Firearms

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Saya

So its better to have a shoot out with them? Won't they have a gun?

Not necessarily. If they do, either you have a gun also, or the criminal has a gun and you don't.

A mighty number of guns are stolen from people who purchase guns legally. If owning guns is criminal, its harder for criminals to get them as there is none to steal.

" In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries."

My point wasn't that fewer criminals would have guns, merely that only criminals would have them. I'm also reasonably confident that a larger black market would develop in response to stricter laws.

I'm not for banning all guns, no, but certainly gun laws need to be far more strict. I posted a link way back in this thread on how easy it is to get a gun, and a link on how easy it was for the kids in Columbine to get theirs.

Columbine is a poor example, as it would have happened no matter what gun laws existed at the time. If every gun in the world had been made to disappear, they would have used homemade explosives, or constructed some kind of concussive weapon.
Gun laws aren't what should be altered to prevent Columbine, but rather sensitivity to potential problems within a student population, and security measures at the school itself.

I don't know if Vlad is still with us and can clarify, but in this instance he said it just happened in the dark, didn't mention giving warning, and shot to kill, and that shooting in the legs isn't enough to take someone down.

I don't know what you're talking about, I wasn't responding to any comments by Vlad. Obviously shooting without due cause is not condonable.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Not necessarily. If they do, either you have a gun also, or the criminal has a gun and you don't.

I think if we were to argue about that we'd be here all night just going back and forth, as most of the debates in this thread has gone, and I've really said all I can say on it, but on a personal note I would never have a gun, not even for home defense, I wouldn't be able to live with killing someone, or having a dangerous weapon around that can easily be stolen.

My point wasn't that fewer criminals would have guns, merely that only criminals would have them. I'm also reasonably confident that a larger black market would develop in response to stricter laws.

What are your reasons? Its really hypothetical, but if guns were to be banned, criminals would have a harder time finding them, as they cannot steal them from homes, and the price of a gun would skyrocket in the black market.

Columbine is a poor example, as it would have happened no matter what gun laws existed at the time. If every gun in the world had been made to disappear, they would have used homemade explosives, or constructed some kind of concussive weapon.
Gun laws aren't what should be altered to prevent Columbine, but rather sensitivity to potential problems within a student population, and security measures at the school itself.

I used the example of Columbine because the boys did mention in their videos how very easy it was to acquire the guns. Most of them were bought by a friend at a gun show, who then gave them the guns.

I don't know what you're talking about, I wasn't responding to any comments by Vlad. Obviously shooting without due cause is not condonable.

What you responded to earlier was:

Originally Posted by Saya

And thats mighty responsible and honorable of you, really you have my respect, if you're that way I'd trust YOU with a gun, but not the average joe. There have been posts already that some people here feel that home invaders or thugs deserve to die once they attack you, or look like they are going to attack you, or you think they might pose a threat.

This was referring to earlier posts about what Vlad did, and some of the responses he got.

[Splintered]

Something I feel I should mention about Columbine:

The guns weren't the main plan. The main plan was to detonate two propane bombs which would collapse the building, and use the guns for "clean up".

It was only after the bombs failed that they were forced to use guns.

In fact, a lot of damage was done with small pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails.

[Saya]

My point is though that its very sad that two kids would have so little trouble actually getting the guns. Yes they probably would have used other methods, and gun laws wouldn't have prevented them from killing, but you have to admit there is a problem with regulation when two kids can arm themselves to the teeth like that.

[TheBloodEternity]

I think Saya and Gothicus both make some good points. Gun laws, at least here in the US, definitely need to be more strict, but too strict and then the only people who have them will be criminals who acquired them through the black market.

But Columbine was a poor example, those boys were bound on what they did and as Splintered mentioned, I don't think the guns were even the main part of the plan. Even if they couldn't get the guns they would have still found a way to slaughter a bunch of their classmates.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Saya

My point is though that its very sad that two kids would have so little trouble actually getting the guns. Yes they probably would have used other methods, and gun laws wouldn't have prevented them from killing, but you have to admit there is a problem with regulation when two kids can arm themselves to the teeth like that.

I think Columbine is a unique enough case that it warrants a deeper inspection of how the regulations actually affected them. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris spent many hours contemplating how to execute their plan, and had they not been able to get the guns through straw purchases, it's not unlikely that they would have made their own, like they did with most of their equipment.

A Micro-Uzi and a Sten Gun can both be assembled with parts that you find inside of your local Canadian Tire or Home Depot. They certainly had enough experience to make them, and they definitely had the resources. The regulation would have only removed the easiest of the options, which I do not believe would have deterred them a single bit.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Splintered

I think Columbine is a unique enough case that it warrants a deeper inspection of how the regulations actually affected them. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris spent many hours contemplating how to execute their plan, and had they not been able to get the guns through straw purchases, it's not unlikely that they would have made their own, like they did with most of their equipment.

A Micro-Uzi and a Sten Gun can both be assembled with parts that you find inside of your local Canadian Tire or Home Depot. They certainly had enough experience to make them, and they definitely had the resources. The regulation would have only removed the easiest of the options, which I do not believe would have deterred them a single bit.

Just because its possible to make a gun (materials available as they are, I'm unaware of how good these guns are or about the risk of a bad maker having his gun explode in his hand), doesn't mean that it should be easy to buy a gun. Like I said before, it wouldn't have prevented Columbine, I used it as an example of how dreadfully easy it was for them to get them.

[killslowly]

Saya, I appreciate your poor man's lawyer approach, and I am glad that we can talk about this like adults.

GothicusMaximus, thank you for your logical dissection of the replies.

These are the problems with passions. Once we are passionate about a subject, we defend them without quarter. I am just happy that in this particular posting, we are talking like adults. It is refreshing to say the least.

I mean, if you want to have a ball, start a posting on abortion, and you can find so many pros and cons and in betweens, with passionate debate, crude remarks and pathetic comebacks.

As far as the "Gun Show Loophole" there are plenty of horror stories about it, but it is not the prevalent Modus Operandi. Criminals will get their hands on whatever they need to commit their crimes, regardless of gun laws or not. Law abiding gun owners are just that, and the Gun Show is just a place to purchase their hobby.

As far as people being qualified to purchase a firearm, most states have a test you must take in order to show safety handling and proper manipulation of such weapon. And all states have to do a background check in order to be able to purchase a weapon. Are people abusing the system? Of course. Criminals will do as they please, damn the law. But who pays the price? The law abiding gun enthusiast.

Same things with cars. The argument goes that cars were not designed to kill. They were designed to make life easier, facilitate transport of goods and people, etc. But this does not diminish the fact that cars kill more people than guns in the United States. Should we ban cars because.... they kill people? Should be ban cars because qualified and licensed drivers Drink and Drive? Should we ban them because people have sex in them? Or use them to transport illegal materials from state to state (interstate crimes)? Should we ban them because they hurt the environment? Remember that criminals and lunatics can and do purchase vehicles. How can we stop this?

Banning vehicles would be inappropriate in our society. It would literally grind our society to a halt. Goods will not be moved from place to place, people would not be able to work far away, emergency personnel would not be able to assist the needy, etc.

So as a society, we accept the price of death that having tons of metal going at 65mph brings with it.

Guns, on the other hand, are another story. Guns are evil in the eyes of some. Guns are designed to launch a piece of brass or other metals at a high velocity, in order for penetrative force to destroy what it hits. Guns have been glorified and vilified by our media. But guns have also been used to liberate people, secure property and defend our way of life. It is a lot easier to make guns "scary" and "evil" and therefore a subject of banning because of their single minded purpose and their effectiveness at killing and or wounding. But fear is what causes these laws to take effect. It is like the modern Witch Burnings. Fear, mob mentality, and a lack of understanding creates the banning of perfectly useful tools.

Like abortion. Abortion is an easy subject to vilify. Killing unborn babies, destroying life, making irresponsible decisions by young and/or uninformed people. Abortion is bloody, disgusting, death, murder and it is legal. But bring up the subject, and you get labeled a Christian, a misogynist, a Republican or a fascist.

It is an ugly subject and people are passionate about it. And if abortions are illegal once again, this will not prevent abortions from happening. I can tell you stories about the illegal abortion clinic run in the country that raised me and gave me my education. Want to hear about the third trimester fetuses flushed in my childhood's bathroom?

So we can all sit down, quote statistics supporting our perspectives, but it always comes down to the individual's responsibility on how they conduct their lives, and how they interact with each other.

There is a saying: "an armed society is a polite society". I would like to say that: "an armed society is a free society".

So people will use guns to commit crimes. They will also use knives, tazers, the internet, cars, trucks, rope, masks, etc. But wholesale banning of things is nothing but a bandaid trying to fix arterial bleeding.

Hopefully, in the near future, we will not need weapons to fix our problems. But until people stop burglarizing, robbing, ******, stealing, threatening, bullying, etc., we are going to need weapons for self-defense. When law enforcement is able and willing to show up at my location at the moment of the crime being committed, then I will gladly donate my guns to a museum.

When other nations stop being a threat or competing for limited resources (like petroleum for example), then we can all turn our rifles into plows (or computers and hybrid cars). But until that time comes along, I will continue to improve my marksmanship, ingrain safety in all weapon handling activities, teach whomever wants to on how to properly use a weapon, and defend myself, my friends and our property from people who do not care about ownership rights and hard work.

Love you guys,

Uncle Jerry

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Killslowly you're alright in my book,anytime you're in Kentucky,feel free to drop by and we'll vent some paper with 22's.

[HumanePain]

Jackie Mason tells it like it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn9cX5BaqYc
I never knew he was a supporter of the Second Amendment.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Tom Selleck is also pro-2A

[Saya]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Jackie Mason tells it like it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn9cX5BaqYc
I never knew he was a supporter of the Second Amendment.

