View Full Version : Guns, Guns..GUNS!!
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 03:41
Hi OT Forum,
I'm Unchosen and this is my first OT thread...in the OT Forum. :D
I hang in the Druid Forum and our OT thread has recently been discussing the issue about GUNS.
Would making gun ownership more difficult/illegal reduce crime?
This applies to the general public and of course does not apply to law enforcement and/or the military.
Some people believe (Me for example) that not allowing the general public to possess guns would reduce crime or make "Life" safer.
Some argue that guns should be allowed, they offer protection to the general household and they are harmless, best summed up by the popular saying: "Guns don't kill people, People kill people"
I'm curious what the OT Forum thinks and considering most of the posters here have good opinions and proper arguments, I would very much like to hear them.
Note: I am not from America, I recall someone/somewhere telling me not allowing the general public to possess guns is a violation of the Constitution or something like that...
Anyhoots, talk away!
DrunkPotHead
10-08-2004, 04:06
Hi OT Forum,
I'm Unchosen and this is my first OT thread...in the OT Forum. :D
I hang in the Druid Forum and our OT thread has recently been discussing the issue about GUNS.
Would making gun ownership more difficult/illegal reduce crime?
This applies to the general public and of course does not apply to law enforcement and/or the military.
Some people believe (Me for example) that not allowing the general public to possess guns would reduce crime or make "Life" safer.
Some argue that guns should be allowed, they offer protection to the general household and they are harmless, best summed up by the popular saying: "Guns don't kill people, People kill people"
I'm curious what the OT Forum thinks and considering most of the posters here have good opinions and proper arguments, I would very much like to hear them.
Note: I am not from America, I recall someone/somewhere telling me not allowing the general public to possess guns is a violation of the Constitution or something like that...
Anyhoots, talk away!
Yea, the second amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from taking away our right to own a gun.
I don't think guns are the problem, although I never owned one, and i doubt im ever going to own one, but as far as i hear, areas in texas where everyone has a gun, the crime rate seems to be way lower, and gun accidents are a rare thing. Might have to ask Freet or someone else from Texas about that, im a Yankee :thumbsup:
{KOW}Spazed
10-08-2004, 04:10
No, if you take everyones guns away the bad guys will still get them. People don't commit crimes just because they have a gun, I personally own several guns(shotguns, .22s, and pistols) and have never robbed anyone. I simply enjoy to shoot. I go target shooting about 3 times a month and I am pretty damn good with a shotgun(above 94% at clays). I hunt during the bad deer seasons/rabbit season.
Taking my guns away won't make you safer, just make me not hunt/have my normal fun. Not to mention the animal populations could get out of hand.
Guns should be relatively hard to get, but not unaccessible. However...
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Guess who? Most people already know this one.
Satans_Advocate
10-08-2004, 04:21
How does prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning guns - thereby creating a black market through which criminals can access them - make anyone safer?
Fritos-crunch
10-08-2004, 04:25
Hi OT Forum,
I'm Unchosen and this is my first OT thread...in the OT Forum. :D
I hang in the Druid Forum and our OT thread has recently been discussing the issue about GUNS.
Would making gun ownership more difficult/illegal reduce crime?
This applies to the general public and of course does not apply to law enforcement and/or the military.
Some people believe (Me for example) that not allowing the general public to possess guns would reduce crime or make "Life" safer.
Some argue that guns should be allowed, they offer protection to the general household and they are harmless, best summed up by the popular saying: "Guns don't kill people, People kill people"
I'm curious what the OT Forum thinks and considering most of the posters here have good opinions and proper arguments, I would very much like to hear them.
Note: I am not from America, I recall someone/somewhere telling me not allowing the general public to possess guns is a violation of the Constitution or something like that...
Anyhoots, talk away!
I believe in the saying that Guns don't kill people, People Kill people. A gun is nothing more then a tool. It has no essence...it is not evil. If you take away guns people will just revert to using knives, clubs, or whatever they can get their hands on. If someone is committed to murdering someone, I don't think not having a gun would stop them.
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 04:34
True,
But a gun is extremely easy to use.
Someone willing to kill someone with a gun, might not have the guts to kill someone with a club/knife/dagger. It takes alot of will power to stab or beat someone to death, a gun doesn't require even half the will power.
Take away the gun and killing someone becomes alot harder.
In New Zealand, hunting is allowed but you need to have a gun license and go through a WHOLE bunch of tests before you even have the permission to buy a gun. Does that apply in USA?
I'm under the impression that if I was in USA, I want a gun, I go to a shop and buy one. Simple.
Raistlin Majere
10-08-2004, 04:46
True,
But a gun is extremely easy to use.
Someone willing to kill someone with a gun, might not have the guts to kill someone with a club/knife/dagger. It takes alot of will power to stab or beat someone to death, a gun doesn't require even half the will power.
Take away the gun and killing someone becomes alot harder.
True. Any person can shoot someone a block away. It takes alot of willpower to look someone in the eye as you rip their guts out.
{KOW}Spazed
10-08-2004, 04:48
I'm under the impression that if I was in USA, I want a gun, I go to a shop and buy one. Simple.
No, you have to first look for a credited shop(<- hard for the shop to get) then you have to wait at least 2 weeks to get it while they do a criminal background check. You don't just go in and buy a gun.
As for hunting you have to take a hunters safety class and pass, so you can't just sit through the class there is a test. You also have to get a permit to kill whatever you are going to hunt. For deer you buy a permit for each deer you plan to kill, if you don't kill all of them. . .tough you are out a good hunk of change.
Handguns you also need a RTC(right to carry) permit, meaning you can carry it around. If you want to cover it up(like under a coat) you have to get another permit that is much much harder to get. You also must be able to prove that you have that permit at any time if a police officer sees your gun.
Though most of the obove is for the whole US some is Missouri/Kansas only.
As for hunting you have to take a hunters safety class and pass, so you can't just sit through the class there is a test.
haha, that test is so insanely easy tho ;P
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 04:57
No, you have to first look for a credited shop(<- hard for the shop to get) then you have to wait at least 2 weeks to get it while they do a criminal background check. You don't just go in and buy a gun.
As for hunting you have to take a hunters safety class and pass, so you can't just sit through the class there is a test. You also have to get a permit to kill whatever you are going to hunt. For deer you buy a permit for each deer you plan to kill, if you don't kill all of them. . .tough you are out a good hunk of change.
Handguns you also need a RTC(right to carry) permit, meaning you can carry it around. If you want to cover it up(like under a coat) you have to get another permit that is much much harder to get. You also must be able to prove that you have that permit at any time if a police officer sees your gun.
Though most of the obove is for the whole US some is Missouri/Kansas only.
How can a civilian justify the necessity of carrying a gun in public, let alone the requirement to conceal it?
It baffles me.
Canadia142
10-08-2004, 04:59
it's simple, cause they want to
taking the average citizens rights to bear arms means only one thing:
an unarmed populous is a defenseless one.
they are attempting to strip us of our last, best hope of defense against attack, opression and tyranny. the threat is not some invisible network of foriegn radicals, but rather the neo-facist movement in our own government attempting to prepare the sheep for shearing when the time comes to implement the "New World Order".
I for one will not stand idly by and let this happen. I will fight neo-facist globilization and the WTO until my dying breath.
To these men I have but one thing to say:
Not till you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
How can a civilian justify the necessity of carrying a gun in public, let alone the requirement to conceal it?
Protection from muggers for one.
Pierrot le Fou
10-08-2004, 05:25
No, if you take everyones guns away the bad guys will still get them. People don't commit crimes just because they have a gun, I personally own several guns(shotguns, .22s, and pistols) and have never robbed anyone. I simply enjoy to shoot. I go target shooting about 3 times a month and I am pretty damn good with a shotgun(above 94% at clays). I hunt during the bad deer seasons/rabbit season.
Taking my guns away won't make you safer, just make me not hunt/have my normal fun. Not to mention the animal populations could get out of hand.
That's a load of garbage Spazed... You need to be 23 to obtain a permit in the state of Missouri (source (http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/missouri)). How exactly then can you, the self-proclaimed high school student, be doing such legally? Care to explain?
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 05:31
Protection from muggers for one.
What about mace ?
Why a gun?
If it's protection, I'd assume a retractable baton and/or a good can of mace would do the trick, no?
taking the average citizens rights to bear arms means only one thing:
an unarmed populous is a defenseless one.
they are attempting to strip us of our last, best hope of defense against attack, opression and tyranny. the threat is not some invisible network of foriegn radicals, but rather the neo-facist movement in our own government attempting to prepare the sheep for shearing when the time comes to implement the "New World Order".
I for one will not stand idly by and let this happen. I will fight neo-facist globilization and the WTO until my dying breath.
To these men I have but one thing to say:
Not till you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
I pray you are kidding..
Who is "they"?
New World Order?
Lemme get this right, if you have a gun then the government won't be able to take over the world?
If the government wants to take over you and your household, they won't storm your house like in the movies. They'd watch you with their satellites and shot you with lasers. Your guns won't stop them. Why bother?
But trust me, I've heard hats made out of aluminium and cow manure (some chemical in the manure that reacts with the aluminium) stop the government reading your mind and tracking you down.
--edit-- bah police statement had too many flaws in it to be viable.
If someone has a gun pointed at you, i dont think you'd be able to react quick enough to get their eyes with some mace or hit them with a club before they shoot your face off.
A gun is way simpler, pull the trigger, they go down.
This is a somewhat rare, and dire case. But I think it's a viable way of someone protecting themself.
Raistlin Majere
10-08-2004, 05:41
What about mace ?
Why a gun?
If it's protection, I'd assume a retractable baton and/or a good can of mace would do the trick, no?
Baton=more fun pummeling the would be mugger.
I perfer a Knife, but that is just me. retractable batons are cool though, and mace/tazors hurt. (yes I have sprayed myself/ been zapped by a overzealous G/F [accident] another band camp story....)
Raistlin Majere
10-08-2004, 05:42
yeah, i think police should just carry mace and clubs too
they do, but they have to be zapped and sprayed first so to insure they know how much it hurts so the odds are they wont be sadistic.
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 05:48
That's what I mean,
Make guns more difficult to obtain, that very mugger probably won't even have a gun in his hand.
Also, if a mugger has a gun in his hands pointing at you, how do you expect to draw your gun quick enough to shoot him? Wouldn't a can of mace and a gun be the same?
Make guns more difficult to obtain, that very mugger probably won't even have a gun in his hand.
Not really, if someone like that is going to buy a gun, it's most likely through illegal methods. Your really just making it harder for non-criminals to get guns, not actual criminals.
Mace you need to aim at there eyes, if someone is close enough, you could shoot a gun through your coat or something into their gut.
Like i said, it's an unlikely situation, but it *does* happen.
Pierrot le Fou
10-08-2004, 05:53
That's what I mean,
Make guns more difficult to obtain, that very mugger probably won't even have a gun in his hand.
Also, if a mugger has a gun in his hands pointing at you, how do you expect to draw your gun quick enough to shoot him? Wouldn't a can of mace and a gun be the same?
If guns are made illegal, only criminals will carry guns. Exactly how will that solve anything deary-pie?
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 06:08
If guns are made illegal, only criminals will carry guns. Exactly how will that solve anything deary-pie?
Illegal?
No, definitely not illegal.
But definitely make gun onwership extremely restrictive.
Everyone seems to assume that criminals have special abilities that can magically create guns that civilians cannot. It's definitely not the case.
Criminals obtain their guns by stealing them.
Steal them from who?
From civilians.
If civilians can't own guns, criminals can't steal them.
Obviously there will be a GREATER blackmarket created for guns, guns become more expensive to buy (for criminals) and thus a good majority of criminals are unable to purchase them due to the price.
Like it or not, a black market will always be present. Making gun onwership more difficult would seriously affect the black market prices for guns. Your average mugger would not have the spending ability to arm himself with a firearm.
Pierrot le Fou
10-08-2004, 06:20
Pssssssst, criminals will get guns by any means they need to, just as drug addicts can. The fewer people that have guns, the fewer people that will be able to protect themselves against a gun-toting criminal.
Are you just magically concocting arguments without using your brain Unchosen? Are you even listening to the other side? If I gave you proof that you were wrong, would you even listen?
Like it or not, a black market will always be present. Making gun onwership more difficult would seriously affect the black market prices for guns. Your average mugger would not have the spending ability to arm himself with a firearm.
AK-47's are dirt cheap and there are tons and tons of them out there. Guns aren't just made in the U.S. ya know. They can be brought in from other places.
haha, and if i have a gun, how is someone gonna steal that gun from me. Come up and punch me in the face?
Another reason to have a gun, to protect someone from stealing it ;)
Raistlin Majere
10-08-2004, 06:35
if you think guns are the only way of protecting yourself you are sorely mistaken.
in most cases, a tazer or mace is just as effective, and if you are sick and twisted, you can get a little "fun" out of it. same with batons.
if you are serious, you can use a knife. when I was living in Detroit, there was a fad of "booth robbing" in that close of quarters, a knife is far more effective and dangerous.
There not the only way to protect yourself. But they are a very easy and effective way of protecting yourself.
Raistlin Majere
10-08-2004, 06:41
There not the only way to protect yourself. But they are a very easy and effective way of protecting yourself.
easy and more prone to other trouble. no one breaks into my house to steal my knives, baton, or swords. if they did, I would feel bad for them, I like sharp objects, you see....
Why would someone break into my house to steal my gun? How do they even know i have a gun? How do they know where I keep my gun? How the hell would i not know that someone is in my house looking for my gun?
Draconis
10-08-2004, 06:43
AK-47's are dirt cheap and there are tons and tons of them out there. Guns aren't just made in the U.S. ya know. They can be brought in from other places.
And exactly how much good is any legal firearm going to be against someone trying to kill you with an assault rifle? It's not a burglars weapon really is it? And if someone holds you up with one, you'd be in pieces on the floor before you could pull your own gun.
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 06:44
Pssssssst, criminals will get guns by any means they need to, just as drug addicts can. The fewer people that have guns, the fewer people that will be able to protect themselves against a gun-toting criminal.
I don't really see any other means a criminal could obtaining a gun except to steal one. If there are no guns to steal, what other means is there?
The fewer people that have guns, the fewer criminals have guns.
Criminals are people and part of society. (They don't deserve to be but that's not the argument).
I don't see how taking guns away from the public, won't affect the criminals..
Are you just magically concocting arguments without using your brain Unchosen? Are you even listening to the other side? If I gave you proof that you were wrong, would you even listen?
No, I am indeed using my brain, what made you think I wasn't?
Yes, I am listening to the other side, I answered "the other side's" questions properly and posed my own.
and yes, Pierrot le Fou, If you gave me proof, I would definitely listen to you.
You've asked me questions and I've answered them with my own personal opinion, in return I asked you questions and you...said that.
I'm not here to start a fight, I'm here to satisfy my own curiosity and honestly seeking your opinion. I'll apologise if my comments have insulted you but I don't see what I've said could. Even if I have said something, you calling me "deary-pie" would have made it even so the above quoted statement wasn't required.
And exactly how much good is any legal firearm going to be against someone trying to kill you with an assault rifle? It's not a burglars weapon really is it? And if someone holds you up with one, you'd be in pieces on the floor before you could pull your own gun .
This is true
I don't really see any other means a criminal could obtaining a gun except to steal one. If there are no guns to steal, what other means is there?
Why are you so adamant that the only way to get a gun for a criminal is to steal one? There are corrupt gun shop owners, and other outlets to purchase weapons.
And honestly, if i own a gun and have it stored up in a closet buried somewhere. How is someone gonna steal that? How are they gonna even know i have it?
Canadia142
10-08-2004, 06:47
unchosen they smuggle the guns into the country from places like mexico and crap.
Draconis
10-08-2004, 06:53
Why are you so adamant that the only way to get a gun for a criminal is to steal one? There are corrupt gun shop owners, and other outlets to purchase weapons.
And without legal firearms, there wouldn't be any gun shop owners to corrupt ;)
And honestly, if i own a gun and have it stored up in a closet buried somewhere. How is someone gonna steal that? How are they gonna even know i have it?
They won't. It'll also be completely useless in an emergency, given that the last thing you want to be doing if you wake up to someone breaking into your house is digging through cupboards looking for your gun. When the first thing you should be doing is getting out of the house, ideally with a mobile phone.
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 06:54
I'll admit that though,
Guns can be imported from overseas.
But is that an excuse enough to say "well since criminals can get it from overseas then we might as well not bother making it harder for them to get it in our country"?
Why would someone break into my house to steal my gun? How do they even know i have a gun? How do they know where I keep my gun? How the hell would i not know that someone is in my house looking for my gun?
Guns aren't targeted items to be stolen.
No one goes out of their way to steal a gun.
But if a burglar [sp?] is ransacking your house for items to be stolen, he'll obviously take your gun too since it can be pawned.
How can a civilian justify the necessity of carrying a gun in public, let alone the requirement to conceal it?
It baffles me.
Intimidation. If someone is aggressing on you and you pull a gun they will stop. If you had to protect yourself would you rather use pepper spray which really doesn't do much, unless you get to law enforcement freeze plus 3 type, or would you rather have a gun where you can guarantee it will work? Hiking is another place where a gun is a good idea to have. Being out on the trail for 6 days no telling who or what you might cross the safety a gun offers is irreplaceable.
Now I'm all for strict gun laws. I wish there were classes and background checks just to purchase a gun. Then have even more strict classes for carrying a gun. I own and my family owns tons of guns but no one carries except when hiking/camping and hunting.
I think the lines are getting blurred here. What are we talking about?
Firearms being completely illegal, insanely restricted, no concealed firearms, no hand guns....
cause it's not really a black and white question because there are so many variables.
And im getting confused as to what the point of this thread has turned into.
Myst_Lynx
10-08-2004, 07:02
OK I am kinda drunk but this this how i've always seen this topic. As an example, look at England, more specifically, London, owning a gun is totally against the law, yet it has the highest (gun related) crime rate.
Firearms can be used as an aggressive force or a deterent. Personally I think every adult (18+ yrs old) should be mandated to own a firearm. That would make any criminal (potential or experienced) to think twice about robbing a convienience store or even a bank. A gun _is_ only a tool. With proper education about proper firearm handling and safety, it could be the best thing to happen to law enforcement since police brutality.
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 07:11
I'm was originally wondering if civilians should even be allowed firearms.
I'm now wondering handguns and/or concealment for civilians.
Raistlin Majere
10-08-2004, 07:13
OK I am kinda drunk
*gives Myst another beer*
one thing I notice with all the gun permits is the cops are more edgy.
I think carring a gun on you would not make you feel safer, but burden you with extra responsablity.
plus if you are attacted by someone on drugs, a gun can be useless.
Draconis
10-08-2004, 07:22
If someone's jacked up enough on something like PCP that non-lethal gun or knife wounds won't slow them down, I'm almost certain that killing them would be considered a reasonable application of force.
Raistlin Majere
10-08-2004, 07:26
If someone's jacked up enough on something like PCP that non-lethal gun or knife wounds won't slow them down, I'm almost certain that killing them would be considered a reasonable application of force.
I heard about a cop that unloaded 2 clips in a loaded guy and the stoner still managed to kill him (later died of wounds)
a tazer would work nicely in that situation.
