Guns

[Silk]

What do you think about guns?

[Darkflare]

what do YOU think about guns?

[Silk]

Silk, you have to realize that an armed populace means that the real criminals are going to be more fearful of what may happen to them. Scenario 1:  

 

A 6 month pregnant mother to be is jogging in a park on chicago, where private handgun concealment is banned, some thug son of a -*BAD WORD*- comes out from behind a tree and demands her money. There are a few joggers nearby and he has a gun. Out of sheer malice he caps the pregnant mother anyway and tries the same with some of the witnesses. Many scream and run away in fear of their lives.  

 

Scenario 2: The same pregnant mother is jogging along the same path in the same park, several other joggers, mothers fathers and yes younger induviduals around the age of 12 are nearby (no AOC law for conceal-carry but required training). The same stupid thug comes out from behind the same -*BAD WORD*-ing tree and pulls out the same -*BAD WORD*-ing gun. All of a sudden there's five or six guys with various styles of gun from colt peacemakers to tech-9s trained on the guys head and they blast him all to -*BAD WORD*-. The 12 year old stands over the thugs now bullet ridden corpse, and the young man says "stupid punk -*BAD WORD*- beoooootch" and spits in the massive hole in the thugs head.  

 

Scenario 3: The same pregnant mother is jogging along the same path in the same park, several other joggers, mothers fathers and yes younger induviduals are nearby. The same tree is still there, and the pregnant mother-to-be passes by the tree without incident. Why? Because the thug realizes that it wouldn't be safe for him to try anything on this or any other day. He gets a sorry--*BAD WORD*- job at wal-mart as a greeter because he couldn't cut it doing anything else decent.  

 

Aieleron: Some people just don't get it... Glad you do.  

 

Madhaha: Despite what you've been told, it takes a far bigger hole than what one or two rounds going through the cabin of a 737 to cause it to depressurize. Those sons of -*BAD WORD*-es were on a mission to kill hundreds if not thousands of people on the ground. Think of what would have happened if the passengers of flight 93 didnt act, most likely we would have a hundred dead senators *not necessecarily a bad thing* but there would also be hundreds of dead civilians on the ground as well. Now, if the people on board were armed at the time, the hijacking wouldnt have even taken place because the -*BAD WORD*-s wouldn't have been able to fufill their objective of smashing into a building in the first place. And don't give me that bomb crap either. Yeah it would have killed everyone on board the plane, but that already happened when the -*BAD WORD*-s barrel rolled flight 93 without using one. Objective still unobtained.  

 

Point is, if someones going to do something to hurt others, if someone's determined enough then no half-!@#$%^&*ed law is going to stop them. Sure, measures like creating new laws will make the world a safer place, but only for the real criminals.  

 

Anti gun legislation like the brady bill, prohibition, the age of consent laws, creation of the IRS and department of fatherland security are all examples of idealism taken one step too far, that in the end hurts more people than said ideas claim to protect.  

 

Heres a scenario for you.

A family of 5 are enjoying their day in the local mall shopping for school. little Sally wants to go into the toy stoy while little John and his friend Matt want to go into the arcade. So, Bob the dad decided to take the boys to the arcade and the Mom Sue goes to the toy store. While in the arcade, some 18 year old with a depressing past dies in Pac Man. So he takes out his 9mm and decided to pop little Johnny in the head.

 

If guns are legalized so anyone can get them easy with no back ground checks and etc. Whats to stop this from happening?

 

Another Scenario.

A jogger is in the park taking his morning exercise route. So a thug behind a tree decided to have some fun and kill the next jogger. But there are other people in the park as well. The thug just doesnt care and decided to come out of his spot, cap the jogger and anyone around him.

 

Even if civilians in a park had weapons, whats to say that they would take the law into their hands and take out the thug? Chances are they would be scared stiff, duck behind a bench or bushes. Unless someone has a military training or any kind of weapon and mental training they arent going to react accordingly to the situation.

 

Yes maybe in some Europe countries they relaxed the gun law? and saw lower crime rate. But were talking about the US here, i doubt we will get the same outcome.

[Yupa]

I think you're lost in someone else's anti-gun fervor

 

You can do the same thing in those scenarios you presented with a sword, a knife, a yard of fishing wire or a syringe of oregano.

 

If someone takes you by surprise, that's it, you're taken by surprise. It won't matter if you have the same weapon or not.

 

If a person wants a gun (or anything else), they can get one.

It's just one of those things that probably just cannot be fixed.

 

You can't uninvent it, you can't regulate it absolutely.

 

I do feel, though, that most people should not be allowed to purchase guns. Sure, psychotics REALLY shouldn't have guns, but that doesn't mean I trust the idiot 40-year-old housewife that wears pink sweaters and likes republicans to have a gun, either.

 

There have always been crazy people - people that don't understand how immoral it is to take the life of another person. Just because the weapons are better now makes little difference.

