PDA

View Full Version : Any of you girls want to defend gun control after watching this?



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Mo0rbid
02-13-2009, 15:49
If the stats are using similar method : http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims
snap !

well played sir xD

Mo0rbid
02-13-2009, 15:50
SWEDEN
Murders with firearms 58
Murders 219
Rapes 2,184
Total crimes 1,234,784


USA
Murders with firearms 9,369
Murders 16,204
Rapes 95,136
Total crimes 11,877,218



Somehow I fail to see how the lack of gun control actually does wonders for your country

Largion
02-13-2009, 15:53
Prisoners > Per capita
United States: 715 per 100,000 people
Sweden: 75 per 100,000 people

:lmao:

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 15:54
SWEDEN
Murders with firearms 58
Murders 219
Rapes 2,184

USA
Murders with firearms 9,369
Murders 16,204
Rapes 95,136

*Gasp* :eek:

Obvously they need more guns to defend themselves, that would solve everything.

Painweaver
02-13-2009, 15:55
It would seem someone's proof backfired.

Largion
02-13-2009, 15:57
It would seem someone's proof backfired.

If you want to put out a fire you dont throw fuel on it.

Painweaver
02-13-2009, 15:59
If you want to put out a fire you dont throw fuel on it.

I like fire.

Arkh
02-13-2009, 16:03
...Yes, just another tool. I haven't seen kids kill their classmates with a super soaker, but then again, I'm not american. Having JUST ANOTHER TOOL in the drawer for your kids to kill themselves is alright, seeing as water has THE HIGHEST body count. Grow a brain, now.
When evaluating if a tool has to be outlawed, you have to check the pros and cons, see what is the best.
Having a gun at home : possibility to defend your family, happens a lot of time per year. Possibility of a children to die : happens some dozen times per year in the US.


his muscles will be paralyzed, and he will fall to the ground. point being?
Tazer against 2 people : you fail. One is down, the other is punching you.
Spary pepper against one crackhead : he doesn't feel anything, you're dying on the pavement while he runs away with enough money to get is next fix.


Oh yes...you call 911 while holding 5 people at gunpoint. Surely that won't pressure them enough to make a quick decision and try to punch you in the face. Would you still shoot? If you did, it isn't self defense, seeing as he did not land the hit.
Shoot. They were five and threatening.
Another thing you seem to forget : even if you don't own a gun, having law-abidding citizen with guns means you have more chances to have someone helping you if you need it.


...Non-lethal, self-defense. Stop acting dumb.
Non lethal self-defense, it fails when the one who have to use it is either outnumbered or outweighted. But yeah, nanny states love to have sheeps to "help". No CCW permit for citizen = more excuse to raise taxes for the police.


The latter. But guns sure make their lifes easier. And gun possession where guns are outlawed will put them away for much longer.
If gun possession make criminal lifes easier, why do you think it won't make the lifes of their possible victim easier too ?


Due to my situation, I can not answer that question.
Which is ?


I'll attend your execution in the electric chair, if you keep that up.
Yeah, but you'll have to wait for me to go out of France first. The country where a 87 year old can get a 400€ fine for "illegal arm possession", the weapon being knitting needles used to knit in a park.


covering the period 1998 - 2000.
GG, you just failed. Again.
Something changes about guns in these countries in the last 10 years ?

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 16:46
If there was gun control in the US, criminals won't get guns that easily. And a lots of accident could be avoided.

In other countries where guns are illegal, we don't have that kind of problems. I've never seen someone else than a policeman or soldier carrying a gun in my life.


THIS is what a lot of americans does not get
You both fail to recognize that this arguement is useless, there are ~300million firearms in private ownership in America, so there is no way to remove them all.


It's still murder. And life can not be filtered like that. It's not your call to choose who has to live, and who has to die. You have a jacked up sense of justice.



Main Entry:
1mur·der Listen to the pronunciation of 1murder
Pronunciation:
\ˈmər-dər\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date:
before 12th century

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Seems hard to contend that you can murder someone committing a crime that puts you in danger. I honestly hope you are just trolling and not retarded. A criminals right to live ends at the point he attempts to inflict serious harm on another person, as their rights become preeminent in that situation.

SWEDEN
Murders with firearms 58
Murders 219
Rapes 2,184
Total crimes 1,234,784


USA
Murders with firearms 9,369
Murders 16,204
Rapes 95,136
Total crimes 11,877,218



Somehow I fail to see how the lack of gun control actually does wonders for your country

Population of Sweden 9,045,389 (July '08 est)
Population of USA 303,824,640 (July '08 est)

we have 10x the number of crimes and far more than 10x the population...

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 16:51
Population of Sweden 9,045,389 (July '08 est)
Population of USA 303,824,640 (July '08 est)

we have 10x the number of crimes and far more than 10x the population...

% of murders involving firearms in Sweden: 26.4%
% of murders involving firearms in US: 57.8%

Edit: Source = use maths on the figures quoted by mo0rbid.

Aragoni
02-13-2009, 16:54
I defended gun-control until 2 years ago when I started to research about it.


In fact they've actually fallen over the past 3 years. Also, the figures include air guns which are still legal in the UK.

Anyway, even if someone does manage to acquire a gun, as soon as its existence is revealed then they're on a one-way trip to prison. You've got to be pretty stupid to know that and still want one.

You think gangs give a fuck about that?
Btw, the world is full of stupid people. ;)

Edit: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Suggest you people look into that. Gun Control does not reduce crimes. Just look at Washington as an example.

waofy
02-13-2009, 16:54
Actually the UK has seen quite the increase in gun related crimes. After the guns were supposedly destroyed. But hey, pointless prohibition laws work. Just like the War on Drugs. :lmao:

In fact they've actually fallen over the past 3 years. Also, the figures include air guns which are still legal in the UK.

Anyway, even if someone does manage to acquire a gun, as soon as its existence is revealed then they're on a one-way trip to prison. You've got to be pretty stupid to know that and still want one.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 16:58
% of murders involving firearms in Sweden: 26.4%
% of murders involving firearms in US: 57.8%

Edit: Source = use maths on the figures quoted by mo0rbid.
So we have 30% more murders with firearms and 100000% more guns, that logic is flawlessly leading me to believe that more guns are the evil...

I defended gun-control until 2 years ago when I started to research about it.


Matriel would be proud of you, if he was not gorging on cake.

Aragoni
02-13-2009, 17:01
Matriel would be proud of you, if he was not gorging on cake.

It was Matriel who made me look into it ;)
He's a Euro-hating Jew but I still respect him.

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 17:02
So we have 30% more murders with firearms and 100000% more guns, that logic is flawlessly leading me to believe that more guns are the evil...

100,000% more guns? Where is that figure from?

saltwaterteffy
02-13-2009, 17:04
i hate to sound like a broken record but guns arent the issue

people are the issue

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 17:05
It was Matriel who made me look into it ;)
He's a Euro-hating Jew but I still respect him.
He has a talent for crushing threads like this with his links of doom. If he can be bothered.

100,000% more guns? Where is that figure from?

Well we have ~300,000,000 firearms in the US, they are not legal in Sweden so I guesstimated the math.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 17:06
i hate to sound like a broken record but guns arent the issue

people are the issue

You would think this would be obvious, but apparently an inanimate object drives people to murder others.

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 17:06
i hate to sound like a broken record but guns arent the issue

people are the issue

I won't deny that but I think, more specifically, people with guns are the issue.

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 17:09
Well we have ~300,000,000 firearms in the US, they are not legal in Sweden so I guesstimated the math.

And Cannabis is illegal in the US and yet we all know how much of that there is. Thus your guesstimate is probably far from the truth.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 17:09
I won't deny that but I think, more specifically, people with guns are the issue.

Thats strange because it is possible that I have more guns than anyone else on this forum, and as I sit on a giant pile of guns, I have yet to commit a crime.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 17:12
And Cannabis is illegal in the US and yet we all know how much of that there is. Thus your guesstimate is probably far from the truth.

Oh so you are saying Sweden with its laws against owning guns, has a significant number of them?

Aragoni
02-13-2009, 17:13
I won't deny that but I think, more specifically, people with guns are the issue.

Once again you should look into http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred: Homocide rate: -36% (Florida) and -0,4% (US)
firearm homicide rate: -37% (Florida) & +15% (US)
handgun homicide rate: -41% (Florida) & +24%(US)

We also got videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfObDFVnfp0


Oh so you are saying Sweden with its laws against owning guns, has a significant number of them?

Actually.. We got about 600k people that own guns (Or something like that, was quite some time since I heard about this. Heard it during the school massacre in Finland). Mostly hunting rifles and such, but also automatic weapons for those that's in the Swedish Home Guard.

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 17:16
Thats strange because it is possible that I have more guns than anyone else on this forum, and as I sit on a giant pile of guns, I have yet to commit a crime.

BS! But what crimes you have commited is off-topic.

What I meant was the people who are the issue in question are more of an issue when they have guns.

Okay that was hard to understand...

I mean that it's not sane people with guns that are an issue, but those that are capable of commiting a 'serious' crime are more likely to do it with a gun if they are more readily available.

Fuck it, you know what I mean and are just trolling me.

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 17:18
Oh so you are saying Sweden with its laws against owning guns, has a significant number of them?

I don't know if there's a significant number or not, the issue is availability. It's easier to get a gun in the U.S.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 17:21
Actually.. We got about 600k people that own guns (Or something like that, was quite some time since I heard about this. Heard it during the school massacre in Finland). Mostly hunting rifles and such, but also automatic weapons for those that's in the Swedish Home Guard.

kk fixed my math, the us has only 50,000% more guns.


I don't know if there's a significant number or not, the issue is availability. It's easier to get a gun in the U.S.

Yes it is and yet the statistical difference is not as great as you would need to prove that "guns" are the problem.

Aragoni
02-13-2009, 17:23
kk fixed my math, the us has only 50,000% more guns.

Always happy to correct people. :D

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 17:28
BS! But what crimes you have commited is off-topic.

What I meant was the people who are the issue in question are more of an issue when they have guns.

Okay that was hard to understand...

I mean that it's not sane people with guns that are an issue, but those that are capable of commiting a 'serious' crime are more likely to do it with a gun if they are more readily available.

Fuck it, you know what I mean and are just trolling me.

Maybe a little, but only so that you will see how the point you are trying to make is based on assumptions. Because people being more able to defend themselves far outweighs any increase in ease of commission of crime.

StainlessSteelRat
02-13-2009, 17:29
I have to tell you all about the meny times Kid shoot themself....
Wops i didden know i left my gun there...

you know normal ppl dont need guns... you wonder why criminals always can get a gun?
simple amarica are making a mass produktion of them...

and the raped victem need a gun?... so she can be a murder if he returns... that is better how? (dont anser you are making a fool of your self)

so it a Rober vs murder.... ohh no it better to kill a person then getting robed and call the cops afterward...

you see the rest of the world dont need guns... why? only americans are so stupped they dont know how to talk about shit...

You are clueless. Where are the automatic weapons coming from? They aren't legal. They are Uzis and AKs which are not manufactured in the US. Guess what? Criminals get guns if they want them.

All of you anti-gun people fail to realize that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not curb violence.

Already posted in this thread:

24% of violent crime is perpetrated w/ a weapon
66% of the 24% is perpetrated w/ a gun
(for the mathematically challenged: 15.8% of violent crime is perpetrated w/ a gun)
Over 50% of gun violence is suicide.

See how small that percentage is getting? OK, now on to the main premise: guns cause crime.

Nowhere can it be shown that the presence of guns increases crime rates. Not on a national scale, not on a state-level scale, not on a city/county/suburb......break it down however you want to. There is 0 evidence to show that the presence of a gun caused a crime.

That is the basis of your arguments for gun control and more specifically to this thread, right to carry. Your argument is null and void until such time that you present evidence to show that guns cause crimes.

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 17:32
Yes it is and yet the statistical difference is not as great as you would need to prove that "guns" are the problem.

I never said guns are the problem.

But take this situation, if you're a mentally unstable kid who wants to kill everyone in his school, you get a gun from wherever. If he was in a country where guns were illegal getting hold of one will be a lot harder. He may then give up, get proffesional help, or try his attack with a knife or something (making him easier to take down).

Guns aren't the problem.
People are the problem, but (easy to get hold of) guns make the problem worse.

StainlessSteelRat
02-13-2009, 17:35
I never said guns are the problem.

But take this situation, if you're a mentally unstable kid who wants to kill everyone in his school, you get a gun from wherever. If he was in a country where guns were illegal getting hold of one will be a lot harder. He may then give up, get proffesional help, or try his attack with a knife or something (making him easier to take down).

Guns aren't the problem.
People are the problem, but (easy to get hold of) guns make the problem worse.

First, how often does that happen? If the teachers were packing, we'd be one less Darwin award candidate at the end of the year.

Second, anyone can get a gun anywhere.

Anecdotal evidence does not a case make. He might just decide to make a bomb instead and blow up more people than he could have killed w/ a gun.......

Aragoni
02-13-2009, 17:38
But take this situation, if you're a mentally unstable kid who wants to kill everyone in his school, you get a gun from wherever. If he was in a country where guns were illegal getting hold of one will be a lot harder. He may then give up, get proffesional help, or try his attack with a knife or something (making him easier to take down).

If I remember it correctly it's hard to get a gun in Germany, and yet they had the Erfurt Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Steinh%C3%A4user).

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 17:41
Chaz this is why teachers and college students in Israel are armed and they have sucessfully stopped several attempted attacks. You are contending that we should make it harder to protect yourself in order to stop some crime, but the payoff is not equal to the cost.

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 17:45
First, how often does that happen? If the teachers were packing, we'd be one less Darwin award candidate at the end of the year.

Second, anyone can get a gun anywhere.

Anecdotal evidence does not a case make. He might just decide to make a bomb instead and blow up more people than he could have killed w/ a gun.......

1. It happens a lot more in the US and if the teacher was packing, it still makes a death but I wouldn't expect a country with the death penalty to understand.
2. I can't get a gun. I don't mix with criminals and I don't live on a farm.
3. He could've but amateurs making serious bombs like this tend to be more of a danger to themselves than anyone else. A case like this happened 20 miles from me about 6 months ago.

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 17:47
If I remember it correctly it's hard to get a gun in Germany, and yet they had the Erfurt Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Steinh%C3%A4user).

Yup, THE.

It happens so often you make a point of 1.

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 17:48
Chaz this is why teachers and college students in Israel are armed and they have sucessfully stopped several attempted attacks. You are contending that we should make it harder to protect yourself in order to stop some crime, but the payoff is not equal to the cost.

You want the U.S. to be more like Israel?

Edit: arrrggg why am I posting 700 times in a row, I didn't even want to join in this argument.

Gaal
02-13-2009, 17:50
I think everyone needs to understand something

We aren't debating whether or not guns should be legal, that is protected by our second amendment right

We are debating whether or not to allow the right to carry

So to say that this would increase the number of people carrying illegal weapons is bullshit

The assholes who sell their legal guns illegally are not affected by not having a right to carry it is probably in their best interest not to sell someone a gun in public

And how many people who commit violent crimes with a gun have the license to carry

You wouldn't get a license to carry to commit a violent crime worst case scenario you get your license to carry and you feel like you did when you were 12 years old walking out of a bruce lee movie just waiting for someone to fuck with you and maybe walk around in a bad neighborhood just waiting for someone to victimize you

"So you shot 8 people in self defense fair enough"
"Now explain again why you were walking around in west LA wearing bed sheets"

Hey maybe if more people did that, we could clean up these bad neigborhoods.

Aragoni
02-13-2009, 17:50
Yup, THE.

It happens so often you make a point of 1.

It's only one of many. http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,449492,00.html
There you got another one.

Lethn
02-13-2009, 17:51
lol wow I can't believe this is still going on.

I fully think that a licensing system like this is genuinely the way to go when it comes to owning firearms why? Let me give the lowdown for you.

Politically it puts the government in good stead with both sides of the argument because it means that people can both defend themselves again and criminals would still not easily be able to get their hands on the weapons if they are known in the state.

You are giving people the ability to protect themselves, this will allow police to focus on far more important issues like taking down the actual source of this crime, frankly I think that in many places because they're busy trying to take care of everyone they are spread so thin they can't direct resources to actually taking down the assholes selling weapons on the black market, not only that it will mean people will start feeling more independent and more than likely be more courteous to each other if they know both of them could end up getting plastered across the wall if they brushed each other wrong.

Its amazing seeing the kind of attitudes a lot of young people in their 20's in particular ( Forget the teen stereotype guys, I've actually met a lot more teens that are perfectly nice than people in their 20's believe it or not ) have when it comes to this kind of thing, they all act hardass because they've never faced a gun or weapon before and will continue to act that way into their late adulthood until finally someone puts them in hospital for picking a fight.

The rationalization that if you have no weapon the police will be able to protect you is a load of bollocks perpertrated by government media, unless they have a magical teleporter they can't be in several places at once, its physically impossible. Not only that even if they can reach you the person more than likely will have stabbed or shot you by then and I say this as someone who has actually faced down someone with a knife before in my own school and the only thing that would have protected me if he attacked was my martial arts and even then it would've been risky because it was a knife.

Under this kind of system both the government and the sides are not responsible, if a criminal gets his hands on a weapon then in the majority of cases it was the fault of the criminal because more than likely he got that weapon illegally, either stealing it or buying it off the black market.

Now if someone implemented this kind of system in a country government along with reliable self-defence laws that don't put you in jail and put the criminal in jail then I'd end up moving to said country on the spot, but that system is outdated now and Obama seems more than likely to institute some kind of program that will take away that system.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 17:55
You want the U.S. to be more like Israel?

