Guns

[Talentless]

That a joke or an indication of your stance on guns?

 

[ExigeEvan]

its a joke I'm guessing... UltraBeat is weird like that....but you knew taht already, right?

 

[Danny]

It's my stance on the subject of guns and firearms. I tend to be very religious when it suits.

 

[Talentless]

Ok. I'm pro gun, but to each his own.

 

[Danny]

👍

I support the views of others.

 

[Gil]

Gun control is hitting what you aim at.
Further, an armed society is a polite society.

On and Off Topic I recommend the book Hot Springs by Stephen Hunter.
Lot's of good gunplay.👍
And typical Hunter, good plot.

 

[Danoff]

A gun isn't designed to save life, they are meerely marketed as such in places where it is legal to puchase them, but that is not their design. Guns are designed to kill. You have that the wrong way round, wheras cars are designed as a form of transport but can be used to kill, guns are designed to kill but can be used as a deterrent or to save your life. How right or wrong it is for guns to be legal in the US is of no concern to me, I don't live there, I don't know American pollitics, I don't really want to know them and I am not questioning that aspect of the debate. Any comments that may indicate such are as I stated earlier, only related to the UK. But you cannot compare a gun to a car, and say you can use both to kill so in terms of legality they should be considered equal or some bull like that. Guns are designed as weapons, there is a big difference.

I never said guns weren't design to kill, or that they aren't designed as weapons. They are designed for both. But that's not the same thing as murder. I said guns weren't designed for murder. They're designed for their lawful intended purpose - self defense.

 

[Sureboss]

To also carry the topic over...

And I don't mean to stereotype, but I am noticing this huge polarity between US citizens and those that are not. Most notably the UK... I just find it curious.

Posted by Azureman (I think...)

It's not massively surprising, the gun culture in America is so different to most of the other countries in the world. Infact I think it's the only country that has it in it's constitution (equivalent of). I hope not many Americans think it's us Brits being anti-American, it's just such a contrast to over here, where hardly anyone would want any kind of legalisation of guns. Our police officers don't want them (your average policeman, obviously we have armed-officer units but they don't patrol) and for that reason the public can't have them, among many other reasons.

As many said in the other thread, it's pointless trying to make guns illegal in the states because it'd be impossible to do so. Unfortunately it does make it easier for people to smuggle guns to other countries (like the UK).

Two different worlds, completely different.

 

[Dave A]

Guns originate with war, the first guns were designed and built to maim and kill people and were used as an offencive weapon all the way back in the 15th century. Today all around the world guns are used as offencive weapons and are sold and built as offensive weapons. Marketing may suggest otherwise in certain countries, but the fact that the law and the advert says they can only be used for a, does not mean that they arn't built to do b. Guns are built to do harm, not just in defense but also in offence, and the way they are built reflects that. Say some guy walks into a gun shop and buys an M16, could you pass that as a purchase for self defence? Why do you need these more and more powerfull handguns, when a relatively low poered gun will defend you should someone pull a weapon on you? Do you need a semi-automatic or an automatic, do you need a handgun that can hold 16 bullets or more? Face it, theres very little need for what you get with a modern day gun if it's built with the intention of self defense. I can fully understand why people might want a gun in a country like America where the gun laws are looser, but I still fail to see how a gun can be compared to a car. One is designed to kill, the other isn't.

EDIT: And I'm completely in agreement with you Sureshot.

 

[Tornado]

If I hear the phrase "How many people have to die before guns are banned" one more time I am going to snap.

 

[ledhed]

Number one a criminal or a person intent on commiting a murder could care less about any gun law. You are delusional to the extreme if you think taking away guns from LAW ABIDING citizens , will stop a crime. It will only contribute to more crime as the criminal element will feel FREE to commit even more violent acts more frequently KNOWING that the victims are disarmed.