 

It's just crap - watch your back and don't hang around twitchy people.

 

In the end...guns are just stupid. There are plenty of weapons that can completely incapacitate a person without killing them.

[Aileron]

Well, that is the difference between the two of us. In my opinion, a responsable owner can carry and use a gun safely.

 

I'm not against registration. I'm not against keeping them away from convicts. I'm not even against a waiting period. The only problem with those programs is that they are stepping stones to more radical plans.

 

The reason I like the idea of responsable citizens having guns is that it is a fallback for the police forces. Basically, citizens with guns can be a deterrent before police arrive and in failing districts.

 

Basically, what this issue comes down to is wether or not the average citizen can both physically and psycologocally handle a firearm.

 

The former question is more than just pulling the trigger; it includes proper use, storage, and carrying of the weapon. Having operated firearms myself, I think that it is fairly easy use a gun in a safe manner, and that with proper training anyone can do it.

 

The second question is the one you two are attacking. However, I think that you greatly underestimate the human psyche. People don't just "snap"; going crazy is a long and involved process. It still happens, but there are usually tell-tale signs in advance and plenty of time for a crazy to obtain a weapon illegaly.

 

My !@#$%^&*umption is that since most people don't spontaneaously go crazy without a gun, they most likely will not go crazy when they have one either.

[MillenniumMan]

Silk, you have to realize that an armed populace means that the real criminals are going to be more fearful of what may happen to them. Scenario 1:  

 

A 6 month pregnant mother to be is jogging in a park on chicago, where private handgun concealment is banned, some thug son of a -*BAD WORD*- comes out from behind a tree and demands her money. There are a few joggers nearby and he has a gun. Out of sheer malice he caps the pregnant mother anyway and tries the same with some of the witnesses. Many scream and run away in fear of their lives.  

 

Scenario 2: The same pregnant mother is jogging along the same path in the same park, several other joggers, mothers fathers and yes younger induviduals around the age of 12 are nearby (no AOC law for conceal-carry but required training). The same stupid thug comes out from behind the same -*BAD WORD*-ing tree and pulls out the same -*BAD WORD*-ing gun. All of a sudden there's five or six guys with various styles of gun from colt peacemakers to tech-9s trained on the guys head and they blast him all to -*BAD WORD*-. The 12 year old stands over the thugs now bullet ridden corpse, and the young man says "stupid punk -*BAD WORD*- beoooootch" and spits in the massive hole in the thugs head.  

 

Scenario 3: The same pregnant mother is jogging along the same path in the same park, several other joggers, mothers fathers and yes younger induviduals are nearby. The same tree is still there, and the pregnant mother-to-be passes by the tree without incident. Why? Because the thug realizes that it wouldn't be safe for him to try anything on this or any other day. He gets a sorry--*BAD WORD*- job at wal-mart as a greeter because he couldn't cut it doing anything else decent.  

 

Aieleron: Some people just don't get it... Glad you do.  

 

Madhaha: Despite what you've been told, it takes a far bigger hole than what one or two rounds going through the cabin of a 737 to cause it to depressurize. Those sons of -*BAD WORD*-es were on a mission to kill hundreds if not thousands of people on the ground. Think of what would have happened if the passengers of flight 93 didnt act, most likely we would have a hundred dead senators *not necessecarily a bad thing* but there would also be hundreds of dead civilians on the ground as well. Now, if the people on board were armed at the time, the hijacking wouldnt have even taken place because the -*BAD WORD*-s wouldn't have been able to fufill their objective of smashing into a building in the first place. And don't give me that bomb crap either. Yeah it would have killed everyone on board the plane, but that already happened when the -*BAD WORD*-s barrel rolled flight 93 without using one. Objective still unobtained.  

 

Point is, if someones going to do something to hurt others, if someone's determined enough then no half-!@#$%^&*ed law is going to stop them. Sure, measures like creating new laws will make the world a safer place, but only for the real criminals.  

 

Anti gun legislation like the brady bill, prohibition, the age of consent laws, creation of the IRS and department of fatherland security are all examples of idealism taken one step too far, that in the end hurts more people than said ideas claim to protect.  

 

Heres a scenario for you.

A family of 5 are enjoying their day in the local mall shopping for school. little Sally wants to go into the toy stoy while little John and his friend Matt want to go into the arcade. So, Bob the dad decided to take the boys to the arcade and the Mom Sue goes to the toy store. While in the arcade, some 18 year old with a depressing past dies in Pac Man. So he takes out his 9mm and decided to pop little Johnny in the head.

 

If guns are legalized so anyone can get them easy with no back ground checks and etc. Whats to stop this from happening?

 

Another Scenario.

A jogger is in the park taking his morning exercise route. So a thug behind a tree decided to have some fun and kill the next jogger. But there are other people in the park as well. The thug just doesnt care and decided to come out of his spot, cap the jogger and anyone around him.

