Guns

[niky]

Sometimes it's bad form to return fire in a crowd when a well placed kick to the pods will do the trick.

True. You'll note that in every assassination attempt on a President, the Secret Service don't actually shoot back at the assailant, as he's usually surrounded by innocent bystanders.

Unless a person is specially trained for these kinds of situations of high stress and danger, the #1 recommendation among public safety authorities is to flee the scene as quickly as you can.

There's that, too.

 

[jswilli1]

One of the Gentleman who helped take down the gunman was carrying concealed, he had a 9mm semi-auto. Here is the Link where they interviewed him.

 

[Keef]

Yeah that does confuse me about the incident. The guy was wrestled to the ground. There was no-one armed in the vacinity?

Private establishments such as the mall are allowed to post signs stating that there are no guns allowed inside the building. Of course, a concealed gun is concealed, and nobody has to know about, and one can only assume that people have broken that rule before, but is it worth the risk of accidentally flopping your coat open to reveal your shoulder holster?

A person carrying who might have shot and killed the guy in self defense may have been acquitted on those charges, but probably would have been prosecuted for violating the rules of the private establishment.

Also, there's the inherent danger of whipping a gun out for any reason at all in public like that. What happens when other people see it? Will they panic and sue you for disturbing the peace? Will they run across your line of fire? What happens if you accidentally kill an innocent person? What happens if one of them thinks you are the bad guy and tackles you to the floor? What would happen if you shot him in what would seem like self defense? What if there was a police officer walking down the other side of the isle and saw two guys aiming guns at each other?

If your opponent seems pretty sane and will give in to diplomacy, it's probably a better idea to not pull your gun and just give him your wallet to avoid confrontation. It's already a pretty bad situation - he's pointing a gun at you - and pulling your own might convince him to pull the trigger. Then again, he might run away.

Ugh. The red tape involved in using your right to self defense is a nightmare, but I suppose it's better than being killed.

 

[orimarc]

At least half the reason that the "right to keep and bear arms" is in our Constitution is so that citizens will be able to put up armed resistance to a totalitarian government, should one come to power.

That sounds old. Wouldn't a totalitarian government have the power over the army? I mean, regular people with licensed guns vs. the freakin' Army of the U.S of A. (unless there's a massive revolutionary movement with lots of anti-dictatorship, military-related people)

 

[Dotini]

That sounds old. Wouldn't a totalitarian government have the power over the army? I mean, regular people with licensed guns vs. the freakin' Army of the U.S of A. (unless there's a massive revolutionary movement with lots of anti-dictatorship, military-related people)

Yes, guns are laughably old tech. If we are to take down a totalitarian government, we'll need up-to-date weapons like IED's and RPG's.

 

[ledhed]

Even a well trained police officer would not have been able to prevent the guy from shooting atleast his first three targets--the benifit of the police --would have been in the detterent factor --along with being able to observe odd behavior..but once this guy ( judging fron TV reproduction of incident ) was at front of the line and drew his weapon , -- its reaction time from that point on and then you need identify the shooter --decide if you have a clear shot at the shooter --or can you manuver to one --while you are doing this he is pumpming rounds into targets....

Unfortunately --the congresswomen would have needed security present --one or two in crowd and around it and one with her at minimum . and even at that --as jack ruby and Hinckly proved ... If you REALLY want to shoot someone --they get shot.

I doubt the Crongresswomen will want to have screening for weapons and be in an enclosed area surrounded by security--it defeats her purpose to be like the peiople she represents..

We all take a risk a nut for an unknown reason may harm us --public figures are at a much higher risk.

I can't see how we change things ..look to the past and Bobby Kennedy --Wallace --the POPE ....just random kids hanging on the wrong corner.

There is no one conme forward to say the gfuy acted odd until he shot --by then its too late .
sure DEPENDING on circumstances and luck --armed response may have limited the amount of victims ..but we can't be certain ..in the interveiw qouted --the guy carrying the nine said he saw the firerm of the shooter locked back ( this indicates magazine is empty ) --later he learned that wasnt the shooter --it was a guy who disarmed him .
The man could have been shot for disarming the assasin if the person with carry permit didn't see the situation did not call for lethal force --one you bring a weapon into a situation you have joined or created a situation where lethal force is involved ..all persons who carry concealed or openly are very aware of this burden --or responsibility , depending on your point view.

