As I am just far too lazy to read the previous posts, except a few, I have this to say.
Personally, I have nothing against guns. Guns bring fun and enjoyment for some people (target shooting, hunting), guns give law enforcers the "intimidation factor" they need, guns put food on the table (hunting again), guns can be used to kill, injure, and do other such unpleasant things to people, things, and animals. It is not a lie that lots of people die, because they are shot by a gun. Many people have shot people with a gun. However, not all gun owners are trigger happy maniacs who just can't wait to shoot something, lot's of people buy a gun because in this world in which we live today people are insecure and need something to give them a sense of protection. People buy guns for recreation, hunting, sports. Lastly, People buy guns for unlawful practices.
Frankly, I don't blame the gun for violence. If all the guns on earth were destroyed right now and no one knew how to make a gun anymore I'm sure the human race will find some other means to carry out their sport, hunting, and crime. No guns? Get a sword, a knife, a spear even. Hell, it's not that hard to make a spear, just take a knife and stick on the end of a broom handle, instant spear. No matter if it's guns, swords, or Metal Pipes, violence will be carried out, and frankly there is nothing we can do about it...kinda sad when you think about it.
I would believe that people who are obsessed with guns misunderstand the 2nd Amendment. Frankly it's saying the STATE can arm it STATE MILITIA with weapons in case the FREAKIN' KING OF ENGLAND knocks at THEIR DOOR. Well, I don't think that's about to happen anytime soon.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin--The_Snake+Dec 2 2003, 03:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The_Snake @ Dec 2 2003, 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Frankly, I don't blame the gun for violence. If all the guns on earth were destroyed right now and no one knew how to make a gun anymore I'm sure the human race will find some other means to carry out their sport, hunting, and crime. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> bravo, sir.
<!--QuoteBegin--Zig+Dec 2 2003, 12:14 AM --></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Dec 2 2003, 12:14 AM )</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--The_Snake+Dec 2 2003, 03:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The_Snake @ Dec 2 2003, 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Frankly, I don't blame the gun for violence. If all the guns on earth were destroyed right now and no one knew how to make a gun anymore I'm sure the human race will find some other means to carry out their sport, hunting, and crime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
..................<b>...............</b>..........................................................*Flips a few pages back, sees the same comments made....*
The funny thing is: at school we are doing a project based on the movie: Bowling For Columbine. The teacher wants us to do a presentation, either a drawing, poster, and whatnot, but it has to relate to five things in the movie. She (yes its a she) wants me to draw, since I am good in her terms (she is an art teacher, too) at drawing; I don't want to...
Anyways, my thought is that the ideas of both sides-opinions based on innocence and opinions based on violence-are the forces at work amongst gun toting people. I personally didn't like the movie to much, I thought Mr. Moore was a bit "one-sided" and yada. Yes, fear and anger represent violence (siggh); <insert word> and <insert word> represent peace. I was thinking of drawing a supposedly dead hand gripped around an AK-47 with blood dripping at the bottom of the severed wrist. In essence, this would juxtapose Charlton Heston's comment at the NRA meet, "...from my cold dead hands," by showing that his words actually produce the effect in which he so blindly says it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Strabismo+Dec 1 2003, 05:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Strabismo @ Dec 1 2003, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Some people just can't understand that most gun owners have guns for hunting, collecting and target shooting and not necessarly for defending himself or killing someone.
I repeat that I have many guns for hunting and target shooting. Most of my neighboors also have guns for the same reasons than me. I didnt purchased these guns for personnal defense because I know that nobody wants to kill me, I'm not paranoid. While these guns are mine, they won't kill anybody.
And if someone wants to kill somebody, he will generally take the easiest and most accessible way to kill him. If it is a gun, he will use it. If there is no gun, he will probably take a knife, poison or a baseball bat etc. etc. As we say, ways to kill somebody are infinite. So the real question is "how to remove someone's will to kill someone else?". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I understand completely, utterly and totally. I am ALL for guns as sporting. Because sporting guns dont have to be kept at home. Because sporting guns rarely include assault rifles and SMG's - dedicated people killers. All these things can be stored at rifle ranges or at weapons lockups near hunting grounds. That way you wont be tempted to "defend" yourself with it at home.
We all agree with Snakes comment. However, they will have to try pretty freakin hard to come up with something better than a gun. Why? Because through out history the basic way of killing a person in man to man combat is to put something through him and disrupt his internal organs. Drive something into his body.
Started out with sticks and stones. Then we moved on to bronze/iron/steel and you find the first knives/daggers. Then you have arrows - now these are pretty cool but they cant be fired quickly, so they can only supplement the close range stabbers. Then someone comes along and developes the musket - its not terribly different from the bow in terms of use, but you can stick a knife on the end and have a spear/distance killer combo. Then someone invents a rifle, and there you have it folks, easy, rapid fire ways of driving steel through someone at all ranges. Come SMGs etc and you just cant go back.
Thats all a gun is, a distance/cqb stabbing instrument that relies little upon the skill and strength of the wielder. Its the PERFECT/best weapon available. You take that off people, and you are going to slow them down like there is no tomorrow. It will end massacres for sure, and its going to be a lonnngggg time before someone figures out something better. And that something better is going to have to involve lasers/electronics/sonics, because the job of "mass accellerator for the purposes of pentrating" has already been taken.
One thing that has shocked me in this thread is that I've actually had to try and convince people that killing with a gun is a heck of a lot easier then killing with a knife. I thought that was blatantly obvious. At base level, guns make killing so much easier - easier for the mind to execute (just pull the trigger - not drive the knife in his throat), and easier on the body (whoa this guy might actually pull the knife off me - compared to "the Great Equilizer").
Firearms for hunting and sport - DEALT WITH. Done. Please refrain from bringing that one up again unless you have some serious criticism of the "storage away from home" idea.
Firearms for self defence. Clearly a really bad idea, but if you wish to, its your funeral. Land of the brave, home of the Free - I wish I had the kinda freedom that required me to sleep with a loaded firearm in the bedside table. I think I'll stay in Aust thank you very much, were if you get shot, then you are almost literally one in a million.
As Marine said (and something I agree with. Which is strange) is that the mentality of using that weapon is completely different. Guns are very sterile compared to blades. Sure, the person may bleed a little, but you don't have to be right next to him while he bleeds with a gun, while with a blade, you get covered in his blood if you go for a fatal stab.
Of course, I love one history story I know in which a bunch of people with muskets were marching down an army, and they got rained on by longbow's, and the musketeer's fired and mp_friendlyfire was on.
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Dec 2 2003, 04:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Dec 2 2003, 04:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As Marine said (and something I agree with. Which is strange) is that the mentality of using that weapon is completely different. Guns are very sterile compared to blades. Sure, the person may bleed a little, but you don't have to be right next to him while he bleeds with a gun, while with a blade, you get covered in his blood if you go for a fatal stab.
Of course, I love one history story I know in which a bunch of people with muskets were marching down an army, and they got rained on by longbow's, and the musketeer's fired and mp_friendlyfire was on. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I too hope this topic dies quickly so I can go back to being on the opposite side of the battle from the heretic enemies of the Lord <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
In the spirit of Nova's friendly fire story, I will give an epic retelling of the Second World War.
It started out with the MG42. You have the name TOTALLY wrong, dont you little children know is it called the STG-42? Hitler had the stg42 made for one purpose: so that machine gunners could pop out of noowhere, stand straight up and get insta-gib's on the allied solders! The americans were stunned by this idea, as the 30cal they used was so horribly inaccurate, it could barely hit a bunker when the mg was standing 10 meters in front of it.
The americans eventually adopted the BAR however, which had a bipod, and lazersight accuracy while on the run. The damage exactly matched that of the stg42, except with 20 rounds and wayyy less RPM.
When the germans confronted the BAR in africa, they knew they needed a solution, and that came in the form of the k98 "super-railgun". Which had perfect accuracy 200 meters away, and was able to penetrate 4 allied soldiers with one bullet. The allied soldiers refered to the k98 as "a wh*re weapon" and a "damn n00b stick".
To counter the k98, the allies ran completely out of ideas, but eventually they came up with a solution, and it would be to camp with a bunch of old springy' 03's. The kars, while maintaining perfect snap shot accuracy, eventually started to die down from the massive amount of spring bullets flying throughout the air.
... and that my friends, is the story of the great world war 2.
Actually, IIRC, the MG42 is mainly a stationary weapon, while the STG-44 (Think AK design) was an assault rifle. and the Kar 98 was designed in 1898, thus the name Kar '98.
btw Marine, the musketeer story, I simply said mp_friendlyfire was on because it's a reference to the fact that they ended up hurting themselves because of their bumbling. They had kept on expecting the enemy to fight them the exact same style, in massive formations firing in groups. Lo' and behold, they get torn apart by long-bows, which wouldn't have had the same effect if the musketeers had simply carried some shields.