 

Even if civilians in a park had weapons, whats to say that they would take the law into their hands and take out the thug? Chances are they would be scared stiff, duck behind a bench or bushes. Unless someone has a military training or any kind of weapon and mental training they arent going to react accordingly to the situation.

 

Yes maybe in some Europe countries they relaxed the gun law? and saw lower crime rate. But were talking about the US here, i doubt we will get the same outcome.

 

New scenario: Same -*BAD WORD*-ed up in the head 18 year old loser dies in pacman, there's no guns because they've all been banned, so he takes the nearest barstool whacks little johnny over the head crushing his skull killing him anyways, does the same to another nearby kid, then takes the stool and smashes the pacman machine, electrocuting himself when the stool goes through the CRT in the machine. But wait it doesn't stop there! There are sparks going off inside the game machine, which then causes a fire which in turn sets the foam padding above it on fire which in turn sets the arcade ablaze which in turn kills several more patrons.

 

Point is, even without guns, people will still find a way to act out their violent tendencies. Wether with a gun a knife a stool or a flaming bag of crap (pointing out silks post).

 

I've already had to use my Walther PPK as a deterence when I was down on 33rd street after the demolition of memorial stadium, when I was getting some after pictures. I was approached by two young punks, one of which had a switchblade knife (illegal here in maryland but it didn't stop them from owning it anyways) The first words out of that little -*BAD WORD*-s mouth was Heya honkey... and I saw the knife coming out of his pocket. The little -*BAD WORD*- just stood there and smiled, then I unpocketed my PPK and just looked at him and grinned Without firing a shot.

 

Beleive it or not, guns don't talk, they don't have minds of their own and they cant control people, they do what the owner makes them do. They are tools like a hammer, frying pan or an automobile.

 

I get disgusted every time I see an antigunner out there that thinks that everyone that owns a gun is owned by the gun or is disturbed for owning one to begin with. Beleive it or not, most of us are far more responsible and intelligent than the propaganda machine that wants to controll us would have you to beleive.

 

BTW, if you're jewish silk, you should know better. The night of broken gl!@#$%^&* should be more than a lasting reminder for you. Being on equal ground with some -*BAD WORD*- with a weapon kind of diminishes that fear quite a bit, doesn't matter if it's a nazi trooper or some -*BAD WORD*- hiding behind a tree with no morales. multiple parkgoers who are armed against one guy with a deathwish will just mean that the guy will be as good as dead one way or another. And I'd prefer that they did take the law into their own hands. Call it cowboy diplomacy, but you would really have less of a problem with people like that with a well educated and armed populace.

 

And don't give me that little johnny goes into daddys bedroom and plays with daddys gun and blows his brains out crap, that's what teaching little johnny responsibility at an early age is for. If you have a gun, learn how to use it, teach your family how to use it, tell the kids it's not a toy, tell them the consequences. More problems occur when you don't do those things.

[madhaha]

Why does MilleniumMan want a gun? To "protect" himself and even the ground he says, but he doesn't give an instance of himself using a gun to defend himself against someone else with a gun. The truth is having a gun will not stop you from getting shot unless you can shoot the person attacking you first with the chances of that happening being small. Furthermore, accidents and mistakes are likely to be extremely serious.

 

Having a knife doesn't stop you from being stabbed. Having a taser doesn't stop someone having a taser or a stun gun and mugging you.

 

If it is common for people to bare offensive weapons, illegals (muggers, robbers, whatever) are going to go for something more extreme. This is where MilleniumMan's scenario falls down. If someone really wants to commit murder they'll now use automatics. If they weren't going to do it in the first place but did it for the -*BAD WORD*- of it then surely thats a case against people carrying guns. Possession of an illegal firearm and related offences (selling of an illegal firearm etc.) are treated much more harshly in the UK for this reason: so you don't get your average thug getting their hands on one. Your average mugger or thief will not have a gun so if they get caught they get a lighter sentence. Guns are not the fashion accessaries they are in the US although there is pressure from the US to change that. -*BAD WORD*- even imitation firearms are taken seriously.

 

If you are in a society where most people don't carry around things they can attack you with then suspicious individuals are easier to spot, more likely to be picked up by the police and easier to avoid. Violent crime is also less likely to be lethal because there isn't the pressure to jump someone just in case they pull a gun on you and shoot you.

 

If you live in a violent area where you need "protection", introducing firearms isn't going to solve your problems. If you don't live in a violent area but want to carry a firearm "just in case" then there is a good chance that that weapon is going to be misused. How many times have you heard the phrase "he knew where his dad kept the gun" turn into a nasty accident? How many people die in firearms accidents in the US? How often do you actually need to kill someone in your lifetime to justify having a fully loaded gun "just in case"? I'm willing to bet that more people are killed unnecessarily by guns than lives saved.

