can launch these pieces of metal at targets for fun, at animals for sport, or at people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> guy could you please think of what u just said.
this topic is making me sad. i cant understand how u people dont understand that guns are evil and that the production of these weapons are not there to give some kids fun with a gun
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, abolishing our right to own firearms isn't in the statement. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. The idea would be to get people into a mindset where they no longer see guns as nessessary, or indeed, a "right". As we get into this, you say you have the right to own a gun. Well doesn't your neighbour have the right to not live next to an armed man? Should they be forced to leave their home because they feel their children arn't safe?
Abolishing the right to own guns full stop isn't a solution, because as I have stated, there are legitimate reasons for having a gun. However, self defense isn't one of those areas. Police and security forces, hunters, farmers and sportsmen all have good reasons for having guns. Any citizen should have to undergo extensive testing before being allowed guns. The distribution of guns should be heavily monitored, and licenses reveiwed often.
If you, a citizen, believe that you should have a gun for self defense, then you'd better come up with a better reason. Because quite frankly, that's not a good enough reason for giving a person access to a very powerful weapon. Want to protect yourself? Buy a stun-gun or pepper spray. Learn some martial arts. Do some workouts at the gym. Move in groups through rough neighbourhoods. Get a dog and/or a home security system. Write to your political leaders and demand more police funding. Participate in neighbourhood watch programs.
1. Real criminals will be able to acquire guns regardless of the laws thru black-market deals.
2. Spur-of-the-moment criminals will only be able to acquire guns if guns are generally available by law.
3. Increased gun ownership will deter both criminals because of the more likely possibility of injury or death.
4. Increased gun ownership will cause an increase in gun accidents.
5. Increased gun education will lower gun accidents.
Conclusion: Dramatically increase gun education and dramatically increase gun ownership. This will lower crime, and not increase unintended deaths or injuries from guns.
Okay, so nobody can deny that knives are lethal weapons. Perhaps not as much as firearms, but lethal all the same. We're not arguing to eliminate knives. So what is the difference between knives and guns? Guns, unlike knives, are a see-and-kill weapon.
If you'll allow me to make a scenario where we have a more lethal weapon, I will hopefully prove those of you who are for guns that, in fact, you too stand on the same ground as we do given the lethality of the weapon. Okay, lets imagine a weapon called a psy-gun. It remarkably uses static electricity to kill any person within a 1 mile radius and not kill you. What would you say to the person who wants to carry this weapon around with them? Is it okay for them to have this? It makes them feel safe, but does it make you feel safe? Should everyone have this weapon in their house ready to fire?
Okay, if you said no, why? Is it because this weapon is very lethal and can only spawn death, not safety? Do you see my point? I don't expect you to admit that guns are the same as my psy-gun, don't get me wrong, but hopefully now you see that you feel exactly the same way that I do, except you feel that guns aren't so lethal.
Now all that has to be proved is how lethal guns can be, and you should be convinced. Someone want to take over?
Also, to respond to a statement in typhlon's post:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Real criminals will be able to acquire guns regardless of the laws thru black-market deals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you familiar with the "bigger gun" phenomenon? What causes one person to fire a weapon on another? Would a robber, in real life (not the movies now), kill his robbed victim, or would he just run away? What might cause that robber to shoot his victim? If the victim pulled out a gun, right? Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce exhibit A, the "bigger gun" phenomemon.
There is only a struggle for power when both people are on equal ground. If they both have guns, they will both use guns to settle the score, whereas if they both have fists, they will both use fists to settle the score. If one has a gun, and the other fists? Well, there is not a power struggle, because the winner is obvious and the victim unconditionally surrenders whatever the other wants. What happens if only CRIMINALS have weapons? People won't get shot! It is really this simple. Now I agree that police officers should have access to weapons, but not the general public. This would take care of most criminals with weapons, but the ones who get weapons from the black market? Heck, what has changed? They still rob people with a gun regardless of if owning a gun is illegal or not, only the victim can no longer pull a gun to "defend" himself (which would most likely end up in someone's death). Case and point.
You'll find in the ancient <u>Art of War</u> book, this struggle for power scenario is mentioned, so this is true in war-time as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dillinja+Nov 29 2003, 03:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dillinja @ Nov 29 2003, 03:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 28 2003, 06:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 28 2003, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can launch these pieces of metal at targets for fun, at animals for sport, or at people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> guy could you please think of what u just said.
this topic is making me sad. i cant understand how u people dont understand that guns are evil and that the production of these weapons are not there to give some kids fun with a gun
OPEN UR EYES <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh god, let's not get into that whole "the government is evil, they're lying to you, open your eyes, man" way of thought. Yes, guns kill people, and yes, if there were no guns it would be better.
However, since we can't stop guns , restricting them to normal citizens who help stop crime isn't a smart idea.
And lastly, when you say things like "OPEN UR EYES", it might be a good idea to say "your". It took me half a second more.
Hold on a sec, made up bozo ray guns don't count. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
People aren't allowed to own just any weapon they want. There are limits there. No one out there will have, for instance, a functional SAW. They also can't own high power lasers or microwave guns. It's easy to make up fantastical situations ungrounded by reality and go "AHA! You see!", but it just makes one look silly.
Of course guns can be lethal, only a fool would think they aren't. The problem is stupid people and brazen criminals. I highly doubt that a crack-head street robber is thinking about Sun Tzu when he sticks someone up for a fix. He is thinking "they have, I want", and that is where a lot of our violence comes from. Even on the odd chance he gets arrested statistics are in his favor. He'll likely get out in 8-12 months and be back on the street to pursue more tasty, tasty crack. Even with a firearm on the sheet.
We are increasingly unwilling to punish people for doing things society does not want them to do. So why in the hell should they stop doing them? You take away one means, they are just going to use another. Lack of a gun is not going to make a robber want your money less, and it won't make an addict clean up.
But I guess in the end where we differ is that some folks like to treat the symptoms, and others the disease.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lack of a gun is not going to make a robber want your money less, and it won't make an addict clean up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The difference is, one can't pull out a gun and shoot someone for any reason. Perhaps people are stupid and deserve to be punished. Considering what it takes for a person to get put in jail for 2nd degree murder, I think it would be wiser to prevent it rather than pointing fingers later saying "See, he is an improper gun user and only he should be punished."
It is easy to dismiss my scenario as fantasy, but you know I'm right on the money. You don't answer my questions because I have you cornered. The only way you can escape is dismissing it altogether. I challenge you to be able to say that everyone should be able to own a psy-gun, and then tell me that giving people the power to kill on the spot isn't dangerous.
Take two crazy people. One has a knife, and the other has a gun. The one with the knife stabs 3 people before being restrained. Out of the 3 people, 1 is critically injured. The one with a gun hits 10 people before being restrained. Out of the 10 people, 5 are critically injured and 2 are dead. These two people.. both were going to flip out.. both wanted to go on a killing rampage, but ultimately, in which case were people safest? Surprise! It wasn't with the gun. The crazy guy might feel safer, but you're completely ignoring everyone else who has to tolerate such a person and his power to be able to kill
You mean questions like: What if only criminals only had guns? No one would get shot!