Edit: arrrggg why am I posting 700 times in a row, I didn't even want to join in this argument.

Only in terms of right to carry. In Israel tons of civilians carry guns, and they are not exactly going "wild west" on each other over there.

As to your edit, forumfall has a way of drawing you in.

You wouldnt be getting as many responses if we didnt think you could be saved, if you would just drop the emotion and look at the facts.

Arkh
02-13-2009, 17:56
Yup, THE.

It happens so often you make a point of 1.
It happens in "gun free zone".
And knives wounds are 3 times more dangerous than gun wound (30% death against 10%).
In french : http://www.violence.ulg.ac.be/PMarmesblanches/PMarmesblanches.pdf page 77

Ban knives !

StainlessSteelRat
02-13-2009, 17:56
1. It happens a lot more in the US and if the teacher was packing, it still makes a death but I wouldn't expect a country with the death penalty to understand.

A lot more? Care to link some stats?


2. I can't get a gun. I don't mix with criminals and I don't live on a farm.

Yes you can. You just don't know how but asking around would solve that problem.


3. He could've but amateurs making serious bombs like this tend to be more of a danger to themselves than anyone else. A case like this happened 20 miles from me about 6 months ago.

He also could have shot himself loading his gun(s). He coulda woulda shoulda ......
Like I said, anecdotal/hypotheticals don't make a case.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 18:04
lol wow I can't believe this is still going on.

I fully think that a licensing system like this is genuinely the way to go when it comes to owning firearms why? Let me give the lowdown for you.

Politically it puts the government in good stead with both sides of the argument because it means that people can both defend themselves again and criminals would still not easily be able to get their hands on the weapons if they are known in the state.

You are giving people the ability to protect themselves, this will allow police to focus on far more important issues like taking down the actual source of this crime, frankly I think that in many places because they're busy trying to take care of everyone they are spread so thin they can't direct resources to actually taking down the assholes selling weapons on the black market, not only that it will mean people will start feeling more independent and more than likely be more courteous to each other if they know both of them could end up getting plastered across the wall if they brushed each other wrong.

Its amazing seeing the kind of attitudes a lot of young people in their 20's in particular ( Forget the teen stereotype guys, I've actually met a lot more teens that are perfectly nice than people in their 20's believe it or not ) have when it comes to this kind of thing, they all act hardass because they've never faced a gun or weapon before and will continue to act that way into their late adulthood until finally someone puts them in hospital for picking a fight.

The rationalization that if you have no weapon the police will be able to protect you is a load of bollocks perpertrated by government media, unless they have a magical teleporter they can't be in several places at once, its physically impossible. Not only that even if they can reach you the person more than likely will have stabbed or shot you by then and I say this as someone who has actually faced down someone with a knife before in my own school and the only thing that would have protected me if he attacked was my martial arts and even then it would've been risky because it was a knife.

Under this kind of system both the government and the sides are not responsible, if a criminal gets his hands on a weapon then in the majority of cases it was the fault of the criminal because more than likely he got that weapon illegally, either stealing it or buying it off the black market.

Now if someone implemented this kind of system in a country government along with reliable self-defence laws that don't put you in jail and put the criminal in jail then I'd end up moving to said country on the spot, but that system is outdated now and Obama seems more than likely to institute some kind of program that will take away that system.

I quoted this because I am stunned that you posted something this well put together, but also something rational. +3 respect from me.

Lethn
02-13-2009, 18:05
I quoted this because I am stunned that you posted something this well put together, but also something rational. +3 respect from me.

I can do it occasionally :( lol

Flin
02-13-2009, 18:09
I don't know if i can understand this since i am not from USA.
Tho USA have one of the higes crimerates in the world. You guys kills each other as often as we feed the dog.

Guns are easy too get and it seems like you don't don't mind using guns too kill. Baning guns and makeing they harder too come by will less the amount of guns out ther. If nobody has a gun nobody can use it.

I must say you guys scare me, you want to stop killing whit killing. Stop killing and start thinking about how sick your socity is.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 18:09
I can do it occasionally :( lol

You should do it more. But seriously it was a quality post.

StainlessSteelRat
02-13-2009, 18:15
I don't know if i can understand this since i am not from USA.
Tho USA have one of the higes crimerates in the world. You guys kills each other as often as we feed the dog.

This is false. Last thread on this topic actually showed that 1 in 6 Finnish (I believe) will be the victim of a violent crime. Much higher than US.


Guns are easy too get and it seems like you don't don't mind using guns too kill. Baning guns and makeing they harder too come by will less the amount of guns out ther. If nobody has a gun nobody can use it.

Name one place where no one has a gun? People everywhere get guns and commit crimes. Gun control only takes guns away from law abiding citizens.


I must say you guys scare me, you want to stop killing whit killing. Stop killing and start thinking about how sick your socity is.

No, you first. "Manslaughter, murder, homicide - Firearms are used in 14% of the cases"

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

Largion
02-13-2009, 18:20
You should do it more. But seriously it was a quality post.

ffs now I have to read it. :(

Silverhandorder
02-13-2009, 18:24
Haha when Lethn is not smoking his pipe he makes pretty good posts.

Lethn
02-13-2009, 18:26
I must say you guys scare me, you want to stop killing whit killing. Stop killing and start thinking about how sick your socity is.

Usually your average dickhead is smart enough to run away especially if you are licensed to carry something bigger than a pistol, I am fully for self-defence and never would kill someone even if they tried to kill me, I mean they would have to be a trained fighter or professional anyway because I've had martial arts training but to think 'not killing someone' means you should just do everything they say even if they end up raping your ass and stealing everything you have is a shallow and pathetic way to live, even running away is a better option than just doing as they say and I will grab a quote from three dog in Fallout 3 on this.

"There is no shame in running to hide under the nearest bed if criminals ( replacing super mutants and raiders :p ) start knocking on your door, because they have one thing on their mind and one thing only and thats to make your lives as fucking miserable as possible"

Flin
02-13-2009, 18:30
This is false. Last thread on this topic actually showed that 1 in 6 Finnish (I believe) will be the victim of a violent crime. Much higher than US.

Finnland is an other country whit alot of guns!



Name one place where no one has a gun? People everywhere get guns and commit crimes. Gun control only takes guns away from law abiding citizens.

Yes guns exist in everywhere, but not as many as in the US. One other big difrence is that we don't go around and use em as much as you.



No, you first. "Manslaughter, murder, homicide - Firearms are used in 14% of the cases"

Me first what?
[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
Looky looky. Se how god your gun loving country are doing.

In Norway we are at a rate of 0.78. That is very low. You don't get free guns at the bank in Norway, we have steern guncontroll laws.
It works!

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 18:31
Finnland is an other country whit alot of guns!


Yes guns exist in everywhere, but not as many as in the US. One other big difrence is that we don't go around and use em as much as you.


Me first what?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
Looky looky. Se how god your gun loving country are doing.

In Norway we are at a rate of 0.78. That is very low. You don't get free guns at the bank in Norway, we have steern guncontroll laws.
It works!

You seem very ignorant to what the US is really like.

Also for your point to be valid wouldnt the US with the most guns per capita have to near the top of the list?

StainlessSteelRat
02-13-2009, 18:35
Finnland is an other country whit alot of guns!


Yes guns exist in everywhere, but not as many as in the US. One other big difrence is that we don't go around and use em as much as you.


Me first what?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
Looky looky. Se how god your gun loving country are doing.

In Norway we are at a rate of 0.78. That is very low. You don't get free guns at the bank in Norway, we have steern guncontroll laws.
It works![/QUOTE]

My bad, was Norway.

http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/crime-rate-rockets-in-norway/

Either way.....Oslo is worse than NYC.....Good Job!!

Flin
02-13-2009, 18:38
You seem very ignorant to what the US is really like.

Also for your point to be valid wouldnt the US with the most guns per capita have to near the top of the liset?

No, take a look at the ones on the top, or bether still take a look on all the ones abow you. It is no freeking wonder that Iraq is at the top or that Somalia beates you. Had you know abit about what happens in the rest of the world maybe the contencs of the list had not been lost on you.

Yes it is bad in Oslo, but crime is not as bad. Ther is a difrenc betwen murder and a robery.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 18:46
No, take a look at the ones on the top, or bether still take a look on all the ones abow you. It is no freeking wonder that Iraq is at the top or that Somalia beates you. Had you know abit about what happens in the rest of the world maybe the contencs of the list had not been lost on you.

Yes it is bad in Oslo, but crime is not as bad. Ther is a difrenc betwen murder and a robery.

But your contention is that guns are the problem, and we have more than 90 guns per 100 people in the US, this would mean that the US should be in the top handful for your contention to be true.

Also your stats do not tell how many are gun deaths, which as someone pointed out earlier is only like 14% in the US.

88Chaz88
02-13-2009, 18:47
Only in terms of right to carry. In Israel tons of civilians carry guns, and they are not exactly going "wild west" on each other over there.

As to your edit, forumfall has a way of drawing you in.

You wouldnt be getting as many responses if we didnt think you could be saved, if you would just drop the emotion and look at the facts.

I must admit that you guys pose very good arguments on the subject. Much better than the 'we need guns to defend ourselves' argument. Does a gun make you safer, yes of course. But is it good for a society? That's a hard question to answer.

I don't like the self defence option. I don't like the death penalty either, obviously there's a correlation. Is shooting someone who was going to shoot you right? I say no, but as it's a question of morality, it's just opinion and you can't argue opinion. (But perhaps he wasn't even going to use his gun).

I don't think the U.S. should illegalise guns, doing so now would be an entirely stupid move as there's too many already. Even if there wasn't I wouldn't expect it to make much of a difference to the crime statistics only less of them will involve manic wanton slaughter.

Of course different societies work for different people. Aragoni stated there have been many massacres in Germany, my experience of Germans is that they are all (in mostly good ways) nuts. Would handing them guns on a silver platter make it the massacres happen even more often? Probably. My point is that saying your society is better than mine or vice versa, is like saying Pepsi is better than Coke.

Politics is predicting the future and asking what if things were done differently. We'll never know what's best and what's not, only draw up statistics to help our predictions. Even then things can go horribly wrong. Like this recession.

What my arguement is, is do I think a bank robber should be killed, no. Do I want to make it harder for maniacs to have guns, yes. Therefore in my perfect society, gun control is a must.

This will is my last post on the subject.

Silverhandorder
02-13-2009, 18:48
I don't know if i can understand this since i am not from USA.
Tho USA have one of the higes crimerates in the world. You guys kills each other as often as we feed the dog.

Guns are easy too get and it seems like you don't don't mind using guns too kill. Baning guns and makeing they harder too come by will less the amount of guns out ther. If nobody has a gun nobody can use it.

I must say you guys scare me, you want to stop killing whit killing. Stop killing and start thinking about how sick your socity is.

Your kind is the one that perpetrate killing. You are the useful idiots that make it so evil can prey on the weak. Law abiding citizens do not commit crime by the very definition. Criminals on the other hand will laugh at the ban and buy the guns on the black market. In Europe they will go with knives. Rates of violence in Italy, Britain, France and Germany are higher then in USA.

Poacher
02-13-2009, 18:53
So you give people guns to protect themselves against other people you give guns to? :idea:

Fro
02-13-2009, 18:58
So you give people guns to protect themselves against other people you give guns to? :idea:

Typical yanks. Creating more problems in a failed attempt to solve a problem.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 18:58
I must admit that you guys pose very good arguments on the subject. Much better than the 'we need guns to defend ourselves' argument. Does a gun make you safer, yes of course. But is it good for a society? That's a hard question to answer.

I don't like the self defence option. I don't like the death penalty either, obviously there's a correlation. Is shooting someone who was going to shoot you right? I say no, but it's a question of morality in which case is just opinion and you can't argue opinion. (And perhaps he wasn't even going to use his gun).

I don't think the U.S. should illegalise guns, doing so now would be an entirely stupid move as there's too much already. Even if there wasn't I wouldn't expect it to make much of a difference to the crime statistics only less of them will involve manic wanton slaughter.

Of course different societies work for different people. Aragoni stated there have been many massacres in Germany, my experience of Germans is that they are all (in mostly good ways) nuts. Would handing them guns on a silver platter make it the massacres happen even more often? Probably. My point is that saying your society is better than mine or vice versa, is like saying Pepsi is better than Coke.

Politics is predicting the future and asking what if things were done differently. We'll never know what's best and what's not, only draw up statistics to help our predictions. Even then things can go horribly wrong. Like this recession.

What my arguement is, is do I think a bank robber should be killed, no. Do I want to make it harder for maniacs to have guns, yes. Therefore in my perfect society, gun control is a must.

This will is my last post on the subject.

I can recognize your moral rejection of killing someone even to defend yourself, this is your right. I just dont want a system that forces that view on everyone.

The better option is what the US has now in most places, that lets those who desire to protect themselves and their families to do so. I live in a State with relatively broad carry rights, we have 6.3 million people and about 450k people with handgun permits (roughly 1 in every 15 people). As you can see only the people with the will to protect are applying to do so, it makes for a good system.

Silverhandorder
02-13-2009, 18:59
So you give people guns to protect themselves against other people you give guns to? :idea:

Law abiding citizens commit no crime.

Better yet show me how we can eliminate guns so there is zero gun crime. I am not longer asking you to show us how gun ban reduces crime. All statistics show increase of crime after gun ban. If there is still gun crime present you just made victims out of all the people who wanted to have a gun lawfully.

Try to use some rational thought.

Krush
02-13-2009, 19:00
I didn't know my home state prohibited it, guess I'm lucky no one searched me.

Fro
02-13-2009, 19:03
Law abiding citizens commit no crime.

Better yet show me how we can eliminate guns so there is zero gun crime. I am not longer asking you to show us how gun ban reduces crime. All statistics show increase of crime after gun ban. If there is still gun crime present you just made victims out of all the people who wanted to have a gun lawfully.

Try to use some rational thought.

Legal guns can be used for illegal activities. I understand your point about personal rights but surely making guns more readily availible wont help the problem in the long term.

When gun control is implemented in the USA it increases gun crime but the US still has a much higher rate of homicides and firearm crimes than other Rich western countries. Why?

Silverhandorder
02-13-2009, 19:03
I didn't know my home state prohibited it, guess I'm lucky no one searched me.

If your state is anything like mine I would not risk it. One bad bag check and you so beyond fucked....


Legal guns can be used for illegal activities. I understand your point about personal rights but surely making guns more readily availible wont help the problem in the long term.

When gun control is implemented in the USA it increases gun crime but the US still has a much higher rate of homicides and firearm crimes than other Rich western countries. Why?

All statistics point to that guns defend more often then harm. 2 million defensive guns uses a year. All statistics show that citizens with permits to carry commit crime 1 per 6000. That is a much lower percentage then any country in Europe can boast to.

Europeans have different culture. The difference is so insignificant that the only way you can claim that US has a much higher rate is if you take the rates as a ratio. Can you tell the difference between .01 and .001 %? You are more likely to be run over by a car. Do you stop walking outside? No you don't. So why should you fear guns in the hands of responsible citizens. Guns are used 15% of the time to commit violent crime. I am sure the 15% that use them will know where the black market is or will have no trouble using a knife on a weak target.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 19:03
So you give people guns to protect themselves against other people you give guns to? :idea:
Um no we give guns to people protect them against criminals who get weapons illegally. This is not really that hard of a point to understand if you are not retarded.

Typical yanks. Creating more problems in a failed attempt to solve a problem.

Wow Fro, Lethn posted a well thought out post in this thread, and then you make yourself look pathetic compared to him...Lethn>Fro, you should think about how that makes you feel.

KiSsLuiGi
02-13-2009, 19:03
Gun related deaths, US compared to Japan.

UNITED STATES
29,645 Deaths total,
856 Undetermined/unintentional,
11,920 Homicides,
16,869 Suicides
Avg. of 10.08 Deaths per 100,000 people

Legislated at federal and state levels. Federal law restricts the purchase of fully automatic weapons. States vary on gun ownership restrictions.(=lots of guns owned by civilians legally)

JAPAN
96 Deaths,
14 Undetermined/unintentional,
35 Homicides,
47 Suicides
Avg. of 0.08 Deaths per 100,000 people

Handguns are prohibited. Shotguns are very strictly regulated and rifle permits can be obtained only after owning a shotgun for 10 years.(=almost no guns owned by civilians legally)



Couldn't find any facts on the legal vs illegal guns ratio in the US. But I'm guessing the major part is legally owned, but illegal guns are most commonly related to any kind of armed robbery or assault.
The United States sells more guns - and Americans own more - than anywhere else in the world. Not surprisingly, they also have the highest firearm death rate among industrialized nations. Statistics don't lie.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 19:05
Legal guns can be used for illegal activities. I understand your point about personal rights but surely making guns more readily availible wont help the problem in the long term.

When gun control is implemented in the USA it increases gun crime but the US still has a much higher rate of homicides and firearm crimes than other Rich western countries. Why?

This is a better post, barely...

To answer your question, because we have a different socio-economic dynamic than other western countries.

Fro
02-13-2009, 19:06
Wow Fro, Lethn posted a well thought out post in this thread, and then you make yourself look pathetic compared to him...Lethn>Fro, you should think about how that makes you feel.

Just because you didn't like doesn't mean my post wasn't both well thought out and perfectly correct.

Fro
02-13-2009, 19:07
This is a better post, barely...

To answer your question, because we have a different socio-economic dynamic than other western countries.

Barely. This comes down to the fact that the fundamental values that many americans have are self-defeating.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 19:08
Gun related deaths, US compared to Japan.

