Guns

[mister dog]

I've never wielded a gun for this purpose or seen anyone personally use a gun for this purpose in the entirety of my life.

And that's a good thing, a gun can have a career of 40 years gathering dust in a closet, but it can still be as deadly as on the day it was manufactured if fired at a person (on purpose or by accident).
I feel the same about all weapons; be it a sword or a crossbow, they are purposely made by men to inflict bodily harm and you know this as well as i do. I am not a total pacifist; i would be able to kill another man if my own life or the life of a loved one would be in danger, and I wouldn't think twice about pulling the trigger. This does not change the fact that during peaceful times, I prefer not be confronted by an idiot yielding one.

My goal is not to convince you, my goal is to learn and to test my opinions. If my opinions are illogical I retract and reform them. That's your responsibility to yourself to be a critical thinker. If you're incapable of accepting that your views can be illogical then you might want to consider not posting since obviously the only person you need to discuss things with is yourself.

We get dozens of young users who are unwilling to listen, only wanting to speak and hear their opinions from other people. They don't tend to last long.

My views might seem illogical to you, but they are perfectly logical to me. If everyone would think the same our mindsets wouldn't evolve a lot that's true. I can admit when I'm wrong i just don't feel that is the case here at all.

There seems to be a general trend in these gun related topics; americans vs europeans (bar some exceptions of course), coincidence? I think not

 

[Zenith]

And that's a good thing, a gun can have a career of 40 years gathering dust in a closet, but it can still be as deadly as on the day it was manufactured if fired at a person (on purpose or by accident).

Like a car, hammer, chair, piece of pipe, rock, or literally any physical object. Refer to the other thread that I kindly linked you.

I feel the same about all weapons; be it a sword or a crossbow, they are purposely made by men to inflict bodily harm and you know this as well as i do. I am not a total pacifist; i would be able to kill another man if my own life or the life of a loved one would be in danger, and I wouldn't think twice about pulling the trigger. This does not change the fact that during peaceful times, I prefer not be confronted by an idiot yielding one.

I made my gun. It has the purpose of shooting paper targets. That's what it is used for. Are you saying that I am misusing my gun every time I don't kill something with it?

This discussion can be found in the thread I kindly linked you. You have been unwilling or unable to refute any point made in that thread.

My views might seem illogical to you, but they are perfectly logical to me. If everyone would think the same our mindsets wouldn't evolve a lot that's true. I can admit when I'm wrong i just don't feel that is the case here at all.

There seems to be a general trend in these gun related topics; americans vs europeans (bar some exceptions of course), coincidence? I think not

That's not how logic works.

But okay, let's talk about some other correlations.

People who have shot guns vs. people who haven't.

People who know facts about crime and violence in countries and people who consider these facts "details."

Funny how the educated are on one side of this issue and the ignorant are on the other...

 

[Exorcet]

And that's a good thing, a gun can have a career of 40 years gathering dust in a closet, but it can still be as deadly as on the day it was manufactured if fired at a person (on purpose or by accident).
I feel the same about all weapons; be it a sword or a crossbow, they are purposely made by men to inflict bodily harm and you know this as well as i do. I am not a total pacifist; i would be able to kill another man if my own life or the life of a loved one would be in danger, and I wouldn't think twice about pulling the trigger. This does not change the fact that during peaceful times, I prefer not be confronted by an idiot yielding one.

I made my post because of this. The guns I referred to were not meant to do any such thing. It would be ridiculous to claim they were, no matter what they would do to a person if shot at them (some could be quite lethal). None of them sat on shelves either. My longest period of consistent shooting was 4 years. Not a single shot or gun was intended to be used for harm.

Why do you insist that all guns are made for killing? How can that be when there are guns not made for killing? There have been people who have made or acquired guns and had a desire to kill or injure, but this does not place limits on the use of the gun itself and certainly has nothing to do with other guns. What does place a limit on a gun is its design. All guns shoot. Shooting can serve a variety of different purposes. The same can also be said for the other weapons you listed. This even extends to other items, as has been said already.

This does not change the fact that during peaceful times, I prefer not be confronted by an idiot yielding one.

No one would want this or a similar instance at any time, which is one reason why there is a big fight to keep guns legal in certain places. Idiots aren't limited to using guns, and removing guns from people smart enough not to engage in illegal activities puts some idiots and less than good people at an advantage. Smart people having guns isn't a bad thing, and if you give the smart people guns, you don't need to also give the less than smart people the guns as well.

Going back to what I said before, about items serving a number of usages; consider when something is used for violence. Is violence a necessary result of the item's design, or is violence a result of the person using it? Why is owning a gun and shooting for sport worse than owning a frying pan and intending to use it in a murder?