 

[OG_Wretch]

That sounds old. Wouldn't a totalitarian government have the power over the army? I mean, regular people with licensed guns vs. the freakin' Army of the U.S of A. (unless there's a massive revolutionary movement with lots of anti-dictatorship, military-related people)

That sounds very progressive minded.
The vast majority of US citizens are anti-dictatorship and I would venture to guess a good many of them to be ex and even current military.

No way the military I served in would back up a dictator.

 

[Azuremen]

That sounds old. Wouldn't a totalitarian government have the power over the army? I mean, regular people with licensed guns vs. the freakin' Army of the U.S of A. (unless there's a massive revolutionary movement with lots of anti-dictatorship, military-related people)

The army isn't going to blindly follow orders if it is clear they are fighting against other Americans. More so seeing that many in the armed services are extremely American, and America means freedom, so there would certainly be some issues getting the military to support a dictatorship. And more so to engage in combat with American citizens.

 

[Dapper]

Yes, guns are laughably old tech. If we are to take down a totalitarian government, we'll need up-to-date weapons like IED's and RPG's.

Are we going to be fighting the Taliban?

 

[Dotini]

Are we going to be fighting the Taliban?

We've been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan for 9 years.

These folk are very poorly trained and equipped. Yet they've fought off the Soviets and and are now holding us in a bloody and costly stalemate. It behooves us to examine how they do this. When fighting a superior army in an insurgent or guerrilla campaign on home turf, it seems they combine simple weapons like AK-47's, IED's and RPG's with a lot of gumption, and get respectable results. That would be a salutary lesson for any populace engaged in a similar campaign.

Respectfully submitted, eager for correction,
Dotini

 

[gary31]

easiest way to aviod incidents like this is to stop the guns getting to the hands of crazies/criminals. if guns are not used by criminals then they are not needed for 'protection'.

i do not see a reason why any one needs to have semi-Automatic weapons or handguns.

 

[OG_Wretch]

The best the the Afgans/Taliban have going for them is the surrounding terrain.

That is what protects the fighetrs.

JFTR, it's hardly a stalemate we are at.

The chokechain is on the Allied Forces for reasons of keeping relations up.

 

[OG_Wretch]

easiest way to aviod incidents like this is to stop the guns getting to the hands of crazies/criminals. if guns are not used by criminals then they are not needed for 'protection'.

i do not see a reason why any one needs to have semi-Automatic weapons or handguns.

Criminals and crazies will always find a way to have guns just like they always have and do.

The difference between semi-automatic and a bolt action rifle is fractions of a second in the right or wrong hands.

The guns are here and always will be for the foreseeable future.

 

[gary31]

Criminals and crazies will always find a way to have guns just like they always have and do.

The difference between semi-automatic and a bolt action rifle is fractions of a second in the right or wrong hands.

The guns are here and always will be for the foreseeable future.

fractions of a second from shot to shot but that does add up quickly though.

i agree that even with strict gun control crazies/crimminals will still be able to aquire guns, however their number would be drasticly reduced.

I am thankfull there are strict gun control laws in australia.

 

[Azuremen]

fractions of a second from shot to shot but that does add up quickly though.

i agree that even with strict gun control crazies/crimminals will still be able to aquire guns, however their number would be drasticly reduced.

I am thankfull there are strict gun control laws in australia.

You sound like a bot from the government.

Strict gun control laws don't really make it harder for criminals to get guns. There are a lot of studies showing how easy it is, relatively speaking, to pick up a gun in the UK.

That, and if you can't get a gun, just make a pipe bomb. Not really that difficult...

 

[OG_Wretch]

fractions of a second from shot to shot but that does add up quickly though.

i agree that even with strict gun control crazies/crimminals will still be able to aquire guns, however their number would be drasticly reduced.

I am thankfull there are strict gun control laws in australia.

So what happens when the criminals get to using knives or hammers to kill with?

Outlaw them too?

The cat is out of the bag already so even if you do reduce the amount of guns on the planet
the same amount of criminals will find them to use against their un-armed victims.

You don't believe guns can only be made in a factory do you?

I could certainly build some very effective weapons in my garage and I'm not the only one.
Should I and other fabricators be outlawed, banned or just put to death so you can have your perfect and ideal planet?

You have to face the fact that it's you that must take responsiblity for yourself.
There is no supercop going to show up in the nick of time to save you or anybody...
...except for in the movies

 

[gary31]

You sound like a bot from the government.

Strict gun control laws don't really make it harder for criminals to get guns. There are a lot of studies showing how easy it is, relatively speaking, to pick up a gun in the UK.