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Dec 2 2003, 04:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Dec 2 2003, 04:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, IIRC, the MG42 is mainly a stationary weapon, while the STG-44 (Think AK design) was an assault rifle.
btw Marine, the musketeer story, I simply said mp_friendlyfire was on because it's a reference to the fact that they ended up hurting themselves because of their bumbling. They had kept on expecting the enemy to fight them the exact same style, in massive formations firing in groups. Lo' and behold, they get torn apart by long-bows, which wouldn't have had the same effect if the musketeers had simply carried some shields. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ehehehe absolutely.
I actually ripped that story straight from the Day of Defeat forums, were it was parodying DoD's representations of the weapons of WW2. The MG42 is now being used as an assault rifle in DoD - hence the STG that Rommel put on the front for a laugh.
Marine, your idea of a "weapon bunker" seems to be a good idea but I reject it completely. First, each time I go hunting, I don't want to have to go to the "bunker" each morning (wich can be very far from where you hunt) and I am sure that no hunter in the world would like that. Secondly, it would take armed guards so all these weapons don't get stolen. Also, there could be mistakes in the system. Think about a guy behind a desk who takes and gives hundreds of guns per day. He can't know personnally each gun owner. So what could happen if someone can take someone else's weapon? The is also the gun maintenance question. Each time you shoot with a gun, you are supposed to clean it. And when you don't shoot with it, you must maintain it periodically so id doesn't rusts. That means you have to clean and maintain your gun on the same place the guns are stored. If you collect guns and you have 50 guns to maintain but you just have the time to do one gun per day, that means you have to go to the "bunker" each time.
So why don't we just obligate gun owners to store their guns unloaded in a locked locker? That's what I do with mine so my guns cannot defend myself because it takes too much time to go to the locker, open it and load a gun. The only time I'l get my guns out of home it's when there will be kids in my house so there will be no risks that I forget to lock my locker and one of my kids play with a gun. I'l maybe rent a "securespace" depot and put my guns in there.
And maybe it is harder physically and emotionnally to kill someone with a knife that with a gun, but what about poisoning? Knife is not the only alternative way.
About 12 years ago, some child molestor in my neighborhood chased me down and cornered me in my house. He tried to coax me out saying that he was not going to hurt me and he just wanted to talk.
I retrieved one of my shotguns and proceeded to aim it directly at this pervert as he tried to open the door. He quickly left.
I didn't need to fire a shot but, What if I did not have the gun? The police did not arrive for another 30 minutes.
Any of you who want to ban guns. Please explain what I should have done in this situation.
<!--QuoteBegin--wizard@psu+Dec 2 2003, 08:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Dec 2 2003, 08:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> About 12 years ago, some child molestor in my neighborhood chased me down and cornered me in my house. He tried to coax me out saying that he was not going to hurt me and he just wanted to talk.
I retrieved one of my shotguns and proceeded to aim it directly at this pervert as he tried to open the door. He quickly left.
I didn't need to fire a shot but, What if I did not have the gun? The police did not arrive for another 30 minutes.
Any of you who want to ban guns. Please explain what I should have done in this situation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. Guns are too valuable as a tool for self defence to be enforced. We can't completely remove the guns from the human existence, and the next best thing is <b>not</b> enforcing laws on legal sales.
I am against a exagerated gun control but I don't think that owning a gun should be a right but a priviledge.
The only limits that there should be is a minimum of maturity (let's say a age limit or a kind of test), knoweldge of gun safety and it's application (let's say a theoric and practice exam) and to not being a criminal (you commit violent crimes in the past and they are not forgiven? Forget guns.) and that's all. If the person has good intentions, is mature and he can handle a gun safely, this person could purchase guns.
<!--QuoteBegin--Strabismo+Dec 2 2003, 10:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Strabismo @ Dec 2 2003, 10:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marine, your idea of a "weapon bunker" seems to be a good idea but I reject it completely. First, each time I go hunting, I don't want to have to go to the "bunker" each morning (wich can be very far from where you hunt) and I am sure that no hunter in the world would like that. Secondly, it would take armed guards so all these weapons don't get stolen. Also, there could be mistakes in the system. Think about a guy behind a desk who takes and gives hundreds of guns per day. He can't know personnally each gun owner. So what could happen if someone can take someone else's weapon? The is also the gun maintenance question. Each time you shoot with a gun, you are supposed to clean it. And when you don't shoot with it, you must maintain it periodically so id doesn't rusts. That means you have to clean and maintain your gun on the same place the guns are stored. If you collect guns and you have 50 guns to maintain but you just have the time to do one gun per day, that means you have to go to the "bunker" each time.
So why don't we just obligate gun owners to store their guns unloaded in a locked locker? That's what I do with mine so my guns cannot defend myself because it takes too much time to go to the locker, open it and load a gun. The only time I'l get my guns out of home it's when there will be kids in my house so there will be no risks that I forget to lock my locker and one of my kids play with a gun. I'l maybe rent a "securespace" depot and put my guns in there.
And maybe it is harder physically and emotionnally to kill someone with a knife that with a gun, but what about poisoning? Knife is not the only alternative way. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I will admit that convienience is a big problem with my solution - but is an extra half hour of you time you waaste every time you wish to target shoot/hunt more important than the thousands of lives it would save every year. No more curious kids blowing their own heads of with daddies gun. Criminals no longer expect firearms in the home, and as such dont expect much resistance when they enter - consequently they are more likely to threaten then neutralise when they are interrupted.
It is a heck of a lot easier to have a centralised, heavily secured compound for the storage of the town's weapons rather then to have the same weapons spread throughout the town in everyone's cupboards. You want to steal a gun, then you have to break into a veritable fortress - motion sensors, security guards, wire etc. No more breaking open a gun cupboard and helping yourself. And then you have people using guns to kill someone else while in a rage. First they have to drive to the compound (cooling down time) - then they have to sign the gun out, then go and use it. Imagine how easy it would be for the cops to pin the murder on you. You cant just chuck the gun in the river - because the compound will have you recorded as taking the firearm out.
Sure there will be mistakes in the handing out of firearms - but look at it like taking money out of a bank. Surely somewhere along the line someone must be able to take out money from an account that isnt theirs - right? Not really - banks are pretty freaking careful, with a whole stack of procedures to ensure that doesnt happen. I'm sure its possible to make the mistaken handing over of guns a VERY rare occurance.
Cleaning can be done before the gun is returned, and regular firearm maintainance could be done by the "bunker" staff.
As for obligating gun owners to store weapons unloaded in a locked locker - WTH! Dont you already have that? Wow. Anyway, that would be a lot harder to enforce and check up on then a "bunker" project.
Poisoning? Sure you can do that. But most firearms are carried for protection and offence. You cant exactly hold up a 7-11 by threatening to forcefeed the cash register boy arsenic. Nor can you grab a handful of ratsac and thrust it down the throat of an intruder in your home. Poison is for assasination, with plenty of time to reconsider. And if someone is going to assasinate someone else, then having a firearm or not will make no difference to them. Thats not what I'm attempting to deal with.
Wizard - there will ALWAYS be a 1/10000000 situation which could not be solved without a gun. I just dont think its worth having 25,000 people die every year in the US to save the 200 that couldnt have survived without a firearm.
Athena - I have read the criticism of BfC before, and I think a lot of the points against the movie are valid. That whole movie stank of bias to me - but I still think it made many interesting statements. One of which was that the American people are paranoid. The police cant save me, my dog cant save me, our government is going to try and kill me, our country is going to be invaded - I NEED A GUN TO SAVE ME IF THIS HAPPENS!!!!1111
Basic point - Americans and guns are a very bad mix. Other countries have the same firearms in the same concentrations and nothing near the problem. America has failed the firearms test, and I think that something really needs to be done. Leaving things as is seems insane to me.
All good points by Marine01. Unless you can deny his points with some evidence, you are basically saying you prefer having guns around because you like "feeling" safe, which isn't a good enough reason. I argue that having a gun puts you in more danger than not. Like I was saying earlier, pulling a gun is gonna get you shot far quicker than if you never had one.
Perhaps if responsible gun owners only had guns, the world would be a better place. We can't pretend this is the case. 25,000 deaths say so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> to save the 200 that couldnt have survived without a firearm<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I don't claim the number of lives saved by firearms outnumber those who are murdered by them, I'd like to know where you came up with this figure.
Regardless, even if we used the bunker system (I wouldn't want anyone maintaining my weapon but me though) Would the number of homocide by guns (not self defense) drop any? Logic would say that only the responsible people would use the bunker (people who wouldn't shoot anyone anyway).
