Topic: Guns!

[mrspungebob]

I'm truly sorry about your brother, and i really hope i don't offend you here. But, if he shot one of them, then it is only natural for the others to assume he is going to shoot them too. Now, i don't know anything about your brothers incident, so i'm generalizing here. Now, if no guns where avaible then the burglars might not have felt that threatened, and might have tied them down or something.

[0351]

well, you didn't offend me. I'm sure that if the burglars had not already shot his roomate through the neck making him a quadrapalegic he might have thought about going along with it quietly. I believe that he did the only thing that seemed to make sense at the time. the burglars fully intended to kill his roomate in the next room. this is evident through the nature of the wound. if they found him, I'm sure no matter if he was docile with them or not, he would have met the same fate.

[Vic (the chick)]

But it's chicken and egg time again.

If half of all Americans weren't armed to the teeth, then the burglers wouldn't have thought it necessary to bring guns with them to a robbery. So nobody would have been shot.

I don't blame your brother for needing a gun to defend himself in that situation. I blame the society for creating that situation.

[Ollieb]

But it's chicken and egg time again.

If half of all Americans weren't armed to the teeth, then the burglers wouldn't have thought it necessary to bring guns with them to a robbery. So nobody would have been shot.

I don't blame your brother for needing a gun to defend himself in that situation. I blame the society for creating that situation.

And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts on the ground each time they hopped.  So now the thought that the owner of a house may be armed is the reason burglars bring weapons?  So if guns are outlawed a burglar would bring what? marshmallows with him when he breaks into a home.

[0351]

Yes, well I'm sure that regardless of gun ownership or not, criminals would find a way to get theire hands on them. the bottom line is that people DO own guns and so do criminals. if every law abiding citizen turned in the guns they own, we would still see armed robbery. the really sad things is that there is not a clear way to stop it.

[Vic (the chick)]

And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts on the ground each time they hopped.  So now the thought that the owner of a house may be armed is the reason burglars bring weapons?  So if guns are outlawed a burglar would bring what? marshmallows with him when he breaks into a home.

There are plenty of armed gangs in the UK.
People don't get shot during burglaries.
You work it out.

Hell....it's your mess. You fix it.

[mrspungebob]

Do know why they tried to kill his roommate?

I agree with Volcanarch. Yes, criminals will probably always manage to get their hands on weapons, but if nobody (except the robbers) had guns, then the burglars wont be so agressive and triggerhappy, because they know the victim is going to obey. It sounds harsh, but if you value your life, you listen to the guy pointing the gun at you, and the guy who holds the gun knows that. He's not there to kill you, hes there to rob you. If you both are pointing guns at each other, its kill or be killed.

[Sr. Commissar Gribb]

Personally though - if I am going to get killed by any gun I want it to at least be intentional. 7 our of the twelve people I know who have been injured or killed by gunfire have been so accidentally.

statistically speaking I think most injuries and deaths happen this way. I dont have the figures handy but AFAIK, most of the time, negligence is the deciding factor. Obviously if you had to use a gun in self defense you would make sure of your backstop so that you dont accidently shoot an innocent person. In a self defense situation, the goal is to hold off and try to evade the situation as long as possible of course. After that all you can do is make sure you dont hurt any bystanders. Most attacks of that nature happen in the home or at a person's job where an assailant can single out a victim without any onlookers.

Comparing a car to a a gun is pointless. They serve two different purposes. The misuse of a car results in death.

My AR-15 rifles serve the purpose of target shooting, misuse can result in death.

I don't mind guns for target shooting (hey, I like putting holes in paper targets too) or hunting (If you're going to eat what you shoot anyway) but self-defence?

Stupidest idea ever.

Tell that to the hundreds of armed and law abiding citizens that stop criminal acts every year.

There is a phone right next to the bed and I'd rather take my chances with calling 911 on speed dial rather than risk a gunfight.  

