Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Previous · 1 . . . 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 . . . 25 · Next
Author Message
Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,688,586
RAC: 1,286
United States
Message 1330826 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 18:48:55 UTC - in response to Message 1330749.


I live in a country that has very strong gun laws but am I less free than a citizen of the US ?

Neither my children or I get groped by TSA gorillas when passing through airport security, I don't get stopped by a paramilitary force for random checks to see if I'm a "terrorist" while on the highway or train or bus station, law enforcement officers don't shoot first and ask questions later, our security services do not overtly monitor text messages and emails and I can send my kids to school without any worry that some psycho with an assault rifle is going to use them for target practice.

If your only definition of freedom is the right to have a gun(s) in your house, you have a strange idea of freedom. The Patriot Act did more to take away American "freedom" than gun control ever would.

From what I see, the US proposals for gun control only limit the ownership of military grade weapons and high capacity magazines. Apart from the jerk off factor, why does a private citizen need to own weapons of this type ?

No-one is trying to take away your hunting rifle.

T.A.

Woohoo You get it!!!!

+1

+2!
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8503
Credit: 23,093,626
RAC: 15,785
United Kingdom
Message 1330829 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 18:53:38 UTC

I see from the WP that some states are considering increasing spending on mental health, after finding out that decreased spending increases crime and they end up putting the sick people in prison.

After shootings, some states rethink deep cuts to mental health care, consider more spending

And while getting that I saw, but not read yet.

Lawmakers unveil new assault weapons ban

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1668
Credit: 203,519,257
RAC: 24,961
Australia
Message 1330831 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 18:55:23 UTC - in response to Message 1330799.

Only small game. Which in my state is smaller than a deer. Groundhogs, They get big and mean and Ive had them charge me when ive enterd there turf. It was my garden by the way. I have old eyes now days, So I like 100 yards (or a lot less.)

Gotta watch them groundhogs, especially during the mating season :D

T.A.

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1668
Credit: 203,519,257
RAC: 24,961
Australia
Message 1330840 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 19:06:26 UTC - in response to Message 1330795.
Last modified: 24 Jan 2013, 19:07:05 UTC

Oh, by the way...

All the latest shootings of the mass type, movie house, and schools, were done by people who came from VERY liberal families.

Just sayin...

Good Grief ID. Why can't you see that this goes beyond the conservative vs liberal twaddle. If someone has me in their sights, the last thing I'm going to worry about is their politics.

T.A.

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2122
Credit: 4,406,481
RAC: 7,872
United States
Message 1330850 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 19:19:13 UTC - in response to Message 1330771.

Michelle Malkin reported on Fox news last night that in New York state the Dems with their gun control laws do indeed want to take all arms from the citizen. In the law if you have one gun you get one bullet. Indeed a stupid law. While hunting one would need more then one round.

Even so, the report above about the reason for firearms is false from posters here, and a out and out lie. The intent of law is all that is needed for owning a firearm. That intent is tyranny from a standing army within our borders. It is unfortunate and a crime in my thoughts that my link was removed. Because the link gave the reasons for owning a firearm in my country from the mouths of the framers and founders. This is called intent. Of course if socialist, who in their mind want to re-engineer society must interject revisioniest history.



ID, you keep using the word socialist. On December 30th I for the third time I asked for your definition of what socialism is in order to understand what you are talking about. The forums have yet to hear your definition. Please share with us what you think a socialist is.
____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12130
Credit: 6,411,109
RAC: 8,302
United States
Message 1330852 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 19:19:53 UTC

I suspect we would agree that this http://www.metalstorm.com/IRM/content/pdf/firestorm_brochure.pdf with a fire rate of 24,000 40mm grenades per minute is a military assault weapon.