No law is going to stop "evil" people from useing them. Think about it. People who are going to break the law with guns are obviously not going to let a law about owning guns get in their way. A law against guns simply stops law abiding gun owners from using them. Once again, this solves nothing.
<!--QuoteBegin--NGE+Dec 3 2003, 06:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Dec 3 2003, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My personal opinion on guns-
No law is going to stop "evil" people from useing them. Think about it. People who are going to break the law with guns are obviously not going to let a law about owning guns get in their way. A law against guns simply stops law abiding gun owners from using them. Once again, this solves nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The "evil" person is less likely to shoot and kill law abiding citizens if the law abiding citizens don't point guns at them. Would you agree with this?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The "evil" person is less likely to shoot and kill law abiding citizens if the law abiding citizens don't point guns at them. Would you agree with this? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That argument is pretty screwed up IMO.
"OMG if you didn't have all this cool bling bling in your house, I wouldn't have to rob it! It's YOUR fault!"
Clearly!
And you won't get hurt as long as you back the **** off and let me do it. If you threaten me, you're going to die.
Brilliant! I say we pass a law saying the only legal thing to do when a robber comes into your home is to get out of his way (maybe even help him with the furniture) and call the cops who won't show up for an hour. You WON'T get hurt then! (so sorry for those who still do).
law abiding citizens don't just pull guns out willy nilly. If they did, they wouldn't be law abiding citizens. Heck, most COPS don't ever have to use their sidearm, much less civilians with CCW's.
The only REASON a law abiding citizen draws his weapon is if he/she's life is in danger. Here's an example that happened just recently here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would-be robber slain by intended victim By MIKE MORRIS Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
A suspected armed robber was shot and killed by his intended victim in Clayton County, police said Wednesday.
The incident occurred shortly after midnight at Independence Park on Thomas Road near Jonesboro.
A man was walking with his 11-year-old daughter when the suspect "approached them and attempted to rob them," said Clayton County police Lt. Joseph Woodall.
"The victim pulled his own firearm and fired some rounds at the suspect," Woodall said.
"The suspect fled about 30 yards and fell over."
The suspect, who was in his late teens or 20s, died at the scene. "He still had in his hand a stolen Glock pistol," Woodall said.
A stolen vehicle that police believe was the suspect's getaway car was also found in the park.
Police say the father acted in self-defense and will not face charges in connection with the shooting. The names of the two men have not been released.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I am with my daughter, her life is my primary concern. When a robber comes up to you with a gun or knife, you don't KNOW if they intend to just let you go if you comply, or to shoot/shank you and run even after you comply. If I have the reasonable oppertunity (and I am carrying a weapon) yes I will use it. I don't care what the liberals say, I will shoot that man until I know he can't harm us if I have the chance (sometimes you don't have the chance, I understand). I may be bashed for the rest of my life for harming an innocent criminal, but my daughter will be alive, and that's more important to me.
The first thing some of the anti-gun guru will say is "You bastage, YOU are the threat, not the criminal! You put your daughter in the most danger" and I disagree.
Sure, they may have gone away after I gave my wallet. Or they may have killed us both. If I asked ANY ONE OF YOU whether you'd want to go down fighting, or go down without a fight, (just in general) you'd likely say go down fighting. Why would the case change here?
There are four possible outcomes, not two. You seem to think it's "Comply, get out alive" and "Defend yourself, get shot". That those are the only two outcomes.
In reality, there are also "Comply, get shot." "Defend yourself, get out alive". They happen often as well. I garuntee alot of the 25,000 people who got shot complied. I know it's hard to believe it, I know you were raised to believe that everyone is good in their heart, but quite frankly there are some cruel, mean people out there. The only way to solve that is by reducing the amount of poor citizens and bettering education. Everyone makes the argument "Well, if they don't have a gun, they'll use a knife." That's true, but the argument that guns are worse because they're "point and shoot" is also valid. I seriously doubt though that a) you can get guns from the criminals, and b) that the criminals will have a change of heart, because it "takes longer" to hurt someone with a knife (time to think).
How many people die because someone did the thing you guys suggest and just dialed 911? Too many. And the moment you see someone die because it takes the cop 45 minutes to respond and the kid's getting beaten the entire time, you will understand. When you could have stopped it- I'm not saying do rash things and don't dial 911, I'm just saying when you can stop it, why shouldn't you? You may get hurt, true. Or you may successfuly save that dudes life.
Yes, I could get shot defending my daughter. This is why you practice. I don't believe that a criminal goes out to the range and practices every weekend, and if I do, there is a good chance I will be able to succesfully defend my family. I won't carry a gun unless I know how to use it- but I grant you that some people do. Some people buy a gun for "protection" and know **** about it, and never practiced. And then they get themselves shot. Giving my case a really bad name.
It is my opinion that those 25,000 homocides were NOT mostly brought upon by law abiding citizens pulling out their firearms and then getting shot, whereas if they had no gun, they would have been ok. That may be the case on some, but I seriously doubt on the majority. They were more likely caused by murderers who were going to kill them regardless of whether or not they complied or not.
The very notion of that statement Hawkeye reminds me of the rediculousness of cases where the criminal SUES the law abiding citizens after their actvities were foiled. AND WINNING.
There isn't any way to prevent criminals from getting firearms. If you want to acquire it, you will find a way. Even the dullards can find somebody smart to get them one for enough cash. Even if somehow it was possible, and we did it, they'd just find some other way to threaten people (it's not really hard to build your own gun, for instance. And there are plenty of other weapons too, from knives to explosives).
That said, the only real reason that you'd want to keep firearms out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens would be to prevent them from playing hero, and getting themselves killed. That can be accomplished with education: basically prove to them that pulling a gun on a guy wielding a gun is not the best solution (and it's not), but rather a good way to get somebody killed. For those rare situations that a gun in the hand of a civilian would be useful, there's still the possiblilty of it happening.
If you want to discourage criminals from using guns themselves, about the best you can do is make extreme punishments for possessing an unliscenced firearm or using a gun in a crime. If the difference between robbery with a knife and robbery with a gun is 20 years in prison, you'll see less guns (but more knives, which is still an improvement).
Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens because somebody abused that right (and became a felon) is wrong. Why don't you try punishing just the guilty instead of everybody? How about we just try reducing crime in general, thus reducing the number of people killed during an act of crime as a bonus?
(from Marine01) <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Basic point - Americans and guns are a very bad mix. Other countries have the same firearms in the same concentrations and nothing near the problem. America has failed the firearms test, and I think that something really needs to be done. Leaving things as is seems insane to me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We can't handle anything. If you can name it, somebody's probably died because of it. Taking away our rights isn't going to make us grow up any faster.
Besides, this kind of logic also means that we should take away toasters and pop-tarts since we keep burning down our houses with them, and taking away politics because some people lie and cheat. That's just silly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That said, the only real reason that you'd want to keep firearms out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens would be to prevent them from playing hero, and getting themselves killed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said, from my experience, most of the people who get killed by pulling out a firearm to defend themselves is someone who's probably never been to the range in their life. That's irresponsible and dangerous. Changing that, however, is not only easier, but more realistic than just banning firearms alltogether to the general public. Currently it only requires like a 2 day course on the range with an instructor to get your CCW. 2 days. You learn to operate the weapon, but that's it. Make the requirement stricter (more training) and not only will you see success rates go up (people successfully defending themselves) but you'll see the rates of people playing hero and dying because of it go down.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but more knives, which is still an improvement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not an improvement when you can't defend yourself against a knife either. How are YOU, being robbed, in any better a position just because their weapon is different? Out of the frying pan and into the fire there- didn't help you much.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Dec 3 2003, 07:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Dec 3 2003, 07:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The "evil" person is less likely to shoot and kill law abiding citizens if the law abiding citizens don't point guns at them. Would you agree with this? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That argument is pretty screwed up IMO.
"OMG if you didn't have all this cool bling bling in your house, I wouldn't have to rob it! It's YOUR fault!"
Clearly!
And you won't get hurt as long as you back the **** off and let me do it. If you threaten me, you're going to die.
Brilliant! I say we pass a law saying the only legal thing to do when a robber comes into your home is to get out of his way (maybe even help him with the furniture) and call the cops who won't show up for an hour. You WON'T get hurt then! (so sorry for those who still do).
law abiding citizens don't just pull guns out willy nilly. If they did, they wouldn't be law abiding citizens. Heck, most COPS don't ever have to use their sidearm, much less civilians with CCW's.
The only REASON a law abiding citizen draws his weapon is if he/she's life is in danger. Here's an example that happened just recently here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would-be robber slain by intended victim By MIKE MORRIS Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
A suspected armed robber was shot and killed by his intended victim in Clayton County, police said Wednesday.
The incident occurred shortly after midnight at Independence Park on Thomas Road near Jonesboro.
