Guns

[JulesJackson]

You are aware that this is the "guns" thread right?

Hence is said it's the least of our worries. I see wit isn't a common trait.

Really?

You come into the gun thread, when the discussion is about guns, and post about random other crap that has nothing to do with the thread (but for which we have threads), and then you claim that it's on topic because the topic isn't as important as the topics you posted about? And you think I'm being slow?

I said I ain't opposed to it we got bigger issues than that, Dannyboi.

 

[Danoff]

Hence is said it's the least of our worries. I see wit isn't a common trait.

Really?

You come into the gun thread, when the discussion is about guns, and post about random other crap that has nothing to do with the thread (but for which we have threads), and then you claim that it's on topic because the topic isn't as important as the topics you posted about? And you think I'm being slow?

 

[photonrider]

I see wit isn't a common trait.

Nor is brevity - though it is the soul of it.

However, a meme might help your credibility.

 

[Michael88]

Self defense is more important. I'm not arguing against it. If you had a not deadly weapon to use against that type of objects like baseball bats, katanas, etc, you could use it effectively without the possibility of killing the attacker. Like a gun that could fire an electric shock or an instantaneous paralysing substance.

Aaaand I'm going to stop participating to this discussion right after this post. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone on the Internet who has obviously no idea what he is talking about.

No offense, but anybody who labels Katanas and Baseball bats as less-lethal weapons has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, people get killed with those every single day.
People attacked and killed by large blades like Katanas or swords have lost limbs, people beaten with baseball bats have their brains running out of their smashed skulls. Those are extremely lethal weapons that make horrible wounds. People belittle those weapons because they are not ranged like guns, but boy, they are every bit as lethal as guns.

Oh, and by the way, did you know that 80% (!!) of the people shot with service pistols survive? Probably not. (Its a different story with rifles though, but pistols are more commonly used for self defense)

Not to mention that unwieldy Katanas and baseball bats are less than ideal self defense weapons because they cannot be swung indoors, there is not enough space unless you're living in a castle.
The assailant will make swiss cheese out of you before you can even hit him. You are better off with a knife which is also a very lethal weapon, the attacker will still shoot you though.

You need to think before suggesting weapons for self defense. You don't need to be an expert to realize that your suggestions make very little sense.

Shotting bows don't bring any problems because no one uses them to kill other people.

But... but they were designed to KILL! Well, I don't use my guns to kill either, neither do my gun-owning friends so its all fine, right? I agree with you, its not the tool, the people who kill are the problem.

So ironic... Are you saying that fire guns weren't invented for the purpuse of wars and to kill people? Ok. They weren't invented to hunt mamoths that I'm sure of

What is a fire gun? You mean flamethrower?
What it was designed for doesn't matter, bows were designed to kill, now its a recreational tool to have fun and shoot targets. In the middle ages bow shooters were feared and were responsible for most of the deaths on the battlefield. Knives are designed to cut food or boxes. More people get stabbed to death than shot to death each year. So much for ''designed to kill''.There it goes, your irony.

 

[zzz_pt]

What tells me this is the fact that you are using general assumption that are as bad as those who did the same thing on previous pages before you, actually I'd say they are nearly the worst yet. Then you go on to basically tell me you didn't research it. Also if you wish to partake in the current events area in any degree, you're basically telling other users that you have some knowledge, if not then why bother and basically contribute trite?

I'm not a speacialist in any area linked to this issue. As i've stated, I'm a layman and my opinion is based on some news I've read and saw throw out my life.

What do you mean no one knows? There are plenty of areas to get numbers from WHO/U.N. and such along with the national groups themselves that take this info into account such as the FBI and so on.

You asked me facts, exact numbers. A lot of killed people aren't counted in those reports as they state usually. I know that there are institutions and comittes that work in this area and present reports that are public. But I don't think that it's needded to go and serch for them to back up a claim that states that a lot of people are killed all over the world by illegal guns.

How is the discussion pointless if people ask in a intellectual debate for facts? And if you plan to use context like that in such a manner that doesn't show opinion then you might want to review AUP on this subject.

You took my statement from context. That isn't intellectually honest. I was comparing guns and stones and you completely ignored that fact. I know the AUP and I don't need your help on that.

How am I mocking you? Because I asked you to make a solution other than saying "if we didn't make guns or have them we wouldn't have problems", okay that's great so what do you suggest, and the replacing thing doesn't do a thing so yeah...

How? Where did I wrote that sentence? If you can't find it (and all I wrote was quoted, so I couldn't even edit) I'll say you're no being serious. Replacing deadly guns with not deadly guns doesn't do a thing to avoid the amount of innocent people that die? why? I would like to know how do you reach to that conclusion.

I never said that, but funny thing is...if you read the thread you can easily find my opinion on this subject.

Also not almost every single person owns a gun this is hyperbole formulated on fear mongering and general assumption, also you not know how to read statistics.

I would search for your opinion if you were a reasonable person. You're expecting for everyone that enters a thread to be expert on in the same level of you or that presents some ground braking arguments supporting you or against it but you can't deal with people that don't have that amount of interest or knowledge and you don't try to "teach" anything. Your first reply to my first post was, condensed, like this: "you're ignorant because you didn't read the thread. You didn't read the content again. Sadly you look like an extremist. Prove that. ". And you completely ignore the main points I made (about the possibility of not deadly weapons).

I know how to read statistics. I made a mistake and I've already assumed it. Again, you're not being serious.

You implied it, and I found nothing wrong before you mentioning it so not sure why you'd need to because the context didn't seem to be one of warning or a heads up.

I neved said that I wouldn't reply. I said that it might get harder for me to do it and I could have problems to do it due to my lack on english.

I didn't fail to understand you wrote a certain statement that implied something you didn't want it to imply, thus you needed to clarify. This isn't a failure on my part because I was mislead, nor is asking you to reassess failure on your part. However, stating the obvious isn't going to progress this much.

I wrote this: "To me, de border line is that it's too easy to kill with a gun. And if you can legally carry one with you, the chances of something go wrong is much higher than if you carry a stone, a knife or a stick."

And you completely ignored the ending part of the sentence "THAN IF you carry a stone, a knife or a stick". Yes, you missunderstood. Assume it or quote me if you find something similar to what you were putting in my mouth.

How am I being ironic? Because you're conveying a tone that isn't there? Or because I'm asking you to contribute to the thread, rather than treat this as a blog or chat room where you say something and then just go? I mean this is what a forum is for, discussion and debate and what not. No where do I say you can't think or be coherent, rather I'm asking you to make a real attempt (which you are at this point) at proving your point.

I'll let you figure it out. You keep ignoring the central point of my argument and keep focusing in single words or parts of sentences.

So you want to leave an opinion, but not have to face the consequences of doing so, which is having to defend it...

No. I can't simply defent something that I haven't said. I don't like when people missqueote me or say that I've said things I didn't.

And the fact that you have to have register it with the ATF and just can't go out and buy it as well.

That was a reply to a joke and a simple example.

 

[zzz_pt]

Aaaand I'm going to stop participating to this discussion right after this post. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone on the Internet who has obviously no idea what he is talking about.

No offense, but anybody who labels Katanas and Baseball bats as less-lethal weapons has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, people get killed with those every single day.
People attacked and killed by large blades like Katanas or swords have lost limbs, people beaten with baseball bats have their brains running out of their smashed skulls. Those are extremely lethal weapons that make horrible wounds. People belittle those weapons because they are not ranged like guns, but boy, they are every bit as lethal as guns.

Oh, and by the way, did you know that 80% (!!) of the people shot with service pistols survive? Probably not. (Its a different story with rifles though, but pistols are more commonly used for self defense)

Not to mention that unwieldy Katanas and baseball bats are less than ideal self defense weapons because they cannot be swung indoors, there is not enough space unless you're living in a castle.
The assailant will make swiss cheese out of you before you can even hit him. You are better off with a knife which is also a very lethal weapon, the attacker will still shoot you though.

