Gun Control debate - What the hell is wrong with people???

[max1mike]

 

[The Dude]

Notice she had a handgun - not a dumbed down AK-47.

I would have liked to have seen that

 

[max1mike]

hey bryan. you mentioned you own an "assault weapon". what might that be exactly?

 

[The Dude]

hey bryan. you mentioned you own an "assault weapon". what might that be exactly?

It's a Chinese SKS - it's a cousin to the AK 47. Technically not an assault rifle since you can't attach a magazine of 20+ or more rounds. It only holds 10 rounds. So I'm good to go

But it's disassembled and stored in my sister's garage back in the States (with my other weapons of minor destruction). All I have here is a baseball bat, hammers, and a few knives.

 

[max1mike]

All I have here is a baseball bat, hammers, and a few knives.

no sporks???

serious damage can be inflicted wth a spork in the hands of a trained sporker.

 

[skiny]

I'm just glad nobody got hurt with all the gun fire. There's nothing that says any of those bullets whether it was the robbers or the store owners couldn't have ended up in someone's skull. Even someone walking past the store could have been hit with ammunition from any of those guns.

But like I said before, it's not that difficult to find rare examples of when an armed civilian was helpful but it's just as easy to find examples of when it was detrimental. I use the word rare because there are a lot more murders and accidental shootings than there are civilian heros. When you fire a gun you really have no idea where it's going to stop. Maybe your target, maybe a street post, maybe a baby carriage across the street. It's a dangerous game.

I think she's just lucky with 4 against one, they didn't crouch down and start a shoot out. Specially with the customers still in the store. She was pretty safe shooting through her little hole where she was standing but the customers were probably thinking "WTF?"

I wonder when she came sauntering back if any of them said "Are you retarded? I'm right in the middle of all those people you're shooting at." lol

 

[max1mike]

thats where you're wrong.


its not a good thing that "nobody got hurt with all the gun fire"

5 idiots deserved to get hurt.

amazing they were all badasses till she fired, then they ran just like what they are, bunch of chickenshits, preying on innocent people.

 

[Nifty29]

thats where you're wrong.


its not a good thing that "nobody got hurt with all the gun fire"

5 idiots deserved to get hurt.

amazing they were all badasses till she fired, then they ran just like what they are, bunch of chickenshits, preying on innocent people.

So, just to be clear, if the whole 5 were shot dead, and 2 innocent bystanders were hit/killed, it would be an acceptable loss?

I think you're missing skiny's point.

 

[max1mike]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[max1mike]

but it's just as easy to find examples of when it was detrimental. I use the word rare because there are a lot more murders and accidental shootings than there are civilian heros.

care to share?

 

[Nifty29]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

It's an opinion piece written by an avid pro-gunner.

I don't see any hard facts in there.

He doesn't mention what he means by "defensive gun uses" for a start, and he gives no figures at all regarding bystander casualties. He only mentions them when he says that if some get caught in the "crossfire" then it is all for the greater good.

He is just another "As God is my witness, I'll keep my guns and protect my right to use them.....even if it kills you" type.

 

[skiny]

care to share?

Excerpts from

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The study by Garen Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis School of Medicine and Medical Center, examines mortality rates and other epidemiological aspects of stray-bullet shootings over a one-year period. It is published in the July issue of The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery.

"Stray-bullet shootings alter the nature of life in many American neighborhoods, creating fear and anxiety and prompting parents to keep children indoors and take other precautions,"

most victims of stray bullets were outside the 15-to-34 age range, and nearly half (44.8 percent) were females, the study found. Many of the people shot (40.7 percent) were at home at the time of the incident, and of these, most (68.2 percent) were indoors.

To gather data for the study, Wintemute and his colleagues used Google and Yahoo! news alerting services and the news archives of GunPolicy.org to track stories published between March 2008 and February 2009 that contained the phrase "stray bullet."

Within that framework, the study team identified 284 stray-bullet shootings events, in which 317 people were killed or injured. Most of the people shot (81 percent) were unaware of the events leading to the gunfire that caused their injuries. Of the 65 people who died during the monitoring period, most died on the day they were shot, and many died at the shooting scene.

The shootings were concentrated in big cities, and included scenarios involving violent conflicts (59.2 percent), hunting and other shooting sports (7.4 percent), and unknown activities (22.9 percent). Despite its frequent occurrence, celebratory gunfire related to holidays such as July 4th caused relatively few stray bullet injuries, accounting for less than 5 percent of the cases.

22% of the reported stray bullets are of unknown origin. That in itself is a pretty alarming number in my opinion. I was surprised that nobody knows where almost 1/4 of the stray bullets are coming from. This is the first time I've actually looked for a report on stray bullets but I've mentioned them countless times in this debate. This took about 5 minutes to find and it doesn't state that any of these bullets came from gun owners who are shooting at criminals but it certainly does show dangerous it is to be firing guns outside of a firing range designed to capture any bullets that miss their target. I don't have access to the actual cases but it's very likely that some of these bullets from "violent conflicts" and from "unknown activities" came from gunfire where someone thought he or she was just protecting themselves. This is 248 cases in a single year.

 

[max1mike]

you said :
"it's not that difficult to find rare examples of when an armed civilian was helpful but it's just as easy to find examples of when it was detrimental."


not "stray bullet". stray bullets are flying all over the hood with gangbangers shooting the whole street up.