It's self-answered rhetoric.
Most folks that get robbed are not armed. That includes the ones that get beaten, stabbed, and shot on a whim. Acquiescence does not equal safety. So, what we are saying is let people keep robbing and injuring people...... just don't give them guns so the victim might recover in a hospital? Or give them all guns so no one gets hurt? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Why don't we WTH0wn the people committing the crime and see where our problem goes from there? That is a workable solution isn't it?
Where praytell did those crazy people get the weapons and why did the guy with the knife not have his heart in it? He could have easily doubled his score by snorting drain-cleaner first.
How about this scenario: Crazy guy shoots one person in kneecap. Someone shoots crazy guy. Score: 1, knife guy wins! Fatality! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Our most prolific serial killers didn't use guns anyways. And they were pretty crazy. /nod
P.S. Yup, people shouldn't own the ultra baby-powered shock-bozo-ray-of-death just like they can't own crew served automatic weapons, grenade launchers, TOW missiles, Sarin gas, splinter rifles, sonic cannons, nukes, and a host of other things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take two crazy people. One has a knife, and the other has a gun. The one with the knife stabs 3 people before being restrained. Out of the 3 people, 1 is critically injured. The one with a gun hits 10 people before being restrained. Out of the 10 people, 5 are critically injured and 2 are dead. These two people.. both were going to flip out.. both wanted to go on a killing rampage, but ultimately, in which case were people safest? Surprise! It wasn't with the gun. The crazy guy might feel safer, but you're completely ignoring everyone else who has to tolerate such a person and his power to be able to kill <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well ofcourse everyone would be safer if noone had access to guns (crazy people and criminals included), but that is not gonna happen. So we have to find the best way to protect good people knowing that criminals will have access to guns.
Now, consider if 30% of the general population carried concealed firearms. Then both those crazy people would have killed/injured far fewer people before being stopped.
if everybody (apart from police and army) handed in their guns to be destroyed, Gun crime would be solved.
easy <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Totally correct... we would instead have Knives, Bats, Pipes, Swords, Bows, homemade guns... and millions of other things killing other people.
Not to mention perhaps our government would take advantage of a totally disarmed public. Dont think the US is above the corruption of power... it could easily happen. There is a reason our forefathers braved the waters of the oceans, and the guns of the british to create the 2nd amendment. If you gun grabbing freaks ever get your way and we are all totally disarmed... I would laugh at you fools with irony at my side as I am lead to "reprogramming" centers for breaking the law against laughing or something like that.
Let's see what would happen if all sidearms would be banned for citizens. Criminals don't use rifles/shotguns that are availlable for hunters/farmers/sport-shooters.
-Citizens wouldn't have guns -Criminals would have way less guns than they used to. -Criminals and polices would have the only guns. Citizens would have pepper sprays etc. = -As much crimes as always. Even more -A HUGE drop in crime related deaths. Why? When someone tries to rob you, the criminal doesn't have to be afraid of you shooting him -> criminal doesn't have to point a gun in your head.
Gun has one very nasty charasteristic: you can't undo anything the moment after you pull the trigger. When a drunken husband catches his wife in bed with the postman, he get's his gun and shoots them both. If there wouldn't be that gun, the guy would smack his wife, hit the post man with his pocket knife, go outside and cry. As you might know, a slash with a knife isn't nearly as lethal as a bullet.
It's way more common for someone to go berserk for 3seconds, which is enough to shoot someone. However 3secs is not enough time to beat someone to death. Also direct contact with the victim sets ones brains straight and even the victim has a chance to protect himself or run away. You can either(I like doing these gallups <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->): a) Carry a gun and take a wild west duel with a robber over your wallet. After all, your wallet is way more precious than your or his life. or b) You don't have a gun, you hand over your wallet(to a robber with a knife) like every police officers tells you to do and no one gets killed.
If we say that the criminal is going to attack you, no matter what, it's safe to assume that he is going to do it quickly so he can run away. Now isn't it better to take a quick stab in your torso/limb than get a bullet in your chest?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, self defense isn't one of those areas. Police and security forces, hunters, farmers and sportsmen all have good reasons for having guns. Any citizen should have to undergo extensive testing before being allowed guns. The distribution of guns should be heavily monitored, and licenses reviewed often.
If you, a citizen, believe that you should have a gun for self defense, then you'd better come up with a better reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I told you my reason- I shoot as a hobby. It's what I enjoy. And, IMO, that is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. IMO, I fall under "sportsmen".
I say it's my "right" not because I'm brainwashed into thinking god says I can have one. I say it because the constitution says that, and that's what our government is supposed to follow. I'm not so ignorant as to believe that if I step foot off US soil that I still have that "right" to have my firearm (for instance, in the UK).
If I have to pass tests and have a licence and registered firearm to own a gun (in other words jump through alot of hoops) then I'll do it. I've been a good boy- never tried any drugs, shouldn't have any trouble passing psych evaluations, etc. I'll follow the law and do what it takes.
But in the end, all you're doing is making it harder for responsible civilians to own guns, which doesn't really have any serious effect on criminals, except for letting THEM know that you won't have an equal means of defending yourself (and if you think a stun gun or pepperspray is capable of stopping a determined person with a knife or gun, your kidding yourself).
As for the neighbors, I talk to them and they're ok with it. Not all neighbors are though. Yes, you're correct- in this country we do have a right to own firearms, but no, it doesn't say they have the right to "live next to an unarmed person." That is something they need to work out on their own. Besides, that style of argument is fallous, and can be set up for ANY situation.
"You have a right to smoke? Well don't I have the right not to be next to a smoking person?!"
"You have a right to play natural selection? OMG your kids are KILLERS!!!!!!!!! THEY TRAIN TO KILL! Don't I have the right not to live next to such savage people?!"
Get it? Most people try to avoid using such a weak argument.
Just recently an entire town in Kansas has decreed that everyone in the town MUST own a firearm or face a fine. I don't particularly agree with that, since some people don't wish to own one (so they shouldn't have to), but seeing as how this is the opposite extreme when compared to the UK and Australia, it will be interesting to see what happens to the crime rate.
OMG i cant believe people actually will let people just rob them. You know whats better then those two? putting a couple rounds into the perp's 10-ring (Center mass for those that dont shoot often) and calling the cops. You sheeple keep thinking what you want, I myself will go defend one of my UNAILIABLE rights... even though i shouldn't have to.
Wait wait... I accuse all you anti-gunners for being sexist...
The gun is the ONLY means for a 100 LBS women to fully defend herself from a 300 pound man raping her. it takes the same amount of force to pull a trigger no matter who you are.
Now what right do YOU people have telling women how to defend themselves?
Guns are instruments/tools. People operate the guns, guns do not have a mind of their own. Besides, without guns, we wouldn't be able to supply the army and police with them, making us defenseless.
