Guns

[Mike_grpA]

From:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/the-war-on-police-in-america.321394/






http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clair-oklahoma-girl-12-shoots-intruder/story?id=17524438

There was a similar case that I thought was in MI, but I can't seem to find it now. There are a few more you can find by searching for "child shoots robber", or something along those lines. Children taught how to use a gun are perfectly able to use them safely. It can honestly be more dangerous to keep them ignorant.

A 12 year old is different to a "small child". I said small child, but a 12 year old would be better described as an adolescent. Big difference in cognitive capability there.

So here's a link that illustrates what I was talking about:
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/12/toddler-kills-mother-gun-guns-great/

That was taken from a google search that had almost limitless examples.

 

[Exorcet]

A 12 year old is different to a "small child". I said small child, but a 12 year old would be better described as an adolescent. Big difference in cognitive capability there.

So here's a link that illustrates what I was talking about:
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/12/toddler-kills-mother-gun-guns-great/

That was taken from a google search that had almost limitless examples.

Fair enough, small child is not exactly a specific term, but if you want to define it as toddlers, etc then they are likely to hurt themselves. It's a completely null point though given that the same goes for just about everything in the house. Young children aren't incapable of handling guns.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Most household items don't kill as easily as a gun though.

I see your point that you can train a child to use a gun, but it's not about what people can do, more about what people actually do. Unfortunately, children of that age rarely think before they act, so even teaching a child to use it properly and only when an adult is present still doesn't guarantee safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0

 

[LeMansAid]

Answer me this. How does owning a gun make you better equipped to defend yourself? Remember, if you have a gun laying around, it's unsafe, and if you have young children, they could kill themselves/each other with it, if you own a gun, you are statistically more likely to use it on yourself than anyone else, and if it's locked safely away where it should be, you can't use it to protect yourself even in the unlikely event of a home invasion.

It's the big question on guns for home defence - how does one have a gun that's readily useful but also safe? Technology no doubt has a great answer that we may see in time.

I think from memory the statistic about "more likely to use it on yourself than anyone else" includes suicides, which really isn't fair.

 

[Mike_grpA]

It's the big question on guns for home defence - how does one have a gun that's readily useful but also safe? Technology no doubt has a great answer that we may see in time.

I think from memory the statistic about "more likely to use it on yourself than anyone else" includes suicides, which really isn't fair.

The statistics also include accidentally shooting others, so I think it is fair. The point though is without every man and his dog owning guns, you don't need guns for defence, and when you have everyone owning guns, and own one for defence, there's still a decent probability it won't actually be useful in the unlikely event you are faced with someone who is going to shoot you.

 

[LeMansAid]

The statistics also include accidentally shooting others, so I think it is fair.

Wrong way around. It's not what's in, but what shouldn't be in that is the problem.

Ultimately it skews stats only to service an agenda. I'm not commenting on the agenda here, just the (non)validity of the stats as presented.

 

[squadops]

I spent the time to find some government statistics on that and posted the numbers in the 'war on police' thread. Basically suicides account for about 80% of gun related deaths in a home with a gun and almost 50% of total gun deaths. The percentage of accidental deaths is quite low.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/the-war-on-police-in-america.321394/page-4#post-10544701

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It's the big question on guns for home defence - how does one have a gun that's readily useful but also safe? Technology no doubt has a great answer that we may see in time.

I think from memory the statistic about "more likely to use it on yourself than anyone else" includes suicides, which really isn't fair.

There are a few ways. Quick open lock boxes, holsters that are of the type that make it difficult for those children to get the gun from. Are just a couple, and since intruders don't materialize at will and you usually have time (at least in my experience) from the moment you cross paths to defend these solutions shouldn't hinder ones ability to safely protect themselves and the inexperienced that live around these weapons.

Also considering that if you properly train anyone the idea of gun safety even at a young age, the likelihood of mistreating such weapons becomes smaller. I don't see how it's all that big of a question but then again when it's not something you actually par take in and have spent many years understanding, then yeah I guess it is a vast unknown. But then so are many others things that I nor you know about and then claim "oh it's quite the predicament or mystery on how to tackle this or that"...no it's not.

The statistics also include accidentally shooting others, so I think it is fair. The point though is without every man and his dog owning guns, you don't need guns for defence, and when you have everyone owning guns, and own one for defence, there's still a decent probability it won't actually be useful in the unlikely event you are faced with someone who is going to shoot you.

If they're not going to shoot you so what...? It hardly seems relevant if they intend bodily harm to you or a loved one and your best method that can reasonably be proven is defending with a gun, that is what you'd do. You don't just defend with a gun because they may shoot you instead. It's quite black and white as well as naive for you to paint the picture this way.

Also you've yet to answer the various amount of questions one of which is, so everyone doesn't own a gun yet people who intend to do something destructive and illegal still obtain them. How do you stop that? You almost make it sound that if the regular person that is law abiding weren't to own a gun, then surely all guns with just fade into the aether.

Also why limit the tool used, if all I have is a knife or a blunt object and feel my life is at risk and can prove it was, how are these less lethal to the dangerous occupant? The only thing I see different is a gun being a quicker delivery system of lethality.

 

[FoolKiller]

Most household items don't kill as easily as a gun though.

While a toddler is highly unlikely to kill me with a regular household item, they can easily kill themselves with dozens of things around the house. I had a childhood friend die when he was 12 because he choked on a suction cup dart. Just yesterday a local girl died when she fell off her slide and her neck got tangled up in something as she fell. I've had to jump in front of my daughter numerous times because she was trying to "help" me cook and nearly dumped boiling water or hot oil on herself. I can't count the stories of kids trying to turn on a TV who pull it down on top of themselves.

The trick to kids hurting themselves, or others, with things around the house is attention. If you pay attention it will definitely happen. If you aren't watching them they can get into a lot of trouble. And the worst part is, it only takes a second of distraction on the part of the parent.

I don't own a gun and my daughter's ability to turn something common dangerous has me constantly on my feet.



I also want to add to this notion that a properly stored gun isn't gong to be available. Biometric safes only require your finger(s) to unlock, and when they unlock they pop open immediately. It adds maybe three seconds to you getting the gun.

 

[LeMansAid]

There are a few ways. Quick open lock boxes, holsters that are of the type that make it difficult for those children to get the gun from. Are just a couple, and since intruders don't materialize at will and you usually have time (at least in my experience) from the moment you cross paths to defend these solutions shouldn't hinder ones ability to safely protect themselves and the inexperienced that live around these weapons.

Also considering that if you properly train anyone the idea of gun safety even at a young age, the likelihood of mistreating such weapons becomes smaller. I don't see how it's all that big of a question but then again when it's not something you actually par take in and have spent many years understanding, then yeah I guess it is a vast unknown. But then so are many others things that I nor you know about and then claim "oh it's quite the predicament or mystery on how to tackle this or that"...no it's not.

Was half basing my thoughts on a post of yours in response to the Jim Jefferies video on the previous page actually.

I found it quite funny, but also found that he cut corners and didn't make a true valid argument (safe with guns in it, is the only one I feel)

I too found it mostly funny, but with scarce validity. I did wonder about the argument on the cost of guns when only available on the black market though.

Still not sure about the accessibility vs safety situation - but hey, if they're kept in a safe I suppose that worst case scenario you're on equal pegging with someone with no gun.

What made me stop and go "hmmm..." was the posting elsewhere of the video below.

I'll just leave this here: (Warning: contains language that may offend)

Just wondering if Jim is being a mite hypocritical and effectively saying "Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay person", but not "Don't like guns? Don't have a gun".

That @Mike_grpA posted it was an extra point of interest.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Just wondering if Jim is being a mite hypocritical and effectively saying "Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay person", but not "Don't like guns? Don't have a gun".

That @Mike_grpA posted it was an extra point of interest.

I dunno mate, but it might have something to do with gay marriage not being used as a tool of mass murder

 

[LeMansAid]

I dunno mate, but it might have something to do with gay marriage not being used as a tool of mass murder

Plenty believe that homosexuality is though. Let's say gay sex actually was the nigh on exclusive way that HIV was transmitted. Would you want to ban gay sex?

 

[Mike_grpA]

Plenty believe that homosexuality is though. Let's say gay sex actually was the nigh on exclusive way that HIV was transmitted. Would you want to ban gay sex?

Plenty of people believe homosexuality is being used as a tool of mass murder? Really?

...and to answer your question, no I wouldn't ban any type of sex between two consenting adults, because I'm not a bigot.

 

[LeMansAid]

Plenty of people believe homosexuality is being used as a tool of mass murder? Really?

...and to answer your question, no I wouldn't ban any type of sex between two consenting adults, because I'm not a bigot.