2 clips into a guy? That's what, 24 shots?(gonna have to help me on that one) No way he'd be standing. One of those would be bound to hit him in the head or rail him in a kneecap or something.
Sounds like a BS story to me.
Raistlin Majere
10-08-2004, 07:39
2 clips into a guy? That's what, 24 shots?(gonna have to help me on that one) No way he'd be standing. One of those would be bound to hit him in the head or rail him in a kneecap or something.
Sounds like a BS story to me.
not BS, 9 were nine MM and the rest were from a .38 all were in the chest.
there are documented cases of someone on PCP shot in the heart and only dying when the drug wears off. if the head shot is not perfect, it will not work.
i dont care how drugged up you are, if you have no kneecaps, you aren't walking.
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 07:44
None of the shots were at the knee caps.
I'd bet the police officer wasn't "trained" to aim for the knee caps either.
meh, desperate times call for desperate measures. Might not have been trained to do so, but might've been the smartest thing to do.
Although if i were him i'd certainly think unloading two clips into someones chest would take them down. Unless they were a zombie, which in case your screwed.
But seriously, after you hit someone in the chest 9 times and they are still coming, wouldn't you change tactics?
Pierrot le Fou
10-08-2004, 08:10
Please show me these documented cases. I'd love to see documents pertaining to a man who took 9 9mm bullets and 6 .38s (I assume it was 6). Really, please.
Yeah, if it's as convincing as the draft article he posted, I think we're safe =/
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 08:32
It's not impossible but highly unlikely.
The human body is actually quite stubborn when it comes to dying.
There are cases of people taking a dagger in the heart and still be able to walk to a hospital, of course more than likely die but not instantly.
The best site I could find was this:
http://www.siena.edu/boswell/aggressi.htm
*note to self, stay away from PCP*
Hi All,
I'm sorry but I don't buy into the arguement, that limiting firearms does not help reduce gun related crimes, because you end up only limiting upright citizens access to guns, while the criminals will still be able to get hold of weapons, and run rampant.
Alot of other countries seem to do just fine without having their citizens armed to the hilt. I have lived in New Zealand, Australia and Denmark, 3 countries that allow registered hunting rifles and shotguns, but have very strict rule and access to handguns. None of these coutries are being over run with gun crazy criminals even though most of the citizens are unarmed.
The almost religion fever of pro-gun people in USA is pretty scary to alot of us non-Americans. No one is denying your right to have weapon as permitted under your constituation, but we are trying to understand WHY you feel the need to have so many, and such power weapons.
Yesterday I saw in another post, Felstorm posted a link to a manufacturer selling military shotguns with the advertisement ".... a wonderful centerpiece to any home defense system". I just don't this, my 'home defense system' is just a matter of locking the front and back door to my flat when I go to bed at night. Works fine for me.
Is America really that violent you need all these weapons ?
Is it just a hangover from the old wild west times ?
Is it just a love affair with the gun ?
I like TheUnchosen am curious about America and all its guns.
Regards
Syxx
felstorm
10-08-2004, 09:46
Unchosen.
We, the law abiding gun carrying marginal types, will not change your mind on guns. Ever. But I will explain our stance. Take it or leave it. You enjoy freedom because someone decided to pick up a gun, become a criminal, and fight for freedom you now enjoy. You may find that my language is strong, or it may piss you off, and I expect it to... but it's not because it's a personal attack on your character it's because we think the EXACT opposite of each other.
I find that you are a very curious creature.
I liken you to an animal that willingly rips it's teeth and claws out with the idea that nothing will prey upon it if it disarms itself. Silly humans.
Guns are human equivalent to "teeth and claws".
I show you Europe. Ever been to Europe or the UK? Ever been to London or Rammestien? Well I'll tell you something about Europe. You are three times as likely to get stabbed, mugged and ***** over there than you are in NYC. In fact, they have a BIGGER crime problem than the US does. They may not shoot each other as much, but you are three times as likely to be victimised over there.
Stupid fat white men like Micheal Moore, BLATANTLY disregard all the thousands of defensive uses of firearms then NEVER end in bloodshed in the US. That is violence that resolves a conflist that ends in a happy ending. All thanks to .. you guessed it... guns.
Oh and despite all the stringent gun control, Europe's crime has been climbing over the past few years. Oops, Micheal Moore left that one out of his movie didn't he?
Wanna know what Europe did? They strictly control gun ownership. They took all the guns away. They created a power vacuum. Those that were armed, became criminals, or were criminals already, and despite the strict control on weapons, the "bad guys" have had no problems getting their hands on firearms. Not just cold war leftovers, but the nice well-made Italian and French weaponry. All the while the law abiding citizens are just cattle waiting to be milked by the ever increasing amounts of crime syndicates and mafia.
Basically what happened is, the people over there chose to disarm themselves which made it easier for "bad guys" to rob them blind.
Which is EXACTLY what is happening.
You assert that nobody deliberately targets gun owners to steal their guns. The exact opposite is true. I keep all mine locked in a safe, at my uncles thirty miles away, because G-money hoodies like to come up from Chicago and steal people's legally registered guns to take back to Chi-town to blow away rival gang bangers. Happens all the time.
Violence is part of human nature. We are selfish, curious, grabby monkeys that like to **** and kill. We got to this point of evolutionary progress, not by being egalitarian altruists, but by being more clever and savage than the other animals around us. And when we didn't have to worry about lions and tigers as much, we began killing each other for resources, religion, and politics.
I find that people that do not own firearms, never fired one in their life, never had to serve in the military or voluntarily served in the military, never killed another human being in anger or in self-defense, are not adequately qualified to speak about firearms and their role in human civilisation.
Every human should be armed. Every human should carry a pistol. Firearms are our teeth and claws. Tryants, dictators, genocidal maniacs, and petty criminals looking for 20$ to support their crack habit prefer their victims unarmed and submissive. Just ask Hitler, Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Uday and Qusay, the Han dynasty....they all argee, gun control works wonders.
If it were up to me, it'd be like in Heinliens book Starship Troopers. Civillians would not be allowed to vote. They could entertain all the socialistic altruisms that they like. But they would have no power. Only Citizens would have the priviledge of voting. The priviledge to vote would have to be earned through military service. And all Citizens would be required by law to carry armament on their person at all times in open territory. There would be no organised police/gestapo. Citizens would be charged with safeguarding civillians. And Citizens would be everywhere. It would be the equivalent to having dozens of police officers on EVERY street corner, EVERY block, EVERY shopping mall... robbing conveinience stores isn't as profitable when the store has five or six armed citizens milling about buying slurpees and cheetos.
Sad fact of reality is, the world is not peaches and candy canes. And it will never be a socialistic utopia where "all mankind lives in peace". Russia already tried that, it failed. The only way that would happen is if we were all people were brainwashed to be exactly the same, desire the exact same things, and have NO desire to become something more than you are now. You would be a consumer zombie working a 9-5 job being told what is fashionable and trendy, and like a good little zombie you'd accept what you were told and like it.
Wait. Look around you.
It's already started.
Parents have to leave their kids behind to go to work, while someone else rears them... the state. Oh my and what is the state telling them? "Guns are bad, and violence doesn't solve anything.". Used to be when I was a kid in school, you got into a fist fight with the bully and it was over and done with and you were chums the next day. The teachers lectured you, but they knew it was "boys being boys". Now, oh no, it's bullied kids not allowed to retaliate with fists and feet, settling their differences with pugilism. Now bullide kids are bringing guns to school to blow away their oppressors whom they are not allowed to retaliate against. A zero tolerance policy on fisticuffs in schools has led to bloodshed in the hallways. And the stupid ****ers blame video games for the violence in shools. It's not the video games, it's the teachers that are too stupid to realise that not all violence ends in bloodshed and death. I remember kids that were bullied relentlessly in school, when they go to their teachers they were told to stop complaining and 'don't be a tattletale"... the TEACHERS are as responsible for school shootings as the perpetrators themselves.
The problem is stupid pacifist teachers telling young men that "violence solves nothing", when the exact opposite is true. Violence resolves all sorts of conflict. And it doesn't have to be lethal violence. Young animals fight all the time amongst their own species to assert dominance and play, yet very rarely do they seriously harm each other, and VERY rarely do they kill each other. But they do fight.
Why should humans be any different?
Violence is part of us. Conflict is inevitable as long as humans exist. And to think that we will ever "rise above it" is flawed ... it will always be with us.
Think about this.
What happens when we make contact with another sentient alien race of beings? Will they be friendly? Will they be hostile? You see what a predicament we would leave ourselves in if we did not responsibly foster the warrior-way, and embrace violence and it's tools? Shunning it's disciplines, it's arts and it's sciences will leave humans a big ripe juicy morsel for some bigger fish to come along and gobble up. No more human race.
The warrior-way, violence and conflict is as essential as Romance, lust, love and compassion.
Humans are animals. To think that I am anything more than an animal is to be a hypocrit. Humans are no better, and in some cases worse than other animals due to our mental and "spiritual" advancement.
EDIT:
Many people from around the world con't comprehend why the US has as much gun crime as it does.
I'll tell you what's causing it. Inner City Poverty and the Cult of the "Badass" Coward. Most people killed by guns in the US are poor under-educated urban minorities. It's tragic. It really is.
But taking away people's guns isn't gonna fix poverty. And taking away guns isn't going to end crime and violence either. In fact, you take away a gun, and a criminal will just grab a stick or a knife. The way to help prevent crime is to provide an opportunity for people to make decent living without having to resort to crime. People kill each other for all kinds of reasons, and you will NEVER be able to stop 100% of all crime. And arming citizens adds an additional factor to stop crime as it is happening. Just pick up an NRA magazine and read all the letters members send in relating how they STOPPED, or aided police in seizing a violent individual without ANY shots fired.
Aussies, and Europeans feel uneasy in my house because I have a gun in every room. They look about in fear and aprehension as if my shotgun was going to jump off the wall and blow thier head of at any minute.
Americans boggle at Europeans in the same way when they riot at soccer/football games and violently brutalise and kill each other over a .. game. Or run with angry bulls through Pamplona to risk getting savaged and gored. Or shrug off routine daily instances of strong-arm violence.
Let's see... last time someone tried to take my wallet in downtown Minneapolis at midnight was... was... well **** I can't remember that ever happening to me there despite all the night-time Vikings games I've gone to. Gee, and nobody rioted when the Vikings lost either.
First night off base in Rammestien I got into an uninstigated brawl with some drunken German rowdies, and some junkie with a switchblade tried to take my wallet. He got a broken arm instead. And all before 11 pm.
We are just as mystified at you as you are of us. We aren't trying to take away your soccer riots, stop trying to take away our guns. Firearms related sports have the LEAST injuries and fatalities out of all the sports played in the US.
Steel_Avatar
10-08-2004, 09:55
That's a load of garbage Spazed... You need to be 23 to obtain a permit in the state of Missouri (source (http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/missouri)). How exactly then can you, the self-proclaimed high school student, be doing such legally? Care to explain?
Remember the magically healing hand? Same idea :D
Hi Felstorm.
I very much enjoyed reading what you wrote even thought I don't agree with much of it.
Your point about enjoying freedom because someone decided to pick up a gun, become a criminal, and fight for freedom I now enjoy... I am sad to say is true. However being true doesn't make it right. I am glad the world is becoming more civilized and steering away from such things.
Humans aren't animals, and to my way of thinking this is a good thing. I am glad the human race does not follow the principal of survival of the fitest. If such was the case, people like Stephen Hawkings would never have been around.
Good people like Ghandi, Mandella, Mother Theresa, Luther King, wouldn't have lasted long being toothless and clawless in Felstorm's world. I think the world is a better place that such pacifists like these not only survived, but showed many others that there is a way without guns and violence.
There are alternatives to arming all the people of the world. I am glad not to have need of guns myself. If dictators, criminals, genocidal maniacs, want to mess up my life, my country, then we have police, armed forces and various agencies to deal with such people. The advantage of these people having the guns, is they have controls and checks in places to prevent misuse (yes, yes .... in an ideal world) whereas you don't know if you can trust Joe Blow ordinary citizen and his weapons.
I find your viewpoint on crime in Europe interesting in that we chose to disarm themselves which made it easier for "bad guys" to rob us blind. I've lived in a European capital for 12 years and no bad guy has robbed me blind. None of my friends or family have been robbed blind, in fact life is pretty safe and comfortable thank you very much. (Maybe this is just a Scandanavian thing ?)
I think there are alot of decent human ideals that do separate us from the animals, and this is a good thing. I see nothing wrong in believing in such ideals, even though there are others out there who do not. Striving to be better, is not a weakness or a waste of time in my opinion.
Yes humans do have a history of violence, and some conflicts I agree are better solved with limited non-life threatening violence, like the school bully scenario you presented. However I draw the line with arming everyone with guns. That is not a world, I'd like to live in.
Regards
Syxx
Steel_Avatar
10-08-2004, 11:04
Denying statistics because you personally haven't been the target of such actions is silly, and I think you know that. It'd be like Fel saying: "Well I haven't been shot to death yet, so obviously there are very few gun-related deaths in America."
Hi Steel,
He made a generalization based apon 2 of the more violent cities in Europe, I replied with a personal experience in a less violent city .... so shot me.
I also suggest you re-read my comment .... I used the word "Intesting" to describe Felstorms statement. Since when does interesting mean deny ?
Regards
Syxx
Yea, the second amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from taking away our right to own a gun.
I don't think guns are the problem, although I never owned one, and i doubt im ever going to own one, but as far as i hear, areas in texas where everyone has a gun, the crime rate seems to be way lower, and gun accidents are a rare thing. Might have to ask Freet or someone else from Texas about that, im a Yankee :thumbsup:
Ah, but Canada has less hand guns per capita than America and our crime rate is far lower. (we have more rifles per capita but the majority are up north, are used for hunting not protection and have a subsequently higher accidental death rate).
So just because I do not own and gun and do not want to own a gun I should not be allowed to vote? Because I am not in the millitary or have not been in the past I am not able to vote? Umm ya lets ruin democracy even more while we are at it. If americans wants to arm themselves go for it it is your right and I am not going to take that away from you. As a Canadian I do not see the use of carrying guns around, hunting is one thing but having a shotgun or handgun for protection is not something that appeals to me. I live in one of the biggest cities in Canada and have never been the victim of any sort of crime and none of my friends have. Hell I do not even lock my dorrs at night but then again I have two very large dogs that will scare most people off.
Technetium
10-08-2004, 13:48
Everything I want to say has already been said, but I'll put it into my own words.
Show me evidence that any large cities in the US that made gun ownshership illegal have lower rates of violent crime than they used to. Without that sort of evidence, I'm going to have say that making guns illegal does close to nothing to prevent criminals from having guns. Without that evidence, I think you guys might as well be pulling your arguments out of the air. After all, marijuana is illegal in all places of the US, yet it is pretty much equally easy to get marijuana as it is to get cigarettes.
Also, let's please put an end to the "my city/country in Europe/Canada/Asia completely bans guns, and we have way less crime than the US" argument. You're also not living in a country where the second largest ethnicity has, since the mid 1800s, been systematically and, at times legally, marginalized by the majority. When people grow into teenagers believing that they have no real future, and that the streets are where it is always going to be at, you're not going to be left with much reason to follow the law. This is also a country where parents have children who they really never wanted, and instead of trying to learn to be good parents, they stock up on beer and watch a lot more TV, and cheat on their significant others, while their kids are out running around the neighborhood with no guidance and no discipline. These are the real reasons why the US is damned war zone, but everyone seems to want to pretend that it is something as simple as "the guns". Few things as far-reaching and serious as this issue are ever the result of one simple cause.
I'm not saying that we just just throw out every law and allow anyone and everyone to walk into a store, say "I want guns", and walk out armed like he's ready to fight a war. No one that has ever been convicted of certain types of crime should be allowed to buy one (let's at least make them use the illegal method to get their weapons so we have a reason to arrest them again when they break the law). I'd say that all violent crime is included, but not things like tax evasion since those really don't have anything to do with the will to cause harm to another person.
Why not just let the cops deal with the crime? Because they don't. If I get shot and killed, and the guy that did it gets put in jail for life, I'm not going to feel very happy about the situation as a whole. Unless the government wants to start some program to make 1/3 of the population police officers, the police are not going to be very effective as a preventative force. Punishing people for killing other people is not as good as preventing people from killing other people. If the victim in the crime can at least fend for himself, then he at least has the power to protect his own life.
Sergeant
10-08-2004, 16:06
Guns should be relatively hard to get, but not unaccessible. However...
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Guess who? Most people already know this one.
I disagree with the first line.
The second was said by Hitler.
How can a civilian justify the necessity of carrying a gun in public, let alone the requirement to conceal it?
It baffles me.
Because the police are no good at preventing crime and no one cares about your own hide as you do. carrying a concealed gun (legally) in public is a means to defend yourself on the off chance you become the victim of a crime, maybe even defend someone else who gets attacked.
What about mace? Why a gun?
If it's protection, I'd assume a retractable baton and/or a good can of mace would do the trick, no?
No. Try stopping a druggie hopped up on PCP with mace or a baton. All that will happen is the perp will get hit or sprayed once, maybe twice. You'll be robbed and dead and the perp won't lose a second's sleep over it.
Illegal? No, definitely not illegal.
But definitely make gun onwership extremely restrictive.
Doesn't work in Europe.
Everyone seems to assume that criminals have special abilities that can magically create guns that civilians cannot. It's definitely not the case.
Criminals obtain their guns by stealing them. Steal them from who? From civilians.
If civilians can't own guns, criminals can't steal them.
They also obtain them through illegal buying channels, i.e. "the blackmarket"
Obviously there will be a GREATER blackmarket created for guns, guns become more expensive to buy (for criminals) and thus a good majority of criminals are unable to purchase them due to the price.
Like it or not, a black market will always be present. Making gun onwership more difficult would seriously affect the black market prices for guns. Your average mugger would not have the spending ability to arm himself with a firearm.
Wrong. Guns will always be available to the criminal who wants one. The are adaptive creatures who will get a gun if they need one. Even if you are right and they become too expensive to get, criminals will just get a knife or baseball bat instead.
Look at the very recent murders in Florida. No guns used there, neither by the murderers or those they killed to defend themselves. So now we have murders comitted without a gun. Criminals don't need guns to kill or victimize. Take guns away from citizens and you fatten the buffet line for criminals, guns or not.
If you think guns are the only way of protecting yourself you are sorely mistaken.
They certainly are not. They are, however, the most effective deterrant. Often times, they don't even need to be used, just threatened with. If you're a criminal in someone's home, about the most terrifying sound you could hear is the sound of a shotgun shell being racheted into the chamber. NO ONE mistakes what that sound is. Try being as effective by clicking the safety catch on a can of mace and yelling threats in a threatening voice. Now the perp knows you don't have a gun AND knows where you are.
In most cases, a tazer or mace is just as effective, and if you are sick and twisted, you can get a little "fun" out of it. same with batons.
If you are serious, you can use a knife. when I was living in Detroit, there was a fad of "booth robbing" in that close of quarters, a knife is far more effective and dangerous.
See above response to unchosen when faced with a druggie dusted to the eyeballs on PCP. You could carve the skin from their face and they probably would help you out. They don't feel pain and really don't fear anything. Try tazering someone like that or threatening them with a stick. You'd have better luck squaring off with a bear.
I don't really see any other means a criminal could obtaining a gun except to steal one. If there are no guns to steal, what other means is there?