I'd rather have one in my hands in case 911 isnt fast enough. If the cops are on the way and the guy's coming at me, I think I've vindicated myself.

If half of all Americans weren't armed to the teeth, then the burglers wouldn't have thought it necessary to bring guns with them to a robbery. So nobody would have been shot.

most burglers dont anyhow. They're generally opportunists and flee at the sight of a gun or the sound of one going off. One of the benefits of having one is often times you DON'T have to use it.

Yes, well I'm sure that regardless of gun ownership or not, criminals would find a way to get theire hands on them.

I hear full auto AK47s go for about 700 USD in london black market...

Yes, criminals will probably always manage to get their hands on weapons, but if nobody (except the robbers) had guns, then the burglars wont be so agressive and triggerhappy, because they know the victim is going to obey.

what if the criminals are wearing SS uniforms?

[mrspungebob]

Yes, criminals will probably always manage to get their hands on weapons, but if nobody (except the robbers) had guns, then the burglars wont be so agressive and triggerhappy, because they know the victim is going to obey.

what if the criminals are wearing SS uniforms?

You do understand that your point there had little to nothing to do with this discussion? I understand the defending yourself argument, but can't honestly say you think you need a gun in case the SS or equivalent shows up on your door?

Also, if you want to practice targetshooting, then do it in a firing range. If you do need to do it at home, get a airgun or paintball. They work just as fine for target practising, if you absolutly cant stand target-ranges for some reason.

At the ranges that you fire your handgun, many paintball guns are just as accurate as a real gun.

[Erenthal]

My AR-15 rifles serve the purpose of target shooting, misuse can result in death.

Just a note here. Although it might serve that purpose it was not designed for that purpose. The car can serve the purpose of killing someone, but it was designed for the purpose of efficient transportation.

You can't seriously argue that handguns and assault weapons were designed for any other purpose than to kill people in an efficient manner?

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

I'm going to try and boil my opinions down to a simple statement: speaking to a nation of potential legal gun-owners as a member of a nation where guns are illegal for the general public to own, you absolutely do not need them at all. You don't. There is no reason for you to have them. Yes, you have more freedom than us in this matter. I don't much care. Too much freedom can be a far more dangerous and bad thing than too little.

[Ollieb]

Hell....it's your mess. You fix it.

And yet you are posting about gun ownership in the US.  If it doesn't concern you why all the bother?

[Wurzelmaniac]

Hell....it's your mess. You fix it.

And yet you are posting about gun ownership in the US.  If it doesn't concern you why all the bother?

Because some of us occasionally entertain the thought of visiting. Then we realise there are nutters with guns over there. I have encountered, online a lot too many US citizens who seem to consider the police force as useless and/or have sophisticated combat drills for defending their house.

No beslubbering way am I walking into that kind of madhouse.

In Leonidas' case he has a point about defending himself from the government but in the US, most of you pro-gunners seem to vote for the guy who brought in the PATRIOT Act. Are you all schizo or something?

[Ollieb]

Oh so now everyone that owns a gun is schizophrenic.  Well damn then I must be insane enough to warrant immediate committal and electro shock therapy. 
 
I do need to ask though, what does the Patriot Act and who you voted for have to do with this thread?  I have relatives with enough rifles to outfit a small army and they voted the DNC ticket last election.  Could this possibly be an uninformed generalization without any factual basis?   

[Steamboat Willy]

Well, considering i'm me, I'd <i>love</i> to own a gun.. being an enthusiast and all..

But not all people can be trusted with one.  lthough, you can argue a point that if someone really wants to commit a crime with a gun, they'll find one, legal or not..

Although, I live in the UK, and its rather difficult to get hold of one.  Well, legally anyway.

Wouldn't mind me a Luger

[Sr. Commissar Gribb]

You do understand that your point there had little to nothing to do with this discussion? I understand the defending yourself argument, but can't honestly say you think you need a gun in case the SS or equivalent shows up on your door?