Any actual instances reported that an armed citizen kills the wrong person??

 

[skiny]

you said :
"it's not that difficult to find rare examples of when an armed civilian was helpful but it's just as easy to find examples of when it was detrimental."


not "stray bullet". stray bullets are flying all over the hood with gangbangers shooting the whole street up.

Any actual instances reported that an armed citizen kills the wrong person??

1999 Gaston County, Anthony Burris shoots at William Sanders in self defense. Stray bullet kills 14 year old Angela Mitchell.

2012 Madison Tenn. Javonte Johnson tries to rob Howard Bridgeforth. Bridgeforth opens fire and at least one stray bullet enters a neighbour's apartment where several children were sitting. No deaths (miracle.)

We can sit and trade stories all day long. I found these two pretty quick and I'm sure you can find some of your own just as quick. The point is not every bullet hits it's target and when it doesn't it has to stop somewhere. The more citizens you have playing the hero with a gun, the more often this is going to happen. That's just the law of averages.

Also, like I said of the first report, a large majority of these stray bullets came from violent conflicts and unknown origin. A store owner or citizen shooting at someone in self defense IS a violent conflict. If you take a shot at someone in your house or on the street for any reason there is no guarantee you won't kill an innocent bystander. Even bullets that hit thier target could pass though them and hit a second unintended target.

 

[max1mike]

1999 Gaston County, Anthony Burris shoots at William Sanders in self defense. Stray bullet kills 14 year old Angela Mitchell.

2012 Madison Tenn. Javonte Johnson tries to rob Howard Bridgeforth. Bridgeforth opens fire and at least one stray bullet enters a neighbour's apartment where several children were sitting. No deaths (miracle.)

We can sit and trade stories all day long. I found these two pretty quick and I'm sure you can find some of your own just as quick. The point is not every bullet hits it's target and when it doesn't it has to stop somewhere. The more citizens you have playing the hero with a gun, the more often this is going to happen. That's just the law of averages.

Also, like I said of the first report, a large majority of these stray bullets came from violent conflicts and unknown origin. A store owner or citizen shooting at someone in self defense IS a violent conflict. If you take a shot at someone in your house or on the street for any reason there is no guarantee you won't kill an innocent bystander. Even bullets that hit thier target could pass though them and hit a second unintended target.

maybe 2 of the weakest examples ever.

where is the "civilian hero" in your examples?

first example, (14 years ago) someone fires in self defense...no "armed civilian hero" there.

2nd example, someone tries to rob someone, and he protects himself (and no "stray bullets" kill anyone).

wtf would be your perfect situation??? rainbows and unicorns and lucky charms shoot out of your ass, and life is just peachy?

dream on, because reality ain't like that.

 

[skiny]

maybe 2 of the weakest examples ever.

Two examples of idiots firing guns with no idea who they might (and in one case did) kill. Only a coward fires off a gun in public. It's a total disregard for anyone's safety but your own.

where is the "civilian hero" in your examples?

I've seen no civilian heros in any examples. I see people shooting off guns and hoping they kill the right target. If I was in the store when that woman started firing her gun in my direction I'd have her charged with wreckless endangerment. I wouldn't accept "Sorry I shot a gun toward you. I was trying to save my necklaces."

first example, (14 years ago) someone fires in self defense...no "armed civilian hero" there.

You can pick and choose who you claim to be a hero if you like but it all boils down to untrained civilians shooting guns in public areas. Sometimes they get lucky and don't hit innocent people. Sometimes they're not so lucky. You're the one saying if someone breaks into your house you'll shoot them. What makes you any different from the guy who's bullets ended up in the next room full of kids?

2nd example, someone tries to rob someone, and he protects himself (and no "stray bullets" kill anyone).

By sheer luck. Please don't tell me the shooter intentionally missed all the kids in the room he couldn't see while he was shooting. Personally I'm thankful he missed. That doesn't make it alright that it happened.

wtf would be your perfect situation???

My perfect situation would be people not shooting guns and hoping they don't kill thier neighbours or some kid a half a mile away in a park.

rainbows and unicorns and lucky charms shoot out of your ass, and life is just peachy?

dream on, because reality ain't like that.

I don't even know what any of that means.

 

[Seventh777]

I can see it from both sides, of which, both make sense in practice. Take a look at what happened in countries that banned fire arms regarding gun crimes the following years, also as stated by a few - Criminals will carry on using guns no matter what, isn't this aspect the whole reason for gun control?, it sure as hell isn't aimed the people who use them for target practice.

A gun toting mugger, rapist, robber's life in general becomes a whole lot easier knowing there's a 100% chance his next victim is gunless.

 

[Nifty29]

I can see it from both sides, of which, both make sense in practice. Take a look at what happened in countries that banned fire arms regarding gun crimes the following years, also as stated by a few - Criminals will carry on using guns no matter what, isn't this aspect the whole reason for gun control?, it sure as hell isn't aimed the people who use them for target practice.

A gun toting mugger, rapist, robber's life in general becomes a whole lot easier knowing there's a 100% chance his next victim is gunless.