If those persons in Virginia on that campus had been ALLOWED to CARRY their LEGAL concealed weapon...it may not have stopped the crime ..BUT..32 people would not have died. SOMEONE would have engaged and shot the gunman.
AND since the GUNMAN would have KNOWN ARMED STUDENTS and teachers were on campus he MAY have been limited to his revenge on the first two victims before he killed himself.

Disarm the law abiding public and we will all be just as helpless as the students that died in Virginia.

As long as I am alive NO ONE will disarm me . You want my weapon offer me a 100 percent guarantee that you have every criminal gun off the street and knife and bat , and assure me of around the clock protection for myself and family . Then I may play along ...if I dont feel the need for recreational target practice and give up hunting with my handgun .

 

[ledhed]

If I hear the phrase "How many people have to die before guns are banned" one more time I am going to snap.

How many more people must die before every law abiding citizen is required to train and carry a weapon ?

 

[Dave A]

Number one a criminal or a person intent on commiting a murder could care less about any gun law. You are delusional to the extreme if you think taking away guns from LAW ABIDING citizens , will stop a crime. It will only contribute to more crime as the criminal element will feel FREE to commit even more violent acts more frequently KNOWING that the victims are disarmed.

Then why isn't that true of all the countries without these free gun laws? Here in the UK not every gang lad, scallie or general thug and law breaker has any access to a gun. There is gun crime in the UK, but the last time there was a masacre was Dunblain in 1996.

If those persons in Virginia on that campus had been ALLOWED to CARRY their LEGAL concealed weapon...it may not have stopped the crime ..BUT..32 people would not have died. SOMEONE would have engaged and shot the gunman.
AND since the GUNMAN would have KNOWN ARMED STUDENTS and teachers were on campus he MAY have been limited to his revenge on the first two victims before he killed himself.

On the flip side, can you imagine how many arguments could result in two students pulling guns on each other. If anything, student being allowed to carry guns onto campus will probably only increase the gun crime on there.

Disarm the law abiding public and we will all be just as helpless as the students that died in Virginia.

In the US as things currently are, yes. I wouldn't suggest otherwise.

As long as I am alive NO ONE will disarm me . You want my weapon offer me a 100 percent guarantee that you have every criminal gun off the street and knife and bat , and assure me of around the clock protection for myself and family . Then I may play along ...if I dont feel the need for recreational target practice and give up hunting with my handgun .

You must live a very frightened life, persoanlly I'm happy walking to the village and back or around town completely unarmed. If it's that much of a nessesity where you live then I feel for you.

 

[livemusic]

Guns originate with war, the first guns were designed and built to maim and kill people and were used as an offencive weapon all the way back in the 15th century. Today all around the world guns are used as offencive weapons and are sold and built as offensive weapons. Marketing may suggest otherwise in certain countries, but the fact that the law and the advert says they can only be used for a, does not mean that they are built to do b. Guns are built to do harm, not just in defense but also in offence, and the way they are built reflects that. Say some guy walks into a gun shop and buys an M16, could you pass that as a purchase for self defence? Why do you need these more and more powerfull handguns, when a relatively low poered gun will defend you should someone pull a weapon on you? Do you need a semi-automatic or an automatic, do you need a handgun that can hold 16 bullets or more? Face it, theres very little need for what you get with a modern day gun if it's built with the intention of self defense. I can fully understand why people might want a gun in a country like America where the gun laws are looser, but I still fail to see how a gun can be compared to a car. One is designed to kill, the other isn't.

EDIT: And I'm completely in agreement with you Sureshot.

That's exactly what I meant. Guns are an offensive tool. You can use it to your defence but you're probably going to hurt or even kill someone in exchange of that.

It is not a defensive weapon, it's an offensive one.

 

[ExigeEvan]

It's not massively surprising, the gun culture in America is so different to most of the other countries in the world. Infact I think it's the only country that has it in it's constitution (equivalent of).

Switzerland also has gun ownership at the core of it's laws.

The difference is that you undertake compulsory military service before being given a semi automatic rifle and a case of ammo. And yet their gun death rates are low.