UNITED STATES
29,645 Deaths total,
856 Undetermined/unintentional,
11,920 Homicides,
16,869 Suicides
Avg. of 10.08 Deaths per 100,000 people

Legislated at federal and state levels. Federal law restricts the purchase of fully automatic weapons. States vary on gun ownership restrictions.(=lots of guns owned by civilians legally)

JAPAN
96 Deaths,
14 Undetermined/unintentional,
35 Homicides,
47 Suicides
Avg. of 0.08 Deaths per 100,000 people

Handguns are prohibited. Shotguns are very strictly regulated and rifle permits can be obtained only after owning a shotgun for 10 years.(=almost no guns owned by civilians legally)



Couldn't find any facts on the legal vs illegal guns ratio in the US. But I'm guessing the major part is legally owned, but illegal guns are most commonly related to any kind of armed robbery or assault.
The United States sells more guns - and Americans own more - than anywhere else in the world. Not surprisingly, they also have the highest firearm death rate among industrialized nations. Statistics don't lie.
Statistics also dont prove that guns are the underlying problem, as the stats out of England proved.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 19:09
Barely. This comes down to the fact that the fundamental values that many americans have are self-defeating.

To protect ones self or loved ones is a fundamental right of all free people, we simply chose to keep the best tools available to our people to protect themselves.

Silverhandorder
02-13-2009, 19:09
Legal guns can be used for illegal activities. I understand your point about personal rights but surely making guns more readily availible wont help the problem in the long term.

When gun control is implemented in the USA it increases gun crime but the US still has a much higher rate of homicides and firearm crimes than other Rich western countries. Why?

All statistics point to that guns defend more often then harm. 2 million defensive guns uses a year. All statistics show that citizens with permits to carry commit crime 1 per 6000. That is a much lower percentage then any country in Europe can boast to.

Europeans have different culture. The difference is so insignificant that the only way you can claim that US has a much higher rate is if you take the rates as a ratio. Can you tell the difference between .01 and .001 %? You are more likely to be run over by a car. Do you stop walking outside? No you don't. So why should you fear guns in the hands of responsible citizens. Guns are used 15% of the time to commit violent crime. I am sure the 15% that use them will know where the black market is or will have no trouble using a knife on a weak target.

re-posting this for benefit of those arguing


Barely. This comes down to the fact that the fundamental values that many americans have are self-defeating.
What is self defeating is to take away the best tool for the job from your self while criminals have it. It is not self defeating to use logic and understand that countries with full gun bans still have gun violence.

Fro
02-13-2009, 19:10
To protect ones self or loved ones is a fundamental right of all free people, we simply chose to keep the best tools available to our people to protect themselves.

And thats worked so far. Oh wait it hasn't.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 19:12
And thats worked so far. Oh wait it hasn't.

It works 2 million times per year, I would say that is working out.

Silverhandorder
02-13-2009, 19:13
And thats worked so far. Oh wait it hasn't.

2 million defensive gun uses. 1/6000 ration for crime in groups that carry guns. Crime rates drop every time guns are allowed.

Fro
02-13-2009, 19:14
What is self defeating is to take away the best tool for the job from your self while criminals have it. It is not self defeating to use logic and understand that countries with full gun bans still have gun violence.

True but many of these countries with gun bans have less gun violence than the U.S.A. Is that just a coincidence? I think not.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 19:16
True but many of these countries with gun bans have less gun violence than the U.S.A. Is that just a coincidence? I think not.

Sure but do they have significantly less violence of other types?

Fro
02-13-2009, 19:18
Sure but do they have significantly less violence of other types?

Some do, some don't.

My point is giving people more guns isn't adressing the real problem at hand.

Americas answer to everything seems to be give them more weapons!

Silverhandorder
02-13-2009, 19:20
Some do, some don't.

My point is giving people more guns isn't adressing the real problem at hand.

Yes it is. Give people the power to stop being victims.

Your proposal lets evil continue to attack the defenseless.

Aacevedo
02-13-2009, 19:20
ban bullets
problem solved.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 19:21
Some do, some don't.

My point is giving people more guns isn't adressing the real problem at hand.

So if some do and some dont we can make the assumption that guns are not the problem but criminals are, so giving people access to the best tool to stop a criminal is a good thing. Your argument should be, "why are there so many criminals in the US?".


And to address your edit, it is the answer because it works.

Fro
02-13-2009, 19:26
So if some do and some dont we can make the assumption that guns are not the problem but criminals are, so giving people access to the best tool to stop a criminal is a good thing. Your argument should be, "why are there so many criminals in the US?".


And to address your edit, it is the answer because it works.

No it doesn't work. You said yourself that some countries do some dont so since guns aren't the problem they are neither the solution. So far giving weapons to every tom dick and harry ahs gotten not just the U.S but also many parts of the world into alot of trouble i dont understand how you can honestly say they work.

Honest Bill
02-13-2009, 19:29
Proof that Guns are dangerous (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBYx8AOd4kg&eurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=guns+are+dangerous&hl=en-GB&emb=0&aq=0&oq=guns+are+da)

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 19:30
No it doesn't work. You said yourself that some countries do some dont so since guns aren't the problem they are neither the solution. So far giving weapons to every tom dick and harry ahs gotten not just the U.S but also many parts of the world into alot of trouble i dont understand how you can honestly say they work.

Because 2 million times per year they protect someone from harm, this = working. The problem is criminal, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do not cure the problem of criminals, but they do protect the citizens to some degree. Your assumptions about what the US is like are off, just like they always are.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 19:31
Proof that Guns are dangerous (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBYx8AOd4kg&eurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=guns+are+dangerous&hl=en-GB&emb=0&aq=0&oq=guns+are+da)

I cant see youtube at work, is that the Iraqi guys shooting the .700 nitro max rifle?

Honest Bill
02-13-2009, 19:32
I cant see youtube at work, is that the Iraqi guys shooting the .700 nitro max rifle?


Haha yeah and it kicks back into his face. That shit was hilarious

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 19:36
Haha yeah and it kicks back into his face. That shit was hilarious

It is one of the few guns I havent shot yet, but I will find someone that lets me shoot one someday.

Fro
02-13-2009, 19:38
Because 2 million times per year they protect someone from harm, this = working. The problem is criminal, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do not cure the problem of criminals, but they do protect the citizens to some degree. Your assumptions about what the US is like are off, just like they always are.

To a small degree yes but atleast we are both agreeing giving people guns does not solve the undrlieing problem. Although i wouldn't necessarily say criminals were the problem either.


It is one of the few guns I havent shot yet, but I will find someone that lets me shoot one someday.

Does shooting guns give you a stiffy?

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 19:43
To a small degree yes but atleast we are both agreeing giving people guns does not solve the undrlieing problem. Although i wouldn't necessarily say criminals were the problem either.



Does shooting guns give you a stiffy?

When you find a solution for people wanting to hurt other people, I will gladly openly discuss gun control options.

I do enjoy shooting as a hobby, you probably have never tried it so you wouldnt know that it is quite fun. But no it doesnt give me a stiffy, it is just good clean fun that hurts no one but the target and hillside.

Silverhandorder
02-13-2009, 19:46
To a small degree yes but atleast we are both agreeing giving people guns does not solve the undrlieing problem. Although i wouldn't necessarily say criminals were the problem either.



Does shooting guns give you a stiffy?

Criminals are always a problem, they are criminals. Make less excuses for the inexcusable.

Fro
02-13-2009, 19:48
Criminals are always a problem, they are criminals. Make less excuses for the inexcusable.

Do you always see things this black and white?

Lethn
02-13-2009, 19:53
There are always assholes that will break the rules of common sense and the basic human morals of not killing one another, we are one of the only species on the entire planet that is so chaotic and openly attempts to kill each other at every turn.

Still, why should that mean that we should make the people who want to protect themselves and their families defenseless? Its bullshit logic, thats all it is and I will keep saying it until you get the messsage.

The government does not help you, the only solution to criminals being criminals is to either put everyone under mind control so they have no free will ( I seriously hope it doesn't come to that ), shoot the assholes if they try to threaten your friends and families or put them in jail and make them think about what they've done so they can lead a good life instead of harming innocent people.

Stop thinking that the fucking government is the solution to everything, I despise how people have over-glorified them practically as God and yet the situation in Iraq is entirely worse now because they are fighting the general population and don't even get me started on the Somalian pirates.

Generally any country or organization that repeatedly claims to be all powerful to keep the general masses in line with fear are usually not and are just trying to delay the inevitable. Your country is trillions of dollars in debt, your armies are spread ridiculously thin and you practically have an arms race going on between criminals and cops of course, this can be applied to the UK as well I guess.

Are you seriously that arrogant to believe your country can protect you from a criminal with a knife? Do you even think that they give a shit? No, you don't understand politics at all and frankly you really should because its that level of ignorance of the real world that could end up getting you killed.

Silverhandorder
02-13-2009, 19:56
Do you always see things this black and white?

Criminals are by definition bad. It is subjective what one considers criminal. In this case using deadly force against another forfeits your own right to live.

Only some one willing to be a victim a slave would protect a criminal's actions.

Fro
02-13-2009, 20:03
When you find a solution for people wanting to hurt other people, I will gladly openly discuss gun control options.

Well for starters more equality.


I do enjoy shooting as a hobby, you probably have never tried it so you wouldnt know that it is quite fun. But no it doesnt give me a stiffy, it is just good clean fun that hurts no one but the target and hillside.

Lol, theres no need to justify your hobby to me. I was just wondering if you guns had a sexual appeal to some of you fanatics.

Fro
02-13-2009, 20:04
Criminals are by definition bad. It is subjective what one considers criminal. In this case using deadly force against another forfeits your own right to live.

Only some one willing to be a victim a slave would protect a criminal's actions.

Only if you change the real definition from someone who breaks the law to someone who does something you consider bad.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 20:05
Well for starters more equality.



Lol, theres no need to justify your hobby to me. I was just wondering if you guns had a sexual appeal to some of you fanatics.

Enforced equality is never equal and never works, but feel free to keep trying.

I wasnt justifying but merely attempting to give you some perspective.

Fro
02-13-2009, 20:08
Enforced equality is never equal and never works, but feel free to keep trying.

I wasnt justifying but merely attempting to give you some perspective.

Look i have plenty of perspective and i'm not suggesting forcing equality either but at the moment inequality is being forced.

One of the reasons america has such high gun crime for an industrialised country is because it has so many guns. Plain and simple.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 20:12
One of the reasons america has such high gun crime for an industrialised country is because it has so many guns. Plain and simple.

Please show some evidence to support this assertion.

Paranoia21
02-13-2009, 20:13
I live in the UK where gun/knife crime is on the rise, some places u worry about walking down the road and getting jacked by 5 twats that u would knockout if they weren't armed but they have the piece so there's nohing u could do.

Silverhandorder
02-13-2009, 20:13
Only if you change the real definition from someone who breaks the law to someone who does something you consider bad.

Are you honestly making excuses for criminals? We were discussing one type of criminals in particular those that would use guns.

jonyak
02-13-2009, 20:17
Please show some evidence to support this assertion.

do you have evidence that guns stop crime?

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 20:20
do you have evidence that guns stop crime?

FBI estimates 1.5-2.5 million times per year in the US.

jonyak
02-13-2009, 20:23
FBI estimates 1.5-2.5 million times per year in the US.

estimates are not really considered evidence.

I am not saying they don't stop crime, more that its really hard to prove causality either way.

Rourke
02-13-2009, 20:27
Know what I think this really breaks down to? Some people like guns, some are scared or cannot own one.

It's always people WITHOUT a gun that cry about them. You never hear a person who owns a firearm bashing them.

People who are against them, should go shoot one before saying anything. It's fun to shoot at the range imo. Why should criminals be the only people to use them anyways? How does this make sense to anyone?

The world is not, will not, and cannot be a safe place to live. Earth is one big PVP, get over it.

Fro
02-13-2009, 20:28
Please show some evidence to support this assertion.

America has high gun crime for a rich western country and it also has the most guns per person in the world, whatm ore evidence do you want?


I live in the UK where gun/knife crime is on the rise, some places u worry about walking down the road and getting jacked by 5 twats that u would knockout if they weren't armed but they have the piece so there's nohing u could do.

Oh god an essex man!


Are you honestly making excuses for criminals? We were discussing one type of criminals in particular those that would use guns.

Yes i am making excuses for criminals because unlike your made up definition a criminal is somebody who breaks the law in a given country. However there are many bad laws andm any ways to break the law while doing an oact of good. Heres an example thati think you will agree with, a burglar breaks into a farmers house in the UK the farmer shoots the burglar and wounds him. The farmer is then sued for breaking the law.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 20:28
estimates are not really considered evidence.

I am not saying they don't stop crime, more that its really hard to prove causality either way.

Well I am guessing that their estimate is based on a statistical baseline of crimes in which the victim defended themselves. You are free to contact them and ask them how they arrived at their published estimate. Though there have been other studies which use interviews and statistical cross sections to arrive at nearly the same number.

jonyak
02-13-2009, 20:32
Know what I think this really breaks down to? Some people like guns, some are scared or cannot own one.

It's always people WITHOUT a gun that cry about them. You never hear a person who owns a firearm bashing them.

People who are against them, should go shoot one before saying anything. It's fun to shoot at the range imo. Why should criminals be the only people to use them anyways? How does this make sense to anyone?

The world is not, will not, and cannot be a safe place to live. Earth is one big PVP, get over it.

ok so either you love guns or are a pussy?

I own a firearm. I do not think people shouldbe running around with concealed handguns.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 20:37
America has high gun crime for a rich western country and it also has the most guns per person in the world, whatm ore evidence do you want?

Your evidence does not prove causation. It doesnt even really prove correlation.


I own a firearm. I do not think people shouldbe running around with concealed handguns.

So we should not be allowed to protect ourselves?

jonyak
02-13-2009, 20:41
So we should not be allowed to protect ourselves?

I don't know how to answer this.

I think we should be allowed to protect ourselves.

I also don't think people should be allowed to run around with concealed handguns.

I dunno man.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 20:49
I don't know how to answer this.

I think we should be allowed to protect ourselves.

I also don't think people should be allowed to run around with concealed handguns.

I dunno man.

But if it is against the law and criminals do it anyway, the only people that lose are the law abiding citizens.

As I said earlier, my state has 1 in every 15 people licensed to carry, and we are not the wild west. I have carried every day since I turned 18, and not once needed to do more than uncover my firearm and place my hand on my side near it. I will continue to carry, and continue to hope to not be in a situation where I need to use my gun, but I will always be prepared to do so.

Urglab
02-13-2009, 20:59
I personally don't give a rat's ass about gun regulation in the USA. I live in Amsterdam and I've never needed a weapon to protect myself.

I want to make one observation though. Pulling a trigger to take a life is much easier than stabbing or beating someone up close and personal. With all the blood, guts and brains splashed all over you. If I was a criminal and robbing a house in the USA I'd shoot everyone just in case one of the inhabitants was carrying a gun. I'd bring a buddy to guard my back too, to shoot the hero who charges in to save his beloved TV.

No, I have no statistics (I think it's unlikely that more than 10% of the people here know how to interpret statistics) to back this up but it's just common sense. Whine at me being a girl all you want but I'll tell you in advance that I don't give a fuck.

PS that video is obviously propaganda.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 21:01
I personally don't give a rat's ass about gun regulation in the USA. I live in Amsterdam and I've never needed a weapon to protect myself.

I want to make one observation though. Pulling a trigger to take a life is much easier than stabbing or beating someone up close and personal. With all the blood, guts and brains splashed all over you. If I was a criminal and robbing a house in the USA I'd shoot everyone just in case one of the inhabitants was carrying a gun. I'd bring a buddy to guard my back too, to shoot the hero who charges in to save his beloved TV.

No, I have no statistics (I think it's unlikely that more than 10% of the people here know how to interpret statistics) to back this up but it's just common sense. Whine at me being a girl all you want but I'll tell you in advance that I don't give a fuck.

PS that video is obviously propaganda.

Taking a life is not as easy as you seem to believe. In those situations the defender has a minor advantage due to the instinct to survive being stronger than the urge to kill.

Urglab
02-13-2009, 21:02
I never said it was easy... just that it's much easier if all you need to do is pull a trigger.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 21:05
I never said it was easy... just that it's much easier if all you need to do is pull a trigger.

You are neglecting the need to properly aim the weapon and steadily pull the trigger while in an nervous state, not an easy task without training. Where the urge to survive is often experienced as a calming strength that can aid a persons attempt to aim their weapon.

Silverhandorder
02-13-2009, 21:05
I never said it was easy... just that it's much easier if all you need to do is pull a trigger.

Who do you think is the victim most of the time? It is ussualy some one who does not have a physical edge over the thug. With no guns thug wins every time he picks on a weaker person. With guns the weaker person stands a chance. Use your brain.

jonyak
02-13-2009, 21:06
all I know is that looking at this issue so black and white, while insulting those that do not think people should be wielding guns, is not going to convert anyone.

StainlessSteelRat
02-13-2009, 21:06
Legal guns can be used for illegal activities. I understand your point about personal rights but surely making guns more readily availible wont help the problem in the long term.

True. But if you read any of the information posted here, legal guns are not used.


When gun control is implemented in the USA it increases gun crime but the US still has a much higher rate of homicides and firearm crimes than other Rich western countries. Why?

I disagree. The stats don't hold up to this statement. First, because homicides and firearm crimes are not measured in a static manner. Second, look at the 14% for Finland. That's 14% of crimes are commited w/ firearms. It's on par w/ the US. Suicide is not a crime, but US stats include suicide in homicide rates. More than half of US gun deaths are suicide. Extrapolate a little and you will find that a percentage on par w/ 14% (or so) of violent crime in the US is committed w/ firearms.

It's nearly impossible to compre cross-national data due to the varied methods of data collection.