 

If you need protection learn self-defence and have the police do their job. Nothing else is going to help in the long term. Thats how things work in the UK anyway. You can still get licenses for guns used in recreation and you're allowed air rilfes/pistols. Farmers are allowed shotguns. Makes sense to me.

[Darkflare]

It doesnt matter if guns are legalized or banned or training and whatnot is in place...if someone wants a gun, illegal or not, they will get one. Just by making guns illegal wont stop someone from going and shooting random people.

[Silk]

Point is, even without guns, people will still find a way to act out their violent tendencies. Wether with a gun a knife a stool or a flaming bag of crap (pointing out silks post).  

 

But wasnt all your arguments based around people having guns and using them to their advantage. Now youre making strikes at me saying there is nothing preventing people from using other weapons. You and Akai, do you think i dont know this? Of course i do but this whole topic is about guns not knives, clubs or any other kind of blunt object.

[Aileron]

If you live in a violent area where you need "protection", introducing firearms isn't going to solve your problems. If you don't live in a violent area but want to carry a firearm "just in case" then there is a good chance that that weapon is going to be misused. How many times have you heard the phrase "he knew where his dad kept the gun" turn into a nasty accident? How many people die in firearms accidents in the US? How often do you actually need to kill someone in your lifetime to justify having a fully loaded gun "just in case"? I'm willing to bet that more people are killed unnecessarily by guns than lives saved.

 

Dead wrong about that last statement. Statistically, guns are used WAY more often to prevent crime than in accidents. At least in the US. If you people really want the reference, I will find it (I don't remember EXACTLY where I got it), but I do not have the time to give it to you offhand.

 

 

The problem with this issue is that you guys are all making hypothetical examples that do not cover typical human behavior. Yes, SOME people act like that, probably about a dozen or so per million. However, they are so rare that we cannot and should not base the behavior of typical society on those nutcases.

 

Also, everyone is being extremist. The only scenarios discussed are "no guns at all" and "everyone has a gun". Both cases are flawed. The "no guns at all" is a utopia. It would be good, although cannot happen, because as Akai pointed out, we cannot uninvent it.

 

The "everyone has a gun" idea also doesn't work. "Everyone" includes children, those with disclaiming records, and morons. Crime would be down because no sane criminal would want to engage in a gunfight for a few twenties. However, there would be a ton of accidents.

 

I must note that BOTH methods do NOTHING to the occasional psycotic act. Since the participants are trying to commit murder, they don't care about breaking a few gun laws and are willing to pay large amounts of money for black market firearms. Also, since they are insane, they are not deterred by the threat of death.

 

Basically, the solution to psycho acts lies in early detection of their behavior, NOT in any loosening or tightening of gun laws.

 

 

My view is that anyone who is properly trained and capable of handling, carrying, and storing a gun in a safe matter should have one. One could do thise by having (mandatory or otherwise) training courses in gun safety.

[Yupa]

My view is that anyone who is properly trained and capable of handling, carrying, and storing a gun in a safe matter should have one.  One could do thise by having (mandatory or otherwise) training courses in gun safety.

 

a light psych evalution might be nice, too, heh

[MillenniumMan]

Point is, even without guns, people will still find a way to act out their violent tendencies. Wether with a gun a knife a stool or a flaming bag of crap (pointing out silks post).  

 

But wasnt all your arguments based around people having guns and using them to their advantage. Now youre making strikes at me saying there is nothing preventing people from using other weapons. You and Akai, do you think i dont know this? Of course i do but this whole topic is about guns not knives, clubs or any other kind of blunt object.

 

Last I checked your argument was about the violence purpotrated by gun owners, regardless of their mental stability and ability to handle one responsibly. You threw this scenario out at me saying that no matter what, even if gun ownership were common and legalized outright rather than mandated that there would still be problems. Yes there would be problems but they would have almost vanished compared to what they are now. Case in point, conceal and carry is banned in chicago, handguns are outright banned within the DC city limits, and yet they have the highest crime rates in the nation, to be more precise, rape armed robbery and murders. Then you have on the oppisite end of the spectrum places like west virginia and arkansas where such crimes are only 1/10 that of the entire city of DC and chicago combined. Why? Prevelant gun ownership and the common sense to use them.

 

And to madhaha, I thought I made it very clear that even the presence of my gun was enough to deter those little -*BAD WORD*-s from going any further, but what does a little thing like facts matter to someone like you huh?

 

At that point, only the most suicidal thug who doesn't care about dying for trying to rob someone wether at gun or knifepoint, is going to bother to try and get away with such an act. Most wouldn't even bother after seeing a gun, knowing that they could get seriously hurt or killed for making an attempt.

 

And you're thinking "MM thinks that a gun makes him feel all big and bad and -*BAD WORD*-" in which case you would be flat out wrong. Frankly, hurting someone is the last thing on my mind, but it's a them or me at!@#$%^&*ude when it comes to self defense, and I would rather live with the fact that I had to kill someone to prevent myself or someone I love from being hurt or worse rather than have the oppisite be true. Despite the propaganda you've been fed, there is no valor or heroics involved in dying without putting up a fight.

