Gun Laws - Page 7

adamark · 11-22-2007, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azisien

Well, I guess you should be happy to have your life, provided you like living, and it sounds like you do. Are you saying your only satisfaction can be derived from killing the robber?

I once got the shit kicked out of me on my own driveway. Not exactly a lethal fight, but things can turn lethal in a split second or without people wanting them to. It's a shame I couldn't just have pulled out my gun and blown the other kid's head off. Except no, I don't feel justified at all in doing that.

If you are about to get robbed, mugged, raped, kidnapped, etc. you can pull out a handgun and it will scare them away. You must not have watched the video I posted so I will post it again: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

You can pull out a gun and make a citizen's arrest or at least point it at them with your finger off the trigger and slowly back away, or tell them to get on the ground and then call the cops. Gun owners don't automatically shoot people for the fun of it. You've characterized citizen gun owners as if they are crazy cowboys that just want to run into criminals so they can blow them away.

Less than 3 weeks ago someone high on angel dust broke into a home less than 10 miles from where I live. The homeowner told the guy to get on the ground. The guy was so high and aggressive he tried to attack the homeowner, who promtly shot the son of a bitch. Who do you side with? If the owner didn't have that gun he would have gotten fucked up because the intruder was super aggressive because of the state he was in. Then he could have done anything he wanted: rob the place, rape his wife, burn the house down. In fact, not too long ago THAT is exactly what happened in Cheshire. A defenseless family was robbed, raped, and the house burned down. A gun in the hands of the innocent family makes it more of a fair fight.

EDIT: And to ANYONE who tells me to use tae kwon do or karate or any form of martial art on someone coming to victimize me or my family.... NO. The criminal is trying to trample on MY rights. I will not make things sporting for them. They deserve to get shot for what they are doing. And no, they are not robbing me because they are poor and starving.

Mr.Bookworm · 11-22-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

If you are about to get robbed, mugged, raped, kidnapped, etc. you can pull out a handgun and it will scare them away. You must not have watched the video I posted so I will post it again: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

By your own logic later in your statement, many people who commit crimes are either extremely nervous or in a "not-right" mental state. They can't be expected to act rationally.

Quote:

You can pull out a gun and make a citizen's arrest or at least point it at them with your finger off the trigger and slowly back away, or tell them to get on the ground and then call the cops. Gun owners don't automatically shoot people for the fun of it. You've characterized citizen gun owners as if they are crazy cowboys that just want to run into criminals so they can blow them away.

But the gun is there. Loaded. And most importantly of all, pointed at someone. Victims of crimes are most likely extremely nervous and angry, as well as the criminals mental state.

Introducing a loaded firearm into that mix is like juggling torches in a fireworks factory.

Quote:

Less than 3 weeks ago someone high on angel dust broke into a home less than 10 miles from where I live. The homeowner told the guy to get on the ground. The guy was so high and aggressive he tried to attack the homeowner, who promtly shot the son of a bitch. Who do you side with? If the owner didn't have that gun he would have gotten fucked up because the intruder was super aggressive because of the state he was in. Then he could have done anything he wanted: rob the place, rape his wife, burn the house down. In fact, not too long ago THAT is exactly what happened in Cheshire. A defenseless family was robbed, raped, and the house burned down. A gun in the hands of the innocent family makes it more of a fair fight.

I have just as much sympathy for the guy who got shot than the guy who's house was broken into. I'm not saying that being the target of a robbery is okay, but that is just fucked up.

Point 1: Self defense is very possible without a gun, and doesn't end with someone dead, most of the time.

Point 2: This guy was high. Not exactly in a rational state of mind. I seriously doubt he could've done much damage. Generally, when someone is on drugs, they're extremely erratic, and all training goes out the window. The guy who shot him probably could've beat him up, which I have no moral ramifications with, by taking a single self-defense course.

Point 3: You are clearly completely misinformed about criminals. Could he have burned down his house? Could he have raped his wife? he could have. But no, it's extremely unlikely that he would have.

Point 4: If someone raped, killed, and burned a family, they're probably the rare breed of criminals that should be in jail somewhere, with the key at the bottom of a dumpster. The large majority of criminals are nowhere near that kind of twisted.

Point 5: How does having a gun make it a fair fight? If there was a band of criminals that was determined to rape, burn, and kill the average American family, you probably could do a lot more by punching three numbers into a cellphone, and running like hell than you could by trying to be an action hero.

EDIT:

Quote:

EDIT: And to ANYONE who tells me to use tae kwon do or karate or any form of martial art on someone coming to victimize me or my family.... NO. The criminal is trying to trample on MY rights. I will not make things sporting for them. They deserve to get shot for what they are doing. And no, they are not robbing me because they are poor and starving.

You sir, have the most astounding disregard for human life of anyone I have ever met. You shouldn't kill people. It's as simple as that. Killing doesn't solve anything.

Furthermore, you obviously have no respect for an established fact. Many, many criminals do what they do precisely because they are poor. Does that make it right? That's for another thread.

Krylo · 11-22-2007, 09:58 PM

Book: Do some research on Angel Dust/PCP.