Not all criminals are petty crooks- some of them work for the government.

Also, if you want to practice targetshooting, then do it in a firing range.

This is generally what I do. If anyone wants to come out to the range and shoot off a few mags some day, let me know. 

If you do need to do it at home, get a airgun or paintball. They work just as fine for target practising, if you absolutly cant stand target-ranges for some reason.

I have a paintball gun too! tippmann A5. great piece of work for what it does.

At the ranges that you fire your handgun, many paintball guns are just as accurate as a real gun.

true! but I doubt my A5 could match my dad's glock 20!

Just a note here. Although it might serve that purpose it was not designed for that purpose. The car can serve the purpose of killing someone, but it was designed for the purpose of efficient transportation.

You can't seriously argue that handguns and assault weapons were designed for any other purpose than to kill people in an efficient manner?

believe it or not- most AR15 style civilian rifles sold in the US are sold for competition shooting rather than for defense. Something about the small bullet and large cartridge makes for a very precise paper-puncher. People tend to buy shotguns, handguns and .30 caliber rifles for defense. The national NRA and other matches have been dominated by shooters with AR-15 style rifles. I would say actually that AR15s tend to be the most popular amoung target shooters for their consistancy, light weight and accuracy.

as for handguns- I would check out some of the 1911s made by kimber, colt, para ordnance and others which are designed primarily for competition shooting. Most competition autopistols are very finicky and unreliable in combat situations.

one of my favorite quotes: -The purpose of a handgun is to keep you alive long enough to get to a rifle

Because some of us occasionally entertain the thought of visiting. Then we realise there are nutters with guns over there. I have encountered, online a lot too many US citizens who seem to consider the police force as useless and/or have sophisticated combat drills for defending their house.

Funny how things are. I occasionally entertain the idea of moving to a different country and then realise they'll take away my guns!

I'm going to try and boil my opinions down to a simple statement: speaking to a nation of potential legal gun-owners as a member of a nation where guns are illegal for the general public to own, you absolutely do not need them at all. You don't. There is no reason for you to have them. Yes, you have more freedom than us in this matter. I don't much care. Too much freedom can be a far more dangerous and bad thing than too little.

I PROBABLY wont ever NEED my guns. I PROBABLY wont ever NEED a fancy guitar or a fast computer either. I most certainly will never need the piles of plastic and metal models that we spend so much time and money on.

And there you have it. Is it not liberty to be able to own something because you want it? Do you realise how much the government could save in fuel troubles by making it mandatory that all cars get at least 40 mpg?

Although, I live in the UK, and its rather difficult to get hold of one.  Well, legally anyway.

I'm sure if you go to the right side of the city you wont have any trouble finding a gun with a questionable past.

[Steamboat Willy]

I'm sure if you go to the right side of the city you wont have any trouble finding a gun with a questionable past.

Aye, thats probably true

On another random note, dont you have a shedload of guns though, flyboy?

(and how you doing? - incedentally Its been a while! )

[Erenthal]

Just a note here. Although it might serve that purpose it was not designed for that purpose. The car can serve the purpose of killing someone, but it was designed for the purpose of efficient transportation.

You can't seriously argue that handguns and assault weapons were designed for any other purpose than to kill people in an efficient manner?

believe it or not- most AR15 style civilian rifles sold in the US are sold for competition shooting rather than for defense. Something about the small bullet and large cartridge makes for a very precise paper-puncher. People tend to buy shotguns, handguns and .30 caliber rifles for defense. The national NRA and other matches have been dominated by shooters with AR-15 style rifles. I would say actually that AR15s tend to be the most popular amoung target shooters for their consistancy, light weight and accuracy.

as for handguns- I would check out some of the 1911s made by kimber, colt, para ordnance and others which are designed primarily for competition shooting. Most competition autopistols are very finicky and unreliable in combat situations.