If those persons in Virginia on that campus had been ALLOWED to CARRY their LEGAL concealed weapon...it may not have stopped the crime ..BUT..32 people would not have died. SOMEONE would have engaged and shot the gunman.

I've never heard of a gunmen being taken down by armed civilians on the news. Admittadley, I live in the UK, but if there's a major shooting it always makes the headlines over here and I'm pretty good with current news.

 

[ledhed]

Then why isn't that true of all the countries without these free gun laws? Here in the UK not every gang lad, scallie or general thug and law breaker has any access to a gun. There is gun crime in the UK, but the last time there was a masacre was Dunblain in 1996.

On the flip side, can you imagine how many arguments could result in two students pulling guns on each other. If anything, student being allowed to carry guns onto campus will probably only increase the gun crime on there.

In the US as things currently are, yes. I wouldn't suggest otherwise.

You must live a very frightened life, persoanlly I'm happy walking to the village and back or around town completely unarmed. If it's that much of a nessesity where you live then I feel for you.

I choose to work in the inner city helping people with mental and other disabilities. Friday a neighbor of our program was killed because he was outside of his home during a gang battle...the gang kid being shot at was hit in the heel...the friendly old guy died. I got to watch it today on our security camera's .

Thats MY friggin REALITY . I am glad your happy in your village . LOL...You must not have a clue because a FRIGHTENED person doesn't CHOOSE to work in an area where people are being shot at and can he himself could just as easily be the old dead guy .
carrying a weapon and being aware of whats happening around you is SURVIVAL . carrying a weapon and being poficient in its use is a PRUDENT step for someone who wants to go home every night to his family and still provide services to those that need them the most .

The only thing that frightens me are well meaning idiots and other fools that think messing with my right to carry a weapon will solve gun crime.


BTW google is your friend.

I've never heard of a gunmen being taken down by armed civilians on the news. Admittadley, I live in the UK, but if there's a major shooting it always makes the headlines over here and I'm pretty good with current news.

147 people so far murdered in Phila. Pa. this year ...maybe 70 made it to ther news.

But Some dead blonde lady who did alot of drugs was on for weeks.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0192-3234(2000)27<363:GSAD>2.0.CO;2-I

http://www.alphecca.com/?p=48

IV. Some evidence indicates that civilian gun ownership helps prevent crime.

A. Americans use firearms for protection an estimated one million times each year. [Sources: Carol Ruth Silver and Don B. Kates Jr., "Self-Defense, Handgun Ownership and the Independence of Women in a Violent, Sexist Society," in Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Don B. Kates Jr., ed. (Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press, 1979); and Gary Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991); Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, No. 1, Fall 1995, pp. 150-187]

98 percent of the time, they simply brandish the weapon or fire a warning shot.

However, citizens wielding guns kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year in self-defense - three times the number killed by police - and wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminal.
B. A sophisticated new study from the University of Chicago uses the data from all 3,054 U.S. counties and finds that concealed handgun carry permits reduce violence, with murder down by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. [John Lott and David Mustand, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997].

http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/juvcrm/jj4new/f4.html

 

[livemusic]

I've never heard of a gunmen being taken down by armed civilians on the news. Admittadley, I live in the UK, but if there's a major shooting it always makes the headlines over here and I'm pretty good with current news.

Duke mentioned such a case in the Virginia Tech thread, but it's from the '60s.

 

[Dave A]

I'm sorry to hear that ledhed. But I still fail to see how allowing guns on a school campus is even remotely a good idea.

 

[Danoff]

Guns originate with war, the first guns were designed and built to maim and kill people and were used as an offencive weapon all the way back in the 15th century.

Not all war is offensive. Some is national defense. Yes, guns are designed to kill people. But the intent of that design in a land where there are only a limited number of ways to kill people legally has to be the legal application of the product. Ask people at S&W why they make guns. I'll guarantee you they don't respond by saying that it's to help drug lords move shipments.

