Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Teqila

Guns

Recommended Posts

Teqila

Guns are bad, they kill people. I don't like them. They should be banned. The police will protect you, self-defense only makes everything worse. Armed self-defense is the worst kind of self-defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kaj.

Great opening statements, Sonny. Since I'm not nearly as articulate or informed as most of our pro-gun population here at GTAF, I'll let them come and address your (sh*t poor) statements.

 

You're f*cked. But have a nice day. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anuj

 

Guns are bad, they kill people.

Guns are bad, yes. Humans are worse. Also, here's the short list of things that are capable of killing people with poor judgement:

 

Cars, motorcycles, kitchen utensils, electricity, electronics, trees, animals, other people, power tools, tools in general, factory equipment, alcohol, and narcotics. Pretty much all of them remain legal.

 

 

I don't like them.

 

Good for you Teqila. I guess banning scary clowns is the next logical step for American domestic policy.

 

 

They should be banned.

 

icon14.gif

 

 

The police will protect you, self-defense only makes everything worse.

 

This is the part of the post where I post a ridiculously large humorous image indicating my disbelief in your stupidity.

 

 

Armed self-defense is the worst kind of self-defense.

 

Alright sweetheart, you keep believing that. I'd rather walk away from the fight than be scared of pulling a trigger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teqila

I used to think guns were a good thing for people who obey the law, all the news has changed my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anuj
I used to think guns were a good thing for people who obey the law, all the news has changed my view.

This really isn't a level of discussion that works in D&D...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember This.

Hmm... A bit of a more structured argument could help.

 

Guns are not bad, they are an inanimate object. The bad people are the people who use guns for bad things. If you 'banned' guns, as you put it, maybe knife crime would just rise, or maybe people would start trying to electrocute each other.

 

Maybe gun laws could be somehow tightened to reduce the risk of armed violence, but ultimately you can't stop people killing each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toni.Cipriani

Guns don't kill people at all. Guns are just a warning not to f*ck with that person anymore.

 

Simple.

 

The police are citizens just like you and me, that wear a badge, and assign parking tickets for a living. Trust me. They wont give a flying piece of turd on fire about you if they didn't receive pay that month.

 

For the f*ck of killing, a murderer could use his damn bare hands to kill you.

 

I use a gun under a license for self defence. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

You see people, Tequila is one of those humans that think everyone and everything that has a gun and doesn't wear a badge, is an alledged drug dealer, or security.

 

Well son. You better think again. I bet your dad has one hidden in his closet. Go check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz

Being a Brit, and someone raised under the shadow of the Dunblane Massacre I am wholeheartedly opposed to the owning of firearms by civilians.

 

The theory for self defence is all well and good, but in the heat of a moment when the red mist decends and blood rushes to the head, who's to say that a perfectly reasonable person won't lose the plot and use his weapon 'incorrectly', or even seek to inflict injury or death upon another.

 

I firmly believe that the control over 'lethal force' should be retained by the forces that Govern and protect a nation state, rather than the individuals within. That being said of course because I'm a firm believer in the strength of authority within "developed" nations and that their accountability is firm and absolute. There are naturally individuals within any given organisation whos actions would lead to significant questions being raised over the professionalism of such authority, but generally speaking these individuals are in the minority.

 

Further more, in the UK in particular, the facet of self defence just doesn't roll with me. Armed gangs very rarely go out to shoot innocent members of the public. More likely they'll be other rival gang members who are targetted, and chances are they'll be armed themselves. The average, law abiding citizen does not, in my view, need to carry a firearm to protect themselves.

 

Even if they were the victim of a robbery by a group (which is more common than an individual), who's to say that they'd be able to draw their weapon and shoot their assailant(s) before being overpowered and the gun being used upon themselves. Then of course you get the occasional Hero who throws themselves in the line of fire. Admirable no doubt, but ultimately one should be looking out for themselves. If he hadn't intervened, I doubt the robbers would've shot anyone.

 

 

All said and done, the US is a completely different nation and not being a resident I can't really comment. Given how widespread guns are in the US though, I can imagine that I'd be much more inclined to carry a firearm if I lived there, but that's hypothetics. I can only comment as a Brit.

 

And I'm spent. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teqila

 

Being a Brit, and someone raised under the shadow of the Dunblane Massacre I am wholeheartedly opposed to the owning of firearms by civilians.

 

The theory for self defence is all well and good, but in the heat of a moment when the red mist decends and blood rushes to the head, who's to say that a perfectly reasonable person won't lose the plot and use his weapon 'incorrectly', or even seek to inflict injury or death upon another.

 

I firmly believe that the control over 'lethal force' should be retained by the forces that Govern and protect a nation state, rather than the individuals within. That being said of course because I'm a firm believer in the strength of authority within "developed" nations and that their accountability is firm and absolute. There are naturally individuals within any given organisation whos actions would lead to significant questions being raised over the professionalism of such authority, but generally speaking these individuals are in the minority.

 

Further more, in the UK in particular, the facet of self defence just doesn't roll with me. Armed gangs very rarely go out to shoot innocent members of the public. More likely they'll be other rival gang members who are targetted, and chances are they'll be armed themselves. The average, law abiding citizen does not, in my view, need to carry a firearm to protect themselves.

 

Even if they were the victim of a robbery by a group (which is more common than an individual), who's to say that they'd be able to draw their weapon and shoot their assailant(s) before being overpowered and the gun being used upon themselves. Then of course you get the occasional Hero who throws themselves in the line of fire. Admirable no doubt, but ultimately one should be looking out for themselves. If he hadn't intervened, I doubt the robbers would've shot anyone.

 

 

All said and done, the US is a completely different nation and not being a resident I can't really comment. Given how widespread guns are in the US though, I can imagine that I'd be much more inclined to carry a firearm if I lived there, but that's hypothetics. I can only comment as a Brit.

 

And I'm spent. smile.gif

I just found out something really scary: Anyone in most states of at least 21 years with a small amount of training and no criminal background can be licensed to carry a gun. In one state anyone at least 18 years of age can openly carry a gun without being licensed. Some gun nuts say there are 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms a year in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mercie

A few articles worth reading:

 

 

4/2/2007

 

A new nationwide poll shows strong support for gun owners by rank-and-file police officers, which means you'll never hear about it in the mainstream media.

 

Police Magazine surveyed more than one thousand officers on various Second Amendment issues, and the results are a slam-dunk for gun owners. Eighty-eight percent said more gun control won't make people any safer. More than 60 percent of officers said they own more than four firearms for their personal use.

 

Officers were also asked if they would take part in a gun confiscation in the case of a gun ban. The good news is that two-thirds of officers surveyed said they wouldn't confiscate guns that had been banned. The bad news is that a third of officers said they would.

 

Next year I'd like to see those poll numbers change. I'd like to see that majority of officers explain to their colleagues that, if you believe in the Constitution, you don't do things that are unconstitutional.

 

In the meantime, this poll affirms what I've been saying for decades: The vast majority of rank- and-file police side with gun owners because they are gun owners. They're Second Amendment supporters, even if their politically appointed chiefs are not.

http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=197

 

And then there is the complaint followed by some more input:

 

 

The article "Police ramping up to get tougher on guns" (Jan. 7) is too little too late. I hate guns. In today's society there is no need for the average citizen to own or carry a gun except to protect yourself from those who do carry guns and intend to use them in a crime. Oh, wait! I just contradicted myself. No. I just pointed out the vicious circle created by gun advocates. They say, "Guns don't kill, people kill." I'd say you're correct. But the government and law enforcement have done a lousy job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who kill, and longer jail sentences are not the answer because that occurs after a crime has been committed.

 

Tighter gun control? I'll go so far as to say ban guns. That's the only way.

 

Carol Solnom

 

 

Comment by: Ohio Super Chief (1/9/2007)

To Carol Solnom, as a retired law enforcement officer, I can truley tell you, you don't know what you are talking about. In my 22 plus years as an officer I had to deal with the criminals and there victims. And I wished that 98 percent of those victims had armed themselves. My job would be alot better. Now we teach those good citizens concealed carry. Before I was re-active, and now I'm pro-active.

 

 

Of course Carol Solnom, criminals never use kitchen knives, hammers, electrical cords or what 8 out of 10 rapists use, their bare hands. Just wave your magic wand and vanquish all guns from earth and the millions of violent sociopaths or approximately one percent of the population in this country realizing they can’t get a gun will get jobs and volunteer at children’s cancer wards on Sundays after church.

 

Louis Wittner

 

 

"longer jail sentences are not the answer because that occurs after a crime has been committed."

 

And yet as I pointed out already, three Seattle police officers were killed by felons AFTER they had been released from prison. How many people on probation or parole commit crimes AFTER they have been released from prison?

 

"I just pointed out the vicious circle created by gun advocates."

 

Not really. We carry to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our fellow citizens from ANYONE who might try and do them harm. Whether they have a gun or not is not the issue. Disarming the potential victims is not going to stop criminals from attacking anyone.

 

For the most part, it seems that most people don't see the bigger picture. Guns are a necessay evil. On top of that, almost everything I've read pro-gun control is very, very misleading. Ak47's and M16's are not on the streets, they are allready illegal... In most places but Oklahoma. Same for Uzis and, son of a bitch, every other automatic weapon!

 

I'd just like to see a liberal politician get buglarized while they sleep and see how they feel afterwards. It seems people with such experience enjoy the security of a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teqila

A common misconception that most Europeans have about guns in the US is that anyone can buy a 12.7mm heavy machine gun at their local supermarket. This is a false belief stemming from anti-gun and anti-American propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz
A common misconception that most Europeans have about guns in the US is that anyone can buy a 12.7mm heavy machine gun at their local supermarket. This is a false belief stemming from anti-gun and anti-American propaganda.

Teqila, I'm confused. Are you in support or opposition of firearms being owned privately?

 

Because your last post give me the intonation that you've suddenly rammed your head through to the other side of the fence... confused.gif

 

 

(Oh, and misconceptions on the type of gun available for purchase are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The smallest handgun is just as lethal as the largest automatic weapon to me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mercie

 

A common misconception that most Europeans have about guns in the US is that anyone can buy a 12.7mm heavy machine gun at their local supermarket. This is a false belief stemming from anti-gun and anti-American propaganda.