It dulls the pain receptors far more than alcohol, without the slowing or lack of coordination that normally goes along with that AND it increases aggressiveness. Beating someone up who is high on angel dust is like trying to beat up the Hulk. You punched him? Great. Except he didn't feel it, and now he's pissed, and punching you hard enough to break his hand (which he's not even going to notice until he comes down), not to mention whatever part of your body he just impacted.

Also do research on police response times and 911 call response times. It's not an option once someone is already in your house. They won't get there until the criminals are gone, something like 85% of the time, if I remember my statistics properly.

Mr.Bookworm · 11-22-2007, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo

Book: Do some research on Angel Dust/PCP.

It dulls the pain receptors far more than alcohol, without the slowing or lack of coordination that normally goes along with that AND it increases aggressiveness. Beating someone up who is high on angel dust is like trying to beat up the Hulk. You punched him? Great. Except he didn't feel it, and now he's pissed, and punching you hard enough to break his hand, not to mention whatever part of the body he just impacted.

...Huh.

That's interesting.

Still, my statement stands.

It is far better to run like a little girl than it is to shoot someone.

EDIT:

Quote:

Also do research on police response times and 911 call response times. It's not an option once someone is already in your house. They won't get there until the criminals are gone, something like 85% of the time, if I remember my statistics properly.

Yeah, I know. But just barricade yourself in a room, with your family. Most criminals would be scared away by the police, who're really easy to hear coming.

Bob The Mercenary · 11-22-2007, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Bookworm

It is far better to run like a little girl than it is to shoot someone.

Sorry, but that just isn't applicable under all circumstances.

Book, you are really stretching for the best case scenario here.

Mr.Bookworm · 11-22-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

Sorry, but that just isn't applicable under all circumstances.

Book, you are really stretching for the best case scenario here.

No, not really. Up close? You could probably learn from a self-defense course how to disarm him.

Farther away? Run like a little girl while zig-zagging.

And I'm not really saying it's always applicable. Just likely.

Bob The Mercenary · 11-22-2007, 10:29 PM

Come on. Run while zig-zagging? Disarm him like in the movies? If there was even the slightest chance that I could possibly end up dead at the end of this encounter, the motherfucker is getting a bullet in him.

I agree that we should try to avoid confrontations with weapons as much as possible, but sometimes you have to do what's necessary.

Azisien · 11-22-2007, 10:31 PM

On top of that, Adamark is making one, or a series of, inductive generalizations with regards to these single defense cases about the overall beneficial aspects of a firearm. The 20/20 piece is all well and good, if a little horribly biased (the media biased? No, that wouldn't happen). I liked how most of the people so in favor of guns for self defense are individuals with direct experience. No shit, they have a huge emotional reason (and bias) to. That's fine, what about the rest of the world?

I will happily concede that, yes, there were, are, and will be many cases where a firearm successfully defends an individual or individuals. I'm sure there's far more successful defenses than there are accidental firearm deaths too. Honestly, it's not just about that. Firearms are a weapon, a very, very powerful weapon that can kill very easily, so fast people don't always have a chance to act rationally. Citizens aren't crazy cowboys, but they also aren't calm, cool, and collected all the time, especially in dangerous situations.

Unfortunately this is such a hot topic of discussion, it's going to be impossible to find really reliable statistics (see: KP's plethora of conflicting studies). What can I say safely? For every case you throw on here where someone with a firearm defended somebody, there's going to be a case where someone with a firearm killed somebody, or somebody blew their own brains out because they had easy access to a firearm (instead of instant death, perhaps they would have stayed alive long enough to find help?). And look, a firearm will kill better than so many other weapons, where a different weapon may not. Criminals (and crime rates too) may not be lowered, but crime rates and death rates are two different variables. More firearms and less control of those firearms occurs in the US, and there's more firearms related deaths of every kind in the US. Sorry, but having a culture with easy access to firearms, legally or not, makes it easier for even criminals to get access to guns. Criminals not caring about the gun laws is by all rights probably true, but that doesn't mean they can just get them. Problem is, I'm using the same, possibly flawed statistics pro-gun people are using, I'm just on the other side. But tell me, how many people are saved by firearms each year? Is there a statistic for that, maybe even a ball park? A thousand, ten thousand, five million? How can you know, and how can you claim that in place of the firearm, other actions wouldn't have worked just as effectively (speaking generally, not through these damn single case incidents).

Guns seem like an integral part of US culture, that's why I think this is such a touchy topic for so many. I don't think yanking guns away is a good idea for the US, but I'm adamant about anything from heavy restriction to something more moderate like mandatory proper storage, mandatory firearms safety courses, and no concealed weapons. (listed in order of decreasing importance)

To be honest, I think the power against the government argument is a slightly better avenue for pro-firearms than the whole daily life self-defense ordeal. Bush and such the way things are going now, yeah baby, let's see some gun marchs on the government!

Mr.Bookworm · 11-22-2007, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

Come on. Run while zig-zagging? Disarm him like in the movies? If there was even the slightest chance that I could possibly end up dead at the end of this encounter, the motherfucker is getting a bullet in him.