Blackmarket. Illegal personal gun sales, corrupt gun shops.
The fewer people that have guns, the fewer criminals have guns.
Criminals are people and part of society. (They don't deserve to be but that's not the argument).
Wrong. The fewer people (meaning citizens who obey the law) who have guns, the more people criminals can rob, with or without guns. Criminals will always have a weapon to do the trick, whether it's a gun or a big knife to your throat.
I don't see how taking guns away from the public, won't affect the criminals..
It will. It gives them more job security and peace of mind. I mean, we HAVE to consider the quality of life for these scum now don't we.
I'll admit that though, guns can be imported from overseas.
But is that an excuse enough to say "well since criminals can get it from overseas then we might as well not bother making it harder for them to get it in our country"?
Equating restrictive gun control for civilians to "making it harder for criminals to get them in our country" is ridiculous. For many previously stated reasons.
Guns aren't targeted items to be stolen. No one goes out of their way to steal a gun.
That's total crap. As also stated by felstorm. About 9 years ago, in my rebellious waste of life youth days, before I enlisted and got a life, I was part of a robbery of a home when the WHOLE purpose of breaking in was to steal guns. Guns we later disposed of when we realized how stupid it was to have them and couldn't return them because someone had come home in the mean time.
Criminals do specifically target homes to steal guns.
I have said it many times and will say so again. Gun control DOES NOT STOP CRIME. It does not lower crime and it does not prevent crime. It provides an environment which increasingly favors the criminal. EVEN IF THE CRINIMAL DOESN'T HAVE A GUN. It favors, even moreso, the criminals without guns because now the playing field is level at least and tipped in their favor at best.
I agree with much of what fel said, except for the bit that we are only animals. Everything else he and I are in 100% agreement over. Guns are necessary to the safety of a nation. Not only from other citizens who make their livelihood from crime but, from governments who would subtly and slowly disarm a nation, all the while cramming crap down our throat and calling it sugar.
A disarmed nation is one just WAITING to be ruled, conquered, enslaved or any number of unsavory endings. You can have my guns when you come and try to take them. Bring lots of backup and mace, probably some EMT's and ambulances. Cause if you try to take my legally owned firearms from me (legal as defined and protected by the constitution), you will get my gun, one bullet at a time.
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 16:12
mm, too much to read. I'll just give my poisition and hope I didn't repeat anyone.
I own a gun.. mostly for self-defense cause I live in a shiddy neighborhood. I grew up around guns (because I lived in the sticks and relatives took me hunting) so I know how to handle one.
Imo if you have taken a course on how to use a gun and can really handle it, by all means get one if you feel you need it.
I am not objectant at all to criminal background checks before allowing the purchase of guns. I never plan on commiting a crime so I don't see the harm.
Btw: http://img54.exs.cx/img54/534/kerry-priceless.jpg
I've said it before and I'll say it again... knowing HOW to use a gun does not mean you know WHEN to use a gun and that is far more important. Any idiot with the brain of a chimp can learn how to use a gun. Knowing when you can use it and when you SHOULD use it requires much more intelligence and MUCH more training than 95% of the population receives.
Just because you know how to use a gun doesn't mean you're qualified to nor that you should.
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 16:27
I've said it before and I'll say it again... knowing HOW to use a gun does not mean you know WHEN to use a gun and that is far more important. Any idiot with the brain of a chimp can learn how to use a gun. Knowing when you can use it and when you SHOULD use it requires much more intelligence and MUCH more training than 95% of the population receives.
Just because you know how to use a gun doesn't mean you're qualified to nor that you should.
You shouldn't have said that, now im going to shoot you! :lol:
Seriously thought I can't see America going no-gun any time soon, there are still too many rural places where guns are everywhere and urban places were people don't feel safe without em. And frankly they could care less if they know when to use it.
And that's the problem. People who don't know when to use guns are more likely to shoot someone they care about, or an innocent person. Even if it is an intruder, it's not acceptable to start blasting away without regard. And that complexity rises exponentially with a concealed weapon on public streets. I spent two years training to know when to use lethal force with a firearm... the average gun owner has the time spent swiping his credit card and occasionally a five day waiting period.
I don't think that the U.S. could possibly disarm their citizens now... and it's a pretty bad mess they have themselves in now, IMO.
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 16:50
Even if it is an intruder, it's not acceptable to start blasting away without regard.
Er, im not of the school that shoots first, asks questions later, but if there were an intruder in my downtown apartment late at night and I felt threatened (i.e. It seemed I was being robbed) I'd shoot 'em, in the legs of course, would'nt want to kill the poor bastard.
Ill walk around NYC or Boston any time of day or night before I walked the streets of most european places.
Simply put: Having guns > not having guns
I read in American Rifleman about rural england once. There was this guy who was repeatedly victimized because every criminal knew that the police would never get there before they were gone, eventually the guy shot a burglar and guess what happened to the homeowner?
AeroJonesy
10-08-2004, 16:59
I believe you are only entitled to respond with equal force. If all they've got is a crowbar, and you cap 'em in the knee with your Glock, you're gonna end up in jail.
braveicus
10-08-2004, 17:00
guns are good for keeping the King of England out of your face.
regards
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 17:03
I believe you are only entitled to respond with equal force. If all they've got is a crowbar, and you cap 'em in the knee with your Glock, you're gonna end up in jail.
If you arnt as well built as the opponent in question and he could easily beat you to death with the crowbar? Yeah I'd still shoot em. Self-Defense.
Er, im not of the school that shoots first, asks questions later, but if there were an intruder in my downtown apartment late at night and I felt threatened (i.e. It seemed I was being robbed) I'd shoot 'em, in the legs of course, would'nt want to kill the poor bastard.
That's the key, though. You have to identify the threat level and decide in an instant if lethal force is warranted (and shooting someone with a gun is always considered lethal force because you may well hit someone in an artery). If it's not and you use undue force you can be brought up on murder or other charges. Most people simply have nowhere near the level of training required to make that kind of decision on the spot. I have no problem with people defending themselves. If someone points a gun at you, it's a clear threat and warrants lethal force, but some situations are not so obvious.
I forgot to add that the Elderly benefit a lot from gun posession. In most every case of guns used as a deterrent to a crime, its an elderly person with some young blood thinking they can walk all over the *seemingly defenseless*
edit: Also, I believe the police are somewhat to blame because I have heard a lot about cops "losing track" of confiscated weapons.
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 17:10
If someone breaks into my apartment with the intent of stealing things, they are going to suffer if I catch em, criminals today don't have anything to fear from jail time except the obvious shower issue. If a criminal is killed trying to rob someone I think its that much better, less money wasted on a useless human being that would be sucking tax dollars from good honest citizens all his life.
AeroJonesy
10-08-2004, 17:12
Yes, but the criminal's family can sue you, and if it goes down like you described, they will probably win. I'm sure the settlement would be in the millions of dollars as well.
If someone breaks into my apartment with the intent of stealing things, they are going to suffer if I catch em, criminals today don't have anything to fear from jail time except the obvious shower issue. If a criminal is killed trying to rob someone I think its that much better, less money wasted on a useless human being that would be sucking tax dollars from good honest citizens all his life.
However, you end up getting screwed, and occasionally an innocent person dies if you make a mistake.
TheUnchosen
10-08-2004, 17:58
Felstorm,
You've got a tight argument but I'd still disagree.We have completely different perspective and I've gone for the more "optimistic" perspective.
Yours is more of a pessimistic(sp?) view on society or you may think "more realistic".
In any case, I agree that we disagree.
Sergeant,
You've written a good post but still a few points you made trouble me:
A criminal dusted on PCP won't be detered by a gun either. Read my article I previously posted for references.
Concerning the "where else can criminal obtain firearms", I was thinking more along the "supply" end of the guns blackmarket.
A blackmarket wouldn't exist for guns if no one was stealing them. Take away a good
"source" of firearms (households) would cripple the guns blackmarket.
I never said taking away guns will make the world a peaceful place. It will NOT stop poverty but the absence of firearms wouldn't make poverty even worse..
Even given what you've said about the absence of firearms not lowering crime, I think the absence of firearms would not INCREASE crime. Like you said, people who want to kill, will kill regardless of guns or not. So why bother with the gun then? Doesn't your statement suggest guns don't effect crime?
Taking the firearms away however would lower other fatalities and other UNNECCASARY deaths.
From what I see Sergeant, you're telling me having a gun makes you FEEL safer but don't you think you possessing a gun is in some ways directly or indirectly hazardous to some innocent's life ie. stolen and used, misfire etc etc?
Jera.DupriWLCM2ATL
10-08-2004, 18:19
I really don't see how guns are good as protection, other than having people know you have a gun and detering robbers/muggers/rapists. I mean, someone sneaks up to your house at night and holds a gun to your head or a knife to your throat, think you can pull out your gun fast enough to kill him? Guns, imo, in almost all cases increase crime. Why do you think America, one of the only "civilized" nations with such great number of gun owners also has one of the highest crime rates out of these "civilized" nations?
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 18:19
Take away guns from households and then only criminals who goto the blackmarket have them... how is that better?
Don't get me wrong, I trust law enforcement but, they cannot be everywhere at once.
Number of unintentional deaths by firearms in 2001 (http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe)
Not too alarming a number seeming the U.S. is chock full of gun toting crazy maniacs w/out a brain.
edit..
i may be misreading this data tho... one sec...
nope, looks like i read it right
802 unintentional gun deaths in a population of 280,000,000
Technetium
10-08-2004, 18:34
I believe you are only entitled to respond with equal force. If all they've got is a crowbar, and you cap 'em in the knee with your Glock, you're gonna end up in jail.
Nah, I don't agree with that at all. If someone breaks into your home, I don't see how he is entitled to a "fair fight".
{KOW}Spazed
10-08-2004, 18:34
That's a load of garbage Spazed... You need to be 23 to obtain a permit in the state of Missouri (source (http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/missouri)). How exactly then can you, the self-proclaimed high school student, be doing such legally? Care to explain?
I never said I carry. I own guns, my dad owns guns, my uncles own guns. . .but none of us have a CCW permit. Personally none of us think we need to carry one around.
Technetium
10-08-2004, 18:38
Concerning the "where else can criminal obtain firearms", I was thinking more along the "supply" end of the guns blackmarket.
A blackmarket wouldn't exist for guns if no one was stealing them. Take away a good
"source" of firearms (households) would cripple the guns blackmarket.
No, because they can always ship them in across the border with Mexico, just the same way they ship in heroin and cocaine. They can ship them in by boat, too, since hardly any of the stuff shipped in by boat is checked.
Take away guns from households and then only criminals who goto the blackmarket have them... how is that better?
Don't get me wrong, I trust law enforcement but, they cannot be everywhere at once.
Judging from the U.S. crime rate, I don't think everyone owning a gun is helping control the violence much considering the U.S. has one of the highest violent crime rates in the western world. Especially for a nation that claims so often to be so advanced and so morally righteous.
And whoever said earlier that most of the 'blackmarket' guns are supplied by households are entirely correct. You have a gun in your house and you're potentially feeding the criminals their firearms.
Tech, you don't have to agree with that... it's the law. You can't murder someone who tries to punch you, even if it's in your home. It's not a matter of a "fair fight" its controlling the numbers of murders motivated by revenge and without warrant.
Believe it or not even in your home you do not have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner unless you are in direct and immediate threat of serious injury and you cannot escape.
{KOW}Spazed
10-08-2004, 19:13
Hi Felstorm.
I very much enjoyed reading what you wrote even thought I don't agree with much of it.
Your point about enjoying freedom because someone decided to pick up a gun, become a criminal, and fight for freedom I now enjoy... I am sad to say is true. However being true doesn't make it right. I am glad the world is becoming more civilized and steering away from such things.
Humans aren't animals, and to my way of thinking this is a good thing. I am glad the human race does not follow the principal of survival of the fitest. If such was the case, people like Stephen Hawkings would never have been around.
Survival of the fitest is relative to the society. Stephen Hawking started out completely normal, it wasn't until his late college years that he was forced to a wheelchair. By then he had shown that he was very intelligent and that is obviously 'fit' for out society. Now the majority of humans do not need to be huge hulking beasts that can rip a deer in half. Now that we are no longer hunter-gatherers as a main food source our society is based on money. To get money it helps to be intelligent and for the most part makes you more 'fit' to live now. I am by no means saying that some people don't need to be big or that big people are stupid. Humans are animals, but we are dominant. Being dominant makes us less physically needy and requires us to be more intellectual. Humans are nothing but animals, we just happened to be better animals than all the others.
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 19:22
Tech, you don't have to agree with that... it's the law. You can't murder someone who tries to punch you, even if it's in your home. It's not a matter of a "fair fight" its controlling the numbers of murders motivated by revenge and without warrant.
Believe it or not even in your home you do not have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner unless you are in direct and immediate threat of serious injury and you cannot escape.
Everyting you said in that post I disagree with but this espcially I take issue with. If my life is in danger, I will not hesitate to fight back. I will not martyr myself on the cross of inoocent victim to a crime. The laws be damned, if someone breaks into my home with a crowbar, I will shoot him and if I kill him, then my lawyer will argue self-defense with me. How could any sane jury not see that a criminal in someone's home with a crowbar is grounds for self defense?
Everyting you said in that post I disagree with but this espcially I take issue with. If my life is in danger, I will not hesitate to fight back. I will not martyr myself on the cross of inoocent victim to a crime. The laws be damned, if someone breaks into my home with a crowbar, I will shoot him and if I kill him, then my lawyer will argue self-defense with me. How could any sane jury not see that a criminal in someone's home with a crowbar is grounds for self defense?
Go nuts. I won't mourn the loss of a criminal. But you're the one who'll spend the next 10-15 in prison for manslaughter.
Posession of a crowbar is not a legal grounds for killing someone, being in your house or not. If he doesn't threaten you with it or make any attack with it, you have no legal grounds to shoot him. You won't have a legal leg to stand on. It's only self defence if you're actually defending yourself.
And it doesn't matter if you agree with what I said in that post. Everything I said in it is fact. I'm in a position to know.
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 19:30
Give myself a quick whack with the crowbar, (or let him do it first) then shoot him. Happy?
Give myself a quick whack with the crowbar, (or let him do it first) then shoot him. Happy?
If you think police can't recreate a crime scene and tell things like the difference between an assault and a self inflicted would, you're sadly mistaken. Most burglars turn and run the moment they see someone in the house they're robbing. Most wait until the house is empty or they think it's empty. A very small amount actually try to confront the person they run into. You're going to shoot him in the back now? That will really look like self defence...
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 19:40
You're going to shoot him in the back now? That will really look like self defence...
I said it in one of my earlier posts, shoot em in the leg.
Doubt I would shoot em if he was running away anyhow.
Sergeant
10-08-2004, 19:41
I've said it before and I'll say it again... knowing HOW to use a gun does not mean you know WHEN to use a gun and that is far more important. Any idiot with the brain of a chimp can learn how to use a gun. Knowing when you can use it and when you SHOULD use it requires much more intelligence and MUCH more training than 95% of the population receives.
Just because you know how to use a gun doesn't mean you're qualified to nor that you should.
True there. There is a difference between being able to pull a trigger and discerning when the proper time to do that is.
I'm ALL for lots of training, both on how to properly use the gun and WHEN to use it. Knowing the laws pertaining to using force in your home against an assailant ought to be a part of any civilian firearm instruction.
And that's the problem. People who don't know when to use guns are more likely to shoot someone they care about, or an innocent person. Even if it is an intruder, it's not acceptable to start blasting away without regard. And that complexity rises exponentially with a concealed weapon on public streets. I spent two years training to know when to use lethal force with a firearm... the average gun owner has the time spent swiping his credit card and occasionally a five day waiting period.
I don't think that the U.S. could possibly disarm their citizens now... and it's a pretty bad mess they have themselves in now, IMO.
Again, we agree here... mostly. You have to be competent enough with when to use a gun. I mean, if you start blasting at a shadow you hear downstairs, you may turn on the light and find you killed your own daughter who popped in for a surprise visit from college. Not cool.
You have to be able to identify WHAT you're shooting at before you go John Woo on someone. I would definitely support training and education to this end, even making it mandatory for all concealed weapon permit requests.
I believe you are only entitled to respond with equal force. If all they've got is a crowbar, and you cap 'em in the knee with your Glock, you're gonna end up in jail.
Eh, you sure about that? I mean, if there's a guy in my house and I know he shouldn't be, that's reason enough to ready myself to defend. If he threatens my life or safety, that's more than enough for me to put one in his torso. As long as I legally own the gun and he was INSIDE my home at the time, I don't think I can be tossed in jail for shooting an intruder who was making threats on my life. That would probably change from state to state.
Sergeant, you've written a good post but still a few points you made trouble me:
A criminal dusted on PCP won't be detered by a gun either. Read my article I previously posted for references.
Well, it may not deter him but it does give you an effective means of stopping him. If a guy dusted on PCP makes to attack me and I put a bullet in him, it will at least knock him down or unbalance him enough for me to make an escape. If one isn't enough, I'll shoot again until he is effectively disabled. I'm not talking about necessarily killing the guy, only disabling enough so I can get to a safe place and call the cops.
Concerning the "where else can criminal obtain firearms", I was thinking more along the "supply" end of the guns blackmarket.
A blackmarket wouldn't exist for guns if no one was stealing them. Take away a good "source" of firearms (households) would cripple the guns blackmarket.
Well, I'm not sure but, I don't think the majority of guns on the black market are stolen from private citizens. I think the single biggest supply of guns to the illegal market are theft from federal supplies and seizures, straw purchases from legal dealers and dealer purchases from manufacturers that supply the traffickers who supply the illegal market. Getting a gun from a private citizen through theft isn't the smartest route to go, IMO. Because that gun has been purchased, registered and likely licensed. That provides a hefty paper trail if the perp is ever caught with that gun. It's too easy to trace. Guns that are brand new or ever owned are harder to follow because there's no trail.
Though still, I don't think the answer to stemming black market supply is taking away our right to own guns legally. It's to crack down on how manufacturers and dealers sell them and to crack down on those who buy and use them illegally. Go after the criminals, not the ones obeying the law.
Even given what you've said about the absence of firearms not lowering crime, I think the absence of firearms would not INCREASE crime. Like you said, people who want to kill, will kill regardless of guns or not. So why bother with the gun then? Doesn't your statement suggest guns don't effect crime?
Taking the firearms away however would lower other fatalities and other UNNECCASARY deaths.
Actually, it's been shown many times over in before and after stats of places who have either increased gun control or implemented right to carry laws. Look at fel's post about the European crime stats. Europe has some of the tightest gun control around and their crime rates are phenomenal. It may not be from guns but, murder is murder isn't it?
Exactly, guns don't necesitate crime. Someone who is going to commit a crime will do so, with or without a gun. The difference is made in how the victim can protect themselves. Criminals choose guns because they are far more intimidating than a baseball bat. It's harder to hurt someone with a bat or knife than with a gun because you have to get up close and personal with melee weapons. That's why criminals bother with guns. Easy to get, easy to use and very intimidating when you stick it in someone's face while they lay in bed.
That is why citizens ought to be able to own guns and carry them. Criminals will get guns no matter how many laws we make and no matter how harsh the punishments are. However, if criminals think the house their about to rob has a gun owner in it, they'll likely go for a home that doesn't. No stats needed to tell me criminals are cowards who like soft, unarmed targets.