In Australia, the gun homicides/ crimes decreased. It is hard to get guns here. I know of only one person amongst my friends and relatives (I have 60+ in my family) that has a firearm, and it is a single shot rifle for kangaroo/rabbit hunting, and it is kept on his mate's farm in a locked cabinet.

I can also tell you that I've never been afraid of being shot, and I don't know of anyone else who has, nor do I personally know anyone who has been shot or been close to anyone who has. I wonder how many Americans can say that?

Guns just aren't part of our culture at all, apart from hunting in the bush.....and guess what? We hardly have any gun crime. Do I think that is a coincidence? Hell no.

Max1mike....I'm not sure what the rainbows and anuses comment was for, but it wasn't cool considering that skiny has debated you and others without resorting to stuff like that.

The US gun crime rate is rising as gun ownership rises. The solution some here propose? More guns. Right. It will make people safer by increasing the crime rate. When the idea that decreasing the guns might reduce the deaths is suggested, it is seized upon and turned into an argument about rights, which is why the crime rate will keep rising.

The thinking seems to be "there are more guns and gun crime, so we need more guns to protect ourselves from it". Its a sad attitude that has created a vicious circle where more guns breeds even more guns, to a point where schoolkids will need to take guns to school in their lunchbox to "protect themselves" against people like Adam Lanza. Armed guards in schools is being floated right now.....which means the next generation of mass killers will make sure they have some really nasty stuff and take out the guards first from a distance. Its not going to stop it happening.

 

[Seventh777]

In Australia, the gun homicides/ crimes decreased. It is hard to get guns here. I know of only one person amongst my friends and relatives (I have 60+ in my family) that has a firearm, and it is a single shot rifle for kangaroo/rabbit hunting, and it is kept on his mate's farm in a locked cabinet.

I can also tell you that I've never been afraid of being shot, and I don't know of anyone else who has, nor do I personally know anyone who has been shot or been close to anyone who has. I wonder how many Americans can say that?

Guns just aren't part of our culture at all, apart from hunting in the bush.....and guess what? We hardly have any gun crime. Do I think that is a coincidence? Hell no.

I hear what you're saying bud, we would all love a peaceful none violent world to live in. I looked before I made that post at two countries that banned firearms yours and mine and the statistics pointed to this....

After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called assault weapons or military-type firearms, but also 22-caliber rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, according to an association representative.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

* Assaults are up 8.6 percent.

* Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.

* In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.

* In the 25 years before the gun ban, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.

* There has been a reported dramatic increase in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

And this.......

New data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent.

The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offence's, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.

"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offenses.

"The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either.

"The figures will continue to be dreadful until the Government produces a coherent long term strategy to attack crime at its roots and get police visibly back on our streets."

Gun crime would not be cracked until gangs were broken up and the streets "reclaimed for the honest citizen by proper neighborhood policing", he added.

Both of these statistics can be thoroughly checked by using google, I just picked two random ones that have figures / percentages. Pay close attention to the dramatic increase in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

 

[Nifty29]

I hear what you're saying bud, we would all love a peaceful none violent world to live in. I looked before I made that post at two countries that banned firearms yours and mine and the statistics pointed to this....



And this.......



Both of these statistics can be thoroughly checked by using google, I just picked two random ones that have figures / percentages. Pay close attention to the dramatic increase in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You're only looking at the raw statistics, which is incredibly misleading, as it ignores a crucial factor....population growth.

The fact is, that we are 50% less likely to be injured in a gun crime since the gun amnesty and buyback scheme. In addition, there has been NO mass shooting incidents either.

The link I gave earlier in the thread shows that all vital stats regarding gun homicide have FALLEN.

 

[GrandMaster]

Using guns for educational purposes:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[max1mike]

 

[max1mike]

'nuff said.

 

[max1mike]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Nifty29]

'nuff said.

You forgot to add:

3) Hope that the invader doesn't have a better gun or aim than you

Why do you think that so many home invasions over there involve a firearm, compared to say Australia?

I'll tell you.....because so many households have a gun/s...so the crooks have to come in heavy to even the odds. It is more likely that you will be killed in such a situation, especially if (because you have a firearm) the crook decides to pop you before you even see him.

YOu also have the issue of using firearms in a constricted space....you could end up killing one of your loved ones via ricochet.

You can spruik the wonders and social benefits of having guns until the cows come home....the basic fact is that having millions of private citizens armed IS NOT WORKING. Crime is INCREASING according to every statistic I have seen, and MORE people are being slain in mass killings and shootings sparked by a minor argument that got out of control, and someone reached for their gun...if it wasn't there, they couldn't reach for it.

I've has a skim back at this thread the past few days, and it appears the main reason, in fact the ONLY reason in some cases, that gun supporters want to keep their guns is because "it's their right under the constitution". I hardly see "because I'm afraid for my life", or "I'm not safe in my home" or "it will mean a safer society" ,etc ,etc.....just a whole lot of stuff about "rights".

Protecting one's rights, when it is clear those "rights" are part of the reason why the USA is crumbling, is an incredibly selfish act and shows a callous disregard for the lives of others.

(As an aside...I love some of the "well the military and the cops have guns so we should too" statements. Well, in that case, let's allow citizens own nukes, and claymores, and fuel-air bombs. It might sound silly, but if this escalation of the potency of firearms owned by citizens continues, it won't be long before bombing the next door neighbour is a first line solution).