Teqila, I'm confused. Are you in support or opposition of firearms being owned privately?

 

Because your last post give me the intonation that you've suddenly rammed your head through to the other side of the fence... confused.gif

 

 

(Oh, and misconceptions on the type of gun available for purchase are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The smallest handgun is just as lethal as the largest automatic weapon to me)

The type may not be revelant to the weapons ability to kill... But the purpose drafted thereof is the problem. The allready illegal guns are the ones that have the negative connotation. When people are led to believe they should be, or are undergoing some form of legalization, they then worry about the purpose of their design and that of all guns.

 

You can mention a .22 and no one will raise an eyebrow. Its papas old rifle or whatever. Mention a 30-30 and people think hunter. Then say ak, m4, m16, ar15, .50, .308, or something else that sounds intriuging and people get uneasy. I, for one, have a BBQ40. Its not a real gun, but people would continue to fear what they do not understand. The type does matter only because people dont know anything but a cliché reputation.

 

A small 6 shot pistol is no where near as potentially dangerous as a 200 round machine gun. Grouping them together is like saying skydiving with a parachute is just as dangerous as diving without one because either way you jump form a plane and both risk you dying. The italicised portion makes the analogy applicable.

 

That kinda went in circles, but whatever. And yeah, Teqila has me confused too.

 

 

Edited by Mercie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

A common misconception that most Europeans have about guns in the US is that anyone can buy a 12.7mm heavy machine gun at their local supermarket. This is a false belief stemming from anti-gun and anti-American propaganda.

Yeah, but you cross the road into the fairground, stop by the gun show, and you can easily walk away with a 22mm auto-cannon with a chain of ammo for it. Though, it will be modified to fire in single mode only. Owning a full-auto assault rifle in the states that allow it (not just Oklahoma, by the way. You can own a full-auto AK47 in Ohio, for example) is a serious hassle. You have to go through an insane number of checks, and then endure regular inspections by the government.

 

Legal gun ownership is a good thing. U.S. is not the only country with legal weapons. Switzerland has not only legal, but practically mandatory ownership of full-auto assault rifles. They also have mandatory military training so that they know how to use them. Swiss Confederation is a direct-democracy, making it perhaps the most democratic and free country in the world. After all that, they still enjoy one of the lowest crime rates in EU. The rate of fire-arm crimes in Britain, where guns are illegal, is much higher. With such statistic, can you really say that legalized fire-arms are a bad thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz

 

The type may not be revelant to the weapons ability to kill... But the purpose drafted thereof is the problem. The allready illegal guns are the ones that have the negative connotation. When people are led to believe they should be, or are undergoing some form of legalization, they then worry about the purpose of their design and that of all guns...

In retrospect my last post was pretty broad. tounge.gif

 

I naturally understand the difference in purpose between guns, and even here in the UK it's perfectly acceptable to own a gun if needed for specific purposes - e.g. vermin control, farmers, sports, etc.

 

So in that respect I completely agree with you.

 

But as regards the other types that would be in regards to self defence and other purposes that I would deem to be unnecessary, differences aren't important as I oppose ownership altogether (unless justifiable of course)

 

 

A small 6 shot pistol is no where near as potentially dangerous as a 200 round machine gun.

 

In regards to this point - I disagree wholeheartedly. The potential danger is exactly the same. They both can provide lethal force to any given individual at a moments notice. They differ on scale no doubt, but the end result is ultimately the same.

 

The difference for me is in the purpose for owning the weapon rather than the weapon itself. If you've got a perfectly justifiable reason for owning say, a rocket launcher, and given that the individual is responsible and the weapon stored safely, I've got no problem.

 

 

The rate of fire-arm crimes in Britain, where guns are illegal, is much higher. With such statistic, can you really say that legalized fire-arms are a bad thing?

 

You're taking a single piece of law on gun crime and stated that it alone is the reason for the difference in firearms offences in two nations. What about the culture? The history of the nations? The level of wealth? The areas in which gun crimes are committed? How about the actual demographics who commit the gun crimes? (There's a reason London has a dedicated 'Black-on-Black' gun crime unit ya know).

 

The legislation alone is not the sole determinant of gun-crime levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mercie

I was looking for statistics to help prove an argument when I found it had been done. An author wrote a book based on facts relating to guns that debunks gun control as a whole... here is an excerpt from the Myth/Fact sections...

 

 

Myth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crime

 

Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day.225 Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.

 

Fact: It seems to be slowing down property crime (especially burglaries). The chart shows the handgun supply in America (mainly in civilian hands) to the property crime rate.226

 

user posted image

 

Fact: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired.227 Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.228

 

Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.229

 

Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries”.230 By contrast, the U.S., with laxer restrictions, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13%.231

 

Fact: Washington D.C., has banned gun ownership and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is not regulated, and the murder rate is a mere 1.6 per 100,000.232

 

Fact: 26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime control.233

 

Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.234

Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following:235

• 74% of felons agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is

that they fear being shot during the crime."

• 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim

than they are about running into the police."

 

And heres another just for grins...

 

 

Myth: Gun shows are supermarkets for criminals

 

Fact: Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers.243

 

Fact: Less than 1% of “crime guns” were obtained at gun shows244. This is an improvement from an earlier study that found 1.7% - 2% of guns used in criminal offenses were purchased at gun shows.245

 

Fact: Only 5% of metropolitan police departments believe that gun shows are a problem.246

 

Fact: Only 3.5% of youthful offenders reported that they obtained their last handgun at a gun show.247

 

Fact: 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows).248

 

Heres the link to the book. Its got quite a list of myths spread by anti-gun activists and the facts that counter...

 

 

http://www.gunfacts.info/

 

The issue Gun Facts addresses is the lack of intellectual honesty by gun control advocates. Over many decades they have presented to the media and the public information that is at best inaccurate and is, at worst, fraudulent. Gun Facts is dedicated to debunking gun control myths, and providing citable evidence.

 

In the pages that follow, common gun control myths are listed. For each myth, one or more elements are presented to refute the gun control claim, and the source of the information is fully

cited.

 

Its kinda hard to argue against the facts dozingoff.gif Haha... "Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than a person with a concealed carry permit.12"

Edited by Mercie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

Fact: 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows).

Thanks. I was just recently looking for this number and the source. A lot of people seem to not realize this.

 

You're taking a single piece of law on gun crime and stated that it alone is the reason for the difference in firearms offences in two nations. What about the culture? The history of the nations? The level of wealth? The areas in which gun crimes are committed? How about the actual demographics who commit the gun crimes? (There's a reason London has a dedicated 'Black-on-Black' gun crime unit ya know).

 

The legislation alone is not the sole determinant of gun-crime levels.

After looking at statistics for other countries, I'll have to agree with you. If you look in that Gun Facts book on page 49 (56 in PDF), there is a chart that shows that there is pretty much no correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns. That doesn't make a strong case for guns, but it definitely torpedoes any case against them. There are much stronger factors that determine crime rates than gun availability. In that case, why deny population another freedom?

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makeshyft

Just to clarify the OPs stance: his topic description, "I'm your typical hoplophobe" would indicate that his initial post is a parody of how he sees people who favour gun control. He is pro-firearms for civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat.

I'm so amazed at how many people say "Guns kill people". The gun doesn't do the killing, the person using the gun does the killing.

 

But maybe you're right. Maybe if I make you sit down in a chair, put a gun on a table infront of you, facing you, and have no one touch it ever, it will kill you.

 

I highly doubt it though.

 

I'm also amazed at why people think gun controll will stop murderers. Listen, killing is illegal. Does that stop them? No. Will owning a gun being illegal stop them? It'll stop them just as much as killing being illegal will. The police will protect you? My ass they will. You're sitting at home, watching TV back in your bedroom, and a man breaks into your house. You call the police. The man hears you, comes into your room, and what do you do? You can't do sh*t. The police won't get there in five seconds, will they? Now, a man breaks into your house. You have a gun. You tiptoe to the closet, you take it out slowly, you load it, and if he hears you loading it, you can aim at the door and blast his ass to kingdom come when he comes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
I'm also amazed at why people think gun controll will stop murderers. Listen, killing is illegal. Does that stop them? No. Will owning a gun being illegal stop them? It'll stop them just as much as killing being illegal will.

That's an interesting argument, but it only works in boolean logic. Reality needs to be described with fuzzy logic. Some people are not committing murders because they are illegal. Some people will not own fire arms because they are illegal. I'm sure there is a strong correlation between people who will purchase firearms illegally and these willing to murder, but that correlation will not be 100%, so the set of people who will acquire a gun illegally and then go kill someone is smaller than the set of people who will kill someone if the gun is readily available. If there were no other variables, gun control would reduce crime rates. The problem is that there are other variables, such as general population owning guns being a deterrent to crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demarest

I'd like to preface my rebuttal with a brief message to those in support of armed citizens. Liberals are abound in today's day and age. With DECADES of monopolies on the media and even schools, we've been slowly trained to think as they do. Just like Satan, because what they are selling is horrendous, they cannot bring it upon us wholesale. They must do it nickel and dime so that the trend is inconspicuous. This means that our war starts in the mind. Not to pick on K^2, but he is clearly pro gun. Yet he uses the name of the mythical beast: "assault rifle." Assault is a behavior, not an object. They know they can't take objects that enable citizens to be resolute from the resolute, so they call them a fictitious name that laughably defies the English language. In so doing, they not only put a scary face on it that anti's can recognize, but they make proponents against their will refer to them as if the objects in and of themselves are evil. Another, and probably most common, example is "gun violence." When Lindsay Lohan wraps her tree around her car, there is no talk of car violence. They save that falsehood for firearms because THAT is the object that makes a citizen resolute against disarmament. Whether we like it or not, putting those two words together subliminally links in our minds guns with violence. Point being that the war starts in our minds. Guard with great care our language so that the enemy isn't tricking you into speaking like them and doing their work for them. As Mercie pointed out, the fact that anti's have to use deceit to make their point is proof enough of which side is right. Another thing to consider is that you only ever hear of the misuse of firearms. When a citizen uses a firearm to protect themselves, there is no article in the paper. The nightly news has nothing to say.