Are we to argue logic here?

The whole concept of a chamber with expanding gasses that propel a projectile through a barrel was constructed expressly for the reason of killing people/animals. The concept of supplying these projectiles from a magazine and shortening the barrel is aimed only at killing people.

It is ENTIRELY coincidental that they are useful for target-practice. Infact, the entire concept of "target-practice" stems from military training, and was invented AFTER the guns.

Unless you want to argue that guns were invented for the purpose of shooting at paper targets, you have to concede that guns were invented to provide a way to kill things from a distance. And since hand-guns have no value what so ever in hunting, they were designed to kill people.

I know I'm being a pest, but I must let logic speak. Besides, it's incredibly IRRATIONAL to use hand-guns for target-practice. A good CO2 gun is:

1. Cheaper.

2. Completely safe.

3. Just as accurate at the common practice ranges.

Therefore, it's completely nuts to use handguns for that purpose! Or are you going to argue that you like the sound a gun makes? Oh, powerful argument!

[Steamboat Willy]

Well, not really.  I can see where you're coming from, but times change.

Take, for example, the Desert Eagle.  Don't believe Counterstrike - this thing was never designed for combat.  Same with most modern civilian revolvers.  These are designed as showpeices - they aren't suited for combat - although many are marketed for self-defence.


And we're not argueing that they were designed to shoot at paper targets originally... that would be silly.  We're talking about modern day.  Say, here int he UK, you can only have a shotgun or .22 if you actually have a reason to have one - otherwise its paper targets all the way...


And by the way - C02 guns suck ass in comparison to the real thing.  Its not like it at all.  Sure, you can get the weight right, but it doesn't reflect the maintainance you have to consider with a real thing, the kick isn't the same, the noise, as you so rightly put, it not the same.  Cheaper yes - but its nothing in comparison.

You get a C02 gun if.. I dunno actually.  You wanna ping cola cans?

[Erenthal]

Well, not really.  I can see where you're coming from, but times change.

Take, for example, the Desert Eagle.  Don't believe Counterstrike - this thing was never designed for combat.  Same with most modern civilian revolvers.  These are designed as showpeices - they aren't suited for combat - although many are marketed for self-defence.


And we're not argueing that they were designed to shoot at paper targets originally... that would be silly.  We're talking about modern day.  Say, here int he UK, you can only have a shotgun or .22 if you actually have a reason to have one - otherwise its paper targets all the way...


And by the way - C02 guns suck ass in comparison to the real thing.  Its not like it at all.  Sure, you can get the weight right, but it doesn't reflect the maintainance you have to consider with a real thing, the kick isn't the same, the noise, as you so rightly put, it not the same.  Cheaper yes - but its nothing in comparison.

You get a C02 gun if.. I dunno actually.  You wanna ping cola cans?

Yes, I can understand the opinion that shooting guns is "fun".

But for my case, the logic still stands. For the express purpose of measuring ones accuracy, CO2 guns or air-guns are much more rational to use.

Now, you make a good point. There is something about the maintenance, the feel and sound of a gun. But the question is:

Is your enjoyment more worth than the safety and security of the society? Are your rights to own a gun more worth than the other mans right to be alive?

The above question is important, and it tells alot about a person. I think joyriding at 150 km/h on busy pedestrian streets is a hoot, and therefore it should be everyone's right to do it. Familiar argument? Even liberals argue that your freedom only extends until it conflicts with another persons freedom. Guns create a dangerous society. And that, I would argue, is in conflict with other peoples freedom.

I won't claim that it's a fact, but there is very strong statistical support for the connection between high gun ownership and high gun violence. More guns in a society leads to more people getting shot, and more guns being used in crimes. Japan, the country with perhaps the strongest anti-gun laws in the world, have almost no crimes involving guns. The U.S, where more than 41% of homes have guns, there is a very high occurence of gun related violence. The statistics don't lie.