You need to think before suggesting weapons for self defense. You don't need to be an expert to realize that your suggestions make very little sense.


But... but they were designed to KILL! Well, I don't use my guns to kill either, neither do my gun-owning friends so its all fine, right? I agree with you, its not the tool, the people who kill are the problem.


What is a fire gun? You mean flamethrower?
What it was designed for doesn't matter, bows were designed to kill, now its a recreational tool to have fun and shoot targets. In the middle ages bow shooters were feared and were responsible for most of the deaths on the battlefield. Knives are designed to cut food or boxes. More people get stabbed to death than shot to death each year. So much for ''designed to kill''.There it goes, your irony.

You missed the central point or maybe I wasn't clear enough.

If you had a "pistol-like-weapon" that could shoot an injection with imidiately paralize of the attacker wouldn't it be better than having a deadly gun?

That would make the attacker completely static and you could call the police/help or simply go away depending on the situation.

I know that katanas and bats as knives can do. I don't live in a box.

I've said various times my english is not very good and instead of trying to comprehend what I'm saying, you always take the "insulting" way and state that I don't think or I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not that stupid to think that a bat, a knife or a blade can't kill or do serious damage to a person.

A fire gun or fire weapon is what we are talking about in this thread. You're picking up on my bad wording to throw that to me.

Bows need hundreds of hours to master. It's not even comparable to a pistol. For the same distance to the target, the bow is exponentially harder to use. That's why today is a sport and that why armies don't use them.

Guns were designed to kill. I wans't talking about the use that you give them. I was talking about the purpuse for which they were designed in the first place. There are people that make sculptures with guns.
The problem of prople using knives is not this thread subject. Of course the problem is the people, not the objects. What I think is that if peolpe have a knife and not a gun, the probability to kill is lower. Of course that more pepole get stabbed to death than shot to seath. Because everyone has knives. If everyone had as much guns as kives, I think (this is again my opinion) there would be a lot more deaths.

In my opinion, it takes a lot more "gut" to go and kill someone with a knife or any other objetct than with a gun.

I'm not stupid. It's kind of anoying to try to reply to such hostile type of feedback. I'm not saying that you're stupid or dumb.

 

[Azuremen]

If you had a "pistol-like-weapon" that could shoot an injection with imidiately paralize of the attacker wouldn't it be better than having a deadly gun?

Immediately isn't possible, as you have to very dosage, delivery system, compounds, etc. based on your attacker's weight and tolerances. All these variables make it impossible to "immediately" drop anyone with a tranquilizer without stopping their heart. Further, the delivery system is extremely unreliable, to the extent a heavy coat could easily prevent effective use.

That would make the attacker completely static and you could call the police/help or simply go away depending on the situation.

See above.

I know that katanas and bats as knives can do. I don't live in a box.

And these weapons are useless if your attacker is stronger or better trained in combat. A gun is an incredibly equalizer in power.

I've said various times my english is not very good and instead of trying to comprehend what I'm saying, you always take the "insulting" way and state that I don't think or I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not that stupid to think that a bat, a knife or a blade can't kill or do serious damage to a person.

Not to be an ass, but you really don't know what you are talking about on this issue. Your statement that you could kill dozens of people in seconds with a gun is just wildly inaccurate, given most clip capacity, aiming, recoil adjustment, etc. It is why people asked if you had fired a gun, because if you had you'd be very aware of how outlandish that claim is.

Another example is where you claimed 97% of the US owns guns, which many have informed you couldn't be more incorrect. For example, a family friend owns over 40 guns as he collects rifles and shotguns as a hobby.

Bows need hundreds of hours to master. It's not even comparable to a pistol. For the same distance to the target, the bow is exponentially harder to use. That's why today is a sport and that why armies don't use them.

Guns need hundreds of hours to master. Please go to a shooting range and tell me how your 10 shot spreed is at even 10 meters. You are radically misunderstanding the complexity of a firearm and its usage while hyping up the complexity of a bow. I spent, maybe, a couple dozen hours practicing the long bow and could easily hit several targets from 10 to 20 meters.

The reason armies use guns is they are faster to rearm and more compact. Bows were used for centuries after the development of the gun because guns were so woefully inaccurate, which is why the British utilized a phalanx type firing setup - effective power by simply throwing enough projectiles in a single direction.

Guns were designed to kill. I wans't talking about the use that you give them. I was talking about the purpuse for which they were designed in the first place. There are people that make sculptures with guns.
The problem of prople using knives is not this thread subject. Of course the problem is the people, not the objects. What I think is that if peolpe have a knife and not a gun, the probability to kill is lower. Of course that more pepole get stabbed to death than shot to seath. Because everyone has knives. If everyone had as much guns as kives, I think (this is again my opinion) there would be a lot more deaths.

Bows were designed to kill. Knives were designed to kill.

Oh, and since the UK heavily resticted firearms, stabbing rates climbed notably and murder rates have gone up over the past decade. Famine has posted this MANY times in this thread and others where firearm control have been discussed. If you'd taken the time to read even a few pages of this thread you'd likely have come across this.

In my opinion, it takes a lot more "gut" to go and kill someone with a knife or any other objetct than with a gun.

That is a fantastic opinion, but the randomly people that get punched to death in pub brawls in Commonwealth nations might disagree. A violent person will be a violent person, and stabbing someone with a knife is a lot more low key than discharging a firearm in public. Especially when you may in turn be shot for firing onto an innocent.

I'm not stupid. It's kind of anoying to try to reply to such hostile type of feedback. I'm not saying that you're stupid or dumb.

You might not be stupid but you expressed an very, very extreme opinion with virtually know knowledge on the topic. The hostility is a result of you continuing to make the same argument built on wildly incorrect assumptions. An analogy would be going into the "God" Thread, claiming science is foolish and can't explain XYZ (when it has or can) and then ignoring everything people say.

 

[Michael88]

've said various times my english is not very good and instead of trying to comprehend what I'm saying, you always take the "insulting" way and state that I don't think or I don't know what I'm talking about.

Stop using language barrier as an excuse for your limited knowledge about guns, weapons and self defense. I perfectly understand what you are trying to say.

If you had a "pistol-like-weapon" that could shoot an injection with imidiately paralize of the attacker wouldn't it be better than having a deadly gun?
That would make the attacker completely static and you could call the police/help or simply go away depending on the situation.

Such weapon does not exist, since I'm not living in the future or on the spaceship Enterprise I have to stick with guns. Yes, there are tasers doing exactly that, the problem is they are one-shot weapons, means if I miss I'm going to have a bad time. Next problem is that tasers can be and have been lethal and heavy clothing can stop them very easily.

Like I said, 80% of the people shot with pistols survive, service pistols have very little power but can stop an attacker effectively and quickly.

In my opinion, it takes a lot more "gut" to go and kill someone with a knife or any other objetct than with a gun

If you look at the crime stats a whole lot of people seem to have that guts. Have you heard about the recent massacre at the airport where a bunch of attackers stabbed people in a crowd? It takes less guts than you might think. Also if people want to kill, they kill, they're not stopped if you take away guns, they simply use something else instead.

I'm not stupid. It's kind of anoying to try to reply to such hostile type of feedback. I'm not saying that you're stupid or dumb.

Neither did I, I said that you don't know what you are talking about. You are uneducated on this topic, not dumb.

Bows need hundreds of hours to master. For the same distance to the target, the bow is exponentially harder to use

Wrong. The time where longbows were made of wood are long over, modern fiberglass and carbon recurve bows have sights like a pistol, are very easy to draw even though they are powerful to hunt big and dangerous game with and they even have a release like the trigger of a gun.
You can learn how to use one much quicker and with lots of practice you can hit targets out to 100 meters which is 3 times the effective range of a pistol. Those bows are amazing and have little in common with the old ones used in the middle ages. If they can be used to hunt big game they can kill you as dead as any firearm.