 

[mister dog]

I made my post because of this. The guns I referred to were not meant to do any such thing. It would be ridiculous to claim they were, no matter what they would do to a person if shot at them (some could be quite lethal). None of them sat on shelves either. My longest period of consistent shooting was 4 years. Not a single shot or gun was intended to be used for harm.

Why do you insist that all guns are made for killing? How can that be when there are guns not made for killing? There have been people who have made or acquired guns and had a desire to kill or injure, but this does not place limits on the use of the gun itself and certainly has nothing to do with other guns. What does place a limit on a gun is its design. All guns shoot. Shooting can serve a variety of different purposes. The same can also be said for the other weapons you listed. This even extends to other items, as has been said already.


No one would want this or a similar instance at any time, which is one reason why there is a big fight to keep guns legal in certain places. Idiots aren't limited to using guns, and removing guns from people smart enough not to engage in illegal activities puts some idiots and less than good people at an advantage. Smart people having guns isn't a bad thing, and if you give the smart people guns, you don't need to also give the less than smart people the guns as well.

Going back to what I said before, about items serving a number of usages; consider when something is used for violence. Is violence a necessary result of the item's design, or is violence a result of the person using it? Why is owning a gun and shooting for sport worse than owning a frying pan and intending to use it in a murder?

Well the counter argument that any object can be lethal is true; you can bash someone's head in with a rock, drive someone over with your car.. the possibilities are endless thats true.

But you understand that i was talking about the literal purpose of the object no? The reason why someone came up with the idea to construct it and it's main purpose. If you shoot bottles no one will be harmed; but that doesn't take away the fact that you are holding a tool in your hand that was conceived for the purpose to injure or kill.

The difference between a gun and any daily object which can also be lethal; is how easy/ difficult it is to inflict harm with it. You say that this shouldn't be an issue with smart people as they know how to control themselves, but everyone is capable of loosing his mind because of a situation where one feels cornered.
Situations can escalate, something might happen in your life that would put you in a state of rage; and if it does you (and everyone else involved in the escalation), will be relieved that the first thing you grabbed to express your rage at that moment wasn't said gun, but your fists or an object laying around that might injure but won't kill with one simple pull of a trigger.

I'm sure shooting bottles is fun, but if it means guns are all around and anyone can be carrying one, i'd prefer to sacrifice that hobby if it means the weak minded can't get their hands on it that easily.

Also to illustrate my point; this was in the news tonight:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/241762051.html

 

[Azuremen]

Also to illustrate my point; this was in the news tonight:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/241762051.html

Illustrate what point, that people will resort to violence over trivial things? He could have just as easily used a knife and stabbed her, which many people have already found similarly stupid displays of violence in Europe for comparison, so you aren't really validating anything on the issue of guns.

If a person wants to be violent, they will find a way. Much like how you can have your car locked but someone will break into if they really want. You seem unable to realize that guns do not magically make people more violent, despite many members giving you an profound amount of information showing rates of violence do not differ by much between the US and Europe despite the many restrictions on firearms in the latter.

 

[mister dog]

Illustrate what point, that people will resort to violence over trivial things? He could have just as easily used a knife and stabbed her, which many people have already found similarly stupid displays of violence in Europe for comparison, so you aren't really validating anything on the issue of guns.

If a person wants to be violent, they will find a way. Much like how you can have your car locked but someone will break into if they really want. You seem unable to realize that guns do not magically make people more violent, despite many members giving you an profound amount of information showing rates of violence do not differ by much between the US and Europe despite the many restrictions on firearms in the latter.

Not saying guns make people more violent; I'm saying guns harm too fast and too easily. The difference between aiming and pulling the trigger, and taking a knife and stabbing once and then stabbing another time and another time can mean the difference between life or death as mostly the knife will take more time and effort, and in that time someone might be surprised by himself because of the blood and the pain and reconsider, but with the gun it will be too late already.

 

[Keef]

I'm sure shooting bottles is fun, but if it means guns are all around and anyone can be carrying one, i'd prefer to sacrifice that hobby if it means the weak minded can't get their hands on it that easily.

Who is more weak minded, a man using a gun to commit a crime or a person so absorbed by fear that they petition the government to outlaw them? At least one of these people is making a decision for himself instead of pawning it off on an institution. You should rethink your idea of "weak minded" because it's definitely not the right term to support your argument.

 

[Exorcet]

Well the counter argument that any object can be lethal is true; you can bash someone's head in with a rock, drive someone over with your car.. the possibilities are endless thats true.