Actually, taking firearms won't lower overall fatalities or crimes. Yeah, it'll lower murders and crimes committed with GUNS but you'll just end up seeing an increase in murders using other weapons. Because gun control doesn't stop crime, only how it's committed.
From what I see Sergeant, you're telling me having a gun makes you FEEL safer but don't you think you possessing a gun is in some ways directly or indirectly hazardous to some innocent's life ie. stolen and used, misfire etc etc?
Owning a gun gives me an effective tool to protect myself and my family. Even though it's statistically unlikely I'll ever have to use it, that doesn't make an argument for not needing it. Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your home, have a smoke alarm? What are the chances you'll ever actually need them? I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying at the end there, maybe you could clarify so I can respond.
Check this out:
The U.S. has one of the highest fire death rates in the industrialized world at 12 deaths per million population.
There were 3,380 civilians that lost their lives as the result of fire.
There were 18,425 civilian injuries that occurred as the result of fire.
There were 100 firefighters killed in duty-related incidents.
Just under 1.7 million fires were reported. Many others went unreported, causing additional injuries and property loss.
Direct property loss due to fires was estimated at $10.3 billion.
An estimated 44,500 intentionally set structure fires resulted in 350 civilian deaths.
Intentionally set structure fires resulted in an estimated $919 million in property damage.
Source: FEMA (http://www.usfa.fema.gov/inside-usfa/nfdc/nfdc-data.shtm)
So why aren't we lobbying to make it federal law to have a fire extinguisher and working smoke alarms in every home? Why aren't lobbyists pushing anti-fire legislation? Almost as many firefighters die in the line of duty as do police. So why aren't we pushing to restrict the purchase of matches, flammables and other sources of ingnition? Why isn't arson death despised and lobbied as much as firearm death? Fires cause far more damage and loss every year than guns do.
Look at this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5536730/?GT1=4244) report saying there are as many as 195,000 deaths caused by hospital error every year.
Skim through (http://www.healthgrades.com/media/english/pdf/HG_Patient_Safety_Study_Final.pdf) this study on hospital safety done by Healthgrades Inc., published in July this year.
Why are we SO focused on deaths caused by guns when there are causes of death that overwhelm the number of gun deaths (accidental and intentional).
In 2001, there were 29,573 gun related deaths (accidental, intentional, suicide, etc..). Source (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html)
On average, hospital error kills more people in 2 months than guns do in an ENTIRE year. Why aren't we slamming the books on hospital policy, map practice and error?
I'm not trying to invalidate those who are killed by guns every year, especially those who are murdered. I'm saying that there are far more serious and numerous causes of death in the US every year than guns. If prople were really interested in lowering death rates they would be breathing down the necks of hospitals and doctors, holding them more accountable for mistakes that lead to injury and death.
So again, how exac
Yeah, i love it when people bring up the "accidental gun death" argument.
When in 2001 only 802 people of 280,000,000 died in accidental gun deaths.
I said it in one of my earlier posts, shoot em in the leg.
Doubt I would shoot em if he was running away anyhow.
Like I said, that's still considered lethal force.
And you said that if he was in your home and holding a crowbar you'd shoot him. You didn't say it mattered what he was doing at the time.
Yeah, i love it when people bring up the "accidental gun death" argument.
When in 2001 only 802 people of 280,000,000 died in accidental gun deaths.
And 802 people who would still be alive today if handguns weren't easier to get than candy.
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 20:24
You didn't say it mattered what he was doing at the time.
You assumed I ment that. You know what they say about assuming, right? It makes an *** of you and me.
You assumed I ment that. You know what they say about assuming, right? It makes an *** of you and me.
if someone breaks into my home with a crowbar, I will shoot him
I didn't assume anything. I took you for exactly what you said. You didn't say you'd shoot him if he was a threat, or if he was running away. You said you'd shoot him if he broke into your house. No stipulations. The onus is on you to specify the conditions upon which you would fire. If you're going to be general in your statements I'm going to take you at your word.
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 20:28
And 802 people who would still be alive today if handguns weren't easier to get than candy.
Exactly what would you do if you were entering your home and a hostile intruder was there, he pulls his crowbar and comes at you.
You could run but theres no way you'll make it in time. Instead you can only defend yourself with your bare hands. Good luck with that and enjoy your stay in intensive care. Me, im going to keep my gun on me (yes, I have a license for it) and shoot that ***** if he comes at me.
Do you pasafist hippies have any regard for preserving a law-abiding citizen's life? I guess not, because its a reality that where guns are illegal criminals get them anyway. When they are the only ones with guns.. how the hell could that be good?
And 802 people who would still be alive today if handguns weren't easier to get than candy.
Meh, over 100,000 died from from unintentional things besides firearms. And 15,000 died do to suffocation. Maybe we should outlaw pillows.
That 802 statistic is just contrary to the belief that American's are gun toting maniac's with no regards to safety. Of the millions of guns in the country and only 802 lethal accidents. I'd say that's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 20:31
Meh, over 100,000 died from from unintentional things besides firearms. And 15,000 died do to suffocation. Maybe we should outlaw pillows.
That 802 statistic is just contrary to the belief that American's are gun toting maniac's with no regards to safety. Of the millions of guns in the country and only 802 lethal accidents. I'd say that's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
How about we outlaw sex since AIDS kills millions each year? Completely agree with you Cougar. The hippies blow it way outta perportion.
Exactly what would you do if you were entering your home and a hostile intruder was there, he pulls his crowbar and comes at you.
You could run but theres no way you'll make it in time. Instead you can only defend yourself with your bare hands. Good luck with that and enjoy your stay in intensive care. Me, im going to keep my gun on me (yes, I have a license for it) and shoot that ***** if he comes at me.
Do you pasafist hippies have any regard for preserving a law-abiding citizen's life? I guess not, because its a reality that where guns are illegal criminals get them anyway. When they are the only ones with guns.. how the hell could that be good?
Bahahahahaha. Oh man, you just displayed your ignorance so well. For one thing, "pacifist hippie" is about as far from the truth as it could be. I'm a military police officer, buddy. I can't get much farther from a pacifist hippie than that. It's amusing that you accuse me of not protecting law abiding citizens' lives since that's my friggin' job.
Oh, and I can easily drop a criminal with my bare hands. My size and my training ensure me of that. I don't need a gun to do it.
And once again, you're not listening. I've already said several times that I have no problem with someone acting in self defence IF their life is in danger. But that self defence has to be in proportion to the threat. Don't like it? Argue with the courts, not me. They're the ones who said it and they're the ones who will put you away for manslaughter if you choose to ignore it.
Fools like you who start blasting away at the first sign of a stranger are the ones who get what's coming to them. You're much more likely than I to either get killed, imprisoned, get your gun stolen and help to supply the criminals with guns or you'll put a bullet in the forehead of someone you love.
I know how to use guns. I've probably used more guns than you've ever seen. But more importantly I know WHEN to use guns, and I seriously doubt you do.
Did you by chance once go by the name Hellfire on here? You sound a lot like him...
I'm with you Mr. smoking sheep--the less guns the better.
I agree with Anakha. I own guns but I use them for hunting. I would never consider shooting someone unless they pulled a gun on me. Personally I think most Americans have guns just because they can. I would say most of them don't know the first thing about gun safety either. Our laws in Canada are pretty strict and I'm glad because I don't have to worry about packing heat because everyone else is.
People talk about killing another human being as though it's so easy... like it's nothing. 99% of people have no idea what it's like to kill someone and its affects on you for the rest of your life... they're just talking out their asses.
_OrpheusPrime_
10-08-2004, 21:27
People talk about killing another human being as though it's so easy... like it's nothing. 99% of people have no idea what it's like to kill someone and its affects on you for the rest of your life... they're just talking out their asses.
100% of people dont know what its like to be murdered because they were defenseless. :hanky:
Sergeant
10-08-2004, 21:41
Go nuts. I won't mourn the loss of a criminal. But you're the one who'll spend the next 10-15 in prison for manslaughter.
Posession of a crowbar is not a legal grounds for killing someone, being in your house or not. If he doesn't threaten you with it or make any attack with it, you have no legal grounds to shoot him. You won't have a legal leg to stand on. It's only self defence if you're actually defending yourself.
And it doesn't matter if you agree with what I said in that post. Everything I said in it is fact. I'm in a position to know.
To play devil's advocate for a bit:
"Officer, I was in fear for my life."
Is that not all it would take to explain why you shot and killed an armed intruder? I mean, if you shoot an intruder with some kind of weapon and it's dark, a crowbar or many other things can look a lot like a gun in the dark. So, if you see someone in your house, it's dark and it looks like they have a gun, I don't see how someone wouldn't have just cause to shoot an intruder, actual facts notwithstanding.
Sergeant
10-08-2004, 21:52
I really don't see how guns are good as protection, other than having people know you have a gun and detering robbers/muggers/rapists. I mean, someone sneaks up to your house at night and holds a gun to your head or a knife to your throat, think you can pull out your gun fast enough to kill him? Guns, imo, in almost all cases increase crime. Why do you think America, one of the only "civilized" nations with such great number of gun owners also has one of the highest crime rates out of these "civilized" nations?
Highlighted for comment. That is the MAIN reason for having a gun in the home. Deterrance is the whole thing. Use is only a secondary and unlikely backup reason. Most people who own guns never use them in a defensive situation. I've had my pistol for over a year now and have fired it twice, both times at the local indoor range, 100 rounds per visit.
If the person offending you is able to get a gun to your head or a knife to your throat, at that point NO weapon will serve as a suitable defense, unless it comes in the form of a 100 lb rotweiler. At that point, the argument for or against guns for homeowners or private citizens is moot. However, the argument for getting the guns out of hands of crooks is valid. Again, disarming law biding citizens is NOT the way to keep guns out of the hands of crooks.
The amount of guns is only ONE of probably hundreds of factors that affect the crime rate in this country. Saying that all the guns is the reason for the crime rate is irresponsible and ignorant. There's no way to sufficiently link the crime rate to guns. Because, if you did, you'd find far more crimes are committed without guns than with them. For people who say we need to outlaw assault weapons to prevent gun violence and firearm related crimes, assault and automatic weapons are almost NEVER used in a crime, EVER. Most are done with your garden variety pistol.
There were 357,822 firearm related crimes in 2002 in the US as reported by the Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm)
In 2002, only about 7.5 % of violent crimes (non-fatal) involved a firearm. In 2001, there were 11,348 homocides involving firearms.
It wouldn't take much comparison of total crimes to firearm crimes to show they are only a tiny slice of all crimes and only 7% of violent crimes. So why is there such a vehement push to disarm citizens (the people defending themselves, by the way) and restrict legal gun ownership which has NOT been shown to do jack squat in reducing crime. That last part is a statistical fact.
To play devil's advocate for a bit:
"Officer, I was in fear for my life."
Is that not all it would take to explain why you shot and killed an armed intruder? I mean, if you shoot an intruder with some kind of weapon and it's dark, a crowbar or many other things can look a lot like a gun in the dark. So, if you see someone in your house, it's dark and it looks like they have a gun, I don't see how someone wouldn't have just cause to shoot an intruder, actual facts notwithstanding.
No. You have to prove it in a court of law that you had reasonable cause to fear for your life and you could not escape him.
Technetium
10-08-2004, 22:41
No. You have to prove it in a court of law that you had reasonable cause to fear for your life and you could not escape him.
You guys need to remember that you are arguing about laws in two different countries, and thus it is possible that both of you are correct.
_OrpheusPrime_
11-08-2004, 03:40
Anakha1 is a mountie? :scratch:
In the Criminal Justice classes Ive taken in america, serge is right.
hes especially right if the guy is a minority and youre white :wink2:
felstorm
11-08-2004, 12:18
Your point about enjoying freedom because someone decided to pick up a gun, become a criminal, and fight for freedom I now enjoy... I am sad to say is true. However being true doesn't make it right. I am glad the world is becoming more civilized and steering away from such things.
Ahem.
9-11
Twin Towers.
Humans aren't animals, and to my way of thinking this is a good thing. I am glad the human race does not follow the principal of survival of the fitest. If such was the case, people like Stephen Hawkings would never have been around.
Good people like Ghandi, Mandella, Mother Theresa, Luther King, wouldn't have lasted long being toothless and clawless in Felstorm's world. I think the world is a better place that such pacifists like these not only survived, but showed many others that there is a way without guns and violence.
And just what makes human life more valuable than say... giraffes? Or kangaroos? Why the bias that humans are somehow more valuable to keep alive than say, the Dodo Bird, the Tasmanian Tiger, or the Passenger Pigeon?
Humans are animals. You breathe air, you bleed blood. You act upon instincts. You have feelings, thoughts and bowel movements just like all other life on this planet.
There is nothing 'sacred' about humans. We are no better than other animals, in fact worse because we devalue and degrade other forms of life as being 'below us'. We call people that think that way towards other humans, racists.
Life is life regardless if it is the form of human or grasshopper.
And yes. I believe in a MUCH more indifferent and brutal society. I also believe in a much more compassionate and upbuilding society. Look, being a martyr only gets you dead. It proves nothing other than ending your life prematurely.
There are alternatives to arming all the people of the world.
Like what? How are you going to physically equalise all men on earth? Give them all mace and a stun gun and hope for the best?
I am glad not to have need of guns myself. If dictators, criminals, genocidal maniacs, want to mess up my life, my country, then we have police, armed forces and various agencies to deal with such people.
What happens when the dictators, criminals, and genocidal maniacs are the police, armed forces, and various agencies?
Ever head of the **** SS? The German people WILLINGLY put them in power. Look how the German people were first fooled, then disarmed, and then they couldn't stop the monster they created, because they let it take away their guns. Oops, sorry for creating WW2... wait... we'll set ourselves up for the same **** all over again by... getting rid of all our guns... damn...
The advantage of these people having the guns, is they have controls and checks in places to prevent misuse (yes, yes .... in an ideal world) whereas you don't know if you can trust Joe Blow ordinary citizen and his weapons.
Really. I know my neighbors. I know they are armed. I prefer to know WHO is armed than wonder if someone isn't. I prefer putting weapons in the hands of people that have gone through the trouble of learning to use them, and having the background checks done, than have to not be able to defend myself at all and wonder if that guy with baggy pants on the street corner has a sawed off in his belt. Or only in the hands of police and military who can be ordered to turn upon those that put them in power.
It is the soldier, the militia man, the armed citizen that gives people freedom.
You can't buy freedom with flowers and good intentions.
I find your viewpoint on crime in Europe interesting in that we chose to disarm themselves which made it easier for "bad guys" to rob us blind. I've lived in a European capital for 12 years and no bad guy has robbed me blind. None of my friends or family have been robbed blind, in fact life is pretty safe and comfortable thank you very much. (Maybe this is just a Scandanavian thing ?)
Well, getting into a fight, and then almost shanked on my first day in Germany kinda had something to tint that picture of Europe for me.
But I guess the same could be said of America. I've yet to get mugged in downtown Minneapolis. But I have a pistol just in case I do.
11,000 people in the Us die a year to guns. In a nation of 300 million people that is... less than a half a percent. 200,000 people are killed by doctors every year. I think upwards of another 200,000 people are killed by cars. But nobody is trying to ban either one of those useful things either.
Guns are just easy to villify because their main purpose is to end life. That is their main function form and purpose. But that doesn't make them any less valuable than cars, or doctors.
I think there are alot of decent human ideals that do separate us from the animals, and this is a good thing. I see nothing wrong in believing in such ideals, even though there are others out there who do not. Striving to be better, is not a weakness or a waste of time in my opinion.
But is giving all your REAL power to someone else the smartest thing to do?
You may very well live your entire life never needing to defend yourself. You may never need to EVER use deadly force against another human being. And I hope you don't, because life takes on a whole other meaning once you've killed.
And it is this thing. It is when you have been to the brink of death, it is in that instant when you realise that all the politics, ideals, beliefs in the whole world won't do you an ounce of jack **** when someone else is shooting at you. It is that moment you realise this when you see the life drain from someones face after you've killed them before they killed you. And it is then that you realise that you would be up **** creek without a paddle if you don't have a means to fight back.
That is the problem with people who have never had to fight for their life. They see no value in keeping themselves armed because they assume that if everyone is disarmed (which can never happen) then nobody will ever have to kill or be killed. Which is a very noble, but stupid lie that pacifists tell themselves to make themselves feel better about the violent world around them.
Yes humans do have a history of violence, and some conflicts I agree are better solved with limited non-life threatening violence, like the school bully scenario you presented. However I draw the line with arming everyone with guns. That is not a world, I'd like to live in.
Regards
Syxx
I'm sad to inform you. But, you already live in a heavily armed world. Just because you carry a weapon, doesn't mean you will EVER have to use it, or have one used against you.
May as well equalise the terms of engagement. You KNOW that the "bad guy" that is trying to kill you is going to try and put everything he can in his favor. Being a idealistic martyr only gets you killed. You can't passive resist yourself out of a gunshot wound, but you can put on body armor and fight back. You can't negotiate a peace agreement with someone that has nothing to lose and everything to gain by your demise.
There is a saying we Americans have. "God created man. But Sam Colt made them equal."
That's what guns are. They are the ONLY true equaliser. Not the Emancipation Proclamation, not the Declaration of Independance, not the Bill of Rights, or the Magna Carta, or Ghandis starving himself while contemplating his navel... but the sword. The sword makes every man equal in standing, stature, and social status. Any military man can tell you this as he understands it intimately.
You see, by trying to eliminate all violence within society is not only futile but is CAUSING violence. What happens when you try and force too much into a suitcase and try and close it? It bursts open. The same thing can be said for trying to deny all agressive and violent behavior in humans. It just builds up eventually and then bursts out.
Anakha1 is a mountie? :scratch:
*sigh*
Why do I bother? I said two posts ago that I'm a military police officer, but apparently you aren't reading what I said.
I'm glad I live in a country where guns are a rarity, even in crime. Most people I know have never even seen a gun in real life. A robbery where a gun is used is not only unusual, it's a big deal because it happens so infrequently. The more guns a nation has coupled with the free attitude people have about them are going to result in higher gun deaths. I'm glad I don't live in a nation where any moron, no matter how irresponsible and stupid, can get a weapon of that lethality. Up here having a gun for the purposes described by the advocates would be considered an extremely irresponsible attitude and exactly the type of person who SHOULDN'T own a gun. Maybe things are different down there, which I have no doubt they are, but that is the result of your own attitudes towards guns and killing each other, not human nature. If you lived up here I'd say that the very attitudes expressed in this thread prove that you don't have the maturity or responsibility to own and use a gun. And for that I am profoundly grateful to this nation and its people. You people scare me.
*sigh*
Why do I bother? I said two posts ago that I'm a military police officer, but apparently you aren't reading what I said.
I'm glad I live in a country where guns are a rarity, even in crime. Most people I know have never even seen a gun in real life. A robbery where a gun is used is not only unusual, it's a big deal because it happens so infrequently. The more guns a nation has coupled with the free attitude people have about them are going to result in higher gun deaths. I'm glad I don't live in a nation where any moron, no matter how irresponsible and stupid, can get a weapon of that lethality. Up here having a gun for the purposes described by the advocates would be considered an extremely irresponsible attitude and exactly the type of person who SHOULDN'T own a gun. Maybe things are different down there, which I have no doubt they are, but that is the result of your own attitudes towards guns and killing each other, not human nature. If you lived up here I'd say that the very attitudes expressed in this thread prove that you don't have the maturity or responsibility to own and use a gun. And for that I am profoundly grateful to this nation and its people. You people scare me.
