Gun Control is ridiculous

fuelair said:
In all fairness though, if by callous you mean I have no problem with people who commit violent crimes - or crimes that might reasonably turn violent - being eliminated then yes I am callous. Thoroughly callous. Proudly callous. Happy to rid/help rid my little part of the world of a thing that lives on terrorizing others
callous. Why yes, yes I am.:clap: :) :) :)
Click to expand...

Fuelair, as a wise man once said, w00t!!!
 
The Fool said:
"my carry is Black tallons" Lol.... Do you carry a gun for protection or that special feeling?
Click to expand...

Black Talons (also known as Ranger AXT) are very good for self-protection. They expand as they enter the body, doing maximum soft tissue damage but ensuring that the bullet does not exit and cause harm to others or damage to property. A lot of people also use buckshot rounds for the same reasons.

Someone shot two or three times in the chest with Black Talons should have a reasonable chance of surviving with the prompt attention of a trauma team. They're much better at incapacitating, but not really any better at killing than regular rounds.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Sorry, but that is not true. If he does not have the ABILITY to kill while risking little physical harm, then that is clearly relevant to whether he wll kill or not.
Click to expand...

He can hit me on the head with something else in the room. If there's nothing else in the room, he can strangle me. I'm not very strong (particularly right now) and he would have little trouble in doing so. My only hope would be to have an effective means of defending myself.

Lets see. armed nutter intending to carry out a massacre walks into a school where a class of children are being looked after by a teacher who has no reason to think this day is different to any other in her career. What do I think is going to happen? Well, me guess is he would have shot her first and then killed the 16 kids because he knows why he is there while she doesn't and therefore her gun would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
Click to expand...

And what about the other teachers in neighboring classrooms?
 
Quad4_72 said:
"� In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin."

There are a ton of other stories like this from England. I now see why your views of guns are SOOO misguided volatile.
Click to expand...

No there are not a "ton" of other stories, what nonsense. The Tony Martin story dominated the news for months because events such as this are so rare in the UK. Unlike the US, of course.

And you need to get your facts right. He actually lay in wait for burglars with an illegal shotgun. He shot a 16-year old in the back as he was running away & killed him. He didn't serve life, he served 3 years.

Personally, I don't care that this burglar is now extinct. I have some sympathy for Tony Martin, although not much. What I object to is twisting the facts to prove a point.
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
I already speculated that the reason the US murder rate is high and the burglary rate low compared to the UK is that, in the States, burglary is more likely to end murder. In short, go waving a gun at a burglar, he'll shoot you. Do you doubt that?
Click to expand...
You better believe that I doubt that. Since the statement and all derivatives of it are from HCI/Brady Bunch it is highly suspect as being incorrect. Got some valid information to support that, in general, a burglar is going to take one of my firearms away from me and shoot me? Or that a burglar is going to whip out a firearm and shoot me. I suggest you pay attention to the news and not HCI/BB.

volatile said:
Burglars are, by and large, into the material rewards of burgling. They aren't psychopathic serial killers knocking you off in your sleep for fun.
Click to expand...
Make up your mind. In one sentence you claim the burglar is going to shoot me and in the next you say he is not.

Lonewulf said:
To be fair, I highly doubt that handguns would do a darn thing against a well-armed police or military force.
Click to expand...
This assumes that only one person is involved against the authorities or the army. How about just using one handgun to acquire a rifle or assault rifle and ammo from your opposition? It has been done before and it can be done again. And you are right, me against a SWAT unit or an Army company it would be no contest. What about against thousands of me?
From this link we have -
A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing.
Click to expand...
Somewhere in the mess I call the bookmarked favorites I actually had a link to a picture of one of these little things but unfortunately I cannot locate just the right site this morning.
 
CFLarsen said:
For some reason, it doesn't register that criminals are law-abiding citizens gone bad. Anyone can become a criminal, but, strangely enough, it will not happen to gun proponents. No, they have "training", so we can trust them. The others, who are so untrustworthy that gun proponents want to have guns? Well, here's a gun, if you feel unsafe.
Click to expand...
Kind of a silly argument since it assumes that people gone bad will use a firearm early in their criminal career. These is a study by a group of scholars that finds most persons using a firearm to commit murder already have a significant criminal record. So significant in fact that these persons cannot legally purchase a firearm. Also there is a published study done by one of the DoJ branches concluding the same thing - criminals acquire their firearm illegally.
 
volatile said:
Sorry, did I misread the bit where you said:

"It is possible that a home defender can be aware of an aggressor outside of his home. Just ask anyone who has lived through a riot outside of their house/apartment."

That sounds to me like you think that the possibility of a riot breaking out on your doorstep is a justification for owning a firearm.

Wasn't it something like "I have guns because I enjoy them"? Is the social harm of "enjoying guns" OK by you?

