Gun Control

DeletedUser

I would have thought that anyone who cannot conduct themselves in a well-mannered and respectful way on an internet forum would ipso facto be unfit to carry a firearm.

The UK is virtually the only country in the world where the police do not routinely carry a gun. About 60 police officers have been shot dead in the course of their duties in the last 100 years. In the US, where police officers are armed, about the same number are killed by firearms every year.

Here's another advantage of gun-control. Possession of a firearm is illegal in the UK and carries a mandatory 5-year minimum sentence, so very few criminals will risk it. And when the police do find a gun, maybe in a drugs raid or stopping a suspicious driver, they can put the owner behind bars without further ado. They do not have to try to convict them on their original suspicions, which can be hard and expensive. If they find someone carrying, that person will go straight into custody; they do not have to wait until he/she shoots or threatens someone. That makes people like me safer, and that's why I support our system.


Also, having unarmed cops reduces the state's power to take my life, which I like.

"Oh yeah bravo, compare numbers and not percentages, when the countries are of completely different sizes. proves your point .... NOT"

-Well I'm sorry, anonymous repper, you can't do the maths yourself and see that the UK is still safer by a factor of about 25 times (that's 2500% :))
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser28032

I'd debate that, have you ever heard of the 21 foot rule? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo) it basicly states that you require 21 feet in which to draw your weapon take off the safety and then fire it, anything less and the man with the knife is upon you before you can react and so in the case of a serial killer the gun probably wouldn't be of any help to you.

For every bad example, there are dozens of good ones. ;)
Click to expand...

For every good example there are dozens of bad ones, you're not going to win with that argument :p
 

DeletedUser33353

The 21 foot rule does not apply to all handguns........just saying. If one wishes to carry, they usually know what to pack.
 

DeletedUser28032

True but even if its only ten feet you will still require a certain amount of time in which to react and if like the police in the video you're not expecting it, it still may not be enough time.
In short carrying a gun doesn't instantly make you safe
 

DeletedUser33353

Of course not mate....but, I would personally think of me carrying(legally) would give me an edge.



it basicaly states that you require 21 feet in which to draw your weapon take off the safety and then fire it------and this statement is what i find misleading.....I am not going to bother beating a dead horse, but.....people that carry, know what to carry to to lessen the distance. Case in point......a 2 shot derringer, very small, concealable, accessible....out and fired in less then 2 seconds. Is it for everyone? Of course not. Just saying...........
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

braetwalda said:
I'd debate that, have you ever heard of the 21 foot rule? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo) it basicly states that you require 21 feet in which to draw your weapon take off the safety and then fire it, anything less and the man with the knife is upon you before you can react and so in the case of a serial killer the gun probably wouldn't be of any help to you.
Click to expand...

I'd debate that you don't know what you are talking about. Ever practiced? No? Don't talk. It takes me 2 - 3 seconds to do all that and I haven't been practicing much. I have more fingers than times I went shooting. I should mention that I do not have a CCW. But if I did, my weapon of choice would be a semi with the safety on the trigger (it's one less action I would need to take). And of course I would not carry without a holster and without one ready in the chamber, hollow point.
Plus, I don't have to be still, unless I am trapped in all directions ;)

braetwalda said:
For every good example there are dozens of bad ones, you're not going to win with that argument :p
Click to expand...

And that's the wrong kind of mentality fed by the media/feeding the media. A tragedy (bad example) is overexposed, while a good story with a happy ending barely makes the news, if that! And that's just wrong. People like you who only care about the bad and couldn't care less about the good made the media what it is today! Shame!
 

DeletedUser33353

And of course I would not carry without a holster and without one ready in the chamber, hollow point.

too busy of a sentence.....my english teacher would smack you(nuns are mean),
duduie has the mentality of a realist.
 

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
And this pwns your argument
Click to expand...

1) Who you're talking to?

2) What gun control are you talking about? Is that supposed to mean that we need more regulations about what animals one can shoot? (that would not surprise me one bit coming from you ;) )

3) I think I already pwned that argument with a positive example. You cannot come back with the same one, is a little bit repetitive. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Actually, it demonstrates that some people shouldn't carry, own, or even load a gun. You can argue all you want about the people that should own a gun but it's a distraction, because gun control is about the people that shouldn't own a gun.