He said millions of people are murdered every day in america, and is just as bad in warzones in the world. In reality: There were over 15,000 murders last year according to the FBI.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_12.html

For the 31,000 deaths from firearms in 2005, 55% were suicide, 40% were homicide, 3% were accidents and 2% were legal killings.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/

He's exaggerating the crime rate to incite fear that someone is going to shoot you, so you better have a gun.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

And anit-gun folks don't try to incite fear in people?

[Saya]

Thats a weak defense for blatantly exaggerating AND COMPARING America to a warzone, I can look at the numbers and say "hey, the murder rate is actually declining and you are far more likely to shoot and kill yourself with the gun than you are to shoot and kill an intruder." and actually be able to back it up.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

But if you're going into the claim that guns are used more for suicide,I can counter with the fact that even if guns weren't avaliable the suicide rate would still be the same (Other methods can,have and would be used)

Same with Murder or Homicide (Was done in the past before the invention of gun powder)

What you just posted is a prime example of an Anti-gun scare tactic.
"You're more likely to shoot yourself or someone you love"
All I pointed out was that Tom Selleck was pro-2nd amendment as well.

Old Jackie Boy's heart was in the right place but his head was way up his ass on a few statements.

Also at the end of that video he was trying to pitch a book.

And just in case you think the Police and Military are the only ones that should be armed.
Example one.
DEA Agent that was the only one professional enough to handle a Glock Forty? (The dumbass didn't even use the right designation for his own weapon,which was a Glock 22 which was chambered in the .40S&W cartridge)

Seen here.
(At the 30 second mark El Dumbass reloads the weapon)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU


Things that cause ND's (Accidental Firing) are poor training and improper saftey usage (Not the one on the weapon,the big friggin' melon sitting on top of your shoulders)

The biggest percentage of ND's actually happen with police officers and Military (Though us Civie's aren't with out dipshits as well in that reguard)

The Accidents you have stated wouldn't have happened if the person using said weapon followed one of the four rules.
"Always be sure of your target"

[Deadmanwalking_05]

In the video it also shows why the age old addage is "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you are ready to fire"

Also the matter of treating all firearms as if they are loaded.

[Cicero]

Suicide rates in places that allow guns are actually higher than places that don't. That's most likely because it's a lot harder to revive someone who's blown their brains out than someone who overdosed on pills or slit their wrists. No second chances with a gunshot to the head, and when guns are readily available they're an obvious choice for someone wanting to off themselves.

Just thought I'd throw than in since it was discussed in New Scientist a few months ago.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

But if you're going into the claim that guns are used more for suicide,I can counter with the fact that even if guns weren't avaliable the suicide rate would still be the same (Other methods can,have and would be used)

Same with Murder or Homicide (Was done in the past before the invention of gun powder)

What you just posted is a prime example of an Anti-gun scare tactic.
"You're more likely to shoot yourself or someone you love"
All I pointed out was that Tom Selleck was pro-2nd amendment as well.

With guns the suicide success rate is 90%. With overdose its 2%.

And I wasn't talking to you initially anyway, I was retorting what Humane posted. I don't care if Tom Selleck is pro gun.

Old Jackie Boy's heart was in the right place but his head was way up his ass on a few statements.

Also at the end of that video he was trying to pitch a book.

He wants to arm himself to the teeth because MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE MURDERED EVERYDAY. BUY MY BOOK. His heart is not in the best place.

And just in case you think the Police and Military are the only ones that should be armed.
Example one.
DEA Agent that was the only one professional enough to handle a Glock Forty? (The dumbass didn't even use the right designation for his own weapon,which was a Glock 22 which was chambered in the .40S&W cartridge)

Seen here.
(At the 30 second mark El Dumbass reloads the weapon)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU

With my mistrust of the government and their police force and army, I can't say I've made up my mind whether they should be armed either. Probably not.


And I just quoted that 3% of gun deaths are accidental, never made a statement about them or how they can be prevented.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Yeah but it's a people problem not a gun problem.

The thing I'm trying to get across is that someone that is hell bent on suicide,will still off themselves,and you have those die hard cases on your hands that no matter how many times someone saves their ass they will do what they are going to do.

[killslowly]

Hey Dead man walking,

Tom Selleck used to be a supply sergeant in my armory (Glendale, CA). That's a little trivia for you!

As far a suicide, I made a solemn promise not to use a firearm just to diminish the statistical problem. Pills are so much more easy on the nerves!

Cheers,

Jerry

[Saya]

Actually there's a huge number of people who try to kill themselves and regret it. For those people I hope they survive their overdose rather than blow their brains out.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

And I just quoted that 3% of gun deaths are accidental, never made a statement about them or how they can be prevented.

And I was trying to show examples of how they could have been prevented.

[Saya]

By saying that "if they were sensible about it" when clearly they weren't.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

And in that case the people in question shouldn't have been trusted with a sharp stick,let alone a firearm.

[Saya]

but they were trusted with guns. And do you get your gun liscense revoked if you shoot someone accidentally?