Say some guy walks into a gun shop and buys an M16, could you pass that as a purchase for self defence?

M16's are illegal to purchase here because it's an automatic weapon. Yes, I could tell you that it might be purchased for self defense.

Why do you need these more and more powerfull handguns, when a relatively low poered gun will defend you should someone pull a weapon on you?

Shotguns mean you don't have to aim well. Handguns mean you can carry them concealed. Assualt rifles mean you can defend ourself against many attackers. It all depends on what kind of circumstance you're concerned about.

How many people remember the shootings in Texas in the sixties, the Luby's Cafeteria masacre, Columbine, and the more recent murders of the Amish children?

What do those scenarios have in common? A large group of unarmed people at the mercy of one person with complete disregard for the law.

 

[ledhed]

I'm sorry to hear that ledhed. But I still fail to see how allowing guns on a school campus is even remotely a good idea.

You live in a different culture...your police can actually work unarmed ..for the most part ..Its that simple..the reality here is different than yours..of COURSE you can't see why its a good idea..in fact to you it must seem unfathomable.

Fact is if one or two students had carried..( please dont be foolish enough to think that because someone carries a weapon they are trigger happy nuts looking for a gun fight,,,it is QUITE the opposite....I KNOW..you avoid ANY confrontation and walk away from arguments because DEATH can come from it .) then the results and the situation in Virginia would be quite different.

It would NOT have been shooting fish in a barrel ..the fish would have SHOT BACK .

Why is that so difficult to understand ? How many more masacres before it sinks in ?


Look for some ODD stupid reason ....our young people in the US feel that shooting each other is a good idea. Its a badge of courage a rite of passage...now how will taking guns away from lawfull users change the ATTITUDES of those that feel they are obligated to shoot someone because they feel they have been " disrespected " ?

How will criminal drug gangs be disarmed by limiting MY rights ???


Can YOU answer that ?

 

[livemusic]

You live in a different culture...your police can actually work unarmed ..for the most part ..Its that simple..the reality here is different than yours..of COURSE you can't see why its a good idea..in fact to you it must seem unfathomable.

Fact is if one or two students had carried..( please dont be foolish enough to think that because someone carries a weapon they are trigger happy nuts looking for a gun fight,,,it is QUITE the opposite....I KNOW..you avoid ANY confrontation and walk away from arguments because DEATH can come from it .) then the results and the situation in Virginia would be quite different.

It would NOT have been shooting fish in a barrel ..the fish would have SHOT BACK .

Why is that so difficult to understand ? How many more masacres before it sinks in ?


Look for some ODD stupid reason ....our young people in the US feel that shooting each other is a good idea. Its a badge of courage a rite of passage...now how will taking guns away from lawfull users change the ATTITUDES of those that feel they are obligated to shoot someone because they feel they have been " disrespected " ?

How will criminal drug gangs be disarmed by limiting MY rights ???


Can YOU answer that ?

I haven't read much about the Virginia case but as far as I'm aware this shooter was an average Joe, not a criminal. If it were against the law to own a gun would this have happened in the first place? You say "if someone wants a gun they can always find one", even if it's not allowed. But making it legal isn't worse? I mean, the guy is pissed off with something, feeling like shooting a lot of people. He has a gun already, what's to stop him? But if it guns weren't allowed and it weren't easy to find maybe he would give up the idea.

 

[ledhed]

Duke mentioned such a case in the Virginia Tech thread, but it's from the '60s.

Article 1 of 546; 528 words
Homeowner slays would-be robber
Source: DANA DiFILIPPO difilid
@phillynews.com 215-854-5934
Keenan Echols was a repeat offender whose distaste for courtrooms ran so deep that judges repeatedly issued bench warrants to collar the no-show defendant.