What can and has been done is study the effect of gun control legislation. The results vary for most studies depending on how they were performed but overall, bans = more crime (DC); CCW permits = less crime (FL). There's a Utah study in this thread as well.

Finally (I hope), no gun control proponent has shown evidence that the presence of a gun caused crime. This is the necessary ingredient to proving a case against legal gun ownership. And, no proponent has shown that any gun control legislation reduces illegal gun ownership and/or crime; not just gun crime but all crime. There is no point in reducing the number of gun muggings if overall muggings goes up or stays the same; the criminals have just used different methods to achieve the same result. Whereas the CCW proponents have clearly shown that permit carriers use their weapons to prevent crimes.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 21:08
all I know is that looking at this issue so black and white, while insulting those that do not think people should be wielding guns, is not going to convert anyone.

The only way to "convert" anyone is to spark an interest into looking into the facts for themselves. It is a personal decision, not everyone is cut out to carry, but everyone should be afforded the right to make that decision for themselves.

jonyak
02-13-2009, 21:10
The only way to "convert" anyone is to spark an interest into looking into the facts for themselves. It is a personal decision, not everyone is cut out to carry, but everyone should be afforded the right to make that decision for themselves.

ya I was more making a statement on the OP...

you are pretty good at conversing in a normal manner.

Urglab
02-13-2009, 21:11
Who do you think is the victim most of the time? It is ussualy some one who does not have a physical edge over the thug. With no guns thug wins every time he picks on a weaker person. With guns the weaker person stands a chance. Use your brain.

Yea I love you too. You obviously want to attack every post that even hints at disagreeing with you. That's fine with me, as I said before, I don't give a damn.

Anyways, correct me if I'm wrong but I get the impression that you seem to think every criminal is out there to hurt or kill people. Why is that?

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 21:13
ya I was more making a statement on the OP...

you are pretty good at conversing in a normal manner.

That is because this and the "evils of state socialism" are about the only topics I truly care about.



Anyways, correct me if I'm wrong but I get the impression that you seem to think every criminal is out there to hurt or kill people. Why is that?

It may be because they are the only criminals that apply to this conversation, since they are the only ones with whom lethal force is justified.

StainlessSteelRat
02-13-2009, 21:16
I want to make one observation though. Pulling a trigger to take a life is much easier than stabbing or beating someone up close and personal. With all the blood, guts and brains splashed all over you.

What is the basis for your observation? Have you shot and stabbed people to death in order to come to this conclusion? Have you interviewed multi-murderers that are sane and introspective enough to respond objectively?


If I was a criminal and robbing a house in the USA I'd shoot everyone just in case one of the inhabitants was carrying a gun. I'd bring a buddy to guard my back too, to shoot the hero who charges in to save his beloved TV.


I suggest you watch some of the videos of people attempting to rob CCW carriers. He won't charge in to save his TV. He will shoot you both where you stand from concealment. Who's house is it after all? He's knows the terrain. Not to mention, as a criminal, it is less likely that you actually have any training w/ your weapon whereas the CCW carrier will most definitely have training. It's not as easy as you think to hit someone and take them out of the fight especially when they are firing back.

Of course criminals are out there to hurt. Maybe not physically, but that's more a question of personal morality. As far as I'm concerned, I'll shoot the fucker if he's just there to take my TV. He/she lost the benefit of the doubt when they broke into my house/attempted to mug/attempted to rape/attempted to steal/whatever. One less parasite is one less parasite.

Urglab
02-13-2009, 21:26
The only basis for that is my common sense. I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious but that whole bit about being a criminal and killing everyone was tongue in cheek.

Are you in favour of vigilante justice? Because I think that's a rather slippery slope.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 21:28
The only basis for that is my common sense. I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious but that whole bit about being a criminal and killing everyone was tongue in cheek.

Are you in favour of vigilante justice? Because I think that's a rather slippery slope.

Shooting someone bent on harming you or another person is defense not vigilante justice.

Urglab
02-13-2009, 21:33
Hmm yes I misread your post, my bad.

But would you shoot someone breaking into your house even if that person was unarmed? Seems a bit too much to me. I suppose that comes down to culture etc.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 21:35
Hmm yes I misread your post, my bad.

But would you shoot someone breaking into your house even if that person was unarmed? Seems a bit too much to me. I suppose that comes down to culture etc.

Property loss is only grounds for lethal force in Texas.

Rourke
02-13-2009, 21:37
ok so either you love guns or are a pussy?

I own a firearm. I do not think people shouldbe running around with concealed handguns.

Never said that.

I have a permit to carry concealed, and I RARELY ever do. I do not see a need for a gun in 99.9999% of situations I am in, since I don;t normally stroll around at night in Ghettos.

But, I LOVE owning guns, and that was the point I was making. I love to hunt, shoot down at the range, and I feel better with a 12 gauge under my bed, and a pistol at arms reach.

Urglab
02-13-2009, 21:39
Property loss is only grounds for lethal force in Texas.

But how is that defined. I mean, a broken window is pretty much loss of property.

Rourke
02-13-2009, 21:40
Hmm yes I misread your post, my bad.

But would you shoot someone breaking into your house even if that person was unarmed? Seems a bit too much to me. I suppose that comes down to culture etc.

Your just worthless. Period. Reading your crap makes me all pukey. Fuck, when did the world start raising kids to be such ladies??

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 21:42
But how is that defined. I mean, a broken window is pretty much loss of property.

Active theft. So you can shoot a guy who is running off with your tv (though legal experts suggest you give a verbal chance to stop).

In my state you can only use lethal force if you or another person is threatened. So if someone broke into my house unarmed, I could hold them at gunpoint and only shoot if they lunge at me or my loved ones.

Rourke
02-13-2009, 21:44
Active theft. So you can shoot a guy who is running off with your tv (though legal experts suggest you give a verbal chance to stop).

In my state you can only use lethal force if you or another person is threatened. So if someone broke into my house unarmed, I could hold them at gunpoint and only shoot if they lunge at me or my loved ones.

Same law in MA too. I will say..if someone does break into MY house....no matter what, they are getting a gun pointed thier way, unarmed or not.

No way MY shit is just getting walked out my door. Work too damn hard for it.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 21:47
Same law in MA too. I will say..if someone does break into MY house....no matter what, they are getting a gun pointed thier way, unarmed or not.

No way MY shit is just getting walked out my door. Work too damn hard for it.

All I am saying is having one steak knife in the back of your drawer that doesnt match the others, can be handy...

Urglab
02-13-2009, 21:49
Your just worthless. Period. Reading your crap makes me all pukey. Fuck, when did the world start raising kids to be such ladies??

lol you made me chuckle.

To Carl:
Thanks for the explanation. It's always good to learn about stuff like this.

Rourke
02-13-2009, 21:58
All I am saying is having one steak knife in the back of your drawer that doesnt match the others, can be handy...

:D good one.

One thing in MA we seem to get a LOT of lately are "home invasions" A lot are bad endings too, with people beaten to death, stabbed, shot, ect. These criminals are not JUST robbing people anymore.

It's stupid when person in Amterdam, is saying "Oh..well, we don;t have a lot of crime here, i can't understand your point?"

We can name a 1000 places in the US, where you can leave your doors unlocked, and windows open too. After all the US is HUGE, but where you a LOT of poor people, you also get a lot of crime.

I will say anyone walking around daily with a gun is kinda paranoid. I thought about doing it myself, but it's a pain to have a gun on you 24/7, plus you have to think.."hmmm..what did I do BEFORE I had a gun?"

Places I do take my pistol and 2 mags is our other house in Cape Cod. We only get there once a month or so, and I worry about people casing the place, or finding squatters one day. Shit...it's not very far-fetched. Plus the Cape Cod Canal (where I night fish) has been known to be VERY dangerous late at night. Right off the highway, and people have been murdered there more than a few times.

Imagine that? Serial killings at a fishing hole?

UMCorian
02-13-2009, 22:31
I'd carry, but I think I'd go Plaxico Burress all over myself.

"Har har har... lookie what I got..."

*BAM!!!*

"Oh shizlat! Get me to a hospital!"

/facepalm.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 22:34
I'd carry, but I think I'd go Plaxico Burress all over myself.

"Har har har... lookie what I got..."

*BAM!!!*

"Oh shizlat! Get me to a hospital!"

/facepalm.

It is good that you recognize your own limitations without demanding that they be imposed on everyone.

Sharuk
02-13-2009, 22:37
Gun control= Against Constitution

"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

The Milita memtioned in the 2nd amendment is the people, as stated Above

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784


Founding Fathers agreed Guns are allowed to all persons, and they WROTE the Constitution!

If some insane guy has a gun, his stupid doctor should of put him into the happy home

Good people not having guns= Bad people still having guns(Not really going to stop CRIMINALS by making a new law and BREAKING the 2nd amendment)

Bad people having guns +Good people as target practice= Dead people

Last year:

6 THOUSAND people were killed on both sides of our Southern Border, i live 2 hours away from the border, if i dont have a gun, what am i supposed to do, try and stab a illegal with a gun?


/THREAD

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 22:38
...
/THREAD

most of this thread was about concealed carry though.

Sharuk
02-13-2009, 22:42
most of this thread was about concealed carry though.

The Right to Bear Arms= I can Carry a Gun, doesnt matter if i carry i strap it to my head, Bear means to Carry

Pistols, Rifles..whatever, we have a right

Lethn
02-13-2009, 22:42
Concealed Weapons, Rifles..whatever, we have a right

How can you conceal a bloody rifle? Even with an overcoat it would be ridiculously hard lmao :p

Rourke
02-13-2009, 22:44
How can you conceal a bloody rifle? Even with an overcoat it would be ridiculously hard lmao :p


He didn;t say conceal a rifle though. You just are a retard.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 22:45
The Right to Bear Arms= I can Carry a Gun, doesnt matter if i carry i strap it to my head, Bear means to Carry

Pistols, Rifles..whatever, we have a right

Reasonable restriction is always acceptable, you can walk down the street with a rifle, but it must be unloaded...

Killuminati
02-13-2009, 22:46
most of this thread was about concealed carry though.

No, I want to walk around with my rocket launcher.

Sharuk
02-13-2009, 22:46
How can you conceal a bloody rifle? Even with an overcoat it would be ridiculously hard lmao :p

I was saying by that Unconcealed(Rifles) or Concealed(Pistols) we have a right to carry/have them

Did no one see the

/THREAD

Ozzy Wrong
02-13-2009, 22:46
No, I want to walk around with my rocket launcher.
As in dick, right?

Ozzy Wrong
02-13-2009, 22:48
I was saying by that Unconcealed(Rifles) or Concealed(Pistols) we have a right to carry/have them

Did no one see the

/THREAD

How many /threads have there been in this?

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 22:48
I was saying by that Unconcealed(Rifles) or Concealed(Pistols) we have a right to carry/have them

Did no one see the

/THREAD

Ya here is the thing about /threads, they dont really work here, especially if you dont have the weight to pull it off. Maybe had you been Matriel and /threaded this thread, it might kill it, but probably not.

Sharuk
02-13-2009, 22:48
Reasonable restriction is always acceptable, you can walk down the street with a rifle, but it must be unloaded...

Exactly

Giving an Assualt Rifle to Retard is a bad idea

Restricting them for ordinary folks, is not okay

Arromir
02-13-2009, 22:54
Hmm yes I misread your post, my bad.

But would you shoot someone breaking into your house even if that person was unarmed? Seems a bit too much to me. I suppose that comes down to culture etc.

God the idiots in this world. I suppose you would interrupt the guy breaking into your house and ask, "Excuse me sir, but are you armed or unarmed?"

Fucking idiot.

Rourke
02-13-2009, 22:56
Exactly

Giving an Assualt Rifle to Retard is a bad idea

Restricting them for ordinary folks, is not okay

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6121915

Here was a fun story in my state recently. Really helps our cause too in a state of gun-hating hippies.

Carl Ragadamn
02-13-2009, 22:56
God the idiots in this world. I suppose you would interrupt the guy breaking into your house and ask, "Excuse me sir, but are you armed or unarmed?"

Fucking idiot.

I might ask that question, from across the room with the laser off my .45 shining in his eye.

Ozzy Wrong
02-13-2009, 22:59
Idiot, Gun boom fuck kabang! Small animal fuck heads die idiot, die fuck die. Stupid, Idiot Nascar! Gun, Patriotism, barbecue 4 wheelers! Guns! Fucking Idiot fuck bang incest!

Fix't.

Rourke
02-13-2009, 23:03
Look....I'm just saying is guns frighten me and my life-partner Barry, ok? Geez fellas, your all so strong, and manly..i mean why not just come over to our place for some sushi, and wine, and we can all cuddle in the hot tub later and suck dicks?

fix't

Arromir
02-13-2009, 23:06
Fix't.

That was rather pathetic. Sorry, no cookies for joo.

Sharuk
02-13-2009, 23:07
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6121915

Here was a fun story in my state recently. Really helps our cause too in a state of gun-hating hippies.

Stupid kid,sad but not a good idea at all

I would at least helped the kid hold the gun, no way he can handle that kind of recoil, the blame on that doesnt go to guns, imo it goes to the Dad or instructor for letting the 8year old kid shoot a Sub Machine gun by himself,most 8 year olds dont have the strengh

Rourke
02-13-2009, 23:08
Stupid kid,sad but not a good idea at all

I would at least helped the kid hold the gun, no way he can handle that kind of recoil

His father is in HEAPS of trouble for letting this happen. I think a few are charged.

kiasta
02-13-2009, 23:54
What's so wrong about not being able to get weapons at all? There's lot of countries where you can't get weapons and guess what, ppl doens't kill each other as much as in the USA. I can let my house door open at night and still sleep well, but you need to have 5 locks and a gun under the pillow... Seems so paranoic to me. But if your country is alredy flooded with guns, you need more guns to defend yourself i guess, such a stupid loop.

And what's with the OP calling girls or emotional to ppl who would rather see no guns everywhere, we are not all fascists pricks.

You must not be old enough to realize how stupid that statement is.

Ozzy Wrong
02-13-2009, 23:59
That was rather pathetic. Sorry, no cookies for joo.
All my cookies are in the "Forumfall is just one big argument" thread. I stopped caring about the political ones long ago.


I couldn't think of anything better than Ozzy's half-assed redneck joke so I'll take half an hour to formulate a creative way to call him gay.
Is this going to become a pattern?

Rourke
02-14-2009, 00:42
Is this going to become a pattern?


Yes, and it only took 5 mins to reply. I am quick like a bunny.

And I quote....


Rourke interpwnz me at every turn dammit!! If I had half the wit he did I could stop kissing men. Alas I am doomed to the smell of poop on my nether-regions.....woe is me...WOE IS ME!!

:bang:

Ozzy Wrong
02-14-2009, 00:48
Yes, and it only took 5 mins to reply. I am quick like a bunny.

And I quote....



:bang:

I agree with your smile, that was a rather awful "fix'd".
But why are we fighting? We should be bitching at the 08'ers.

IthroZada
02-14-2009, 01:28
Just to clarify, if guns never existed, it might just be that everyone would be better off, if guns were never allowed in the U.S. you could argue that we would be safer (you could also argue that the weak would have no equalizer when attacked by the ruthless and strong)

But, the fact of the matter is that guns do exist in the U.S.

If guns were outright banned right now, everyone with a permit would have to hand over their guns. Criminals plain and simply would not hand over their guns because their is no permit to track them with. Why? Because criminals obtain guns illegally because almost all criminals who are planning on robbing/murdering are sure to have a violent record that would prevent lawful possession of a gun and permit.


So here is the U.S. with no more guns in law abiding citizens hands and all the guns in the criminals hands, police to (but its not very often when police arrive any earlier than half an hour later, at which point the crime is already committed)

Crime rates would rise because criminals would know absolutely that they have a weapons advantage over people and a numbers advantage over cops. Oh no! The criminal lost his gun or was caught, gun is taken away, guns are fazed out of society.

But wait! The gigantic border we share with a country that impossible to monitor perfectly (and lets face it, a lot of the border patrol is corrupt) is a conduit for a constant stream of weapons that criminals will still obtain because they are illegal in the first place?! Criminals still have access to crap like automatic rifles and hand cannons?

Holy shit! The internet has instructions on how to make your own guns? Well we can certainly censor everything with the word gun in it right?


Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not guns are truly bad and should never have existed in the U.S. or anywhere. What matters is that they are here, criminals do own them and do not care about our gun control laws, and to pass a law against them would only leave the law-abiding defenseless and the criminals in power.


So you European countries who have never been swamped with guns so that every criminal owns one, good on you. But if for one minute you think that the best thing to do is to take away my best line of defense against a vicious gang (who may not even have guns but do have numbers and lack remorse) then fuck you. Guns are the equalizer, no criminals life is worth more than my own, no criminals life is worth more than the raping of my daughter.


P.S. To the jackasses who think that guns are only good for killing and not deterrents, the video has examples of how the victim only showed a gun and nobody got hurt.

Ozzy Wrong
02-14-2009, 01:29
Just to clarify, if guns never existed, it might just be that everyone would be better off, if guns were never allowed in the U.S. you could argue that we would be safer (you could also argue that the weak would have no equalizer when attacked by the ruthless and strong)

But, the fact of the matter is that guns do exist in the U.S.

If guns were outright banned right now, everyone with a permit would have to hand over their guns. Criminals plain and simply would not hand over their guns because their is no permit to track them with. Why? Because criminals obtain guns illegally because almost all criminals who are planning on robbing/murdering are sure to have a violent record that would prevent lawful possession of a gun and permit.


