The significance of a skateboard to you is fun. The significance of guns to gun owners is protection of their homes and often insurance against a corrupt state.
If you view anything as the thing that maintains your rights, and that thing is also a deadly weapon, and millions of people in your country hold this same view, you can expect a revolt of some kind.
You mean to tell me that gun owners also do view their guns as fun? Why do they take them hunting? Why do they take them to the gun range? Why do they show them off to their neighbors and friends? Why do they show their kids?
The percentage of people who just own one gun that they keep in their bedside table next to their box of condoms and bible (and never show another soul on this planet) for the purposes of protecting their home against a "corrupt state", against intruders (against zombies), and to protect this so-called rights your talking about is so low its fucking unbelievable.
You don't need a gun to be courageous. You don't need a gun to lead a revolt.
Because Peaceful Protest is SO effective at fighting government oppression. Also, why the restriction to just one weapon for self defense? If a person has two or more for self defense it suddenly doesn't count?
Quazimofo: Also, what i fail to understand is why in these debates, when defense is mentioned, little mention is made of non-lethal weapons. You know, weapons that are actually for defense, and not counter-attack (which is a form of defense yes, but too lethal for my tastes, since my reason for being anti-gun is I want fewer people dying violently, and I know Im not alone in this).
I mean, yeah, a lot of those non-lethal options are notoriously short-ranged. However, in a city environment (where most of this violence takes place), if someone is so far that you cannot incapacitate them non-lethally with a ranged tazer (or are those publicly available? I can't remember), then it is fair to assume they are far enough away there is some kind of cover in the way you can duck behind until they bugger off, or get close enough for the non-lethal weapon to be effective. Because cities tend to have a lot of man-made structures and devices in them (and boxes), which tend to make it difficult to hit people with ranged attacks due to line of sight and material density stopping or misdirecting attacks.
And yeah, that doesn't apply to all situations, but until we get publicly-issued tactical dreadnaught armor, defenses will have situations in which they fail. Including the counter-attack defense
It's all well and good to talk about non-lethal options but the fact of the matter is non-lethal weapons even under ideal circumstances are just not that effective of a deterrent. Can you scare off or disable an attacker with pepper spray or a taser or stun gun? Yes its possible, can you scare off or disable a truly determined attacker with pepper spray or a taser or stun gun unless you get in a lucky shot probably not. If non-lethal options were as effective as firearms then cops wouldn't carry firearms, they just are not and until someone comes up with an equivalent of a star trek phaser they wont be.
Let's do a rundown of a few of the popular non-letal options out there.
Stungun's are limited to melee range and sorry folks but it does not work like the movies if you shock someone with a stungun they don't fall to the ground knocked out cold. Getting hit with a stungun hurts it may cause someone to falter or fall down but the effects wear off in seconds, it is possible to cause someone to black out if you have a sufficiently powerful stungun and you hold it on them long enough but you can also kill someone by doing that. Stunguns are easily defeated by thick clothing someone wearing a winter jacket for example, try hitting them in the torso with a stungun and they may only feel a partial shock or none at all.
Taser's, essentially the same thing as a stungun but these are the ones that shoot out the prongs and can deliver a shock from a distance usually of 15-30 feet. And before someone says it, yes it is weird that the melee range weapon is called a stungun while the one that actually shoots a projectile is called a taser but stunguns were developed before tasers and I guess it seemed like a good name at the time. The problem's with a taser are numerous firstly is it's a one shot device, though I think one company recently came out with a two shot taser. Secondly they are notoriously inaccurate and considering they only have a range of 15-30 feet to begin with and have a reputation of being extremely inaccurate over such a short distance is saying something. Thirdly if only 1 prong fails to connect with the skin of your target it wont do anything. Finally just like with a stungun it is easily defeated by thick clothing.