 

[Balthazar]

You forgot to add:

3) Hope that the invader doesn't have a better gun or aim than you

If you are adequately armed and you know how to shoot, it doesn't really matter of he has a "better gun" (whatever that means).

YOu also have the issue of using firearms in a constricted space....you could end up killing one of your loved ones via ricochet.

What if the police does it? Is it less dangerous? I've shot guns way more often than 99% of the policemen around here. I know quite a lot about ricochet, crossfire, wall penetration, calibers and types of bullets. Do you think that they more qualified than I am?

More importantly, why would government employees have to right to defend my life but I wouldn't? That's a complete nonsense.

 

[Pinababy69]

Dead children outweigh anyone's right to carry a gun PERIOD!

I couldn't have said it better myself Jelsmith...and glad to see you back!!

the "average criminal" who tried to rip my 83 year old moms purse off her arm surely must have thought she had a shitstack of cash. no. she was an easy target. personally, I refuse to be one.

I'm sorry that happened to your mom Mike...I absolutely loathe anyone who preys on the elderly, children, the infirm or the disabled in any way. But, that being said...do you believe that a purse snatcher deserves to be shot? I just wanted to clarify exactly what you were trying to say. While I certainly believe that anyone who does that type of thing is scum...and if I had a chance, I'd beat the shit out of him....but shoot him? All I can say is...WOW!! No wonder we are miles apart on this issue. I'm afraid I'd give up my purse and let him get away, before I'd pull out my Glock and pop a cap in him.

As for the big story about the cavalry riding in and shooting up a bunch of Indians, that's a nice take on a historical event but realistically it's meaningless in a gun control debate. I challenge anyone to explain to me how they can possibly protect themselves from the US. military with a gun they bought at Wal-Mart. Forming a militia against the US military is not only pointless but silly. Just apply a little logic to what's being suggested. There is no way any private militia group is going to arm itself against the biggest, most well funded military on the planet. If this is the reason you're fighting against gun control you're wasting your time.

This is exactly the point I tried making much earlier in the thread...that the Second Amendment was written/meant to defend againt tyranny by government or whatever. And if you think that you stand a chance against the US military with their tanks, missiles, and all other sundry weapons...well, good luck with that.

In all seriousness, for the US members who hold this amendment sacred...what is it that you think your government is going to do exactly? Send stormtroopers into homes and round everyone up and put them into camps? Or??? I'm not sure I totally understand what you feel you need to protect yourselves against. I get that government is corrupt...that's universal, not just the US. But what are the US government going to do with 300 million people..exterminate all of you?

Sorry annie, but I beg to differ.

It's pretty obvious that she did not mean that at all....otherwise she would have said it in the first place, instead of having a dummy spit and yelling "close it down!". IMO it's backtracking because she was called out on it...but to each their own, and you opinion is one I respect.

(Disclaimer...I have justplay on ignore so unless someone replied with quote I may have missed something)

Nifty, I really like you and I love your posts...but what is a dummy spit? It sure doesn't sound too nice. I think that JustPlay is taking this very personal...I wish she wouldn't, because honestly, it's not meant as an "attack" on the US, or its citizens I'm sure. But I do think you're getting a bit personal also. Just my one and a half cents worth.

 

[Balthazar]

Dead children outweigh anyone's right to carry a gun

I couldn't have said it better myself Jelsmith

But drowned children doesn't outweigh your right to own a swimming pool, right?

 

[Pinababy69]

But drowned children doesn't outweigh your right to own a swimming pool, right?

That just doesn't even make sense Balthazar. When is the last time that twenty children drowned in a backyard swimming pool? And you're talking about the difference between "possible" accidental drownings, and malicious intent with a deadly weapon.

 

[Balthazar]

That just doesn't even make sense Balthazar. When is the last time that twenty children drowned in a backyard swimming pool? And you're talking about the difference between "possible" accidental drownings, and malicious intent with a deadly weapon.

Swimming pools are far more dangerous for children than firearms, and that's a statistic. In fact, if you own both a gun and a swimming pool, the pool is 30 times more likely to kill your child than the gun.

Source (various sources inside):

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The gun is also 100% more likely to save your life (and the rest of your family's) than your swimming pool.

Which one you want to ban again?

 

[Nifty29]

Pina....ty for the compliment

Over here, someone who "spits the dummy" has basically thrown a tantrum or "cracked the sh*ts".

Its not actually an insult at all, but rather a description of someone getting "riled up" etc.

It comes from what little kids do when they don't get their own way. A dummy is what you might call a pacifier, and when a child throws a tantrum etc in their high chair etc, and you you put the dummy in their mouth to calm them, they spit it out and holler louder. Hence.....a "dummy spit".

Its absolutely not a personal insult or derogatory term.

I received a rap on the knuckles for saying it, and I couldn't work out why anyone would find it offensive. Now I realize it is a cultural/language thing.

Back to the issue.....more and more people in the US have guns, and more and more innocent citizens die in almost direct proportion. Considering the US prides itself on being the smartest country in the world, it is amazing that the majority of americans haven't said "hmmmm.....more guns = more deaths huh.......so less guns = less deaths....AH HAH! Lets get guns off the streets and out of homes." Rather, the solution put forward by most here is "more guns!! More guns!! It makes us safer!!......and its our right dammit!!"