Where I come from, people don't hunt with pistols. I stand corrected that some of your countrymen might. I also maintain that the primary purpose of a handgun is killing and wounding.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Did you also misread the post (#372 you answered in #377) where I said I would try to stop a thief, but only use deadly force to prevent the thief from killing me? Or where you equated my lack of sympathy with crack users to executing them? Or where you claimed I valued my property more than a person's life? You had no need to make personal insults towards me when I only had crude comments for the criminal element that inhabits our society. I could have chosen something nicer to say about your libel, but I usually do not turn the other cheek when insulted.

The possibility that a firearm may come in handy for defending me or my family is a good reason for owning one.

There is no social harm in my owning guns. If you want to use statistics, then I have one for you. The Kennedy clan has personally killed five more people with cars, airplanes and golf clubs than I have with my gun collection. This statement is both true and BS. :)

What is your definition of "primary purpose" Would it be what it is most often used for? The use intended by it's designer/maker? Or the intended use by it purchaser?

Even the most hard core gun control nut will admit that handguns are used far more often for sport than assault/killing. More handguns are purchased by American civilians than the American military.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
There is no social harm in my owning guns. If you want to use statistics, then I have one for you. The Kennedy clan has personally killed five more people with cars, airplanes and golf clubs than I have with my gun collection. This statement is both true and BS. :)
Click to expand...

Why do you have a problem with using statistics in gun debates?
 
I usually have no problem with using statistics in the gun control debate. I do have a problem when they are used in a warped manner.

Like using data from King County Washington and using it to say that handguns should be more strictly controlled in the entire USA. I have listened (in person) to what people in positions of authority in King County have had to say about gun control and it is very strange.

If statistics are used honestly, then they are useful.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
I usually have no problem with using statistics in the gun control debate. I do have a problem when they are used in a warped manner.

Like using data from King County Washington and using it to say that handguns should be more strictly controlled in the entire USA. I have listened (in person) to what people in positions of authority in King County have had to say about gun control and it is very strange.

If statistics are used honestly, then they are useful.

Ranb
Click to expand...

So you have no problems with the statistics that show how many people are shot each year in the whole country?
 
Loss Leader said:
You speak as though there is a class of people called "law-abiding citizens" and a class of people called "criminals." It doesn't work like that. The people in whose hands guns are most dangerous ARE the law-abiding citizens. Guns are used against family members, guns are used drunkenly and guns are used in anger. The average gun death is an act of passion. It is an act with little to no forethought. It is an accident. It is a heated exchange between people who know each other.
Click to expand...
Nope. The FBI consistently notes that most victims knew their killer. That has been distorted by the anti-firearm lobby into what you said. Seems to me that a whole bunch of the news items if not most of them say "gang or drug related." The pusher at First and Main wanted the turf of the pusher at Fifth and Main so he eliminated the pusher and Fifth and Main and took over the turf. Yes, they knew each other but were not domestic partners.

Loss Leader said:
And about half of all gun deaths are suicides by "law-abiding citizens."
Click to expand...
Why do the control advocates keep bringing this up? It is meaningless in the context of threads like this because studies have shown that firearm control can reduce the number of suicides by firearm but not the total number of suicides.

Loss Leader said:
Guns turn "law-abiding citizens" into criminals. It gives the average person too much access to too much power. And the proof is in the papers every single day.
Click to expand...
Sorry but the proof of that statement is not in the papers every day. As I noted earlier there are studies available that show the majority of persons using firearms during their first criminal activity, especially murder, is quite a low percentage.

BTW how does a firearm turn a law-abiding citizen into a criminal? A firearm is an inanimate mechanical contraption to the best of my knowledge. So just how did this inanimate mechanical contraption take control of the mind of a person and make that person into a criminal?
 
How many GC freaks here have ever shot a gun before? How many of you have even the slightest bit of basic knowledge about guns?
 
CFLarsen - you made some statement back up thread a way about firearms in Switzerland. Seemed to me as I was reading that statement that it was not what I understand of the situation in that country. Just for the heck of it I went looking and found that the references that I had bookmarked were expired so I did a little, just a little, digging. I say just a little because it only took a brief time to find -
This Link. Click here.
Due to the long tradition and the special organization of the Swiss armed forces as a militia army, special rules are applicable for army weapons. Between their regular annual service of two or three weeks per year, Swiss soldiers and officers keep their personal weapons at home. After they have left the army, they may keep those arms in order to continue practicing at rifle or pistol ranges managed by local communities. Special rules also govern hunting or sporting rifles.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like there just might be a lot of Swiss homes that contain a goodly amount of firepower. I have also read that these people can get the ammo for practice just by requesting it. Speculating for a moment, is this home armorment the reason for a low crime rate in Switzerland? I do not believe so since I think the situation is that the Swiss are as a group less prone than some other groups to criminal activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom