Guns

[Joey D]

Maybe, but if WW3 broke out I'd rather go onto a battle field knowing I that unless someone is right beside me they can't harm me after that first round of arrows which you can at least see coming and try and avoid. As opposed to being shot by a bullet you didn't even know was aimed at you, and bleeding to death in the immense pain of the wound and impact.

If WWIII broke out it would be fought with ICBM's and be over very quickly.

 

[Stevisiov]

Maybe, but if WW3 broke out I'd rather go onto a battle field knowing I that unless someone is right beside me they can't harm me after that first round of arrows which you can at least see coming and try and avoid. As opposed to being shot by a bullet you didn't even know was aimed at you, and bleeding to death in the immense pain of the wound and impact.

Can you imagine if marines had down there m16's and charge around with Katana's. First big problem is how can you ensure that your opponent doesn't cheat and turn up with a tank? all is fair in war right?

Secondly if you use ancient weaponry then modern armor is gonig to be to good, everyone will turn up in Kevlar or something to that effect.. and instead of slashing them to death you would have club them repeatedly until it killed them, Not exactly a human way to kill someone. You might aswell say ditch technology althogether and have a big wrestling match to the death, but I must say I would rather be shot dead, than crushed to death by a big angry mob.

Thirdly...well there is no thirldy the first two should cover it. If you think guns aren't fair to use in war then you must remember war isn't either.

On the note of swords used for defense in the home instead of guns, can you imagine if the person breaking into your house got their hands on a illegal firearm? I personally wouldn't fancy my chances defending myself with a sword. If I had a decent handgun that I have the chance to get to before I encounter the thresspasser then I think my chances of defending myslef would increase quite drematically.

 

[Sureboss]

In the state of Michigan you are allowed to defend your property if you feel threatened, as long as you aim to stop and not to injure. So basically it's aim centre mass and work your way up. If you shoot an intruder in the leg, it's harassment and you can be charged. I don't have a burning desire to off someone, but I'd rather it be them then myself or my family.

To me, that sounds the wrong way around.

 

[Joey D]

To me, that sounds the wrong way around.

Can you expand on that?

If someone comes into my house to steal my things and possibly hurt me and my family I would rather have them dead then someone I care about. Shooting them in the leg means you had enough time to think about your shot and therefore couldn't have felt threatened. At the least you need to aim for centre mass which shows you were attempting to stop the intruder.

 

[V1P3R]

What if you can't... aim? xD

 

[Joey D]

Then they probably shouldn't have a gun. Gun ownership should only be for those who are smart enough to know how to point the weapon correctly.

 

[YSSMAN]

Can you imagine if marines had down there m16's and charge around with Katana's. First big problem is how can you ensure that your opponent doesn't cheat and turn up with a tank? all is fair in war right?

Points towards the start of WWII with the Nazis against the Poles... And certainly, the Americans against the Japanese as well.

Guns make it quick and easy. If anything, fewer people are killed (that is, military men/women) with guns than swords and arrows. Hell, just look at how far guns have progressed since the [American] Civil War and you'll see that guns make it all easier.

Guns are fun. You just have to be responsible, that's all...

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

If WWIII broke out it would be fought with ICBM's and be over very quickly.

I assume that means nuclear weapons and missiles and bombs in general. That.........would...........suck.

Can you imagine if marines had down there m16's and charge around with Katana's. First big problem is how can you ensure that your opponent doesn't cheat and turn up with a tank? all is fair in war right?

Secondly if you use ancient weaponry then modern armor is gonig to be to good, everyone will turn up in Kevlar or something to that effect.. and instead of slashing them to death you would have club them repeatedly until it killed them, Not exactly a human way to kill someone. You might aswell say ditch technology althogether and have a big wrestling match to the death, but I must say I would rather be shot dead, than crushed to death by a big angry mob.

Thirdly...well there is no thirldy the first two should cover it. If you think guns aren't fair to use in war then you must remember war isn't either.

On the note of swords used for defense in the home instead of guns, can you imagine if the person breaking into your house got their hands on a illegal firearm? I personally wouldn't fancy my chances defending myself with a sword. If I had a decent handgun that I have the chance to get to before I encounter the thresspasser then I think my chances of defending myslef would increase quite drematically.

I was actually going on the notion/fairy tale that guns were never invented.

Points towards the start of WWII with the Nazis against the Poles... And certainly, the Americans against the Japanese as well.

Guns make it quick and easy. If anything, fewer people are killed (that is, military men/women) with guns than swords and arrows. Hell, just look at how far guns have progressed since the [American] Civil War and you'll see that guns make it all easier.

Guns are fun. You just have to be responsible, that's all...

Yes, makes it easier to kill someone. Of course there are more deaths with guns. Compare the death toll of WW1 and WW2 and Vietnam to wars like the Crusades, and whatever Napoleon did, and China vs the Mongolians. (If death tolls are known at all for those wars.)