In the meantime, innocent children and others continue to die unnecessarily, just so that their countrymen can have their "right". I can understand military people giving their lives to uphold and protect the rights of others, and law enforcement. I don't understand why innocent civilians should give up their life so that Bubba can have his garageful of guns. Its what it boils down to if the pro-gunners want more guns, as we already know it means more deaths.....they're prepared to sacrifice someone else's life for their own needs.

I wonder if they would feel different if their own loved one/s were killed accidentally or by being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Its so easy to make a stand for your own selfish reasons when someone you don't know pays the price.

 

[Balthazar]

Back to the issue.....more and more people in the US have guns, and more and more innocent citizens die in almost direct proportion. Considering the US prides itself on being the smartest country in the world, it is amazing that the majority of americans haven't said "hmmmm.....more guns = more deaths huh.......so less guns = less deaths....AH HAH! Lets get guns off the streets and out of homes." Rather, the solution put forward by most here is "more guns!! More guns!! It makes us safer!!......and its our right dammit!!"

In the meantime, innocent children and others continue to die unnecessarily, just so that their countrymen can have their "right". I can understand military people giving their lives to uphold and protect the rights of others, and law enforcement. I don't understand why innocent civilians should give up their life so that Bubba can have his garageful of guns. Its what it boils down to if the pro-gunners want more guns, as we already know it means more deaths.....they're prepared to sacrifice someone else's life for their own needs.

I wonder if they would feel different if their own loved one/s were killed accidentally or by being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Its so easy to make a stand for your own selfish reasons when someone you don't know pays the price.

Defending your life is selfish now? Bubba garageful of guns?

I really wish you'll experience freedom one day, Nifty. I really do. How it feels to ride a motorcycle with no helmet, or how it feels to shoot your gun in your backyard. How it feels to have your life in your own hands. You need to experience it to understand it.

Sure, freedom isn't risk-free. But it's well worth it.

 

[Nifty29]

Defending your life is selfish now? Bubba garageful of guns?

I really wish you'll experience freedom one day, Nifty. I really do. How it feels to ride a motorcycle with no helmet, or how it feels to shoot your gun in your backyard. How it feels to have your life in your own hands. You need to experience it to understand it.

Sure, freedom isn't risk-free. But it's well worth it.

Depends who is taking the risk.

Riding a motorcycle without a helmet isn't "freedom". Its stupid, and illegal here at least. If you have an accident, you are far more likely to die. So what if your loved ones are devastated, or the police and ambos who attend are traumatized from having to deal with your brains all over the road? Or passing motorists and pedestrians?

You see, true and complete freedom cannot exist in any kind of ordered society, because almost all decisions we make affect other people in some way. You obviously think firing a gun in your backyard is cool. Maybe it is. If you can 100% control every bullet 100% of the time in that backyard.....then I guess it is not dangerous. I'm sure the many people who have been shot/killed by bullets fired by people being "cool" and having fun don't look at things the same way. However, citizens are entitled to peaceful enjoyment over here, and having someone (who obviously hasn't heard of the bush/wild or a firing range) playing Rambo in their backyard is very much an intrusion on that right.

I don't oppose gun ownership outright. I believe they have their place...and the home, near children and near other's homes isn't one of them. Just like smoking......smoke til you drop I say....just don't blow it anywhere near me, as I choose not to smoke and don't appreciate being forced to by some other selfish ads. If someone wants to pretend they're Arnie, then its ok by me, so long as it is at a shooting range/gun club or hunting with the proper precautions I.e. away from me and others who choose not to associate themselves with firearms.

Personally, I think men who play with guns have grave concerns over their physical endowment, and need something powerful to assuage them. The more the guns, and the bigger those guns, the more concern they have.

 

[immortality]

I have just came across this

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

In all fairness, it doesn't matter where you live, there will always be some who do inconceivable acts towards others, but when there is an element of psychiatric medication being prescribed to certain individuals, it does make you wonder if it was the 'drug' that caused their behavior in the first place.

I first hand have witnessed how some of these drugs effect people, one of which terrified the life outta me, a close relative was prescribed this 'drug'. But I can elaborate no more on this as it is personal.

 

[just play]

I have just came across this

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

In all fairness, it doesn't matter where you live, there will always be some who do inconceivable acts towards others, but when there is an element of psychiatric medication being prescribed to certain individuals, it does make you wonder if it was the 'drug' that caused their behavior in the first place.

I first hand have witnessed how some of these drugs effect people, one of which terrified the life outta me, a close relative was prescribed this 'drug'. But I can elaborate no more on this as it is personal.

These drugs are not supposed to be for children! I only see a few names that are over 18. Who puts a 10-15 year old on Zoloft, paxil, etc???? SSRI's are scary, scary, scary. Benzos are better in my opinion. (for certain people)

I have a family member who quit smoking after 50 years, cold turkey. He had horrible side effects from this, couldn't sleep was his biggest complaint. He went to the doctor who put him on one of these drugs!!! HELLO, HE COULDN'T SLEEP!!!

I took myself off Zoloft, the first 6 weeks were the worst, (it induced my panic attacks) then it worked for a few years, then the last few years I didn't like how it made me feel. (I won't go into anymore detail)

Scary shit.