 

I'll tell you what, I'm going to hire a big burly friend of mine to go to your house, rape your mom, your dog and you and we'll see who's got the will to not use a gun in self defense, how's that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, obviously I'm not going to do that because that's wrong, but you get the point.

[Silk]

Last I checked your argument was about the violence purpotrated by gun owners, regardless of their mental stability and ability to handle one responsibly. You threw this scenario out at me saying that no matter what, even if gun ownership were common and legalized outright rather than mandated that there would still be problems.

Did you forget, in the other thread you yourself also threw out scenarios of a thug in the park deciding to do whatever to a passerby. There will be problems still, if not more.

 

Case in point, conceal and carry is banned in chicago, handguns are outright banned within the DC city limits, and yet they have the highest crime rates in the nation, to be more precise, rape armed robbery and murders. Then you have on the oppisite end of the spectrum places like west virginia and arkansas where such crimes are only 1/10 that of the entire city of DC and chicago combined.

 

How are you so sure if you legalize gun ownership crime would drop? You have no proof of this, there goes your whole argument.

 

At that point, only the most suicidal thug who doesn't care about dying for trying to rob someone wether at gun or knifepoint, is going to bother to try and get away with such an act. Most wouldn't even bother after seeing a gun, knowing that they could get seriously hurt or killed for making an attempt.

If a thug sees a gun come out, whats to stop him from shooting the victim outright to save his hand? Why would he run, if he ran he would most likely get shot himself.

 

I'll tell you what, I'm going to hire a big burly friend of mine to go to your house, rape your mom, your dog and you and we'll see who's got the will to not use a gun in self defense, how's that?

 

I was talking about would a pedestrian use a gun after watching a violent crime of someone being taken down right in front of them? I said no, reason is the innocent bystander would piddle his pants unless like i said earlier had some kind of military training you could say. As in they would know what was going on in front of them and take action. Does the average civilian have this kind of mental training that is etched into a army recruits mind and take measures into their own hand?

[Aileron]

Quote:  

Case in point, conceal and carry is banned in chicago, handguns are outright banned within the DC city limits, and yet they have the highest crime rates in the nation, to be more precise, rape armed robbery and murders. Then you have on the oppisite end of the spectrum places like west virginia and arkansas where such crimes are only 1/10 that of the entire city of DC and chicago combined.  

 

 

How are you so sure if you legalize gun ownership crime would drop? You have no proof of this, there goes your whole argument.  

There isn't any disproof either. It is just statistics. In reality, they cannot be used either way unless we decided to experiment on a few towns. Since that isn't plauseble, statistics such as this one are the best we got.

 

 

 

Quote:  

At that point, only the most suicidal thug who doesn't care about dying for trying to rob someone wether at gun or knifepoint, is going to bother to try and get away with such an act. Most wouldn't even bother after seeing a gun, knowing that they could get seriously hurt or killed for making an attempt.  

 

 

If a thug sees a gun come out, whats to stop him from shooting the victim outright to save his hand? Why would he run, if he ran he would most likely get shot himself.  

The point being was that if this occured often enough that it became common, the common criminal would have enough foresight to not try to rob in the first place. The fault in his arguement is that the typical thug doesn't have the intelligence to have any foresight. However, it would be a step in the right direction.

 

 

Quote:  

I'll tell you what, I'm going to hire a big burly friend of mine to go to your house, rape your mom, your dog and you and we'll see who's got the will to not use a gun in self defense, how's that?  

 

 

I was talking about would a pedestrian use a gun after watching a violent crime of someone being taken down right in front of them? I said no, reason is the innocent bystander would piddle his pants unless like i said earlier had some kind of military training you could say. As in they would know what was going on in front of them and take action. Does the average civilian have this kind of mental training that is etched into a army recruits mind and take measures into their own hand?

 

Um, that is the biggest insult to the common person I have ever seen. No, most people would be capable of doing something more than piddling his pants. Most people can handle anything that comes if they are are forced. Keep in mind that fear is a survival mechanism. Fear was a designed reaction, whether from a divine source or evolution. To that end, it NEVER overcomes a creature to such a point that it will cause the death of that creature. Yes, your typical person would be very scared, but that fear would not overcome the proper course of action, it would in fact encourage it. The only reason the military needs to train is so that the army can kill others as well as survive. If the military's goal was just to merely survive, it would not need to train soldiers, because fear would be all they need.

[Silk]

There isn't any disproof either. It is just statistics. In reality, they cannot be used either way unless we decided to experiment on a few towns. Since that isn't plauseble, statistics such as this one are the best we got.

Statistics, yes. But all that is going on is that you are comparing two cities crime rates.