 

 

Guns are bad
Fire is bad. Nevermind that it can cook for you a life-sustaining meal because it could just as well burn down your house. And you know what? Though I make my point just fine with fire, fire is a BAD EXAMPLE! Because it merely obeys the law of physics and does only that which it can do. Whereas a firearm requires somebody operating it.

 

 

they kill people
I think mine's broken then. It's never killed anybody despite it being pointed at three people who were begging to be shot.

 

 

I don't like them.
THIS is the only truth you will ever find in an anti's arsenal.

 

 

They should be banned.
Old saying: If you outlaw guns then only outlaws have guns. Even if firearm manufacture was halted today (and it won't be), there are MILLIONS if not billions in existence. If you say the good guys can't have them, you've just handed the unscrupulous the entirety of this planet. Why root for the criminals?

 

 

The police will protect you
This is too funny. I've noted you live in the US, where it has been decided in the highest court that police are NOT required to protect you. They are no longer peace officers, they are law enforcers only. Oddly enough, I just had an altercation the other night where my assailant was guilty as all get out of multiple forms of harrassment. I'm a take care of business myself kind of guy, but as a gun owner, I've been trained by the state to not engage in any behavior that might be misconstrued as the aggressor in a situation. I was told by the police that they could not do anything about it despite the guy admitting what he had done because, and I quote, "we didn't see it." And therein lies the rub. Consider the number of police on the payroll in your city. Note I'm being generous and allowing you to consider a number that is two to three times larger than the number that is on active duty at any given time. Now consider the square footage of their jurisdiction and the flaw in your suggestion should become painfully obvious. Criminals WANT only the police to be armed because then they'll know when and where the coast is clear. It has already been brought up that violent crime skyrockets in areas where the government disarms victims and it's because the bad guys then KNOW that their victim is disarmed.

 

 

self-defense only makes everything worse.
Yes. Let murderous end the lives of you and your loved ones simply because it's (according to you) better.

 

 

Armed self-defense is the worst kind of self-defense.
*the only kind

 

 

Maybe gun laws could be somehow tightened to reduce the risk of armed violence, but ultimately you can't stop people killing each other.
The last part is true and is more succinctly stated that we simply cannot anticipate and control everything. The first part was incorrect though. History (as recent as Virginia Tech) has shown that gun laws do one thing only: Prepare the sheep for slaughter.

 

 

Being a Brit, and someone raised under the shadow of the Dunblane Massacre I am wholeheartedly opposed to the owning of firearms by civilians.
You'd do well to bone up on your history. Victim disarmament is the conversion of citizens to subjects and step one in the path to genocide. It's how Hitler killed the Jews and it's how blacks were enslaved. That's just the major items in history. There are many smaller countries that do this to their people so that they (the government) can obtain and maintain a monopoly on force. You are essentially living the life of a dog. Worse than that, one without teeth. Meaning that any stray dog and/or mean kid can just have his way with you. And if the violent crime in Britain is any indication, they do.

 

 

The theory for self defence is all well and good, but in the heat of a moment when the red mist decends and blood rushes to the head, who's to say that a perfectly reasonable person won't lose the plot and use his weapon 'incorrectly', or even seek to inflict injury or death upon another.
Adrenaline is a fact of humanity, not of non-police. I've been in three self-defense situations. The most distant of which was five feet and closing. You'll find that statistic agree in terms of self defense ranges. Furthermore, those who arm themselves for the purpose of self-defense against common thugs have made an investment in their commitment to NOT being a victim. As such, they care for their firearm and practice with it. MORE than police, who statistically have a FAR greater percentage of missed shots. Something to consider the next time you choose to play the human frailty card. A card which BTW you will NOT find in the criminal's deck. In fact, since I'm talking about my own encounters and a criminal's disregard for human error, I should also point out that my being armed is what ensured I went home with no injuries other than being sick to my stomach for being forced to make such a decision. The decision to pull on another human being. I never even put my finger in the trigger guard. One GOOD thing about the liberal demonization of firearms is that they've become an icon that in the hands of a resolute (and that is the key ingredient) victim will induce enough fear into the attacker that they will likely cease and desist. Don't forget that these assholes have already made the decision to attack an innocent victim DESPITE the consequences of jail time because they understand that the police are not there. Let them know that the ante has been upped and injury and/or death could be the consequences and suddenly they'll reconsider. And if the horrible feeling of pointing the muzzle at somebody else is any indication, I imagine that AT LEAST one of the people I've fended off will never stoop to preying off the innocent again. It's not about hurting people, it's about deterrance.

 

 

I firmly believe that the control over 'lethal force' should be retained by the forces that Govern and protect a nation state, rather than the individuals within.
Nevermind the fact that without exception, an armed ruling body combined with a disarmed subject body has always lead to the castration of freedom. You trust those who will misuse YOU for the sake of their own power and fame, but you don't trust your neighbor to own an object that in NOT owning, they're guaranteeing that more bad guys WILL own one, which further tips their influence all around you. This is not logical.

 

 

That being said of course because I'm a firm believer in the strength of authority within "developed" nations and that their accountability is firm and absolute. There are naturally individuals within any given organisation whos actions would lead to significant questions being raised over the professionalism of such authority, but generally speaking these individuals are in the minority.
They've indoctrinated you well. Going back to deterrance, what is the one item that makes a person think twice about committing a heinous act? The consequences. With nobody to answer to, they have no reason to adhere to your fairy tale of just leaders. Here in the states, the whole reason the citizens were guaranteed etneral armament was to protect their freedoms. Or as I like to say: The only people that want to disarm me are the ones that want to do something to me that they know they could not get away with if I was armed.

 

 

Further more, in the UK in particular, the facet of self defence just doesn't roll with me. Armed gangs very rarely go out to shoot innocent members of the public. More likely they'll be other rival gang members who are targetted, and chances are they'll be armed themselves. The average, law abiding citizen does not, in my view, need to carry a firearm to protect themselves.
Just like the average, law-abiding citizen does not need to carry a spare tire. They've accepted that a blowout is a realistic risk to the point that hauling about an unwieldy hunk of rubber is reasonable preparedness. History and our daily news shows that disaster strikes, even in the last place you'd anticipate it to. This is not a hypothetical. Furthermore, you are incorrect in your summation of the presence of violence in the UK. Firstly by trying to make the argument revolve around firearms alone. This goes back to what I was saying above about how liberals lead us into fighting this war on THEIR terms. It might be comforting to you that the use of firarms might be low, but the fact remains that VIOLENT crime, per capita, outweighs that of the "gun fascinated" United States of America. And this is because the hooligans you've noted know that a "rival gang (if such a thing exists)" is armed while this lady over here is not. Meanwhile, losing blood to this rival gang gains... imaginary territory? Respect amongst people that will be dead tomorrow? Mugging this unarmed lady over here nets you 20 pounds or whatever the hell. It's about risk:yield. There's no way around the fact that perceived risk in an area that is geographically disarming victims is FAR lower.

 

 

For the most part, it seems that most people don't see the bigger picture. Guns are a necessay evil. On top of that, almost everything I've read pro-gun control is very, very misleading. Ak47's and M16's are not on the streets, they are allready illegal... In most places but Oklahoma. Same for Uzis and, son of a bitch, every other automatic weapon!

 

I'd just like to see a liberal politician get buglarized while they sleep and see how they feel afterwards. It seems people with such experience enjoy the security of a gun.

Mercie, and the truth she relates, will always be sexy and probably for about the same reasons.

 

She's right about the politicians. In fact, most any politician I've known to have a brush in with violence themselves sees the light immediately afterwards. Because for the first time they come face to face with the reality that you just never know. To pretend that it never happens is to ignore centuries of data.

 

Though I want to correct her that it is a necessary evil. Necessary, yes. Evil? Not even close. Civilization is brought about by man extending beyond the capabilities of the frail body he was given. From the earliest uses of tools to our current use of MONSTERS to build and shape the world around us, we NEED to be able to live beyond our means. Otherwise, most of us would starve to death. A gun is simply a machine that is designed to grant us the ability to weild influence far greater than our own and beyond the reach of our own arms. Just like any machine that fits this description (which is every machine, or else there'd be no use for it), it's about how you use it. To call it a necessary evil is to fight the war on liberal terms. This causes us to lose ground in ways we never meant to.

 

 

Teqila, I'm confused. Are you in support or opposition of firearms being owned privately?
Teqila has many times over made great pro-gun arguments. The fact that he always has, combined with the weaknesses in his approach here is indication that he is playing devil's advocate for the sake of argument. I am a 2A activist, so regularly rebutting the illogic that plagues the airwaves and the minds of sheep is good practice. It also allows those of us in the right to pool our efforts and edify our resolve for future engagements. I can't guarantee that this is what is happening here, especially in the face of his statement that he's switched. What I CAN tell you is that I all the time hear, witness, and propogate those seeing the light, but I have NEVER heard of somebody knowing the truth and later being tricked into subscribing to hypotheticals and the minority.

 

 

(Oh, and misconceptions on the type of gun available for purchase are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The smallest handgun is just as lethal as the largest automatic weapon to me)
Just as I preach, I will not fight this war on liberal terms. Lethality never was and never will be the issue. Murder is illegal. So if somebody commits murder, jail them. Apart from society, their inability to co-exist with society will not further harm society. anuj has already debunked the "it's lethal, so it must be banned" mentality. Hell, oxygen can be lethal if it's in the form of a gas in your bloodstream. Will you seek to comment on oxygen's lethality? If person A attacks person B unprovoked and person B is FORCED to shoot person A, that is person A's fault. If person A dies from the gunshot, that is a consequence of his actions. Just as I cannot do 90MPH on a highway curve on icy roads and seek to ban snowy weather because I met the inevitability of my choice of action. Rather than sparing the criminal from a fatality that natural selection was meant to use to weed out the inferior, how about instead sparing the innocent from criminal attacks? Here in the states, the migration within a state from no citizen concealed carry to concealed carry has lead to a reduction of crime in that state without exception. Looking only to my own experiences, I'm guessing that's in part that thanks to my carrying a concealed weapon, the books have been spared two counts of assault and one count of theft auto. And being that until last March, I lived in a state that required the gun to be in plain sight when operating a motor vehicle, I cannot tell you how many attacks I deterred against simply by their viewing prior to engagement that I had the ability to stop whatever their plan was and possibly hurt them in the process. You can't argue against the innocent living their lives free of fear from the unscrupulous.