But you understand that i was talking about the literal purpose of the object no? The reason why someone came up with the idea to construct it and it's main purpose. If you shoot bottles no one will be harmed; but that doesn't take away the fact that you are holding a tool in your hand that was conceived for the purpose to injure or kill.

As was I. The guns I used were not meant to cause harm at all. This wouldn't change even if the original gun was intended to cause harm. The internet came out of the needs of the military, but you're not using the internet to wage war on me. We're communicating. Somewhere else, someone is trying to hack another person's back account. This isn't any different from guns, where the user determines what the gun will be used for.

The difference between a gun and any daily object which can also be lethal; is how easy/ difficult it is to inflict harm with it.

That would all be situational. Even ignoring things like costs and procurement processes, a gun isn't necessarily the best way to kill or harm someone. A knife can be more discrete for example.

You say that this shouldn't be an issue with smart people as they know how to control themselves, but everyone is capable of loosing his mind because of a situation where one feels cornered.
Situations can escalate, something might happen in your life that would put you in a state of rage; and if it does you (and everyone else involved in the escalation), will be relieved that the first thing you grabbed to express your rage at that moment wasn't said gun, but your fists or an object laying around that might injure but won't kill with one simple pull of a trigger.

I didn't say smart people can't make mistakes, just that you can arm them without arming other people.

As for this hypothetical rage scenario, if I do go mad and wrongly start attacking people, there's no reason to think I wouldn't kill of severely injure them without a gun. On their side, they would probably want a gun so they could shoot me, which would be perfectly reasonable if I was out of a control. My death would be the better alternative compared to leaving someone else injured. Even potential serious injury is justification enough.

I'm sure shooting bottles is fun, but if it means guns are all around and anyone can be carrying one, i'd prefer to sacrifice that hobby if it means the weak minded can't get their hands on it that easily.

The thing is, taking away guns with laws doesn't necessarily take away guns from law breakers. You'll only disarm the lawful completely. Also, while the guns are around, that does not mean that anyone can just get them.

I know you're taking a "better safe than sorry" approach, but the thing is keeping guns legal can very well be the safe side and not the sorry one. Take the guns away and now the weak minded don't have to fear someone shooting back. In their weak mindedness they may even mistake that for invincibility.

 

[mister dog]

Who is more weak minded, a man using a gun to commit a crime or a person so absorbed by fear that they petition the government to outlaw them? At least one of these people is making a decision for himself instead of pawning it off on an institution. You should rethink your idea of "weak minded" because it's definitely not the right term to support your argument.

If i rephrase your post; you just said that the criminal or psycho that used a gun on someone else deserves more praise than someone that wants their government to outlaw weapons, because he has character?

You serious?

@Exorcet reading all the posts here from our American friends, I can only conclude there is a HUGE difference in mindset between them and us Europeans regarding this matter.
I respect it though as it is circumstantial to the societies we were raised in. Europe chose to prevent guns all together, whilst you folk across the ocean were raised in a situation where you are surrounded by them in daily life for good and for worse, and seeing that this is the case over there; you basically want a gun yourself to not be a sitting duck compared to the rest.

It's really a fundamental difference in mindset between the 2 continents, but I understand where you are coming from, If i would live there i bet i would get one also seeing that so much people have them. Over here this is not necessary (and for us not something we need to worry about), so i hope you can understand the European mindset also that we don't want them

 

[Keef]

If i rephrase your post; you just said that the criminal or psycho that used a gun on someone else deserves more praise than someone that wants their government to outlaw weapons, because he has character?

You serious?

You're the one who used the phrase "weak minded". That phrase implies that one is unable to use their mind in the manner it should be used which includes the ability to make decisions. I argued that because the criminal is making a conscious decision to do something, whereas the anti-gun protester is simply complaining and allowing the government to make his decision for him, the criminal actually has the stronger mind.

I said nothing about praise, I simply interpreted your phrase literally. Where you got the word "praise" from I'm not sure but you certainly didn't get it from my post.

 

[Azuremen]

Not saying guns make people more violent; I'm saying guns harm too fast and too easily. The difference between aiming and pulling the trigger, and taking a knife and stabbing once and then stabbing another time and another time can mean the difference between life or death as mostly the knife will take more time and effort, and in that time someone might be surprised by himself because of the blood and the pain and reconsider, but with the gun it will be too late already.

I'm assuming you've never shot a gun, but making a lethal wound isn't much more complex than lethally wounding someone with a knife and in close quarters, the knife can easily be quicker and more deadly. Hitting targets like you see on TV requires considerable skill with a pistol, where as a knife is far more easy to direct towards, say, the neck. Also does more damage than many small caliber rounds used in pistols because it will typically be drug through the victim.