 

The point being was that if this occured often enough that it became common, the common criminal would have enough foresight to not try to rob in the first place. The fault in his arguement is that the typical thug doesn't have the intelligence to have any foresight. However, it would be a step in the right direction.

 

If a criminal wanted to mug somebody, even if at one point the mugged faught back in the thugs past. Would the thug really go, well i did get maced in the eyes or what not. Do you think he will just not go ahead with it at all. People are greedy, if they see something thay want they will try to get it.

 

Um, that is the biggest insult to the common person I have ever seen. No, most people would be capable of doing something more than piddling his pants. Most people can handle anything that comes if they are are forced. Keep in mind that fear is a survival mechanism. Fear was a designed reaction, whether from a divine source or evolution. To that end, it NEVER overcomes a creature to such a point that it will cause the death of that creature. Yes, your typical person would be very scared, but that fear would not overcome the proper course of action, it would in fact encourage it. The only reason the military needs to train is so that the army can kill others as well as survive. If the military's goal was just to merely survive, it would not need to train soldiers, because fear would be all they need.

 

All people have fear, yes i do believe you but people do get scared stiff at the point where they will do nothing at all. If i saw someones head blown clean off i would be scared stiff. If anything, fear would stop the casual to not do anything, adrenaline will cause the bystander to do something. But its hard to get pumpep up after seeing someone shot down in front of you. When i brought up the military i said and you said they train the person to kill. The average person doesnt get this kind of training. It either takes an extreme moment in the present or past to put someone at the point of they can take anothers life. The military simply brainwashes you to see the enemy as animals and it is ok to take them out.

[madhaha]

Hm, a couple of point I missed and I knew I'd regret it.

 

While it is impossible to remove gun ownership and guncrime completely, it is possible to restrict supply to such a level that only the rich, those with deep criminal connections (not your average teenage gang) and hitman are able to get their hands on a gun. I would much rather a dozen hitmen and the major gangs have firearms than every teenager in the country. This is basically the situation that we have now although illegal gun sales have been on the rise a bit due to the US gun fashion culture.

 

I await proof that guns solve more problems than they create. Note that a lot of situations that are "solved" by guns could well have ended peacefully so I'd like hard figures of situations where guns were used as a last resort. I doubt you'll have any.

 

I do not believe that an ordinary civillian could draw, fire and kill a criminal upon witnessing a crime before the criminal either shoots them or runs away. The chain of reaction would go something like this: What was that bang? -*BAD WORD*-! Someone got shot! (at this point the gunman would probably have turned either to kill the witness or to run away) Wait, I have a gun. . .

 

Aileron: Please explain what you mean by "common thug". Are you talking about a teenager looking for trouble who's life ended abrubtly because someone felt threatened?

[Evil Jin]

New scenario: Same -*BAD WORD*-ed up in the head 18 year old loser dies in pacman, there's no guns because they've all been banned, so he takes the nearest barstool whacks little johnny over the head crushing his skull killing him anyways, does the same to another nearby kid, then takes the stool and smashes the pacman machine, electrocuting himself when the stool goes through the CRT in the machine. But wait it doesn't stop there! There are sparks going off inside the game machine, which then causes a fire which in turn sets the foam padding above it on fire which in turn sets the arcade ablaze which in turn kills several more patrons.

 

Point is, even without guns, people will still find a way to act out their violent tendencies. Wether with a gun a knife a stool or a flaming bag of crap (pointing out silks post).

 

I've already had to use my Walther PPK as a deterence when I was down on 33rd street after the demolition of memorial stadium, when I was getting some after pictures. I was approached by two young punks, one of which had a switchblade knife (illegal here in maryland but it didn't stop them from owning it anyways) The first words out of that little -*BAD WORD*-s mouth was Heya honkey... and I saw the knife coming out of his pocket. The little -*BAD WORD*- just stood there and smiled, then I unpocketed my PPK and just looked at him and grinned Without firing a shot.

 

Beleive it or not, guns don't talk, they don't have minds of their own and they cant control people, they do what the owner makes them do. They are tools like a hammer, frying pan or an automobile.

 

I get disgusted every time I see an antigunner out there that thinks that everyone that owns a gun is owned by the gun or is disturbed for owning one to begin with. Beleive it or not, most of us are far more responsible and intelligent than the propaganda machine that wants to controll us would have you to beleive.

 

BTW, if you're jewish silk, you should know better. The night of broken gl!@#$%^&* should be more than a lasting reminder for you. Being on equal ground with some -*BAD WORD*- with a weapon kind of diminishes that fear quite a bit, doesn't matter if it's a nazi trooper or some -*BAD WORD*- hiding behind a tree with no morales. multiple parkgoers who are armed against one guy with a deathwish will just mean that the guy will be as good as dead one way or another. And I'd prefer that they did take the law into their own hands. Call it cowboy diplomacy, but you would really have less of a problem with people like that with a well educated and armed populace.