 

 

A small 6 shot pistol is no where near as potentially dangerous as a 200 round machine gun.
To add to that, I know a war vet that has stated that he always hoped for automatic fire... from his enemies. It meant his chance for survival was greater. Automatic is a buzzword that only garners the attention that it does because like gun control, it's one of those things that sounds one way on paper, but plays out totally different in real life.

 

 

I oppose ownership altogether (unless justifiable of course)
There are so many errors in this approach. It first presumes that you are in a position to decide what's right and wrong for others. It also implies that the future is crystal clear. Let me tell you: Like a spare tire, a gun is something you hope you never need, but if you ever do need, you're going to need it NOW and BADLY. That last part is not only important here, but also in refuting your subscription to the common fallacy that it needs to be "stored safely." A gun that is not loaded and charged is an overpriced rock.

 

 

You're taking a single piece of law on gun crime and stated that it alone is the reason for the difference in firearms offences in two nations. What about the culture? The history of the nations? The level of wealth? The areas in which gun crimes are committed? How about the actual demographics who commit the gun crimes? (There's a reason London has a dedicated 'Black-on-Black' gun crime unit ya know).

 

The legislation alone is not the sole determinant of gun-crime levels.

There's no such thing as gun-crime. Guns are incapable of committing crimes. He was remarking on the not-so-phenomenon whereby criminals choose softer targets. Again, this is not a hypothetical. Even interviews conducted with imprisoned convicted criminals indicates they prefer softer targets. They chose this stop 'n' rob over that one because after watching both, they knew this one would be easier. They went over to this town because over there, the victims are better disarmed. And so forth. It's the same reason new drivers aren't eager to enter the freeway. Greater speed means greater risk.

 

 

After looking at statistics for other countries, I'll have to agree with you. If you look in that Gun Facts book on page 49 (56 in PDF), there is a chart that shows that there is pretty much no correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns. That doesn't make a strong case for guns, but it definitely torpedoes any case against them. There are much stronger factors that determine crime rates than gun availability. In that case, why deny population another freedom?
You guys are wasting your time. Not only are statistics by nature susceptible to fraud (there was a study that showed a gun in the home is a greater chance of somebody dying there, but didn't tell you that the stat included suicides and defenses against home invasions) and therefore inferior approaches, but it falls upon deaf ears. The species of liberalus commonus has a genetic defect by which they filter out facts that refute their irrational beliefs.

 

 

But maybe you're right. Maybe if I make you sit down in a chair, put a gun on a table infront of you, facing you, and have no one touch it ever, it will kill you.

 

I highly doubt it though.

I wish I had the link. There was a guy that took a larger revolver he had and a webcam and set it up, begging the world to watch so that when the gun killed somebody, there'd be a witness. lol.gif

 

 

Now, a man breaks into your house. You have a gun. You tiptoe to the closet, you take it out slowly, you load it, and if he hears you loading it, you can aim at the door and blast his ass to kingdom come when he comes in.
A gun that is locked up and unloaded will be of no use for the same reason the police won't be: time. Don't believe what the liberals tell you. When I was a child, there came a point where we had a mouse problem. So my parents were going to set out traps. They didn't want me touching it, so my dad sat me down, showed me one, and told me not to touch it. Had he left it at that, the inherent curious nature of a budding mind would've drawn me to it the moment I believed I could get away with it. So he followed it up by arming it and taking a pencil to it. The pencil broke in half. I knew then not to touch it. Had he done the same thing with a gun and a jub of water, I never would've touched the gun. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program, which teaches children firearm safety (mostly of an avoidance nature) has been far more useful than the liberal approach of trying to teach the children that guns are bad or worse: do not exist. I know people who take their guns and kids out and let the kids shoot. Under the strictest supervision of course and with a firm lesson on safety. There's been news stories where bad guy breaks in and is stopped by a minor in the house that knew where, when and how to use a gun. In the epic battle of education vs. restriction, education is still undefeated in the results column.

 

 

I'm sure there is a strong correlation between people who will purchase firearms illegally and these willing to murder
Surprisingly enough, I think Sir Mix A Lot put it best when he wrote

 

"Hypothetical situation

Gun control starts sweepin the nation

Now you got a bunch of unarmed innocent victims

Gettin f*ckED by the system

Sittin at home with a butter knife, huh

Any fool could rape your wife

So what's up when the criminals can't be stopped?

The only one with guns are the COPS

But it's hard for a brother to trust police

Huh, so the sh*t don't cease

So I go downtown to buy a hot gun

I hated criminals, and now I'm one

Because I bought a gat to protect my house

The cops wanna bust me out?

So it's illegal to protect yourself?

Hell, you either get killed, or you in jail"

 

What Rosa Parks did was illegal. She did it anyways because the statute that made it illegal was inappropriate and unjust. It's called civil disobedience and your belief in a correlation leaves no room for civil disobediecne; The man who decides he's going to be capable of protecting his family whether his oppressors recognize his right to life or not. The old addage that the outlawing of gun means only outlaws have guns is a two-parter. It doesn't just highlight that the bad guys will become more influential, but it further enumerates that the innocent man is wrongly incriminated. People should be judged (abstractly and legally) based on their actions, not their possessions.

 

 

If there were no other variables, gun control would reduce crime rates. The problem is that there are other variables, such as general population owning guns being a deterrent to crimes.
This is untrue. Had you said the erradication of guns, you still wouldn't have been correct. See, the biggest hole in victime disarmament theory is that placing a verbal boundary on top of the fact that it is against the law to murder will blink out the existence of firearms. And the reason why even the erradication of firearms would not lead to a decrease in violent crime is because violent crime is the manifestation of a force imbalance. Given an indiscriminate difference, would you better fear an assailant with a knife or a gun? With sword or a bat? The same is true in reverse. Except adrenaline can do much for an assailant, who was prepared for the strike when making it, against a batting. Not so much when you FORCE their body to precipitate a shock response by literally altering their makeup. Which doesn't address the more common iconic influence of a firearm that doesn't need to be fired to present the deterrance it is capable of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

The police will protect you

Is that so?

 

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

 

And a couple of especially interesting ones:

 

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)

 

This was a rather nasty case involving a women getting raped for half an hour while her roommates were upstairs on the phone begging the police to come. After the half hour was up, the screams had stopped, so they went down thinking the police had arrived or the perp had left. To their surprise, multiple perps were still there, who then proceeded to beat and rape all three women for the next fourteen hours. Cops never came. Courts said they didn't have to and dismissed the victims lawsuit against the city.

 

 

A fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

 

And, finally, DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Soc. Serv. Dept., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

 

 

A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.

 

So, no, the police have no duty to protect you whatsoever. Their job is to arrest criminals after the fact to protect the abstract "public good."

 

 

Being a Brit, and someone raised under the shadow of the Dunblane Massacre I am wholeheartedly opposed to the owning of firearms by civilians.

 

So then you support laws which punish the innocent, yet have no affect on criminals because they, by definition, don't obey the law?

 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

 

“Table 1.03 Offences currently recorded as homicide by apparent method of killing and sex of victim: England and Wales 1995 to 2005/06″

 

total by firearm:

1995: 66

1996: 47 (Dunblane this year)

1997: 58 (handgun ban passed this year)

1998: 52

1999: 46

2000: 61

2001: 72

2002: 97 (!)

2003: 75

2004: 68

2005: 75

2006: 50

 

100% more homicides via firearm in '02 than in '96, with only '06 dipping back to near pre-ban numbers.

 

“Table 2.06 Crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in which firearms were reported to have caused injury by type of principal weapon”

 

 

Year total total excluding air weapons shotguns handguns other airguns
1995 2,056 646 146 299 201 1,410
1996 1,981 769 104 279 386 1,212
1997 1,972 778 71 314 393 1,194
1998 2,074 804 74 317 413 1,270
1999 2,378 864 73 239 552 1,514
2000 3,172 1,195 100 352 743 1,977
2001 3,203 1,382 73 400 909 1,821
2002 3,792 1,877 111 648 1,118 1,915
2004 4,556 2,179 107 640 1,432 2,377
2004 4,762 2,367 104 590 1,673 2,395
2005 5,409 3,912 135 787 2,990 1,497
2006 5,001 3,821 154 1,024 2,643 1,180

Nine years after handguns were banned altogether, and the number of criminal injury involving them has more than tripled! At this rate (and judging by the month long killing spree in London a couple of months ago..), the England and Wales may be on their way to surpassing the US in per capita "gun crime." If that happens, will you still be opposed to ownership? Or will you wish you had one to protect yourself from the the armed criminals who laugh at the law while the police take hours to respond?

 

Meanwhile, in the US, homicides involving firearms have fallen nearly 40% from 17,075 in 1993 to 10,654 in 2004 (source). Non-fatal shootings have decreased by more than half in that time, albeit with a slight uptick in '05 (source). All while the supply of privately owned handguns has increased by @1,00,000 per year (source, and somewhere around three or four million people have been issued a concealed handgun license.

 

Granted, 'tis hard to prove that the added guns (and people carrying them) caused the drop, seeing as correlation doesn't always equal causation. However, 'tis also quite impossible to prove a gun ban caused crime to drop when there is no drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
I'd like to preface my rebuttal with a brief message to those in support of armed citizens. Liberals are abound in today's day and age. With DECADES of monopolies on the media and even schools, we've been slowly trained to think as they do. Just like Satan, because what they are selling is horrendous, they cannot bring it upon us wholesale. They must do it nickel and dime so that the trend is inconspicuous. This means that our war starts in the mind. Not to pick on K^2, but he is clearly pro gun. Yet he uses the name of the mythical beast: "assault rifle." Assault is a behavior, not an object. They know they can't take objects that enable citizens to be resolute from the resolute, so they call them a fictitious name that laughably defies the English language. In so doing, they not only put a scary face on it that anti's can recognize, but they make proponents against their will refer to them as if the objects in and of themselves are evil. Another, and probably most common, example is "gun violence." When Lindsay Lohan wraps her tree around her car, there is no talk of car violence. They save that falsehood for firearms because THAT is the object that makes a citizen resolute against disarmament.