(add...I just wanted to add, these drugs do infact work for some people, I know many people who live a better life because of them. I didn't want people to think I was trashing on them, if it works for them.)

 

[immortality]

True Justplay but there are a great number of psychiatric drugs, while some work (to the ill health of the patient, because they create a chemical imbalance within the body, which is why so many are over weight which are on them).

 

[max1mike]

URL Not Found / Outdated

 

[Nifty29]

As skiny has asked many times.......where are the solutions/alternatives?

The status quo isn't working. Increases in gun ownership have produced increases in death and gun crime, so those saying "give us more guns" are really saying "we want more people to die or get injured".

So, apart from the obviously silly solution I just mentioned, what does the USA need to do to stop these firearm tragedies?

Nobody from the "we love guns they're awesome" side has offered anything up to now, which either means they want to keep their guns and their "right" regardless of how many people die, or they just don't care full stop.

I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, but all I'm seeing is pro-gun propaganda links and posters.

 

[incrediblestuff]

i have read some posts in this thread, but i won't read all, i hope you will still respect my answer for what it is, even if it was already posted:

Only distribute non lethal weapons/ammo, stun guns, rubber bullets or any other material that will stop but not kill.
We have advanced technology, we could come up with those solutions that would never kill (intelligent bullets even, nano technology is also scary in that way, but offers some interesting perspectives)

However, i personally think its unrealistic, since weapon manufacturers and warlords are such powerful entities, they would in my eyes not likely be open to it, and as such easily oppress any serious movement towards such a "revolutionary" idea.

 

[max1mike]

i have read some posts in this thread, but i won't read all, i hope you will still respect my answer for what it is, even if it was already posted:

Only distribute non lethal weapons/ammo, stun guns, rubber bullets or any other material that will stop but not kill.
We have advanced technology, we could come up with those solutions that would never kill (intelligent bullets even, nano technology is also scary in that way, but offers some interesting perspectives)

However, i personally think its unrealistic, since weapon manufacturers and warlords are such powerful entities, they would in my eyes not likely be open to it, and as such easily oppress any serious movement towards such a "revolutionary" idea.

great plan, except for the billions of rounds of lethal ammo in circulation already.

criminals will ALWAYS have guns, while law biding citizens will turn their weapons over if ordered to do so.

laws prohibiting gun ownership, or magazine capacity aren't ever going to do shit.

ghetto society needs to put some value on life.

"life" means NOTHING to these fools. whether it means ending someones life, or spending the rest of their life in prison...they just don't give a shit anymore

taking a weapon out of the hands of a law abiding citizen never makes the situation better.

there is no solution nifty. people are going to kill each other every day, all over the world, whether its with a gun, or a knife, or a pizza cutter.

we are doomed. I'm glad I'm older, but I fear for my grandkids future.

 

[incrediblestuff]

great plan, except for the billions of rounds of lethal ammo in circulation already.

criminals will ALWAYS have guns, while law biding citizens will turn their weapons over if ordered to do so.

laws prohibiting gun ownership, or magazine capacity aren't ever going to do shit.

ghetto society needs to put some value on life.

"life" means NOTHING to these fools. whether it means ending someones life, or spending the rest of their life in prison...they just don't give a shit anymore

taking a weapon out of the hands of a law abiding citizen never makes the situation better.

there is no solution nifty. people are going to kill each other every day, all over the world, whether its with a gun, or a knife, or a pizza cutter.

we are doomed. I'm glad I'm older, but I fear for my grandkids future.

Cheers

One has to start somewhere, i know there is a shitload of guns and ammo out there, but i have this envisioned in my head, and know, it could work, however the sheer amount of obstacles one would have to overcome, and the global acceptance of such a endeavor, would require mankind to work as a unity, which in itself is almost impossible.

For the same reason the majority is still transporting themselves, or being transported in highly polluting vehicles, whilst we had the technology for totally green cars back in 1918 iirc. (yes, one of the first cars made even, i think it was Henry Ford)
There's too much capital, industry and politics involved. factories closed, jobs lost, shares and stocks-crashes and whatnot, you get the picture...
There's so much to say and yet so little.

I have given up on such issues a long time ago, not that i don't think about it subconsciously, but i won't allow myself to be driven crazy
from frustration and/or disbelief.
I do curse myself for that lack of power once in a while, but i cannot walk over dead bodies, and i just hope for that one person to stand up and lead the herd, once every so many years one that speaks with great inspiration and power to convince does come along, just pray it's not a Hitler but a Gandhi

I think i will run away from this thread again now ^^

 

[skiny]

This has been a long and difficult thread. Gun control isn't an easy thing to debate because we're not agreeing or disagreeing on a single fact. The opinions vary from one extreme to the other and pretty much everywhere in between. I am reading that some people think nobody should own guns and some people think everyone should. Personally, I think there are very rare and extreme circumstances that would warrant one civilian shooting another but some people seem to think anyone who crosses your path is fair game. There is the right to bear arms argument, whether people think they retain that right to protect themselves from intruders, muggers or the government, some people still feel that they're losing liberty and freedom. And of course the argument that people die in many different ways and we can't ban everything that might kill someone but again I say these are all extremes. I've spent a lot of years debating a lot of different topics and I know that finding the most extreme cases and examples is the best way to get your point across but we just don't live in a world of extremes. We live in a big grey area where what is right for some people is usually not right for others. We live in a world were the best we can usually do is find a happy medium and even then not everyone is going to be happy. So we have to decide what is best for the majority and try to allow a little leeway for the rest.