<!--QuoteBegin--Trevelyan+Nov 29 2003, 11:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan @ Nov 29 2003, 11:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wait wait... I accuse all you anti-gunners for being sexist...
The gun is the ONLY means for a 100 LBS women to fully defend herself from a 300 pound man raping her. it takes the same amount of force to pull a trigger no matter who you are.
Now what right do YOU people have telling women how to defend themselves? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Pepper spray. You laugh now, but you know better when you get a spray of that sh** in your eyes. If your lil buddy still stands up I say your a superhero. I say your a superhero if you can stand up yourself.
Also Trev, do you think you are always going to be the one who comes ontop of these situations? Having a gun doesn't mean you are magically protected from all harm. If someone points you with a gun, it's not going to help you that you have one in your pocket/drawer.
Though this isn't my problem at all, since I don't live in USA <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I am totally bored. Most people don't have a gun to protect themselves. They have guns for hunting, target shooting or collecting.
Actually, I have many guns in my house and they are locked in a locker and unloaded. That means that I will never have the time to reach the guns and to load them if someone comes to kill me and I don't care because I know that nobody wants to kill me, I'm not paranoid. I use my guns for hunting and target shooting. Guns are also a passion for me and I am planning to have my own collection. But I don't have guns for killing or defending myself. Peoples who are not passionated by weapons or who don't like target shooting don't understand people like me and thinks that I am dangerous. This is ridiculous. People doesn't want to kill people because they have a gun.
And "guns are evil because they kill" or "open your eyes" are not rationnal arguments.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pepper spray. You laugh now, but you know better when you get a spray of that sh** in your eyes. If your lil buddy still stands up I say your a superhero. I say your a superhero if you can stand up yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While useful in some situations, pepperspray is not as effective as you imagine. Some criminals are just tough, some criminals are high on drugs- in many cases people will just keep coming. Even a bullet wound wont' stop some, you have to hit them multiple times in vital areas.
Pepperspray won't always stop a determined person. In addition, just like a gun, it takes training and practice to use it effectively, and use it without getting some in your own eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also Trev, do you think you are always going to be the one who comes ontop of these situations? Having a gun doesn't mean you are magically protected from all harm. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one said it does magically protect you from all harm
<!--QuoteBegin--Trevelyan+Nov 29 2003, 04:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan @ Nov 29 2003, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "Now isn't it better to take a quick stab in your torso/limb than get a bullet in your chest? "
OMG i cant believe people actually will let people just rob them. You know whats better then those two? putting a couple rounds into the perp's 10-ring (Center mass for those that dont shoot often) and calling the cops. You sheeple keep thinking what you want, I myself will go defend one of my UNAILIABLE rights... even though i shouldn't have to. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I cant believe you give your possessions higher worth then someone elses life. I cant believe that you would ignore the advice and solid statistics that say it is almost ALWAYS better to hand over your wallet and let the police deal with it. And then once you've shot him, I'm gonna laugh when the mental backlash catches up with you. Assuming you do manage to pull the weapon, assuming he doesnt have one likewise,. assuming you get the first shot off.
And then you have legal problems. You cant just shot somone in the stomach and walk away smiling.
You could have given him the wallet, reported it to the police and gone home fuming. Instead a person is now dead/seriously injured, you have to live with that (and that really hard, a lot of police have to go through psychological counselling for even firing at, let alone hitting a person), and you have legal stuff on top of it. Assuming you make it out alive. Thats not clever, and that sure as hell isnt the right thing to do.
Unailiable rights meh - if all those rights were so unailialbe, why is there a process to change them.
Just to say how some laws are dumb, pepper spray is prohibited by the same law that controls guns in Canada because they say that it could be used to commit a crime. Shurikens and medieval fails are also prohibited. When I think about this, I am pretty sure that laws are made by stupid people.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
I'm a target shooter/collector, last time I hunted I was 13. My criminal record is spotless, and I have never had a NG (Negligent Discharge). I have been shooting pretty much since I had the strength to hold a rifle.
Point and click? Gee I wish someone had told me all those years ago, so I could've stopped practicing holding steady, breathing techniques, and estimating range and wind and just fired from the hip for the same effect!
<a href='http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/15/1068674432934.html' target='_blank'>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/15/...8674432934.html</a> The nerve! Sidestepping the ban by building thier own, to sell on the streets like drugs! There should be a LAW against that sort of thin---...wait...
As far as knife vs. (I'll assume handguns here, eh?) a firearm, well, how the heck far away do you think the other guy is? Statistically (and we all know 70% of statistics are made up on the spot by those spewing them.) any defensive engagement with a handgun will likely be under 10 feet. Or even five. At that range, an adult male with a knife or even his bare hands can cover that in about a half second, and I dare someone to get on the firing line with a concealed handgun, and hit a 9-10 ring on a moving target before it gets across that 10 feet.
Which brings me to another point: unlike what most seemingly believe, guns do not typically have thermo nuclear tipped bullets. In fact, between the two, i'd put my money on a decent sized fixed blade knife as to which cuases more damage to the body. One shot will not likely kill someone unless it is a central nervous system hit, or completely takes out the heart and/or a major artery. In the latter case, maybe not even then (provided medical treatment is administered soon), and it very likely will not STOP them unless you are shooting a brick wall at him. Don't anyone start up "But omg youd be on the ground crying in pain!" or i'll start on the LONG list of people in firefights who got hit and didn't even NOTICE they had been hit until they looked down and saw thier internal organs on the ground/missing. Adrenaline is a lovely painkiller don't you think?
Killing something with a gun only requires a trigger to be pulled by the user? In the same sense that a knife only requires a flick of the wrist, or a vehicle requires you to flex your foot. Sorry guys, but the gun does not yet come equipped with an aimbot, a bad shot, 5 round magazine or 50, will make a whole lot of air move around, whilst someone who knows how to actually use one, well...hits the target.
As for the police stopping criminals, not citizens...well...I'd dare say you don't know as much as you think you know. #1 in the USA the police have no legal obligation to protect you personally. If they get there in time to get you out of the fire, hooray. If not, oops, we could not have done anything more. You on the other hand could very possibly be maimed or dead. Now, i'm not going to speak for anybody else, but where I live, my beretta 9mm is in the drawer of this desk, safety engaged, chamber empty. The police are 45 minutes down the road, provided you're driving 90 miles an hour. Do not misunderstand me, I do not advocate violence if you can solve the issue with words, or a phone call, and even if you ARE armed, call the police IF POSSIBLE, but if push comes to shove, that beretta shows up to help me a whole lot faster than the police do.
As for women defending themselves, give me a break, martial arts is fine and good, unless they can retailiate you kicking them by lifting your entire body off the ground and pinning you to the wall. Pepper spray? And if he is wearing a mask? Glasses? If she can't get him in the face? Congrats, you're screwed. Likely in more ways than one. (You guys have got to be getting tired of reading this BS by now, but, i'm trying to cover all bases here.)