Pepperspray/mace this is an interesting one in some case's this can be a more effective deterrent then either of the previous two options but in other cases it can be about the worse thing you can try and use to defend yourself. The range on pepper sprays vary' s about to ten feet to thirty or more if you have one of those large cans. The problem's with pepperspary is unless you hit an attacker in the face with it it's totally useless. Also up close at melee ranges your just as likely to end up spraying yourself as your attacker, there's probably not a veteran police officer in the country that has not been hit with his own spray or the spray of another officer at one time or another while trying to use it on a suspect.
So there are just a few examples of the problems with non-lethal options, however I saved the two biggest problems for last. First multiple attackers, sure in some situations those 3 options might be useful vs one attacker but vs two or three or four, I don't think so. Second, an armed attacker/s the effectiveness of those non-lethal options quickly drops to nil when confronted with an attacker armed with a gun.
And for the record non-lethal use of a gun to defend oneself happens ALL the time and most of the time it goes unreported to the police. If you are armed and you are confronted someone who intends to do you harm simply pulling your gun out and showing that you are armed and prepared to defend yourself with deadly force is enough to send most people packing, non-lethal defensive use of a so called lethal killing machine with no other purpose then to kill confirmed.
Quazimofo: Also, what i fail to understand is why in these debates, when defense is mentioned, little mention is made of non-lethal weapons. You know, weapons that are actually for defense, and not counter-attack (which is a form of defense yes, but too lethal for my tastes, since my reason for being anti-gun is I want fewer people dying violently, and I know Im not alone in this).
I mean, yeah, a lot of those non-lethal options are notoriously short-ranged. However, in a city environment (where most of this violence takes place), if someone is so far that you cannot incapacitate them non-lethally with a ranged tazer (or are those publicly available? I can't remember), then it is fair to assume they are far enough away there is some kind of cover in the way you can duck behind until they bugger off, or get close enough for the non-lethal weapon to be effective. Because cities tend to have a lot of man-made structures and devices in them (and boxes), which tend to make it difficult to hit people with ranged attacks due to line of sight and material density stopping or misdirecting attacks.
And yeah, that doesn't apply to all situations, but until we get publicly-issued tactical dreadnaught armor, defenses will have situations in which they fail. Including the counter-attack defense
Non-lethal weapons are a flip of the coin, and only good against an unarmed aggressor because they're unlikely to be top-form following the hit. Against a knife-wielder, not so much. They can still swing and slash and stab and still put you in the ER or in the ground.
Nobody should have to bleed for the safety of a criminal scumbag. No one.
Yay, more NRA-style propaganda. Of course it's all rubbish. I spent most of my adult life in a country where guns are extremely heavily regulated, and crime in general is far lower there than in the US. And I have far more freedom there than I do in the US.
You are murdering innocent human beings. Get ****ed.
Reported for rampant hysteria and personal attack.
You mentioned somewhere back in that massive cluser-coitus that you're "anti-gun" but not pro-ban,
I did not. Read the words I wrote, not the words you wish I wrote.
Guess what, if you own ANYTHING that's not a revolver? BAM, illegal, subject to confiscations and fines. They have, in essence, BANNED guns there.
So, in essence they've banned guns. Except two sentences prior, you say that they haven't banned revolvers. So either revolvers aren't guns, or they didn't ban guns and you're making wild accusations to dramatize your empty rhetoric. Which is it?
...rampant hysteria and personal attack? You mean those tactics that run the whole anti-gun machine? You mean the tactics that lead human filth to say I kill babies because I keep a gun on my hip? You mean the rampant hysteria that runs through the media telling simpletons that everybody who owns a gun is a ticking time bomb ready to go off?
As far as "personal attacks" go, I don't think there's any way to avoid calling someone an idiot in a manner that is personal. On the record, I do think you are an idiot. Sorry, but it is what it is.
And they've banned GUNS in the sense that people who owned GUNS are having those guns BANNED and taken away from them as they are now contraband.