So here is the U.S. with no more guns in law abiding citizens hands and all the guns in the criminals hands, police to (but its not very often when police arrive any earlier than half an hour later, at which point the crime is already committed)

Crime rates would rise because criminals would know absolutely that they have a weapons advantage over people and a numbers advantage over cops. Oh no! The criminal lost his gun or was caught, gun is taken away, guns are fazed out of society.

But wait! The gigantic border we share with a country that impossible to monitor perfectly (and lets face it, a lot of the border patrol is corrupt) is a conduit for a constant stream of weapons that criminals will still obtain because they are illegal in the first place?! Criminals still have access to crap like automatic rifles and hand cannons?

Holy shit! The internet has instructions on how to make your own guns? Well we can certainly censor everything with the word gun in it right?


Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not guns are truly bad and should never have existed in the U.S. or anywhere. What matters is that they are here, criminals do own them and do not care about our gun control laws, and to pass a law against them would only leave the law-abiding defenseless and the criminals in power.


So you European countries who have never been swamped with guns so that every criminal owns one, good on you. But if for one minute you think that the best thing to do is to take away my best line of defense against a vicious gang (who may not even have guns but do have numbers and lack remorse) then fuck you. Guns are the equalizer, no criminals life is worth more than my own, no criminals life is worth more than the raping of my daughter.


P.S. To the jackasses who think that guns are only good for killing and not deterrents, the video has examples of how the victim only showed a gun and nobody got hurt.

/Thread, hopefully.

Numer0us
02-14-2009, 01:31
Actually one doesnt always lead to the other, there are many non legal ways of obtaining weapons, including shipping them in illegally from other countries (see gang wars in Miami with full auto AK's brought in from Africa).

As for obtaining a gun legally being to easy, you do have to jump thru a few hoops even if you are a perfectly law abiding citizen, so the answer to your question is no.

I apologize for wasting your time, feel free to go back to your stretching exercises, as the main attraction you dont want any ripage during the gangbang you are hosting.
Ever been to a gun show? No ID required. Call that "jumping through a few hoops"?
And the hoops don't stop anyone aiming at someone else and firing, once they have the gun.

Carl Ragadamn
02-14-2009, 01:45
Ever been to a gun show? No ID required. Call that "jumping through a few hoops"?
And the hoops don't stop anyone aiming at someone else and firing, once they have the gun.

First off I dont know about your state, but in mine ppl at gun shows do federal checks.

As for the second part, what should we do then to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? I would love an answer to this because no nation has found one that works 100%.

Vaalsha
02-14-2009, 01:53
Just like idiots in NZ who let there kids fire shotguns when they are 7-8 years old. I lived in a rural area and my friend nextdoor shot a shotgun and fractured his jawbone lol!

Kids should not have guns under 16, alot of them lack the maturity or intellignce to think before they act. 22s are maybe an exception with adult supervision.

Rourke
02-14-2009, 01:57
Just like idiots in NZ who let there kids fire shotguns when they are 7-8 years old. I lived in a rural area and my friend nextdoor shot a shotgun and fractured his jawbone lol!

Kids should not have guns under 16, alot of them lack the maturity or intellignce to think before they act. 22s are maybe an exception with adult supervision.

Depends on a lot Vaal, and where your raised. Kids have been hunting with thier fathers for instance since the start of man I'd bet. Only thing that has changed was the weapons used.

Plenty of kids can shoot .22's safely though, and learn about gun safety. Some higher gauged shotguns are ok for young kids to learn on with supervision imo.

Sabbathius
02-14-2009, 02:22
Kids should not have guns under 16, alot of them lack the maturity or intellignce to think before they act. 22s are maybe an exception with adult supervision.

Aww, come on. Kids can easily handle air guns and 22s way before that.

Where I'm from, you had an air rifle shooting gallery for every 20 blocks in any big city. You know, single shot break pump ones, that fire hollow lead pellets? I was shooting those and HITTING a quarter size target and winning free rounds long before my hands had the reach to grab both stock and the barrel, nevermind the strength to actually crack it. I was around 4-6 at the time. I couldn't hold it over the counter, but they had at least one near the counter mounted on a swivel, that thing was mine, I'd sit on the counter and pew pew. Adorable.

Small caliber bolt action rifle marksmanship, 22 or slightly larger, INCLUDING live fire exercises, were TAUGHT IN SCHOOL and we did the shooting in the basement. You were required to at least hit the black part of the target the size of a man's head at 25m to pass, and then it went progressively up to 30 and 50m for high grades, from prone supported position, on sandbags. That was around 10-13. Then we switched to current army issue assault rifles and handguns, and though a few were kept in school armory, they were mostly deactivated, and we didn't get to fire those in the school's basement gallery, you actually had to go out of town on a school trip to live fire those, that was 14-16. They had to give us the basics first, since we had no hope in hell of actually holding that thing down in full auto, but at 15-16, when most of us already have had our growth spurts, it was no biggie.

Kids can easily handle guns, especially if you slowly work up the caliber from air guns to small caliber to single shot large caliber and shotguns to full auto. What's more, kids won't fear guns and will treat them responsibly. Where I live now, most people never seen a drawn firearm in their whole lives, only holstered on cops. They see a gun, they shit themselves and/or do whatever they're told. Which is why I love living here, nice and quiet. Baaaa.

Carl Ragadamn
02-14-2009, 02:28
Just like idiots in NZ who let there kids fire shotguns when they are 7-8 years old. I lived in a rural area and my friend nextdoor shot a shotgun and fractured his jawbone lol!

Kids should not have guns under 16, alot of them lack the maturity or intellignce to think before they act. 22s are maybe an exception with adult supervision.

I learned to shoot a shotgun at 8, and was shooting competition trap/skeet by 11. It all depends on the kid and the teacher.

Spankytwo
02-14-2009, 02:32
I learned to shoot a shotgun at 8, and was shooting competition trap/skeet by 11. It all depends on the kid and the teacher.

Ah smart, brainwashing.

Rourke
02-14-2009, 02:35
I learned to shoot a shotgun at 8, and was shooting competition trap/skeet by 11. It all depends on the kid and the teacher.

Same here, it was .22's though. Even in Cub Scouts we were all learning to shoot. It was pretty normal back then though. My MOM was the one taking me to learn also. Good old mommy!!

Carl Ragadamn
02-14-2009, 02:45
Ah smart, brainwashing.

Ah yes I was brainwashed into enjoying an enjoyable activity... You really do get dumber the more you post.

gary0044187
02-16-2009, 00:26
you know many of the guns being used against lawyers, cops and judges in latin america were bought in the US legally. these are the same lawyers, cops and judges we accuse of not being able to stop the drug trade. The money earned from drug sales in the US is given to "law abiding" citizens in border states to buy firearms and then smuggled back south. The ease with which these people can acquire weapons is due to our gun policies. Kind of hard to beat teh trafficers in your country when they have more money than your police force and have a readily accessable source of ammunition and firearms.

I do not want the average american to lose his right to buy firearms but I do believe in tightening the access to weapons.

Mo0rbid
02-16-2009, 00:46
Any of you girls want to defend gun control after watching this?

yes, because I am not brainwashed enough to not see the ironic pattern in the movie

FraBaktos
02-16-2009, 00:52
I don't get it?

Of course you don't.

MyFingID
02-16-2009, 00:59
you know many of the guns being used against lawyers, cops and judges in latin america were bought in the US legally. these are the same lawyers, cops and judges we accuse of not being able to stop the drug trade. The money earned from drug sales in the US is given to "law abiding" citizens in border states to buy firearms and then smuggled back south. The ease with which these people can acquire weapons is due to our gun policies. Kind of hard to beat teh trafficers in your country when they have more money than your police force and have a readily accessable source of ammunition and firearms.

I do not want the average american to lose his right to buy firearms but I do believe in tightening the access to weapons.

Hows that our problem? Sounds like a problem for latin america. Tell them to stop exporting their poor/drug running/gang violence whatever other crap they want over the border.

wertyn
02-16-2009, 01:10
im telling you, you wouldnt believe how many women have been raped by 6 different men over the past three years because they cant carry concealed weapons.

gary0044187
02-16-2009, 01:52
Hows that our problem? Sounds like a problem for latin america. Tell them to stop exporting their poor/drug running/gang violence whatever other crap they want over the border.

it may not be your problem if you do not care about the drug trade in the US. If you do, you will see that part of the big picture problem with the drug war is that the trafficers can acquire weapons here. Ignorance does not help your cause.

Silverhandorder
02-16-2009, 02:12
it may not be your problem if you do not care about the drug trade in the US. If you do, you will see that part of the big picture problem with the drug war is that the trafficers can acquire weapons here. Ignorance does not help your cause.

Why do they need weapons here when their black market is cheaper?

IthroZada
02-16-2009, 02:14
it may not be your problem if you do not care about the drug trade in the US. If you do, you will see that part of the big picture problem with the drug war is that the trafficers can acquire weapons here. Ignorance does not help your cause.

Seems to me the problem concerning drug trade would be more about the drugs, not the guns. You are also neglecting the fact that any gun bought in the U.S. legally requires a permit, which requires a background check. So any guns that are gotten "too easily" are acquired illegally and the government (at least the uncorrupted parts) are certainly not to blame for that. Secondly many drug traffickers happen to use something substantially more powerful than a hand gun, automatic weapons for instance, and I can guarantee that those are once again being bought illegally.

So banning guns in the U.S. wouldn't stop the criminals as they would just continue purchasing their already illegal guns, and it most certainly wouldn't stop the trading of drugs.

gary0044187
02-16-2009, 02:58
Seems to me the problem concerning drug trade would be more about the drugs, not the guns. You are also neglecting the fact that any gun bought in the U.S. legally requires a permit, which requires a background check. So any guns that are gotten "too easily" are acquired illegally and the government (at least the uncorrupted parts) are certainly not to blame for that. Secondly many drug traffickers happen to use something substantially more powerful than a hand gun, automatic weapons for instance, and I can guarantee that those are once again being bought illegally.

So banning guns in the U.S. wouldn't stop the criminals as they would just continue purchasing their already illegal guns, and it most certainly wouldn't stop the trading of drugs.

The ban on the sell of assault rifles in the US expired in 2004 and it only had a cosmetic effect anyways. People that wanted to have an assault rifle could buy legal rifles that were only different in a few cosmetic ways. I mean who really takes their underslung grenade launcher to the range anyways? The only difficulty was having to buy used clips of greater than 10 round capacity, but the market was flooded with those right before the ban took place. I can not debate the question of whether it is cheaper to smuggle guns out of america or elsewhere, because I do not know. I do know that weapons bought in America have been seized by drug enforcement agencies across latin america.

The perfect gun buyer for these people is not someone who is likely to get arrested for drug possession. Stop thinking of the trafficers in charge as unintelligent junkies and start thinking of them as intelligent businessmen and you will understand the problem we face is nonuniform laws. If you can legally buy weapons in the place you sell your drugs you will find someone willing to buy the weapons for you.

either way I am not anti 2nd. I just think greater lengths need to be taken to prevent these weapons from getting in the wrong hands like for instance, if John buys a weapon because of a passed back ground check and it comes up later that Mexican police seize it in a drug raid, then John should lose his right to buy weapons. Of course he should have a right to be tried for it, I am not against the right to a fair trial either.

Killuminati
02-16-2009, 03:15
/Thread, hopefully.


All my cookies are in the "Forumfall is just one big argument" thread. I stopped caring about the political ones long ago.


Is this going to become a pattern?

you still have a lot to learn, young padawan.

MyFingID
02-16-2009, 04:34
The ban on the sell of assault rifles in the US expired in 2004 and it only had a cosmetic effect anyways. People that wanted to have an assault rifle could buy legal rifles that were only different in a few cosmetic ways. I mean who really takes their underslung grenade launcher to the range anyways? The only difficulty was having to buy used clips of greater than 10 round capacity, but the market was flooded with those right before the ban took place. I can not debate the question of whether it is cheaper to smuggle guns out of america or elsewhere, because I do not know. I do know that weapons bought in America have been seized by drug enforcement agencies across latin america.

The perfect gun buyer for these people is not someone who is likely to get arrested for drug possession. Stop thinking of the trafficers in charge as unintelligent junkies and start thinking of them as intelligent businessmen and you will understand the problem we face is nonuniform laws. If you can legally buy weapons in the place you sell your drugs you will find someone willing to buy the weapons for you.

either way I am not anti 2nd. I just think greater lengths need to be taken to prevent these weapons from getting in the wrong hands like for instance, if John buys a weapon because of a passed back ground check and it comes up later that Mexican police seize it in a drug raid, then John should lose his right to buy weapons. Of course he should have a right to be tried for it, I am not against the right to a fair trial either.

Again what happens in latin america with guns bought in the US is not our problem. So John sells his gun to a dealer at an arms show who in turn sells it to a mexican drug smuggler who is not even a US citizen. John should lose his 2nd amendment rights, correct?

What happens in mexico should not affect policy here. So what if they used a pistol bought from some guy in Texas. Maybe Mexico should concentrate on reducing corruption in their police force. Maybe Mexico should take steps to stop drug trafficing rather than ignore/profit from it. Guns in Mexico is not a US problem. Want a real easy way to cut down on drug violence in Mexico, legalize drugs in the US. When RJ renolds can sell weed and the drug manufactures can sell their own product along with meth, heroin, etc there will be no reason for anyone to buy off violent drug runners. Either way, guns bought in the US going to Mexico, not a US problem.

Why should I be treated like a criminal when I purchase a firearm because of violence in latin America? I already don't like background checks but understand the need to keep weapons out of the hands of violent retards. On the other hand if the gov kept out of the way of citizens and their right to bear arms this wouldn't be such a problem. Look at all the BS we already have with concealed weapons permits, gun free zones, states banning pistols. It only takes one armed person to stop a violent retard on a shooting spree.

IthroZada
02-16-2009, 04:58
Again what happens in latin america with guns bought in the US is not our problem. So John sells his gun to a dealer at an arms show who in turn sells it to a mexican drug smuggler who is not even a US citizen. John should lose his 2nd amendment rights, correct?

What happens in mexico should not affect policy here. So what if they used a pistol bought from some guy in Texas. Maybe Mexico should concentrate on reducing corruption in their police force. Maybe Mexico should take steps to stop drug trafficing rather than ignore/profit from it. Guns in Mexico is not a US problem. Want a real easy way to cut down on drug violence in Mexico, legalize drugs in the US. When RJ renolds can sell weed and the drug manufactures can sell their own product along with meth, heroin, etc there will be no reason for anyone to buy off violent drug runners. Either way, guns bought in the US going to Mexico, not a US problem.

Why should I be treated like a criminal when I purchase a firearm because of violence in latin America? I already don't like background checks but understand the need to keep weapons out of the hands of violent retards. On the other hand if the gov kept out of the way of citizens and their right to bear arms this wouldn't be such a problem. Look at all the BS we already have with concealed weapons permits, gun free zones, states banning pistols. It only takes one armed person to stop a violent retard on a shooting spree.

This.

And it works both ways, if I want a very big and dangerous gun to shoot up a bunch of guys, it was probably smuggled in through mexico.... barring those sold by corrupt businessmen in America

gary0044187
02-16-2009, 06:33
Again what happens in latin america with guns bought in the US is not our problem. So John sells his gun to a dealer at an arms show who in turn sells it to a mexican drug smuggler who is not even a US citizen. John should lose his 2nd amendment rights, correct?

What happens in mexico should not affect policy here. So what if they used a pistol bought from some guy in Texas. Maybe Mexico should concentrate on reducing corruption in their police force. Maybe Mexico should take steps to stop drug trafficing rather than ignore/profit from it. Guns in Mexico is not a US problem. Want a real easy way to cut down on drug violence in Mexico, legalize drugs in the US. When RJ renolds can sell weed and the drug manufactures can sell their own product along with meth, heroin, etc there will be no reason for anyone to buy off violent drug runners. Either way, guns bought in the US going to Mexico, not a US problem.

Why should I be treated like a criminal when I purchase a firearm because of violence in latin America? I already don't like background checks but understand the need to keep weapons out of the hands of violent retards. On the other hand if the gov kept out of the way of citizens and their right to bear arms this wouldn't be such a problem. Look at all the BS we already have with concealed weapons permits, gun free zones, states banning pistols. It only takes one armed person to stop a violent retard on a shooting spree.

Why isnt the gun registered to the guy at the gun show? If you sold the gun, you should have a way of getting it out of your name, just like a car. Further, if you have to pass a background check to buy a weapon, how does selling a firearm at a gun show work? Do you have to do a background check on the guy at the gun show? Is there some form you get to fill out saying that John Gunshow just bought this weapon from you? Not tracking the weapon at every step is kinda part of the problem. What does a law abiding citizen have to fear about failing a background check?

I will not debate drug policy here. My point is that we need to start designing our laws to work with eachother not contrary to each other.

IthroZada- Who needs currupt businessmen? (http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/home.asp)

IthroZada
02-16-2009, 06:46
IthroZada- Who needs currupt businessmen? (http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/home.asp)

Anyone without a permit that's who, I can't deny that a person who has a permit could unlawfully sell their gun, but considering the statistics showing that a huge majority of those with permits are involved in no crimes and the few that are are involved in minor ones, odds are the many guns that criminals are obtaining do not originate from the hands of gun owners (except in the cases of robbery) due to gun owners keeping their noses clean and not consorting with criminals


Therefore once again, criminals do not obtain their guns from the colt website but from other entirely non-legal sources

Edit: Shit, can't even buy a gun from their website, just gun accessories, means you would have to buy it from a store, which means you better show your permit, meaning a criminal isn't going to get it unless a person with absolutely no history of violent crimes just suddenly decides to sell just one gun at a time to thugs in mexico

heroshade
02-16-2009, 06:48
Why is this thread still up when it's obvious that an end will never be reached.