But shortly before midnight Wednesday, Echols' criminal past caught up with him when he, accompanied by another man, invaded a West Oak Lane home at gunpoint to rob a resident and got a fatal bullet instead of the cash and jewelry they'd demanded, police said. The resident who shot him, a 22-year-old whom police
Published on 2007-04-06, Page 04, Philadelphia Daily News (PA)

Happens every day.

 

[Danoff]

I haven't read much about the Virginia case but as far as I'm aware this shooter was an average Joe, not a criminal. If it were against the law to own a gun would this have happened in the first place? You say "if someone wants a gun they can always find one", even if it's not allowed. But making it legal isn't worse? I mean, the guy is pissed off with something, feeling like shooting a lot of people. He has a gun already, what's to stop him? But if it guns weren't allowed and it weren't easy to find maybe he would give up the idea.

Or maybe he'd have built a bomb. Or maybe he'd have run over some students. Or maybe he'd have stabbed them. Point is, he'd find a way. The other point is that he wouldn't have been nearly as successful if his victims hadn't been so completely helpless.

Happens every day.

Literally millions of times per year. The study I found said 2.5 million times per year. Or 5 times a minute - that guns are used for self defense. That's just in the US. Given that there are something like 20,000 gun-related deaths per year (most of which are suicide) that means that guns are more than 100 times more likely to be used defensively than to kill someone (either offensively or defensively).

 

[ledhed]

Or maybe he'd have built a bomb. Or maybe he'd have run over some students. Or maybe he'd have stabbed them. Point is, he'd find a way. The other point is that he wouldn't have been nearly as successful if his victims hadn't been so completely helpless.



Literally millions of times per year. The study I found said 2.5 million times per year. Or 5 times a minute - that guns are used for self defense. That's just in the US. Given that there are something like 20,000 gun-related deaths per year (most of which are suicide) that means that guns are more than 100 times more likely to be used defensively than to kill someone (either offensively or defensively).

You know what makes me sick ...the guy I watched get shot on camera is a number ...no name just one of three killed over the weekend...no details given. Just another dead dude.

But every day on my way home this dead dude waved goodbye to me .

I searched the acrchives odf all phila . major news papers...

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we...rpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

Thats it one of three.


Its like ...whats another body ?


Unless some nuts kills a whole bunch at once or a Blonde lady kills herself using too manu drugs .



And Brian ..the guy would have gotten two bullets from me into his head , had I been on campus and armed. Thats a fact . Now don't you think others would also have glady helped the guy along to hell ?

FACE FACTS . You cant make to hundreds of millions of GUNS just disapear....lol..

WE HAVE OVER 12 MILLION PEOPLE Illegals from Mexico......so whats so hard about bringing a few guns >?

When you already bring MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF COCAIN .

Adjust your channel to reality . ban guns and create criminals who sell them ...just like thery do drugs or anything else deemed illegal.

Leave fantasy land.

BTW ...a Guy with a good Katana could easily have killed 20- 30 panicked students with minimal training.

LOL...

Or he could have just walked in the room with a home made pipe bomb or two and blew up 50 .

The GUN he used did not KILL anyone the NUTJOB using it did. You STOP the NUT the gun is useless.

 

[Danoff]

But every day on my way home this dead dude waved goodbye to me .

That's what makes him more than a number.

 

[jammyozzy]

Guns are built to do harm, not just in defense but also in offence, and the way they are built reflects that.

Not all guns are designed and built to inflict harm, at least not to humans. Let's take a movie favourite, the Desert Eagle in .50AE. While the .50AE round can defeat body armour and inflict serious damage to a person, I'll happily bet that you won't find a single person who developed the cartridge tell you that's that what they developed it for. Then we get to the weapon itself, the Desert Eagle. At first it may seem like a rambo gun, but if you look at it's near unconcealable size and bulk, it's ridicilous recoil thanks to a mix of large caliber ammunition and a gas recoil system, the cost of both the weapon and ammunition and it's constant demand for cleaning and maintenance, you'll find it's nothing more than a big, big gun designed to punch big, big holes in paper targets. Not all guns are built to do the same thing. Some are specifically designed to inflict harm, namely assault rifles, machine guns etc in military calibers, but these aren't readily avaliable to US civilians anyway.