Edit: Here's some death tolls of wars with guns (lowest estimates)
WWI- 19 000 000
WWII- 40 000 000
Korean War- 2 500 000
Vietnam- 2 495 000

Here's some death tolls of wars without guns
An Shi Rebellion- 33 000 000
Mongol Conquests- 30 000 000
Napoloeonic Wars- 3 500 000

Well that shut me up By the way, China has had many many wars with death tolls all averaging more than ten times that of Vietnam. All in all it seems war is war though, and regardless of weapons you are looking at a death toll in the tens of millions.

 

[FoolKiller]

But correct me if I'm wrong here, isn't it that ease of use and access that makes it so easy for fellons to commit crimes and murder?

Funny thing about most gun related crimes: When the criminal is caught it often turns out that they did not legally obtain the gun, because they intended to use it for illegal purposes. Most cases where the gun is legally obtained is in crimes of passion where an otherwise normal person just snaps violently. And in those cases violence would happen with or without a gun.

Imagine if you were in a store, and someone who has been pushed to the edge in life (therefore not likely have trained his whole life just to do one robbery) pulls out a sword/knife and tries a hold-up. He threatens to kill anyone who moves etc. when the store-keeper pulls out a sword he has behind the counter (which he has trained with to protect his store) and tells the robber to leave. Out-numbered and out-skilled the robber is left with no choice other than to make a run for it. No one is hurt, nothing is robbed.

If the robber waits long enough for the sword to be drawn (I am assuming the store owner isn't keeping his on his person) then he didn't intend to actually commit violence anyway. The same robber and shop owner with guns would end up the same way. The robber hesitates and has a gun pointing back at him.

And I am sure hold ups have been done at knife point before.



The weapon in question does not even have to be wielded to be used in the hold up. Just knowledge that the weapon is present is enough. I worked at a movie theater when our ticket booth was robbed by a man who just showed that he had a gun tucked into his pants waist band. He never touched it, just showed it.

So, no matter what weapon you have it isn't about how you use it, it is about how you project your willingness to use it.

 

[Sureboss]

Can you expand on that?

If someone comes into my house to steal my things and possibly hurt me and my family I would rather have them dead then someone I care about.

I didn't mean that view was the wrong way, obviously.

Shooting them in the leg means you had enough time to think about your shot and therefore couldn't have felt threatened. At the least you need to aim for centre mass which shows you were attempting to stop the intruder.

And shooting them in the knees won't stop them?

 

[Joey D]

I didn't mean that view was the wrong way, obviously.

Ya I realise that, I'm was just curious why.

And shooting them in the knees won't stop them?

Not really, they won't run at you but they still can fire a weapon.

 

[Sureboss]

Ah, I didn't think you'd be going on about armed intruders. That is a different thing altogether from just a normal intruder.


'Normal intruder'? Good phrase

 

[Ardius]

Don't know if I'm a little late to jump into this discussion, but what the heck.

From the point of view of someone who has lived in a country in which 90%+/- of the population have never even seen a real gun, I'd say making guns illegal is the way to go. Although gun crime does exist, most people dont generally think of burgulars/etc using guns to attack, just because most people do not have access to any. Most attacks are done with knives or other such weapons, although the number of gun-related attacks is rising. Still, the "massacres" which happen in America very rarely happen around here, if at all (I cant think of any, someone could correct me?).
Unfortunately, i dont think its that easy in a country like, for example, America, where guns are currently legal to simply just make them illegal and expect them all to disappear.

 

[Danoff]

Most attacks are done with knives or other such weapons, although the number of gun-related attacks is rising.

It's my understanding that London is now a generally more dangerous place than New York. You have a greater likelihood of getting shot in New York than London, but you have a greater likelihood of being violently attacked in London. I'd rather have a lower chance of being killed in general, since I don't have a huge preference whether it's at knife or gun point.

Suppose for a moment that you could eliminate all guns, both legal and illegal (though it is not possible). I'd rather try to defend myself using a gun against a criminal with a gun, than I would try to defend myself using a knife or baseball bat against a criminal with the same weapons I had. I also like my chances of causing the criminal to run away if he discovers that I have a gun as opposed to discovering I had a knife or baseball bat.

The reason for this is that with a gun in my hands, I'm at least on equal footing (if not an even better shot) than the guy assaulting me. I don't have to get close to him, I don't need to be 6'5" 250 lbs and high to match his strength, and even if I shoot and miss, the neighbors will start dialing the cops for me.

My chances are even better since my wife also has a gun, and even though she weighs very little, she is also on equal footing with whatever criminal is assaulting us. I'm especially glad that she's not left trying to defend herself with a knife or baseball bat against a violent criminal. But the worst-possible scenario of course, is to make guns illegal so that law abiding citizens must defend themselves with a baseball bat against criminals with illegally obtained firearms.

 

[Ardius]

^London is not a very good example of standard British life...definitely one of the worst places to live....maybe even in the whole of Europe. All in my opinion of course, clearly there will be people out there who think differently, but London seems to be pretty bad right now (hasn't it always been?).

However, your point still stands. What I was getting at with saying its hard for a country like America to suddenly switch was the exact thing you have just hit on. There is already a mentality that having a gun to defend yourself is the best possible way to live. Overhere, people dont even think about that. When people think of thieves or rapists or whatever, they do not think "how should I defend myself if this would ever happen", they just take measures to avoid it.

Perhaps I have too much of a bias from living in an area which doesn't really see very much serious violenece, at least in people's homes. Either way, I think what I'm trying to argue is that I don't think America will ever make guns illegal, just because of the difference in culture and perhaps society.
I think a better question for poll would be "Which stance on guns is best for America?" (or Britain or Europe), as how harsh the laws on guns should be depends on the society and culture we're talking about.

 

[Danoff]

When people think of thieves or rapists or whatever, they do not think "how should I defend myself if this would ever happen", they just take measures to avoid it.

Well, we do too. But I think Americans also tend to want to be proactive about defending themselves in case those measures fall through.

Perhaps I have too much of a bias from living in an area which doesn't really see very much serious violenece, at least in people's homes.

I can't say that I've ever really lived in an area that had a high degree of violence. I'm definitely in a higher-crime area now than I used to be. But regardless of the statistics, it doesn't take much to be able to protect yourself from something that, even if unlikely, has a pretty serious downside.

 

[Stevisiov]

I must say I agree with Ardius, It seems I have never felt the need to own a gun nor have I ever met anyone who has said they felt they needed one just in case. Of course that said it certainly couldn't happen in America as there are far too many guns around and as many have said it takes away the guns from legally abiding citizens rather than the criminals who own illigal firearms.

Speaking locally again it could be the area of the country I live in but it just seems the risk of getting attacked is far too low to justify carrying a gun around. There was a murder a few miles from my house 12 years ago so the chances of such a thing don't seem to likely but in terms of general assault it tends to focus arounds drunken violence at club closing time.

 

[Rykon Zero]

Seattle is so nice, I have yet to hear of a case of a mugging/burglary/rape/dictionary salesman/ I don't have to worry about that stuff in the good old NW. Philly can attest. I do however do not support lots of gun control. In the rare case of home invasion, I'd rather be ready rather than cought on a limb.

 

[Sureboss]

It's my understanding that London is now a generally more dangerous place than New York. You have a greater likelihood of getting shot in New York than London, but you have a greater likelihood of being violently attacked in London. I'd rather have a lower chance of being killed in general, since I don't have a huge preference whether it's at knife or gun point.

I think it can be hard to compare two huge areas like that. There are parts of London I wouldn't go anywhere near (as you would with New York), if you avoid the bad areas you'll be fine. I've never felt uncomfortable in London, well, apart from having Boris as a major, that is uncomfortable.

Two different situations for two different cultures. Knife and gun-crime is rising world-wide, not just in the big cities. I think it equates to about one person stabbed to death each week in London, for a city of 8 million, it doesn't seem that high. There is often a reason for these murders too, it's not random attacks.

 

[Joey D]

I never felt uncomfortable in London either, and I was there when people were trying to blow up night clubs with Mercedes. I walked around numerous times late into the night there and never thought I was going to experience any sort of violence. Like most cities there are areas you just avoid.

Detroit though makes me feel unsafe, as does Flint. I don't even like going there during the day, let alone at night.

 

[Racer21]

Where I live you have to have lots of licenses and permissions, and that is just to own a shotgun or a .22 rifle. I enjoy shooting and target practice and think that in England anyway it should depend on the area, so a different law for inner London to the countryside for example.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here we go:
http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?S=8515698

A road rage incident leads a man to block an SUV with a motorcycle and the woman driving the SUV uses a gun in self defense when he approaches her.

We don't have all the details yet, but if it is as it seems, then it is quite possible we have a very real example of proper gun use for self defense.

A case of road rage in Southern Indiana ends with one driver shot in broad daylight. It happened in Jeffersonville around three Tuesday afternoon at the busy intersection of Allison Lane and 10th Street.

A case of road rage police say had been building up. A motorcyclist was shot in the chest, at the intersection. The woman who admits she shot the man says he had been harassing her and her family, for more than a mile.It was a confrontation that ended in front of a Thornton's Gasoline station in Jeffersonville, Indiana, in broad daylight, with dozens of motorists watching.