IthroZada
02-16-2009, 06:50
Why is this thread still up when it's obvious that an end will never be reached.

I was personally happy with my response that looked like it killed this thread then someone suddenly decided to bring up the poor Mexicans who can't defend themselves from American guns when their business run oligarchy won't even allow border patrol to shoot drug dealers crossing the border.

CuriousGeorge
02-16-2009, 07:03
That video wasn't biased.

MyFingID
02-16-2009, 07:16
Why isnt the gun registered to the guy at the gun show? If you sold the gun, you should have a way of getting it out of your name, just like a car. Further, if you have to pass a background check to buy a weapon, how does selling a firearm at a gun show work? Do you have to do a background check on the guy at the gun show? Is there some form you get to fill out saying that John Gunshow just bought this weapon from you? Not tracking the weapon at every step is kinda part of the problem. What does a law abiding citizen have to fear about failing a background check?

I will not debate drug policy here. My point is that we need to start designing our laws to work with eachother not contrary to each other.

IthroZada- Who needs currupt businessmen? (http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/home.asp)

The problem with background checks and registering weapons. Background checks treat everyone as a criminal. We already know there is a black market surrounding weapon sales. Black markets tend to be more violent than legit business. So while not doing background checks means criminals will get fire arms, it also cuts down on a black market that will be more violent than a gun shop and use that money to fund criminal activity. Criminals should be put in jail. It's just that simple. You commit a crime with a gun registered to you or someone else who cares, you need to spend time in prison.

Registering guns is bad. Citizens are guarenteed arms for many reasons, one of which is the ability to stand up against the governemnt. If the governement knows who all the gun owners are, it's going to make it's job much easier come bloody revolution.


As for gun shows yes laws are lax at gunshows. The only paper that should be transfered is a bill of sale that shows that someone bought that weapon so someone can't go back and say it was stolen.

Gunlaws only serve to disarm citizens, not criminals.

gary0044187
02-16-2009, 07:57
I have no more to add, but that I disagree. Of course, this is OT as I agree with the OP that concealed carry is a very useful tool against crime.

saltwaterteffy
02-16-2009, 08:03
carrying a concealed weapon is indeed a useful tool against crime. There would be no issue with this if everyone was law abiding and not corrupt...but then again then there would be no need to carry a gun...its a paradoxical mystery, wrapped in an enigma smothered with a secret sauce.

gary0044187
02-16-2009, 08:06
carrying a concealed weapon is indeed a useful tool against crime. There would be no issue with this if everyone was law abiding and not corrupt...but then again then there would be no need to carry a gun...its a paradoxical mystery, wrapped in an enigma smothered with a secret sauce.

similar to the existance of locks.

saltwaterteffy
02-16-2009, 08:38
similar to the existance of locks.

and hard shelled tacos.

Vexrak
02-16-2009, 08:52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNUqtkXTQ8&eurl=http://ferfal.blogspot.com/

I have my doubts the emotional "men" or women can really grasp this. This is worth a try however.

Are you an idiot? Most of us don't have a problem with someone owning a gun as long as its registered, they have a permit for it (which you should have to meet certain criteria to receive), and its not an automatic or other extremely excessive weapon.

Just make the penalties for anyone carrying an unregistered gun without a permit pay HUGE penalties including jail time. Police should assume if you have a gun and its not registered and you don't have a permit then you were going to use it to commit a crime and you should be punished harshly.

That would allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves while making most criminals and other people who should not possess guns (either because they were too stupid to get a permit or they were not aloud to get a permit because of past mental health issues or something) face serious consequences. This WOULD help prevent crimes to some degree.

I don't see how any law abiding reasonable person could have a problem with this solution.

Vaalsha
02-16-2009, 09:26
Stupid movie.
1. Shop clerks should have guns - thats an exception
2. The woman is a retard - So what if they guy jumped her, took the gun off her and shot her?
video is silly.

Vaalsha
02-16-2009, 10:21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDQhaoocZPw&feature=channel

Gruum
02-16-2009, 16:02
Lets say we have some bad guy with a gun, for future reference we call him Rob, let us further assume, Rob is going to rob some elderly/weak/whatever person, we call this person Abe.
Questions:

Do you really think really think that Rob planned to kill this random person in the first place?
( i think he just wanted some money, there are some crazy people outthere who just want to kill, but i bet most people dont want to kill other people..)
I bet that Rob is threating random guy Abe with his gun, aiming at him. How stupid must Rob be that he gets killed by Abe?
( If someone searches his/her purse, and i see a gun, i fire mine, no way they can get their gun out of the purse, aim and fire it faster then i can fire mine.
Same with reaching behind the back to draw the weapon.)


This proofs, that this vid is purely propaganda.

And i've been in the german military, i know how to shoot.

And in the swiss, the people that are allowed to have guns, automatic rifles, they are in the military, too.
And most of them dont have the guns at home, and they arent allowed to have the gun and the ammuniton next to each other, or even have the gun loaded.



(( I just have to add one more thing to the 'stupid' gun lovers: Darwin Award! ))

chris322
02-16-2009, 19:39
considering people now are goin to get realy pissed off and start riots because of the situation in the U.S gunz should be outlawed but its going to be mass chaos soon and you better have a gun and lots of food:eek:

Jezrith
02-16-2009, 19:41
Stupid movie.
1. Shop clerks should have guns - thats an exception
2. The woman is a retard - So what if they guy jumped her, took the gun off her and shot her?
video is silly.

And what if the sun turned into giant gun-drop candy kisses and made the gun exploded with rainbows? What then?!!!! (Look I can make things up that didn't happen too!)



This proofs, that this vid is purely propaganda.


Not really, the only thing it proves is you like to use make believe scenarios as the basis for your world view.

Gruum
02-16-2009, 20:38
Like i wrote before, i've been in the military, i know how to use weapons, i have some very good friends who are police officers, too.

And common sense says: if you aim a gun at someone, you want to see his hands, if they make hasty movements, shoot them.

you know how long it takes to pull the trigger?
you know how long it takes to draw a weapon from your back, aim and pull the trigger?

Only this shop owner/clerk/whatever and this woman want to safe their lifes and the robber is a dumbass, yeah, sure :D
Only the person in this shop and this woman know how to shoot a gun and not the robber, yes, of course.


Oh, only those poor weak/elderly/shop owning/etc people see this vid?
Only they learn how to use a weapon to defend themself?
I bet, that criminals see this vid too and they will learn something too, they will learn to shoot when someone searches her purse, they learn to shoot when someone reaches behind his back.

And i bet, that some of these criminals have friends too, they either tell them what they learned from the vid, or maybe they even knew it before the vid, because some of them had problems with the police, and you know what the police says when they see some suspects, dont you?
So, if the police says, freeze, show me your hands, dont move, you dont think the criminals know why the police said that?



I am just writing logic arguments, well, from my point of view, but what are you doing?
you're not proofing that i am wrong, you dont give a reasonable argument.

There are a few non-lethal means to defend, even for elderly, weak, whatever persons.

Rourke
02-16-2009, 21:04
Like i wrote before, i've been in the military, i know how to use weapons, i have some very good friends who are police officers, too.

And common sense says: if you aim a gun at someone, you want to see his hands, if they make hasty movements, shoot them.

you know how long it takes to pull the trigger?
you know how long it takes to draw a weapon from your back, aim and pull the trigger?

Only this shop owner/clerk/whatever and this woman want to safe their lifes and the robber is a dumbass, yeah, sure :D
Only the person in this shop and this woman know how to shoot a gun and not the robber, yes, of course.


Oh, only those poor weak/elderly/shop owning/etc people see this vid?
Only they learn how to use a weapon to defend themself?
I bet, that criminals see this vid too and they will learn something too, they will learn to shoot when someone searches her purse, they learn to shoot when someone reaches behind his back.

And i bet, that some of these criminals have friends too, they either tell them what they learned from the vid, or maybe they even knew it before the vid, because some of them had problems with the police, and you know what the police says when they see some suspects, dont you?
So, if the police says, freeze, show me your hands, dont move, you dont think the criminals know why the police said that?



I am just writing logic arguments, well, from my point of view, but what are you doing?
you're not proofing that i am wrong, you dont give a reasonable argument.

There are a few non-lethal means to defend, even for elderly, weak, whatever persons.

I'll have to find the link, but on the forums for the M&P handguns, some LEO's had posted some stats up about being outgunned by criminals lately, and the fact the even the cops are unprepared to use thier guns in comparison to criminals who shoot better, and faster than most LEO's.

Reason is gangbangers and such spend MORE TIME practicing, and shooting, and just care a LOT less than your average joe LEO. Sad but true.

If your in a position of having a gun pointed at you, your already in a bad situation. Making sudden moves is probably going to end badly for you. Unless your wearing a six shooter, and are Billy the Kid.

Home defense though is another story. Hopefully then, someone has to BREAK a door in to get to you, and by then you have either gotten OUT, or if you can't get out, you have already gotten your shotgun, or pistol, and put yourself into a defendable postion inside your home.

I have a shotgun under my bed, and a box of turkey shot in arms length, plus a gun safe with 2 loaded mags and my pistol. close by. I can open my safe in under 10 seconds, and have my M&P 9 rdy to go in 1 second. Just need to rack the slide. Shotgu is a bitch to get ready imo. I have to keep it trigger locked. Getting it ready to shoot would take at least 30 seconds.

Rourke
02-16-2009, 21:34
Canada's latest issue: http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c85a1406-b879-40a0-8bb6-96ffd8511b49

Last years article in the US: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/apr/27/news/chi-chicago-police-guns_both_27apr27

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1666750,00.html

Criminals show no mercy. Remember that.

Sabbathius
02-16-2009, 21:41
Reason is gangbangers and such spend MORE TIME practicing, and shooting, and just care a LOT less than your average joe LEO. Sad but true.

I actually remember reading the exact opposite somewhere years ago. That an average gangbanger, especially the "I hold my gun sidewayz" can't hit a broad side of the barn, and that they have to go upclose and personal and empty the entire clip to hit anything. 90% shootings in this city, the guy takes one in the leg or in the arm, offasionally in the chest. And most murders with guns are either point blank execution style on a stationary target or two guys sitting in a car get turned into Swiss cheese before they can get out.

So, the way I see it, the gangbangers have better guns, submachine guns, rifles, etc., while the cops have the handguns. Over here, patrol cars, they don't even have shotguns, just the sidearms and two clips. They get suppressed, and that's that. But when it comes to marksmanship, the cops are still considerably better over medium range.

So this is news to me that gangbangers shoot better. Where do they practice? At home? Go to a shooting gallery that has mugshots all over it and makes you leave your ID, and practice with illegal firearm?

Rourke
02-16-2009, 21:45
I actually remember reading the exact opposite somewhere years ago. That an average gangbanger, especially the "I hold my gun sidewayz" can't hit a broad side of the barn, and that they have to go upclose and personal and empty the entire clip to hit anything. 90% shootings in this city, the guy takes one in the leg or in the arm, offasionally in the chest. And most murders with guns are either point blank execution style on a stationary target or two guys sitting in a car get turned into Swiss cheese before they can get out.

So, the way I see it, the gangbangers have better guns, submachine guns, rifles, etc., while the cops have the handguns. Over here, patrol cars, they don't even have shotguns, just the sidearms and two clips. They get suppressed, and that's that. But when it comes to marksmanship, the cops are still considerably better over medium range.

So this is news to me that gangbangers shoot better. Where do they practice? At home? Go to a shooting gallery that has mugshots all over it and makes you leave your ID, and practice with illegal firearm?

I never said Gangbangers are better shots man. The point was that they are willing to fire 1st, and often. A LOT of LEO's don't. I will find the link. It's buried. Gangbangers just wildly shoot like retards for the most part as they run away. That's why so many innocent people become victims in the city.

I think cops have learned to shoot more often now anyways. There is no time anymore for reasoning with scum like that imo. Just put em down, and be done with it.

Killuminati
02-16-2009, 21:58
I believe our local gun nut Matriel should provide his FBI links on how gangbangers actually do shoot better than cops do.

Rourke
02-16-2009, 21:59
I believe our local gun nut Matriel should provide his FBI links on how gangbangers actually do shoot better than cops do.

I can't find the link over there. It's lost in a SEA of "OMG's gun bans inc!!" threads, lol.

EDIT: Here is one of the links to a 5 year FBI study actually. It's a good read, and surprising.

http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary/comm_cop_killers.asp

Jezrith
02-16-2009, 22:11
I am just writing logic arguments, well, from my point of view, but what are you doing?


It's not logical because it is based in your head and not in reality. People protect their lives and their property in these situations all the time with the use of a firearm. Your imagination says they can't, reality says they can.



you're not proofing that i am wrong, you dont give a reasonable argument.


The people who protected their own lives in the exact same scenario you says is "propaganda", has proved you wrong, I don't need to do anything. Reality > "reasonable argument"




There are a few non-lethal means to defend, even for elderly, weak, whatever persons.

And a firearm is far more effective than any of those.

Rourke
02-16-2009, 22:28
It's not logical because it is based in your head and not in reality. People protect their lives and their property in these situations all the time with the use of a firearm. Your imagination says they can't, reality says they can.



The people who protected their own lives in the exact same scenario you says is "propaganda", has proved you wrong, I don't need to do anything. Reality > "reasonable argument"




And a firearm is far more effective than any of those.


The FBI report is pretty unreal. It basically says Criminals>LEO's. I don't know how to feel about that. FBI even says gun laws don't work, criminals don't care about them, lol.

Anyone who cares to dispute the FBI feel free. I doubt they wanted to have this report published, lol.

Jezrith
02-16-2009, 22:35
The FBI report is pretty unreal. It basically says Criminals>LEO's.


Having grown up around LEOs for a large part of my life, that isn't saying very much... heh...

But my only point was that people defending themselves from an attacker with a firearm are successful often enough that these made up scenarios from Gruum and others contradict reality.

Gruum
02-16-2009, 22:40
Rourke, because you quoted my comment:
What is your point, regarding my comment?
should average joe have a gun?
Do you think the vid is real?

Rourke
02-16-2009, 22:41
Having grown up around LEOs for a large part of my life, that isn't saying very much... heh...

But my only point was that people defending themselves from an attacker with a firearm successful often enough that these made up scenarios from Gruum and others contradict reality.

I agree. For some reason, military and cops seem to think they are they only ones who can handle a gun, since they got "training". Kinda funny, since any civilian can get just as good of training if they want to at all sorts of places. My range for instance hold all sorts of gun defense courses we can take for cheap money from SWAT guys.

Combat is one thing, and obviously a war-vet can speak on this if he has seen REAL action. But everyone imo, should know how to defend themselves in a variety of ways. INCLUDING using a gun. Just need to be smart, knowing that if you pull a gun, you BETTER be prepared to fire it.

He who hesitates, gets hurt.

Rourke
02-16-2009, 22:48
Rourke, because you quoted my comment:
What is your point, regarding my comment?
should average joe have a gun?
Do you think the vid is real?

Is the NRA vid real? IDK...no more fake than any anti-gun video though. Each side has thier agendas.

Define "average joe". That would be ME, so I would have to say yes. I hold a CCW permit. I EARNED it. I have no record, I have been fingerprinted, my name and background checked by the State Police, ATF, and FBI. Don;t you think I deserve it?

I think your jaded, and view "civilains" as a lower class of people. I think a LOT of soldiers, and LEO's do in fact. Seems you guys forget your roots sometimes. We're not idiots man. I can handle my pistol as well as you i would bet, and I am fully capable of using good judgement.

I CAN carry my gun. I rarely, if ever do. Why? I don't go anywhere I feel I would need to. Situational Awareness is key to safety imo. If you can't figure out when your safe or not to begin with, THEN you should NOT own a gun. Your not gonna be any safer.

I think as of now, the Gun Laws are good, and not be changed further. There is no need. Any further restrictions will be a HUGE encroachment on our Right to Bear Arms.

Gruum
02-16-2009, 22:51
Having grown up around LEOs for a large part of my life, that isn't saying very much... heh...

But my only point was that people defending themselves from an attacker with a firearm are successful often enough that these made up scenarios from Gruum and others contradict reality.
Ah, and what if i grew up with LEO myself?
Am i right then?
You are just plain stupid, Jezrith, sorry, but thats a fact.

You dont have a clue how to discuss, how to defend a statement or how dispove the arguments of others, one example isnt a valid proof.
(Just because it's raining here, it isnt raining every where.)

And once again, imagine, that your are the robber, Jezrith, how would you have acted?
Wouldnt you just grab the purse or told her to throw it to you?
Wouldnt you say, that you want to see the hands of the guy behind the counter?

Well, if you answer one of the questions with a 'NO', then it's just a matter of time until you'll get the Darwin Award. (http://www.darwinawards.com/)


Edit to add a comment to Rourke:
Oh, i consider myself more a civilian like anything else.
And i think that everyone can learn everything, atleast to a certain degree, with some training.
My question were, since you quoted me, do you agree or do you disagree with my comment, because you didnt wrote that, you just gave a few facts from a study saying, criminals are better shooters then LEOs and i never wrote something about that.

Lets say we just have 3 different kind of people, criminals, LEOs and civilans
If criminals > LEOs, where are the civilians? ( > : .. shots better then.. )
do they have more 'street fighting experience', more weaponstraining then LEOs or criminals?

And i am fully aware that both sides have their propagande vids, i never wrote they dont have, but many people here believe everything they see.

Rourke
02-16-2009, 22:55
And once again, imagine, that your are the robber, Jezrith, how would you have acted?
Wouldnt you just grab the purse or told her to throw it to you?
Wouldnt you say, that you want to see the hands of the guy behind the counter?