Because Peaceful Protest is SO effective at fighting government oppression. Also, why the restriction to just one weapon for self defense? If a person has two or more for self defense it suddenly doesn't count?
Ok. So the the percentage of folks who have more than one weapon (that they don't show anybody) jammed next to their gigantic box of condoms and their King James Bible in their bedside nightstand is also extremely low.
And life isn't a video game, dog. If the US government (who also has access to nukes) decides to wage oppression (which would never happen, ever), they have the friggin entire military, tanks and badass F-22's to throw at it's own people. Whatever you have stored in your closet for a rainy day is so friggin useless it's not even funny.
And you're hopelessly pathetic to think that a government that WOULD use nukes against innocent people - even consider it - deserves to keep moving along uncontested. Nothing short of mass genocide would stop a determined American populace from protecting themselves, and then the rich cronies would have nobody to do their work for them now would they, dog?
And I in fact have two weapons. One for myself, and one for my wife.
And for the record non-lethal use of a gun to defend oneself happens ALL the time and most of the time it goes unreported to the police.
SOO much this. The news blatantly refuses to report the amazingly huge number of instances where gun owners stopped violence in the streets by using their weapon and NEVER FIRING A SHOT. Who can say why news outlets refuse to report these incidents? The only reasonable explanation is they're being PAID OFF OMG.
But those facts ARE on the other hand reported to the administration by the FBI...
As I've said before, the ratio of gun owners to gun-related violent crime is so INSANE as to be statistically irrelevant. And as I've said before, "statistical relevance" is how LAWS are made in this country.
Because Peaceful Protest is SO effective at fighting government oppression. Also, why the restriction to just one weapon for self defense? If a person has two or more for self defense it suddenly doesn't count?
Ok. So the the percentage of folks who have more than one weapon (that they don't show anybody) jammed next to their gigantic box of condoms and their King James Bible in their bedside nightstand is also extremely low.
And life isn't a video game, dog. If the US government (who also has access to nukes) decides to wage oppression (which would never happen, ever), they have the friggin entire military, tanks and badass F-22's to throw at it's own people. Whatever you have stored in your closet for a rainy day is so friggin useless it's not even funny.
You don't understand how to fight an asymmetrical war, that's your own fault. Why don't you bother reading up on such things? Being a USAF veteran, I can tell you that AFBs are some of the most easily breached bases in the world. A civil war in the US would see the majority of military bases overun by armed civilians considering almost all of them are near or surrounded by cities of at least 10,000 people. The only safe place the US Military could operate from would be MEUs and CSGs, everything else would be crawling with rather upset american citizens.
"Troll troll troll" buzzword buzzword buzzword. Good job adding nothing to the conversation strictly because you have nothing of any import to say whatsoever.
Strazdas: The same corelation with crime can be made with games. games got very popular during last 20 years too. does that mean games caused crime rate to drop? no. then how can you argue same correlation for guns?
I never said that I think guns made the crime rate drop I said that's what some groups like the NRA claim and I said I disagree with that statement. I do think that the fact that we have more gun's and less crime in this country now then 20 years ago is an interesting fact and I think it disproves the anti-gun lobby's claim of more guns = more crime.
and please, your constitution does not allow any civilian to bear arms. it says militia there, clearly. are you militia? no? then constitution does not protect your arm rights.
Oh please this again? really? I'm not even gonna get into it because it's a whole debate in and of itself, if you want to learn about the 2nd amendment and it's meaning check my post history. But let's just go with this, the supreme court has already ruled that the 2nd amendment allows the individual right of a firearm for self protection.
Or maybe we should cite George Washington, once again, for having said that guns are to be carried anywhere and everywhere, and deserve a place among all things which are good.
But of course, the world was so much different back then, yada yada yada, etc. etc. etc.
You crazy effigy-burning nutjobs and your violent anti-violence crusades pretty much prove that, nope, humanity isn't one iota more responsible now as it was generations ago. And back when EVERYONE and his kid sister had guns - many guns in some cases - homicidal rampages among neighbors were highly rare.