Also handguns are not so easy to shoot as you might think, whats you experience with pistols? I've seen many people shoot pistols for the first time at the range and most couldn't hit a paper plate the size of a torso at 10 paces. Shooting a pistol accurately is much harder than you think and its almost useless in the hands of an unskilled person, its not like you grab a pistol and can hit what you want like a competition shooter, not needing any skill to use a gun is a myth that just won't die.

´A fire gun or fire weapon is what we are talking about in this thread. You're picking up on my bad wording to throw that to me.

Yes I do. Its called a firearm.

Guns were designed to kill. I wans't talking about the use that you give them. I was talking about the purpuse for which they were designed in the first place.

And it still doesn't matter what an object was designed for, objects can be re-purposed. We do that all the time with various things.

And since you are so hell-bent on what guns are designed for, I have something for you to think about:
Most guns produced today are NOT designed to kill people. What is an huge Safari gun that fires projectiles the size of your thumb designed for? Hunting buffalo. What is a 6000$ gun designed for that can shoot incredibly small accurate groups at over 1000 meters? Its a long range target competition gun. Were those guns designed to kill people? No.

In fact, none of the guns produced nowadays are designed to kill, there are guns designed for sporting use, some are designed for self defense, some for hunting animals.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Like I said, 80% of the people shot with pistols survive

Source, please. I'm struggling to find the data you're reading from.

 

[Michael88]

Source, please. I'm struggling to find the data you're reading from.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

Makes sense, people usually are terrible shots and pistols are underpowered.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm not a speacialist in any area linked to this issue. As i've stated, I'm a layman and my opinion is based on some news I've read and saw throw out my life.

Yes well some of us aren't and that's what you're up against, a layman vs enthusiasts who have had to make it their duty to educate themselves on the recreation of gun usage. A recreation that you don't understand nor even see from what I've so far read from you.

You asked me facts, exact numbers. A lot of killed people aren't counted in those reports as they state usually. I know that there are institutions and comittes that work in this area and present reports that are public. But I don't think that it's needded to go and serch for them to back up a claim that states that a lot of people are killed all over the world by illegal guns.

I asked you for factual numbers because you gave numbers, see how @TenEightyOne did this to @Michael88? He did it because sourcing on this subforum and others is the proper thing and follows AUP. I am asked to source as well and I do it, if you don't like having to prove what at the time didn't seem like hyperbole then don't do it.

You took my statement from context. That isn't intellectually honest. I was comparing guns and stones and you completely ignored that fact. I know the AUP and I don't need your help on that.

I didn't ignore it you assumed I did, my issue didn't have anything to do with the comparison, and I've stated that as well as the issue. You doing this song and dance of crying foul at each segue or break and then claiming I'm being intellectually dishonest...how?

Also if you knew AUP as well as you've claimed then why are you having issue with being asked to give facts, when it seems like you're trying to be factual on a subject? You did it earlier claiming that almost every American owns a gun and were proven wrong, you got caught out on using the millions get killed by a specific type of firearm, rather than firearms in general.

How? Where did I wrote that sentence? If you can't find it (and all I wrote was quoted, so I couldn't even edit) I'll say you're no being serious. Replacing deadly guns with not deadly guns doesn't do a thing to avoid the amount of innocent people that die? why? I would like to know how do you reach to that conclusion.

I voted for the first option because the second is always thrown at people's faces when disasters happen.

Guns shown't even be manufactured let alone be aquired by civilians. It's my opinion. We, human society, already have the knowledge and the capability to live without guns or wars.

Guns like we have nowadays shouldn't exist. Every shoting wouldn't have so many innocent victims because killing with an automatic gun is too easy and fast.

No where do I say you wrote that exact sentence, it was me paraphrasing your general idea and talking point that you have on this subject. That can be gleamed from several similar statements.

Because it's quite simple replacing the guns with others that don't shoot bullets does what to the billions of guns in circulation already that exists? Your solution doesn't stop criminals from getting deadly weapons but rather leaves law abiding people from getting them because you seem to think it's safer that way.

I would search for your opinion if you were a reasonable person. You're expecting for everyone that enters a thread to be expert on in the same level of you or that presents some ground braking arguments supporting you or against it but you can't deal with people that don't have that amount of interest or knowledge and you don't try to "teach" anything. Your first reply to my first post was, condensed, like this: "you're ignorant because you didn't read the thread. You didn't read the content again. Sadly you look like an extremist. Prove that. ". And you completely ignore the main points I made (about the possibility of not deadly weapons).

I'm expecting them to make the same effort me and others make when we decide to contribute, which is not be myopic, know what we're supporting and doing so in a knowledgeable fashion. I can't deal with people that want to play politics but not know how to do it when others around them do. Thus I'm asking you to come up to the level everyone else is at, and you seem to think this is wrong of me and others. Also we've taught you plenty in the page and a half so far, you want to be nearsighted about your ideals and not attempt to learn.

Once again I didn't ignore them, they're just not a feasible solution, all you've done is introduce a different method of dispatching someone, and nothing else. What happens to the current deadly guns? Do they see the non-lethal ones and pack up and go to a different planet, different galaxy, different sequence of time, or different dimension? <- Now I'm being a bit satirical because you are acting as if you're a victim after placing yourself in this situation and the doing yourself no favors by not expanding on your school of thought. Since I'm supposedly unreasonable though I did everything in my efforts up to this point to be reasonable with you.

I know how to read statistics. I made a mistake and I've already assumed it. Again, you're not being serious.

I'm being quite serious, but please tell me how I'm not.

I neved said that I wouldn't reply. I said that it might get harder for me to do it and I could have problems to do it due to my lack on english.

Hence why I said implied, no where do I say that you said this outright...

Do you know what it means when some one implies or infers?

I wrote this: "To me, de border line is that it's too easy to kill with a gun. And if you can legally carry one with you, the chances of something go wrong is much higher than if you carry a stone, a knife or a stick."

Yes and it's vague, does this mean something can go wrong if you simply choose to carry it or when carrying it and forced to use it or something else. It doesn't specify it's general and thus anything can be assumed from it because you made it that way. I can't read your mind.

And you completely ignored the ending part of the sentence "THAN IF you carry a stone, a knife or a stick". Yes, you missunderstood. Assume it or quote me if you find something similar to what you were putting in my mouth.

No, I saw it and here is where your language barrier is now getting you in over your head sadly. You keep claiming me and others are ignore portions but we aren't you giving it far more meaning than you've put. If I simply carry a weapon how are chances higher it will go wrong, and thus does it mean that not carrying one makes you safer than carrying one? See how all this can be implied by a generic statement that seems obvious with no direction? If not then you should probably just stop after this.

I'll let you figure it out. You keep ignoring the central point of my argument and keep focusing in single words or parts of sentences.

Well you just claimed in the next portion after that I misquote, I'm asking you to clarify here so the claimed "misquoting" doesn't happen. You can't play both sides of the fence and tell me to figure out what you're saying and then also say not to misread your context...you yourself have to ensure it's not misunderstood if you're going to take part in this.

No. I can't simply defent something that I haven't said. I don't like when people missqueote me or say that I've said things I didn't.

How did I misquote you? I'm asking you is this what you expect because from your wording (even if limited) you seem to keep bringing up how you wont or cant go on due to something and thus seem to think that we'll give up. Notice how I use the word seem showing how I feel your implying and thus not saying you're actually doing this. Thus I haven't misquoted you but given you the ability to clarify.

That was a reply to a joke and a simple example.

So which is it a joke or an example? Because the example was proven wrong by me and another person in different parts. As for it being a joke, well a jokes a joke a joke, I suppose.

So either you're having trouble with this (which it is getting obvious you are) and instead of concede -no shame in that- you press on and claim basically everything I read from you is wrong or not understood. When it's quite simple general english text taken into context by a first language English speaker...it seems you want your words to mean more than what you're saying but you're not saying enough to do this and thus you feel you're not fully understood.

I realize you warned us of this, but you yourself have to be aware of your own setback.