Well, if you answer one of the questions with a 'NO', then it's just a matter of time until you'll get the Darwin Award. (http://www.darwinawards.com/)


Grumm, what about all the robberies where the gunman opens fire ANYWAYS? It happens everyday. They just kill the person for no reason. You can no longer assume, just because you give a robber what they want, they still won't kill you. Need links to this? You know it's true man.

IthroZada
02-16-2009, 22:57
Ah, and what if i grew up with LEO myself?
Am i right then?
You are just plain stupid, Jezrith, sorry, but thats a fact.

You dont have a clue how to discuss, how to defend a statement or how dispove the arguments of others, one example isnt a valid proof.
(Just because it's raining here, it isnt raining every where.)

And once again, imagine, that your are the robber, Jezrith, how would you have acted?
Wouldnt you just grab the purse or told her to throw it to you?
Wouldnt you say, that you want to see the hands of the guy behind the counter?

Well, if you answer one of the questions with a 'NO', then it's just a matter of time until you'll get the Darwin Award. (http://www.darwinawards.com/)

You sir are an idiot. For starters his LEO statement was a joke, he can't disprove anything you say because all you give is ambiguous statements about nothing, and you give robber's to much credit for intelligence, and the "average joe" too little.

Jezrith
02-16-2009, 23:06
Ah, and what if i grew up with LEO myself?
Am i right then?


No reality dictates who is right and who isn't. That statement didn't have any bearing on anything except for the fact that LEOs are notoriously poor shots.



You are just plain stupid, Jezrith, sorry, but thats a fact.


Thanks for proving you have no clue what a fact is. Now at least we know why you make up these little scenarios in your head and believe they are facts.



You dont have a clue how to discuss, how to defend a statement or how dispove the arguments of others, one example isnt a valid proof.
(Just because it's raining here, it isnt raining every where.)


You can find 100s of examples of people protecting themselves from armed assailants on youtube alone. Again, reality > than your imagination.



And once again, imagine, that your are the robber, Jezrith, how would you have acted?
Wouldnt you just grab the purse or told her to throw it to you?
Wouldnt you say, that you want to see the hands of the guy behind the counter?


What I think I would attempt to do and what would happen would probably be two completely different things. The scenarios you play out in your head very rarely turn out the way you imagine they will in real life. Thinking otherwise shows a severe lack of real world experience.



Well, if you answer one of the questions with a 'NO', then it's just a matter of time until you'll get the Darwin Award. (http://www.darwinawards.com/)


In any event there 100s of things that can make it turn out entirely different from what you would expect. You watch too many movies, real life is not scripted.

MyFingID
02-16-2009, 23:06
I still say there's no real need for gun control. Criminals will end up dead or in jail. No where in the second amendment does it say what guns I can own or when I can carry them. I mean look at gun free zones. You disarm law abiding citizens so they can get a front seat to the next school shooting. Wtf is that?!

No gun law may seem extreme but remember: gun laws stop citizens, not criminals.

Rourke
02-16-2009, 23:20
Edit to add a comment to Rourke:
Oh, i consider myself more a civilian like anything else.
And i think that everyone can learn everything, atleast to a certain degree, with some training.
My question were, since you quoted me, do you agree or do you disagree with my comment, because you didnt wrote that, you just gave a few facts from a study saying, criminals are better shooters then LEOs and i never wrote something about that.

Lets say we just have 3 different kind of people, criminals, LEOs and civilans
If criminals > LEOs, where are the civilians? ( > : .. shots better then.. )
do they have more 'street fighting experience', more weaponstraining then LEOs or criminals?

And i am fully aware that both sides have their propagande vids, i never wrote they dont have, but many people here believe everything they see.


I think the FBI study shows that LEO's are too complacent in thier role. They don't take what they do seriously enough, and underestimate a criminals capacity to fire a gun properly.

I totally disagree with your whole post. I would imagine MOST people who own a gun know how long it takes to pull the trigger and draw thier gun. Most are under no illusions.

The FBI study basically makes your point about the criminals watching NRA videos (which i really doubt they bother with) moot.

It's already proven most gun wielding criminals won't hesitate to pop you, or a police officer. All you can do is hope they miss, and give you a chance to return fire in that case.

Another point....I won't let my wife carry a pistol. We considered it, but after talking with a State Trooper, he made some good points.

1) My wife would hesitate. I KNOW she would. Guns scare here anyways. Shooting someone would be nearly impossible, unless someone was already killing her. HUGE chance she would get killed, or have the weapon taken away.

2) MACE is better for her. With Mace, there is no worry of "killing" anyone. In fact she would not even get charged for anything in the event she maced someone just because she felt "unsafe". She would be far more likely to pull a can of mace out, and mace the fuck out of a guy than try and cock and a fire a .38 special.

My wife CAN load, and fire our pistol, and hit a target at 15 yards. So if needed she can use a gun.

I think most gun owners also think like me btw. We know what we are doing.

Gruum
02-16-2009, 23:34
You sir are an idiot. For starters his LEO statement was a joke, he can't disprove anything you say because all you give is ambiguous statements about nothing, and you give robber's to much credit for intelligence, and the "average joe" too little.
Sorry, then learn to read, i put them both on the same step.
I wrote both can learn the same things.

And i ask once again, how stupid are the criminals in your country?
Why didnt they shoot?
And lets even say that the statistics say, that the majority of these things goes in favor of the defender, do you really think, that the criminals wont learn and shoot first in the next few years?


And all i said are logical arguments.
If someone just has to pull the trigger and someone else has to draw the weapon, (skip that aiming, i just learned that they dont aim), and pull the trigger, who is going to win, huh?

Did one of you ever had to shoot at a living person, thats not an easy thing to do.
And i really think that if you saw alot of shootings and dead as a kid, you will more easily pull the trigger and shoot someone.
Well, if you fear for your live, then you can probably pull the trigger too, but thats an extrem, very stressfull situation, you have to react automaticly, the average person cant do that.

I learned how to fight, and if someone is just 1m away, i dont pull my gun, i going to disarm them, its faster, and easier.




Jezrith, you don't get it, if 99% of all LEOs were poor shots, just because you know 1% doesnt mean anything, its still 99%.
You cant say that everyone in the US has black hair, and proof it by just showing me 4 us citizens with black hair, you can however say, disprove the fact by showing me one counter-example.
He never said that all LEOs were poor shots, just that the statistic says that most of them are..




what about all the robberies where the gunman opens fire ANYWAYS? It happens everyday. They just kill the person for no reason. You can no longer assume, just because you give a robber what they want, they still won't kill you. Need links to this? You know it's true man.
I am very sorry, to hear that, that doesnt happens where i live.
But doesnt that prove the fact, that its better to not have these weapons?
And the question i have is, why do they shot anyways?
And another question is, if they planned to shoot anyway, why didnt they shoot the woman and this guy behind the counter anyway, why did they let them pull the gun, does that make any sense?

Jezrith
02-16-2009, 23:42
And all i said are logical arguments.
If someone just has to pull the trigger and someone else has to draw the weapon, (skip that aiming, i just learned that they dont aim), and pull the trigger, who is going to win, huh?


You are using logical arguments from scenarios that are made up in your own mind. If you think reality works according to your plan, you are going to be in for a rude awakening when you get older.



Jezrith, you don't get it, if 99% of all LEOs were poor shots, just because you know 1% doesnt mean anything, its still 99%.


You are right I don't get it, you are making zero sense and rambling in an incoherent manner about something that doesn't have any bearing on the conversation.



You cant say that everyone in the US has black hair, and proof it by just showing me 4 us citizens with black hair, you can however say, disprove the fact by showing me one counter-example.
He never said that all LEOs were poor shots, just that the statistic says that most of them are..


Yeah, thanks for pointing out the obvious there chief. We all already knew this, why you think this is some ground breaking revelation is beyond me.



I am very sorry, to hear that, that doesnt happens where i live.
But doesnt that prove the fact, that its better to not have these weapons?


Since that can't happen, law abiding citizens should at least be on a level playing field.

MyFingID
02-16-2009, 23:44
You have some bad logic going on. Your argument is that if people are armed then criminals will just start shooting people and looting their corpses. This is rl, not a mmo. Most criminals don't shoot people because murder gets a much longer sentence than armed robbery.

So I'd guess this is the part where you say "if they're not going to shoot then why shoot them?"

Well they lost their right to life the second they threatened someone elses.

Btw I'd shoot the guy a meter infront of me. Its quicker and easier than getting in a struggle in full combat gear. Body armor is not flexible and if I'm clearing a room my weapons up anyway.

<--- former U.S. Army Infantry

Rourke
02-16-2009, 23:44
I am very sorry, to hear that, that doesnt happens where i live.
But doesnt that prove the fact, that its better to not have these weapons?
And the question i have is, why do they shot anyways?
And another question is, if they planned to shoot anyway, why didnt they shoot the woman and this guy behind the counter anyway, why did they let them pull the gun, does that make any sense?

I think you are utterly confused.

The people that shoot UNARMED civilians are sick fucks. PERIOD. They need to be killed..PERIOD. Not ALL robbers have the intention to do so, or are going to shoot right away. EVERY situation is different. You should KNOW this if your a trained soldier though. Your making zero sense.

Disarming a person with a gun is something not everyone can possibly hope of doing. Even telling a person to TRY that is insane man.

You can't say it's better to not have guns, when the criminals have an endless supply to them in the US man. We will NEVER stop the flow of guns into the US, and no matter what, they are already here. By the TONS.

Better to have an opposing force to conter the criminals, than to just have an unarmed publc, ripe for the picking isn't it? Can you really tell me I am wrong?

IthroZada
02-16-2009, 23:46
I am very sorry, to hear that, that doesnt happens where i live.
But doesnt that prove the fact, that its better to not have these weapons?


See, this is the problem right here. There is a chance that we would be better off without these weapons, but we can't get rid of them. No laws passed will make criminals give up their guns, therefore civilians need guns to defend themselves.

Edit: Its pretty arrogant to quote myself, but I feel I did a good job explaining it this way


Just to clarify, if guns never existed, it might just be that everyone would be better off, if guns were never allowed in the U.S. you could argue that we would be safer (you could also argue that the weak would have no equalizer when attacked by the ruthless and strong)

But, the fact of the matter is that guns do exist in the U.S.

If guns were outright banned right now, everyone with a permit would have to hand over their guns. Criminals plain and simply would not hand over their guns because their is no permit to track them with. Why? Because criminals obtain guns illegally because almost all criminals who are planning on robbing/murdering are sure to have a violent record that would prevent lawful possession of a gun and permit.


So here is the U.S. with no more guns in law abiding citizens hands and all the guns in the criminals hands, police to (but its not very often when police arrive any earlier than half an hour later, at which point the crime is already committed)

Crime rates would rise because criminals would know absolutely that they have a weapons advantage over people and a numbers advantage over cops. Oh no! The criminal lost his gun or was caught, gun is taken away, guns are fazed out of society.

But wait! The gigantic border we share with a country that impossible to monitor perfectly (and lets face it, a lot of the border patrol is corrupt) is a conduit for a constant stream of weapons that criminals will still obtain because they are illegal in the first place?! Criminals still have access to crap like automatic rifles and hand cannons?

Holy shit! The internet has instructions on how to make your own guns? Well we can certainly censor everything with the word gun in it right?


Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not guns are truly bad and should never have existed in the U.S. or anywhere. What matters is that they are here, criminals do own them and do not care about our gun control laws, and to pass a law against them would only leave the law-abiding defenseless and the criminals in power.


So you European countries who have never been swamped with guns so that every criminal owns one, good on you. But if for one minute you think that the best thing to do is to take away my best line of defense against a vicious gang (who may not even have guns but do have numbers and lack remorse) then fuck you. Guns are the equalizer, no criminals life is worth more than my own, no criminals life is worth more than the raping of my daughter.


P.S. To the jackasses who think that guns are only good for killing and not deterrents, the video has examples of how the victim only showed a gun and nobody got hurt.

Gruum
02-16-2009, 23:48
Just to make it clear, you totally disagree with this post? ( to make it more readable, and because you can just scroll back, i just cut out some sentences )



And common sense says: if you aim a gun at someone, you want to see his hands, if they make hasty movements, shoot them.




you know how long it takes to pull the trigger?
you know how long it takes to draw a weapon from your back, aim and pull the trigger?


Ok, you wrote that they are aware of that fact, and you wrote that criminals dont hesitate, and you still think that the guy behind the counter and this woman had a good chance to survive?
Lets just say its true and they survived such a robbery, how high would you say were they chances?



Only this shop owner/clerk/whatever and this woman want to safe their lifes and the robber is a dumbass, yeah, sure :D
Only the person in this shop and this woman know how to shoot a gun and not the robber, yes, of course.


You dont agree?
why?



There are a few non-lethal means to defend, even for elderly, weak, whatever persons.

(( Okay, that's lame, that i picked this line, i think you overread it, or forgot it, so please dont take the following comment too serious ;)
I just wrote that there are other thing to defend yourself, and you wrote your wife uses one of them, but you totally disagree? ))

Rourke
02-16-2009, 23:50
See, this is the problem right here. There is a chance that we would be better off without these weapons, but we can't get rid of them. No laws passed will make criminals give up their guns, therefore civilians need guns to defend themselves.

Seems to me, what Euros don't understand is that Americans grow up with this. We are USED to idea of wielding a weapon. Shit man, how do you think we beat England with a bunch of farmers, lol?

You don't fuck with us, we won't fuck with you basically. You pull a gun in the US though on someone, you BETTER be ready, cause chances are that person you pulled a gun on may have one themselves.

Rourke
02-16-2009, 23:57
Just to make it clear, you totally disagree with this post? ( to make it more readable, and because you can just scroll back, i just cut out some sentences )





Ok, you wrote that they are aware of that fact, and you wrote that criminals dont hesitate, and you still think that the guy behind the counter and this woman had a good chance to survive?
Lets just say its true and they survived such a robbery, how high would you say were they chances?





You dont agree?
why?



(( Okay, that's lame, that i picked this line, i think you overread it, or forgot it, so please dont take the following comment too serious ;)
I just wrote that there are other thing to defend yourself, and you wrote your wife uses one of them, but you totally disagree? ))


I can't answer in your quotes but let's break it down shall we?

1)Who is robbing you and why?

2)Are they on drugs?

3)Are they aiming the gun AT you? Are they focused or looking around?

4)Where is YOUR weapon? Under the counter? On you? Loaded? Ready to fire?

5)Can you stall? If your not already dead, will you be? What is your gut telling you?

6) Are they ALONE?

Every situation is different, and would have different outcomes. You can't possibly know which one you'll be in. A LOT of criminals are fucking retards. Not all are cold-blooded killer, crack shots, lol.

I agree that non-lethal weapons exist, and can be used in SOME situations for people that a gun would not be useful. But your saying that civilians don;t need gun basically.

Gruum
02-17-2009, 00:07
I think you are utterly confused.

Well, i just made the assumption that would you said is correct and asked questions.


The people that shoot UNARMED civilians are sick fucks. PERIOD. They need to be killed..PERIOD. Not ALL robbers have the intention to do so, or are going to shoot right away. EVERY situation is different. You should KNOW this if your a trained soldier though. Your making zero sense.


Sure, every situation is different.
But still, you said that there are robbers that just shot to kill, even when they got what they want.
And now you say that not every robber shoots to kill, and thats what i said too.



Disarming a person with a gun is something not everyone can possibly hope of doing. Even telling a person to TRY that is insane man.

Oh, i didnt want to tell everyone to try that, it's very difficult, you need alot of training. ( ~thinks~ did i really wrote 'hey, disarm the guy with the gun, or did i wrote, i would disarm him)

Well, but grabing a weapon behind his back is a very good idea?
Comon, the chances are very low to survive that.



You can't say it's better to not have guns, when the criminals have an endless supply to them in the US man. We will NEVER stop the flow of guns into the US, and no matter what, they are already here. By the TONS.

Better to have an opposing force to conter the criminals, than to just have an unarmed publc, ripe for the picking isn't it? Can you really tell me I am wrong?
Oh, well, i know that you have tons of them in your country and that it is (nearly) impossible to get rid of them.
But how about :arm your police, give them more money, better training, the police should protect you.

And i was referring to the vid, well if you know how to use a gun, good, very glad that you can protect your family.

Just regarding this vid, i know that you know that not everyone can use a weapon, Rourke.
I still doubt, that everyone can use a weapon and should act like the vid claims, a better advice for most people is, just give them want they want (and hope they dont kill you anyway).


Edit:


You don't fuck with us, we won't fuck with you basically. You pull a gun in the US though on someone, you BETTER be ready, cause chances are that person you pulled a gun on may have one themselves.

Once again, and to answer your other post too.

One on One situation, robber isnt drugged, your gun at your back (like this guy in the vid), gun loaded and ready to shoot (just to save you a little time too )
If i knew that the person i am aiming my gun at has a very high chance to have a gun too, i would shoot him as soon as he moves, i would position myself as best as possible that noone else can shoot me.
Before i pull my gun and threat the guy behind the counter, i would have looked around, for other doors, and would position myself so that i am protected as best as possible.

MyFingID
02-17-2009, 00:21
a better advice for most people is, just give them want they want (and hope they dont kill you anyway).


This line of thinking sickens me. I'm not going to trust a man with a weapon to spare me. Why should I? Why should I not have the means to defend myself. You are just advocating for people to roll over and let crime happen. Guy wants to rob my house, guess I should hide in the closet and call the police. Guy wants to rape girls, let him. Call the cops later. Guy wants to shoot up a school. Sure why not, the cops will stop him eventually. You only live once, why shouldn't you bw able to defend yourself from aggressors rather than being a victim?

