Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Sicarus]

It's sad you feel that way in the "most democratic" country where you are not a criminal untill prove so by the justice system. Why not apply executions and no trial then? Wierd logic you have there, I do think you should get it checked out.


So unless you have a gun you are not protected right? Good logic, im sure that's why you don't have a fence outside your property, no lock at your main door or home security system. Only the gun can keep you safe!

Actually you're not innocent until proven guilty, it says nothing about the justice system being involved.

So if you're trying rape, steal, or murder someone, it's pretty obvious you're guilty. Unless you deny what you see plainly infront of your eyes?

It's sad you feel as if though people aren't allowed to protect themself without having to go through a bureaucracy, shooting someone who is commiting evil acts against yourself and harming you or loved ones isn't cruel or unusual punishment, if anything, it's more merciful, or do you think having the burden of knowing your time is coming, instead of dying on the spot, is less cruel?

Being a democracy has absolutely nothing to do with being attacked, and defending yourself.

You seriously need some mental help. Therapists exist, go check one out.

[Deleted]

I really wonder where you get your idea from that America is the most democratic country.. Have you taken a look at where this country is going?

Yeah my bad. Of course guns make a safer world, just sad that we the rest of democratic countries haven't figured that one out. Seems to be working good for US!

[GreatOak]

And your answer to being mugged is to "attempt" to pull a gun on a person that already has a knife on you? I don't think you've thought out your straw man very well. And for the record, any law enforcement agency will tell you that, when getting mugged, just comply. If you honestly believe the few hundred dollars you may have on you is worth more than your life or the lives of the people your with then you deserve the stabbing you will surely recieve as you reach for your concealed gun.

We have cops. Swallow your pride for a bit, give the guy what he wants and live another day.

Now, if you have something more constructive than an arguement an adolescent would use, I would love to hear it.

I'm sure my mom would've loved to let that potential rapist get what he wanted too, since there were no police in the part of the city we used to live in. Good thing she brandished a gun and he ran off.

[Corky1]

If you look at which countries completely banned guns you would see that crime rate has gone up. Australia is the most recent example. In some areas armed robbery and violent crimes went up 44%. So yea lets ban guns so the only people who will have them will be police and criminals.

[GreatOak]

It would be better for the woman to have a non-lethal weapon as electric taser gun or gas/rubber bullet gun to elimate the threat but not kill the attacker. That's what any logical person would do, unless you are in the US where it's cheaper and easyer to get a lethal gun, making it not to be used as a last option but more as a first option in any case.

Add to that the improper use or no training at all of the one pulling the trigger making even the most justified shooting be a very dangerous scenario once it's done in public, as in on the streets with rogue bullets flying arround.

Accidental firearm deaths are very rare, especially from stray bullets

You want to stop crime? End the drug war
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ug-war/266505/

[Deleted]

Being a democracy has absolutely nothing to do with being attacked, and defending yourself.

You seriously need some mental help. Therapists exist, go check one out.

Maybe get it in your thick skull that the right to bare arms is not linked to the right to defend yourself. The right to defend yourself also ends when you are ending someone's life, as in killing that person. You are entitled to defend yourself by eliminating the threat but not killing the "possible" attacker/criminal, as in sometimes that is by locking the door, running away, hiding or what ever.

Apply some logic and ration next time you care to comment!

[Sicarus]

So unless you have a gun you are not protected right? Good logic, im sure that's why you don't have a fence outside your property, no lock at your main door or home security system. Only the gun can keep you safe! Exactly that poor logic needs to change if you want to change as a nation, or you will keep having "accidents", "shootings" in the news daily, more often.

Those things won't deter a criminal. And yes, having a weapon is the primary means of protecting yourself. It's great logic, actually.

And my fence and front door are put up for your protection, not mine.

Do you own a fire extinguisher? If a fire starts, why not call dial 911? It is exactly the same principle, using a tool to solve the situation at hand.

And no, we don't want the nation to change, only you do, and you don't even live here, why do you care?

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 08:54 AM ----------

Maybe get it in your thick skull that the right to bare arms is not linked to the right to defend yourself. The right to defend yourself also ends when you are ending someone's life, as in killing that person. You are entitled to defend yourself by eliminating the threat but not killing the "possible" attacker/criminal, as in sometimes that is by locking the door, running away, hiding or what ever.

Apply some logic and ration next time you care to comment!

So now you're insulting?

I guess that's the only tactic left since you've been countered with logic.

[Deleted]

And no, we don't want the nation to change, only you do, and you don't even live here, why do you care?

Keep on that way. Your doing good, untill you meet a bullet. Then you won't.