Guns have a psychological effect as well, which, for someone who follows the law of the land, is a double edged sword. The mere sight of one can cuase the bad guy to stop in his tracks, becuase he might get shot, thus ending the confrontation with no broken bones, no blood, nothing. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV), for Joe Peon, it can work the same way for the bad guy. Someone in this thread brought up a logical point about the robber fires on the robee when he pulls his own weapon in response, this is typically what people do when confronted with lethal force, they either run or they fight back. Now, again, I do not advocate violence if you can solve things another way, and the vast majority of people who carry handguns, contrary to popular belief, are neither stupid nor unreasonable. If the situation looks like it can be resolved by giving up your wallet, then for gods sake, do it. That wallet is replaceable, but you'll have a lot tougher time getting replacement organs if you decide to force the issue and fail (Also: practice so that if you are ever forced to use that gun, you DON'T fail.). On the other hand, some criminals will stab/shoot/crack your skull open after they get what they want even if you do submit, in which case, you have no choice. Fight back or die. Determining which type of baddie the one in front of you is, is the hard part. (And oh, by the way, one of the things they try to teach you in most self defense courses, is to identify and avoid high risk areas and get around the whole mess in the first place.)
As to why our crime levels are supposedly so much higher than the rest of the world...again...70% of statistics are made up on the spot by the people spewing them, If anything i'd say its a problem with our society in general. Look at Isreal, Switzerland, Canada....nearly as many/more firearms per capita than the USA does, and the swiss ISSUE out true assault rifles and SAWS (read: Full Autos), and have the owners report at least yearly for training (read: how to make other humans fall down and stop moving.). If more guns = more crime, and it's as simple as that, then explain to me why there isn't a massive crater in the middle of europe?
<img src='http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1068674441397_2003/11/15/16pistol.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> On this, I'l also say that it is ridiculous to consider this dangerous. People think that it is very dangerous because it is a kind of gun. But if you want to have a chance to kill somebody with this kind of "weapon", you must be at a VERY close range (2 meters and you will probably just wound him because the barrel is not long enough to let the bullet accelerate enough to develop enough energy to cause serious damages). At this distance, you have better chances killing somebody with a knife (it causes more damage, it is silent and it doesn't needs ammo).
Nobody says anything about hunting crossbows. Some of them can kill somebody TOTALLY SILENTLY at a range of 200 meters! There is no such gun that is able to do that. Silencers can reduce the gas combustion sound but they cannot do anything to reduce the bullet's sonic "boom". That means that if you want to have a silent shot with your gun, you must use sub-sonic ammo. However, you cannot kill someone at 200 meters with a sub-sonic bullet (maybe wound or just hurt him). Silencers are effective in only three things: very close combat, "flashy" movies and "flashy" video games. So why are people don't say that crossbows are evil? Because most people who says that guns are bad don't even know what they are talking about.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited November 2003
The point I was trying to make is not the fact that those little palm guns were actually WORTH something, but that people overestimate the ability of a piece of paper to stop crime.
On SUPPRESSORS.... You're correct that in itself it does not stop the sonic crack of the projectile, but in lieu of subsonic ammunition, you can get a replacement barrel in some cases to bleed off propellant gases close to the chamber before it can pick up speed, thus rendering it subsonic. I'd just go with subsonic loads, heavier bullets.....Have you ever seen .510 Whisper? Go take a look if not. I wouldn't be volunteering to stand in front of that huge chunk of metal at 200 meters. Why suppressors aren't REQUIRED bewilders me, we require mufflers on cars yes? So why not firearms? Every time you fire a firearm without hearing protection you damage your hearing permanently, and this effect is compounded when firing indoors.(Heh, i've heard of 14.5 inch M4s cuasing ears to bleed when SWAT has to use them, bet thats a fun experience. Suppressors would be lovely for anyone who shoots recreationally or hunts in addition.) But even suppressing the discharge goes a LONG way towards preserving user hearing.
Excellent point about the crossbow as well. Heard AUS was in fact banning them and fake samurai swords (yet not machetes....the thought processes of politicians astound and confuse me.), any info?
Let's just say that guns that use wspr ammo are an exception, and they make a very low percentage of total guns market. (thanks for the info) My point was to show to people who overestimates guns the real limits of the guns.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Excellent point about the crossbow as well. Heard AUS was in fact banning them and fake samurai swords (yet not machetes....the thought processes of politicians astound and confuse me.), any info? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Crossbows require a special license to own here in Australia (and I'm fairly certain you have to be a sportsman or collector). Fake samurai swords require nothing (i own 2). Actual, sharpened swords, not sure there. Decommisioned or historical guns also require a gun permit. As a military historian I'll have to go and get a license to own such items, which annoys me but it does make sense; I mean, I know the damn things don't work but does the guy behind that bank counter know that? No, so I could still use them in armed robbery, so the police would have to make sure I'm a responsable person with no criminal record.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most folks that get robbed are not armed. That includes the ones that get beaten, stabbed, and shot on a whim. Acquiescence does not equal safety. So, what we are saying is let people keep robbing and injuring people...... just don't give them guns so the victim might recover in a hospital? Or give them all guns so no one gets hurt? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is it safe to assume that someone with the intent on killing another after robbing them is going to do this whether guns are illegal or not? Okay, so whether guns are legal or illegal, someone would die (assuming this criminal illegally possesses a gun).
Bare with me. I have a point. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> So we have this case taken care of, what else does this leave? A criminal with the intent to rob, but not necessarily kill. This criminal has a weapon (as of course I am assuming worst case scenario). If guns are legal, then there is a possibility of the victim owning a gun. If guns are illegal, the victim (unless a criminal too), won't have a gun. So why would a criminal fire his gun at the victim? We're assuming he wouldn't want to kill his victim regardless of the legality of guns (since we just covered this case). So something would have to provoke him. I don't think the victim giving the robber his money would provoke him to shoot the poor guy. What else would it take? Harsh words? Perhaps, but not likely. More like his life being threatened.
So if the victim pulls out a gun (which is a possibility if guns are legal), the robber feels threatens and shoots (or gets shot). Which one survives isn't the issue. Someone dies. We're trying to minimize death. The alternative is the victim does not have a gun. The victim might get beaten or raped as a worst case scenario, but nobody dies. Lives are spared because the victim does not have a gun.
Take a cat who is shy or scared of you. You try to pet the cat, and she runs away, right? Would a shy or scared cat try to bite you? No, they just want to get away. Now corner the cat. Then try to pet it. The cat can no longer run away, so what happens? The cat bites when you try to pet her. This is not without reason. The cat fights back when the cat is threatened. Burglars don't want to fight. They just want to get away with the money. Pull a gun? You're cornering the burglar like a cat. The burglar will fight back then.
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Nov 28 2003, 04:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 28 2003, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The fastest way to get yourself shot is to own a gun."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not true, i own a bunch of guns and i havent got shot.....yet.
"If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective."
If it was illegal to purchase/posess a gun, all that would do would keep law-abiding citizens from owing guns. Guns do not kill. People do. Before there were guns, people were innocently (and usually more inhumanely) killed.
If you were a criminal, which house would you be more likely to break into?