HIV aka "the gay disease" + people actually being charged with murder for spreading it + doing it repeatedly = mass murder. Maybe you don't think that people still view it as a gay disease? Doing away with the gay part all together, we're still left with something that can kill unsuspecting innocents.

Not only can a person murder with HIV, they can even do it unknowingly. Are we in a position where we need to ban all unprotected sex?

I'll leave you to ponder...... or simply hit me with even more silly emoticon laughter.

Edit - For the record, I have zero interest in owning a gun, and zero interest in Australia allowing more gun freedom. I think that we function just fine.

 

[Johnnypenso]

'Murica! Cooking bacon on a machine gun silencer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=49&v=V7UW5AkWqOY

 

[BradTC12]

In my opinion, leave the government out of it. Stop trying to change the 2nd amendment.

 

[GT40_427]

I think there is a time and a place for weapons and I don't think the government should be trying to limit the second amendment. I just wish more people would exercise responsibility.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I think there is a time and a place for weapons and I don't think the government should be trying to limit the second amendment. I just wish more people would exercise responsibility.

Yeah I know I stepped over five dead bodies on the to work, clearly a five way shoot out. Pesky guns and the government not doing anything about it, allowing such irresponsible killings to occur all the time. I mean the rivers of blood in the street, you'd think, would have got their attention.



*sarcasm set to high, in other words I think there is quite a bit of responsibility in most gun owners.

 

[GBO Possum]

Adam Gadahn, American mouthpiece for al Qaeda, killed

Gadahn appeared in videos commemorating the 9/11 attacks, some which included al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.

He urged Muslims in the United States to stage their own lone-wolf attacks.

"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms," he said. "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"​

So who should we thank for this?

 

[Michael88]

Adam Gadahn, American mouthpiece for al Qaeda, killed

Gadahn appeared in videos commemorating the 9/11 attacks, some which included al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.

He urged Muslims in the United States to stage their own lone-wolf attacks.

"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms," he said. "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"​

So who should we thank for this?

I'm an Austrian and even I know that this is a blatant lie, you cannot do that in the US. If you really think you can go to a gun show and buy a fully automatic assault rifle then by all means, go ahead and try it. You'll come back empty handed as its quite a bureaucratic ordeal which requires background checks, a fee, a special transfer permit etc. to get a fully automatic assault rifle in the US.
Not to mention fully automatic assault rifles cost several tens of thousands of dollars because those are collectors items since fully automatic assault rifles cannot be manufactured for the civilian market anymore, it has been that way for quite some time now.

A semi automatic rifle is a different story.

Besides, who cares about gun laws. You can get a fully automatic assault rifle for free if you join the army. Thats the way of future terrorism, sleeper agents in the military, with military training and access to all the weaponry you can think of. You can do far more damage that way.

 

[GBO Possum]

I'm an Austrian and even I know that this is a blatant lie, you cannot do that in the US. If you really think you can go to a gun show and buy a fully automatic assault rifle then by all means, go ahead and try it. You'll come back empty handed as its quite a bureaucratic ordeal which requires background checks, a fee, a special transfer permit etc. to get a fully automatic assault rifle in the US.
Not to mention fully automatic assault rifles cost several tens of thousands of dollars because those are collectors items since fully automatic assault rifles cannot be manufactured for the civilian market anymore, it has been that way for quite some time now.

A semi automatic rifle is a different story.

Besides, who cares about gun laws. You can get a fully automatic assault rifle for free if you join the army. Thats the way of future terrorism, sleeper agents in the military, with military training and access to all the weaponry you can think of. You can do far more damage that way.

Yes, this guy is delivering a "motivational speech", and as such, it was no doubt laced with hyperbole.

However, the facts are that one doesn't actually need a "fully automatic assault rifle". There are lesser weapons available at gun shows which would achieve Gadahn's goals quite admirably.

Is the same weaponry available in Austria at gun shows without controls?

That's the point. Gadahn was exploiting the looseness of gun controls here, and I'm asking "who handed him this opportunity?"

 

[Blood Eagle]

Yes, you cannot buy a full auto without ATF approval, a background investigation, and paying a tax stamp on all items of that nature per the National Firearms Act or NFA for short. The NFA exists because of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929 where fully automatic Thompsons were used by the assailants. Quite simply, fully automatic weapons, destructive devices, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns are all regulated by the government. As mentioned, fully automatic weapons cost thousands of dollars. Most people do not meet the criteria. They are for collectors, used in movies etc.