____________

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,688,586
RAC: 1,286
United States
Message 1330854 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 19:20:55 UTC - in response to Message 1330850.
Last modified: 24 Jan 2013, 19:22:41 UTC

Michelle Malkin reported on Fox news last night that in New York state the Dems with their gun control laws do indeed want to take all arms from the citizen. In the law if you have one gun you get one bullet. Indeed a stupid law. While hunting one would need more then one round.

Even so, the report above about the reason for firearms is false from posters here, and a out and out lie. The intent of law is all that is needed for owning a firearm. That intent is tyranny from a standing army within our borders. It is unfortunate and a crime in my thoughts that my link was removed. Because the link gave the reasons for owning a firearm in my country from the mouths of the framers and founders. This is called intent. Of course if socialist, who in their mind want to re-engineer society must interject revisioniest history.



ID, you keep using the word socialist. On December 30th I for the third time I asked for your definition of what socialism is in order to understand what you are talking about. The forums have yet to hear your definition. Please share with us what you think a socialist is.


But we already know the answer. In his eyes anyone who is not a tea party admirer is a "socialist".

And I agree with TA that this is an issue of safety, not an issue of Liberal vs. Conservative.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7407
Credit: 74,697
RAC: 43
United States
Message 1331324 - Posted: 25 Jan 2013, 22:35:07 UTC

Since there is no other open thread for this type of debate I am creating one.

If reasonable people agree that understanding certain facts regarding any issue to be discussed we should converse about it. Most people don't understand the differences between firearms from semi-automatic, full automatic (machine guns that only a few people nationwide are allowed to have with expensive permits and supervision) vs revolvers, shotguns, handguns, etc.

When the average 'Joe and Jane' watches the news the ones portrayed by the politicans look scary. They have all kinds of mechanical parts portrayed in the movies by our favorite film stars. This shouldn't have any influence on your decision when voting legislative actions that may be coming.

Like too many issues that are political the arguments are emotional and not rational. An opinion that is malinformed isn't one to be considered. At minimum any one that comments on guns (Pelosi!!??) should have some basic knowledge of crime statistics and other variables.

FBI Statistics show that many more violent crimes are prevented by a citizen when confronted with a violent predator than murders. The vast majority of these incidents occur without the victim firing her/ his weapon.

The gun is the great equalizer. A woman especially can feel safer at home knowing that if a predator breaks in to her house she has that as a resort.

Practically speaking for the USA. There won't be a way to exhaust this supply since guns, well preserved or even left in a closet, are still functional as they were.






____________
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1668
Credit: 203,519,257
RAC: 24,961
Australia
Message 1331485 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 7:10:10 UTC
Last modified: 26 Jan 2013, 7:24:23 UTC

This is a bit outdated as the post I was answering is no longer visible but I think there are still some valid points here.

Any attempt at changing the rule of law, I'm against. During our founding there was not a school shooting, or crazy person with a knife killing children.{/quote]
And if there had been. What do you think would have been the reaction of the sponsors of the 2nd amendment ?

[quote].... I cannot defend my family from our own government or an outside army with rocks.

You might as well because I bet if you start waving a gun around a "tyrannical army" will just call in a drone strike

You seem to have NO UNDERSTANDING of the word deterrent. The Genie is indeed out of the bottle and there is NOTHING I can do about it but arm myself and hope that the idiot I face will come to reason. If not I will kill that person, indeed I will. I have that God given right. I also have the personal responsibly to talk them out of it and I WILL try that first if given the chance but I will shoot and kill if I cannot.

You are assuming a face to face confrontation. The general discussion here is one where you're picked off from a 100 yards away without even knowing what hit you.

EVERYONE want peace. It is built into them by Design. It is the ignoring of what is freely given by the Designer that makes for war. Of course all of us want our loved ones to come home safe. But accidents within the home take more lives then firearms. Shall we repeal to law of gravity? How in the hell can we do that!