A man was walking with his 11-year-old daughter when the suspect "approached them and attempted to rob them," said Clayton County police Lt. Joseph Woodall.
"The victim pulled his own firearm and fired some rounds at the suspect," Woodall said.
"The suspect fled about 30 yards and fell over."
The suspect, who was in his late teens or 20s, died at the scene. "He still had in his hand a stolen Glock pistol," Woodall said.
A stolen vehicle that police believe was the suspect's getaway car was also found in the park.
Police say the father acted in self-defense and will not face charges in connection with the shooting. The names of the two men have not been released.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I am with my daughter, her life is my primary concern. When a robber comes up to you with a gun or knife, you don't KNOW if they intend to just let you go if you comply, or to shoot/shank you and run even after you comply. If I have the reasonable oppertunity (and I am carrying a weapon) yes I will use it. I don't care what the liberals say, I will shoot that man until I know he can't harm us if I have the chance (sometimes you don't have the chance, I understand). I may be bashed for the rest of my life for harming an innocent criminal, but my daughter will be alive, and that's more important to me.
The first thing some of the anti-gun guru will say is "You bastage, YOU are the threat, not the criminal! You put your daughter in the most danger" and I disagree.
Sure, they may have gone away after I gave my wallet. Or they may have killed us both. If I asked ANY ONE OF YOU whether you'd want to go down fighting, or go down without a fight, (just in general) you'd likely say go down fighting. Why would the case change here?
There are four possible outcomes, not two. You seem to think it's "Comply, get out alive" and "Defend yourself, get shot". That those are the only two outcomes.
In reality, there are also "Comply, get shot." "Defend yourself, get out alive". They happen often as well. I garuntee alot of the 25,000 people who got shot complied. I know it's hard to believe it, I know you were raised to believe that everyone is good in their heart, but quite frankly there are some cruel, mean people out there. The only way to solve that is by reducing the amount of poor citizens and bettering education. Everyone makes the argument "Well, if they don't have a gun, they'll use a knife." That's true, but the argument that guns are worse because they're "point and shoot" is also valid. I seriously doubt though that a) you can get guns from the criminals, and b) that the criminals will have a change of heart, because it "takes longer" to hurt someone with a knife (time to think).
How many people die because someone did the thing you guys suggest and just dialed 911? Too many. And the moment you see someone die because it takes the cop 45 minutes to respond and the kid's getting beaten the entire time, you will understand. When you could have stopped it- I'm not saying do rash things and don't dial 911, I'm just saying when you can stop it, why shouldn't you? You may get hurt, true. Or you may successfuly save that dudes life.
Yes, I could get shot defending my daughter. This is why you practice. I don't believe that a criminal goes out to the range and practices every weekend, and if I do, there is a good chance I will be able to succesfully defend my family. I won't carry a gun unless I know how to use it- but I grant you that some people do. Some people buy a gun for "protection" and know **** about it, and never practiced. And then they get themselves shot. Giving my case a really bad name.
It is my opinion that those 25,000 homocides were NOT mostly brought upon by law abiding citizens pulling out their firearms and then getting shot, whereas if they had no gun, they would have been ok. That may be the case on some, but I seriously doubt on the majority. They were more likely caused by murderers who were going to kill them regardless of whether or not they complied or not.
The very notion of that statement Hawkeye reminds me of the rediculousness of cases where the criminal SUES the law abiding citizens after their actvities were foiled. AND WINNING.
THAT is what is wrong with america. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's amazing to me how you can draw so many assumptions off a simple question.
All I asked you was, what will make a robber more likely to shoot you? A gun in your hand or no gun in your hand?
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Dec 3 2003, 11:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Dec 3 2003, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All good points by Marine01. Unless you can deny his points with some evidence, you are basically saying you prefer having guns around because you like "feeling" safe, which isn't a good enough reason. I argue that having a gun puts you in more danger than not. Like I was saying earlier, pulling a gun is gonna get you shot far quicker than if you never had one.
Perhaps if responsible gun owners only had guns, the world would be a better place. We can't pretend this is the case. 25,000 deaths say so. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How can you say "feeling safe" when guns are around is not a good excuse to have them when your reason to NOT have them is because you "dont feel safe" when there are guns around?
For the gun-bunker idea: I would never allow someone else disasamble my gun and/or clean it and I am sure most of gun owners think the same way. They can damage it, break something or just don't do the job correctly and you never know what happens. The mechanical condition of a gun is very important for the shooter's safety. There is also a big difference between handing out money and handing out a gun. And even banks do mistakes sometimes. They correct it later but it could've been too late in the case of a firearm. Also, if a guy is not mature enough to make sure that his kids at home won't be able to reach his gun, he shouldn't be authorized to own a gun. The "bunker" solution is just not applicable.
The comparison of Canada with USA's statistics shows that guns aren't the problem. The society is. That means that finding a way to change the society is the solution, not removing guns. If most americans own guns cauz they're paranoid, find a way to remove the paranoia and people will stop owning guns for their personnal defense and target shooters, collectors and hunters will be also happy.
Hawkeye: I kinda went off on a rant, sorry bout that.
The issue with the weapon bunker is that most americans believe the whole point of the 2nd amendment right was to be able to defend ourselves if the government ever went dictator or whatever. I don't think we will ever need to do that, at least in my lifetime, but we can't just say it's outdated and we will "never" need to bear arms against the government either (otherwise our entire constitution is on shakey ground, what would stop them from saying other rights are "outdated"?). What the weapon bunker does, is allow the government to seal off our arms if we ever need them.
I'm not trying to be paranoid, as I said I personally don't have a problem with it, because I doubt it'll ever get to that point in my lifetime. Many people would object heavily though.
I agree that things need to be done to reduce the number of deaths by guns in this country. As such, I'm willing to make a compromise- if it takes me 30 minutes to get to my weapon, and that really does save lives, then I can live with it. I only use it at the range anyway- However, I don't agree with banning weapons entirely from the general populace as some have suggested.
Should John Q. Public be allowed to actually carry a gun for defense (not just own one for hunting/target shooting)? it's iffy in my opinion. While I think it should be allowed personally, it should also be carefully implemented because it can definately be the source of many problems. The laws must be enforced to the letter in order for it to work. I think that you should have to go through an extensive program to ensure that you not only know the Law (when and when you cannot draw the weapon), but that you and your firearm are registered, and that you know how to use it (week long qualification instead of 2 days, and a monthly range visit minimum). Obviously the same background checks would be implemented. Now, if you are caught carrying a pistol with no licence (past criminal history or not), you should have SEVERE punishment (fines and possible jailtime, as well as confiscation of your weapon and a probation period saying you can never carry another pistol again maybe).
What this does is reduce the amount of people carrying pistols who don't know what they're doing- they have the "illusion" of protection, yet most have never even seen a range much less practiced with the pistol. I think this is a big cause of many fatal shootings by people who carry pistols to defend themselves.
Now the only public-citizens who are armed know what they're doing, have registered firearms, and know the law (when and when they cannot draw their pistol, and when is it legal to shoot the criminal).
This won't entirely prevent deaths, because you know some people still wont' care, some people who are responsible may snap one day or some freak occurance, but this should greatly reduce the amount of deaths caused by those situations.
In addition, I think the training should be free. No one wants to shell out $200 for training and $150 for the licence when the pistol costs upwards of $200+, so they simply carry pistols illegally.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Dec 3 2003, 06:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Dec 3 2003, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not trying to be paranoid, as I said I personally don't have a problem with it, because I doubt it'll ever get to that point in my lifetime. Many people would object heavily though. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Your not parinoid... Dictators often have used Gun control and registration to disarm the public in the past. People who think the US is above the corruption of power is blind and deaf.
Holy ****, we got a buncha of crazy NRA mothafuckas up in this! Then again, I'm not really suprised, considering the majority of the USA is hicks wanting so called "mob justice"- case and point afganistan.
(Just a disclaimer- I apologize if any of these specific arguments have already been brought up; I skimmed this thread but didnt read the 18 pages in depth)
Additionally, I could be wrong, but I'm guessing a large number of people arguing on this thread are kids, or younger people that lack the scope and the wisdom to really understand human life, etc- who view deaths as mere statistics, or more support for their argument.
Let me address something right off the bat:
I'm am SICK and tired of the arguement that a gun is merely a tool. And when misused, it kills people- as can a baseball bat when misused. The obvious difference is (with the exception of target shooting; however I dont sympathize with that- because non lethal guns can be used...), guns ARE a TOOL for KILLING, nothing else. When a gun KILLS someone- its not being misused, it's doing its job. Also, it takes a hell of a lot more time and anger- hate, etc to beat someone to death than to shoot them. Sure, a knife can also be lethal- but imagine this scenario:
A bar fight erupts some night... starts out as a fistfight, then one gets punched real hard, proceeds to pull out a gun in anger, and shoots the other even while others rush to break it up. That's a horribly realistic and feasible situation. Whereas- if one of them pulled a knife on the other, the fight could probably be stopped before any mortal damage was done.