I can see where you are coming from, but for me, staying honest to myself is a bit more important than any political agenda. I call a screwdriver a screwdriver not because it somehow drives the screw on its own, but because it is what it enables me to do. An assault rifle has no other purpose but to attack or defend against a heavily armed force. That is what it is for. You could, if you really want to, go hunting with one. You could also open cans with a screwdriver. There are better tools for these things.

 

A weapon is a tool. It is a tool for killing. This is what it is created for. It isn't built to accelerate pieces of metal to mach two speeds. It isn't built to put led into targets. It is built to disrupt the vital functions of a body of another living being. You don't get a gun because a gun will protect you. You get a gun because taking a life might protect you. That is why a man shooting someone while trying to commit a robbery at a gun point is no longer an accident. Once you pick up a gun, not for a purpose of hunting, practicing, or cleaning it, but to be used as intended, nothing following it is an accident. It doesn't matter what made you fire the gun. The moment you pick it up, you are committed to taking a life if a certain situation arises. This is what makes gun crimes different, whether anyone actually gets shot or not.

 

Liberals may be trying to use the wording into scarring the general population into surrendering their rights, but you shouldn't stoop to their level. Call things what they are, and if needed, explain what you mean by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demarest
Liberals may be trying to use the wording into scarring the general population into surrendering their rights, but you shouldn't stoop to their level. Call things what they are, and if needed, explain what you mean by it.

Then I invite you to do the same by meeting the attempted deconstruction of the phrase assault rifle by explaining what YOU mean by it, and how it differs from a rifle, as you see it. Let us not forget that my statement was that assault is a behavior, not an object. This is irrefutable fact. I'm curious as to how you find me stooping to their level.

 

Furthermore, if you are going to push for honesty, which is a just endeavor, you should also lead by example. Which would include NOT making statements such as an object can only be used for ____ when its spectrum of application is far greater. The people making that argument are the ones willing to abandon truth for the gain of associating an object with negativity. A point further made by your omission of the fact that RIFLES' capability of killing helped deliver humanity from a less technologically advanced time by offering it nourishment. Killing is not the bad word you make it out to be in the absence of context.

 

Finally, your suggestion of design and intent aren't even applicable. The fact that an automobile is designed primarily for the conveyance of people and their possessions offers no explanation as to why they are now outfitted with safety belts, high mount stop lights, anti-lock brakes, and so forth. Nor does it explain why insurance is required, why posted speed limits exist, etc. These things exist in light of the reality that an object will not always be used as intended. We cannot disregard such possibilities just to purport that an object is one identity or another, especially when those identities require the exercising of a will, which is absent in an object in and of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

Then I invite you to do the same by meeting the attempted deconstruction of the phrase assault rifle by explaining what YOU mean by it, and how it differs from a rifle, as you see it. Let us not forget that my statement was that assault is a behavior, not an object. This is irrefutable fact. I'm curious as to how you find me stooping to their level.

I did explain it. The name "assault rifle" explains its use rather perfectly. You can't use it for much other than assaulting or defending against an assault. If you use it to crack walnuts, someone needs to take that rifle away from you. Or give you some ammo and let you shoot yourself. I can live with either one.

 

 

Furthermore, if you are going to push for honesty, which is a just endeavor, you should also lead by example. Which would include NOT making statements such as an object can only be used for ____ when its spectrum of application is far greater. The people making that argument are the ones willing to abandon truth for the gain of associating an object with negativity. A point further made by your omission of the fact that RIFLES' capability of killing helped deliver humanity from a less technologically advanced time by offering it nourishment. Killing is not the bad word you make it out to be in the absence of context.

What exactly are you proposing to use a rifle for other than killing something? You can shoot to wound, in some cases, but you still can do that only if you are accepting a risk of the target getting killed. That's true even if you use plastic or salt for ammo. You could shoot at inanimate targets, but most of that is practice to be able to kill things. Some people do fire guns at targets for sport, but if it was just about the sport, the fire arms could have easily been replaced with something far less dangerous, like laser hit/miss systems. Guns are for killing things. That is it.

 

And I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. I don't see where you get that from. I'm only pointing out that it is what the gun is for, and that is why it needs to be treated legally slightly differently than other objects that can cause harm. That doesn't mean limiting freedom of owning a gun, but a misuse of a gun should be punished more severely than a misuse of a car.

 

Finally, your suggestion of design and intent aren't even applicable. The fact that an automobile is designed primarily for the conveyance of people and their possessions offers no explanation as to why they are now outfitted with safety belts, high mount stop lights, anti-lock brakes, and so forth. Nor does it explain why insurance is required, why posted speed limits exist, etc. These things exist in light of the reality that an object will not always be used as intended. We cannot disregard such possibilities just to purport that an object is one identity or another, especially when those identities require the exercising of a will, which is absent in an object in and of itself.

So your point is that the guns can be misused too? What exactly are you pushing here for? Yes, anything can be misused. Anything can be dangerous in certain situations. Most things are designed not to be, though. Gun is designed to be dangerous. It is specifically engineered to cause fatalities. Only weapons and machines of execution meet such criteria. An automobile is not even in the ballpark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

I did explain it. The name "assault rifle" explains its use rather perfectly. You can't use it for much other than assaulting or defending against an assault. If you use it to crack walnuts, someone needs to take that rifle away from you. Or give you some ammo and let you shoot yourself. I can live with either one.

And if the anti-gun people called them "fluffy bunny cuddle rifles," would that mean you can only snuggle with them at night? tounge.gif

 

Anyhoo, instead of playing with semantics, let's use pictures. Round one. Which one of these two, if either, is an "assault weapon?"

 

 

user posted image

 

 

Round two. Which one of these two (and/or the two above) is the most deadly?

 

 

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mercie

Dem wins.

 

Anyhow, these are the methods used to describe whether or not a rifle was an 'assault rifle' during the Assault Rifle Ban.

 

 

Post-Ban AR-15 rifles, by law, cannot have more than 2 of the following features:

 

1) detachable magazine

 

2) pistol grip

 

3) threaded barrel/flash hider

 

4) collapsible stock

 

5) bayonet lug

 

6) grenade launcher

 

So how is a sportsmans rifle with 2 of the above and less letha that a deadly persons assault rifle with the addition of a bayonet lug, detachible stock, or, well, a grenade launcher given grenades cant be bough? Weee.

 

This thread was totally overdone by pro-gun people and, from the looks of it, left no open spot for argument. I think I'm gonna have to quote Dem somewhere with that, as with its own quotations, it shows both common logic and its flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demarest

I did explain it. The name "assault rifle" explains its use rather perfectly. You can't use it for much other than assaulting or defending against an assault.
I asked you to contrast an "assault rifle" to a rifle and outline the differences as you see it. You have not.

 

 

If you use it to crack walnuts, someone needs to take that rifle away from you.
On what basis? Who are you to decide what a man does? Is he hurting anybody by cracking walnuts with a rifle?

 

 

Or give you some ammo and let you shoot yourself.
This more than implies there being a correlation between the possession of ammo and self-injury. Of course, there is no such correlation.

 

 

I can live with either one.
I've noticed that since I've addressed the common fallacy of "assault rifles," your arguments have consisted of emotional response as opposed to the us of facts and logic to draw sensible conclusions.

 

 

What exactly are you proposing to use a rifle for other than killing something?
Are we talking about a rifle or an assault rifle? According to you, there is a difference.

 

 

You can shoot to wound, in some cases, but you still can do that only if you are accepting a risk of the target getting killed. That's true even if you use plastic or salt for ammo.
Are you talking about a rifle or an assault rifle? The potentiality for lethality is true in all forms of firearms and many many other non-firearm objects. This has been addressed already. See also above anuj's list and/or my point that lethality was never the issue.

 

You need to fire a gun at some point in your life. You will find as you try to aim the firearm and see where your shots land that "shoot to kill" and "shoot to wound" are fallacies. I'll presume by your emotional involvement that you're speaking of use on other human beings. I've already outlined that firearm use is more commonly iconic and this is true of criminal use as well. Most criminals don't actually shoot anybody and use the presence of a firearm to instill fear into their victim and deter them from considering resisting the attack and therefore increasing the risk:yield ratio for said criminal. Now, for the times when a criminal DOES shoot somebody, they are improperly using that firearm. This misuse, when you consider the number of guns owned, carried, and used daily, are microscopic. Negligible. Hardly worth discussing and/or writing policy over. So let's consider the other human shooting human scenarios: self-defense. I've already shared that three times now, my being in possession of a firearm has staved off a criminal attack. I've further shared that I've never had to put my finger in the trigger guard. Because for these encounters, the presentation of the firearm was enough to convince them to reconsider. Now had it not been, I would've been FORCED to shoot. Whether or not they are injured, harmed, or just scared by the flash in seeing that yes, this victim WILL pull the trigger is of no concern to me. All I would know in such a situation is that I didn't earn an assault and that I would NOT be assaulted. If you need to attach intent to the shot, I wouldn't be shooting to wound, I'd be shooting to stop them. I wouldn't be shooting to kill, I'd be shooting to live. It's curious you'd be more concerned with a microsopic occurance and/or an innocent's pulling of the trigger rather than the common element in both (and therefore a larger presence): Criminal preying upon innocent citizens. Perhaps save your emotional reaction for the assault assault instead of a firearm by any name YOU give it.

 

 

You could shoot at inanimate targets, but most of that is practice to be able to kill things.
Right, and the driver's ed student manuevering amongst orange cones is practice to be able to kill things. After all, automobile fatalities FAR outweight firearm fatalities each year and the property destruction they cause is far greater. No, the driver's ed student, like the gun owner on the range, is practicing to be able to use the machine more succinctly and efficiently. This leads to safer operation. This leads to a driver able to keep the car where they want, even in tense situations. It means a gun owner that if forced to use it, will have better aim and be better prepared for recoil, which contributes to the accuracy of follow up shots. And if my involvement in training others is any indication, firearm practice is very necessary. You'd be surprised at how many people are willing to put their finger on the trigger before they're ready to shoot.