It's no mistake that I keep using the term "gun control" because in a civilized society we need control. People think they live in a free society but the reality is the more civilized a society is the less freedoms people have. It's a trade off because everyone's freedoms to some extent tread on the freedoms of others. People want freedom of religion but you can't be free to practice it where other people want freedom from religion. People want freedom of speech but total freedom would inevitably take from another's freedom from hate and oppression. A civilized society requires a certain amount of control. We control the speed limits on the roads for the safety of everyone who uses them. We control who is allowed to construct buildings and dictate exactly how they can be built. We limit the amount of people inside public or commercial buildings. We tell people when they can light camp fires or burn brush and when they can't. We tell people when they can hunt and when they can fish and what courses they have to pass if they want to practice law or medicine and this list goes on literally forever. The reality is we are not free and we are all far better off because of it. A civilization where people are totally free would be barbaric.

The question every society needs to ask itself is what needs to be controlled and how much control does it require to maintain a safe and secure environment. And when these questions are asked, bringing forward the most extreme possible response is rarely helpful. So when we come back to the topic of gun control we have one undeniable fact to contend with and that is people are dying as a result of citizens owning firearms. Yes, some times it's self defense and sometimes it's accidental and sometimes it's just cold blooded murder but it IS happening. I would say to people who think guns should simply be banned that we can't just expect people to stop hunting or gun collectors to stop collecting. Shooting ranges are a safe place for people to use guns for sport and I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being shot at a shooting range. At the same time I would say to those First Amendment protectionists and gun freedom activists that they need to take a serious look at what they think they're protecting themselves from and ask themselves exactly what they require to do it. If these people are as good with a gun as they say they are then one or two bullets from a small hand gun should be more than enough to stop some kid from stealing their stereo. A semi-automatic weapon capable of emptying 15 rounds faster than the kid can say "Wait, this isn't a gun, it's a flashlight!" just shouldn't be necessary.

I know this was a little long but I'll end it with a couple of points and a simple question. Banning all firearms is obviously going to start a revolt and not only be unfair to a lot of people who own guns for a variety of safe and non threatening reasons but also be completely impossible to enforce. At the same time, things seem to be getting progressively worse and I see no reason to believe that doing nothing isn't going to keep things moving down the same path. So the question still remains, if gun control isn't the solution, what exactly is?

 

[max1mike]

PEOPLE!!!!

people are the solution!!! dammit!!!

when humans start to value human life for what its worth, and realize that its not some disposable commidity that can be disposed of.

my gun isn't going to kill anyone any more that the knife you use to cook dinner with....unless it has to.

wtf is so hard to understand here?

does anyone really think that if guns are illegal in America, and all the law abiding citizens turn them in, that the criminals will turn theirs in too??? really?

why is it that switzerland has such low gun crime rates??? maybe because everyone has a gun? (and that really kick ass knife/ corkscrew combo)

 

[skiny]

PEOPLE!!!!

people are the solution!!! dammit!!!

when humans start to value human life for what its worth, and realize that its not some disposable commidity that can be disposed of.

my gun isn't going to kill anyone any more that the knife you use to cook dinner with....unless it has to.

wtf is so hard to understand here?

does anyone really think that if guns are illegal in America, and all the law abiding citizens turn them in, that the criminals will turn theirs in too??? really?

why is it that switzerland has such low gun crime rates??? maybe because everyone has a gun? (and that really kick ass knife/ corkscrew combo)

Your solution is to wait?

 

[Balthazar]

A quick, clear message to those who still don't understand:

Gun control is all about control. I'm a fully grown, responsible person. I'm not a threat to others and neither are my guns.

I refuse to have other human beings "control" me when I do no harm to anyone. This philosophy applies to guns and everything else. I'm not an ant that must sacrifice itself for the well being of the colony.

I'm a free man and I want it to stay that way. The end.

 

[max1mike]

Your solution is to wait?

yeah. I'm gonna wait...

until the price of ammo drops back to pre-newtown levels before buying more.

 

[skiny]

A quick, clear message to those who still don't understand:

Gun control is all about control. I'm a fully grown, responsible person. I'm not a threat to others and neither are my guns.

I refuse to have other human beings "control" me when I do no harm to anyone. This philosophy applies to guns and everything else. I'm not an ant that must sacrifice itself for the well being of the colony.

I'm a free man and I want it to stay that way. The end.

You're living in a fantasy.

yeah. I'm gonna wait...

until the price of ammo drops back to pre-newtown levels before buying more.

You either don't want anything to change or you don't want to admit you have no solution.

 

[Balthazar]

You're living in a fantasy.

You know that our country is now completely hopeless when fellow citizens see freedom as "fantasy", and he's probably right. We're becoming the next UK/Australia/Europe.

See that shit USA? Stay strong or you're next in line. Soon your life will (literally) depend on your government. If you want to reduce gun crimes, start by stopping the useless war on drugs and put all those resources into dismantling gangs. That's where 90%+ of your gun crimes come from.