-A house that is in a country/state that allows possession of firearms, so for all the criminal knows, the owner of the house could arm a small country.
or
-A house in a country/state where it is illegal to own and possess a firearm, therefore they are much more defenseless?
Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
And if you want to compare countries, Italy has the most restrictive laws in Europe, and the firearm homicide rate is twice that of Switzerland, a country where the purchase of semi automatic rifles and shotguns requires no permit, and adults are free to carry them. Handguns can be bought with firearm purchase permits, which are issued to all adults without a criminal record or a history of mental illness.
Most of the time, in the news, it's the morons that ruin it for law-abiding gun owners.
Comments
Where did I imply that citizens should stop criminals?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In terms of self-defense, there is little reason to own a gun. Chances are you're far more likely to kill a family member than an intruder in your house.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what basis do you have for this? Experience? Valid sources? Or just your opinion?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On that note, burglars arn't bent on slaughter. They try to sneak in and get out without being seen. They don't carry guns. You walking downstairs and shoutng "hey you!" will generally cause an intruder to run away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this criminal carries a gun, which is a possibility regardless of whether firearms are banned or not, shouting at him is a good way to get yourself shot. An alarmed burgler, thinking he is cornered, is a very dangerous situation to be in.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Any illusion of added protection is just that: an illusion. Having a gun won't protect you against a real attacker. They'll be coming when you least expect it, striking whilst you sleep, knocking you unconcious on drugging you. No time to draw your sidearm and shoot. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Makes beautiful sense, but not always true, as seen by quite a few cases of homeowners succesfully defending their home. No, you can't stop all crime and in only very limited situations is a gun useful. Knowing and understanding this is something that comes with experience and a responsible owner.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Michael Moore's conclusion that Americans are paranoid probably does hold a lot of truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps, but I know maybe one person that could be considered paranoid of all the people I know who own firearms. My grandfather- but much of that comes from his experiences in the korean war. Most of the other gun owners I know aren't paranoid. Most just collect, hunt, or shoot as a hobby like me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In terms of gun laws, what works in Australia, the UK and Canada may not work in the US. However, what the US currently has does not work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The thousands of gun deaths each year and rampant crime despite almost total gun ownership is stark proof of that. Argueing that an armed populace prevents crime is rather difficult given the very high crime rates in the US. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont' believe I've argued that an armed populace prevents crime until this reply, although it does in some cases. While many people own guns here, reletively few actually have a carry permet and VERY few actually carry weapons on their person. I do not personally.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Effective police forces are the answer to crime, coupled with education and elimination of poverty areas.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, absolutely. Yet, abolishing our right to own firearms isn't in the statement. Neat how it can be worked out without taking away guns from average people. Too bad we're not doing a very good job of accomplishing those goals. I hope we have better success in the future.
guy could you please think of what u just said.
this topic is making me sad. i cant understand how u people dont understand that guns are evil
and that the production of these weapons are not there to give some kids fun with a gun
OPEN UR EYES
True. The idea would be to get people into a mindset where they no longer see guns as nessessary, or indeed, a "right". As we get into this, you say you have the right to own a gun. Well doesn't your neighbour have the right to not live next to an armed man? Should they be forced to leave their home because they feel their children arn't safe?
Abolishing the right to own guns full stop isn't a solution, because as I have stated, there are legitimate reasons for having a gun. However, self defense isn't one of those areas. Police and security forces, hunters, farmers and sportsmen all have good reasons for having guns. Any citizen should have to undergo extensive testing before being allowed guns. The distribution of guns should be heavily monitored, and licenses reveiwed often.
If you, a citizen, believe that you should have a gun for self defense, then you'd better come up with a better reason. Because quite frankly, that's not a good enough reason for giving a person access to a very powerful weapon. Want to protect yourself? Buy a stun-gun or pepper spray. Learn some martial arts. Do some workouts at the gym. Move in groups through rough neighbourhoods. Get a dog and/or a home security system. Write to your political leaders and demand more police funding. Participate in neighbourhood watch programs.
And that works. It really does.
2. Spur-of-the-moment criminals will only be able to acquire guns if guns are generally available by law.
3. Increased gun ownership will deter both criminals because of the more likely possibility of injury or death.
4. Increased gun ownership will cause an increase in gun accidents.
5. Increased gun education will lower gun accidents.
Conclusion: Dramatically increase gun education and dramatically increase gun ownership. This will lower crime, and not increase unintended deaths or injuries from guns.
If you'll allow me to make a scenario where we have a more lethal weapon, I will hopefully prove those of you who are for guns that, in fact, you too stand on the same ground as we do given the lethality of the weapon. Okay, lets imagine a weapon called a psy-gun. It remarkably uses static electricity to kill any person within a 1 mile radius and not kill you. What would you say to the person who wants to carry this weapon around with them? Is it okay for them to have this? It makes them feel safe, but does it make you feel safe? Should everyone have this weapon in their house ready to fire?
Okay, if you said no, why? Is it because this weapon is very lethal and can only spawn death, not safety? Do you see my point? I don't expect you to admit that guns are the same as my psy-gun, don't get me wrong, but hopefully now you see that you feel exactly the same way that I do, except you feel that guns aren't so lethal.
Now all that has to be proved is how lethal guns can be, and you should be convinced. Someone want to take over?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Real criminals will be able to acquire guns regardless of the laws thru black-market deals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you familiar with the "bigger gun" phenomenon? What causes one person to fire a weapon on another? Would a robber, in real life (not the movies now), kill his robbed victim, or would he just run away? What might cause that robber to shoot his victim? If the victim pulled out a gun, right? Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce exhibit A, the "bigger gun" phenomemon.
There is only a struggle for power when both people are on equal ground. If they both have guns, they will both use guns to settle the score, whereas if they both have fists, they will both use fists to settle the score. If one has a gun, and the other fists? Well, there is not a power struggle, because the winner is obvious and the victim unconditionally surrenders whatever the other wants. What happens if only CRIMINALS have weapons? People won't get shot! It is really this simple. Now I agree that police officers should have access to weapons, but not the general public. This would take care of most criminals with weapons, but the ones who get weapons from the black market? Heck, what has changed? They still rob people with a gun regardless of if owning a gun is illegal or not, only the victim can no longer pull a gun to "defend" himself (which would most likely end up in someone's death). Case and point.
You'll find in the ancient <u>Art of War</u> book, this struggle for power scenario is mentioned, so this is true in war-time as well.
guy could you please think of what u just said.
this topic is making me sad. i cant understand how u people dont understand that guns are evil
and that the production of these weapons are not there to give some kids fun with a gun
OPEN UR EYES <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh god, let's not get into that whole "the government is evil, they're lying to you, open your eyes, man" way of thought. Yes, guns kill people, and yes, if there were no guns it would be better.
However, since we can't stop guns , restricting them to normal citizens who help stop crime isn't a smart idea.
And lastly, when you say things like "OPEN UR EYES", it might be a good idea to say "your". It took me half a second more.