The issue of gun control is ensuring that guns don't get into the hands of people who are too mentally disturbed, suicidal, violent, incompetent, stupid, or inbred to own a gun. It's about controlling "who" can get a gun and also about how some types of guns should not be allowed to be owned due to their intended use (no howitzers for the kiddies, no assault weapons for the wannabe Rambo).

Shooting a girl in a costume when it's coming Halloween is stupid. Not only should that guy not own a gun, he shouldn't be allowed to procreate.
 

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
Shooting a girl in a costume when it's coming Halloween is stupid. Not only should that guy not own a gun, he shouldn't be allowed to procreate.
Click to expand...

But that's not for you to say, or anybody else for that matter. Unfortunately there's no law against stupidity. He could have picked someone else's shotgun, the issue is not really about ownership in this case. And without a general ban, situations like this have no solution. And a general ban is not acceptable. So that example does not really pwn or prove anything else but the fact that STUPIDITY can be dangerous. And I don't think anybody will put a ban on stupidity.

My example on the other hand, was of a 12 years old, who legally cannot own a gun, but who successfully used one and defended herself while putting a perp behind bars. Yes, gun control is about those who shouldn't even touch guns. But in this case, a person who falls in between those who shouldn't, proves she can in fact quite well.
What we are actually talking about is gun education and gun safety. And as long as movies make it look so easy and safe, there will be stupid idiots who think they are Schwarzenegger.
 

DeletedUser

Yes yes, I think what HS is trying to say, is that even if you don't have a blankent ban on gun control, at least have a ban on gun ownership by people who have IQs lower than xxx.

As for gun education, yes, definitely, although make sure it doesn't end up like this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0
 

DeletedUser

Meh, you run on the joke I imposed in my post about procreation and ignore the core of my post, which is that in the U.S. it's never been about controlling guns, it's always been about controlling who is allowed to possess and use one.

Think about it. Does a 10 year old girl dressed in a black and white outfit LOOK like a skunk to you? Would YOU shoot a 4 foot tall skunk? If you're not sure what something is, are YOU going to open fire on it? When i say stupid, it's because it requires someone supremely stupid or someone lacking in gun safety protocol to do what that guy did. The objective of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of people like the guy who shot that girl. So yes, violent, suicidal, criminal, or stupid, there are plenty of people who should not be allowed to own or use a gun, because they are more likely to harm themselves or others, or be so negligent or irresponsible as to allow a child access to their guns.

Your example, Duduie, demonstrated that someone who owned that gun was too irresponsible to own a gun, because he/she allowed an unlicensed child to obtain unsupervised access to it, either intentionally or through negligence. That child's success is not a demonstration of what can be done, it's a demonstration of what could have gone terribly wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

tigermite said:
Yes yes, I think what HS is trying to say, is that even if you don't have a blankent ban on gun control, at least have a ban on gun ownership by people who have IQs lower than xxx.

As for gun education, yes, definitely, although make sure it doesn't end up like this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0
Click to expand...

Yeh I get that and I totally agree, but is not doable.
And like I said before, I am totally for a psychological test to be required. In my home country is required for driver's licence.

As for the video: is not what it looks like to the untrained eye. First of all he keeps saying is an empty gun. As a cop (who handles a gun every day) he should know the difference in weight between an empty gun and a loaded gun. One can argue: well the magazine was empty but was one in the camber. No, when he first holds it you can see the empty chamber. Thus in order to have a bullet, that gun needs to have a clip. A clip holds (depending on the gun) from 5 and up. The weight of even 5 bullets is noticeable, especially for a cop. He says is a glock 40 (by 40 I understand caliber). A 40 cal is heavier than a 22 for example. Even I would know the difference in weight. Also, one does not do a demonstration with the magazine in, even if he knows for sure is empty. Then he closes the chamber, starts to slide it (action that would put one from the clip in the chamber), he barely completes the slide and the gun fires (malfunction???). Note that his finger does not look to be on the trigger (and it shouldn't be on the trigger at any time during a demonstration). And the angle doesn't look right to hit his leg. And talking about angle, anybody who practiced gun safety knows that you do not point the gun to yourself or anybody else, whether loaded or unloaded (unless you intend to shoot of course).
Thus, he's either very very stupid or the video is a fake. And there are plenty of things pointing to the latter.