In the end I think the funniest thing of all is there are portion of what I've said that you've ignored and haven't once called you intellectually dishonest and yet it seems to win a simple battle you'll pull some fallacy or claim I'm "bullying you". The irony and the fact that though you don't have a grasp of the English language (which isn't a major issue), is that you are quickly showing how you deal with these sort of debates/conversations.

 

[HP]

Now this is one dicey topic. it is close to my heart and I shall comment but I am not here to argue back and forth, there are enough folks doing that. I will opine and comment on why I feel this way but needless arguments are not what I am here for.

For the record i voted for option 2.

I won't argue for or against but I will state this: back in 1996 this man did this thing and this other man (who I rarely praise but I do in this instance) stood up, 8 weeks into his term, and said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

It took the slaughter of 35 people for this man to act. It took a mother having to watch her 2 daughters (Madeline and Alanah Mikac) to be hunted, one cornered behind a tree, and shot with a fully automatic machine gun (AR-15 Armalite IIRC). After the poor toddler had her brains smeared all over a tree the mother was killed only after the baby she was holding was first shot with said gun.

So what of the changes made? I am glad you asked...

Gun politics and laws in Australia

This debate can rage on and on and on, and it will, but the fact remains that the laws worked here. People bitched and moaned about it but it works.

It is not about the right to bear arms, it is about the right to make sure those arms end up with the people that need them not those that want them...

I sat in that courtroom in Hobart back in '96. I went to get the truth and the truth I got was that not all humans can be trusted with guns and their availablity should be monitored and restricted.

 

[Zenith]

This debate can rage on and on and on, and it will, but the fact remains that the laws worked here. People bitched and moaned about it but it works.

Highly, highly debatable.

Homicide rate fell, but no faster than it had been for years. Same with accidental deaths, and suicide did not change. Violent crime rose, why is still debated, but supporters of gun rights believe that criminals have less to fear when the populace is unarmed and therefore unable to respond.

Crime rates in Chicago and other disarmed area corroborate this hypothesis.

So you gave up the human rights of yourself and your fellow man for something which at best had a small effect on homicide and at worst made you less safe from assault and burglary.

It is not about the right to bear arms, it is about the right to make sure those arms end up with the people that need them not those that want them...

That's not a right. That's not even close to how rights work.

I sat in that courtroom in Hobart back in '96. I went to get the truth and the truth I got was that not all humans can be trusted with guns and their availablity should be monitored and restricted.

I don't think you'll find a single person in this thread that will say that all humans can be trusted with guns. Your second statement lacks proof.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Now this is one dicey topic. it is close to my heart and I shall comment but I am not here to argue back and forth, there are enough folks doing that. I will opine and comment on why I feel this way but needless arguments are not what I am here for.

For the record i voted for option 2.

I won't argue for or against but I will state this: back in 1996 this man did this thing and this other man (who I rarely praise but I do in this instance) stood up, 8 weeks into his term, and said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

It took the slaughter of 35 people for this man to act. It took a mother having to watch her 2 daughters (Madeline and Alanah Mikac) to be hunted, one cornered behind a tree, and shot with a fully automatic machine gun (AR-15 Armalite IIRC). After the poor toddler had her brains smeared all over a tree the mother was killed only after the baby she was holding was first shot with said gun.

So what of the changes made? I am glad you asked...

Gun politics and laws in Australia

This debate can rage on and on and on, and it will, but the fact remains that the laws worked here. People bitched and moaned about it but it works.

It is not about the right to bear arms, it is about the right to make sure those arms end up with the people that need them not those that want them...

I sat in that courtroom in Hobart back in '96. I went to get the truth and the truth I got was that not all humans can be trusted with guns and their availablity should be monitored and restricted.

You paint a vivid picture, and try to pull at our heart strings. You attempt to make a objective argument but intertwine it with emotions rather than facts. You neglect to tell the entire story, of how a young man with mental disorders was able to get semi-auto rifles illegally with out the proper documentation. You further neglect to be honest by not (or not even knowing the story from your own nation) displaying how early warning signs were there and even the befriended elder of his said he talked about wanting to kill people in mass with a gun...

Once again I'll reiterate, this is the current events sub forum, where a lot of the topics are touchy. One doesn't simply just come in and place their comment and expect not to get into a debate on it, or have to defend it. That's what the poll is for, where you select a position and then go on your way. It's fine if you ignore it though and move on with life no one will fault that but to say you're not looking for an argument and then decide to put your thoughts out there in a public sphere... I mean isn't that counter intuitive to what you don't want but will most likely have happen?

Actually the facts don't support that, as @Zenith shows, and stole my thunder but I must admit I was hesitant to post for a number of reasons. One being the fact I had to find all the stuff I collected on Australia a month ago when I was bored and interested in why NZ it's fellow common wealth allowed such a lax system yet had on a level ratio no more violence than current Australia. Hell even certain things that are quite difficult to get in the U.S. are very easy in NZ. And still with those things, no more violence than Australia

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012...duce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts
http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/the_unsettled_science_of_gun_laws_CQCJDQFe1NpKA517oJL8nM <- this one I just found that goes more along with what Zenith just posted.

So in reality it isn't a fact and it's quite debatable and unproven that these strict measure have made Australia any safer than the years leading up to their implementation.

Now you seem to have a personal stake of sorts in this, or bias toward what happened that really hit you hard but that doesn't take the front seat for what is the truth. Yes it's quite sad what happened, as it is every time some one is murdered or killed by any method of nefarious intent. However, a real cause effect must take place not a knee jerk reaction.

 

[HP]

Highly, highly debatable.

Homicide rate fell, but no faster than it had been for years. Same with accidental deaths, and suicide did not change. Violent crime rose, why is still debated, but supporters of gun rights believe that criminals have less to fear when the populace is unarmed and therefore unable to respond.

Crime rates in Chicago and other disarmed area corroborate this hypothesis.

So you gave up the human rights of yourself and your fellow man for something which at best had a small effect on homicide and at worst made you less safe from assault and burglary.



That's not a right. That's not even close to how rights work.



I don't think you'll find a single person in this thread that will say that all humans can be trusted with guns. Your second statement lacks proof.

I said I was leaving my opinion which I did. My opinion is based on living in many places in Australia and visiting most of it.

The people of this country know that criminals will always find a way to get a gun, same as anywhere, but we wanted to be able to go places where opportunists could not act on a whim to slaughter innocents and we have achieved that for the most part:

Mass shootings in Australia up to and including the Port Aurthur Massacre from 1971:

• Hope Forest massacre - Clifford Cecil Bartholomew shot dead ten members of his family in Hope Forest near Adelaide, September 1971.[2]

• 22 September 1976 - William Robert Wilson - Killed two people and wounded four on Boundary Street, Spring Hill, Brisbane. Wilson took a .22 calibre rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition to Boundary Street around 12.30 pm and began shooting randomly. He shot and killed Monika Schleus, aged 17, as she crossed Boundary Street. Wilson shot and wounded Donald William Hepburn Galloway, who was also crossing the street. Proceeding to a milk bar, Wilson shot and killed Marianne Kalatzis, aged 18, and wounded Mavis Ethel Sanders and Virginia Hollidge. In the neighbouring shop he shot and wounded Quinto Alberti. Wilson was captured by police around 4:15 pm at a suburban house where Wilson was holding a man and four young women hostage. Wilson served three years in a mental hospital. On being found fit for trial, he was sentenced in 1980 to two life sentences for the murders and 10 years each, concurrently, for the four attempted murders. He pleaded guilty to all charges.[3]

• Milperra massacre - Two biker gangs, the Comanchero and the Bandidos, engaged in a shoot-out in a hotel car park, killing 7 people in 1984, including a bystander. Only one defendant was acquitted on the murder charges.

• Joseph Schwab - 1987, Schwab shot dead 5 people in and around the Kimberley region in Western Australia before being shot dead by police.[4]

• Hoddle Street massacre - Armed with two rifles and a shotgun, Julian Knight shot 7 people dead and wounded another 19 in 1987 before surrendering to authorities.