[Corky1]

I want to know why people think banning guns will end in less violence overall? This is just a free pass for the criminals who have un-serialized weapons to rob homes, rape women, and do what ever the fuck they want.
There is only 1 thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, and that's a good guy with a gun.

[Pony Soldier]

Banning assault weapons will not make a difference whatsoever. They did this before years ago and it went nowhere. People really think putting a ban on assault weapons will prevent things like the elementary school shooting from happening again? What if the killer uses a bow an arrow and kills 50 people in a mall or any public area? Are you going to ban bow and arrows? Or what about a sword even. Some guy goes to a school and hacks up 50 people there. Are you going to ban swords now too? Banning weapons will not do squat. If criminals want a 100 round assault rifle there going to get it one way or another (like buying it from other black markets around the world). What makes people think a stupid law is going to stop people like this? Come on really you think an insane killer is going to be like "Oh man the assault rifle I wanted to shoot up the mall/school is illegal now. Darn I guess I'll just go home and play video games." I'm not the only one who thinks like this either. Pretty much everybody I talk to: family, friends, and co workers, even a COP I talk to at work agrees with me and has the same views as I do as I'm sure other people do too.

Yeah sure you may not need an assault rifle for anything but it's your right to own one and now they want to take that away. Anyway from what I'm hearing so far, they won't be able to ban them anyway. They'll just put more regulation on them or something. Does anyone remember that other school shooting at a college I think it was where a kid went in with a shotgun and shot at a couple people? He didn't kill anyone (I don't think. He shot at one kid who was seriously injured but I think he survived) but still he could've killed a shit ton of people there and he didn't even have an assault rifle. A gun is a gun you ban one you might as well ban them all. Hell even that wouldn't work those insane fuckers out there will come up with an even more deadlier way to kill people than guns. People just don't want to accept the fact that it's not the guns it's the person.

[gr4vitas]

To many "what if". You can add also "what if the guy is not a guy and a gang of guys all armed" or "what if he she misses all the rounds and doesn't hit the target", still doesn't change the logic. Gun used as a last case scenario, never as first. When you are ok with guns, guns everywhere and everyone pulling it as a first reaction you are not safer then when not having any guns. And I do think US is past that point, making guns this days by their abundance legal or illegal not valid for making the place a safer place.

I never said a single thing about a gun being the first option. It should always universally be the last option. My point is it NEEDS to be there to be a last option otherwise you simply aren't on the same level as the criminal.

Which is why we don't need anymore restrictions and laws than we already have. Lets focus on making the already thousands of laws on guns better enforced.

[Pony Soldier]

I want to know why people think banning guns will end in less violence overall? This is just a free pass for the criminals who have un-serialized weapons to rob homes, rape women, and do what ever the fuck they want.
There is only 1 thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, and that's a good guy with a gun.

Exactly.

/10 characters

[Slammin Shaman]

I like how Gingrich's argument was the word "permit."

[gr4vitas]

[Deleted]

I want to know why people think banning guns will end in less violence overall? This is just a free pass for the criminals who have un-serialized weapons to rob homes, rape women, and do what ever the fuck they want.
There is only 1 thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, and that's a good guy with a gun.

Why do pro-gun people always think that people are either good or bad? Enough gun "accidents" happen by so-called good people too. Anyone can use a gun for bad in that one moment they are overly emotional, this includes anyone who claims they are responsible citizens.

[Kazull]

Maybe get it in your thick skull that the right to bare arms is not linked to the right to defend yourself. The right to defend yourself also ends when you are ending someone's life, as in killing that person. You are entitled to defend yourself by eliminating the threat but not killing the "possible" attacker/criminal, as in sometimes that is by locking the door, running away, hiding or what ever.

Apply some logic and ration next time you care to comment!

You obviously have no concept at all of what it means to defend yourself with a firearm. When a situation comes up that someone else forces you to use a firearm that you are carrying, there is stress and adrenaline. At that point it doesn't matter how good you are handling a gun at a range, it will effect your shooting. For that reason anyone that is trained to defend themselves with firearms are trained to aim for center mass, which is the chest. That way you have the best chance of hitting the target, it just so happens that is where a person's vitals are located. Trying to "not kill someone" when you are trying to use a firearm to defend yourself by trying to wound them can very easily get you killed for that reason. When a person puts another person in the position that they have to be able to use a firearm to defend themselves, they forfeit their life. If i have to pull my gun on you because you put me in danger, I'm not pulling it on you to wound you, I'm pulling it on you to kill you.

[FusedMass]

I have a mind of my own. However I have to agree with Piers on the front page after reviewing that video again. The person who carried a Military Style Assault Weapon shot a hundred bullets in under a minute. How should that not be reviewing under the supreme court laws as dangerous and unusual ..It's both dangerous and Unusual. Let me take this a step even further the drum attached this weapon was capable of holding a hundred bullets.

