Gun debate

[ar81]

Another example of how "weapons help to reduce crime"...
This is really sad. It looks like the guy thinks "if you do not think like me, you are my enemy".
Condolences to those families.

 

[Biscuit]

And if he didn't have guns, it would have been gasoline, or explosives, or driving a bulldozer into a crowd ... let's ban all bulldozers. How many people have been targeted with construction equipment by someone bent on killing and destroying? Federalize the Caterpillar corporation, take them under government control ... get the evil bulldozers out of the hands of 'common people' who shouldn't be allowed to have such dangerous items.

ANYTHING can be used as a weapon ... a person determined to hurt others will not be deterred by the unavailability of firearms. I've read news reports that crimes with knives and swords are on the rise in England. Isrealis get targeted by lunatics on bulldozers. Churches get firebombed by idiots with gasoline and a match. Cars get driven into crowds of people out shopping. Fanatics wearing vests of explosives laced with screws, bolts, and anything else that can act as shrapnel wander into restaraunts and blow themselves up.

A gun is a tool. Just like a screwdriver (or, if you really want to get into the whole dangerous projectile-throwing arena, how about a pneumatic nailgun). It's not the tool that is dangerous ... a gun laying on a table will never kill anyone. A gun hanging in a display cabinet will never kill anyone.

A HUMAN determined to injure or kill another human does that (with whatever is at hand, be it car, poison, knife, in the library with a candlestick ...). Yeah, admittedly, a firearm is a pretty efficient and convenient way of doing so, but not really any more efficient at causing carnage than a 5 gallon can of gasoline and a book of matches.

But a ban on firearms will most certainly take them out of the hands of responsible people and deny them then ability to defend themselves, and deny them the ability to bring these situations to a quicker end.

Someone please explain why, if citizens having guns cause crime, the crime rates go up after a gun ban is enacted in a city?

 

[ar81]

ANYTHING can be used as a weapon ... a person determined to hurt others will not be deterred by the unavailability of firearms.

Yeah, admittedly, a firearm is a pretty efficient and convenient way of doing so, but not really any more efficient at causing carnage than a 5 gallon can of gasoline and a book of matches.

But a ban on firearms will most certainly take them out of the hands of responsible people and deny them then ability to defend themselves, and deny them the ability to bring these situations to a quicker end.

Someone please explain why, if citizens having guns cause crime, the crime rates go up after a gun ban is enacted in a city?

In Costa Rica, Limon province is the one that has more firearms per capita and it has one of the highest crime rates in the country. So your argument to defend firearms is very poor.

Buying a gun and pulling the trigger is easy.
Buying explosives must be harder.
Using gasoline would allow a chance of escape.

And if guns are allowed, why not nuclear weapons? After all those are tools too, if we use your reasoning...

 

[Biscuit]

Yes ... a nuke is a tool. Try finding one for sale, though.

However, I personally have no desire to try to deer hunt with a nuke. Mmmmm, killed, cleaned, and grilled in 2 milliseconds. Yum. Plus, the leftovers glow in the dark for easy midnight snacking.

Seriously though, yes, there are exceptions to every rule. But, I have to ask, are firearms legal in Costa Rica, Limon province?

High rate per capita is meaningless. All that could mean is that there are lot of criminals with guns, while the law abiding citizens are unarmed, therefore easy prey.

 

[simonpro]

Perhaps you should take the gun debate into another thread (again)?

 

[ar81]

Yes ... a nuke is a tool. Try finding one for sale, though.

However, I personally have no desire to try to deer hunt with a nuke. Mmmmm, killed, cleaned, and grilled in 2 milliseconds. Yum. Plus, the leftovers glow in the dark for easy midnight snacking.

Seriously though, yes, there are exceptions to every rule. But, I have to ask, are firearms legal in Costa Rica, Limon province?

High rate per capita is meaningless. All that could mean is that there are lot of criminals with guns, while the law abiding citizens are unarmed, therefore easy prey.

In order not to thread-jack the condolences thread for the killing in a church, I will continue the debate here.

The reason you have police and people have phones is why. People are the eyes and police are the task force. Else, you have armed citizens that could form militias.