We can't repeal the law of gravity, which around the home usually only kills or injures one person at a time. I'm pretty sure "The Designer" did not give us semi automatic weapons though. I also remember "The Designer" saying something about "Thou shalt not kill"


"...very sick society."..you say. People are the SAME everywhere. What motivates them is the same EVERYWHERE. A man in China took a knife and killed many and hurt many the same day as the Sandiehook shooting. Your statement at best is wrong and at worst a deliberate shot at my country because of IT'S FREEDOMS.

I repeat ANY society that tolerates the shooting of unarmed school kids without taking steps to prevent such actions is sick. I'm pretty sure there is nothing in any country's constitution about the freedom to shoot unarmed civilians.

That nature now days seems to be to blame the object in place of the persons lack of personal responsibility.

I don't blame the "object", the problem is definitely with the user who has a lack of personal responsibility. However, if you see two children fighting and one starts to beat the other with a stick, do you just decry the lack of responsibility in that child and let them continue with the beating or do you take the stick away from them ? Also you will probably go round and pick up any other loose sticks to make sure it doesn't happen again and only let any child that's around hold a stick under controlled circumstances.

And that good sir is the problem. It's easier to control the the sticks than the irresponsible children. Of course a particularly naughty child will always be able to find a stick, but it makes it harder for them to find one than if there are plenty of sticks just lying around.

There is no logic in the reasoning that the answer to a "stick" problem is more "sticks"

T.A.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12130
Credit: 6,411,109
RAC: 8,302
United States
Message 1331599 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 16:21:14 UTC - in response to Message 1331485.
Last modified: 26 Jan 2013, 16:21:40 UTC

That nature now days seems to be to blame the object in place of the persons lack of personal responsibility.

I don't blame the "object", the problem is definitely with the user who has a lack of personal responsibility. However, if you see two children fighting and one starts to beat the other with a stick, do you just decry the lack of responsibility in that child and let them continue with the beating or do you take the stick away from them ? Also you will probably go round and pick up any other loose sticks to make sure it doesn't happen again and only let any child that's around hold a stick under controlled circumstances.

I drag the kid with the stick off to a rubber room because I know if I don't and only take the stick he will just grab a rock and keep on beating. If we go your way eventually we have taken away every movable object, er isn't that a good description of a rubber room?
____________

Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8674
Credit: 244,823
RAC: 147
Canada
Message 1331650 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 19:33:07 UTC - in response to Message 1331599.


I don't blame the "object", the problem is definitely with the user who has a lack of personal responsibility. However, if you see two children fighting and one starts to beat the other with a stick, do you just decry the lack of responsibility in that child and let them continue with the beating or do you take the stick away from them ? Also you will probably go round and pick up any other loose sticks to make sure it doesn't happen again and only let any child that's around hold a stick under controlled circumstances.

I drag the kid with the stick off to a rubber room because I know if I don't and only take the stick he will just grab a rock and keep on beating.

That isn't true, Gary. Having broken up many fights between children I can tell you that is absolutely not true.

If we go your way eventually we have taken away every movable object, er isn't that a good description of a rubber room?

Most shootings happen in a moment of temper. Everyone loses their temper at some point in their lives. Some people who are under a lot of pressure in another part in their lives can snap and in a moment of fury want to lash out at people close to them. If they pick up a stick in their fury, they most likely hit out once then realise what they have done and stop. Unfortunately a lot of shootings occur in the home when exactly this situation has occurred, but rather than throwing dishes, or putting fists through walls, a gun is used. The consequences are often fatal. A moment of madness, just one moment and with access to a gun, lives are destroyed.

In your analogy you are suggesting that if someones gun is taken off them they will just pick up another gun. Rocks may be lying around in the street, but we should be living in a world where guns are not.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12130
Credit: 6,411,109
RAC: 8,302
United States
Message 1331717 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 21:58:56 UTC - in response to Message 1331650.


I don't blame the "object", the problem is definitely with the user who has a lack of personal responsibility. However, if you see two children fighting and one starts to beat the other with a stick, do you just decry the lack of responsibility in that child and let them continue with the beating or do you take the stick away from them ? Also you will probably go round and pick up any other loose sticks to make sure it doesn't happen again and only let any child that's around hold a stick under controlled circumstances.