People aren't allowed to own just any weapon they want. There are limits there. No one out there will have, for instance, a functional SAW. They also can't own high power lasers or microwave guns. It's easy to make up fantastical situations ungrounded by reality and go "AHA! You see!", but it just makes one look silly.
Of course guns can be lethal, only a fool would think they aren't. The problem is stupid people and brazen criminals. I highly doubt that a crack-head street robber is thinking about Sun Tzu when he sticks someone up for a fix. He is thinking "they have, I want", and that is where a lot of our violence comes from. Even on the odd chance he gets arrested statistics are in his favor. He'll likely get out in 8-12 months and be back on the street to pursue more tasty, tasty crack. Even with a firearm on the sheet.
We are increasingly unwilling to punish people for doing things society does not want them to do. So why in the hell should they stop doing them? You take away one means, they are just going to use another. Lack of a gun is not going to make a robber want your money less, and it won't make an addict clean up.
But I guess in the end where we differ is that some folks like to treat the symptoms, and others the disease.
The difference is, one can't pull out a gun and shoot someone for any reason. Perhaps people are stupid and deserve to be punished. Considering what it takes for a person to get put in jail for 2nd degree murder, I think it would be wiser to prevent it rather than pointing fingers later saying "See, he is an improper gun user and only he should be punished."
It is easy to dismiss my scenario as fantasy, but you know I'm right on the money. You don't answer my questions because I have you cornered. The only way you can escape is dismissing it altogether. I challenge you to be able to say that everyone should be able to own a psy-gun, and then tell me that giving people the power to kill on the spot isn't dangerous.
Take two crazy people. One has a knife, and the other has a gun. The one with the knife stabs 3 people before being restrained. Out of the 3 people, 1 is critically injured. The one with a gun hits 10 people before being restrained. Out of the 10 people, 5 are critically injured and 2 are dead. These two people.. both were going to flip out.. both wanted to go on a killing rampage, but ultimately, in which case were people safest? Surprise! It wasn't with the gun. The crazy guy might feel safer, but you're completely ignoring everyone else who has to tolerate such a person and his power to be able to kill
It's self-answered rhetoric.
Most folks that get robbed are not armed. That includes the ones that get beaten, stabbed, and shot on a whim. Acquiescence does not equal safety. So, what we are saying is let people keep robbing and injuring people...... just don't give them guns so the victim might recover in a hospital? Or give them all guns so no one gets hurt? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Why don't we WTH0wn the people committing the crime and see where our problem goes from there? That is a workable solution isn't it?
Where praytell did those crazy people get the weapons and why did the guy with the knife not have his heart in it? He could have easily doubled his score by snorting drain-cleaner first.
How about this scenario: Crazy guy shoots one person in kneecap. Someone shoots crazy guy. Score: 1, knife guy wins! Fatality! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Our most prolific serial killers didn't use guns anyways. And they were pretty crazy. /nod
P.S. Yup, people shouldn't own the ultra baby-powered shock-bozo-ray-of-death just like they can't own crew served automatic weapons, grenade launchers, TOW missiles, Sarin gas, splinter rifles, sonic cannons, nukes, and a host of other things.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well ofcourse everyone would be safer if noone had access to guns (crazy people and criminals included), but that is not gonna happen. So we have to find the best way to protect good people knowing that criminals will have access to guns.
Now, consider if 30% of the general population carried concealed firearms. Then both those crazy people would have killed/injured far fewer people before being stopped.
if everybody (apart from police and army) handed in their guns to be destroyed, Gun crime would be solved.
easy <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Totally correct... we would instead have Knives, Bats, Pipes, Swords, Bows, homemade guns... and millions of other things killing other people.
Not to mention perhaps our government would take advantage of a totally disarmed public. Dont think the US is above the corruption of power... it could easily happen. There is a reason our forefathers braved the waters of the oceans, and the guns of the british to create the 2nd amendment. If you gun grabbing freaks ever get your way and we are all totally disarmed... I would laugh at you fools with irony at my side as I am lead to "reprogramming" centers for breaking the law against laughing or something like that.
*Link posted to Firearmsmod.com Weapon forums*
-Citizens wouldn't have guns
-Criminals would have way less guns than they used to.
-Criminals and polices would have the only guns. Citizens would have pepper sprays etc.
=
-As much crimes as always. Even more
-A HUGE drop in crime related deaths. Why? When someone tries to rob you, the criminal doesn't have to be afraid of you shooting him -> criminal doesn't have to point a gun in your head.
Gun has one very nasty charasteristic: you can't undo anything the moment after you pull the trigger. When a drunken husband catches his wife in bed with the postman, he get's his gun and shoots them both. If there wouldn't be that gun, the guy would smack his wife, hit the post man with his pocket knife, go outside and cry. As you might know, a slash with a knife isn't nearly as lethal as a bullet.
It's way more common for someone to go berserk for 3seconds, which is enough to shoot someone. However 3secs is not enough time to beat someone to death. Also direct contact with the victim sets ones brains straight and even the victim has a chance to protect himself or run away. You can either(I like doing these gallups <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->):
a) Carry a gun and take a wild west duel with a robber over your wallet. After all, your wallet is way more precious than your or his life.
or
b) You don't have a gun, you hand over your wallet(to a robber with a knife) like every police officers tells you to do and no one gets killed.
If we say that the criminal is going to attack you, no matter what, it's safe to assume that he is going to do it quickly so he can run away. Now isn't it better to take a quick stab in your torso/limb than get a bullet in your chest?
If you, a citizen, believe that you should have a gun for self defense, then you'd better come up with a better reason.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I told you my reason- I shoot as a hobby. It's what I enjoy. And, IMO, that is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. IMO, I fall under "sportsmen".
I say it's my "right" not because I'm brainwashed into thinking god says I can have one. I say it because the constitution says that, and that's what our government is supposed to follow. I'm not so ignorant as to believe that if I step foot off US soil that I still have that "right" to have my firearm (for instance, in the UK).
If I have to pass tests and have a licence and registered firearm to own a gun (in other words jump through alot of hoops) then I'll do it. I've been a good boy- never tried any drugs, shouldn't have any trouble passing psych evaluations, etc. I'll follow the law and do what it takes.
But in the end, all you're doing is making it harder for responsible civilians to own guns, which doesn't really have any serious effect on criminals, except for letting THEM know that you won't have an equal means of defending yourself (and if you think a stun gun or pepperspray is capable of stopping a determined person with a knife or gun, your kidding yourself).
As for the neighbors, I talk to them and they're ok with it. Not all neighbors are though. Yes, you're correct- in this country we do have a right to own firearms, but no, it doesn't say they have the right to "live next to an unarmed person." That is something they need to work out on their own. Besides, that style of argument is fallous, and can be set up for ANY situation.
"You have a right to smoke? Well don't I have the right not to be next to a smoking person?!"
"You have a right to play natural selection? OMG your kids are KILLERS!!!!!!!!! THEY TRAIN TO KILL! Don't I have the right not to live next to such savage people?!"