That, and if you can't get a gun, just make a pipe bomb. Not really that difficult...

can you post links to studies?

true people can still have access to guns, however it is harder to get. for example there was a case of a guy trying to sell some AK-47's he i think wanted about 10k each.

you can make much worse than a pipe bomb....look at timothy mcVeigh, but i think thats way OT.

 

[Azuremen]

can you post links to studies?

true people can still have access to guns, however it is harder to get. for example there was a case of a guy trying to sell some AK-47's he i think wanted about 10k each.

you can make much worse than a pipe bomb....look at timothy mcVeigh, but i think thats way OT.

I honestly don't have them readily available, but there has been quite the discussion on the forums about it before (Famine would likely have many sources on this). But the notion that banning something will remove it from the equation or even make it hard to get is mind numbingly naive. Marijuana and other drugs are quite easy to obtain and have been illegal in the US for some time, which is part of why they are relaxing laws more and more on Marijuana.

My point was, banning guns is mostly futile because people that want to kill people will do it. And a car is a pretty good place to start.

 

[Joel]

easiest way to aviod incidents like this is to stop the guns getting to the hands of crazies/criminals. if guns are not used by criminals then they are not needed for 'protection'.

i do not see a reason why any one needs to have semi-Automatic weapons or handguns.

Semi automatic firearms and handguns are needed to protect yourself from the crazies that are going to get guns no matter what.

What I'm trying to say, is that no matter what kind of legislation you have, crazies and criminals are going to get guns. And if they don't have guns, they're gonna use knives, bats, or fists.

 

[gary31]

So what happens when the criminals get to using knives or hammers to kill with?

Outlaw them too?

it is true that knifes, hammers, tools, cars, hands, a 12in phallus (a lock stock and two smoking barrels referance) and many other household items can be use to kill someone. however i would not say that is their primary use. Whats the primary use of a gun?

The cat is out of the bag already so even if you do reduce the amount of guns on the planet
the same amount of criminals will find them to use against their un-armed victims.

if we reduce the number of guns how would the 'same' number stilll have them??

You don't believe guns can only be made in a factory do you?

I could certainly build some very effective weapons in my garage and I'm not the only one.
Should I and other fabricators be outlawed, banned or just put to death so you can have your perfect and ideal planet?

yes its is possible to make primative firearms in a garage, i have even heard of stories of poeple makeing firearms in goal(Jail). agian i belive these ahould also be illiagel. yes it would be possible to make your own amo as well however i dobt that thse would have the killing capasity of a tec 9/handgun with a 20+ bullet magizine.

You have to face the fact that it's you that must take responsiblity for yourself.
There is no supercop going to show up in the nick of time to save you or anybody...
...except for in the movies

cool lets disband the police force, actually we don't need laws at all. /sacasim

Semi automatic firearms and handguns are needed to protect yourself from the crazies that are going to get guns no matter what.

What I'm trying to say, is that no matter what kind of legislation you have, crazies and criminals are going to get guns. And if they don't have guns, they're gonna use knives, bats, or fists.

the idea of gun control would be to stop the crazies /crimminals from getting the guns.

 

[OG_Wretch]

The primary use or my guns is for subsitance, protection from attack and target shooting.
Cops use them to enforce laws and keep peace so you can include that with mine too.

You cannot get rid of all guns was the point as the same amount of criminals will have them as do now because they won't turn them in.

I can make much more than a primitive gun in my workshop that could easily kill up to 20+ people with one shot.
Lots of people have that capacity and ability.

You don't get it so I'll stop trying to explain it to you.
You've already lost anyway and are religated to being a subject for the rest of your life.

 

[Azuremen]

gary31, I must say you are painfully naive. Or 12. You really think banning guns will actually do anything about them in this country? Would be like when we tried to ban booze, because that went really well...

 

[Vautwin]

Ok sorry but i wont go through the 50 pages of insults and so on.
What is my point. I voted no control!! Why? Out of the same reasons why i say following:

- who is gonna be the instance makin this control? Why and what are his back thoughts??
- i think it is silly how in the name of freedom some political parties in some countries get their Funds cancelled from the state ir are orohibited from the medias. Is that what we call Democratie?? No i am not a right wing adept but if You have 40% of idiots all voting the Idiot partie, sorry for Your countrie but it is doomed. They should have the same rights than other Parties. (for myself i am born in a countrie that should have around 44% of immigrants, we are 450000 inhabitants, to these come around 200000 people from abroad to work every day, again nearly 50% of of the total inhabitants and guess what, we dont even have a right wing political partei! (luxemburg)

- fighting the Taliban is a problem because this war has to be led very carfully, under constant watch of media. Plus these fighters are not a regulary army fightin Battles but a bunch of people that shokt and leave to mix up eith population again, who is friend or foe?? Why was saddam and other regimes build weapons factories next to kindergardens and Hospitals?? To use em as shields. So again this is not weapons killing innocents but humans at the power using their people they so call protect by using em as shields. Armies fighting an other one in an open field stopped after 1st workd war.