Again, you're argument is built on the wishy washy feels side of things. People that have guns respect them extensively, in most cases, much like people that aren't idiots handle knives with care. I use to have an extraordinary temper and grew up in a home with guns, yet I never shot my brother for being an arse. Why? Because I was raised to respect firearms (and weapons in general) which seems to be lacking in many cases as everyone things guns should be strictly off limits from people.

Understanding something generally trumps limited knowledge when it comes time to take action.

 

[Exorcet]

you folk across the ocean were raised in a situation where you are surrounded by them in daily life for good and for worse, and seeing that this is the case over there; you basically want a gun yourself to not be a sitting duck compared to the rest.

I have no interest in owning a gun. I did for a short while when I was actively shooting, but using it for self defense did not even cross my mind. Likewise, most of the people I know in the US wouldn't think about owning a gun and probably don't think about guns outside of when they're mentioned on the news. Guns aren't a part of daily life in the US.

Also that there are guns about is not a concern, that as far as I'm concerned is a good thing. I don't feel uncomfortable not having a gun, but it would be a little worrying if I knew that I was relegated by law to be at a disadvantage to a gun user.

It's really a fundamental difference in mindset between the 2 continents, but I understand where you are coming from, If i would live there i bet i would get one also seeing that so much people have them. Over here this is not necessary (and for us not something we need to worry about), so i hope you can understand the European mindset also that we don't want them

I understand your mindset. It's not strictly European, it's the default mindset for the parts of the US I've been to most often. Bring up guns and a lot of Americans would say they're useless. If the guns did vanish completely and magically, maybe it would work. I don't think any realistic gun removal action would help though.

Also for what it's worth, talking to some Europeans where military conscription is enforced, I've heard that guns problems go down when the population is familiar with them rather than afraid. Switzerland is a prime example. Military guns get take home, and the crime rate is very low.

 

[FoolKiller]

@mister dog Everything you've been saying regarding how easily someone can use a gun to kill, no matter their previous intent, sounds like fear. It is a fear of a statistically rare event. I live in a state with very little gun control. I have seen zero guns in my lifetime used for the intent of harm, and I have seen everything from something that will fit in your sock to full on military grade weapons used.

Unrealistic fear is why I have to get a pat down if I want to fly because I committed the suspicious act of having a life saving medical device implanted in my chest. Unrealistic fear is what got us to turn a blind eye to the NSA's ability to tap every phone, every text, and basically get things off of every machine in the US and much of Europe.

The only people I fear abusing their weapons and power are the ones who want to take guns away. And they are the primary reason why we should, and why we do, have the right to own guns.

As for mentality. I don't own a gun. I have no intent to own a gun. I live in the US. I see guns all the time. The only mentality here that would make me want a gun is the mentality of our government, and those afraid of the less than 1% of bad guys, that they can keep regulating and banning the activities and lives of everyday people who supposedly have liberty.

In short, the only reason I would get a gun is to defend the rights that allow me to have a gun and live my life as I see fit, so long as I don't harm another. If I get a gun, it will be because I have reason to believe the powers that be decided their guns are the primary way to enforce unjust laws. Sadly, that seems to be a mentality that is growing in our political and law enforcement communities.

If you want to see what it actually looks like when peaceful gun owners suddenly react with intent to do harm, try to take their guns away. Last time someone tried that in these borders there was a war.

 

[Liquid]

I've been meaning to ask this for a while and the latest shooting thread reminded me.

I would be very interested to read about stories where a member of the public had a gun on them and prevented a spree or stopped an incident from escalating. Not someone defending themselves in a fight or a burglary, but an incident in public. Could someone post or redirect me?

I haven't contributed much to this thread, but I take an interest in the issue. Also, because of the nature of these text based answers with no tone and emotion, I'd like to stress, before I get flak for it, that I do not mean this post in a way like "Oh yeah? People with guns is good? PROVE IT!" sort of way, I am just genuinely interested to read the other side, given how many news stories we already have for mass sprees and anti-gun rhetoric.

 

[Exorcet]

I recalled this one off the top of my head



Found these while looking





(did not stop it, but shows that it is possible to not become a trigger pulling maniac in a panic situation)

There is also the case of the robber trying to rob a gun store. No video needed.

 

[a6m5]

Almost all of these shootings take place in gun-free zone, where firearms are prohibited. They also tend to take place in where armed security is not readily available, like schools.

I brought up the mall shooting in my state in the other thread, and there is a speculation that when the shooter's AR rifle jammed, he had noticed a gun drawn on him from a concealed carrier, and that's when the shooter took off, ended his own life. This mall was also a gun free zone.