Get it? Most people try to avoid using such a weak argument.
Just recently an entire town in Kansas has decreed that everyone in the town MUST own a firearm or face a fine. I don't particularly agree with that, since some people don't wish to own one (so they shouldn't have to), but seeing as how this is the opposite extreme when compared to the UK and Australia, it will be interesting to see what happens to the crime rate.
ROFLes <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
OMG i cant believe people actually will let people just rob them. You know whats better then those two? putting a couple rounds into the perp's 10-ring (Center mass for those that dont shoot often) and calling the cops. You sheeple keep thinking what you want, I myself will go defend one of my UNAILIABLE rights... even though i shouldn't have to.
The gun is the ONLY means for a 100 LBS women to fully defend herself from a 300 pound man raping her. it takes the same amount of force to pull a trigger no matter who you are.
Now what right do YOU people have telling women how to defend themselves?
The gun is the ONLY means for a 100 LBS women to fully defend herself from a 300 pound man raping her. it takes the same amount of force to pull a trigger no matter who you are.
Now what right do YOU people have telling women how to defend themselves? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pepper spray. You laugh now, but you know better when you get a spray of that sh** in your eyes. If your lil buddy still stands up I say your a superhero. I say your a superhero if you can stand up yourself.
Also Trev, do you think you are always going to be the one who comes ontop of these situations? Having a gun doesn't mean you are magically protected from all harm. If someone points you with a gun, it's not going to help you that you have one in your pocket/drawer.
Though this isn't my problem at all, since I don't live in USA <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Actually, I have many guns in my house and they are locked in a locker and unloaded. That means that I will never have the time to reach the guns and to load them if someone comes to kill me and I don't care because I know that nobody wants to kill me, I'm not paranoid. I use my guns for hunting and target shooting. Guns are also a passion for me and I am planning to have my own collection. But I don't have guns for killing or defending myself. Peoples who are not passionated by weapons or who don't like target shooting don't understand people like me and thinks that I am dangerous. This is ridiculous. People doesn't want to kill people because they have a gun.
And "guns are evil because they kill" or "open your eyes" are not rationnal arguments.
While useful in some situations, pepperspray is not as effective as you imagine. Some criminals are just tough, some criminals are high on drugs- in many cases people will just keep coming. Even a bullet wound wont' stop some, you have to hit them multiple times in vital areas.
Pepperspray won't always stop a determined person. In addition, just like a gun, it takes training and practice to use it effectively, and use it without getting some in your own eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also Trev, do you think you are always going to be the one who comes ontop of these situations? Having a gun doesn't mean you are magically protected from all harm. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one said it does magically protect you from all harm
ROFLes <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
OMG i cant believe people actually will let people just rob them. You know whats better then those two? putting a couple rounds into the perp's 10-ring (Center mass for those that dont shoot often) and calling the cops. You sheeple keep thinking what you want, I myself will go defend one of my UNAILIABLE rights... even though i shouldn't have to. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I cant believe you give your possessions higher worth then someone elses life. I cant believe that you would ignore the advice and solid statistics that say it is almost ALWAYS better to hand over your wallet and let the police deal with it. And then once you've shot him, I'm gonna laugh when the mental backlash catches up with you. Assuming you do manage to pull the weapon, assuming he doesnt have one likewise,. assuming you get the first shot off.
And then you have legal problems. You cant just shot somone in the stomach and walk away smiling.
You could have given him the wallet, reported it to the police and gone home fuming. Instead a person is now dead/seriously injured, you have to live with that (and that really hard, a lot of police have to go through psychological counselling for even firing at, let alone hitting a person), and you have legal stuff on top of it. Assuming you make it out alive. Thats not clever, and that sure as hell isnt the right thing to do.
Unailiable rights meh - if all those rights were so unailialbe, why is there a process to change them.
Shurikens and medieval fails are also prohibited.
When I think about this, I am pretty sure that laws are made by stupid people.
Point and click? Gee I wish someone had told me all those years ago, so I could've stopped practicing holding steady, breathing techniques, and estimating range and wind and just fired from the hip for the same effect!
<a href='http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/15/1068674432934.html' target='_blank'>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/15/...8674432934.html</a> The nerve! Sidestepping the ban by building thier own, to sell on the streets like drugs! There should be a LAW against that sort of thin---...wait...
As far as knife vs. (I'll assume handguns here, eh?) a firearm, well, how the heck far away do you think the other guy is? Statistically (and we all know 70% of statistics are made up on the spot by those spewing them.) any defensive engagement with a handgun will likely be under 10 feet. Or even five. At that range, an adult male with a knife or even his bare hands can cover that in about a half second, and I dare someone to get on the firing line with a concealed handgun, and hit a 9-10 ring on a moving target before it gets across that 10 feet.
Which brings me to another point: unlike what most seemingly believe, guns do not typically have thermo nuclear tipped bullets. In fact, between the two, i'd put my money on a decent sized fixed blade knife as to which cuases more damage to the body. One shot will not likely kill someone unless it is a central nervous system hit, or completely takes out the heart and/or a major artery. In the latter case, maybe not even then (provided medical treatment is administered soon), and it very likely will not STOP them unless you are shooting a brick wall at him. Don't anyone start up "But omg youd be on the ground crying in pain!" or i'll start on the LONG list of people in firefights who got hit and didn't even NOTICE they had been hit until they looked down and saw thier internal organs on the ground/missing. Adrenaline is a lovely painkiller don't you think?
Killing something with a gun only requires a trigger to be pulled by the user? In the same sense that a knife only requires a flick of the wrist, or a vehicle requires you to flex your foot. Sorry guys, but the gun does not yet come equipped with an aimbot, a bad shot, 5 round magazine or 50, will make a whole lot of air move around, whilst someone who knows how to actually use one, well...hits the target.
As for the police stopping criminals, not citizens...well...I'd dare say you don't know as much as you think you know. #1 in the USA the police have no legal obligation to protect you personally. If they get there in time to get you out of the fire, hooray. If not, oops, we could not have done anything more. You on the other hand could very possibly be maimed or dead. Now, i'm not going to speak for anybody else, but where I live, my beretta 9mm is in the drawer of this desk, safety engaged, chamber empty. The police are 45 minutes down the road, provided you're driving 90 miles an hour. Do not misunderstand me, I do not advocate violence if you can solve the issue with words, or a phone call, and even if you ARE armed, call the police IF POSSIBLE, but if push comes to shove, that beretta shows up to help me a whole lot faster than the police do.
As for women defending themselves, give me a break, martial arts is fine and good, unless they can retailiate you kicking them by lifting your entire body off the ground and pinning you to the wall. Pepper spray? And if he is wearing a mask? Glasses? If she can't get him in the face? Congrats, you're screwed. Likely in more ways than one. (You guys have got to be getting tired of reading this BS by now, but, i'm trying to cover all bases here.)