 

[skiny]

You know that our country is now completely hopeless when fellow citizens see freedom as "fantasy", and he's probably right. We're becoming the next UK/Australia/Europe.

See that shit USA? Stay strong or you're next in line. Soon your life will (literally) depend on your government. If you want to reduce gun crimes, start by stopping the useless war on drugs and put all those resources into dismantling gangs. That's where 90%+ of your gun crimes come from.

Freedom in a civilized society is a fantasy. If you want freedom you need to find yourself a small private island somewhere and live there alone. When millions of people reside on the same small patch of land the best we can hope for is freedom from everyone else's garbage and stupidity. The only way that is going to happen is to control what people are allowed to do.

What exactly do you think you're "free" to do? The minute you leave your house you have to follow so many rules I can't even be bothered to list them. Some are laws, some are just socially accepted but they are rules. Even in your own house you have to follow rules. Fire regulations, noise bylaws. Try not cutting your lawn for a few months. In some cities they'll send you a notice and tell you to cut it. There is virtually nothing we can do without having to follow some sort of rules and before people start crying about the government, the police and the powers that be - those rules exist because the general population wants them. Nobody wants to live in anarchy. Nobody wants to put up with their neighbour's noise and garbage. Nobody wants to get killed by some nut case on the highway. Nobody wants to get burned alive because there were no fire regulations.

The more dense the population the greater the need for everyone to follow rules. I just can't figure out why people think there should be rules for everything from garbage disposal to fire safety but guns should be exempt. People don't want their neighbour's noise coming over the fence but it's ok for their bullets to be coming through it. It really boggles my mind.

 

[Nifty29]

You know that our country is now completely hopeless when fellow citizens see freedom as "fantasy", and he's probably right. We're becoming the next UK/Australia/Europe.

See that shit USA? Stay strong or you're next in line. Soon your life will (literally) depend on your government. If you want to reduce gun crimes, start by stopping the useless war on drugs and put all those resources into dismantling gangs. That's where 90%+ of your gun crimes come from.

I agree with the drugs comment. Legalize them and addicts won't have to attack people or rob houses for money to pay the exorbitant prices, and the cartels will be dead with the stroke of a pen. If people want to kill themselves taking drugs, then let them. Yes, addicts are "sick", but they made a choice at some point to start using, knowing full well the the risks involved.

Anyway, I digress.

What do you mean by "the next UK/Australia"? You mean the next "it is safe to walk the streets country" or the "far less likely to be shot dead country"? I hope the USA does become like us. Nobody here gives a toss about guns....unless they are a sporting shooter or farmer or law enforcement. We don't need guns for "protection", the only people that get shot for the most part are criminals anyway, who associate with other gun-toting criminals. The general public doesn't need them. The reason every man and his dog has one in the USA is because every other man and his dog has one. Guns breed guns. The more Mr Kafoops has next door, or the more Joe Bloggs up the street has, the more you have to have....it has become "keep up with the Jones'" in the same vein as cars, BBQs, swimming pools, LCD TVs etc. I can tell you that if someone mentioned in conversation over here "Man you should see the cool pistol I just bought", the general reply would be "You're a tool". In the USA, I'll bet there would be high-fiving and drinks all 'round.....and that's the difference.

Skiny is spot on with the freedom thing, so I won't go on too much.

I find the people who are passionate about "freedom" are usually that way because someone is telling them they can't have what they want....in other words, they want the "freedom" to do whatever THEY like, but are happy for others to be prevented from doing what OTHERS like. For instance, would Balthazar be OK with someone killing his family, if the killer "liked to kill people", and felt that he should be free to do so? How about if a family turned up at your door and said "We are going to set up a house in your frontyard, as we believe we have the right to live wherever we want". Or, someone took your car, stating "we don't believe in ownership and we feel we have the right to use this vehicle to get where we want".

See, you cannot have "freedom" in a civilized society. You just cannot.

Again, I see the reasons given by pro-gunners is all about me me me and "my rights".....so much so, they it appears they have lost sight of why they even want a gun in the first place. Who cares if more and more innocent people die? As long as it isn't you, right?

I love the Switzerland example. If you read it up carefully, you will see that it is a CULTURE over there, and has been for hundreds of years, as a necessary measure to protect themselves from foreign invasion. It stopped the Nazis going in, that's for sure. The reason the gun crime rate is so low is because people are educated in responsible gun ownership and use from the time they can walk. It's not about protecting themselves from druggos or criminals, or even foreign invasion these days, it is a TRADITION handed down through the generations. No such tradition of responsibility exists in the USA. Any citizen can own a gun pretty much, but mostly have no responsibility or guidance in it's use, apart from shooting anything on their property that moves and hope it isn't your neighbor looking for their cat.

You only have to look at max1mikes last comment about getting more ammo to see what the real problem is in the USA, and it might even be too late to fix it just by removing most of the guns. The attitude towards others and what's right for the country needs to change, but whilst there are gun-toting rednecks and uneducated ferals running around with armfuls of pistols and rifles, I just don't see that happening.

There was a time when the rest of the world looked at the USA and thought "Wow they have things so good. We want to be like them". Geez, even the Soviets did! Now, the rest of the world looks at them and thinks "Geez I hope we don't end up like them over here". Whilst the US might not be learning anything from all the death and destruction, other people of the world, thankfully, are beginning to.