Just this week in Chicago of all places that have pretty much outlawed guns

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...der-stops-attempted-mass-shooting-in-chicago/

 

[Michael88]

Is the same weaponry available in Austria at gun shows without controls?

Yes, you can get a semi auto AR-15 if you have a document which you can obtain for a couple of hundred bucks if you meet the following requirements: at least 21 years old, positive mental health check, clean criminal record.

Which is joke, since my country's close proximity to ex-eastern block states and open borders it is very easy to obtain illegal fully automatic assault rifles from across the borders for little money. So those who intend to harm other people don't jump those bureaucratic hurdles, they simply obtain their weaponry fast and easy from the black market ''over there''.

Bottom line is, you can have all the fancy gun laws in the world, laws which actually make sense but the criminals still won't care and get their guns from the black market.

 

[GBO Possum]

Bottom line is, you can have all the fancy gun laws in the world, laws which actually make sense but the criminals still won't care and get their guns from the black market.

However, on a quantitative basis, there is a direct correlation between strength of gun laws and gun mortality due to use of firearms. While gun laws don't eliminate the opportunity for criminals possessing guns, they clearly reduce the death rate. For example, take the case of Australia.

 

[Michael88]

However, on a quantitative basis, there is a direct correlation between strength of gun laws and gun mortality due to use of firearms. While gun laws don't eliminate the opportunity for criminals possessing guns, they clearly reduce the death rate. For example, take the case of Australia.

Great Britain. Super hard gun laws yet gun crime has constantly been rising since the ''Almost ban''. Much MUCH higher gun crime rate than countries with very free gun laws like Switzerland, Finland and Czech.
What does this tell us? Gun crime does not correlate with harsh gun laws, it has more to do with immigration, wealth and life plus health standards.
A lack of these things are known to increase crime rates of all kinds, not just guns.

Do you think Africa would be a safer place with better gun control or better health care?

So before screaming for harsher gun control and dumping tens of millions of tax money into the enforcement of laws that further decreases peoples freedom yet leaves criminals untouched use the money to help the poor, improve education, build a working health care system etc.

 

[Zenith]

However, on a quantitative basis, there is a direct correlation between strength of gun laws and gun mortality due to use of firearms. While gun laws don't eliminate the opportunity for criminals possessing guns, they clearly reduce the death rate. For example, take the case of Australia.

Oh this again.

This thread is 113 pages old and this has been addressed probably 113 times. There is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. Research suggests that people with no ability to defend themselves make really tempting targets for criminals, who would've guessed?

But you didn't even fact check Gadahn's words so why would I expect you to actually research data that suggests that you're wrong?

I'm going to be frank. About once every 2 months someone like you comes into this thread with the same opinions, same arguments, and the referencing the same supporting information. This thread contains probably a dozen fully hashed out discussions that always end the same way and I don't think you're going to find anyone who wants to hash it out again.

 

[GBO Possum]

I'm going to be frank. About once every 2 months someone like you comes into this thread with the same opinions, same arguments, and the referencing the same supporting information.

Probably because they too google "gun laws mortality rate correlation" or similar, and then dig into the compelling results.

Then the gunslingers get mad, and we go away again, sadly shaking our heads.

 

[Zenith]

Probably because they too google "gun laws mortality rate correlation" or similar, and then dig into the compelling results.

Then the gunslingers get mad, and we go away again, sadly shaking our heads.

Indeed.

 

[Joel]

Probably because they too google "gun laws mortality rate correlation" or similar, and then dig into the compelling results.

Then the gunslingers get mad, and we go away again, sadly shaking our heads.

I'm sure that correlation is a great solace to people stabbed or beaten to death.

It's not an ace in the hole to say that more people are shot when there's more guns around. Car ownership is related to a decrease in deaths from falling off of a horse. Gun ownership is related to a decrease in killings with swords and bows. We should be praising guns and cars, ever since guns and cars were invented almost nobody is killed with a bow or falls off a horse anymore!

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm sure that correlation is a great solace to people stabbed or beaten to death.

A point of interest for me is the psychological boundaries for each method of killing. Stabbing or beating someone to death gives no real degree of separation. A gun - a bit more, with a drone - much more. The old "Would you eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?" follows a similar line of thought. I know if I had to kill an animal or a person, I'd rather use the method with the highest psychological separation.

Not that it means that rights to stuff or levels of guilt should follow in any way though. As I said, just a point of interest.