@HS: I underlined smth, but replied to all of it. There's no law against stupidity. If you really wanna talk seriously about it, then it should be something in the context of "mentally impaired". And that requires medics and judges to rule on the IQ value that can be considered an issue.
And my example demonstrates good parenting and gun safety. The child called her mother and asked what to do. The mother told her to get the gun and hide in the closed. The mother probably knew the girl can handle it safely. You did not read it all did you? No, why would you? Does not serve your purpose ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

It is no fake. The DEA agent, Lee Paige, filed suit against the U.S. government for releasing that film. --> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/dea-agent-foot-shoot-suit

As to your argument about there being no law against being stupid, there's no law against being suicidal, but someone who has been hospitalized for such isn't allowed to own a gun in most U.S. States (if not all). The restrictions on guns applies to people who committed a crime and served their time. I.e., it's not against the law to be an ex-con, and yet they're restricted from owning a gun.

A person with advanced alzheimers, or seizure disorders, or with down's syndrome, or limited by mental ret-ardation, or under the age of 16, are not allowed to obtain a driver's license, yet it is not illegal to have down's syndrome, have alzheimers, have seizures, or be under 16 years old.

Point being, the rules on denial of a drivers license does not require illegal action. The rules for gun ownership/use likewise should not, and for the most part do not require illegal action. Do you wish to continue this dance because, you know, it's actually pretty hard to type on my phone with my thumbs in the freezing cold, hehe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser28032

He could have picked someone else's shotgun
Click to expand...

In which case theres two people in serious trouble as somebody was stupid enough to leave their weapon lying around and loaded where somebody else could pick it up.
 

DeletedUser

Btw, I didn't bother running through all the things thet could have gone wrong with that story Duduie. And yes, I did read the article. I read how the same mother who told her daughter to get the gun and hide also stated she herself could not have done that. So no, sounds like the mother panicked and gave her child some reckless advice. Also, did you pay attention to what the child did? "when i saw the closet handle move, I fired." In other words, she didn't even see the assailant when she fired. It could have been someone else that tried to open the bathroom closet door.

And then let's deal with the fact the girl was able to access the gun in the first place. Anybody who owns guns knows not to leave them unsecured, particularly if you have kids in your home. Etc and so on. The mother was negligent and irresponsible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
It is no fake. The DEA agent, Lee Paige, filed suit against the U.S. government for releasing that film. --> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/dea-agent-foot-shoot-suit

As to your argument about there being no law against being stupid, there's no law against being suicidal, but someone who has been hospitalized for such isn't allowed to own a gun in most U.S. States (if not all). The restrictions on guns applies to people who committed a crime and served their time. I.e., it's not against the law to be an ex-con, and yet they're restricted from owning a gun.

A person with advanced alzheimers, or seizure disorders, or with down's syndrome, or limited by mental ret-ardation, or under the age of 16, are not allowed to obtain a driver's license, yet it is not illegal to have down's syndrome, have alzheimers, have seizures, or be under 16 years old.

Point being, the rules on denial of a drivers license does not require illegal action. The rules for gun ownership/use likewise should not, and for the most part do not require illegal action. Do you wish to continue this dance because, you know, it's actually pretty hard to type on my phone with my thumbs in the freezing cold, hehe.
Click to expand...

What I meant was there are no legal restrictions related to stupidity: they can drive, live on their own etc. If you consider stupidity to be an impairment, then restrictions should be applied related to driving too and operating other types of machinery. Because they are not dangerous only with guns, but in other situations as well. I never said I did not agree with the fact that stupid people should not have access to guns, my argument is about the other things as well. And since they are not legally restricted to anything else, one cannot impose a restrictions on guns only. My argument is that the only way (now) to cover stupidity in gun access control, is to apply a general ban, which is not doable.

As for the example, yet again you are twisting the truth to serve your purpose. The child knew that only 1 person was in the house besides her, the assailant. The mother knew the child was properly trained to access the gun. The child waited for permission from the mother first and what the mother referred to was the child's ability to remain quiet, calm and to FIRE when she needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top