Micah Martin, who helped shooting victim says, "I noticed he had a gunshot wound, it was small like a little .22, probably and a kind of trickling, a little blood and he was rolling around in pain."

He's talking about the man who was on the motorcycle. Police believe he and a woman in their suv with her teenage son, had been involved in a heated argument that started a mile away on 10th street.

Police and witnesses say words had been exchanged for several blocks, and the man on the motorcycle reportedly had been taunting the woman in the suv. Swerving in and out of traffic, driving erratically and trying to cut her off.

Detective Todd Hollis, Jeffersonville Police says, "The vehicles came to a stop at the intersection of 10th Street and Allison Lane in the right hand turn lane. The motorcycle stopped in front of the suv, at some point the driver of the motorcycle got off the motorcycle and approached the suv and that's where the shooting occurred."

Police say the woman who has a permit for the gun, admits, she pulled out a .38 revolver, and shot the man in the chest. She's claiming an act of self defense.

Robert Bagshaw talked to the man who was shot. Bagshaw says, "He said the female shot him, he said they came flying up upon him when he was getting ready to turn so he slowed up on his turn, and the next thing you know, he pulled up a little more, they had a few words and he jumped off his bike."

Bagshaw says the teenager, with the woman, kept yelling at the shooting victim telling him to get up get up! While blocking his movements.

Police retrieved a copy of surveillance video from the thornton's gas station, but they're not sure of the camera position.

The woman has been questioned by police and has not been charged. The case will be turned over to clark county prosecutors. As for the shooting victim, he's still in university hospital after going through surgery this evening.

 

[Sureboss]

Well, all that article shows is that you have two different versions of events.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, all that article shows is that you have two different versions of events.

Different versions of what led to the shooting, but the general facts of 1) they exchanged words while driving 2) the guy put his motorcycle in front of the SUV, blocking it 3) The guy approached the SUV 4) Woman shot the guy all seem straight forward.

In all honesty, the fact that the woman was in her vehicle still, the guy blocked her and approached her, is all that is needed for a woman to say she felt threatened.

Now, whether the guy intended to do something physical will never be known.

 

[Sureboss]

She has an SUV, if she wanted, couldn't she just ram it if she felt threatened?

Though I suppose debating over this is frivolous, as we are working on 'ifs'.

 

[FoolKiller]

She has an SUV, if she wanted, couldn't she just ram it if she felt threatened?

1) What exactly do you think SUVs can do? The bike would get caught underneath and screw up her car, if it didn't keep her from moving.

2) It is a Suzuki, probably couldn't have done anything anyway.

Though I suppose debating over this is frivolous, as we are working on 'ifs'.

Well, the police report came out and they have let her go with self-defense based on witness testimonies. Apparently she tried keeping him back without using her gun first by hitting him with her car door.
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=8518434&nav=menu31_2

And to her benefit, she is the one that called 911. You can even listen to it.
http://www.newsandtribune.com/breakingnews/local_story_170145718.html

 

[Sureboss]

Also a factor is what our witness says happened after Mosier had been shot. Legal experts say it sheds light on the credibility and state of mind of the shooter.

The witness says, "He fell to the ground and then they got out and was over the top of him cussing him, her son was kicking him."

The witness also heard the claims of self defense. She's just not sure what Parrish was defending herself against.

"I didn't see him do anything except for get off the motorcycle and walk back to the vehicle. Why didn't she roll up her window, lock the door? And then if he would have busted the window, yeah, I could see that being self defense," the witness said.

I'll be intrigued to see how this case goes.

 

[Gil]

This actually goes to show that Road Rage is dangerous as you never know who may draw down on you and shoot you.

Any action which could be interpreted as being hostile, or puts another in fear for their continued health and well-being could be considered a good enough reason to shoot someone.

 

[FoolKiller]

Remember kids guns kill......................bad guys.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html

Video of report

College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader
Posted: 4:53 pm EDT May 4, 2009
Updated: 6:41 pm EDT May 4, 2009

COLLEGE PARK, Ga. -- A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.

“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.

“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.

Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

A neighbor heard the shots and heard someone running nearby.

“And I heard someone say, ‘Someone help me. Call the police. Somebody call the police,’” said a neighbor.

The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.

Bailey said he is just thankful one student risked his life to keep others alive.

“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.

One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.

Police said they are close to making the arrest of the second suspect.

 

[Bram Turismo]

I think that for us Norwegians that the link between America and guns will never be understood. Personally I am against laws which make it easy for people to get their hands on guns, especially when you see teenachers shooting their fellow pupils at school. But crime rates in America are also much, way higher than it'll ever be over here, so I could not imagine how to begin this discussion. Make it easier for people to get their hands on guns and your also making it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns, and that's how I view on this topic. I cannot see anything that points in the direction of a loose gun law that hightens the safety in a country. But oh well, so much for my view.