Homicidal rampages against "TRIBES" of men, however, are something that will never go away. Hence the argument that "force" equals "power." Some people will never learn. Some people just want to hurt others for kicks. That will NEVER change. If you want to render yourself helpless before those people - which are real by the way, not just boogeymen - then by all means do so.
Just do not marry or have children, as nobody else needs to suffer for your ignorance.
Because Peaceful Protest is SO effective at fighting government oppression. Also, why the restriction to just one weapon for self defense? If a person has two or more for self defense it suddenly doesn't count?
Ok. So the the percentage of folks who have more than one weapon (that they don't show anybody) jammed next to their gigantic box of condoms and their King James Bible in their bedside nightstand is also extremely low.
And life isn't a video game, dog. If the US government (who also has access to nukes) decides to wage oppression (which would never happen, ever), they have the friggin entire military, tanks and badass F-22's to throw at it's own people. Whatever you have stored in your closet for a rainy day is so friggin useless it's not even funny.
which makes the assumption that the entire military would follow the government when in all likelyhood they will fracture as soldiers and vets tend to prize freedom/american rights/constitution/yadda yadda more so than the common citizens as that is what they are fighting and bleeding for.
But hey, continue to talk about a subject you know nothing about and continue your anti-american bigotry.
Not to mention the country is filled with armories whose defenses include a barb-wire fence and a dozen or so people. All you need is a few hundred people to overrun many of the american bases or armories. They are designed to keep out intruders and thieves, not a small army.
government operated Power plants have much better defenses.
Oh, and dont count on the National Guard to fire on their own families considering every state and territory has a national guard compromised mostly of locals.
You don't understand how to fight an asymmetrical war, that's your own fault. Why don't you bother reading up on such things? Being a USAF veteran, I can tell you that AFBs are some of the most easily breached bases in the world. A civil war in the US would see the majority of military bases overun by armed civilians considering almost all of them are near or surrounded by cities of at least 10,000 people. The only safe place the US Military could operate from would be MEUs and CSGs, everything else would be crawling with rather upset american citizens.
Oh my God....How have I slipped through life till this point without learning how to fight an asymmetrical war properly? I need to hit the books! Forget about what Pynchon and Faulkner were talking about, give me Asymmetrical War for Dummies now!
which makes the assumption that the entire military would follow the government when in all likelyhood they will fracture as soldiers and vets tend to prize freedom/american rights/constitution/yadda yadda more so than the common citizens as that is what they are fighting and bleeding for.
But hey, continue to talk about a subject you know nothing about and continue your anti-american bigotry.
Not to mention the country is filled with armories whose defenses include a chain link fence and a dozen or so people. All you need is a few hundred people to overrun many of the american bases or armories. They are designed to keep out intruders and thieves, not a small army.
government operated Power plants have much better defenses.
Oh, and dont count on the National Guard to fire on their own families considering every state and territory has a national guard compromised mostly of locals.
Ya. Sorry. I didn't realize I was talking with someone who has been part of taking over 21st century governments. I'll back off.
which makes the assumption that the entire military would follow the government when in all likelyhood they will fracture as soldiers and vets tend to prize freedom/american rights/constitution/yadda yadda more so than the common citizens as that is what they are fighting and bleeding for.
But hey, continue to talk about a subject you know nothing about and continue your anti-american bigotry.
Not to mention the country is filled with armories whose defenses include a chain link fence and a dozen or so people. All you need is a few hundred people to overrun many of the american bases or armories. They are designed to keep out intruders and thieves, not a small army.
government operated Power plants have much better defenses.
Oh, and dont count on the National Guard to fire on their own families considering every state and territory has a national guard compromised mostly of locals.
Ya. Sorry. I didn't realize I was talking with someone who has been part of taking over 21st century governments. I'll back off.