I drag the kid with the stick off to a rubber room because I know if I don't and only take the stick he will just grab a rock and keep on beating.

That isn't true, Gary. Having broken up many fights between children I can tell you that is absolutely not true.

If we go your way eventually we have taken away every movable object, er isn't that a good description of a rubber room?

Most shootings happen in a moment of temper. Everyone loses their temper at some point in their lives. Some people who are under a lot of pressure in another part in their lives can snap and in a moment of fury want to lash out at people close to them. If they pick up a stick in their fury, they most likely hit out once then realise what they have done and stop. Unfortunately a lot of shootings occur in the home when exactly this situation has occurred, but rather than throwing dishes, or putting fists through walls, a gun is used. The consequences are often fatal. A moment of madness, just one moment and with access to a gun, lives are destroyed.

In your analogy you are suggesting that if someones gun is taken off them they will just pick up another gun. Rocks may be lying around in the street, but we should be living in a world where guns are not.

Wouldn't the world be so rosy and nice if the word weapon didn't exist in any language. Take off the rose colored glasses. If you take one weapon away a different one will be used. Is a dozen sticks with a 10 inch kitchen knife somehow to be so preferred to a single bullet? I suppose one is more likely to cause society to spend large sums on health care over the other.
____________

Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8674
Credit: 244,823
RAC: 147
Canada
Message 1331721 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:15:13 UTC - in response to Message 1331717.


Wouldn't the world be so rosy and nice if the word weapon didn't exist in any language. Take off the rose colored glasses. If you take one weapon away a different one will be used. Is a dozen sticks with a 10 inch kitchen knife somehow to be so preferred to a single bullet? I suppose one is more likely to cause society to spend large sums on health care over the other.

I think the reason that we are having this discussion is because, unlike the knife attack that happened in China where 22 children were injured, 20 children were killed in Sandy Hook.

The difference is that in one case the weapon used was a knife, in the other the weapon used was a gun.

There really is a huge difference between an injured child and a dead one.

The line needs to be drawn.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

rob smith
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8134
Credit: 52,643,739
RAC: 74,645
United Kingdom
Message 1331724 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:20:53 UTC

I agree, it would be great if there were no "weapons" of any sort, but we aren't.

The control of firearms is about controlling the risk by controlling something that it is possible to control.

Here in the UK we have some pretty serious firearms control, we also have controls on the knives, and other things that might be used as weapons. The don't stop people being shot, stabbed or hit with a blunt object, they reduce the risk of such acts.

As far as I can see the biggest obstacle in the US to sensible gun control is the NRA and the industry that supports them in generating a culture of paranoia. This paranoia instils in people the fear that if they don't have a gun they will get shot by someone with a gun. Since when did owning a gun stop someone being shot? In an encounter with an armed person even if you hit with your first shot someone has been shot - think how many people in our armed services have been shot in the last 100 years.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

rob smith
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8134
Credit: 52,643,739
RAC: 74,645
United Kingdom
Message 1331733 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:29:42 UTC

Going back to the thread title,and answering the question.

Many years ago, when I first underwent any firearms training, our instructor, an old Corporal, handed us all mirrors at start of the first session in the training room. He told us to look at our faces "Ladies and Gentlemen, you are now looking at the most dangerous part of any weapon system - remember and learn".

This was before he lifted the cloths of the table at the front and uncovered enough small arms, automatics and other weapons to start a war, "These weapons are all perfectly safe despite being loaded, they are sitting on a table not being held in someone's hands". A salutatory lesson was learnt by all that day.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12130
Credit: 6,411,109
RAC: 8,302
United States
Message 1331753 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:49:25 UTC - in response to Message 1331721.