 

And don't give me that little johnny goes into daddys bedroom and plays with daddys gun and blows his brains out crap, that's what teaching little johnny responsibility at an early age is for. If you have a gun, learn how to use it, teach your family how to use it, tell the kids it's not a toy, tell them the consequences. More problems occur when you don't do those things.

 

the likely hood of the begining of your post is improbable. i dont se why we need gubs in the first place. like akai said why not be trained w/ a sword those things are more simple to use and you dont kill them right away.

 

then why would we need a gun when mace would easily take care of the person! There are quite alot of other weapons we can use. mace, rubber bulleted guns, electric guns ect, just to list a few.

 

We dont need a an actual gun to take down a person. killing people is wrong no matter what. It never pays off

 

my 2 cents

[Aileron]

I'm defining "common thug" as any criminal who commits crime in an outdoor urban setting such as a park or alley. Also, the person must not be a member of organized crime. On top of that, a "common thug" has no political or racial agenda, and has a primary interest in preserving their own life.

 

Evil Jin, you watch WAY too many movies. True, you don't need a gun to take down someone. However, you would not be able to take out a gunman with any type of melee weapon, at least consistently. As for stun guns and mace, they are unreliable at best. You could block both of those with body armor made out of cardboard, provided it included a face shield. Rubber bullets work fine in almost any situation, but in order to use those you still need a gun.

 

Madhaha - please don't refer to using guns in the US as a fashion accessory again. It really isn't helping your arguement.

 

The reason why I consider guns solveing problems more than I create is by the following logic: I suppose that if a responsable owner who knows what he is doing has one, it is a good thing. The reason why it is a good thing is because at very worst, it does nothing. If a criminal has one, it is a bad thing. Since the law applies to responsable citizens moreso than criminals, changing the law so that more responsable owners get guns will help. Yes, laws do affect criminals somewhat, such as the availability of guns and the misdemeaner vs felony charge if caught. However, citizens who are directly affected respond much more than criminals.

[madhaha]

I am !@#$%^&*uming you meant violent crime when refering to "thugs". The primary interest of a "thug" as you call it is not self preservation. Approaching other people with a knife does not help your chances of self preservation a great deal but it would seem that you !@#$%^&*ociate that with "thuggish" behavior. Think about your definition and clarify your opinion because it still isn't clear.

 

With regards to cardboard armour blocking stunguns and mace its basically the same as saying that low calibre weapons are useless because anyone can make an effective ballistic vest (there have been effective homemade varieties since the 1800's) or buy them from army surplus stores. If you spot ANYONE with a knife and wearing a face shield and cardboard body armour you're going to be a tiny bit suspicious aren't you? Again I disapprove of the whole idea of carrying any weapons "just in case" as it tends to cause more problems than it creates. "What were you doing in that alley holding a stun gun?" "There is nothing illegal about that! I was just being careful!".

 

Aileron appears to have misunderstood my point concerning guns being seen as fashion accessories. I am NOT saying guns are fashion accessories in the states (although a lot of them are), I'm saying they have been glorified by the US media and through films and turned into iconic "must have" items for violent people. Here guns were just !@#$%^&*ociated with implements of murder (our police do not routinely carry guns) or the military. Its the stories of ghetto gun battles that have caught the imagination of our youth gangs and now all of them want guns when they were previously satisfied with beating up/stabbing the helpless and trashing up shops/cars/anything freestanding. For a period of time, up north they had to have regular police patrols armed with automatics because of the sudden influx of foriegn arms. Simple vandalism has escalated because these people want to be as "cool" as the gangs of America. I don't blame America for this. I'm saying the cultural ideas stemmed from America.

 

I do not follow your "guns are a good thing" logic at all.

 

Having guns will not reduce crime (do you see criminals retiring because people could buy guns?). It will NOT reduce gun crime. It won't reduce violent crime (the commonest form of violent crime is domestic issues. Now add a gun to the equation and you end up with murder). It will not reduce theft (they take things when you Aren't looking and now they can buy a gun for when things go wrong. More murder.)

 

What you reason is that responsible people won't do bad things with guns. But guns don't offer protection for responsible people and increases the amount of harm irresponsible people can do. Responsible people can already take part in gun sports and can use guns as pest deterence (note that we don't have bears or wolves in the UK). So given all this, why would we want to increase gun ownership?

[MillenniumMan]

First off, whoever wants crime stats, here ya go. Two freshly compared cities right off the lexus-nexus law server: Washington DC which has banned the ownership and concealed carry of handguns within city limits versus Louisville, Kentucky which has an open conceal carry law and allows ownership of privatley owned handguns within city limits. The only act you'll notice that isn't consistent is the one about arson. This is usualy a destruction of private property crime that takes place at night when people are asleep. But of course to the anti-gunners, this should still be grounds for banning guns because as we all know guns think for themselves and should be able to shoot anyone they please! Mabey the guns were lazy on those nights?