- why am i forced to take the chance of beein knifed by the burglar because i am not allowed to possess or use a Gun??

- in many european countries you are put in front of court because the Burglar drowned in our pool because you didnnt build a fence around it!! Isnt that ridiculous??

- people doing illegal killings..... With their guns, probably own them illegally anyways.
- guns are freackin owesome devloppement things, we started hunting with a wooden stick and end up with rifles that can take someone down by what distanve again?? ( i wont put the range i recall in cause it could be wrong and wr have exoerts here that will know the exact distance this marine took the shot. The exoerts will know of whom i speack.
- if we ban alk the guns, we would kill us the old fashion way again, and in these wars a lot of innocents got slaughtered too and i think a swird wont ricochet of an other Knights armor (yep sarcasm) to quote a famous artist: "Guns dont kill People eeh I kill People with Guns Pow." so what happens if we ban all guns, we seen it in the simpsons.
- the problem in killing and Fighting is not a Gun Problem but a human are morons one!! Besides countryes and borders all been defined by wars, ideologies defended with Guns or other weapons. If you havent fought for one of these and it is given, will it really have any value to people anymore? No we would take it for granted and loose the respect for it. That is why there is so many right wing getting Voted all over the world again!!
- so some people here say prohibate guns but want to drive 400bhp+ cars on open roads!!!! Without training, and some do. Tgese things are weapons to so will we ban em.
- on that car u made some changes you self, driving at 30 miles the child crosses street infront of u, it comes from behind a car u kill it will u end on the chair??
- again drivin your 300 bhp + car, something on it breacks (tire or what ever it is human build and humans do mistackes) while on a land road. Thre is a bus stop where a group of Pathfinders are waiting You kill em all was that Murder??
- so will we ban these cars goin faster than road limitations because we all know we want them but do we need them???? Eho will deceide who is allowed to own one ir not???
- will we ban all cars not made of Pillows?? (picked the car example because we are on a car game forum) beside i can kill u with a fork.

Why am i against all these prohibation and control stuff? Because a lot of people died fir us beein able to express our selfs and beeing "free"
And nonsense like beein banned from the nürburgring because my Buell would have 103 Db (total bull, extra put the DB killers back in because i knew i was riding to "Nazie Germany" and could get trouble) the measurement the guy did was done in totally wrong way. Such things piss me off because in the name of our security we loose one by one all and bit by bit all our personnal rights in favour of a totally overwatching state! I aint a total outlaw, but i do stuff that isnt always very legal and realky want to keep it that way without automaticalky get a fine out if the wall (think of Demolition Man, not the best movie but the we could really get there)

A lot of the anti gun arguments here a of the kind a lot of people do all the time if they soeack of things they personally not use, or have fun playing with, it is the mentality of i do not use it, but the noise my neighbour does with it pisses me off and i can not understand how he can have fun with it so it should be illegal! That is also called anti social ignorance.

 

[ledhed]

Drugs are illegal --how is that working out ?
murder is illegal --how is that working out ..
beating someone to a pulp with a bat is illegal --how is that working out..

This is easier --Name something that is banned ...or prohibited --that actually is working .

suicide is banned --not working out either.

WHY would any SANE person think banning guns will work ? ON what evidence do you base this on ?

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[PzR Slim]

WHY would any SANE person think banning guns will work ? ON what evidence do you base this on ?

The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire

International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[Dotini]

Okay, by any rational or humane standard, guns would not be permitted, except as necessary tools for hunting and authorized law enforcement.

The best and only reason to permit guns in the US is the 2nd Amendment. We should say what we do, and do what we say.

If you don't like guns, amend the Constitution. What could be simpler?

Respectfully submitted, eager for correction,
Dotini

 

[PzR Slim]

By this logic then swimming pools should be banned. They kill more toddlers than firearms do.

lol, yeah that'll work

The question asked was, 'Why would any SANE person think banning guns would work?'. I merely provided that answer.

But taking your line of thought to it's logical conclusion, people die every day, lets ban people.....

Try and come up with a more valid argument than 'toddlers die in swimming pools'.

 

[RC45]

blank post