I agree that we should try to avoid confrontations with weapons as much as possible, but sometimes you have to do what's necessary.

Like in the movies? O_o

It's fairly simple to disarm someone with a gun. It usually ends up with them having a broken index finger and in a lot of pain.

And really. Running while zig-zagging is fairly effective. I tried it out on a paintball range once, and it's really hard to be hit if you're moving erratically.

And I agree. If by "do what is neccessary" you mean breaking a few of his bones and knocking him out. Lethal force is not something that should be employed lightly.

~~And for the slightest chance you could end up dead? By that logic, you should shoot the guy driving in the car behind you, because he "could" run into you.~~

EDIT: Actually, I apoligize for that last statement. I was kind of putting words into your mouth. But using lethal force when nonlethal force could be used isn't really that acceptable.

EDIT2: And I totally agree with Azisien on all points.

Quote:

liked how most of the people so in favor of guns for self defense are individuals with direct experience. No shit, they have a huge emotional reason (and bias) to.

I have direct experience, but I'm strongly in favor of gun control. I wonder what that says about me?

Bob The Mercenary · 11-22-2007, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Bookworm

And really. Running while zig-zagging is fairly effective. I tried it out on a paintball range once, and it's really hard to be hit if you're moving erratically.

But aren't paintballs moving at only around 300 ft/sec and bullets upwards of a couple thousand? And honestly, it's easier to aim a gun at a guy and fire than run like a girl for any extended period of time.

11-22-2007, 09:58 PM	#63
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	Book: Do some research on Angel Dust/PCP. It dulls the pain receptors far more than alcohol, without the slowing or lack of coordination that normally goes along with that AND it increases aggressiveness. Beating someone up who is high on angel dust is like trying to beat up the Hulk. You punched him? Great. Except he didn't feel it, and now he's pissed, and punching you hard enough to break his hand (which he's not even going to notice until he comes down), not to mention whatever part of your body he just impacted. Also do research on police response times and 911 call response times. It's not an option once someone is already in your house. They won't get there until the criminals are gone, something like 85% of the time, if I remember my statistics properly. __________________ I am very tired.

11-22-2007, 10:29 PM	#67
Bob The Mercenary Bob Dole Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Bob Dole Posts: 5,606	Come on. Run while zig-zagging? Disarm him like in the movies? If there was even the slightest chance that I could possibly end up dead at the end of this encounter, the motherfucker is getting a bullet in him. I agree that we should try to avoid confrontations with weapons as much as possible, but sometimes you have to do what's necessary. __________________ Bob Dole

11-22-2007, 10:31 PM	#68
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	On top of that, Adamark is making one, or a series of, inductive generalizations with regards to these single defense cases about the overall beneficial aspects of a firearm. The 20/20 piece is all well and good, if a little horribly biased (the media biased? No, that wouldn't happen). I liked how most of the people so in favor of guns for self defense are individuals with direct experience. No shit, they have a huge emotional reason (and bias) to. That's fine, what about the rest of the world? I will happily concede that, yes, there were, are, and will be many cases where a firearm successfully defends an individual or individuals. I'm sure there's far more successful defenses than there are accidental firearm deaths too. Honestly, it's not just about that. Firearms are a weapon, a very, very powerful weapon that can kill very easily, so fast people don't always have a chance to act rationally. Citizens aren't crazy cowboys, but they also aren't calm, cool, and collected all the time, especially in dangerous situations. Unfortunately this is such a hot topic of discussion, it's going to be impossible to find really reliable statistics (see: KP's plethora of conflicting studies). What can I say safely? For every case you throw on here where someone with a firearm defended somebody, there's going to be a case where someone with a firearm killed somebody, or somebody blew their own brains out because they had easy access to a firearm (instead of instant death, perhaps they would have stayed alive long enough to find help?). And look, a firearm will kill better than so many other weapons, where a different weapon may not. Criminals (and crime rates too) may not be lowered, but crime rates and death rates are two different variables. More firearms and less control of those firearms occurs in the US, and there's more firearms related deaths of every kind in the US. Sorry, but having a culture with easy access to firearms, legally or not, makes it easier for even criminals to get access to guns. Criminals not caring about the gun laws is by all rights probably true, but that doesn't mean they can just get them. Problem is, I'm using the same, possibly flawed statistics pro-gun people are using, I'm just on the other side. But tell me, how many people are saved by firearms each year? Is there a statistic for that, maybe even a ball park? A thousand, ten thousand, five million? How can you know, and how can you claim that in place of the firearm, other actions wouldn't have worked just as effectively (speaking generally, not through these damn single case incidents). Guns seem like an integral part of US culture, that's why I think this is such a touchy topic for so many. I don't think yanking guns away is a good idea for the US, but I'm adamant about anything from heavy restriction to something more moderate like mandatory proper storage, mandatory firearms safety courses, and no concealed weapons. (listed in order of decreasing importance) To be honest, I think the power against the government argument is a slightly better avenue for pro-firearms than the whole daily life self-defense ordeal. Bush and such the way things are going now, yeah baby, let's see some gun marchs on the government!