Wouldn't the world be so rosy and nice if the word weapon didn't exist in any language. Take off the rose colored glasses. If you take one weapon away a different one will be used. Is a dozen sticks with a 10 inch kitchen knife somehow to be so preferred to a single bullet? I suppose one is more likely to cause society to spend large sums on health care over the other.

I think the reason that we are having this discussion is because, unlike the knife attack that happened in China where 22 children were injured, 20 children were killed in Sandy Hook.

The difference is that in one case the weapon used was a knife, in the other the weapon used was a gun.

There really is a huge difference between an injured child and a dead one.

The line needs to be drawn.

We are having this discussion because you have all forgotten that the weapon of choice for the Manson family was the knife.

____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12130
Credit: 6,411,109
RAC: 8,302
United States
Message 1331755 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:52:23 UTC - in response to Message 1331733.

Many years ago, when I first underwent any firearms training, our instructor, an old Corporal, handed us all mirrors at start of the first session in the training room. He told us to look at our faces "Ladies and Gentlemen, you are now looking at the most dangerous part of any weapon system - remember and learn".

This was before he lifted the cloths of the table at the front and uncovered enough small arms, automatics and other weapons to start a war, "These weapons are all perfectly safe despite being loaded, they are sitting on a table not being held in someone's hands". A salutatory lesson was learnt by all that day.

So vary true. It is the person who is the danger. More so if they are not trained.

____________

msattler
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 38320
Credit: 559,455,956
RAC: 642,661
United States
Message 1331888 - Posted: 27 Jan 2013, 4:41:55 UTC

I have no firearms at this moment.
However. I defend my RIGHT to own then at any point in time I feel my security is jeopordized. Like today, like right now, like at any point I choose.
My choice right now......?
A nice, stainless .45 auto with a 9 shot clip. And several spare clips.
I happen to know what it takes to stop an intruder. Six shots or only five, as Clint said........it took seven. He did NOT stop until the last round hit his chest. You want me to empty my clip and then say.....Oh, shit? Not on my watch, morons.

And this is such an inane argument anyway you are having.

The second amendment is NOT about having a gun in the house to fend off criminals..
There were just not that many criminals at that time.

It was about, and right now is about, having the means to defend the public against.
Illegal search and seizure, and the 'don't tread upon me' legalities of a corrupted government. Which is what we have right now.

You cannot see the corruption at the federal level that is happening right now?

____________
*********************************************
Embrace your inner kitty...ya know ya wanna!

I have met a few friends in my life.
Most were cats.

Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8674
Credit: 244,823
RAC: 147
Canada
Message 1331900 - Posted: 27 Jan 2013, 6:09:27 UTC - in response to Message 1331888.

I have no firearms at this moment.
However. I defend my RIGHT to own then at any point in time I feel my security is jeopordized. Like today, like right now, like at any point I choose.
My choice right now......?
A nice, stainless .45 auto with a 9 shot clip. And several spare clips.
I happen to know what it takes to stop an intruder. Six shots or only five, as Clint said........it took seven. He did NOT stop until the last round hit his chest. You want me to empty my clip and then say.....Oh, shit? Not on my watch, morons.

And this is such an inane argument anyway you are having.

The second amendment is NOT about having a gun in the house to fend off criminals..
There were just not that many criminals at that time.

It was about, and right now is about, having the means to defend the public against.
Illegal search and seizure, and the 'don't tread upon me' legalities of a corrupted government. Which is what we have right now.

You cannot see the corruption at the federal level that is happening right now?

I'll repost this for you Mark because it seem to have got lost in the kerfuffle.

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

"This Article challenges the insurrectionist model. The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control. In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and obliquely codified in other constitutional provisions.[52]"

An interesting, well researched paper on the true history of the 2nd amendment. Also explains where I.D. is getting his information from.

It does appear that the 2nd amendment was drafted so that the Southern States could protect themselves from a slave uprising.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Previous · 1 . . . 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 . . . 25 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Copyright © 2014 University of California