 

 

Some people do fire guns at targets for sport, but if it was just about the sport, the fire arms could have easily been replaced with something far less dangerous, like laser hit/miss systems.
Lasers will not account for recoil, human anticipation of recoil... In other words, they are no measure for mastery of a firearm. Furthermore, a firearm is only dangerous (like any other object) when misused. I never point my gun in an unsafe direction for example. Never have my finger on the trigger unless I'm ready to shoot. And so forth.

 

 

Guns are for killing things. That is it.
I own three guns. Through them, I have shot THOUSANDS of rounds. I have had two of them pointed at people that had already conveyed intent of bodily harm upon me. No fatalities have resulted from my firearms. And I'm just one person. These are all facts. Facts you disregard because they do not support your preconceived (formed before the facts) notion that guns are only for killing. This is the D&D forum. Logic and facts are the foundation of sound debate. Your efforts are impotent, tired, and been disproven time and time again. You're not even making it a challenge.

 

 

And I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. I don't see where you get that from.
Your continued subscription to "assault rifles" and effort at making them out to be vehicles of destruction were not made to encourage your countrymen to arm themselves. It was slander meant to blacken the very concept of firearms by attaching them to the darker possibilities of them.

 

 

I'm only pointing out that it is what the gun is for, and that is why it needs to be treated legally slightly differently than other objects that can cause harm. That doesn't mean limiting freedom of owning a gun, but a misuse of a gun should be punished more severely than a misuse of a car.
I disagree. You know physics? Compare the ballistics of a rifle round to that of an automobile. It is true that automobiles travel less quickly, but their mass is stupendous by comparison. Furthermore, cars do not have the "assault" attachment and other liberal demonization, which means they're more prevalant as well. You are far more likely to be injured by an automobile than a firearm and anybody unwilling to accept the responsibility in operating an automobile should be held accountable for their actions. Same with a firearm. This is a fact of their presenece in a society whereby we must share our space with others. You have failed to demonstrate why one is deserving of greater punishment than the other. What you HAVE demonstrated however is the evil in the liberal agenda. You are correct that punishing those who misuse a firearm is paramount in TRUE gun control. But since most anti's are against the gun, you'll find that most people misusing firearms are largely overlooked because focus is unjustly placed upon the instrument of their criminal behavior. This generally leads to sentencing that is inappropriate because it is insufficient. Yet another reason why we must fight to preserve our minds and not allow a false agenda cloud our vision of the truth at hand.

 

 

So your point is that the guns can be misused too? What exactly are you pushing here for?
I was very clear in that I was refuting your suggestion that intent is identifiable or is at all applicable. MacGyver has become a slang term commending one's use of an item in a way other than was intended, generally because the misuse was beneficial. I own a gun. I've been in SD situations. I've never killed. My guns have never killed. But they HAVE served their purpose. If you want to know their purpose, the trigger's puprose (intent) is to release the striker. The striker's purpose is to drive the firing pin. The firing pin's purpose is to strike the primer. And so on. If somebody misuses the end result of an object being propelled at even subsonic speeds, their misuse is the item of concern. Not WHAT they misused.

 

 

Yes, anything can be misused. Anything can be dangerous in certain situations. Most things are designed not to be, though. Gun is designed to be dangerous. It is specifically engineered to cause fatalities. Only weapons and machines of execution meet such criteria. An automobile is not even in the ballpark.
And yet they do and to greater extent than firearms each and every year. The rest, I've already addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teqila
I'd like to preface my rebuttal with a brief message to those in support of armed citizens. Liberals are abound in today's day and age. With DECADES of monopolies on the media and even schools, we've been slowly trained to think as they do. Just like Satan, because what they are selling is horrendous, they cannot bring it upon us wholesale. They must do it nickel and dime so that the trend is inconspicuous. This means that our war starts in the mind. Not to pick on K^2, but he is clearly pro gun. Yet he uses the name of the mythical beast: "assault rifle." Assault is a behavior, not an object. They know they can't take objects that enable citizens to be resolute from the resolute, so they call them a fictitious name that laughably defies the English language. In so doing, they not only put a scary face on it that anti's can recognize, but they make proponents against their will refer to them as if the objects in and of themselves are evil. Another, and probably most common, example is "gun violence." When Lindsay Lohan wraps her tree around her car, there is no talk of car violence. They save that falsehood for firearms because THAT is the object that makes a citizen resolute against disarmament. Whether we like it or not, putting those two words together subliminally links in our minds guns with violence. Point being that the war starts in our minds. Guard with great care our language so that the enemy isn't tricking you into speaking like them and doing their work for them. As Mercie pointed out, the fact that anti's have to use deceit to make their point is proof enough of which side is right. Another thing to consider is that you only ever hear of the misuse of firearms. When a citizen uses a firearm to protect themselves, there is no article in the paper. The nightly news has nothing to say.

 

 

Guns are bad
Fire is bad. Nevermind that it can cook for you a life-sustaining meal because it could just as well burn down your house. And you know what? Though I make my point just fine with fire, fire is a BAD EXAMPLE! Because it merely obeys the law of physics and does only that which it can do. Whereas a firearm requires somebody operating it.

 

 

they kill people
I think mine's broken then. It's never killed anybody despite it being pointed at three people who were begging to be shot.

 

 

I don't like them.
THIS is the only truth you will ever find in an anti's arsenal.

 

 

They should be banned.
Old saying: If you outlaw guns then only outlaws have guns. Even if firearm manufacture was halted today (and it won't be), there are MILLIONS if not billions in existence. If you say the good guys can't have them, you've just handed the unscrupulous the entirety of this planet. Why root for the criminals?

 

 

The police will protect you
This is too funny. I've noted you live in the US, where it has been decided in the highest court that police are NOT required to protect you. They are no longer peace officers, they are law enforcers only. Oddly enough, I just had an altercation the other night where my assailant was guilty as all get out of multiple forms of harrassment. I'm a take care of business myself kind of guy, but as a gun owner, I've been trained by the state to not engage in any behavior that might be misconstrued as the aggressor in a situation. I was told by the police that they could not do anything about it despite the guy admitting what he had done because, and I quote, "we didn't see it." And therein lies the rub. Consider the number of police on the payroll in your city. Note I'm being generous and allowing you to consider a number that is two to three times larger than the number that is on active duty at any given time. Now consider the square footage of their jurisdiction and the flaw in your suggestion should become painfully obvious. Criminals WANT only the police to be armed because then they'll know when and where the coast is clear. It has already been brought up that violent crime skyrockets in areas where the government disarms victims and it's because the bad guys then KNOW that their victim is disarmed.

 

 

self-defense only makes everything worse.
Yes. Let murderous end the lives of you and your loved ones simply because it's (according to you) better.

 

 

Armed self-defense is the worst kind of self-defense.
*the only kind

 

 

Maybe gun laws could be somehow tightened to reduce the risk of armed violence, but ultimately you can't stop people killing each other.
The last part is true and is more succinctly stated that we simply cannot anticipate and control everything. The first part was incorrect though. History (as recent as Virginia Tech) has shown that gun laws do one thing only: Prepare the sheep for slaughter.

 

 

Being a Brit, and someone raised under the shadow of the Dunblane Massacre I am wholeheartedly opposed to the owning of firearms by civilians.
You'd do well to bone up on your history. Victim disarmament is the conversion of citizens to subjects and step one in the path to genocide. It's how Hitler killed the Jews and it's how blacks were enslaved. That's just the major items in history. There are many smaller countries that do this to their people so that they (the government) can obtain and maintain a monopoly on force. You are essentially living the life of a dog. Worse than that, one without teeth. Meaning that any stray dog and/or mean kid can just have his way with you. And if the violent crime in Britain is any indication, they do.

 

 

The theory for self defence is all well and good, but in the heat of a moment when the red mist decends and blood rushes to the head, who's to say that a perfectly reasonable person won't lose the plot and use his weapon 'incorrectly', or even seek to inflict injury or death upon another.
Adrenaline is a fact of humanity, not of non-police. I've been in three self-defense situations. The most distant of which was five feet and closing. You'll find that statistic agree in terms of self defense ranges. Furthermore, those who arm themselves for the purpose of self-defense against common thugs have made an investment in their commitment to NOT being a victim. As such, they care for their firearm and practice with it. MORE than police, who statistically have a FAR greater percentage of missed shots. Something to consider the next time you choose to play the human frailty card. A card which BTW you will NOT find in the criminal's deck. In fact, since I'm talking about my own encounters and a criminal's disregard for human error, I should also point out that my being armed is what ensured I went home with no injuries other than being sick to my stomach for being forced to make such a decision. The decision to pull on another human being. I never even put my finger in the trigger guard. One GOOD thing about the liberal demonization of firearms is that they've become an icon that in the hands of a resolute (and that is the key ingredient) victim will induce enough fear into the attacker that they will likely cease and desist. Don't forget that these assholes have already made the decision to attack an innocent victim DESPITE the consequences of jail time because they understand that the police are not there. Let them know that the ante has been upped and injury and/or death could be the consequences and suddenly they'll reconsider. And if the horrible feeling of pointing the muzzle at somebody else is any indication, I imagine that AT LEAST one of the people I've fended off will never stoop to preying off the innocent again. It's not about hurting people, it's about deterrance.

 

 

I firmly believe that the control over 'lethal force' should be retained by the forces that Govern and protect a nation state, rather than the individuals within.
Nevermind the fact that without exception, an armed ruling body combined with a disarmed subject body has always lead to the castration of freedom. You trust those who will misuse YOU for the sake of their own power and fame, but you don't trust your neighbor to own an object that in NOT owning, they're guaranteeing that more bad guys WILL own one, which further tips their influence all around you. This is not logical.

 

 

That being said of course because I'm a firm believer in the strength of authority within "developed" nations and that their accountability is firm and absolute. There are naturally individuals within any given organisation whos actions would lead to significant questions being raised over the professionalism of such authority, but generally speaking these individuals are in the minority.
They've indoctrinated you well. Going back to deterrance, what is the one item that makes a person think twice about committing a heinous act? The consequences. With nobody to answer to, they have no reason to adhere to your fairy tale of just leaders. Here in the states, the whole reason the citizens were guaranteed etneral armament was to protect their freedoms. Or as I like to say: The only people that want to disarm me are the ones that want to do something to me that they know they could not get away with if I was armed.