Another argument which makes sense initially is that guns deter crime- generally murder and robbery.... but, if you actually look at the statistics, the following is true: Out of all the times a gun is used for defense in a house robbery, (regardless of whether the intruder is armed), 15% of the time the gun either successfully shoots or deters the perpetrator. In the remaining staggering percentage, either the gun spooks the intruder and causes him to pull out a gun on the homeowner, or more frequently, the unarmed intruder TAKES the gun from the homeowner and shoots them. This isn't a debatable statistic, it's a well known anti gun fact.
Another thing that has already been touched on in this thread: "Most people are sane and responsible enough to handle firearms- some arent, and we see their crimes, but that cant bring down the whole country". ........ If 10 percent of the population has an allergic reaction so severe to a new medicine, death always results, would it be put on the market? Of course not- its the same with guns. Human life is just too **** precious to wager on whether an individual posseses the judgement neccesary to handle guns responsibly. Id rather see the entire sport of hunting given up than a couple innocent deaths.
Oh - and on a final note, people need to stop referencing the constitution as a supporting argument for gun ownership. First off, we all know it's ridiculously outdated- and was originally intented (shiot, not only intended, it states clearly in the text) that the purpose of gun ownership was to maintain a well organized militia. Since that clearly has no modern day context, I see no point in retaining the rule.
Also, it doesnt matter what the Constitution SAYS we should do- or what it says is right- what matters is what we believe in. And that's exactly what the Constitution is, an outline of our beliefs. THATS WHY IT STARTS OFF WITH "We hold these truths to be self evident". Well, that's pretty clear in most cases. All fairly intelligent logical people will agree that slavery is wrong, as is cruel and unusual punishment, etc..... but that falls apart when dealing with the second amentment, since is obviously NOT a self evident truth to all intelligent people.
But lives <b>are</b> a statistic. It doesn't matter one bit on the grand scale of things whether a person died because he was shot, or because the person hung himself. The result is the same.
The bar fight as a "personal story". It can't be used to justify a point.
* Approximately 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals. (3)
* When citizens use guns for protection from criminals, the criminal is wounded in about 1 out of every 100 instances, and the criminal is killed in about 1 out of every 1000 instances. (3)
* 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)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among Americans 1-34 years old. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the total societal cost of crashes exceeds $200 billion annually.
2,815 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2002. This is 4 percent fewer than in 1975, but 9 percent more than the low point in 1992. In the last 12 years, the total number of fatalities has fluctuated in a fairly narrow range, from 39,250 to 42,815.
The 42,815 deaths in 2002 occurred in 38,309 crashes involving 58,113 motor vehicles.
However, it would be fairly unrealistic to expect that cars are going to be banned just because a select few mis-use them.
Besides that, taking guns away won't stop guns. Guns will still be made, only now they'll be avialbe to the select few, the military ( which is never a good thing), and the people who <b>really</b> want/need them.
Comments
Personally, I have nothing against guns. Guns bring fun and enjoyment for some people (target shooting, hunting), guns give law enforcers the "intimidation factor" they need, guns put food on the table (hunting again), guns can be used to kill, injure, and do other such unpleasant things to people, things, and animals. It is not a lie that lots of people die, because they are shot by a gun. Many people have shot people with a gun. However, not all gun owners are trigger happy maniacs who just can't wait to shoot something, lot's of people buy a gun because in this world in which we live today people are insecure and need something to give them a sense of protection. People buy guns for recreation, hunting, sports. Lastly, People buy guns for unlawful practices.
Frankly, I don't blame the gun for violence. If all the guns on earth were destroyed right now and no one knew how to make a gun anymore I'm sure the human race will find some other means to carry out their sport, hunting, and crime. No guns? Get a sword, a knife, a spear even. Hell, it's not that hard to make a spear, just take a knife and stick on the end of a broom handle, instant spear. No matter if it's guns, swords, or Metal Pipes, violence will be carried out, and frankly there is nothing we can do about it...kinda sad when you think about it.
I would believe that people who are obsessed with guns misunderstand the 2nd Amendment. Frankly it's saying the STATE can arm it STATE MILITIA with weapons in case the FREAKIN' KING OF ENGLAND knocks at THEIR DOOR. Well, I don't think that's about to happen anytime soon.
bravo, sir.
well-said.
Frankly, I don't blame the gun for violence. If all the guns on earth were destroyed right now and no one knew how to make a gun anymore I'm sure the human race will find some other means to carry out their sport, hunting, and crime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
bravo, sir.
well-said<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
..................<b>...............</b>..........................................................*Flips a few pages back, sees the same comments made....*
The funny thing is: at school we are doing a project based on the movie: Bowling For Columbine. The teacher wants us to do a presentation, either a drawing, poster, and whatnot, but it has to relate to five things in the movie. She (yes its a she) wants me to draw, since I am good in her terms (she is an art teacher, too) at drawing; I don't want to...
Anyways, my thought is that the ideas of both sides-opinions based on innocence and opinions based on violence-are the forces at work amongst gun toting people. I personally didn't like the movie to much, I thought Mr. Moore was a bit "one-sided" and yada. Yes, fear and anger represent violence (siggh); <insert word> and <insert word> represent peace. I was thinking of drawing a supposedly dead hand gripped around an AK-47 with blood dripping at the bottom of the severed wrist. In essence, this would juxtapose Charlton Heston's comment at the NRA meet, "...from my cold dead hands," by showing that his words actually produce the effect in which he so blindly says it.
Anways, this blows... Well I mean: school blows.
*pulls revolver to temple and fires a round.*
I repeat that I have many guns for hunting and target shooting. Most of my neighboors also have guns for the same reasons than me. I didnt purchased these guns for personnal defense because I know that nobody wants to kill me, I'm not paranoid. While these guns are mine, they won't kill anybody.
And if someone wants to kill somebody, he will generally take the easiest and most accessible way to kill him. If it is a gun, he will use it. If there is no gun, he will probably take a knife, poison or a baseball bat etc. etc. As we say, ways to kill somebody are infinite. So the real question is "how to remove someone's will to kill someone else?". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand completely, utterly and totally. I am ALL for guns as sporting. Because sporting guns dont have to be kept at home. Because sporting guns rarely include assault rifles and SMG's - dedicated people killers. All these things can be stored at rifle ranges or at weapons lockups near hunting grounds. That way you wont be tempted to "defend" yourself with it at home.
We all agree with Snakes comment. However, they will have to try pretty freakin hard to come up with something better than a gun. Why? Because through out history the basic way of killing a person in man to man combat is to put something through him and disrupt his internal organs. Drive something into his body.
Started out with sticks and stones. Then we moved on to bronze/iron/steel and you find the first knives/daggers. Then you have arrows - now these are pretty cool but they cant be fired quickly, so they can only supplement the close range stabbers. Then someone comes along and developes the musket - its not terribly different from the bow in terms of use, but you can stick a knife on the end and have a spear/distance killer combo. Then someone invents a rifle, and there you have it folks, easy, rapid fire ways of driving steel through someone at all ranges. Come SMGs etc and you just cant go back.
Thats all a gun is, a distance/cqb stabbing instrument that relies little upon the skill and strength of the wielder. Its the PERFECT/best weapon available. You take that off people, and you are going to slow them down like there is no tomorrow. It will end massacres for sure, and its going to be a lonnngggg time before someone figures out something better. And that something better is going to have to involve lasers/electronics/sonics, because the job of "mass accellerator for the purposes of pentrating" has already been taken.
One thing that has shocked me in this thread is that I've actually had to try and convince people that killing with a gun is a heck of a lot easier then killing with a knife. I thought that was blatantly obvious. At base level, guns make killing so much easier - easier for the mind to execute (just pull the trigger - not drive the knife in his throat), and easier on the body (whoa this guy might actually pull the knife off me - compared to "the Great Equilizer").
Firearms for hunting and sport - DEALT WITH. Done. Please refrain from bringing that one up again unless you have some serious criticism of the "storage away from home" idea.
Firearms for self defence. Clearly a really bad idea, but if you wish to, its your funeral. Land of the brave, home of the Free - I wish I had the kinda freedom that required me to sleep with a loaded firearm in the bedside table. I think I'll stay in Aust thank you very much, were if you get shot, then you are almost literally one in a million.
Of course, I love one history story I know in which a bunch of people with muskets were marching down an army, and they got rained on by longbow's, and the musketeer's fired and mp_friendlyfire was on.