Why do you need these more and more powerfull handguns, when a relatively low powered gun will defend you should someone pull a weapon on you?

One thing you need to take into consideration is the fact that someone pulling a gun on you will be pumped full of adrenaline - they might not even feel a smaller calibre handgun round, and in that situation there's very little chance that you will be able to fire off a second shot. I've read many stories of soldiers taking a hit to an extremity from a 9mm round for example, and .22LR will rarely do enough damage to stop a person unless you hit them in the neck or head, and even then it's not a guaranteed thing. People choose larger, more powerful caliber weapons for self defense so that they are near enough guaranteed to stop any would-be attacker with one shot. Weapons chambered for magnum ammunition, usually .357 or .44, are ideal for this.

 

[livemusic]

Or maybe he'd have built a bomb. Or maybe he'd have run over some students. Or maybe he'd have stabbed them. Point is, he'd find a way. The other point is that he wouldn't have been nearly as successful if his victims hadn't been so completely helpless.

Maybe people could defend their self with non-lethal weapons.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Maybe people could defend their self with non-lethal weapons.

Stun guns? Pepper spray? We have those already. They're better than nothing, but they aren't 100% effective. So why carry one?

I carry my pistol and knife wherever I go. You never know when and where you're going to need it. Case in point; in Rancho Cucamonga (the next town over) recently, a women was shot outside a grocery store I or my wife sometimes visit. What if I was being shot for my car, wallet, groceries, etc. How long do I need to sit there before a San Bernardino Sheriff shows up to save me. I'd be dead before they even get the call. Since I carry a gun, he'd be dead before they get the call. I don't know about you foreign fellas, but that's the way I prefer it. I guess you really have it made easy and it's much easier just to say "ban guns" when your life isn't on the line like the rest of ours. Ignorance is bliss.

As more and more serious crimes keep happening around us, I get more and more requests from friends, old neighbors and family to help them pick out a firearm for protection purposes.

 

[Studentdriver]

If anyone wants proof of the claims of those opposing gun control laws, look at what came as a result of the 18th Amendment and Prohibition in the United States.

 

[Casio]

If anyone wants proof of the claims of those opposing gun control laws, look at what came as a result of the 18th Amendment and Prohibition in the United States.

Or the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Australia. Who killed 35 people and wounded 37 others. Using a CAR-15 and L1A1 SLR, both legal Semi-Automatics at the time.

Instantly, we changed the gun laws, and didn't wait for the chance for it to happen again.

Newly elected Prime Minister John Howard took the opportunity to introduce significant firearms legislation reform, which had already been drafted at a series of Police Minister's meetings starting from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence.[citation needed] Due to the structure of the Australian Constitution, it was not possible for Federal gun legislation to be introduced, thereby requiring each Australian State and Territory recognise the government's desire for tougher laws. Against a background of public support in the wake of the Port Arthur shootings, as well as comparatively weak opposition from gun owners' organisations, sweeping laws were proposed for enactment in all states, which included mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, and a near-complete ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and all pump-action shotguns. Some farmers and professional cullers would remain eligible for ownership of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns while the majority of licenced firearm owners (including international sports shooters) would be banned from legally acquiring and owning these firearms for the purpose of recreational target shooting and hunting.

Fortunately, between now and then (A period of 11 years) we've only had one other shooting. At Monash University (About 10 minutes from my house) in 2002, where a student killed 2 and injured 5 with a handgun. But again, we acted to try and curb the possibility of it happening again. By amending the handgun laws.

So I ask, why does America keep turning away? It's not a problem in 90% of other western developed Nations. The rest of the world (Who don't seem to have as big of a firearm problem) doesn't think the answer is 'Lets give every citizen a handgun' and it works.