 

 

Further more, in the UK in particular, the facet of self defence just doesn't roll with me. Armed gangs very rarely go out to shoot innocent members of the public. More likely they'll be other rival gang members who are targetted, and chances are they'll be armed themselves. The average, law abiding citizen does not, in my view, need to carry a firearm to protect themselves.
Just like the average, law-abiding citizen does not need to carry a spare tire. They've accepted that a blowout is a realistic risk to the point that hauling about an unwieldy hunk of rubber is reasonable preparedness. History and our daily news shows that disaster strikes, even in the last place you'd anticipate it to. This is not a hypothetical. Furthermore, you are incorrect in your summation of the presence of violence in the UK. Firstly by trying to make the argument revolve around firearms alone. This goes back to what I was saying above about how liberals lead us into fighting this war on THEIR terms. It might be comforting to you that the use of firarms might be low, but the fact remains that VIOLENT crime, per capita, outweighs that of the "gun fascinated" United States of America. And this is because the hooligans you've noted know that a "rival gang (if such a thing exists)" is armed while this lady over here is not. Meanwhile, losing blood to this rival gang gains... imaginary territory? Respect amongst people that will be dead tomorrow? Mugging this unarmed lady over here nets you 20 pounds or whatever the hell. It's about risk:yield. There's no way around the fact that perceived risk in an area that is geographically disarming victims is FAR lower.

 

 

For the most part, it seems that most people don't see the bigger picture. Guns are a necessay evil. On top of that, almost everything I've read pro-gun control is very, very misleading. Ak47's and M16's are not on the streets, they are allready illegal... In most places but Oklahoma. Same for Uzis and, son of a bitch, every other automatic weapon!

 

I'd just like to see a liberal politician get buglarized while they sleep and see how they feel afterwards. It seems people with such experience enjoy the security of a gun.

Mercie, and the truth she relates, will always be sexy and probably for about the same reasons.

 

She's right about the politicians. In fact, most any politician I've known to have a brush in with violence themselves sees the light immediately afterwards. Because for the first time they come face to face with the reality that you just never know. To pretend that it never happens is to ignore centuries of data.

 

Though I want to correct her that it is a necessary evil. Necessary, yes. Evil? Not even close. Civilization is brought about by man extending beyond the capabilities of the frail body he was given. From the earliest uses of tools to our current use of MONSTERS to build and shape the world around us, we NEED to be able to live beyond our means. Otherwise, most of us would starve to death. A gun is simply a machine that is designed to grant us the ability to weild influence far greater than our own and beyond the reach of our own arms. Just like any machine that fits this description (which is every machine, or else there'd be no use for it), it's about how you use it. To call it a necessary evil is to fight the war on liberal terms. This causes us to lose ground in ways we never meant to.

 

 

Teqila, I'm confused. Are you in support or opposition of firearms being owned privately?
Teqila has many times over made great pro-gun arguments. The fact that he always has, combined with the weaknesses in his approach here is indication that he is playing devil's advocate for the sake of argument. I am a 2A activist, so regularly rebutting the illogic that plagues the airwaves and the minds of sheep is good practice. It also allows those of us in the right to pool our efforts and edify our resolve for future engagements. I can't guarantee that this is what is happening here, especially in the face of his statement that he's switched. What I CAN tell you is that I all the time hear, witness, and propogate those seeing the light, but I have NEVER heard of somebody knowing the truth and later being tricked into subscribing to hypotheticals and the minority.

 

 

(Oh, and misconceptions on the type of gun available for purchase are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The smallest handgun is just as lethal as the largest automatic weapon to me)
Just as I preach, I will not fight this war on liberal terms. Lethality never was and never will be the issue. Murder is illegal. So if somebody commits murder, jail them. Apart from society, their inability to co-exist with society will not further harm society. anuj has already debunked the "it's lethal, so it must be banned" mentality. Hell, oxygen can be lethal if it's in the form of a gas in your bloodstream. Will you seek to comment on oxygen's lethality? If person A attacks person B unprovoked and person B is FORCED to shoot person A, that is person A's fault. If person A dies from the gunshot, that is a consequence of his actions. Just as I cannot do 90MPH on a highway curve on icy roads and seek to ban snowy weather because I met the inevitability of my choice of action. Rather than sparing the criminal from a fatality that natural selection was meant to use to weed out the inferior, how about instead sparing the innocent from criminal attacks? Here in the states, the migration within a state from no citizen concealed carry to concealed carry has lead to a reduction of crime in that state without exception. Looking only to my own experiences, I'm guessing that's in part that thanks to my carrying a concealed weapon, the books have been spared two counts of assault and one count of theft auto. And being that until last March, I lived in a state that required the gun to be in plain sight when operating a motor vehicle, I cannot tell you how many attacks I deterred against simply by their viewing prior to engagement that I had the ability to stop whatever their plan was and possibly hurt them in the process. You can't argue against the innocent living their lives free of fear from the unscrupulous.

 

 

A small 6 shot pistol is no where near as potentially dangerous as a 200 round machine gun.
To add to that, I know a war vet that has stated that he always hoped for automatic fire... from his enemies. It meant his chance for survival was greater. Automatic is a buzzword that only garners the attention that it does because like gun control, it's one of those things that sounds one way on paper, but plays out totally different in real life.

 

 

I oppose ownership altogether (unless justifiable of course)
There are so many errors in this approach. It first presumes that you are in a position to decide what's right and wrong for others. It also implies that the future is crystal clear. Let me tell you: Like a spare tire, a gun is something you hope you never need, but if you ever do need, you're going to need it NOW and BADLY. That last part is not only important here, but also in refuting your subscription to the common fallacy that it needs to be "stored safely." A gun that is not loaded and charged is an overpriced rock.

 

 

You're taking a single piece of law on gun crime and stated that it alone is the reason for the difference in firearms offences in two nations. What about the culture? The history of the nations? The level of wealth? The areas in which gun crimes are committed? How about the actual demographics who commit the gun crimes? (There's a reason London has a dedicated 'Black-on-Black' gun crime unit ya know).

 

The legislation alone is not the sole determinant of gun-crime levels.

There's no such thing as gun-crime. Guns are incapable of committing crimes. He was remarking on the not-so-phenomenon whereby criminals choose softer targets. Again, this is not a hypothetical. Even interviews conducted with imprisoned convicted criminals indicates they prefer softer targets. They chose this stop 'n' rob over that one because after watching both, they knew this one would be easier. They went over to this town because over there, the victims are better disarmed. And so forth. It's the same reason new drivers aren't eager to enter the freeway. Greater speed means greater risk.

 

 

After looking at statistics for other countries, I'll have to agree with you. If you look in that Gun Facts book on page 49 (56 in PDF), there is a chart that shows that there is pretty much no correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns. That doesn't make a strong case for guns, but it definitely torpedoes any case against them. There are much stronger factors that determine crime rates than gun availability. In that case, why deny population another freedom?
You guys are wasting your time. Not only are statistics by nature susceptible to fraud (there was a study that showed a gun in the home is a greater chance of somebody dying there, but didn't tell you that the stat included suicides and defenses against home invasions) and therefore inferior approaches, but it falls upon deaf ears. The species of liberalus commonus has a genetic defect by which they filter out facts that refute their irrational beliefs.

 

 

But maybe you're right. Maybe if I make you sit down in a chair, put a gun on a table infront of you, facing you, and have no one touch it ever, it will kill you.

 

I highly doubt it though.

I wish I had the link. There was a guy that took a larger revolver he had and a webcam and set it up, begging the world to watch so that when the gun killed somebody, there'd be a witness. lol.gif

 

 

Now, a man breaks into your house. You have a gun. You tiptoe to the closet, you take it out slowly, you load it, and if he hears you loading it, you can aim at the door and blast his ass to kingdom come when he comes in.
A gun that is locked up and unloaded will be of no use for the same reason the police won't be: time. Don't believe what the liberals tell you. When I was a child, there came a point where we had a mouse problem. So my parents were going to set out traps. They didn't want me touching it, so my dad sat me down, showed me one, and told me not to touch it. Had he left it at that, the inherent curious nature of a budding mind would've drawn me to it the moment I believed I could get away with it. So he followed it up by arming it and taking a pencil to it. The pencil broke in half. I knew then not to touch it. Had he done the same thing with a gun and a jub of water, I never would've touched the gun. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program, which teaches children firearm safety (mostly of an avoidance nature) has been far more useful than the liberal approach of trying to teach the children that guns are bad or worse: do not exist. I know people who take their guns and kids out and let the kids shoot. Under the strictest supervision of course and with a firm lesson on safety. There's been news stories where bad guy breaks in and is stopped by a minor in the house that knew where, when and how to use a gun. In the epic battle of education vs. restriction, education is still undefeated in the results column.

 

 

I'm sure there is a strong correlation between people who will purchase firearms illegally and these willing to murder
Surprisingly enough, I think Sir Mix A Lot put it best when he wrote

 

"Hypothetical situation

Gun control starts sweepin the nation

Now you got a bunch of unarmed innocent victims

Gettin f*ckED by the system

Sittin at home with a butter knife, huh

Any fool could rape your wife

So what's up when the criminals can't be stopped?

The only one with guns are the COPS

But it's hard for a brother to trust police

Huh, so the sh*t don't cease

So I go downtown to buy a hot gun

I hated criminals, and now I'm one

Because I bought a gat to protect my house

The cops wanna bust me out?

So it's illegal to protect yourself?

Hell, you either get killed, or you in jail"

 

What Rosa Parks did was illegal. She did it anyways because the statute that made it illegal was inappropriate and unjust. It's called civil disobedience and your belief in a correlation leaves no room for civil disobediecne; The man who decides he's going to be capable of protecting his family whether his oppressors recognize his right to life or not. The old addage that the outlawing of gun means only outlaws have guns is a two-parter. It doesn't just highlight that the bad guys will become more influential, but it further enumerates that the innocent man is wrongly incriminated. People should be judged (abstractly and legally) based on their actions, not their possessions.