Of course, I love one history story I know in which a bunch of people with muskets were marching down an army, and they got rained on by longbow's, and the musketeer's fired and mp_friendlyfire was on. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I too hope this topic dies quickly so I can go back to being on the opposite side of the battle from the heretic enemies of the Lord <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
In the spirit of Nova's friendly fire story, I will give an epic retelling of the Second World War.
It started out with the MG42. You have the name TOTALLY wrong, dont you little children know is it called the STG-42? Hitler had the stg42 made for one purpose: so that machine gunners could pop out of noowhere, stand straight up and get insta-gib's on the allied solders! The americans were stunned by this idea, as the 30cal they used was so horribly inaccurate, it could barely hit a bunker when the mg was standing 10 meters in front of it.
The americans eventually adopted the BAR however, which had a bipod, and lazersight accuracy while on the run. The damage exactly matched that of the stg42, except with 20 rounds and wayyy less RPM.
When the germans confronted the BAR in africa, they knew they needed a solution, and that came in the form of the k98 "super-railgun". Which had perfect accuracy 200 meters away, and was able to penetrate 4 allied soldiers with one bullet. The allied soldiers refered to the k98 as "a wh*re weapon" and a "damn n00b stick".
To counter the k98, the allies ran completely out of ideas, but eventually they came up with a solution, and it would be to camp with a bunch of old springy' 03's. The kars, while maintaining perfect snap shot accuracy, eventually started to die down from the massive amount of spring bullets flying throughout the air.
... and that my friends, is the story of the great world war 2.
btw Marine, the musketeer story, I simply said mp_friendlyfire was on because it's a reference to the fact that they ended up hurting themselves because of their bumbling. They had kept on expecting the enemy to fight them the exact same style, in massive formations firing in groups. Lo' and behold, they get torn apart by long-bows, which wouldn't have had the same effect if the musketeers had simply carried some shields.
btw Marine, the musketeer story, I simply said mp_friendlyfire was on because it's a reference to the fact that they ended up hurting themselves because of their bumbling. They had kept on expecting the enemy to fight them the exact same style, in massive formations firing in groups. Lo' and behold, they get torn apart by long-bows, which wouldn't have had the same effect if the musketeers had simply carried some shields. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ehehehe absolutely.
I actually ripped that story straight from the Day of Defeat forums, were it was parodying DoD's representations of the weapons of WW2. The MG42 is now being used as an assault rifle in DoD - hence the STG that Rommel put on the front for a laugh.
<a href='http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-01-25&res=l' target='_blank'>http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date...002-01-25&res=l</a>
So why don't we just obligate gun owners to store their guns unloaded in a locked locker? That's what I do with mine so my guns cannot defend myself because it takes too much time to go to the locker, open it and load a gun. The only time I'l get my guns out of home it's when there will be kids in my house so there will be no risks that I forget to lock my locker and one of my kids play with a gun. I'l maybe rent a "securespace" depot and put my guns in there.
And maybe it is harder physically and emotionnally to kill someone with a knife that with a gun, but what about poisoning? Knife is not the only alternative way.
I retrieved one of my shotguns and proceeded to aim it directly at this pervert as he tried to open the door. He quickly left.
I didn't need to fire a shot but, What if I did not have the gun? The police did not arrive for another 30 minutes.
Any of you who want to ban guns. Please explain what I should have done in this situation.
I retrieved one of my shotguns and proceeded to aim it directly at this pervert as he tried to open the door. He quickly left.
I didn't need to fire a shot but, What if I did not have the gun? The police did not arrive for another 30 minutes.
Any of you who want to ban guns. Please explain what I should have done in this situation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. Guns are too valuable as a tool for self defence to be enforced. We can't completely remove the guns from the human existence, and the next best thing is <b>not</b> enforcing laws on legal sales.
<a href='http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html' target='_blank'>http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html</a>
The only limits that there should be is a minimum of maturity (let's say a age limit or a kind of test), knoweldge of gun safety and it's application (let's say a theoric and practice exam) and to not being a criminal (you commit violent crimes in the past and they are not forgiven? Forget guns.) and that's all. If the person has good intentions, is mature and he can handle a gun safely, this person could purchase guns.
What do you think about it?
So why don't we just obligate gun owners to store their guns unloaded in a locked locker? That's what I do with mine so my guns cannot defend myself because it takes too much time to go to the locker, open it and load a gun. The only time I'l get my guns out of home it's when there will be kids in my house so there will be no risks that I forget to lock my locker and one of my kids play with a gun. I'l maybe rent a "securespace" depot and put my guns in there.
And maybe it is harder physically and emotionnally to kill someone with a knife that with a gun, but what about poisoning? Knife is not the only alternative way. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will admit that convienience is a big problem with my solution - but is an extra half hour of you time you waaste every time you wish to target shoot/hunt more important than the thousands of lives it would save every year. No more curious kids blowing their own heads of with daddies gun. Criminals no longer expect firearms in the home, and as such dont expect much resistance when they enter - consequently they are more likely to threaten then neutralise when they are interrupted.
It is a heck of a lot easier to have a centralised, heavily secured compound for the storage of the town's weapons rather then to have the same weapons spread throughout the town in everyone's cupboards. You want to steal a gun, then you have to break into a veritable fortress - motion sensors, security guards, wire etc. No more breaking open a gun cupboard and helping yourself. And then you have people using guns to kill someone else while in a rage. First they have to drive to the compound (cooling down time) - then they have to sign the gun out, then go and use it. Imagine how easy it would be for the cops to pin the murder on you. You cant just chuck the gun in the river - because the compound will have you recorded as taking the firearm out.
Sure there will be mistakes in the handing out of firearms - but look at it like taking money out of a bank. Surely somewhere along the line someone must be able to take out money from an account that isnt theirs - right? Not really - banks are pretty freaking careful, with a whole stack of procedures to ensure that doesnt happen. I'm sure its possible to make the mistaken handing over of guns a VERY rare occurance.
Cleaning can be done before the gun is returned, and regular firearm maintainance could be done by the "bunker" staff.
As for obligating gun owners to store weapons unloaded in a locked locker - WTH! Dont you already have that? Wow. Anyway, that would be a lot harder to enforce and check up on then a "bunker" project.
Poisoning? Sure you can do that. But most firearms are carried for protection and offence. You cant exactly hold up a 7-11 by threatening to forcefeed the cash register boy arsenic. Nor can you grab a handful of ratsac and thrust it down the throat of an intruder in your home. Poison is for assasination, with plenty of time to reconsider. And if someone is going to assasinate someone else, then having a firearm or not will make no difference to them. Thats not what I'm attempting to deal with.
Wizard - there will ALWAYS be a 1/10000000 situation which could not be solved without a gun. I just dont think its worth having 25,000 people die every year in the US to save the 200 that couldnt have survived without a firearm.
Athena - I have read the criticism of BfC before, and I think a lot of the points against the movie are valid. That whole movie stank of bias to me - but I still think it made many interesting statements. One of which was that the American people are paranoid. The police cant save me, my dog cant save me, our government is going to try and kill me, our country is going to be invaded - I NEED A GUN TO SAVE ME IF THIS HAPPENS!!!!1111
Basic point - Americans and guns are a very bad mix. Other countries have the same firearms in the same concentrations and nothing near the problem. America has failed the firearms test, and I think that something really needs to be done. Leaving things as is seems insane to me.
No one would want to go out of there way, and the bill would just be dropped.
Perhaps if responsible gun owners only had guns, the world would be a better place. We can't pretend this is the case. 25,000 deaths say so.
While I don't claim the number of lives saved by firearms outnumber those who are murdered by them, I'd like to know where you came up with this figure.
Regardless, even if we used the bunker system (I wouldn't want anyone maintaining my weapon but me though) Would the number of homocide by guns (not self defense) drop any? Logic would say that only the responsible people would use the bunker (people who wouldn't shoot anyone anyway).
No law is going to stop "evil" people from useing them. Think about it. People who are going to break the law with guns are obviously not going to let a law about owning guns get in their way. A law against guns simply stops law abiding gun owners from using them. Once again, this solves nothing.
No law is going to stop "evil" people from useing them. Think about it. People who are going to break the law with guns are obviously not going to let a law about owning guns get in their way. A law against guns simply stops law abiding gun owners from using them. Once again, this solves nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The "evil" person is less likely to shoot and kill law abiding citizens if the law abiding citizens don't point guns at them. Would you agree with this?
That argument is pretty screwed up IMO.
"OMG if you didn't have all this cool bling bling in your house, I wouldn't have to rob it! It's YOUR fault!"
Clearly!
And you won't get hurt as long as you back the **** off and let me do it. If you threaten me, you're going to die.