AMEN to that!!! I have never had an interest in guns and it still facinates me the interest americans have in them in general....holding something that can kill another human being is not some to be taken lightly and it seems by some of the post (though not everyone) that it is.
TheUnchosen
11-08-2004, 14:47
Humans are animals. You breathe air, you bleed blood. You act upon instincts. You have feelings, thoughts and bowel movements just like all other life on this planet.
Correct, we are indeed animals and we do breathe air and bleed.
And just what makes human life more valuable than say... giraffes? Or kangaroos? Why the bias that humans are somehow more valuable to keep alive than say, the Dodo Bird, the Tasmanian Tiger, or the Passenger Pigeon?
Hmm...My grandmother is getting pretty sick these days, she's costs alot to maintain as well....I think I should have her put down..
:scratch:
You're not serious, are you felstorm?
You've said stuff I would disagree with but this statement is pretty..silly.
Society's main goal is to preserve the long term survival of "us" (humans). We will cast an eye to look after other animals but we take top priority. We as a society that considers ourselves mmore important/ valuable than other animals.
I could spend days picking at that statement but I'm sure the obvious doesn't needed to be stated.
Ahem.
9-11
Twin Towers.
This is one of your reasons for allowing civilians to possess firearms?
Because NYC was attacked by terrorists and the world is now 1000x more "chaotic"?
It was an extreme tragedy but it is not an excuse to arm your people with weapons. Other countries have suffered many more tragedies and maybe even more devastating but those countries never used it as an excuse for "arming our people".
:scratch:
Technetium
11-08-2004, 14:52
This is one of your reasons for allowing civilians to possess firearms?
Because NYC was attacked by terrorists and the world is now 1000x more "chaotic"?
It was an extreme tragedy but it is not an excuse to arm your people with weapons. Other countries have suffered many more tragedies and maybe even more devastating but those countries never used it as an excuse for "arming our people".
I think he was simply stating that the comment "I am glad the world is becoming more civilized and steering away from such things." is not really true.
TheUnchosen
11-08-2004, 15:18
From the American perspective, you may think "the world is more chaotic" but unfortunately, in the greaters scheme of things, 9/11 was just another tragic terrorist attack.
Using 9/11 as the sole reason for countering the statement "I am glad the world is becoming more civilized and steering away from such things." is just plain biased opinion.
I can see this angle of argument will lead to a "War was not right" debate, which is not the topic of discussion so please ATTEMPT to steer the topic towards "guns".
SO you declare that the world is steering away from armed revolts. He points out one instance of your wrongedness. You deny.
TheUnchosen
11-08-2004, 16:07
I never declared the world was steering away from armed revolts. I neither have the evidence and/or the knowledge to make such a claim.
I will however argue with someone if they say that such a statement is incorrect due to ONE instance. I could counter the argument with an instance of my own.
An extreme and ridiculous example would be: "Pygmies in the Rainwforest seem to be quite peaceful without guns" and you would definitely tell me how stupid I would be for saying such a thing cause it is only one instance and cannot count for "the world".
I think felstorm's argument had a huge flaw so I pointed it out.
I would argue that the presence of guns in the general population is unneccasary in society. I also argue that even if guns are to be allowed, stricter gun onwership laws should be enforced. A normal citizen that is "scared" still shouldn't be allowed to purchase a firearm with the ease.
Society doesnt need guns to operate. American society sure as hell will benefit from it though.
Id arm the pygmies if I had a chance, theyre being ethnically cleansed as we speak.
theBlackKnight
11-08-2004, 20:34
I thought the pgymies had the 12gauge poisen dart arrow's and the spearzookas :scratch: ?
TheUnchosen
12-08-2004, 02:52
Society doesnt need guns to operate. American society sure as hell will benefit from it though.
Id arm the pygmies if I had a chance, theyre being ethnically cleansed as we speak.
I am completely baffled.
You would rather arm the innocent than disarm the agressive?
Don't you think that is somewhat of a self-destructive attitude?
Steel_Avatar
12-08-2004, 03:16
And without arms, how exactly will you disarm the agressive?
Send them an angry note?
TheUnchosen
12-08-2004, 03:33
And without arms, how exactly will you disarm the agressive?
Send them an angry note?
Who said we didn't have arms?
Definitely not me.
I find the use of firearms for military, police etc very important.
I did say firearms for your average citizen is unneccsary.
It's not the job of the citizen to act as enforcers and/or justice upholders, there are people who are better trained and more capable.
Also, you think the only way to disarm someone is to force it off their hands?
1)Cut off supply of firearms by not allowing citizens to possess guns.
2)Persuading to trade their guns for food/goods/money.
3)Tighter import security to prevent guns from flooding in.
They are a few I can think off the top of my head.
It's this "violent and scared" attitude that I don't seem to understand.
Fritos-crunch
12-08-2004, 03:43
True. Any person can shoot someone a block away. It takes alot of willpower to look someone in the eye as you rip their guts out.
My point still stands. Imo if you have actually commited yourself to killing someone (not just idle threats) I don't think not having a gun would stop someone.
TheUnchosen
12-08-2004, 03:55
My point still stands. Imo if you have actually commited yourself to killing someone (not just idle threats) I don't think not having a gun would stop someone.
Is this your counter argument for allowing guns to exist on the street?
"Because some people gonna get killed anyways, might as well make it easier for the killers."
Remove the guns and killing someone becomes ALOT harder. People who throw "idle threats" are forced to do only that, throw idle threats.
I think everyone absolutely ignored Sergeant's statistics. Probably because it's the only thing in this thread that actually makes sense.
Remove the guns and killing someone becomes ALOT harder. People who throw "idle threats" are forced to do only that, throw idle threats.
There are more non-gun related violence crimes then there are gun related.
Explain.
TheUnchosen
12-08-2004, 04:45
Sergeant's post was to show that guns don't play a huge part in crimes and thus restricting them would be pointless. I didn't have time to read his link but I did find his claims extremely fishy, I then got side tracked on felstorm's post.
But to address the question:
My argument is yes it does play an important role in crimes.
Read Sergeant's link again.I think Sergeant is incorrect and interpreted the data incorrectly.
Reading his post again, I find that almost all the numbers he has used are incorrect except for 375,822 firearm crimes in 2002.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm
I can see how Sergeant came up with his seemingly low valued numbers and it did trouble me to so I did some searching around the same site Sergeant provided (cougar, you should look) and found the following statement:
In 2002, about 67% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 19% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm.
source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm)
So my answer to your question:
There are more non-gun related violence crimes then there are gun related.
Explain.
No, not really. The numbers seem to show guns do play a big role in crime.
So my statement still stands,
Remove the guns and killing someone becomes ALOT harder.
Steel_Avatar
12-08-2004, 05:23
Who said we didn't have arms?
Definitely not me.
I find the use of firearms for military, police etc very important.
I did say firearms for your average citizen is unneccsary.
It's not the job of the citizen to act as enforcers and/or justice upholders, there are people who are better trained and more capable.
Also, you think the only way to disarm someone is to force it off their hands?
1)Cut off supply of firearms by not allowing citizens to possess guns.
2)Persuading to trade their guns for food/goods/money.
3)Tighter import security to prevent guns from flooding in.
They are a few I can think off the top of my head.
It's this "violent and scared" attitude that I don't seem to understand.
1.) Only cuts off the supply of new weapons. What about the ones already existing? You may make it illegal to possess guns, but the Constitution forbids you from invading the houses of whoever you want in order to ensure compliance.
If, as many have stated, they use their firearms for home defense, how would you even know they had them?
2.) Isn't wishful thinking great? You've yet to provide any concrete method for doing so. There's a difference between an idea and a practical solution.
3.) Same thing as number 1. The guns are already here.
And you havne't addressed hunting. Are you going to allow hunting rifles and shotguns? What about sport shooting? Clay pigeons and the like? Will athletes be permitted to have guns?
Steel_Avatar
12-08-2004, 05:28
Sergeant's post was to show that guns don't play a huge part in crimes and thus restricting them would be pointless. I didn't have time to read his link but I did find his claims extremely fishy, I then got side tracked on felstorm's post.
But to address the question:
My argument is yes it does play an important role in crimes.
Read Sergeant's link again.I think Sergeant is incorrect and interpreted the data incorrectly.
Reading his post again, I find that almost all the numbers he has used are incorrect except for 375,822 firearm crimes in 2002.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm
I can see how Sergeant came up with his seemingly low valued numbers and it did trouble me to so I did some searching around the same site Sergeant provided (cougar, you should look) and found the following statement:
source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm)
So my answer to your question:
No, not really. The numbers seem to show guns do play a big role in crime.
So my statement still stands,
Remove the guns and killing someone becomes ALOT harder.
Is assault not violent? Assault with a firearm automatically raises it to aggravated (I believe). But if there were 10 000 aggravated assaults versus 20 0000 assaults, then your point would fall, would it not?
And I do not think it unreasonable to assume that there are fewer of the greater offence occuring. There is much more petty theft than grand larceny, no?
Add to that that you are using percentages. 67% of murders? Fine. 42% of robberies? Okay.
Now what if there were 100 murders, and 1000 robberies? That would make 67 + 420 gun related crimes, for a total of 487. Whereas the number of non-gun related crimes here would be, let's see now, 613. Oops, looks like your point falls again.
And again, it is not an unreasonable assumption that there are fewer total murders than robberies.
Before you accuse someone of inaccurate numbers, you might want to examine your own methodology.
TheUnchosen
12-08-2004, 05:50
Is assault not violent? Assault with a firearm automatically raises it to aggravated (I believe). But if there were 10 000 aggravated assaults versus 20 0000 assaults, then your point would fall, would it not?
Yes, you are correct.
My point would fall if your numbers were the case.
However, your numbers are not the case and are made-up. Therefore you have no footing to argue.
Aggravated assault is just assault with a weapon.
The data Sergeant provide says that 19% of aggravated assaults are done with a gun. It is still a good amount to raise concern. 19% rough equals 1 in every 5 assaults with a weapon involve a gun. I believe my point still stands.
Do you even know what my point is?
My point ------------->the numbers seem to show guns do play a big role in crime.
Now what if there were 100 murders, and 1000 robberies? That would make 67 + 420 gun related crimes, for a total of 487. Whereas the number of non-gun related crimes here would be, let's see now, 613. Oops, looks like your point falls again.
Once again, Do you know what my point is?
I'll repeat myself again:
The numbers seem to show guns do play a big role in crime.
Using YOUR hypothetical numbers:
Within a total of 1100 (100 +1000) murders and robberies, 487 of these crimes were committed with a gun. That's a (487/1100) 44.27% of these crimes were commited with a gun. I would consider that a big role in these crimes. So even using your examples, my point still stands.
But using the PROPER statistics provided my Sergeant, they say 26.9% of murders/robberies/aggravated assaults were commited with a gun. I still consider that a big role.
Does it not bother you that 1 in 4 of such violent crimes will be commited with a gun?
Before you accuse someone of inaccurate numbers, you might want to examine your own methodology.
Please show me where I've gone wrong in how I obtained my information. I've quoted and copied/pasted the numbers, Sergeant's 7% number..I can't find. Can you?
Steel_Avatar
12-08-2004, 06:04
Yes, my numbers were hypothetical. That was the point. I do not "have no footing to argue", because imaginary numbers were the point of the post.
All you provided were percentages. Even if the actual numbers were in your links, it's not my job to make your argument for you. I pointed out an obvious flaw in using only percentages, by showing how they could be used to draw an inaccurate conclusion. If such is not the case, show me.
Throwing out some percentages, and expecting others to do your homework for you is in poor taste.
And what you argue is then subjective. Is 45 percent a lot? Sure. But it's less than 55%, by 10. That's a fairly big number. And if you increase the hypothetical values, the gap may widen, depending on what statistic increases faster.
No, it doesn't bother me that one in four crimes will be committed with a gun. Such a question is completely subjective and makes no real argument; moreover it is an appeal to emotion.
TheUnchosen
12-08-2004, 06:36
Well I'm tempted to argue with you till the cows come home, Steel_Avatar, but you haven't really made a point on the subject.
My point stands:
Guns play a big role in crime.
All you have argued is my evidence is all subjective (even though it looks like you agree with me) and that I could be wrong.
Generally, you're baiting me into an empty argument so I won't bother.
Thanks for the input though.
Steel_Avatar
12-08-2004, 06:52
I"m asking you to prove your point. You showed me percentages, I showed how they could be wrong.
How is that empty? It sounds like you're just being lazy.
Edit: You claim that your values are correct, but I don't see that from just percentages.
PS: My argument is empty? You're saying that 27% is a lot. You consider it. Most statisticians would probably disagree. And then you wave your hands really fast and make it seem like you've proved something.
TheUnchosen
12-08-2004, 07:03
How is that empty? It sounds like you're just being lazy.
Finally, you have said something that I agree with.
I am indeed too lazy to argue with you.
You haven't given any proof at all either and all you're saying is I could be wrong.
Me being wrong does not mean you are right.
Steel_Avatar
12-08-2004, 07:27
No, I'm saying that your entire argument boils down to you saying, "THIS IS HOW IT IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I THINK."
I think he was simply stating that the comment "I am glad the world is becoming more civilized and steering away from such things." is not really true.
Hi All,
Actually you are wrong.
The comment was made by me in reply to Felstorm.
Your point about enjoying freedom because someone decided to pick up a gun, become a criminal, and fight for freedom I now enjoy... I am sad to say is true. However being true doesn't make it right. I am glad the world is becoming more civilized and steering away from such things.
When Felstorm stated my freedom was earned by "some criminal" with guns, I was thinking about the history of my own country New Zealand, not his, when I made my comment.
Yes the English colonists who migrated to New Zealand 200 years ago, did take on the local black people (Maoris) with guns. Not a proud moment in our history, however New Zealanders today nolonger do such things and are actively presueing ways to make amends. This is where my "we have become more civilized" comment came from, not 9-11 or the Twin Towers.
Sorry to say people, not all arguement are base of US events.
Yes this is a debate on gun control, but it is not just in regards to the US. While people like Felstorm feel guns are a good thing in an often violent world, other people often from other countries feel this is not the case, and are using examples from their own countries to base their arguemants upon.
Oh, Felstorm do you really believe this ?
And just what makes human life more valuable than say... giraffes? Or kangaroos?
Life is life regardless if it is the form of human or grasshopper.
Total equality between humans and every other life form, including insects ? Sorry, but I don't buy into this either. If it comes down to a life and death situation between a human and an insect .... then its goodbye bug as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway back to the issue of Guns .....
I do beleive that it is possible to have less violence in our society by removing most weapons from Joe Blow's civilians hands. Recreational use of guns for hunting is ok, with a registration scheme to keep control of who has these guns. In order to stop the gun toting criminals permit a countries police and army to have weapons, after all they are the professionals with the appropriate training. Many countries are doing just this, and they have not turned into pits of anachy.
Can America do this ? Actually I don't think so for a number of reason.
1/ Historically you needed guns to break away from English rule, and beat up the native Indians, so you wrote in your constitution that everyone is permitted to have guns. A few 100 years laters when you nolonger need to fear the English or the Indians, your constitution is so revered, and so hard to change.
2/ Alot of Americans seem to love having their very own weapons and feel it is there god given right.
3/ You have a very powerful gun lobby (NRA) apposed to any sort of gun control or limitation.
5/ US Gun manufactures earn so much from producing guns.
Regards
Syxx
...it's not my job to make your argument for you.
It sounds like you're just being lazy.
....and expecting others to do your homework for you is in poor taste.
Hi Steel,
Do you realise how condescending you sound ?
You have a valid point that yes, percentages can be used to manipulate data .... however you do seem to be beating this particular horse to death .
Maybe you could offer something constructive to the discussion instead ?
No, I'm saying that your entire argument boils down to you saying, "THIS IS HOW IT IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I THINK."
.... and you counter arguement boils down to you saying ... "THIS IS NOT HOW IT IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I THINK."
Regards
Syxx
Steel_Avatar
12-08-2004, 09:41
Not only is it a valid point, I suspect that Unchosen is unwilling to actually do the real numbers because they won't support his argument. As I see it, if he truly had a compelling argument, why all the handwaving and the "I can't be bothered" act?
If he is so convinced that the numbers back him up, why not show the numbers?
PS: No, my counter-argument is, "Your argument is based on questionable statistics, could you please reinforce them?"
TheUnchosen
12-08-2004, 11:35
Urgh,
Ok, I did the numbers for you so you can be happy.
In 2002 there were:
16,204 reported murders
420,637 reported robberies
894,348 reported aggravated assaults
10,808 of the reported murders involved a firearm. (66.7%)
177,088 of the reported robberies involved a firearm. (42.1%)
169,926 of reported aggravated assaults involved a firearm. (19.0%)
Overall,
Of the 1,331,189 reported cases of murders, robberies and aggravated assaults, 357,822(26.9%) of the reported cases involved a firearm.
Figures obtained from the following data chart (proved by Sergeant)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm
Oh theUnchosen, i didnt consider disarmament because that has *sarcasm incoming* SUCH a good track record.
Sergeant
12-08-2004, 17:32
Urgh,
Ok, I did the numbers for you so you can be happy.
In 2002 there were:
16,204 reported murders
420,637 reported robberies
894,348 reported aggravated assaults
10,808 of the reported murders involved a firearm. (66.7%)
177,088 of the reported robberies involved a firearm. (42.1%)
169,926 of reported aggravated assaults involved a firearm. (19.0%)
Overall,
Of the 1,331,189 reported cases of murders, robberies and aggravated assaults, 357,822(26.9%) of the reported cases involved a firearm.
Figures obtained from the following data chart (proved by Sergeant)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm
SO, because less than a third of those crimes involved firearms, that's cause to disarm civilians? Answer me this. Why is it that everyone who argues AGAINST private gun ownership and carry NEVER mentions the nearly 2 MILLION defensive gun uses every year? That's a very convenient fact to forget. And, we're not talking police here. This is talking about private citizens using guns to protect themselves.
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
CLICK (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html)
SO, because 357,822 of some of the more violent crimes involved handguns, that somehow negates the 2 million times ON AVERAGE a year that private citizens use firearms to successfully defend themselves??
I'll give you time to respond before I participate further.
Steel_Avatar
12-08-2004, 18:17
TheUnchosen:
Thanks. As Sarge points out, and I agree, 27% is really significant. If it could be shown that that 27 is the highest individual percentage, I might be concerned. But as it stands, 27% isn't much to write home about.
Out of curiousity, what would be 'acceptable' to you? Don't say zero, cause we all know that that isn't really feasible by any means. But what percentage would you be willing to accept?
Ah, memories! (http://forums.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=155503)
Sergeant
12-08-2004, 18:43
Ah, memories! (http://forums.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=155503)
Linky no worky.
It works for me. :scratch:
http://forums.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=155503
Sergeant
12-08-2004, 18:59
It works for me. :scratch:
http://forums.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=155503
Maybe it's cached on your computer? Try clearing your cache and temp intarweb files and all that. Then clicky your linky.
I don't think that's it.
Does it work for anyone else??
Steel_Avatar
12-08-2004, 23:43
Both are fine for me.
TonoTheHero
13-08-2004, 02:33
"Officer, I was in fear for my life."
And try not to giggle when you say it. :evil:
TheUnchosen
13-08-2004, 03:20
Why is it that everyone who argues AGAINST private gun ownership and carry NEVER mentions the nearly 2 MILLION defensive gun uses every year?
Sorry Sergeant, I'm going to pull a "Steel_Avatar" on this one.
Prove to me your "2,000,000 defensive gun uses every year".
The site you proved was actually disputing the high number and said it was only an approximated number. Other approximated numbers for defensive gun use were as low as 800,000.
I did some more research and I can see some cases where firearms in a household would be valid.
I found this article which contained the following statement:
The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute emphasizes that maintaining a firearm for home protection is not appropriate for all homes or all individuals.
http://www.berettausa.com/communities/home_prot/family.htm
Pretty much sums up the argument for both sides.
That's a load of garbage Spazed... You need to be 23 to obtain a permit in the state of Missouri (source (http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/missouri)). How exactly then can you, the self-proclaimed high school student, be doing such legally? Care to explain?
In my state, its 21...
Concealed weapons permits vary by state....
And exactly how much good is any legal firearm going to be against someone trying to kill you with an assault rifle? It's not a burglars weapon really is it? And if someone holds you up with one, you'd be in pieces on the floor before you could pull your own gun.
If your untrained with an AF 47, its as good as shooting at someone with the odds of getting a royal flush.
I heard about a cop that unloaded 2 clips in a loaded guy and the stoner still managed to kill him (later died of wounds)
a tazer would work nicely in that situation.
BS. If you hit a guy 24 times with a 9mm (police load) and 38 (police load) and they dont die they are not human. Show the docuemented cases to back this up. Reliable sources please, not some mytholigy website.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... knowing HOW to use a gun does not mean you know WHEN to use a gun and that is far more important. Any idiot with the brain of a chimp can learn how to use a gun. Knowing when you can use it and when you SHOULD use it requires much more intelligence and MUCH more training than 95% of the population receives.
Just because you know how to use a gun doesn't mean you're qualified to nor that you should.
So what about driving?
If you think police can't recreate a crime scene and tell things like the difference between an assault and a self inflicted would, you're sadly mistaken. Most burglars turn and run the moment they see someone in the house they're robbing. Most wait until the house is empty or they think it's empty. A very small amount actually try to confront the person they run into. You're going to shoot him in the back now? That will really look like self defence...
If you feel threatened, or your family feels threatened, then you can use self defense, it doesnt matter if they can re-create it showing he was leaving, BY LAW you can use self defence of self and family if you are threatened.
No. You have to prove it in a court of law that you had reasonable cause to fear for your life and you could not escape him.
I think we have been over this before:
They have to prove that you killed them outside of self defence. You are innocent until PROVEN guilty. How can they have a case if you did it by the law? They wont.
Oh, and according to the FBI and other government agencies, the number of guns in the USA has risen over the last 10 years by 70 million. Violent crime has dropped by 35% over this time. You cannot prove that guns are the sole reason, but that stat completely nullifies the arguement that more guns = more crime, in the USA.
That stat alone shows me the current system in the USA is working, why ban guns when violence is dropping at such a huge rate when gun ownership increases?
Sorry Sergeant, I'm going to pull a "Steel_Avatar" on this one.
Prove to me your "2,000,000 defensive gun uses every year".
Try this site. (http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm)
You can call it biased but they provided sources for each statement.
"tighter security on imports"
Man you must have missed that modern marvels show where they talked about shipping.
They have to prove that you killed them outside of self defence.
Uhmm tydon ... they're dead, very hard to prove anything in this condition.
Regards
Syxx
Not really, it's amazing how they can re-construct crime scenes to replay the time of the murder.
So what about driving?
What about it? You have to figure out when to use a car? I'll be the first one to admit that there are a lot of people who shouldn't be allowed to drive a car, too.
If you feel threatened, or your family feels threatened, then you can use self defense, it doesnt matter if they can re-create it showing he was leaving, BY LAW you can use self defence of self and family if you are threatened.
Actually NO. You must prove that you had REASONABLE CAUSE to feel threatened. A fleeing man is NOT a threat and would not be considered one. You can't just say "I felt threatened" at any time you kill someone. For one thing, there is equal use of force laws. If he's unarmed and you blow him away, you go to jail. It's not self defence. It's manslaughter.
I think we have been over this before:
They have to prove that you killed them outside of self defence. You are innocent until PROVEN guilty. How can they have a case if you did it by the law? They wont.
Actually, again, NO. In cases of self defence there is a reverse onus that requires you to prove that you had reasonable cause to kill him. When you are arrested for shooting him it will be assumed that the killing is unlawful, that it is murder, and you will be brought up on murder charges unless there is overwhelming evidence that either the investigating officer or the prosecutors don't think they have a chance for conviction. Beyond that you will be required to defend yourself against second degree murder or manslaughter charges.
Oh, and according to the FBI and other government agencies, the number of guns in the USA has risen over the last 10 years by 70 million. Violent crime has dropped by 35% over this time. You cannot prove that guns are the sole reason, but that stat completely nullifies the arguement that more guns = more crime, in the USA.
That stat alone shows me the current system in the USA is working, why ban guns when violence is dropping at such a huge rate when gun ownership increases?
Due to the lethality of guns compared to other weapons it's only common sense to know that more guns = more gun deaths. And since guns are more lethal than any other weapons, you're more likely to kill someone in an accident than just injure them. And you said yourself there is no definite correlation between the rise of guns and the lowering of crime rates so it DOESN'T nullify the argument. It has no meaning to it unless a direct correlation is established. Crime is dropping here too and there's been no significant rise in gun ownership.
Sergeant
13-08-2004, 14:26
Prove to me your "2,000,000 defensive gun uses every year".
The site you proved was actually disputing the high number and said it was only an approximated number. Other approximated numbers for defensive gun use were as low as approxamitely 800,000.
Did you even read that link?
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993.
This is the study I'm referring to.
Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
These are the studies he found to be flawed and inaccurate, which is why he conducted his own study.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
The Department of Justice did their own survey and estimate 1.5 million each year. Are the findings of the DoJ AND a criminologist not good enough?
You need to reread why the NCVS's findings on 80,000 or 108,000 DGUs every year is likely flawed and inaccurate.
Please tell me why 14 other studies all estimating between 800,000 and 2 million DGUs every year can't be right but the one estimating the lowest amount is. You said "Prove to me your 2,000,000 defensive gun uses every year". I did that the first time and I'm doing it again. I can't truly prove it because I don't have the time or resources to conduct my own study, neither do you. So we have to rely on competent agencies in this field to do it for us. Fourteen different studies have been done and all of them estimate no lower than 800,000 DGUs annually.
EDIT: To save you the trouble of asking for it, here's the table of the other studies: Studies (http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html)
What about it? You have to figure out when to use a car? I'll be the first one to admit that there are a lot of people who shouldn't be allowed to drive a car, too.
Actually NO. You must prove that you had REASONABLE CAUSE to feel threatened. A fleeing man is NOT a threat and would not be considered one. You can't just say "I felt threatened" at any time you kill someone. For one thing, there is equal use of force laws. If he's unarmed and you blow him away, you go to jail. It's not self defence. It's manslaughter.
Actually, again, NO. In cases of self defence there is a reverse onus that requires you to prove that you had reasonable cause to kill him. When you are arrested for shooting him it will be assumed that the killing is unlawful, that it is murder, and you will be brought up on murder charges unless there is overwhelming evidence that either the investigating officer or the prosecutors don't think they have a chance for conviction. Beyond that you will be required to defend yourself against second degree murder or manslaughter charges.
Due to the lethality of guns compared to other weapons it's only common sense to know that more guns = more gun deaths. And since guns are more lethal than any other weapons, you're more likely to kill someone in an accident than just injure them. And you said yourself there is no definite correlation between the rise of guns and the lowering of crime rates so it DOESN'T nullify the argument. It has no meaning to it unless a direct correlation is established. Crime is dropping here too and there's been no significant rise in gun ownership.
1. The fleeing man is armed with a gun, how do you know he isnt a threat?
2. The prosecution will only press charges if they feel it was murder. If they can only find things pointing towards self - defence in their research, they will not press murder/manslaughter charges.
3. In court, in the USA atleast, to convict a person of a crime such as murder, in theory, there must by NO DOUBT that the crime was committed. AKA, the jury is told that if they do not feel that the person did it 100%, with no doubts, they are not to find them guilty.
4. In the USA, you cannot be arrested if you did not commit a crime, which is why in black and white cases of self defence, the defender is NOT ARRESTED.
5. So, common knowledge shows more guns = more gun deaths, YET, statistics show otherwise? Which is right, statistics from the US government or your common sense?
Britain's number of guns has decreased, and crime has increased. The US has increased the number of guns, and crime has been reduced by 35%. 35%
35%
You think that there was actually an increase in crime from those 70 million more guns, and that other factors ALONE resulted in a 35%+ decrease in crime?
Guns are the tool used most often in violent crimes. They are also the tool most used to STOP violent crimes. 1-2 million cases a year. Increase the guns by 70 million, and violent crime drops 35%. Your not only arguing there is no correlation, but your arguing there is actually a NEGATIVE correlation, when numbers, which are alot more accurate than common knowledge, show otherwise.
TheUnchosen
14-08-2004, 06:41
1. The fleeing man is armed with a gun, how do you know he isnt a threat?
I personally think you answered your own question..
felstorm
14-08-2004, 08:34
Tydon, Serge... and the rest of us that own weapons and understand their importance in society will NEVER change the minds of egalitarian pacifist idealists. To debate with gun abolitionists is like beating your forehead against the wall. They refuse to see the positive uses of firearms and see only the negative. Killing another human being is not a de facto "evil" thing. But you will never see that because your culture has conditioned you to see only the negative in firearms. Chances are you've never touched a firearm, and if you have it was out of some freak curiosity.
150 million+ children in the US grow up with firearms.
We, the mentally stable law-abiding majority of gun owners and sportsmen which comprise 51% of the US population seem to have no problems with using our weapons responsibly. That's 150 MILLION people. And we REFUSE to give up the right to own our weapons because a MINORITY of gun owners use them to kill other people. That's less than 10,000 people.
11,000 deaths related to guns in the US is less than 1 percent of the total population of the US. You are more likely to get hit by a car and killed, than get shot and killed. You are more likely to get food poisoning and die than get shot.
If you want to ***** about something that is REALLY causing alot of lives to be lost in the US, complain about automotive manufacturers. They kill millions of people every year with their products, but nosy, whiney, bleeding-heart Europeans don't seem to mind that much. They sit there in their country, complain about how violent we are, yet they do everything they can to be JUST LIKE US. They play our violent video games, they watch out violent movies, they listen to our violent rap music...
And another thing.
We as gun owners need to grow a set of balls. Alot of us have been gradually conditioned to see that the only justifiable use of a firearm is to engage in our sports. This is blatant psychological warfare by the socialist bloc to disarm us.
Humans have an inalienable right to defend ourselves with lethal force. That is why the Second Amendment exists.
I refuse to be a victim, and I refuse to allow other people to turn me into a victim.
And so help me Satan, I'll send you to meet him if you try.
FireAnt45
14-08-2004, 08:37
I think the conditions under the right to bear arms are slightly different than they are now. Istead of inacurate single shot guns there are highly accurate semi-automatic guns.
Not saying that guns should be illegale etc, but I find it an interresting point.
{KOW}Spazed
14-08-2004, 08:54
We as gun owners need to grow a set of balls. Alot of us have been gradually conditioned to see that the only justifiable use of a firearm is to engage in our sports. This is blatant psychological warfare by the socialist bloc to disarm us.
Humans have an inalienable right to defend ourselves with lethal force. That is why the Second Amendment exists.
I refuse to be a victim, and I refuse to allow other people to turn me into a victim.
And so help me Satan, I'll send you to meet him if you try.
*blows away the UPS delivery woman* What? She was trying to give me a mail bomb.
We have the right to defend ourselves with lethal force when we have a threat of lethal force. That threat also has to be justifiable, the instance I gave above was obviously not.
I do agree that anti-gun people seem to be more aggressive on this than the pro-gun side. Maybe that is because if a war broke out between us, we would already have our weapons. . .
felstorm
14-08-2004, 09:53
I think the conditions under the right to bear arms are slightly different than they are now. Istead of inacurate single shot guns there are highly accurate semi-automatic guns.
Lets see.
I'll put a paper plate at 300 yards. I'll grab my Kentucky blackpowder muzzleloading Sharps Rifle and put five holes in the plate in 2 minutes.
:/
Inaccurate indeed.
The arguement that only "semi-automatic" of "fully automatic" firearms should be banned, or hand guns, or shotguns... or whatever you wanna pick on, is totally flawed. Most crimes are committed with firearms that are fully legal in the first place. The "Assault Weapons Ban" just banned guns that "looked badass". Ie, black stocks, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, bipods and other military looking goodies. Oh and 30 round clips. So they made us 10 round clips to use with our pre-ban guns that jammed all the time, and were generally crap.
The "assault weapons ban" did a whole lot of good. I can STILL get all the "badass" accessories and dress up even my little Ruger 10-22 to look all "assault weapony". Hell, I even own a WW2 relic fully-auto machine gun.
Fact of the matter is... not many people get killed with AK-47's or any "assault rifle". The biggest killer calibers are 9mm, .45, and the lowly .22 rimfire.
Gun abolitionists are very out of touch with firearms in general. They can't see the forest for the trees.
Like I said before. If anyone should be making decisions on what weapons to ban or control, it should be gun owners and not people that don't know a stripper clip from a ghost ring sight.
The violent wierdo gun owner is the exception to the rule.
The gangbanger slinging a tec-9 is an Ethnic Minority Inner City problem due to poverty, drug marketing, and glorification of the cowardly badass image. It doesn't help that rap artists make money off cultivating this image, and hollywood executives rake in money off the glorification of fratricide.
Don't ban guns. Ban the people that are encouraging and incubating violent mentalities within poor inner-city minorites.
{KOW}Spazed
14-08-2004, 10:04
Lets see.
*snip*
The "assault weapons ban" did a whole lot of good. I can STILL get all the "badass" accessories and dress up even my little Ruger 10-22 to look all "assault weapony". Hell, I even own a WW2 relic fully-auto machine gun.
Fact of the matter is... not many people get killed with AK-47's or any "assault rifle". The biggest killer calibers are 9mm, .45, and the lowly .22 rimfire.
Gun abolitionists are very out of touch with firearms in general. They can't see the forest for the trees.
*snip*
The gangbanger slinging a tec-9 is an Ethnic Minority Inner City problem due to poverty, drug marketing, and glorification of the cowardly badass image. It doesn't help that rap artists make money off cultivating this image, and hollywood executives rake in money off the glorification of fratricide.
Don't ban guns. Ban the people that are encouraging and incubating violent mentalities within poor inner-city minorites.
I would like to say I agree with this post entirely but would like to point out that "assualt weaponry" is funny. And the fact that movies/tv/rappers/general media. Push the "be violent and shoot people" mentality are never really talked about except when it comes to video games.
I don't remember the NRA saying, "I shot 12 people when I was leaving in the ghetto, now worship me!" I do see rappers spouting off stuff like that all the time. Don't punish me a law abiding citizen who enjoys using guns responsibly because some other group of people is saying it is ok to shoot people who sleep with your girlfriend or steal your rims. Why not attack the people pushing gun violence? I don't think anyone who owns guns on this forum goes around glorifying how they shot a guy.
TheUnchosen
14-08-2004, 10:38
Humans have an inalienable right to defend ourselves with lethal force.
I refuse to be a victim, and I refuse to allow other people to turn me into a victim.
And so help me Satan, I'll send you to meet him if you try.
Hmmm......Don't you think you're a bit paranoid? Not everyone is out to shoot you and why do you have to be so violent? Is it really neccasary to kill everything that threatens you?
Don't ban guns. Ban the people that are encouraging and incubating violent mentalities within poor inner-city minorites.
People like you?
felstorm
14-08-2004, 11:55
Hmmm......Don't you think you're a bit paranoid? Not everyone is out to shoot you and why do you have to be so violent? Is it really neccasary to kill everything that threatens you?
See it's stuff like this that makes me scratch my head. And then I realise, that like I said earlier... we think the exact opposite of each other. The only difference between us is that pacifists are chasing a utopian dream instead of acknowledging the more brutal aspects of life that will ALWAYS be a part of human civilisation. 10,000 years of human civilisation. Umpteen pacifist religions have come and gone. Umpteen governments that condemn killing have come and gone... and we still do it. It's not going away, it's not going to stop anytime soon... the best we can do is to acknowledge this behaviour and arm ourselves to deal with the .09% of the population that is criminal.
Hmm. Lets think about that line of logic you got there.
In that kind of situation, I'd rather it be them than me. I'm not starting the fight, I'm minding my own business, I'm not demanding someone elses life for personal profit or satisfaction. I have a job, I work for a living. It's not paranoia to protect my assets, it's being prepared and willingness to safeguard what is mine as guaranteed by my nations laws. I am doing nothing "wrong". So stop trying to make it look like I am.
Speaking of paranoia. You wear a seatbelt don't you? Well you must be paranoid for doing something that might save your life!
Well my "seat belt" for my continued breathing is a Smith and Wesson .40 caliber automatic. I've only ever used it twice for it's intended purpose and I never had to pull the trigger. It's mere presense made my point quite clear. Nobody died that day, nobody even got hurt... oh wait...I got a hangnail does that count? I had to very violently lance it with a needle at home, perhaps I should have secured a peace agreement with the festering bacteria wedged under my fingernail?
I know! We should protest and hold a demonstrations against thugs. That'll show them. Yeah.
With your line of thinking I should allow a criminal to kill me, take my money, shoes, or whatever else he wants, just so I don't pull my pistol on him because that would be 'violent' in return. And GOD forbid I defend mysef. Oh no... Can't have that. That would be barbaric... kinda like threatening to kill someone if they don't give you your car or wallet.
Or better yet, I should just stand by like a slack jawed moron as someone else gets victimised...
Look that Ghandi passive resistance, placate (reward) the criminal garbage will only get your *** killed. Just like Ghandi. Haven't you heard he starved to death doing that stuff? Lot of good it did him.
Those that are not willing to fight to live are very poor excuses for human beings. Every other animal fights to the death, except crazy humans that think by leaving themselves vulnerable they become safer in a world where the most savage animal on this planet belongs to the same species.
People like you?
Right. Here we go again. Round and round she goes. Where she stops everyone knows.
Again, ownership of firearms, defensive use of firearms, and telling it like it is is villified. But to hear you tell it, I am "paranoid" for having a concealed carry permit. In the 6 years I've had a permit and a pistol, I've only had to use it twice, nobody got hurt and the perp went to jail... I fail to see how that is "wrong".
You don't see things like I do, because you refuse to see, you can't see because you've probably NEVER been in that kind of situation. It's really hard to understand a point of view when the situational experience that brings it about is never experienced in the first place. You will never see things the way we do because you were never raised here in our culture. The very law and order, peace and prosperity you enjoy in your own country is enforced and provided by a man with a gun.