And BAM, just like that nothing to say. Rhetoric exhausted, the little bigot falls back on pithy insults and posturing.
I'm surprised these anti-gun nuts even have a platform. I mean, Rosie O'Donnell and her little anti-gun crusade instantly invalidated itself when Rosie's bodyguard was instructed to obtain a CCDW permit. "Nobody needs a gun, ever, for any reason," she screamed at the top of her lungs on her little soapbox, and then she turns around and gets her personal escort a pistol. I mean, really?
Half the people I hear who are anti-gun are from fringe crapholes with a population of a single state or -snicker- the UK. Anyone on that side in the US end is rich and want to disarm the "undeserving masses" or just horribly stupid, one or the other, because the facts are overwhelmingly on the side of gun owners. Overwhelmingly. Beyond any rational, conceivable doubt. And yet they bay and scream anyway, because that is what they do, and then they say the NRA won't come to the table. Double standards for the win.
And, yeah, about the "immovability" of the NRA? Funny. The NRA has been playing defensive for years. It's the only game they know. I think laws expanding gun rights need to be implemented. Violence plummets in areas where more people are armed in more places, a solid fact that anti-gun lunatics refuse, blatantly, to acknowledge.
Criminals don't give a damn about the people they're hurting or killing. At all. But they certainly don't want to bleed out on the sidewalk themselves. The threat is the ONLY thing that dissuades them.
Of course, simply dissuading crime isn't a long time answer, isn't the only solution. But the short term result is that innocent people are saved - more than would have died otherwise. And before you whine about that logic, the medical community and the government work together to force drugs on the populace which possess serious, proven mortality rates "because the few deaths are statistically irrelevant next to the (theoretical) lives saved."
On the other hand, the fact that guns SAVE lives - there's cold, hard proof of that.
TornadoADV: You don't understand how to fight an asymmetrical war, that's your own fault. Why don't you bother reading up on such things? Being a USAF veteran, I can tell you that AFBs are some of the most easily breached bases in the world. A civil war in the US would see the majority of military bases overun by armed civilians considering almost all of them are near or surrounded by cities of at least 10,000 people. The only safe place the US Military could operate from would be MEUs and CSGs, everything else would be crawling with rather upset american citizens.
i saw a report on an incident yesterday where the military was doing some sort of containment and two cars full of men armed with their "hunting guns" decided to breact it and started shooting at the military. the reaction was "are they fucking seriuos? they think they can do anything like that?" and the folks were gunned down with ease with no military deaths. military can take the civilians 1:100 and those 10.000 people will be reduced to 0 very fast. Then again your whole premise is based on a fact that america would revolt by everyone grabing a gun and going to shoot "teh evul government" when that would NEVER happen.
mastermaniac117: "Troll troll troll" buzzword buzzword buzzword. Good job adding nothing to the conversation strictly because you have nothing of any import to say whatsoever.
Typical liberal tactic.
sorry, i can stop laughing from all the irony in this post.
Or maybe we should cite George Washington, once again, for having said that guns are to be carried anywhere and everywhere, and deserve a place among all things which are good.
well, if you want to live as badly as people did in those times, sure.
You crazy effigy-burning nutjobs and your violent anti-violence crusades pretty much prove that, nope, humanity isn't one iota more responsible now as it was generations ago. And back when EVERYONE and his kid sister had guns - many guns in some cases - homicidal rampages among neighbors were highly rare.
So according to you, since we are irresponsible, we should all be given guns and told to act responsibly? how does that make sense?
Homicidal rampages against "TRIBES" of men, however, are something that will never go away. Hence the argument that "force" equals "power." Some people will never learn. Some people just want to hurt others for kicks. That will NEVER change. If you want to render yourself helpless before those people - which are real by the way, not just boogeymen - then by all means do so.
so, taking away guns from people who go on killing rampages are bad. ok. Let me just stop laughing and lets move on.