TREE'D Damn you Exorcet.

 

[Liquid]

@Exorcet Thanks very much.

 

[BobK]

Preventing a massacre simply isn't as sensationalist as committing a massacre, so guess which gets more news coverage.

 

[mister dog]

Preventing a massacre simply isn't as sensationalist as committing a massacre, so guess which gets more news coverage.

Which in turn inspires other suicidal psychos for their 15 minutes of fame sadly.
My toughts are always with the families of these innocent victims that got gunned down doing their normal daily activities. And it's all the more tragic when it happens in schools with young children...

Terrible.

 

[FoolKiller]

If what this politician says makes sense to you, you likely have no clue what you are talking about, which means you don't have a properly informed opinion.




Also, a new scientific study on guns.

They may not be as dangerous or scary as you are led to believe.

A scientific study that concluded the day before Christmas Eve found that guns may actually be inanimate objects with no will of their own. The highly controversial results were published today in Scientific Log, a leading journal in the scientific community, and has already drawn disbelief and criticism from top gun control proponents.



The study placed a collection of 240 firearms in a large room outfitted with a bulletproof observation window which allowed the scientists to monitor the firearms 24/7 for over four months. The collection of firearms included assault rifles, semi automatic pistols, hunting rifles, and BB guns while the control group, housed in another similar room, consisted of comically proportioned wooden dummy guns. The room was filled with cardboard cutouts of people, animals, and inanimate objects like cars and movie theaters to see which victims certain guns were likely to target.

The study was intended to provide data for future firearm restrictions in the state of New York and was to be used to decide which firearms to make wildly illegal.

The results, however, took an odd turn says Bob Clementine, the lead researcher and grant manager of the project. “We found very similar results with the most evil looking gun as we did with the funny looking dummy guns. A gun, regardless of it’s type, appears, by all scientific and measurable standards, to be inanimate and doesn’t seem to be capable of evil or good.” He says the only action recorded in the room were the oxidation of metal and dust gathering, both of which pose no threat to human lives and is “incredibly boring to watch.”

The research group has come up with several likely possibilities as to why the guns didn’t react violently to the cardboard cutouts. Clementine says that guns may require an outside force to make them shoot but more likely, he says, it’s because the guns didn’t sense any fear. “Guns feed on fear and panic,” he says, “and cardboard generally doesn’t exhibit any of those emotions.” He adds that more research, along with more big ticket federally funded grants, will be required to reach any definite conclusion.

 

[a6m5]

What a ignorant bastard. I already tried feeding clippings from Car & Driver, they jam!

 

[Zenith]

I spent a couple minutes trying to find a witty response to those statements. I can't.

30 rounds in half a second? I think Agent Smith would like one of those. Who else will be able to actually hit anything? We're outcycling some diesels at that point.

 

[Joel]

30 calibre clip

For those who don't understand guns it would be roughly analogous to saying my car has a 1.8L I4 gas tank.

 

[Zenith]

30 calibre clip

For those who don't understand guns it would be sorta like saying my car has a 1.8L I4 gas tank.

Not even close. That was nonsense squared.

 

[Joel]

Not even close. That was nonsense squared.

I saw the same video posted as "senator goes full retard". Think that's a pretty good summation.

 

[BobK]

Which in turn inspires other suicidal psychos for their 15 minutes of fame sadly.
My toughts are always with the families of these innocent victims that got gunned down doing their normal daily activities. And it's all the more tragic when it happens in schools with young children...

Terrible.

You know, I've disagreed with much of what you've said in this thread. But I fully agree with you here. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

30 calibre clip

For those who don't understand guns it would be roughly analogous to saying my car has a 1.8L I4 gas tank.

It was the 30 magazine clip line that got me. I was trying to do the math on if a bullet could leave the chamber before the next one was fired at a 900 bullets in half a second rate of fire.

 

[BobK]

That works out to a rate of fire of 108,000 rounds per minute. Not too shabby, much better than modern Gatling guns.

But assuming that what the moron senator meant to say was it could fire all thirty rounds in the magazine in half a second that still works out to a ridiculous 3600 rounds per minute.

 

[Badasp5.0]

I love how that is legally a SBR and completely illegal to have in CA but the Senator is apparently exempt from that law. Just like the News caster with the 30 round AR mag a few months ago. You know if you or I had that thing in CA we would be doing hard time.



Here is a new lower receiver made in Mr senators honor. I want one.
http://gunssavelives.net/gear/ha-ae...wer-in-honor-of-clueless-california-lawmaker/

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

30 calibre clip

For those who don't understand guns it would be roughly analogous to saying my car has a 1.8L I4 gas tank.

It doesn't?