In Colombia you have armed criminals and even if citizens are armed it contnues to be a very dangerous country.

If people in USA need to use guns instead of calling police, it tells me that even police or court of justice are incompetent.

 

[bujin]

And if he didn't have guns, it would have been gasoline, or explosives, or driving a bulldozer into a crowd ... let's ban all bulldozers. How many people have been targeted with construction equipment by someone bent on killing and destroying? Federalize the Caterpillar corporation, take them under government control ... get the evil bulldozers out of the hands of 'common people' who shouldn't be allowed to have such dangerous items.

You don't see the ludicrousness of this? The bulldozer is designed for construction, not for injuring or killing someone. The gun IS designed for injuring or killing.

A gun hanging in a display cabinet will never kill anyone.

If you only want a gun hanging in a display cabinet, then why not "safe" the gun so that it cannot fire?

I think Thunderf00t says it quite nicely in this video:

The Second Amendment was not intended for people to carry guns to go shopping.

As a Brit, I don't agree with arming civilians. I also don't agree with arming the whole police force. We have specialist firearms officers who have to pass rigorous psychological tests, and then spend every day (while not on active operations) training. Civilians would never get that level of training or psychological profile.

But then heck, I don't intend living in America, so the laws over there don't really affect me.

 

[Urwumpe]

Perhaps you should take the gun debate into another thread (again)?

yeah...and have it closed again, when people fear, their freedom to get shot with their own gun gets infringed.

 

[Insane]

I see the self defense argument, but what do we then expect - for every man, woman and child to be walking around with a loaded pistol?

Do you not agree that, while having firearms possession illegal may not stop everyone from acquiring them, it will at least severely limit their distribution? You mention that in the UK we're seeing a rise in knife crime recently, well, yes we are. I also agree that people will use whatever weapon is at hand if they wish to cause injury, I just personally think that a gun is by far the most easy to use, and like you say, its efficient. Against a knife, I think the victim of an attack might stand a chance. Against a gun, I don't hold out much hope. Please bear in mind that I'm not lecturing anyone here that having a gun is bad, or that they should be banned, I'm just trying to add some opinions to the discussion.

My heart goes out to the families who are grieving their losses today.

 

[simonpro]

I think that violent crime would be no higher or lower if all guns suddenly ceased to exist. People who really want to injure someone else will find a way to, no matter what.

I do think, however, that if gun control in the USA (and other gun-friendly countries) was a lot stricter then you'd probably have a lot less accidental injuries. Professionals know (supposedly) how to use guns, civilians frequently don't.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think, a gun ownership is a responsibility, which can't be taken too seriously. The problems you usually have with it is:

- Guns incorrectly stored, can get stolen or used by people who should not use them.
- Guns incorrectly handled, are your own enemy.
- Guns incorrectly deployed, escalate situations and make you more likely to get killed by criminals, who want to survive, too.

Knowing how to shoot once per week at a immobile target, does not prepare you for getting attacked. It prepared you only for being the attacker.

I have no problems with citizens deciding that they are able to own a gun for the good of their environment. Still, you should be aware, that no right exists to place you above the law. If you shoot somebody without proper reason you are a murderer.

And if you buy a gun, because you feel weak and helpless - you will not be less weak with a gun. And can only expect less help. A gun is no tool, it is a deadly weapon. Even a taser is already far from harmless. If you escalate a situation with your weapons, you are the bad guy.

 

[TSPenguin]

Previous posts belonging in here have been moved accordingly.
Keep it civil this time!
Don't attack the people, attack the argument.

 

[Ghostrider]

In Costa Rica, Limon province is the one that has more firearms per capita and it has one of the highest crime rates in the country. So your argument to defend firearms is very poor.

Do you really expect that the whole world is like Costa Rica? :rofl:

Appenzell here, high gun ownership rate, low crime. It's not another planet, you know.

Professionals know (supposedly) how to use guns, civilians frequently don't.

Well... The problem is, how do you define a "professional"? A "professional" is someone who is paid for what he does. That doesn't really speak volumes for his level of competence because we see "professional" truck drivers reading magazines on their wheel while driving on the highway. I understand a lot of "amateur" programmers and developers here could rip many "professionals" a new one any given Sunday.