Brilliant! I say we pass a law saying the only legal thing to do when a robber comes into your home is to get out of his way (maybe even help him with the furniture) and call the cops who won't show up for an hour. You WON'T get hurt then! (so sorry for those who still do).
law abiding citizens don't just pull guns out willy nilly. If they did, they wouldn't be law abiding citizens. Heck, most COPS don't ever have to use their sidearm, much less civilians with CCW's.
The only REASON a law abiding citizen draws his weapon is if he/she's life is in danger. Here's an example that happened just recently here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would-be robber slain by intended victim
By MIKE MORRIS
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
A suspected armed robber was shot and killed by his intended victim in Clayton County, police said Wednesday.
The incident occurred shortly after midnight at Independence Park on Thomas Road near Jonesboro.
A man was walking with his 11-year-old daughter when the suspect "approached them and attempted to rob them," said Clayton County police Lt. Joseph Woodall.
"The victim pulled his own firearm and fired some rounds at the suspect," Woodall said.
"The suspect fled about 30 yards and fell over."
The suspect, who was in his late teens or 20s, died at the scene. "He still had in his hand a stolen Glock pistol," Woodall said.
A stolen vehicle that police believe was the suspect's getaway car was also found in the park.
Police say the father acted in self-defense and will not face charges in connection with the shooting. The names of the two men have not been released.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I am with my daughter, her life is my primary concern. When a robber comes up to you with a gun or knife, you don't KNOW if they intend to just let you go if you comply, or to shoot/shank you and run even after you comply. If I have the reasonable oppertunity (and I am carrying a weapon) yes I will use it. I don't care what the liberals say, I will shoot that man until I know he can't harm us if I have the chance (sometimes you don't have the chance, I understand). I may be bashed for the rest of my life for harming an innocent criminal, but my daughter will be alive, and that's more important to me.
The first thing some of the anti-gun guru will say is "You bastage, YOU are the threat, not the criminal! You put your daughter in the most danger" and I disagree.
Sure, they may have gone away after I gave my wallet. Or they may have killed us both. If I asked ANY ONE OF YOU whether you'd want to go down fighting, or go down without a fight, (just in general) you'd likely say go down fighting. Why would the case change here?
There are four possible outcomes, not two. You seem to think it's "Comply, get out alive" and "Defend yourself, get shot". That those are the only two outcomes.
In reality, there are also "Comply, get shot." "Defend yourself, get out alive". They happen often as well. I garuntee alot of the 25,000 people who got shot complied. I know it's hard to believe it, I know you were raised to believe that everyone is good in their heart, but quite frankly there are some cruel, mean people out there. The only way to solve that is by reducing the amount of poor citizens and bettering education. Everyone makes the argument "Well, if they don't have a gun, they'll use a knife." That's true, but the argument that guns are worse because they're "point and shoot" is also valid. I seriously doubt though that a) you can get guns from the criminals, and b) that the criminals will have a change of heart, because it "takes longer" to hurt someone with a knife (time to think).
How many people die because someone did the thing you guys suggest and just dialed 911? Too many. And the moment you see someone die because it takes the cop 45 minutes to respond and the kid's getting beaten the entire time, you will understand. When you could have stopped it- I'm not saying do rash things and don't dial 911, I'm just saying when you can stop it, why shouldn't you? You may get hurt, true. Or you may successfuly save that dudes life.
Yes, I could get shot defending my daughter. This is why you practice. I don't believe that a criminal goes out to the range and practices every weekend, and if I do, there is a good chance I will be able to succesfully defend my family. I won't carry a gun unless I know how to use it- but I grant you that some people do. Some people buy a gun for "protection" and know **** about it, and never practiced. And then they get themselves shot. Giving my case a really bad name.
It is my opinion that those 25,000 homocides were NOT mostly brought upon by law abiding citizens pulling out their firearms and then getting shot, whereas if they had no gun, they would have been ok. That may be the case on some, but I seriously doubt on the majority. They were more likely caused by murderers who were going to kill them regardless of whether or not they complied or not.
The very notion of that statement Hawkeye reminds me of the rediculousness of cases where the criminal SUES the law abiding citizens after their actvities were foiled. AND WINNING.
THAT is what is wrong with america.
That said, the only real reason that you'd want to keep firearms out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens would be to prevent them from playing hero, and getting themselves killed. That can be accomplished with education: basically prove to them that pulling a gun on a guy wielding a gun is not the best solution (and it's not), but rather a good way to get somebody killed. For those rare situations that a gun in the hand of a civilian would be useful, there's still the possiblilty of it happening.
If you want to discourage criminals from using guns themselves, about the best you can do is make extreme punishments for possessing an unliscenced firearm or using a gun in a crime. If the difference between robbery with a knife and robbery with a gun is 20 years in prison, you'll see less guns (but more knives, which is still an improvement).
Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens because somebody abused that right (and became a felon) is wrong. Why don't you try punishing just the guilty instead of everybody? How about we just try reducing crime in general, thus reducing the number of people killed during an act of crime as a bonus?
(from Marine01)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Basic point - Americans and guns are a very bad mix. Other countries have the same firearms in the same concentrations and nothing near the problem. America has failed the firearms test, and I think that something really needs to be done. Leaving things as is seems insane to me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We can't handle anything. If you can name it, somebody's probably died because of it. Taking away our rights isn't going to make us grow up any faster.
Besides, this kind of logic also means that we should take away toasters and pop-tarts since we keep burning down our houses with them, and taking away politics because some people lie and cheat. That's just silly.
Like I said, from my experience, most of the people who get killed by pulling out a firearm to defend themselves is someone who's probably never been to the range in their life. That's irresponsible and dangerous. Changing that, however, is not only easier, but more realistic than just banning firearms alltogether to the general public. Currently it only requires like a 2 day course on the range with an instructor to get your CCW. 2 days. You learn to operate the weapon, but that's it. Make the requirement stricter (more training) and not only will you see success rates go up (people successfully defending themselves) but you'll see the rates of people playing hero and dying because of it go down.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but more knives, which is still an improvement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not an improvement when you can't defend yourself against a knife either. How are YOU, being robbed, in any better a position just because their weapon is different? Out of the frying pan and into the fire there- didn't help you much.
That argument is pretty screwed up IMO.
"OMG if you didn't have all this cool bling bling in your house, I wouldn't have to rob it! It's YOUR fault!"
Clearly!
And you won't get hurt as long as you back the **** off and let me do it. If you threaten me, you're going to die.
Brilliant! I say we pass a law saying the only legal thing to do when a robber comes into your home is to get out of his way (maybe even help him with the furniture) and call the cops who won't show up for an hour. You WON'T get hurt then! (so sorry for those who still do).
law abiding citizens don't just pull guns out willy nilly. If they did, they wouldn't be law abiding citizens. Heck, most COPS don't ever have to use their sidearm, much less civilians with CCW's.
The only REASON a law abiding citizen draws his weapon is if he/she's life is in danger. Here's an example that happened just recently here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would-be robber slain by intended victim
By MIKE MORRIS
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
A suspected armed robber was shot and killed by his intended victim in Clayton County, police said Wednesday.
The incident occurred shortly after midnight at Independence Park on Thomas Road near Jonesboro.
A man was walking with his 11-year-old daughter when the suspect "approached them and attempted to rob them," said Clayton County police Lt. Joseph Woodall.
"The victim pulled his own firearm and fired some rounds at the suspect," Woodall said.
"The suspect fled about 30 yards and fell over."
The suspect, who was in his late teens or 20s, died at the scene. "He still had in his hand a stolen Glock pistol," Woodall said.
A stolen vehicle that police believe was the suspect's getaway car was also found in the park.
Police say the father acted in self-defense and will not face charges in connection with the shooting. The names of the two men have not been released.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I am with my daughter, her life is my primary concern. When a robber comes up to you with a gun or knife, you don't KNOW if they intend to just let you go if you comply, or to shoot/shank you and run even after you comply. If I have the reasonable oppertunity (and I am carrying a weapon) yes I will use it. I don't care what the liberals say, I will shoot that man until I know he can't harm us if I have the chance (sometimes you don't have the chance, I understand). I may be bashed for the rest of my life for harming an innocent criminal, but my daughter will be alive, and that's more important to me.
The first thing some of the anti-gun guru will say is "You bastage, YOU are the threat, not the criminal! You put your daughter in the most danger" and I disagree.
Sure, they may have gone away after I gave my wallet. Or they may have killed us both. If I asked ANY ONE OF YOU whether you'd want to go down fighting, or go down without a fight, (just in general) you'd likely say go down fighting. Why would the case change here?
There are four possible outcomes, not two. You seem to think it's "Comply, get out alive" and "Defend yourself, get shot". That those are the only two outcomes.
In reality, there are also "Comply, get shot." "Defend yourself, get out alive". They happen often as well. I garuntee alot of the 25,000 people who got shot complied. I know it's hard to believe it, I know you were raised to believe that everyone is good in their heart, but quite frankly there are some cruel, mean people out there. The only way to solve that is by reducing the amount of poor citizens and bettering education. Everyone makes the argument "Well, if they don't have a gun, they'll use a knife." That's true, but the argument that guns are worse because they're "point and shoot" is also valid. I seriously doubt though that a) you can get guns from the criminals, and b) that the criminals will have a change of heart, because it "takes longer" to hurt someone with a knife (time to think).
How many people die because someone did the thing you guys suggest and just dialed 911? Too many. And the moment you see someone die because it takes the cop 45 minutes to respond and the kid's getting beaten the entire time, you will understand. When you could have stopped it- I'm not saying do rash things and don't dial 911, I'm just saying when you can stop it, why shouldn't you? You may get hurt, true. Or you may successfuly save that dudes life.
Yes, I could get shot defending my daughter. This is why you practice. I don't believe that a criminal goes out to the range and practices every weekend, and if I do, there is a good chance I will be able to succesfully defend my family. I won't carry a gun unless I know how to use it- but I grant you that some people do. Some people buy a gun for "protection" and know **** about it, and never practiced. And then they get themselves shot. Giving my case a really bad name.
It is my opinion that those 25,000 homocides were NOT mostly brought upon by law abiding citizens pulling out their firearms and then getting shot, whereas if they had no gun, they would have been ok. That may be the case on some, but I seriously doubt on the majority. They were more likely caused by murderers who were going to kill them regardless of whether or not they complied or not.
The very notion of that statement Hawkeye reminds me of the rediculousness of cases where the criminal SUES the law abiding citizens after their actvities were foiled. AND WINNING.
THAT is what is wrong with america. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's amazing to me how you can draw so many assumptions off a simple question.
All I asked you was, what will make a robber more likely to shoot you? A gun in your hand or no gun in your hand?
It's a yes/no question..
Perhaps if responsible gun owners only had guns, the world would be a better place. We can't pretend this is the case. 25,000 deaths say so. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you say "feeling safe" when guns are around is not a good excuse to have them when your reason to NOT have them is because you "dont feel safe" when there are guns around?
The comparison of Canada with USA's statistics shows that guns aren't the problem. The society is. That means that finding a way to change the society is the solution, not removing guns. If most americans own guns cauz they're paranoid, find a way to remove the paranoia and people will stop owning guns for their personnal defense and target shooters, collectors and hunters will be also happy.
The issue with the weapon bunker is that most americans believe the whole point of the 2nd amendment right was to be able to defend ourselves if the government ever went dictator or whatever. I don't think we will ever need to do that, at least in my lifetime, but we can't just say it's outdated and we will "never" need to bear arms against the government either (otherwise our entire constitution is on shakey ground, what would stop them from saying other rights are "outdated"?). What the weapon bunker does, is allow the government to seal off our arms if we ever need them.
I'm not trying to be paranoid, as I said I personally don't have a problem with it, because I doubt it'll ever get to that point in my lifetime. Many people would object heavily though.
I agree that things need to be done to reduce the number of deaths by guns in this country. As such, I'm willing to make a compromise- if it takes me 30 minutes to get to my weapon, and that really does save lives, then I can live with it. I only use it at the range anyway- However, I don't agree with banning weapons entirely from the general populace as some have suggested.
Should John Q. Public be allowed to actually carry a gun for defense (not just own one for hunting/target shooting)?
it's iffy in my opinion. While I think it should be allowed personally, it should also be carefully implemented because it can definately be the source of many problems. The laws must be enforced to the letter in order for it to work. I think that you should have to go through an extensive program to ensure that you not only know the Law (when and when you cannot draw the weapon), but that you and your firearm are registered, and that you know how to use it (week long qualification instead of 2 days, and a monthly range visit minimum). Obviously the same background checks would be implemented. Now, if you are caught carrying a pistol with no licence (past criminal history or not), you should have SEVERE punishment (fines and possible jailtime, as well as confiscation of your weapon and a probation period saying you can never carry another pistol again maybe).
What this does is reduce the amount of people carrying pistols who don't know what they're doing- they have the "illusion" of protection, yet most have never even seen a range much less practiced with the pistol. I think this is a big cause of many fatal shootings by people who carry pistols to defend themselves.
Now the only public-citizens who are armed know what they're doing, have registered firearms, and know the law (when and when they cannot draw their pistol, and when is it legal to shoot the criminal).
This won't entirely prevent deaths, because you know some people still wont' care, some people who are responsible may snap one day or some freak occurance, but this should greatly reduce the amount of deaths caused by those situations.
In addition, I think the training should be free. No one wants to shell out $200 for training and $150 for the licence when the pistol costs upwards of $200+, so they simply carry pistols illegally.
Your not parinoid... Dictators often have used Gun control and registration to disarm the public in the past. People who think the US is above the corruption of power is blind and deaf.
(Just a disclaimer- I apologize if any of these specific arguments have already been brought up; I skimmed this thread but didnt read the 18 pages in depth)
Additionally, I could be wrong, but I'm guessing a large number of people arguing on this thread are kids, or younger people that lack the scope and the wisdom to really understand human life, etc- who view deaths as mere statistics, or more support for their argument.
Let me address something right off the bat:
I'm am SICK and tired of the arguement that a gun is merely a tool. And when misused, it kills people- as can a baseball bat when misused. The obvious difference is (with the exception of target shooting; however I dont sympathize with that- because non lethal guns can be used...), guns ARE a TOOL for KILLING, nothing else. When a gun KILLS someone- its not being misused, it's doing its job. Also, it takes a hell of a lot more time and anger- hate, etc to beat someone to death than to shoot them. Sure, a knife can also be lethal- but imagine this scenario:
A bar fight erupts some night... starts out as a fistfight, then one gets punched real hard, proceeds to pull out a gun in anger, and shoots the other even while others rush to break it up. That's a horribly realistic and feasible situation. Whereas- if one of them pulled a knife on the other, the fight could probably be stopped before any mortal damage was done.
Another argument which makes sense initially is that guns deter crime- generally murder and robbery.... but, if you actually look at the statistics, the following is true:
Out of all the times a gun is used for defense in a house robbery, (regardless of whether the intruder is armed), 15% of the time the gun either successfully shoots or deters the perpetrator. In the remaining staggering percentage, either the gun spooks the intruder and causes him to pull out a gun on the homeowner, or more frequently, the unarmed intruder TAKES the gun from the homeowner and shoots them.
This isn't a debatable statistic, it's a well known anti gun fact.
Another thing that has already been touched on in this thread: "Most people are sane and responsible enough to handle firearms- some arent, and we see their crimes, but that cant bring down the whole country". ........ If 10 percent of the population has an allergic reaction so severe to a new medicine, death always results, would it be put on the market? Of course not- its the same with guns. Human life is just too **** precious to wager on whether an individual posseses the judgement neccesary to handle guns responsibly. Id rather see the entire sport of hunting given up than a couple innocent deaths.
Oh - and on a final note, people need to stop referencing the constitution as a supporting argument for gun ownership. First off, we all know it's ridiculously outdated- and was originally intented (shiot, not only intended, it states clearly in the text) that the purpose of gun ownership was to maintain a well organized militia. Since that clearly has no modern day context, I see no point in retaining the rule.
Also, it doesnt matter what the Constitution SAYS we should do- or what it says is right- what matters is what we believe in. And that's exactly what the Constitution is, an outline of our beliefs. THATS WHY IT STARTS OFF WITH "We hold these truths to be self evident". Well, that's pretty clear in most cases. All fairly intelligent logical people will agree that slavery is wrong, as is cruel and unusual punishment, etc..... but that falls apart when dealing with the second amentment, since is obviously NOT a self evident truth to all intelligent people.
The bar fight as a "personal story". It can't be used to justify a point.
Some facts for you :
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm</i>
* Approximately 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals. (3)
* When citizens use guns for protection from criminals, the criminal is wounded in about 1 out of every 100 instances, and the criminal is killed in about 1 out of every 1000 instances. (3)
* 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)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Car facts :
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/general.htm</i>
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among Americans 1-34 years old. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the total societal cost of crashes exceeds $200 billion annually.
2,815 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2002. This is 4 percent fewer than in 1975, but 9 percent more than the low point in 1992. In the last 12 years, the total number of fatalities has fluctuated in a fairly narrow range, from 39,250 to 42,815.
The 42,815 deaths in 2002 occurred in 38,309 crashes involving 58,113 motor vehicles.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
However, it would be fairly unrealistic to expect that cars are going to be banned just because a select few mis-use them.
Besides that, taking guns away won't stop guns. Guns will still be made, only now they'll be avialbe to the select few, the military ( which is never a good thing), and the people who <b>really</b> want/need them.