 

 

If there were no other variables, gun control would reduce crime rates. The problem is that there are other variables, such as general population owning guns being a deterrent to crimes.
This is untrue. Had you said the erradication of guns, you still wouldn't have been correct. See, the biggest hole in victime disarmament theory is that placing a verbal boundary on top of the fact that it is against the law to murder will blink out the existence of firearms. And the reason why even the erradication of firearms would not lead to a decrease in violent crime is because violent crime is the manifestation of a force imbalance. Given an indiscriminate difference, would you better fear an assailant with a knife or a gun? With sword or a bat? The same is true in reverse. Except adrenaline can do much for an assailant, who was prepared for the strike when making it, against a batting. Not so much when you FORCE their body to precipitate a shock response by literally altering their makeup. Which doesn't address the more common iconic influence of a firearm that doesn't need to be fired to present the deterrance it is capable of.

Those are strong and nearly undeniable facts, Demarest.

 

 

 

I think this is the site you mentioned:

http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

I asked you to contrast an "assault rifle" to a rifle and outline the differences as you see it. You have not.

Oh, you mean an actual mechanical difference? Fine. I call an assault rifle any gas operated rifle with full auto capability. Gas operation allows for use of more powerful ammo, while full auto capability makes it perfect for firing bursts at groups of attackers/defenders. If you want to hunt, you only need single shots, so auto capability is useless. If you want to defend yourself against lightly armed attackers, you do not need gas operation. You can use smaller ammo with a short recoil weapon. Both of these are much cheaper and lighter than an assault rifle, making an assault rifle a bad choice for such uses. Hence, an assault rifle is only useful for heavily armed assaults or defending from such. Hence assault rifle.

 

 

On what basis? Who are you to decide what a man does? Is he hurting anybody by cracking walnuts with a rifle?

Safety rule: Treat every weapon as loaded. Do you think a sane man would crack walnuts with a loaded assault rifle?

 

Are we talking about a rifle or an assault rifle? According to you, there is a difference.

Are you intentionally playing dense? Any gun is designed to kill. Period. How and when might differ, which means that certain guns are better for certain purposes, but that doesn't change what they do.

 

 

You need to fire a gun at some point in your life. You will find as you try to aim the firearm and see where your shots land that "shoot to kill" and "shoot to wound" are fallacies.

Erm... I don't think you are paying close attention to what's going on at all. First of all, I have fired both hand guns and rifles. With a simple 9mm, like PA63, I can shoot a can from 10 yards without much difficulty. If someone is attacking me, I am not going to go for such precision, but I still have a choice for shooting upper torso or lower torso, changing the odds of fatality dramatically. Furthermore, this is exactly why I mentioned alternative ammunition. With plastic bullets, you have a very good chance of wounding, but not killing the target. But none of it is the point. The point is once you take aim at someone, you commit to possibility of killing that person. It doesn't even matter if you think you are going to shoot.

 

I'll presume by your emotional involvement that you're speaking of use on other human beings. I've already outlined that firearm use is more commonly iconic and this is true of criminal use as well. Most criminals don't actually shoot anybody and use the presence of a firearm to instill fear into their victim and deter them from considering resisting the attack and therefore increasing the risk:yield ratio for said criminal. Now, for the times when a criminal DOES shoot somebody, they are improperly using that firearm. This misuse, when you consider the number of guns owned, carried, and used daily, are microscopic. Negligible. Hardly worth discussing and/or writing policy over.

Again, I do not see where you are getting emotional involvement bit from. I really don't care about particular lives taken by fire arms, whether accidental or intentional. I do care about order in society, because I have to live in it. As such, I want to make sure that people who do own guns know how to use them properly.

s for criminals using guns as a fear weapon, that is improper use of the tool. It works, unfortunately, but only because people are not properly educated on gun usage. Fear is the most irrational response to someone pointing a gun at you.

 

So let's consider the other human shooting human scenarios: self-defense. I've already shared that three times now, my being in possession of a firearm has staved off a criminal attack. I've further shared that I've never had to put my finger in the trigger guard. Because for these encounters, the presentation of the firearm was enough to convince them to reconsider. Now had it not been, I would've been FORCED to shoot. Whether or not they are injured, harmed, or just scared by the flash in seeing that yes, this victim WILL pull the trigger is of no concern to me. All I would know in such a situation is that I didn't earn an assault and that I would NOT be assaulted. If you need to attach intent to the shot, I wouldn't be shooting to wound, I'd be shooting to stop them. I wouldn't be shooting to kill, I'd be shooting to live. It's curious you'd be more concerned with a microsopic occurance and/or an innocent's pulling of the trigger rather than the common element in both (and therefore a larger presence): Criminal preying upon innocent citizens. Perhaps save your emotional reaction for the assault assault instead of a firearm by any name YOU give it.

Complete misrepresentation. If you pull the gun on an attacker, and attacker runs away, it is only because of your commitment to kill. If an attacker thought that you wouldn't shoot, or that if shot, he'd live, he'd take a risk and attack you. It is only because of the commitment and ability to kill, real or perceived, that the attacker retreats. And if he does not, you have to shoot. You have to commit to that course of action as soon as you bring the gun into the play. You say that's what you would do. That is good. Some people, unfortunately, don't realize that. They think that they will always be able to scare away the attacker. That's not the case. Gun is not for scaring people away. It is for killing. And you have to be ready to do just that if you plan to use the gun for self defense.

 

Right, and the driver's ed student manuevering amongst orange cones is practice to be able to kill things.

So when you shoot at targets at the range, do you practice not to hit other people? Or do you practice to shoot to kill if necessary? When you practice driving, you practice to avoid fatalities. When you practice shooting, you practice to cause them. Very big difference.

 

After all, automobile fatalities FAR outweight firearm fatalities each year and the property destruction they cause is far greater. No, the driver's ed student, like the gun owner on the range, is practicing to be able to use the machine more succinctly and efficiently. This leads to safer operation. This leads to a driver able to keep the car where they want, even in tense situations. It means a gun owner that if forced to use it, will have better aim and be better prepared for recoil, which contributes to the accuracy of follow up shots. And if my involvement in training others is any indication, firearm practice is very necessary. You'd be surprised at how many people are willing to put their finger on the trigger before they're ready to shoot.

All of the above is correct. We know that everything carries some risk. We know that practice with things that are more dangerous is likely to reduce odds of something bad happening. The difference is that when driving, in the critical moment, either you avoid a collision with another vehicle, and both drivers survive, or collision happens, and they both die. When you are attacked, you might be put in the situation where either you kill or you get killed. The difference is that proper use of the vehicle can prevent a death all together. Proper use of a fire arm will merely give you the opportunity not to be among these who died. Yes, that isn't always the case. You can sometimes scare away the attacker with the gun. You can sometimes just wound the attacker (again, it doesn't even matter if you meant to wound or meant to kill), but that doesn't change the fact that you or them situations will exist, and that the gun is the tool for making it them.

 

Lasers will not account for recoil, human anticipation of recoil... In other words, they are no measure for mastery of a firearm. Furthermore, a firearm is only dangerous (like any other object) when misused. I never point my gun in an unsafe direction for example. Never have my finger on the trigger unless I'm ready to shoot. And so forth.

I can think of a dozens of ways of generating recoil without emitting a deadly projectile. Ever heard of recoilless rifles? They use gas to counter the recoil of the projectile. Take away the projectile, and you have a recoil gun without a projectile. Everything else can be done with laser targeting. You can even have a computer adjust for ballistic trajectory and wind. Using a lethal gun to shoot at targets for sport is absolutely unnecessary. The reason it is done is because most people who participate in such events already own guns for self defense, and already practice firing them. They keep these guns to be able to kill if needed, and the target sport is just a side effect.

 

Your continued subscription to "assault rifles" and effort at making them out to be vehicles of destruction were not made to encourage your countrymen to arm themselves. It was slander meant to blacken the very concept of firearms by attaching them to the darker possibilities of them.

I don't want to encourage people to arm themselves. People who understand that a tool for killing is sometimes necessary will arm themselves. I'm not sure I want to see people who can't understand such concepts arming themselves. If they prefer to live and think that they will never need a gun, let them. If they get killed somewhere along the line, I wouldn't consider it a big loss.

 

I disagree. You know physics? Compare the ballistics of a rifle round to that of an automobile. It is true that automobiles travel less quickly, but their mass is stupendous by comparison. Furthermore, cars do not have the "assault" attachment and other liberal demonization, which means they're more prevalant as well. You are far more likely to be injured by an automobile than a firearm and anybody unwilling to accept the responsibility in operating an automobile should be held accountable for their actions. Same with a firearm.

They are held accountable. But have you ever tried to use a car to threaten someone? To rob a store with by threatening with a car? I don't think that shooting someone in a hunting accident should be viewed any different than running someone over with a car. However, when you use a gun to rob a store, it is very different. When you use a gun to scare someone, you do not scare them because you have a gun. You scare them because you threaten to use the gun. People aren't afraid of guns. If they knew that a gun is not real, for instance, they would be acting differently. If a person robing a store at a gun point shoots the clerk, it is not an accident, no matter what actually happened inside. A person robing a store, just like a person defending self, with a gun, commits to killing someone if things go a certain way. It should be a conscious decision, and no fatality after it is an accident by any measure.

 

I was very clear in that I was refuting your suggestion that intent is identifiable or is at all applicable. MacGyver has become a slang term commending one's use of an item in a way other than was intended, generally because the misuse was beneficial. I own a gun. I've been in SD situations. I've never killed. My guns have never killed. But they HAVE served their purpose. If you want to know their purpose, the trigger's puprose (intent) is to release the striker. The striker's purpose is to drive the firing pin. The firing pin's purpose is to strike the primer. And so on. If somebody misuses the end result of an object being propelled at even subsonic speeds, their misuse is the item of concern. Not WHAT they misused.

Would you be able to defend yourself if your attackers knew you wouldn't fire the gun? Would you be able to defend yourself if you were unable to kill you attackers? You did not use a gun as a tool. You merely threatened to use it. Gun was never used, and it did not perform its task. Sometimes, it is better that way. Sometimes, you have to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.