And I get horribly irked when someone refers to me as a "professional" at my trade simply because that's what I do for a living. I've been in the PI field for 3+ years and I've been handling firearms for 18 years, but I don't feel like a "professional" and I think I'll never do, especially because I met other "professionals" and almost pulled my hair out in frustration. I'd rather be called a "dedicated individual" but you can't put that on a business card.

However, anyone who wants to own a firearm should have mandatory training. It's only logical, we get training in order to drive cars and the average firearms instructor does a far better job than the average driving instructor - at least in my experience.

As for storing and keeping guns at home - there are a series of simple rules that should be followed like storing weapons and ammo separately, locking them up and disassembling them if you're going on holiday. I usually leave my rifle's bolt assembly at a friend's home (without that piece the rifle is useless) for instance, and I take similar precautions with every boomstick I own.

 

[Urwumpe]

Appenzell here, high gun ownership rate, low crime. It's not another planet, you know.

No, it is Switzerland. Who ever crossed the border to it knows, it is like different universe. Almost like a low-tech Eureka.

 

[ar81]

Don't attack the people, attack the argument.

Die, argument, die!!! :rofl:

 

[dmc]

If people in USA need to use guns instead of calling police, it tells me that even police or court of justice are incompetent.

Im sorry, I dont think we buy guns in self defense because our police cant handle the job, we buy guns because the police arent by our bed 24/7 making sure we are ok.

If its midnight and I hear someone breaking into my house, I would much rather be able to grab a shotgun right next to me and scare the guy off or even shoot if it comes to that. Rather than dial 911, tell them my address, whats the emergency etc. and wait 2-3 minutes if even that fast for the police man to come.

 

[Urwumpe]

If its midnight and I hear someone breaking into my house, I would much rather be able to grab a shotgun right next to me and scare the guy off or even shoot if it comes to that. Rather than dial 911, tell them my address, whats the emergency etc. and wait 2-3 minutes if even that fast for the police man to come.

We are more traditional here. We own dogs, which are mostly harmless, but are able to notice somebody on our ground even before we can see him.

Next, I don't need a shotgun AFTER somebody broke into my house. That is already too late for most firearms. Even my LARP sword is a better weapon inside, as any firearm. A baseball bat is almost perfect. And you don't want to find out what skilled people can do with a good ice hockey bat.

And police would no longer believe in self-defense, when I would use the broken guitar strings I have in my shelf as weapon.

 

[Ghostrider]

No, it is Switzerland. Who ever crossed the border to it knows, it is like different universe. Almost like a low-tech Eureka.

That's because you haven't seen the Secret Underground Fortress yet.

Die, argument, die!!! :rofl:

Do you read the Bible, argument? Because I have read it and I have a passage memorized, which is perfect for the occasion. Ezekiel, 25:17 "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the LORD when I lay my vengeance upon thee!"

Alternatively, argument, do you ever listen to K-Billy's Super Sounds of the Seventies? It's my personal favourite.

Next, I don't need a shotgun AFTER somebody broke into my house. That is already too late for most firearms.

Depends on the layout of your house. Mine has enough reinforced doors so that the opponent will have to spend some time before getting at my bedroom, and by then the cops SHOULD have arrived. If not, and the bad guys have the time to break down the last door, they'll get a fistful of rubber pellets.

As for dogs... In some condos you cannot keep them by house regs. And someone is already willing to restrict the races of dogs you can keep, like in the UK. A Chihuahua may be cute (for some, I see them as the canine version of Gollum) but it's not much use in a defence situation, unless you fire it out of a wristrocket.

And police would no longer believe in self-defense, when I would use the broken guitar strings I have in my shelf as weapon.

Piano wire, man, piano wire. Don't make me lecture you on hitman equipment.

 

[dmc]

Im sure alot of people own dogs here too. But if the burglar is determined enough, if he has a weapon im sure he can get rid of the dog. The shotgun was mainly an example. Im sure most people dont want to shoot somebody, but a gun will scare someone bad enough to most likely run, which I know a sword will too. lol

 

[adamb193]

I Really like the American prespective on this American problem.