• Queen Street massacre - Armed with a sawn-off rifle, Frank Vitkovic roamed the Australia Post building killing 8 and wounding 5, also in 1987. When the weapon was finally wrestled from him, he committed suicide by jumping out of a nearby window.

• Surry Hills massacre - Paul Anthony Evers killed 5 people with a 12-gauge shotgun at a public housing precinct in Surry Hills in 1990 before surrendering to police.[5]

• Strathfield massacre - In 1991 Wade Frankum killed 7 people and wounded 6 others with a large knife and an SKS before turning the gun on himself when he realised he could not escape.

• Central Coast Massacre - Malcolm Baker killed 6 people and injured another with a shotgun in 1992 before being arrested by police.

• Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege.

Mass shootings in Australia since the Port Aurthur Massacre:

• Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

There has been 18 years since Port Aurthur, in the 18 years preceeding ever instance in the 'before' list occured with the exception of the first 2. I would say that those numbers indicate that we have done the right thing....

 

[Zenith]

I said I was leaving my opinion which I did. My opinion is based on living in many places in Australia and visiting most of it.

If that's your opinion, you need to defend it. Pulling the "well it's my opinion so I don't need to prove my claims" card is a cop-out.

There has been 18 years since Port Aurthur, in the 18 years preceeding ever instance in the 'before' list occured with the exception of the first 2. I would say that those numbers indicate that we have done the right thing....

So do you think that the media publicized events where many people are killed are more important than the daily crimes that violate the rights of thousands of people?

Massacres are a big deal because news outlets get great viewership from them. Standard crime is much more likely to actually affect the average citizen. Why would massacres that affect a fraction of the people that crimes do justify leaving all those victims defenseless?

 

[HP]

Yes I have a personal stake, everyone alive does.

My previous post illustrates that these laws worked here, we don't get massacres here anymore it's as simple as that, 1 in 18 years. How many in the USA in that time? I would suggest that the post might be so lengthy as to explode the GTP servers.

And since when does leaving an opinion on a forum mean that one must instantly have reams of facts on hand, it's not a uni paper or theses FFS. Jesus H Christ, if I knew I needed to be armed to the teeth with factual evidence to voice my opinion then I wouldn't have bothered. I started the post saying it was my opinion but it's being taken to mean the opposite. Well done.

 

[Zenith]

Yes I have a personal stake, everyone alive does.

This sentence doesn't mean anything.

My previous post illustrates that these laws worked here, we don't get massacres here anymore it's as simple as that, 1 in 18 years. How many in the USA in that time? I would suggest that the post might be so lengthy as to explode the GTP servers.

Your post illustrates that banning guns correlates to lower mass shootings. Forfeiting a human right with the result of decreasing mass shootings does not qualify to me as "working." I am interested in everything that might hurt people. That includes assault, homicide, burglary, mass shootings, rape, and more.

I asked you about the increase in crime. You have not answered that.

And since when does leaving an opinion on a forum mean that one must instantly have reams of facts on hand, it's not a uni paper or theses FFS. Jesus H Christ, if I knew I needed to be armed to the teeth with factual evidence to voice my opinion then I wouldn't have bothered. I started the post saying it was my opinion but it's being taken to mean the opposite. Well done.

Here's a great article on the matter.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yes I have a personal stake, everyone alive does.

What do you mean exactly? Is there some war going on?

My previous post illustrates that these laws worked here, we don't get massacres here anymore it's as simple as that, 1 in 18 years. How many in the USA in that time? I would suggest that the post might be so lengthy as to explode the GTP servers.

Once again it doesn't. Since Mass shootings aren't the only time guns are used, nor does it help explain why the opposite is done next door with the same results of the current strictly regulated Australia. Things that you're not answering and probably not wanting to from your initial "I'm not here to fight but rather throw my opinion down your throats and not answer to it when asked."

You hyperbole is a bit comical, you seem to perpetuate this idea that clearly the wild west is going on in the U.S. and thousands upon thousands of them. In reality between the Americas there has been 119 Mass killings like that of the one you are using as an example.

And since when does leaving an opinion on a forum mean that one must instantly have reams of facts on hand, it's not a uni paper or theses FFS. Jesus H Christ, if I knew I needed to be armed to the teeth with factual evidence to voice my opinion then I wouldn't have bothered. I started the post saying it was my opinion but it's being taken to mean the opposite. Well done.

When the AUP of said forum states doing so

• You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

It seems many people need to either reassess their syntax (not to be grammar monger) when they think they're stating only an opinion, when that actually are doing so and then carrying over into "truths" or "facts" like you did. Perhaps you shouldn't have bothered, because the reality is yes well done on your part. Well done on starting it and not ending it in the same fashion. Hell, well done on taking it personally and just throw the idea of intellectual debate or conversation out the 🤬 window right?

 

[HP]

If I knew something to be false I wouldn't post it. I expressed my opinion:

Opinion:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment:to ask for a second medical opinion

Now, how on earth is someone expected to provide factual evidence on something that, by definition, is not necessarily factual but instead a belief.

I stated it was my opinion, the fact that this was skipped over and turned into a potential AUP breach is utter lunacy.

Criminal behaviour cannot be stopped, in my opinion, by gun control. However, in my opinion, the laws in Australia that were legislated after the Port Arthur Massacre worked because those laws were designed to, and this is fact, prevent more massacres which were on the increase since the 70's.

My previous post details that we've had, to the best of my knowledge, 1 massacre in 18 years.

It is my opinion that these laws have directly resulted in the reduction of massacres which was their purpose.

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

Makes sense, people usually are terrible shots and pistols are underpowered.

How does that relate to your handgun figure? I don't see that specific claim.

Additionally; that figure includes specific legal interventions - by their nature they're often designed to be incapacitative rather than life-ending except when you get into Tennessee .vs. Garner territory.

I'm still digesting that paper (some great anti-gun figures in there ) but I don't see how the table you quote supports "80% of the people shot with pistols survive, service pistols have very little power but can stop an attacker effectively and quickly" except in the implied law-enforcement context of some of that source data.

In the face of that I find it even harder to read the figures as supporting your claim that "people are terrible shots".

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If I knew something to be false I wouldn't post it. I expressed my opinion:

Opinion:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment:to ask for a second medical opinion

Now, how on earth is someone expected to provide factual evidence on something that, by definition, is not necessarily factual but instead a belief.

I stated it was my opinion, the fact that this was skipped over and turned into a potential AUP breach is utter lunacy.

No it wasn't it was pointed out to you by two people where you opinion went on tangent into supposed "truth that you discovered". A truth is synonymous with what is factual or found to be reality, thus how can that be submerged in the basis of an opinion?

Criminal behaviour cannot be stopped, in my opinion, by gun control. However, in my opinion, the laws in Australia that were legislated after the Port Arthur Massacre worked because those laws were designed to, and this is fact, prevent more massacres which were on the increase since the 70's.

So how are the parts in bold opinion? Furthermore, if you say that aren't then why haven't you argued against the info that has been given to you that says otherwise. How do you know that they were on the increase because they happened over time? That's not how statistics work by the way.

My previous post details that we've had, to the best of my knowledge, 1 massacre in 18 years.

Okay so one massacre in 18 years, how do you know that other things such as tools to find and help those with mental health haven't become better in that time frame.

It is my opinion that these laws have directly resulted in the reduction of massacres which was their purpose.

Okay but I provided info and so did @Zenith that disputes this I also showed that the perpetrator and incident you are using as the basis for your opinions obtained these weapons illegally. So what does the current law do that the past laws didn't do from allowing someone to get a gun illegally?

Also what about other regions that had strict bans on semi-auto rifles and still had these incidents?

 

[Zenith]

Criminal behaviour cannot be stopped, in my opinion, by gun control. However, in my opinion, the laws in Australia that were legislated after the Port Arthur Massacre worked because those laws were designed to, and this is fact, prevent more massacres which were on the increase since the 70's.