Guns have a psychological effect as well, which, for someone who follows the law of the land, is a double edged sword. The mere sight of one can cuase the bad guy to stop in his tracks, becuase he might get shot, thus ending the confrontation with no broken bones, no blood, nothing. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV), for Joe Peon, it can work the same way for the bad guy. Someone in this thread brought up a logical point about the robber fires on the robee when he pulls his own weapon in response, this is typically what people do when confronted with lethal force, they either run or they fight back. Now, again, I do not advocate violence if you can solve things another way, and the vast majority of people who carry handguns, contrary to popular belief, are neither stupid nor unreasonable. If the situation looks like it can be resolved by giving up your wallet, then for gods sake, do it. That wallet is replaceable, but you'll have a lot tougher time getting replacement organs if you decide to force the issue and fail (Also: practice so that if you are ever forced to use that gun, you DON'T fail.). On the other hand, some criminals will stab/shoot/crack your skull open after they get what they want even if you do submit, in which case, you have no choice. Fight back or die. Determining which type of baddie the one in front of you is, is the hard part. (And oh, by the way, one of the things they try to teach you in most self defense courses, is to identify and avoid high risk areas and get around the whole mess in the first place.)
As to why our crime levels are supposedly so much higher than the rest of the world...again...70% of statistics are made up on the spot by the people spewing them, If anything i'd say its a problem with our society in general. Look at Isreal, Switzerland, Canada....nearly as many/more firearms per capita than the USA does, and the swiss ISSUE out true assault rifles and SAWS (read: Full Autos), and have the owners report at least yearly for training (read: how to make other humans fall down and stop moving.). If more guns = more crime, and it's as simple as that, then explain to me why there isn't a massive crater in the middle of europe?
On this, I'l also say that it is ridiculous to consider this dangerous. People think that it is very dangerous because it is a kind of gun. But if you want to have a chance to kill somebody with this kind of "weapon", you must be at a VERY close range (2 meters and you will probably just wound him because the barrel is not long enough to let the bullet accelerate enough to develop enough energy to cause serious damages). At this distance, you have better chances killing somebody with a knife (it causes more damage, it is silent and it doesn't needs ammo).
Nobody says anything about hunting crossbows. Some of them can kill somebody TOTALLY SILENTLY at a range of 200 meters! There is no such gun that is able to do that. Silencers can reduce the gas combustion sound but they cannot do anything to reduce the bullet's sonic "boom". That means that if you want to have a silent shot with your gun, you must use sub-sonic ammo. However, you cannot kill someone at 200 meters with a sub-sonic bullet (maybe wound or just hurt him). Silencers are effective in only three things: very close combat, "flashy" movies and "flashy" video games. So why are people don't say that crossbows are evil? Because most people who says that guns are bad don't even know what they are talking about.
On SUPPRESSORS.... You're correct that in itself it does not stop the sonic crack of the projectile, but in lieu of subsonic ammunition, you can get a replacement barrel in some cases to bleed off propellant gases close to the chamber before it can pick up speed, thus rendering it subsonic. I'd just go with subsonic loads, heavier bullets.....Have you ever seen .510 Whisper? Go take a look if not. I wouldn't be volunteering to stand in front of that huge chunk of metal at 200 meters. Why suppressors aren't REQUIRED bewilders me, we require mufflers on cars yes? So why not firearms? Every time you fire a firearm without hearing protection you damage your hearing permanently, and this effect is compounded when firing indoors.(Heh, i've heard of 14.5 inch M4s cuasing ears to bleed when SWAT has to use them, bet thats a fun experience. Suppressors would be lovely for anyone who shoots recreationally or hunts in addition.) But even suppressing the discharge goes a LONG way towards preserving user hearing.
Excellent point about the crossbow as well. Heard AUS was in fact banning them and fake samurai swords (yet not machetes....the thought processes of politicians astound and confuse me.), any info?
Crossbows require a special license to own here in Australia (and I'm fairly certain you have to be a sportsman or collector). Fake samurai swords require nothing (i own 2). Actual, sharpened swords, not sure there. Decommisioned or historical guns also require a gun permit. As a military historian I'll have to go and get a license to own such items, which annoys me but it does make sense; I mean, I know the damn things don't work but does the guy behind that bank counter know that? No, so I could still use them in armed robbery, so the police would have to make sure I'm a responsable person with no criminal record.
Is it safe to assume that someone with the intent on killing another after robbing them is going to do this whether guns are illegal or not? Okay, so whether guns are legal or illegal, someone would die (assuming this criminal illegally possesses a gun).
Bare with me. I have a point. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
So we have this case taken care of, what else does this leave? A criminal with the intent to rob, but not necessarily kill. This criminal has a weapon (as of course I am assuming worst case scenario). If guns are legal, then there is a possibility of the victim owning a gun. If guns are illegal, the victim (unless a criminal too), won't have a gun. So why would a criminal fire his gun at the victim? We're assuming he wouldn't want to kill his victim regardless of the legality of guns (since we just covered this case). So something would have to provoke him. I don't think the victim giving the robber his money would provoke him to shoot the poor guy. What else would it take? Harsh words? Perhaps, but not likely. More like his life being threatened.
So if the victim pulls out a gun (which is a possibility if guns are legal), the robber feels threatens and shoots (or gets shot). Which one survives isn't the issue. Someone dies. We're trying to minimize death. The alternative is the victim does not have a gun. The victim might get beaten or raped as a worst case scenario, but nobody dies. Lives are spared because the victim does not have a gun.
Take a cat who is shy or scared of you. You try to pet the cat, and she runs away, right? Would a shy or scared cat try to bite you? No, they just want to get away. Now corner the cat. Then try to pet it. The cat can no longer run away, so what happens? The cat bites when you try to pet her. This is not without reason. The cat fights back when the cat is threatened. Burglars don't want to fight. They just want to get away with the money. Pull a gun? You're cornering the burglar like a cat. The burglar will fight back then.
Food for thought.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true, i own a bunch of guns and i havent got shot.....yet.
If it was illegal to purchase/posess a gun, all that would do would keep law-abiding citizens from owing guns. Guns do not kill. People do. Before there were guns, people were innocently (and usually more inhumanely) killed.
If you were a criminal, which house would you be more likely to break into?
-A house that is in a country/state that allows possession of firearms, so for all the criminal knows, the owner of the house could arm a small country.
or
-A house in a country/state where it is illegal to own and possess a firearm, therefore they are much more defenseless?
Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
-------------------------------Florida-United States
homicide rate_________-36% -.4%
firearm homicide rate____-37% +15%
handgun homicide rate__-41% +24%
1995 Fatal Accident Totals
Motor Vehicles 43,900
Falls 12,600
Poisonings 10,600
Drownings 4,500
Fires 4,100
Choking 2,800
Firearm 1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents)
And if you want to compare countries, Italy has the most restrictive laws in Europe, and the firearm homicide rate is twice that of Switzerland, a country where the purchase of semi automatic rifles and shotguns requires no permit, and adults are free to carry them. Handguns can be bought with firearm purchase permits, which are issued to all adults without a criminal record or a history of mental illness.
Most of the time, in the news, it's the morons that ruin it for law-abiding gun owners.