People like myself recognise that, in fact people like myself like to encourage law enforcement, and security of a peaceful environment by arming ourselves to reactively deal with those that would harm ourselves or other innocents. I believe it is EVERYONE'S responsibility to maintain law and order, not just the "Boys in Blue".
This gun on my hip not only protects me, but anyone else around me. I would use force to stop someone from victimising you, or anyone else around me. Race, color, creed... it doesn't matter. Everyone has the right to not be a victim, and the best way to ensure that is to put arms in the hands of people that are as selfless as I am.
SaroDarksbane
14-08-2004, 13:42
Good post, Felstorm. :thumsup:
TheUnchosen
14-08-2004, 16:57
So in summary of your post, You've basically given up on changing society and have instead opt'd to accept the "cold" reality instead of attempt to change it?
I guess we are opposite..
I personally think you answered your own question..
Not really, how do you know the guy, who is a CRIMINAL, and therefore is NOT PREDICTABLE, is not going to turn around and shoot you because he realizes you saw his face?
TonoTheHero
14-08-2004, 19:33
So in summary of your post, You've basically given up on changing society and have instead opt'd to accept the "cold" reality instead of attempt to change it?
Or maybe he's realised that the "cold" reality is what it is and that you can't always change it for the better with flowers and kisses? We'll just have to wait and se until felstorm posts again.
TheUnchosen
14-08-2004, 19:56
Not really, how do you know the guy, who is a CRIMINAL, and therefore is NOT PREDICTABLE, is not going to turn around and shoot you because he realizes you saw his face?
Well if he's turned around and opened fire then he's no longer fleeing. When you said fleeing I assumed he was...fleeing. Not running a certain distance and opening fire.
Or maybe he's realised that the "cold" reality is what it is and that you can't always change it for the better with flowers and kisses? We'll just have to wait and se until felstorm posts again.
Who said anything about flowers and kisses?
If you came into my house as an intruder, I'd ask you to leave and if you didn't, I'd beat you away with a baseball bat and/or taser, no need for a gun.
1. The fleeing man is armed with a gun, how do you know he isnt a threat?
You didn't say he had a gun. You can't add on details like that just to change your case. And a fleeing person is quite obviously not a threat, since they're trying to leave the scene. You can't shoot someone in the back and call it self defence. You have to be in IMMEDIATE threat of serious bodily harm to be defending yourself. This is the law.
2. The prosecution will only press charges if they feel it was murder. If they can only find things pointing towards self - defence in their research, they will not press murder/manslaughter charges.
It's not self defence until the defence team enter that plea. Until then he killed a man and that's murder. The prosecution's job is to play devil's advocate. They will only press murder charges if they think they can get a conviction. I never said anyone would get convicted, but they'd be charged. And if the robber is shot in the back and unarmed, you can bet they're gonna go for a conviction for murder.
3. In court, in the USA atleast, to convict a person of a crime such as murder, in theory, there must by NO DOUBT that the crime was committed. AKA, the jury is told that if they do not feel that the person did it 100%, with no doubts, they are not to find them guilty.
Actually it's beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe. Not 100% no doubt. I do believe I have a lot more experience and education in these things than you.
4. In the USA, you cannot be arrested if you did not commit a crime, which is why in black and white cases of self defence, the defender is NOT ARRESTED.
If you are suspected of a crime as serious as murder, you are arrested automatically. I'm not talking about a black and white case of self defence... you're adding details on to support your arguments that weren't there before. A black and white case of self defence is a knife in your shoulder with the robber's fingerprints on the handle and signs of a struggle in your home. Five bullets in the robber's back outside the back window and no injury to you is NOT a black and white case of self defence, which is what we're talking about. And I might remind you... I've BEEN an arresting officer in this case, so I can tell you what police will do.
5. So, common knowledge shows more guns = more gun deaths, YET, statistics show otherwise? Which is right, statistics from the US government or your common sense?
Once again, there is no proven correlation between guns and the decrease of crime. If there are more guns in society there will be more deaths from guns... this is just simple cause and effect.
Guns are the tool used most often in violent crimes. They are also the tool most used to STOP violent crimes. 1-2 million cases a year. Increase the guns by 70 million, and violent crime drops 35%. Your not only arguing there is no correlation, but your arguing there is actually a NEGATIVE correlation, when numbers, which are alot more accurate than common knowledge, show otherwise.
If those guns used in violent crimes weren't allowed in society there would be no NEED for those other guns. And AGAIN, you're making an assumption that there is a correlation between more guns and less crime when nothing of the sort has been shown. For all you know the reduced crime rate is due to a decrease of clowns in society. I didn't say common knowledge, I said common sense. No guns = no gun deaths. More guns = more gun deaths. What's hard about this to understand?
felstorm
14-08-2004, 22:00
So in summary of your post, You've basically given up on changing society and have instead opt'd to accept the "cold" reality instead of attempt to change it?
I guess we are opposite..
And the fact of the matter is, in the 10 to 20 thousand years of recorded human history, one constant has been the existence of arms. And the willingness of a small portion of people to use them to further their selfish goals. If you want to make a change in the way that small portion of criminally minded individuals thinks, put a gun on your hip and stick up for yourself, and your fellow man instead of taking them away and making your fellow man defenseless against those that would victimise him.
And yes, it is a very honest view of the world. Not every place on this planet is as peaceful as our respective secular societies. It is "cold" reality. The world is not warm and fuzzy all the time. In fact it can be downright indifferent and brutal. Our Boy Scouts have a motto: Always be prepared. It is noble, and well-intentioned the dreams and aspirations of people that would like to see an earthly utopia... but the fact of the matter is as long as there is a profit to be made, crime will be with us. The utopia will always stay a dream.
Criminals are bullies. And bullies are Cowards. A coward will always back down when faced with true resolve and courage.
You didn't say he had a gun. You can't add on details like that just to change your case. And a fleeing person is quite obviously not a threat, since they're trying to leave the scene. You can't shoot someone in the back and call it self defence. You have to be in IMMEDIATE threat of serious bodily harm to be defending yourself. This is the law.
It's not self defence until the defence team enter that plea. Until then he killed a man and that's murder. The prosecution's job is to play devil's advocate. They will only press murder charges if they think they can get a conviction. I never said anyone would get convicted, but they'd be charged. And if the robber is shot in the back and unarmed, you can bet they're gonna go for a conviction for murder.
Actually it's beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe. Not 100% no doubt. I do believe I have a lot more experience and education in these things than you.
If you are suspected of a crime as serious as murder, you are arrested automatically. I'm not talking about a black and white case of self defence... you're adding details on to support your arguments that weren't there before. A black and white case of self defence is a knife in your shoulder with the robber's fingerprints on the handle and signs of a struggle in your home. Five bullets in the robber's back outside the back window and no injury to you is NOT a black and white case of self defence, which is what we're talking about. And I might remind you... I've BEEN an arresting officer in this case, so I can tell you what police will do.
Once again, there is no proven correlation between guns and the decrease of crime. If there are more guns in society there will be more deaths from guns... this is just simple cause and effect.
If those guns used in violent crimes weren't allowed in society there would be no NEED for those other guns. And AGAIN, you're making an assumption that there is a correlation between more guns and less crime when nothing of the sort has been shown. For all you know the reduced crime rate is due to a decrease of clowns in society. I didn't say common knowledge, I said common sense. No guns = no gun deaths. More guns = more gun deaths. What's hard about this to understand?
1. An unarmed fleeing man is not a threat if you have a weapon that can fire a range such as a gun. I know that.... Which is what most of the disputed stuff is about here...
2. See above...
3. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
In order to win a case, you have to prove it. Whether a civil or criminal case, this proof must meet certain requirements or "standards."
Standard of Proof
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is the most stringent standard because the consequences of a conviction can result in deprivation of liberty (jail).
Meaning of "Reasonable Doubt"
While not requiring absolute certainty, a juror must be persuaded that the amount of proof is such that he or she would be willing to rely on it without hesitation and with an abiding conviction. It is interesting to note that several years ago the U.S. Supreme Court struck the phrase "...and with a moral certainty," from the reasonable doubt instruction.
If the juror has a doubt that is based on reason or common sense after impartial consideration of all the evidence presented, the prosecution has failed to meet the requisite burden of proof.
Okay, so if the only other option is that aliens killed him, then it would fall under beyond reasonable doubt, but not 100% certainty. Other than that, beyond reasonable doubt usually means 100% certainty.
4. If the attacker has a weapon, and the other person claims self defence, and it was on the self defenders property, why would the police feel that was murder?
5. "If there are more guns in society there will be more deaths from guns... this is just simple cause and effect."
Yet, in the USA over the last 10 years, gun deaths have fallen despite 70 million more guns. HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?
6. "More guns = more gun deaths. What's hard about this to understand?"
Because STATS which are more accurate than any other data form say otherwise. You cannot obtain no guns in any society, so how can you even argue that is a form of gun control?
TheUnchosen
15-08-2004, 03:40
Yet, in the USA over the last 10 years, gun deaths have fallen despite 70 million more guns. HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?
I don't need to explain anything.
You have to prove it. Where is your link? Your "statistic" chart?
I feel your statistic is either bogus and/or flawed.
Pierrot le Fou
15-08-2004, 04:05
I asked you on page 3 or 4 if you'd change your mind when presented with evidence to the contrary Unchosen. You said you would. You haven't. You lied. Just figured I should point that out, and inform anyone arguing with you that it's useless, because you refuse to acknowledge any argument that disagrees with your foregone conclusion.
TheUnchosen
15-08-2004, 04:43
I asked you on page 3 or 4 if you'd change your mind when presented with evidence to the contrary Unchosen. You said you would. You haven't. You lied. Just figured I should point that out, and inform anyone arguing with you that it's useless, because you refuse to acknowledge any argument that disagrees with your foregone conclusion.
Um.....actually no.
I have been quite enlightened by some of the posts.
Felstorm strikes some good points, I've taken them into account and complimented the tight argument.
I understand this thread maybe a slight mission to read but if you actually read my posts I haven't just said "No, you're wrong and I'm right". I've addressed the arguments put forth by some and provided arguments as well. Obviously some "evidence" I would like to see for myself, one of Sergeant's posts contained incorrect evidence (not because he was lying but because he miscalculated) and I call him on it.
I have been call on to provide my source to my evidence and in return I assume I am allowed to do the same to others.
Pierrot le Fou, Is it just me or do I feel like you're just picking on me?
Your posts don't really have much content except to call me a liar and/or imply I am a narrow minded person.
What if I confronted you the same way as you have me?
If I provided "evidence" that Japan is a bad place, would you change your mind?
If you said no, I'd call you narrow minded. If you said yes and upon hearing my arguments, counter argued all my points. Would you appreciate it if I turned on you and said "You lied to me, I have evidence and you haven't changed your mind".
Of course I'm not saying Japan is a bad place, I'm using it as a obscure example but I hope you see my point.
And why don't you apply your approach to other posters? Why just me?
Am I not "OT elite" for you? Other posters are probably more stubborn than me, for or against guns, I don't see you pointing out their "lying" and/or "refusal to see the truth".
I don't know, your posts put me on the defensive and I'm sorry for any misunderstandings.
Just figured I should point that out..too.
I don't need to explain anything.
You have to prove it. Where is your link? Your "statistic" chart?
I feel your statistic is either bogus and/or flawed.
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives:
From 1991-2002:
The number of firearms has risen by 70 million, included in that is 30 million handguns.
Federal Bureau of Investigation:
1991-2002
Violent Crime rate has dropped 35%
Including in this:
43% Murder
22% ****
47% Robbery
28% Assault
This is from the Febuary 2004 Issue of American Hunter.
So exactly when are you entitled to endanger another persons life..?
Anyway, those statistic is the same as if I asked for the death toll in said period ;)
felstorm
16-08-2004, 05:26
So exactly when are you entitled to endanger another persons life..?
Never. That is why police and people like myself carry concealed weapons to stop people who do.
Anyway, those statistic is the same as if I asked for the death toll in said period ;)
Non sequiteur.
To address Unchosens allegations that there is no solid proof of a positive relationship between arming law abiding citizens and a decrease in crime.. Here is a whole page full of links to sites.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html
Of interest is the Lott/Mustard study done at the University of Chicago.
Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."
This was a study done in conjunction with the US federal government.
Unchosen. You wanted evidence, if a study done by a prestigious university and the federal government won't convince you that what we are saying is true, then go bury your head in the sand like a good ostrich and leave us alone. I already said that I will never change your mind, but when you demand evidence, and you are then given a mountain of ironclad facts, studies, and statistics but you still chose to deny those facts is just plain ignorant of you.
I said before. You will never understand why this is true for us that live in the US because you have never known our culture, you weren't raised around guns, and had to travel to crime ridden, impoverished, areas to do your job helping those broken, downtrodden people. Your excuses are getting old, and your blind ignorance to acknowledge hard facts presented by us is getting old as well.
The simple facts of the matter is that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens = less crime. Not "no crime at all", but less crime. And honestly that is all we can expect to get out of it. Is less crime. Less shootings, less rapes, less robberies... and empowerment of people to defend themselves in general.
The hyperactive panicky anti-gun crowd has been proven wrong... again and again and again. In fact, around 2 million times every year.
I'm always entertained by this whole "law abiding citizens" belief... a great portion of the deaths attributed to guns aren't from gangs and B&Es. Especially since most robbers don't ever carry guns, or enter homes they know to be occupied at the time, so your "protecting your home and property" is very likely to never, ever happen. A great portion of gun deaths are from some ******* who has a legal ownership of a gun who flips out and shoots his wife/neighbour/ex/ex's boyfriend, etc. Just because you're a "responsible" gun owner, if there is such a thing, doesn't mean you will remain one when and if you lose it at some point.
99% of people don't have the predictability, responsibility and stability to retain possession of something as dangerous as a gun.
Raistlin Majere
16-08-2004, 05:54
99% of people don't have the predictability, responsibility and stability to retain possession of something as dangerous as a gun.
If so, what is your opinion with Knives, swords,ect. they are not common, but can be just as deadly or more.
If so, what is your opinion with Knives, swords,ect. they are not common, but can be just as deadly or more.
I think laws should be against blades beyond a certain length. Obviously we cannot do without all knives. However, guns are far more lethal on average than knives are. Guns are also easier to use in the heat of the moment and to use without thinking about what you're doing. And the consequences are often far more permanent.
I'm always entertained by this whole "law abiding citizens" belief... a great portion of the deaths attributed to guns aren't from gangs and B&Es. Especially since most robbers don't ever carry guns, or enter homes they know to be occupied at the time, so your "protecting your home and property" is very likely to never, ever happen. A great portion of gun deaths are from some ******* who has a legal ownership of a gun who flips out and shoots his wife/neighbour/ex/ex's boyfriend, etc. Just because you're a "responsible" gun owner, if there is such a thing, doesn't mean you will remain one when and if you lose it at some point.
99% of people don't have the predictability, responsibility and stability to retain possession of something as dangerous as a gun.
Yet, all studies that show lives saved by guns in the US show that more lives are saved by guns than are taken by guns each year. Why is that?
Yet, all studies that show lives saved by guns in the US show that more lives are saved by guns than are taken by guns each year. Why is that?
Because statistics can be used to show just about anything. And how many of those "lives saved" actually resulted in other deaths? I don't want to live in a society where I have to carry a gun just to protect myself from everyone else who has a gun.
Funny how the Colombine killers, two highschool students, got several guns... Should teachers all be packing now? Guns are far too easy to get... and usually they come straight out of you "law abiding citizens'" homes.
felstorm
16-08-2004, 06:26
99% of people don't have the predictability, responsibility and stability to retain possession of something as dangerous as a gun.
How about something as dangerous as a car?
I find it hilarious that you want to take away peoples guns, but you'll let that very same 99% of all people drive a ton and half of steel, with a 200 horsepower engine, go out on the road and kill another person or persons with inattentive driving, jaw jacking on cellphones, lighting cigarettes, or watching prono DVD's while navigating the fast lane along the Baltimore Beltway.
**** the hundreds of thousands of vehicular fatalities... guns are more eviler and we need to get rid of them all so we can kill more people with cars, trucks, and SUV's. /sarcasm.
You are wrong. And 150 million other people you bump into everyday say so too.
99% of people don't have the predictability, responsibility and stability to retain possession of something as dangerous as a gun.
I find it sad that you believe this.
Because statistics can be used to show just about anything. And how many of those "lives saved" actually resulted in other deaths? I don't want to live in a society where I have to carry a gun just to protect myself from everyone else who has a gun.
Funny how the Colombine killers, two highschool students, got several guns... Should teachers all be packing now? Guns are far too easy to get... and usually they come straight out of you "law abiding citizens'" homes.
Fine, if you think statistics can show just about anything, show statistics that show in recent US history where more guns causes more gun deaths, or even more violence.
I don't want to live in a society where I have to carry a gun just to protect myself from everyone else who has a gun.
Live in the United States then.
Yes, I am serious.
150 million people, huh? I'd love to hear that from all of them. Stop pulling things out of your ***, Felstrom.
I'm quite aware that vehicles kill more people each year. That does NOT, however justify guns at all. Where the hell is the logic in that? "Gee cars kill lots of people, so let's put weapons in everyone's hands to kill MORE people! It's brilliant!" :rolleyes:
And I've said before that driving is a priviledge and many people who are on the road should not be. You're barking up the wrong tree.
Amra: It's not a belief. It's quite a fact. The responsibility to own and handle a gun is not inherent. It's trained. And 99% of people do not have that training. I wouldn't let some psychopath who has a hardon for killing people like Felstrom within 100 yards of my kids.
Edit: Amra, you can't possibly be serious. That's exactly what tydon and felstrom want... give everyone a gun and suddenly there will be no gun deaths. Right...
Raistlin Majere
16-08-2004, 06:36
that is different. cars were not designed for that.
Guns, on the other hand, was intentually designed for killing.
what do you do with a Car? go from point A to Point B.
what do you do with a Gun? Kill animals and people. it can be used for sport, but that is not what the majority of guns are for.
You can use a gun to go from point A to B, if you mean from here to the other side.
you are right on cars in a way, stupid people jaw-jacking and stuff.
Amra: It's not a belief. It's quite a fact. The responsibility to own and handle a gun is not inherent. It's trained. And 99% of people do not have that training.
I never said it's inherent.
What is your source for that 99% figure?
I wouldn't let some psychopath who has a hardon for killing people like Felstrom within 100 yards of my kids.
I am glad you wouldn't want someone who wants to kill Felstrom so close to your kids.
Edit: Amra, you can't possibly be serious. That's exactly what tydon and felstrom want... give everyone a gun and suddenly there will be no gun deaths. Right...
With guns, I am always serious.
.
.
.
Look, I have firearms training from my dad. I can easily count 5 friends who had the same.
I shot from a young age.
To get a hunting license (at 12 :surprise: ), I had to take a training course.
In the Boy Scouts, I learned even more.
When I wanted to hunt with a bow, I had to take yet another training course.
In high school, it was commen for me and my friends to go out shooting. Afterwards, we would clean our guns while talking about which babe in whatever class was the hottest.
You seem to think that the US is somehow rampant with gun deaths. I will agree that in some cities, gun violence is high. But that does not represent out culture as a whole.