 

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/josephgrant/crimestats.jpg

 

Second of all, whats to stop these -*BAD WORD*-s from furnishing their own guns? A thin metal pipe, dozen matchheads, a ball bearing, pen spring, nail, popper and a couple of hand made cartriges and they have the makings of a nice derringer-style firearm. Pick up the book Homemade guns-Homemade ammo and you'll see how easy it is to furnish your own. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to do this either, just someone who wants the means to defend/offend. Of course, this could also be used in a tactic called butterknifing, where you have one of these -*BAD WORD*-ty pieces, use it on a LEO and take their weapon. And in a world without guns, this may be a tazer or a rubber bullet gun that can still be used by the -*BAD WORD*- to commit crimes.

 

And to whoever said that it was OK to kill, I never said it was ok to kill, but there is this policy that I have where it's better that the other guy die rather than me or someone I love because in the end, if they live and I don't they'll most likley do it again to someone else.

 

And BTW silk, you don't have to have "MILITARY" training, a typical bystander in a better world wouldn't think twice, they would act based on upbringing and doing the right thing. I've trained my neighbors kids quite well in the use of handguns and riflemanship (ages 8-16) and I can tell you that they know there is a great deal of responsibility involved with guns and wouldn't think twice about using one in a defensive posture. They have no military training, although the oldest now wants to become a police officer for the Harford County sherrifs office thanks to me His grades have also improved in this matter knowing that he has to p!@#$%^&* a written test and wants to have higher scoring so he can get further in his class.

[Yupa]

I wouldn't think Washington D.C. and Louisville are all that similar, but those are interesting stats all the same.

 

And BTW silk, you don't have to have "MILITARY" training, a typical bystander in a better world wouldn't think twice, they would act based on upbringing and doing the right thing. I've trained my neighbors kids quite well in the use of handguns and riflemanship (ages 8-16) and I can tell you that they know there is a great deal of responsibility involved with guns and wouldn't think twice about using one in a defensive posture. They have no military training, although the oldest now wants to become a police officer for the Harford County sherrifs office thanks to me His grades have also improved in this matter knowing that he has to p!@#$%^&* a written test and wants to have higher scoring so he can get further in his class.

 

:eek: ...like, must be a different world..do you people hunt or something?

[MillenniumMan]

I wouldn't think Washington D.C. and Louisville are all that similar, but those are interesting stats all the same.

 

And BTW silk, you don't have to have "MILITARY" training, a typical bystander in a better world wouldn't think twice, they would act based on upbringing and doing the right thing. I've trained my neighbors kids quite well in the use of handguns and riflemanship (ages 8-16) and I can tell you that they know there is a great deal of responsibility involved with guns and wouldn't think twice about using one in a defensive posture. They have no military training, although the oldest now wants to become a police officer for the Harford County sherrifs office thanks to me His grades have also improved in this matter knowing that he has to p!@#$%^&* a written test and wants to have higher scoring so he can get further in his class.

 

:eek: ...like, must be a different world..do you people hunt or something?

 

 

I don't, I care about animals and don't kill for sport or food (vegitarian). As far as I know none of them hunt either, but I wouldn't care one way or another if they did, that would be their choice. I'd feel sorry for the animal that got nailed, but that's about it.

[Silk]

For the last time im talking about killing someone from the psychological point of view. Im not talking about using a gun and how to handle it. Im saying can you or anyone else take someones life! Go into the military and see how many recruits say theyve never handled a firearm, shot someone or killed a animal. Taking someones life is huge in peoples emotions. Whether they think it was a rush or they feel like a murderer which it is killing someone. This isnt a perfect world where if someone sees something bad going on they will step in. Do you really think if a crowd of people or just one for that matter sees a man gun down do you think he will step in even if he has a weapon? The killer already has his out.

[Yupa]

I don't, I care about animals and don't kill for sport or food (vegitarian).

 

right on

[madhaha]

The statistics don't tell us anything but I'm sure you knew that already. We want firearms related data and a progression so we can see what happens when gun law changes. We also need to know the criteria (are both sets of data evaluated the same way? Politicians and big companies are notorious for thier selective criteria). Are these figures REPORTED crime (do crime rates rise due to increased public awareness or big money lawsuits that show money is to be made) or estimates? How effective do the police believe the laws to be (multiple statements)? This is what I would consider evidence.

 

Zipguns and other homemades are extremely unreliable 1 shot affairs. Many people have been seriously injured while using and even creating them and they are useless in terms of accuracy although that isn't a problem if you only need to take 1 shot close up. How many crimes are commited with homemade guns (its easy to tell because the bullets won't bear rifling marks) in comparison to gun crime commited by purchased firearms? I'd say something like 1:1000 if not more. Home casting of bullets is tricky, especially if you're poor and alone. The knowledge isn't that widespread and its much easier to get target rounds or shotgun s-*BAD WORD*-s.