My previous post details that we've had, to the best of my knowledge, 1 massacre in 18 years.

It is my opinion that these laws have directly resulted in the reduction of massacres which was their purpose.

Which brings me back to my first question...

So do you think that the media publicized events where many people are killed are more important than the daily crimes that violate the rights of thousands of people?

Massacres are a big deal because news outlets get great viewership from them. Standard crime is much more likely to actually affect the average citizen. Why would massacres that affect a fraction of the people that crimes do justify leaving all those victims defenseless?

Because those laws you're so happy about affect more than just mass shootings, they affect all things gun related.

I wouldn't say that a dental surgery to perform a root canal "worked" if it also broke my jaw. Sure it succeeded in its original purpose, but it doesn't mean much if I can't eat anything.

 

[Azuremen]

Additionally; that figure includes specific legal interventions - by their nature they're often designed to be incapacitative rather than life-ending except when you get into Tennessee .vs. Garner territory.

This is actually false. Officers are trained to stop the target by aiming at center mass, which is generally the more lethal shots. It sounds like you're implying that they are aiming at limbs and the likes to cripple targets, which is extremely Hollywood, to say the least.

@Heathenpride - While gun massacres have dropped, there have been several arson related massacres in Australia since the 1996 ban. And this Time article from 2008 stats that gun related deaths simply continued to decline at the rate they were prior to the ban in 1996. Just food for thought.

 

[Michael88]

How does that relate to your handgun figure? I don't see that specific claim.

Not sure what you mean, the figures show that approx 80% of the people shot in legal interventions and assault survive.

Additionally; that figure includes specific legal interventions - by their nature they're often designed to be incapacitative rather than life-ending except when you get into Tennessee .vs. Garner territory.

And how do you incapacitate? By shooting your treat until its down and cannot attack anymore, if you really think that during an attack you can chose not to make potentially lethal shots you are living in fantasy-world, during those attacks you have hardly enough time to even draw your weapon let alone aim for anything other than the biggest target - center mass. Thats the torso.
Police are trained to do that, so are SWAT and normal, educated gun owners.

I could show you videos of attackers that soak up 5-6 bullets from the assailant or the person defending itself and they keep on coming. And survive. When armed with a pistol in a defense scenario you have to shoot as many rounds as it takes to stop the treat, don't count on one bullet.
I remember lasty ear a woman attacked a police officer with a knife, she got shot six times and still managed to hurt the LEO with the knife. And she survived. One pistol round is not very effective against assilants bent on destruction.
Thats why I use a rifle for home defense, energy-wise a medium caliber rifle is 7 times more powerful (3200 ft/lbs vs. 500 ft/lbs) and one center mass hit definitely puts the treat out of the fight.

 

[zzz_pt]

I won't reply to any of my previous interlocutors because I recognize I haven't try to make myself clear enough and some of my ideas were to rough and basic to make a sound argument.
I maintain though the fact that in some situations I was missquoted and I felt quite an hostile reaction from every person defending their legal right to own a gun and to kill other people in self defense.

I've made a serious effort not to make the same error, since I was thinking this thread was a more informal, not so "scientifically serious", and not so "black or white" kind-of-thing.

After reading both your responses I did spend some time reading aproximately 30 of the last pages in this thread.
I'll list some of the things I've noticed and some questions and thoughts I've come across:

1. This thread is pretty much about some american users vs every person that "dares" to have a different opinion. That's my impression, not a fact.

2. You can't accept personal opinions; I've seen several times the link to an article titled "no one's entitled to their opinion". That's a position that can be usefull in some cases, but is not universal. On the other hand, I've read lots of posts by oponents to gun control with several claims and statements and just a few of them were supported by any type of source. Double-standard is self-evident throw out the thread.

3. Several times, people have missquoted other users and argue against them, leading to paralel discussions that originally weren't even there. (check the thread for yourself and you'll see it over and over).

----------------------

4. You can't seem to comprehend that people can feel secure and safe living in countries where exists restict gun control. I can state how I feel living in Portugal (and I've been in other countries as well) and I don't have to provide any factual proof of how I feel. And the way I feel is the reason I think what I think. In my country I can legally purchase a weapon (I have to follow strict regulations to recieve a license, but I can). But I don't feel the need to go and buy one, or any other type of weapon. I never felt or saw any kind of gun violence and the few news I hear where people killing others with guns is in a large majoraty, inside their own families. "husband kills wife";"son kills parents";"men kills ex-wife and children", etc. I dont't remember of any mass shooting in this country or any similar to that.

5. You defend the 2nd amendment like christians defend the bible: as if it were written by god and it can't be wrong or modified. And when confronted with examples of countries that have a different policy on gun control and have less crime related to it, you refuse to find some credit on those examples. It's always rubish and every source presented isn't adequate. Then, you all expect that people who don't agreed with you to accept all you have to say and all your sources (if there are any). Why do you think the 2nd amendment isn't at least in some part, outdated? Back then, people could only shoot a gun once in 30sec (it's not a factual number, just an illustration) and now it's possible to shoot 10x faster, at least. That is an huge differense that carries some profound alterations in the relationship between people with their guns and the possible harm they can do with it.

6. I can comprehend that the situation in the USA is very unique. They're the major manufacturer of weapons and military equipment and it's a large economy that envolves a huge amount of people and a lot of money as well. I know that simply ban firearms would be a catastrophe in the short term. But the situation has escalated to the point of today because people didn't care about it earlier, I assume. Yes I can be wrong. Giving easy acssess to a gun to virtualy any person can only mean that in time, more and more guns will be in circulation, augmenting the possibility of mass shootings, crimes envolving gun shots, illegal black markets, etc. And it's a basic social response to go and buy a gun to defend yourself if you see all this occouring arround you. I reckon that I would probably have a gun if I lived in the US. But since I don't, I can have a different opinion about guns and their impact in my sense of security and social well being. What about the huge number of robbed guns? There are a lot of "good people" that sees their legal guns robbed and those guns can kill someone afterwards.

7. I can't comprehend (and I didn't find any information on this on the posts i've read) why the 2nd amendment and your right to own a gun or guns would make any difference against a threat of tyranny. I mean, the US army is by far the strongest in the world and is larger than almost all his allies armys combined. What difference would it make your gun/guns against an army of this magnitude? And if your response is "there is the possibility of the army not supporting the regime". In that case, the army would be on your side and the Tyrant wouldn't have any chance.

8. What do you think of denying the right to own a gun to a person that has been convicted earlier in his/her life? Doesn't he/she payd already the price of his/her actions? Doesn't he/she have the same right to self-defense and defend his/her family, property and the country against a tyranny theat?

9. Several people stated that they do not own a gun or guns to kill. They like to shoot to a paper sheet or to practice aim, etc. My question is: why do you need to practice aim, or shoot at paper sheets if your argument against strict gun control is self-defense? If it's self-defense, why do you buy a gun to shoot against a person. Why don't you practice bowling or golf if you want to practive aim? Or why don't you practice with something that doesn't have the potencial to kill? Several people brought the argument (in my opinion, correct) that guns were invented to harm, damage and kill. It's ok to own a gun and not have the purpose to use it for the purpose of its creation, but then again, why to buy it in the first place?


10.In my country, 20% of the crimes were commited using white weapons (knives) or guns. In 1995, this number was 30,5%. From the crimes using firearms in the period from 2005-2010, the number droped 4.5% (from 14,9% to 10,4%). Crimes associated with knives (white weapons), in 1995 the number was 30%, in 2012 was 10,3% (only between 2005-2010 the number droped 13%). Crimes using poison droped too: in 1995 the number was 1,4%, in 2012 was 0,2%. Psycologic threats also droped drom 17% to 4,7%. The only exception to ehis numbers is the phisical violence that increased from 30,5% to arround 45%. This can be linked to the greater social awareness of domestic violence and the increase in situations reported to the police that a few decades weren't reported as such type of bheaviour was more "accepted" / less "condemned".