How many bullets do you need exactly to defend yourself from someone breaking into your home. In fact let's add 200 bullets..why not 300..these type of weapons are weapon of choice for mass murders that want to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time..PERIOD. If I was going to go into a crowded area I would pick this type of weapon because of how many bullets it's capable of holding.

It's really not that hard to understand. As far as some people claiming the shooter who killed 20 kids and 7 adults used two handguns but that information wasn't released till later is lack of a better word utter and complete bullshit. Let me bring you an article neither from CNN or MSNBC.

However unless you are one of those right wing gun nuts that believe that Obama personally staged these mass murders just so that he could ban them. If you believe so Alex Jones would likely be you're best friend.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connec...ry?id=17984499

dam Lanza used a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle at close range to kill children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday.

"I believe everybody was hit more than once," said Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the state of Connecticut's Chief Medical Examiner.

He said the bullets were uniquely damaging and that Lanza's victims died almost immediately.

"The bullets are designed in such a fashion the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in," Carver said. He described the wounds as a "very devastating set of injuries."

[Deleted]

Are you sure? I believe that the English used the C7 variant (from Colt Canada, but it may have been named L119A1 by the British Army). Where the confusion with the early M16's in the American Armed Forces is that the Air Force got the M16, while everyone else got the XM16E1, the only difference being the M16 didn't have the forward assist (they thought it wasn't worth the expense. I think it was $2-5 at the time for them). Also, IIRC, the Air Force got their hands on the M16s in 1963, and I don't think the Army got theirs until 1965. Also, I believe the C7 was developed in the mid 80's, about the same time as the M16A2.

It was surely the AR15

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/M16

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 04:20 PM ----------

So we're just supposed to give everyone our shit when they come up to us armed and asking for our wallet?

What about when a man goes to rape a woman? Is it better for her to be raped than for anyone to die as an outcome? Or would it be better for her to pull her .38 and shoot the fucker dead.

I'll go with the latter, every damn day of the week.

Does that happen often where you live? How often do people come and rob you or try to rape your woman? Do you live in Mad Max world?

[Kazull]

I have a mind of my own. However I have to agree with Piers on the front page after reviewing that video again. The person who carried a Military Style Assault Weapon shot a hundred bullets in under a minute. How should that not be reviewing under the supreme court laws as dangerous and unusual ..It's both dangerous and Unusual. Let me take this a step even further the drum attached this weapon was capable of holding a hundred bullets.

How many bullets do you need exactly to defend yourself from someone breaking into your home. In fact let's add 200 bullets..why not 300..these type of weapons are weapon of choice for mass murders that want to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time..PERIOD. If I was going to go into a crowded area I would pick this type of weapon because of how many bullets it's capable of holding.

It's really not that hard to understand. As far as some people claiming the shooter who killed 20 kids and 7 adults used two handguns but that information wasn't released till later is lack of a better word utter and complete bullshit. Let me bring you an article neither from CNN or MSNBC.

However unless you are one of those right wing gun nuts that believe that Obama personally staged these mass murders just so that he could ban them. If you believe so Alex Jones would likely be you're best friend.

A big part of the second amendment isn't about home defense, its about a country being able to protect themselves from a government that has gone out of control, not just home invaders. It was written with that in mind considering it was drawn right after we broke off from England. We need sensible policy on record keeping and background checks, not an outright ban. What people don't seem to realize is that citizens having access to powerful firearms also helps defend a country not just an individual. An invasion on American soil would not succeed due to so many citizens being so heavily armed and guerrilla tactics being so effective and the world knows it. Gun laws need to change but prohibition never works.

[FusedMass]

I'm just going add one more thing before I have to get off. I believe people with demented Anti Government views. (I.e. Alex Jones) are a threat to our society as a whole. I believe these people much like domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh who bombed a building killing hundreds of people because he believed the government was trying to take their guns.

These people who do this are the ones causing the violence. Not the Anti Gun People. However let me us a more recent example. A man five day's ago went on a school bus and fired a shot into the head of the bus driver killing him. He took a 7 year old hostage and took him down to his bunker. This as I said has been going on for five days.

Why would a person do such a thing?

"While police were mostly staying mum about the delicate negotiations, it fell to neighbors to fill in the blanks about Dykes, described by some as a menacing figure with anti-government views."

"He said he believes Dykes' goal with the standoff is to publicize his political beliefs.

"I believe he wants to rant and rave about politics and government," Creel said. "He's very concerned about his property. He doesn't want his stuff messed with."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...m_hp_ref=crime