I have said it before and I'll say it again, if you visit my neck of the woods, I'll protect you.
felstorm
16-08-2004, 06:56
Because statistics can be used to show just about anything. And how many of those "lives saved" actually resulted in other deaths? I don't want to live in a society where I have to carry a gun just to protect myself from everyone else who has a gun.
Now you are just distorting reality to suit your viewpoint. You'll gladly turn to statistics to point out 11,000 "evil" firearms related deaths...but we, the gun owners, are not allowed to point to statistics to show how beneficial they are to keeping people safe from the criminal minority.
The hard numbers show that more guns = less crime.
Funny how the Colombine killers, two highschool students, got several guns... Should teachers all be packing now? Guns are far too easy to get... and usually they come straight out of you "law abiding citizens'" homes.
Sure. Why not? If teachers are going to ignore the pleas of bullied students, create a hostile learning environment for those harassed kids, then they can expect those kids will hate their ****ing guts and want to kill them.
You are totally glossing over the fact that if those teachers at Columbine had been more attentive to their jobs, and prevented the bullying that caused those two young men to break into their parents firearms cabinets and go and shoot up a school. Stop passing the responsibilty off onto an inanimate object. It took months of humiliation at the hands of bullies to get those kids to snap... they did what the teachers wouldn't do. Stop the people that were making their life a living hell.
How long would you put up with humiliation, degredation, and physical abuse before YOU did something violent to make it stop? How much abuse would you put up with? How angry, threatened, and intimidated would you have to be to end the life of someone making your life a constant misery?
Imagine going to work everyday and having your wallet taken, berated, and humliated by your co-workers on a constant basis? You'd likely quit right? Well guess what, you can't quit... Federal Law says you HAVE to be there for 8 hours everyday. That is what school is like for most kids.
The responsibilty for Columbine lies solely on the perpetrators, the bullies that harassed them, the parents of those kids, and the school faculty that allowed the bullying and harassment.
Stop blaming the actions of people on the existence and availability of guns. Guns didn't make those kids go out and shoot up a school. It took a whole group of beurocratic ignorant jackasses, and a few middle school punks to do that.
Anti-gun Chicken Littles like to blame anything else for the violence that happened at Columbine, except the people involved. It's either the availablitiy of guns, video games, or Marilyn Manson, or Eminem, or some other complete tripe.
What the hell happened to being responsible for your actions?.
In the world of Chicken Little there is no accountability, there is only excuse making and blame bucking.
No.. we're all a bunch of psycho's with weapons who dont even know what a safety is.
Anyone who tells you different is stupid.
STUPID STUPID STUPID.
Fel made some good points there.
pwnd
hehe
I never said it's inherent.
What is your source for that 99% figure?
I guesstimated. Very few people are police officers or military personnel trained in handling the public. Those are the only people who know when to use a firearm.
Look, I have firearms training from my dad. I can easily count 5 friends who had the same.
I shot from a young age.
To get a hunting license (at 12 :surprise: ), I had to take a training course.
In the Boy Scouts, I learned even more.
When I wanted to hunt with a bow, I had to take yet another training course.
In high school, it was commen for me and my friends to go out shooting. Afterwards, we would clean our guns while talking about which babe in whatever class was the hottest.
So what? You know HOW to shoot a gun... any idiot can learn how to shoot a gun. As I've said before people don't know WHEN to shoot a gun. Can you make a split second decision about whether or not you can fire your weapon? I've spent 2 years traning on just when I can pull and fire my weapon at someone. Knowing HOW to fire a weapon does not give one adequate training to do so.
You seem to think that the US is somehow rampant with gun deaths. I will agree that in some cities, gun violence is high. But that does not represent out culture as a whole.
28,332 people died of guns in 2000. Compared to what I'm used to, and compared to other western nation that is indeed rampant.
I have said it before and I'll say it again, if you visit my neck of the woods, I'll protect you.
I live in a nation that likely has a fraction of the gun deaths your state alone has and I'm quite capable of protecting myself.
Now you are just distorting reality to suit your viewpoint. You'll gladly turn to statistics to point out 11,000 "evil" firearms related deaths...but we, the gun owners, are not allowed to point to statistics to show how beneficial they are to keeping people safe from the criminal minority.
Uh, I never pointed out any statistics. I only said that statistics can be doctored quite easily and are not all that reliable.
The hard numbers show that more guns = less crime.
The hard numbers show that at best there is no correlation between the two. They also show that the U.S. has the highest numbers of handguns per capita in the western world and the highest number of gun deaths in the western world. Oh, what a coincidence!
Sure. Why not? If teachers are going to ignore the pleas of bullied students, create a hostile learning environment for those harassed kids, then they can expect those kids will hate their ****ing guts and want to kill them.
You are totally glossing over the fact that if those teachers at Columbine had been more attentive to their jobs, and prevented the bullying that caused those two young men to break into their parents firearms cabinets and go and shoot up a school. Stop passing the responsibilty off onto an inanimate object. It took months of humiliation at the hands of bullies to get those kids to snap... they did what the teachers wouldn't do. Stop the people that were making their life a living hell.
Yes, so we should blame the overworked, underpaid teachers who are not there to act as a child's nursemaid... right. Ignoring that bit of idiocy, if those guns were not available in the father's home, the "law abiding citizen" that he was, those kids would never have been able to rack up the bodycount they did. Remember what I said about guns in "law abiding" people's homes being used for criminal purposes? Thankyou for proving my point.
How long would you put up with humiliation, degredation, and physical abuse before YOU did something violent to make it stop? How much abuse would you put up with? How angry, threatened, and intimidated would you have to be to end the life of someone making your life a constant misery?
Imagine going to work everyday and having your wallet taken, berated, and humliated by your co-workers on a constant basis? You'd likely quit right? Well guess what, you can't quit... Federal Law says you HAVE to be there for 8 hours everyday. That is what school is like for most kids.
Oh blah blah blah, boo hoo hoo. I was bullied in school, too. I had a ****ing hernia when I was 10. I didn't shoot innocent people. I sure wanted to sometimes, but hey! I didn't have any guns! Nor was I a psycho. But if I was, I sure as hell wouldn't want it to be so easy as it was for them to get ahold of high powered pistols.
The responsibilty for Columbine lies solely on the perpetrators, the bullies that harassed them, the parents of those kids, and the school faculty that allowed the bullying and harassment.
The responsibility lies solely on the parents for owning guns and the kids for using them. If those kids did not have such easy access to guns columbine would never have happened.
Anti-gun Chicken Littles like to blame anything else for the violence that happened at Columbine, except the people involved. It's either the availablitiy of guns, video games, or Marilyn Manson, or Eminem, or some other complete tripe.
Oh whatever. I blame the people quite fully. Guns sure made it easier for them to do what their psychopathic behaviour drove them to, however. Where was your law abiding gun-owner defending innocent people then? Oh yeah... he had just supplied his guns to kids who went out and killed 12 people with them. Oops! Well, the theory is sound, at least! :rolleyes:
I guesstimated. Very few people are police officers or military personnel trained in handling the public. Those are the only people who know when to use a firearm.
That is where you are so very wrong. Step outside of yourself for a moment and have a look around. Please. Check the ego dude.
So what? You know HOW to shoot a gun... any idiot can learn how to shoot a gun.
Agreed. Don't paint me with that brush.
Can you make a split second decision about whether or not you can fire your weapon?
Yes, I can. Call me jaded but I did have a father. I had loaded guns in my room as a teenager. And, as I said, many of friends did as well.
And I have hunted.
I've spent 2 years traning on just when I can pull and fire my weapon at someone. Knowing HOW to fire a weapon does not give one adequate training to do so.
Again, I agree.
I suspect your training delt with legal issues. Guess what? Mine did too!
I live in a nation that likely has a fraction of the gun deaths your state alone has and I'm quite capable of protecting myself.
So why the fear?
Why the need to project? What is missing in your life?
Raistlin Majere
16-08-2004, 07:39
Yes, I can. Call me jaded but I did have a father. I had loaded guns in my room as a teenager. And, as I said, many of friends did as well.
And I have hunted.
I think he is talking about know when to shoot and Kill a human being, not general gun safety. I am willing to bet the majority of gun owners do not know when to make the call.
That is where you are so very wrong. Step outside of yourself for a moment and have a look around. Please. Check the ego dude.
No, I really don't think I am.
Agreed. Don't paint me with that brush.
So what training HAVE you had?
Yes, I can. Call me jaded but I did have a father. I had loaded guns in my room as a teenager. And, as I said, many of friends did as well.
And I have hunted.
Your father can't teach you that. Having a loaded gun cannot teach you that. And hunting is NOTHING like making that decision to end a human life in a split second and having it be the RIGHT one.
I
suspect your training delt with legal issues. Guess what? Mine did too!
Has only a small part. If this were all you need then any grade 12 who took a law class could use a gun responsibly. That's not remotely true. I drilled endlessly for countless situations. I was tested, retested, drilled some more... for two years. Hunting does not meet that level of training. But perhaps I'm underestimating what you've done to train for it. Regardless, the vast, vast, VAST majority of gun owners has no training OR experience in when to use a weapon at all.
So why the fear?
Why the need to project? What is missing in your life?
The only thing I fear is people who see a lot of guns in society and decide that the solution to the problem is MORE guns. That those who say they want to reduce violence in society are the ones advocating the increase of ownership of things designed to kill. I fear for society if this is the kind of logic that is used nowadays.
Edit: Yes, I'm not talking about gun safety. Everyone should have gun safety. I'm talking about whether or not you can make the call in a moment on whether to kill someone or not and have it be the right decision. When to use the gun, not how to use the gun or how to avoid accidentally shooting yourself. Hunting won't give you that training. Maybe we're crossing wires here.
Police have a different set of rules then civilians when it comes to firing on people.
Police have a different set of rules then civilians when it comes to firing on people.
Yes, ours are more strict. That's NOT a good thing. The ones who are trained for it are rigidly controlled and the ones who aren't are allowed to run wild.
Raistlin Majere
16-08-2004, 07:53
Police have a different set of rules then civilians when it comes to firing on people.
yeah civilians: shoot first, ask questions later (in most cases it seems). hunting is one thing. knowing when the situation calls to end ones life is different.
so doesn't your training pertain mostly to your job?
I mean, you dont have training sessions where your sleeping in bed, and someone breaks into your house do you?
{KOW}Spazed
16-08-2004, 07:54
Yes, ours are more strict. That's NOT a good thing. The ones who are trained for it are rigidly controlled and the ones who aren't are allowed to run wild.
Yes, because if I shoot someone I won't get looked at very hard at all. I can just shoot whoever the hell I want.
If joe-sixpack shoots someone under the exact same conditions a police officer would have shot, he would be in deeper trouble. The police are regulated to keep them from firing excessivly.
so doesn't your training pertain mostly to your job?
I mean, you dont have training sessions where your sleeping in bed, and someone breaks into your house do you?
My training still acts when I'm not on duty. If I confront a burglar I will know what to do in the situation given the circumstances.
KOW: That's exactly what I said earlier in this thread. If a civilian shoots someone, even in their own house, it's automatically treated as a homicide. So you can't just blow someone away without just cause and civilians are not trained to recognize that cause and make the right decision in a split second. That's exactly how people die needlessly.
felstorm
16-08-2004, 08:15
My training still acts when I'm not on duty. If I confront a burglar I will know what to do in the situation given the circumstances.
And why can't "civvies" be trained to do the same things you do? Hmm? Who died and made you Lord and Master over all of us? That badge went straight to your head. What makes you more qualified to hold a pistol than a homeowner? If you answer is "training", and what you said earlier about "Any idiot being able to shoot a gun", well then that 99% of us who are unstable nutcases should be able to make those same judgement calls that you do.
And this is by your own words.
You are not better than me. That badge on your chest does not make you any more qualified to deal with an armed assailant than I. I had to go through just as much "training" as you did to get my CCW, in fact MORE than you because of my two years of military service.
KOW: That's exactly what I said earlier in this thread. If a civilian shoots someone, even in their own house, it's automatically treated as a homicide.
It's not that way in my state. Someone breaks into your house... they very well could be toast. Assuming that any shots are fired at all and the perp gets scared and runs when he finds out the owner has got a shotgun.
So you can't just blow someone away without just cause and civilians are not trained to recognize that cause and make the right decision in a split second.
Wow. Have you been taking lessons from Heinrich Himmler?
So. Civillians, by the fact that they are civillians, are incapable of determining when their life is endangered, because they have not been trained to know when their life is endangered.
My. I guess when that punk in Minneapolis, when he pointed is knife at me and demanded my money, wasn't really interested in my money, he wanted to take me home so I could **** his sister. Man, I should have NEVER pulled my pistol on him and told him to lay on the ground.
Damn man. I should take adivce on how to keep my *** alive from you. Man you are smart and I am so dumb. What precinct did you say you were from? Keystone was it?
SaroDarksbane
16-08-2004, 08:24
Especially since most robbers don't ever carry guns, or enter homes they know to be occupied at the time
Unless you live in Great Britain. Look it up:
After enacting stringent gun laws, criminals are now much more likely to enter an occupied home than before.
And of course many of the criminals in GB don't have to carry guns. That's why the number of deaths due to knives/bludgeonings have more than compensated for their drop in gun deaths.
Congratulations all around for that brilliant change . . .
Man, you need to learn how to read.
And why can't "civvies" be trained to do the same things you do? Hmm? Who died and made you Lord and Master over all of us? That badge went straight to your head. What makes you more qualified to hold a pistol than a homeowner? If you answer is "training", and what you said earlier about "Any idiot being able to shoot a gun", well then that 99% of us who are unstable nutcases should be able to make those same judgement calls that you do.
And this is by your own words.
You are not better than me. That badge on your chest does not make you any more qualified to deal with an armed assailant than I. I had to go through just as much "training" as you did to get my CCW, in fact MORE than you because of my two years of military service.
Actually I have been in the army for five years. In the MILITARY police for two. So yes, I know more about it than you and am far more qualified to deal with an armed assailant than civvies. I also didn't say that 99% of people can't shoot a gun as well. I said 99% of people don't know WHEN to shoot a gun, which I've said over and over and yet you can't seem to grasp the difference between knowing how to shoot and knowing when to shoot. Which is exactly why people like you are so dangerous. People like you seem to think they have so much right to pull their gun that they'll often pull it on police officers.
It's not that way in my state. Someone breaks into your house... they very well could be toast. Assuming that any shots are fired at all and the perp gets scared and runs when he finds out the owner has got a shotgun.
If he doesn't have a weapon you can't shoot him. I don't care where you are. And I'm not going to bother researching every state law for specifics.
So. Civillians, by the fact that they are civillians, are incapable of determining when their life is endangered, because they have not been trained to know when their life is endangered.
Considering several people in this thread alone have horribly misguided and wholly incorrect ideas about when they can shoot someone. Things like staging a crime scene to get away with it and shooting someone in the back as they're fleeing... uh, yes, many civilians are not capable of determining when their life is in significant enough threat to use lethal force.
Damn man. I should take adivce on how to keep my *** alive from you. Man you are smart and I am so dumb. What precinct did you say you were from? Keystone was it?
And you're from what? The OK Corral? I have more experience in both the military, firearms, law and policing than you do, Fel. So don't start getting condescending with me. You're more of a danger to society because you think you're a crime fighter than the criminals are. You show signs of paranoid delusions. OMG EVERYONE'S GONNA KILL ME! I GOTTA SHOOT THEM FIRST!
TheUnchosen
16-08-2004, 09:05
Unchosen. You wanted evidence, if a study done by a prestigious university and the federal government won't convince you that what we are saying is true, then go bury your head in the sand like a good ostrich and leave us alone. I already said that I will never change your mind, but when you demand evidence, and you are then given a mountain of ironclad facts, studies, and statistics but you still chose to deny those facts is just plain ignorant of you.
I don't see any mountain of ironclad facts, studies and statistics that shows me what you say is correct..
Lott/Mustard study done at the University of Chicago you linked is not the gospel. If you want to throw credentials around like monkeys, fine. I'll provide a link that challenges Lott/Mustard studies.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/teret.htm
Written by Professor Stephen Teret of The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.
Sergeant's link/evidence was calculated incorrectly and I showed that. You finally argued that the data I provided could be incorrect due to "percentages" and so forth and badgered me to prove my case. I did so and the only argument you guys have is "Well those numbers aren't terrible and it's all subjective".
Everything else anyone has posted is opinion back with loose facts.
If that is your "mountain of ironclad facts, studies, and statistics" then I believe you should take your own advice and :
go bury your head in the sand like a good ostrich and leave us alone.
Note, Contrary to what you believe, I have been convinced that banning guns in the USA would be impossible and incorrect. I now believe stricter firearms control laws is a plausible way to go. Many states have no licensing requirements to purchase firearms which is disturb to me. I still think civilians aren't suited to possess firearms especially USA citizens, some who believe they can take the law into their own hands like some superhero fantasy.
Steel_Avatar
16-08-2004, 09:43
Isn't it just as much opinion to argue that one quarter is a large percentage?
We, the mentally stable law-abiding majority of gun owners and sportsmen which comprise 51% of the US population seem to have no problems with using our weapons responsibly.
......
I refuse to be a victim, and I refuse to allow other people to turn me into a victim.
And so help me Satan, I'll send you to meet him if you try.
We the mentally stable law-abiding ..... yada, yada ... and try and take away my gun and I'll waste ya !!!
Sorry Felstorm, but you're starting to sound like a pretty scary psycho ...
Humans have an inalienable right to defend ourselves with lethal force. That is why the Second Amendment exists.
Actually Fels, American citizens are covered by the Second Amendment .... the rest of the world (who also happen to be human) are NOT. You do realise there is a whole world outside of USA, of which most countries survive just fine without their citizens being armed to the hilt ?
....complain about automotive manufacturers. They kill millions of people every year with their products, but nosy, whiney, bleeding-heart Europeans don't seem to mind that much. They sit there in their country, complain about how violent we are, yet they do everything they can to be JUST LIKE US. They play our violent video games, they watch out violent movies, they listen to our violent rap music...
You are deluding yourself, if you truly believe us "European" are doing everything we can to be JUST LIKE YOU. It is such arrogant comments like this, that are doing the exact opposite and turning us away from you.
A 'number of us' believe USA is becoming a little too big for its britches, and is in bad need of a reality check. You aint universily loved as you seem to think.
Regards
Syxx
Steel_Avatar
16-08-2004, 11:32
For someone who accuses Fel of being arrogant, your last sentences sounded pretty snotty to me.
{KOW}Spazed
16-08-2004, 11:39
Actually Fels, American citizens are covered by the Second Amendment .... the rest of the world (who also happen to be human) are NOT. You do realise there is a whole world outside of USA, of which most countries survive just fine without their citizens being armed to the hilt ?
You are deluding yourself, if you truly believe us "European" are doing everything we can to be JUST LIKE YOU. It is such arrogant comments like this, that are doing the exact opposite and turning us away from you.
Regards
Syxx
We aren't all armed to the hilt, most don't even consider wanting to carry.
You took what he said out of context. He meant you call us violent and yet you do just as many violent things as we do. You play violent video games, listen to violent music, etc. He didn't mean you were trying to become the 51st or would even want to.
The last sentence you posted was uncalled for, as have been several other people's comments in this thread.
Seems this thread has grown "too big for it's britches". Time to put it to rest before people start shooting at each other.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.