The context of this change in numbers is laergely related to alterations in the law of guns ownership. The last change was made in 2009 with more resctricion and a more strict regulation to achieve a license to own a firearm.

From this simple example from my country, I think I can assume that the less guns we have arround, the more safe we will be. More guns implies more guns in good people's hands and more guns in bad people's hand too. I'm aware that if a guy comes into my house with a gun I won't be able to defend myself as I could if I have one, but in the countries where there are less guns, I "believe" people have more respecto for the human life.

Sometimes I hear news of robberies for example to gas stations and the robbers carry a firearm. But usually they don't even use it. I don't remeber of anything like this from the last few years. The last time there was something involving a gun and killed people was in a small vilagge where a 70+ old man went to his ex-wife's house where she was with her mother, their dauther and another 2 women from their family and he shoot them all. He killed 2 and the other 2 were sent to the hospital. He was an hunter and had several guns. His reason to do this horrendous crime was that he and his ex-wife had gone through a recent process of divorce.
This happened in January I think.


This is the longest post I've ever made on GTP or any english forum I think. I hope at least that this time you find some reasonable things in what I'v said. If not, that's Ok. I wrote this with care and I've tried to be honest and reasonable. And one more thing, not getting a response doesn't make any person a winner on a particular argument. This isn't a trial. It's a forum where we share at least 2 things: our passion for cars/gran turismo and our disposition to write, think and learn about subjects and points of view we didn't knew or though of.

 

[Badasp5.0]

7. I can't comprehend (and I didn't find any information on this on the posts i've read) why the 2nd amendment and your right to own a gun or guns would make any difference against a threat of tyranny. I mean, the US army is by far the strongest in the world and is larger than almost all his allies armys combined. What difference would it make your gun/guns against an army of this magnitude? And if your response is "there is the possibility of the army not supporting the regime". In that case, the army would be on your side and the Tyrant wouldn't have any chance.

Because a very strong/large standing Military is a very recent thing for the US until the mid 20th century the US did not have a large standing military for most of its existence.

 

[HP]

I won't reply to any of my previous interlocutors because I recognize I haven't try to make myself clear enough and some of my ideas were to rough and basic to make a sound argument.
I maintain though the fact that in some situations I was missquoted and I felt quite an hostile reaction from every person defending their legal right to own a gun and to kill other people in self defense.

I've maid a serious effort not to make the same error, since I was thinking this thread was a more informal, not so "scientifically serious", and not so "black or white" kind-of-thing.

After reading both your responses I did spend some time reading aproximately 30 of the last pages in this thread.
I'll list some of the things I've noticed and some questions and thoughts I've come across:

1. This thread is pretty much about some american users vs every person that "dares" to have a different opinion. That's my impression, not a fact.

2. You can't accept personal opinions; I've seen several times the link to an article titled "no one's entitled to their opinion". That's a position that can be usefull in some cases, but is not universal. On the other hand, I've read lots of posts by oponents to gun control with several claims and statements and just a few of them were supported by any type of source. Double-standard is self-evident throw out the thread.

3. Several times, people have missquoted other users and argue against them, leading to paralel discussions that originally weren't even there. (check the thread for yourself and you'll see it over and over).

----------------------

4. You can't seem to comprehend that people can feel secure and safe living in countries where exists restict gun control. I can state how I feel living in Portugal (and I've been in other countries as well) and I don't have to provide any factual proof of how I feel. And the way I feel is the reason I think what I think. In my country I can legally purchase a weapon (I have to follow strict regulations to recieve a license, but I can). But I don't feel the need to go and buy one, or any other type of weapon. I never felt or saw any kind of gun violence and the few news I hear where people killing others with guns is in a large majoraty, inside their own families. "husband kills wife";"son kills parents";"men kills ex-wife and children", etc. I dont't remember of any mass shooting in this country or any similar to that.

5. You defend the 2nd amendment like christians defend the bible: as if it were written by god and it can't be wrong or modified. And when confronted with examples of countries that have a different policy on gun control and have less crime related to it, you refuse to find some credit on those examples. It's always rubish and every source presented isn't adequate. Then, you all expect that people who don't agreed with you to accept all you have to say and all your sources (if there are any). Why do you think the 2nd amendment isn't at least in some part, outdated? Back then, people could only shoot a gun once in 30sec (it's not a factual number, just an illustration) and now it's possible to shoot 10x faster, at least. That is an huge differense that carries some profound alterations in the relationship between people with their guns and the possible harm they can do with it.

6. I can comprehend that the situation in the USA is very unique. They're the major manufacturer of weapons and military equipment and it's a large economy that envolves a huge amount of people and a lot of money as well. I know that simply ban firearms would be a catastrophe in the short term. But the situation has escalated to the point of today because people didn't care about it earlier, I assume. Yes I can be wrong. Giving easy acssess to a gun to virtualy any person can only mean that in time, more and more guns will be in circulation, augmenting the possibility of mass shootings, crimes envolving gun shots, illegal black markets, etc. And it's a basic social response to go and buy a gun to defend yourself if you see all this occouring arround you. I reckon that I would probably have a gun if I lived in the US. But since I don't, I can have a different opinion about guns and their impact in my sense of security and social well being.

7. I can't comprehend (and I didn't find any information on this on the posts i've read) why the 2nd amendment and your right to own a gun or guns would make any difference against a threat of tyranny. I mean, the US army is by far the strongest in the world and is larger than almost all his allies armys combined. What difference would it make your gun/guns against an army of this magnitude? And if your response is "there is the possibility of the army not supporting the regime". In that case, the army would be on your side and the Tyrant wouldn't have any chance.

8. What do you think of denying the right to own a gun to a person that has been convicted earlier in his/her life? Doesn't he/she payd already the price of his/her actions? Doesn't he/she have the same right to self-defense and defend his/her family, property and the country against a tyranny theat?

9. Several people stated that they do not own a gun or guns to kill. They like to shoot to a paper sheet or to practice aim, etc. My question is: why do you need to practice aim, or shoot at paper sheets if your argument against strict gun control is self-defense? If it's self-defense, why do you buy a gun to shoot against a person. Why don't you practice bowling or golf if you want to practive aim? Or why don't you practice with something that doesn't have the potencial to kill? Several people brought the argument (in my opinion, correct) that guns were invented to harm, damage and kill. It's ok to own a gun and not have the purpose to use it for the purpose of its creation, but then again, why to buy it in the first place?


10.In my country, 20% of the crimes were commited using white weapons (knives) or guns. In 1995, this number was 30,5%. From the crimes using firearms in the period from 2005-2010, the number droped 4.5% (from 14,9% to 10,4%). Crimes associated with knives (white weapons), in 1995 the number was 30%, in 2012 was 10,3% (only between 2005-2010 the number droped 13%). Crimes using poison droped too: in 1995 the number was 1,4%, in 2012 was 0,2%. Psycologic threats also droped drom 17% to 4,7%. The only exception to ehis numbers is the phisical violence that increased from 30,5% to arround 45%. This can be linked to the greater social awareness of domestic violence and the increase in situations reported to the police that a few decades weren't reported as such type of bheaviour was more "accepted" / less "condemned".

The context of this change in numbers is laergely related to alterations in the law of guns ownership. The last change was made in 2009 with more resctricion and a more strict regulation to achieve a license to own a firearm.

From this simple example from my country, I think I can assume that the less guns we have arround, the more safe we will be. More guns implies more guns in good people's hands and more guns in bad people's hand too. I'm aware that if a guy comes into my house with a gun I won't be able to defend myself as I could if I have one, but in the countries where there are less guns, I "believe" people have more respecto for the human life.

Sometimes I hear news of robberies for example to gas stations and the robbers carry a firearm. But usually they don't even use it. I don't remeber of anything like this from the last few years. The last time there was something involving a gun and killed people was in a small vilagge where a 70+ old man went to his ex-wife's house where she was with her mother, their dauther and another 2 women from their family and he shoot them all. He killed 2 and the other 2 were sent to the hospital. He was an hunter and had several guns. His reason to do this horrendous crime was that he and his ex-wife had gone through a recent process of divorce.
This happened in January I think.