Jezrith
02-17-2009, 00:25
Comon, the chances are very low to survive that.


Considering that guns are used for self defense 2,000,000 every year and in 83.5% of the time the successful use of a firearm in self defense happens when the attacker is armed and initiates the confrontation, it's not nearly as low as you would like to believe(1). Again, your imagination doesn't dictate reality.

1- http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

Gruum
02-17-2009, 00:38
This line of thinking sickens me. I'm not going to trust a man with a weapon to spare me. Why should I? Why should I not have the means to defend myself. You are just advocating for people to roll over and let crime happen. Guy wants to rob my house, guess I should hide in the closet and call the police.


Sarcasm on:
Well, my Life is worth more then a few €uros.
Let them have it, i have an insurance as well, so, let them have it, i dont care.



Guy wants to rape girls, let him. Call the cops later.


Well, thats a tough one,
The Girl has two choices in this scenario
try to shoot that guy and hope she hit him before he shots heror let him rape you.
I would say shoot him, but there are other self-defending techniques, too.



Guy wants to shoot up a school. Sure why not, the cops will stop him eventually. You only live once, why shouldn't you be able to defend yourself from aggressors rather than being a victim?

Well, the cops should be trained to do that, not everyone is able to do that.

How about having a cop at schools, a trained security, instead of another student/teacher armed with a gun?

And there is a reason, why this guy wants to shoot up a school, ever thought why it happend so many times in your country and rarely happens anywhere else?

MyFingID
02-17-2009, 00:49
Sarcasm on:
Well, my Life is worth more then a few €uros.
Let them have it, i have an insurance as well, so, let them have it, i dont care.



Well, thats a tough one,
The Girl has two choices in this scenario
try to shoot that guy and hope she hit him before he shots heror let him rape you.
I would say shoot him, but there are other self-defending techniques, too.



Well, the cops should be trained to do that, not everyone is able to do that.

How about having a cop at schools, a trained security, instead of another student/teacher armed with a gun?

And there is a reason, why this guy wants to shoot up a school, ever thought why it happend so many times in your country and rarely happens anywhere else?

It happens in my country because they get a gun and go to the one place where they know people will be unarmed. You can shoot up a mall because someones bound to have a gun. A school is a gun free zone though, so the only person with a gun in a school is a criminal. One armed student found stop a school shooting. Hell armed citizens could have stopped incidents from virginia tech to 9-11. If the criminals have guns why shouldn't the civilians. You can say the police, sure, but what are you going to do for the 5 to 15 minutes it takes them to get to you. I think depriving citizens with the ability to defend themselves is criminal.

You also mention alternative means but as far as I'm concerned I'm not safe until the threat has ended. That means the enemy is dead or disarmed. I'm not going to be able to do that with mace and no amount of training is going to make me prefer disarming to shooting.

In any case the largest reason for an armed population has been and still is to overthrow the government. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Rourke
02-17-2009, 00:54
Well, the cops should be trained to do that, not everyone is able to do that.

How about having a cop at schools, a trained security, instead of another student/teacher armed with a gun?

And there is a reason, why this guy wants to shoot up a school, ever thought why it happend so many times in your country and rarely happens anywhere else?

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

Did you hear about this? This is what happens when you have a BUNCH of unarmed people doing as the armed person says. THEY DIE. People never even fought back. He lined people up and shot them 1 by 1 man. Can you tell me that is ok. Is that a normal way to react to an armed gunman?

This is a product of society telling us sheep to wait for SOMEONE ELSE to come to our rescue imo. I know how that sounds, and the the VA Tech murders are tragic, but so avoidable.

Gruum
02-17-2009, 01:01
Considering that guns are used for self defense 2,000,000 every year and in 83.5% of the time the successful use of a firearm in self defense happens when the attacker is armed and initiates the confrontation, it's not nearly as low as you would like to believe(1). Again, your imagination doesn't dictate reality.

1- http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

Okay, i did some minor research on this study and it is sound, as far as i can say, anyway ;)



Arg, it's not my pure imagination, most of the times, i said, "lets assume, this or that is true, why did this or that happen?"

Well, this study said, that the defender 'believed' they saved their live, because they used their gun to defend themselves.
Lets assume that the attacker was going to kill the victim, why didnt he shot back as soon as the victim pulled his gun?
How can the victim pull the gun and fire, while the attacker cant pull the trigger?

Once again, i am asking questions, and once again you will probably fail to answer these.

Rourke
02-17-2009, 01:06
Okay, i did some minor research on this study and it is sound, as far as i can say, anyway ;)



Arg, it's not my pure imagination, most of the times, i said, "lets assume, this or that is true, why did this or that happen?"

Well, this study said, that the defender 'believed' they saved their live, because they used their gun to defend themselves.
Lets assume that the attacker was going to kill the victim, why didnt he shot back as soon as the victim pulled his gun?
How can the victim pull the gun and fire, while the attacker cant pull the trigger?

Once again, i am asking questions, and once again you will probably fail to answer these.


Not understanding your points at all. Of course both parties can fire.

Gruum
02-17-2009, 01:11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

Did you hear about this? This is what happens when you have a BUNCH of unarmed people doing as the armed person says. THEY DIE. People never even fought back. He lined people up and shot them 1 by 1 man. Can you tell me that is ok. Is that a normal way to react to an armed gunman?

This is a product of society telling us sheep to wait for SOMEONE ELSE to come to our rescue imo. I know how that sounds, and the the VA Tech murders are tragic, but so avoidable.

If you know that you're going to die, then do anything to save your life, or the lifes of the people around you, even if you die.

But once you said, that most criminals dont want to kill their victim, and this?

I just said, if the criminal dont want to kill anyone, but he sees a gun and has to fear for his own life, the chances are high to pull the trigger (a study/survey you linked showed that criminals dont hesitate to pull the trigger)
I further said, that if the criminal gets what he wants, he will leave you alone in most cases.

And i wrote, that i might be a better idea to have armed security in schools then have teachers and students with guns.
Oh, and ever left your country by plane?
ever been through these security gates that can detect metal? ;)
But instead of making sure, that noone can get a weapon into a school you arm everyone, well, thats probaly much cheaper. :bang:

MyFingID
02-17-2009, 01:27
Met detectors don't prevent people from sneaking guns in through windows or just coming in guns blazing. They just prevent lawful citizens from defending themselves.

So it now seems you are arguing for the criminals rights with the whole maybe they weren't going to shoot case. They pulled a weapon and threatened a life. Who knows if they're serious or not. Why risk it? If someone busts into my home I'm shooting them, no questions asked. Why? I don't know why they are in my house. I don't know if they're armed oe not and I don't know their intent. I'm not going to play games with a criminal just because he may or may not mean me harm.

Jezrith
02-17-2009, 01:32
Well, this study said, that the defender 'believed' they saved their live, because they used their gun to defend themselves.
Lets assume that the attacker was going to kill the victim, why didnt he shot back as soon as the victim pulled his gun?
How can the victim pull the gun and fire, while the attacker cant pull the trigger?

Once again, i am asking questions, and once again you will probably fail to answer these.

I'll fail to answer these questions because you are asking me to give you details on literally hundreds of thousands of events. Maybe the gun jammed, maybe the guy was high, maybe he was distracted, maybe he was just an idiot, maybe he fired and missed. There are literally 1000s of possibilities here. But one thing is for sure, using a firearm to protect your life against an armed assailant is far from the no win situation you are proclaiming it to be.

Dazarthas
02-17-2009, 01:44
If you know that you're going to die, then do anything to save your life, or the lifes of the people around you, even if you die.

But once you said, that most criminals dont want to kill their victim, and this?

I just said, if the criminal dont want to kill anyone, but he sees a gun and has to fear for his own life, the chances are high to pull the trigger (a study/survey you linked showed that criminals dont hesitate to pull the trigger)
I further said, that if the criminal gets what he wants, he will leave you alone in most cases.

And i wrote, that i might be a better idea to have armed security in schools then have teachers and students with guns.
Oh, and ever left your country by plane?
ever been through these security gates that can detect metal? ;)
But instead of making sure, that noone can get a weapon into a school you arm everyone, well, thats probaly much cheaper. :bang:

Not all of us are willing to roll over and take it in the ass from criminals whose intentions we can never be 100% sure of. I'm sure there have been people with your mindset who were happy to turn over their valuables if it meant they would live, but ended up killed afterward. Tell their grieving families that what happened was okay, because it was so statistically insignificant.

There is no acceptable reason to deny a law-abiding, psychologically fit individual his right to self-defense. You can refuse this right if you want, but your indifference will only encourage criminals to walk all over your pathetic ass, then move on to steal from others (possibly killing them in the process) because you're too afraid to protect your rights as a citizen. I'm hoping against hope that these shitheads in Illinois allow concealed or open carry so the citizens of crime-wrought Chicago can defend themselves instead of having to wait for the police to come by ten or so minutes after the crime takes place. The criminals have plenty of places to hide there, too, so the cops may never manage to find them.

Rourke
02-17-2009, 01:45
If you know that you're going to die, then do anything to save your life, or the lifes of the people around you, even if you die.

But once you said, that most criminals dont want to kill their victim, and this?

I just said, if the criminal dont want to kill anyone, but he sees a gun and has to fear for his own life, the chances are high to pull the trigger (a study/survey you linked showed that criminals dont hesitate to pull the trigger)
I further said, that if the criminal gets what he wants, he will leave you alone in most cases.

And i wrote, that i might be a better idea to have armed security in schools then have teachers and students with guns.
Oh, and ever left your country by plane?
ever been through these security gates that can detect metal? ;)
But instead of making sure, that noone can get a weapon into a school you arm everyone, well, thats probaly much cheaper. :bang:

Thx to 9/11 we have Air Marshalls, and citizens that will attack pretty much any retard that acts up on a flight now.

As for schools, yeah....students don't need guns. My point is people need to FIGHT harder to live imo. THAT IS MY OPINION ONLY. Waiting to be saved is stupid. And yeah...metal detecors SHOULD be in use on campuses. No idea why they aren't.

As for the rest, idk man. If someone has a gun on me, and I can't get my gun out, well that's that isn't it? Kind of a dead issue.

Criminals that get shot, even though armed, are not paying attention, and usually a person behind a counter for instance pull a gun out from there and fires.

America is a huge country. Not a tiny Euro country. It is not easy to monitor this country for small crimes. We have Drug Cartels invading from Mexico, Florida, ect. This Country is not only the dream for people wanting to make a decent, honest living...but also a playground for criminals who want to prey on others successes. Sad...but a fact of life.

In America, people still live in rural areas also, where a gun is really the best line of defense, as getting Police help may take too long. Not all of us live is crowded cities here. Even if we do, police are notoriusly slow to respond.

In the end, it's up to YOU, and you alone to judge a bad situation. Draw a weapon or don't, only you can make that decision.

Here's what happens in a lot of robberies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rysWX_WW89Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZy8tTznLDA&feature=related

I can link a million where WE win though.

Watch the 2nd one. 4 guys 1 gun. Pretty fucked up.

MyFingID
02-17-2009, 02:22
I still have to disagree with preventing students from being armed. 1 armed student could have stopped th VT incident, as well as every other school shooting. Gun laws only disarm lawful citizens.

Rourke
02-17-2009, 02:26
I still have to disagree with preventing students from being armed. 1 armed student could have stopped th VT incident, as well as every other school shooting. Gun laws only disarm lawful citizens.

I agree, but we both know that won't fly amonsgt the crybabies. If I had MY way, we'd be back to gunfights at High Noon in the streets, and an "Eye for an Eye" law.

Carl Ragadamn
02-17-2009, 02:37
Wow this thread got stupid.


Lets say we have some bad guy with a gun, for future reference we call him Rob, let us further assume, Rob is going to rob some elderly/weak/whatever person, we call this person Abe.
Questions:

Do you really think really think that Rob planned to kill this random person in the first place?
( i think he just wanted some money, there are some crazy people outthere who just want to kill, but i bet most people dont want to kill other people..)
I bet that Rob is threating random guy Abe with his gun, aiming at him. How stupid must Rob be that he gets killed by Abe?
( If someone searches his/her purse, and i see a gun, i fire mine, no way they can get their gun out of the purse, aim and fire it faster then i can fire mine.
Same with reaching behind the back to draw the weapon.)


I know Jezrith did a fine job of curb stomping your fantasy logic, but this scenario is assuming that Rob has bothered to ever fire his gun before.

The reality is that person who trains has the advantage, so for most people that carry concealed in the US they have the edge, even if the other person has their weapon drawn.

Your assumptions do not take into account that most people with concealed carry permits have taken the time to train to look at every situation they encounter, so the odds of a criminal getting their gun out and pointed before the "victim" begins to react are actually greatly reduced.

As to your question about drawtime, I have not clocked how long from hands to the side till the first round is fired (which always hits center mass), but I have clocked how long to draw, fire 8 rounds of .45 and reload, that time is 5.4 seconds with a group less than 6 inches across, and the time to fire the second mag (7rounds) is an additional 2.3 seconds. This would lead me to conclude that my draw time is something in the neighborhood of a second. Shooting in the military or law enforcement is different than shooting as a civilian, the main difference being that civilians who are smart, train more than the military or LEO's. I have personally cycled ~60,000 rounds thru my carry weapon over the course of a decade (avg. 500rds per month), I dont really have to even aim that hard anymore, it is more like putting on a glove and pointing your finger.

Rourke
02-17-2009, 02:45
Wow this thread got stupid.


I know Jezrith did a fine job of curb stomping your fantasy logic, but this scenario is assuming that Rob has bothered to ever fire his gun before.

The reality is that person who trains has the advantage, so for most people that carry concealed in the US they have the edge, even if the other person has their weapon drawn.

Your assumptions do not take into account that most people with concealed carry permits have taken the time to train to look at every situation they encounter, so the odds of a criminal getting their gun out and pointed before the "victim" begins to react are actually greatly reduced.

As to your question about drawtime, I have not clocked how long from hands to the side till the first round is fired (which always hits center mass), but I have clocked how long to draw, fire 8 rounds of .45 and reload, that time is 5.4 seconds with a group less than 6 inches across, and the time to fire the second mag (7rounds) is an additional 2.3 seconds. This would lead me to conclude that my draw time is something in the neighborhood of a second. Shooting in the military or law enforcement is different than shooting as a civilian, the main difference being that civilians who are smart, train more than the military or LEO's. I have personally cycled ~60,000 rounds thru my carry weapon over the course of a decade (avg. 500rds per month), I dont really have to even aim that hard anymore, it is more like putting on a glove and pointing your finger.

WOW...60K?? What are you shooting? 1911? Any parts fail yet?

MyFingID
02-17-2009, 03:23
WOW...60K?? What are you shooting? 1911? Any parts fail yet?

Mine had a screw fall out that broke the safety. Doesn't matter, I don't trust safeties anyways.

ricodelcristo
02-17-2009, 03:57
civilians shouldn't be able to use guns, they are the crutch of society that prevents everyone from becoming a ninja :ninja:

AmonDominus
02-17-2009, 04:00
Rofl. A white guy named Habib. Classic.

IthroZada
02-17-2009, 04:02
Rofl. A white guy named Habib. Classic.

I was scratching my head at that too.

Gruum
02-17-2009, 15:57
Okay, you are all right and i am wrong,
everyone should be armed.

So, lets just say, everyone has a gun, what happens next?
dont you really think the criminals would say, "oh, well, the woman could have a gun, i dont rob her."?

Or do you think that the criminal gets some friends to protect each other.


And once again, i never said, that noone should have a gun, i just said, that this vid is a propaganda vid, that the shown situations are very unlikly to happen.
The vid just showed the 'good' side, no word about any risks.
Dont tell me, that if you get your concealed weapon carry permits, noone tells you anything about the risks.

And once again, please atleast try to read, i was always reffering to the situations in this vid.

Both weapons are in a good shape, both people dont hesitate to pull the trigger, both have been in gun fights before, both paying attention.

As a robber, i would have taken the purse and i wouldnt let the woman look for some cash and her wallet, well, it might have happend that way, but how are the chances?

Oh, and the USA is not the only huge country in the world, and not in every state you need to carry a gun to protect yourself.


Oh, and what about the study that said, that the police is out gunned by criminals?
they want to give the police bigger weapons, so they can compete with the gangs AKs.
Following your arguments, the women need bigger purses to 'conceal' their bazookas in there.
You said, that criminals can get any weapon they want, so whats stopping them to get automatic weapons, weapons like the MP5, and whats stopping the criminals to wear bullet proof vests?

What about the guy who is in a gang and got shot buy a woman, do you really think they say, "yeah, he was a bad guy, good the woman killed him." or do you think that they will call for revenge and try to find that woman?



How about educate everyone, give everyone the same chances, if they dont have to rob a store, rob a woman, then the people in shops and these women dont need to protect themself.

You further wrote or a link you provided said, that most of the criminals dont hesitate to shoot, because they have seen lots of violence when they were kids.
Just imagine you would end this circle here,if you were able to get the kids out of this enviroment.


And to make it clear, there will always be these kind of people who just want to kill, but the numbers of these are so small, that you dont need to really worry about them.

kaffien
02-17-2009, 16:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNUqtkXTQ8&eurl=http://ferfal.blogspot.com/

I have my doubts the emotional "men" or women can really grasp this. This is worth a try however.

I don't have a gun ... I likely should not have one. However I have ended one home invasion on when they broke into the house while i was sleeping. It's pretty scary. I had my trusty 36 inch wrecking bar though.

Crowbars don't need to reload.

Rimayven
02-17-2009, 16:28
You people are all paranoid.