This is the longest post I've ever made on GTP or any english forum I think. I hope at least that this time you find some reasonable things in what I'v said. If not, that's Ok. I wrote this with care and I've tried to be honest and reasonable. And one more thing, not getting a response doesn't make any person a winner on a particular argument. This isn't a trial. It's a forum where we share at least 2 things: our passion for cars/gran turismo and our disposition to write, think and learn about subjects and points of view we didn't knew or though of.

I applaud your efforts to adequately convey your thoughts on this mate and I agree 100%.

Despite appearing to speak Portuguese as a first language you've constructed an excellent post, I trust no one will attempt to devalue your efforts with Hitleresque grammatical observations...

Well said.

 

[TenEightyOne]

And how do you incapacitate? By shooting your treat until its down and cannot attack anymore, if you really think that during an attack you can chose not to make potentially lethal shots you are living in fantasy-world, during those attacks you have hardly enough time to even draw your weapon let alone aim for anything other than the biggest target - center mass. Thats the torso.
Police are trained to do that, so are SWAT and normal, educated gun owners.

Most legal interventions where firearms are used are non-fatal. How does that square with that argument? I'd suggest that it shows it's possible. There's no question that a target that keeps coming would continue to be shot until they didn't, but that's part of the definition of "incapacitated", I didn't feel the need to cite the definition of the word for you. I also didn't specifically link Tennessee Garner but I'm happy to do so as an interesting aside if you didn't already review it.

Also; you said they were handgun figures that you posted in your table (or implied that they were), they aren't as far as I can see?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@zzz_pt
1. Did you notice that most of the time the topic was geared at American users? As well as those outside of that scope trying to act knowledgeable in the American spectrum of fire arm usage and using flawed ideals like you used.

2. There is no double standard, though I can't speak for everyone but the main group doesn't do what you're claiming. Why? Because as I made quite clear now that we've come full circle, the stats have been posted already. Some of us rather carry a linear argument rather than explain the same thing over and over like we did with you.

3. You claimed this, I asked you to elaborate on how you personally were misquoted and instead you told me at one point to figure it out myself... So the problem usually starts from the source of origin (e.g. you).

4. If this is the case then why aren't we in here chanting and telling people from other nations to pressure their respective gov't into releasing strict gun laws. You know like in the form of voting or a petition? Because we really don't care where you live and if you enjoy your gun laws either way. What we do care about is those who want to predicate a knowledge to what ever degree they've been misinformed in it on and spread it about as if entitled, though it's wrong info. This isn't like me asking if you think blue is better than red, because that just can't be answered (due to tastes) but even in opinionated form this subject and others have a source where the opinion formulated. This could have happened due to real facts, or misinformation and thus harbored by the person for a time, then finally judged when put into the open -forum.

5. We defend it because it's an actual law that we know was written by the founders, the bible is highly questionable so I don't see the comparison here. It has been modified hundreds of times actually in the form of what guns can be owned and not owned, what items for guns can be owned and not owned, what other arms can be owned and not owned, what munitions can be owned and not owned, what areas you can legally carry a gun, background checks (which should happen) and so on...

Also while I know you're making an example there was already a development in several areas of the world that were advancing weapons like guns during the time of the 2nd amendment, the idea that the world to the founders was going to be stagnant and not develop much further is a fallacy.

6. Many nations and not just the U.S. are major manufactures of guns, and realistically their are many non-U.S. manufactures that are as popular if not more than. For example the Austrian manufactured Glocks. The access to any technology can create such an issue even if the guns weren't made in droves, and it was limited, people aren't dumb and can figure out how to make them. I could easily make one if I wanted due to the education and background, I choose not to because it's illegal to do so. Also 3D printing has shown that all you need to do is become proficient with a CAD like program and you can make one even more easily.

As for owning a gun on your part, just because you live in the "gun nation" doesn't mean you're likely to own a gun. Most gun owners here own several guns and it isn't just millions of people owning a single gun. I've met people with hundreds of guns in their ownership, I myself have a few and not just one. I also have a few knives too and not just one. You do realize the people most times are collectors, enthusiasts, sportsman and not potential killers?

7. Well that is a reality though, that the military made up of many citizens that are quite free thinking, to the point they don't know when to stop and get kicked out of said military for it once in a while (whether rightfully so or not) may very well decide the gov't is wrong. Also there are and have been nations of the world that have fought against their gov't with noting but small arms, Syria being the current primary example. However, there are other current examples as well. And their have been nefarious groups that show with elaborate thinking you don't need multi million dollar jets and western military teaching to take over parts of a nation.

8. No, and before I expand why would you ask this after all of what you've said? It seems to go against your build up to be honest. I would think if anything those who committed a crime not being able to own guns would make you happy, or is this a one for all type deal you've argued?

Anyways, in this nation if you do certain things and are found guilty and sent to prison, you've lost your abilities as a free citizen to a degree. You've relinquished them because you wanted to break the law, so why should you get the right to commit a serious crime (since it has to be to not be able to own a gun) and then participate as if you never did?

9. I don't understand, you seem to be asking why we want to own guns for recreational usage? Simple answer is the same reason we own bows or other weapons. Also once again there are those who own them for collection because they enjoy the hobby but don't use them. People enjoy the hobby of competition shooting I don't see why that's so wrong or questionable, especially considering that enthusiasts aren't the issue when it comes to gun violence.

Guns weren't invented to do harm, I think you mean they were invented so people with intent to do harm have an easier method of doing so. However, guns can do no more harm alone than a stationary car.

10. They've dropped here too claim the FBI, and have been doing so for the past 25 years + http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...es-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

Look I understand you don't like some of our rhetoric, but how is this informal, especially when the last page alone people have shown how formal they are. We gave links of stats and info that show the truth isn't just fancy wording and spin as you seem to think. Things in order to be formal and factual need to have sourcing an a origin of truth to them, or they're just conjecture. Some of us do things for a living that require so a high degree of scrutiny and when it comes to hot topic subjects like these we carry that over because it's the honest and right then to do as far as trying to help educate the culture. Also you said you wanted to learn and you can't do that properly in an informal manner on such serious subjects and once again this is done every where on the forum from here to the GT6 subforum, to the Forza sub, and even to the Motorsports sub. Even page 83 of this thread shows a moderator asking for people to research before contributing, so I still (and am trying) don't see the issue for asking people to contribute seriously rather than gallivant misinformed ideals or "feelings" stemming from the same designation.

It's much like the religious going in the "do you believe in god?" thread or "evolution v. creation" thread and believing they know the issue with Athiest and really don't but decide to post and think so only to be given info. And they go the same way with it. It seems that in reality people don't want to be given blunt facts and truth and thus rather live with the formulated assessment

they've come up with and then claim foul when their "theory" (lack of one) is brought down up on them.

It's funny I read a lot of things here and I've seen you put a good effort in the "God?" thread. And what I've also seen is that when people come along with crazy notions that are only supported by how much they believe their own trite you've at least on one or two occasions quite openly have told them they're wrong. In a similar manner done so here to you.

Now I note this because, it seems that you want to have both sides of the same coin, at different times though. On the one side you want to hammer home the point when convenient that people need to learn what they're talking about. When it's done to you though you want to have the other side and claim "hey why are you being so harsh to me? Why are you making this black and white?" Why are we pushing you for actual thoughts and not just simplicity. The reality is some of us here know you can actually hold an intellectual conversation to a degree higher than shown here.

I applaud your efforts to adequately convey your thoughts on this mate and I agree 100%.

Despite appearing to speak Portuguese as a first language you've constructed an excellent post, I trust no one will attempt to devalue your efforts with Hitleresque grammatical observations...

Well said.

Godwin's law for the win, I see...