Not to mention the country is filled with armories whose defenses include a barb-wire fence and a dozen or so people. All you need is a few hundred people to overrun many of the american bases or armories. They are designed to keep out intruders and thieves, not a small army.
did you just called some not so bright folk grabing thier guns and heading to loot an armory "a small army"? seriously? and then you tell us that we dont know the reality?
Oh, and dont count on the National Guard to fire on their own families considering every state and territory has a national guard compromised mostly of locals.
and national guard would need to do that because?
Half the people I hear who are anti-gun are from fringe crapholes with a population of a single state or -snicker- the UK.
a very mature and realistic view of the rest of the world, certainly not emphasizing the ignorant american stereotype. Thank you kind man for proving is wrong.
Anyone on that side in the US end is rich and want to disarm the "undeserving masses" or just horribly stupid, one or the other, because the facts are overwhelmingly on the side of gun owners. Overwhelmingly. Beyond any rational, conceivable doubt. And yet they bay and scream anyway, because that is what they do, and then they say the NRA won't come to the table. Double standards for the win.
everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, therefore i am correct. all hail to my intelligence.
Criminals don't give a damn about the people they're hurting or killing. At all. But they certainly don't want to bleed out on the sidewalk themselves. The threat is the ONLY thing that dissuades them.
you know what also dissuade them? not having a gun to shoot others with.
On the other hand, the fact that guns SAVE lives - there's cold, hard proof of that.
of which you have provided us exactly zero.
actually, as i was typing this i jtu heard on the radio: a primary school boy has been found carrying a loaded weapon in his backpack that he got from his brother that is in a local gang. Lets say somone tried to bully the kid and bam you got a school massacre.
The reason we have the right to bear arms, is so we can fight against the government, should they try to opress us like this. Damn right, I'm gonna start shooting :P
mastermaniac117: Anyone on that side in the US end is rich and want to disarm the "undeserving masses" or just horribly stupid, one or the other, because the facts are overwhelmingly on the side of gun owners. Overwhelmingly. Beyond any rational, conceivable doubt.
Would you like to provide some of these "facts"?
mastermaniac117: On the other hand, the fact that guns SAVE lives - there's cold, hard proof of that.
which makes the assumption that the entire military would follow the government when in all likelyhood they will fracture as soldiers and vets tend to prize freedom/american rights/constitution/yadda yadda more so than the common citizens as that is what they are fighting and bleeding for.
But hey, continue to talk about a subject you know nothing about and continue your anti-american bigotry.
Not to mention the country is filled with armories whose defenses include a chain link fence and a dozen or so people. All you need is a few hundred people to overrun many of the american bases or armories. They are designed to keep out intruders and thieves, not a small army.
government operated Power plants have much better defenses.
Oh, and dont count on the National Guard to fire on their own families considering every state and territory has a national guard compromised mostly of locals.
Ya. Sorry. I didn't realize I was talking with someone who has been part of taking over 21st century governments. I'll back off.
And BAM, just like that nothing to say. Rhetoric exhausted, the little bigot falls back on pithy insults and posturing.
I'm surprised these anti-gun nuts even have a platform. I mean, Rosie O'Donnell and her little anti-gun crusade instantly invalidated itself when Rosie's bodyguard was instructed to obtain a CCDW permit. "Nobody needs a gun, ever, for any reason," she screamed at the top of her lungs on her little soapbox, and then she turns around and gets her personal escort a pistol. I mean, really?
Half the people I hear who are anti-gun are from fringe crapholes with a population of a single state or -snicker- the UK. Anyone on that side in the US end is rich and want to disarm the "undeserving masses" or just horribly stupid, one or the other, because the facts are overwhelmingly on the side of gun owners. Overwhelmingly. Beyond any rational, conceivable doubt. And yet they bay and scream anyway, because that is what they do, and then they say the NRA won't come to the table. Double standards for the win.
And, yeah, about the "immovability" of the NRA? Funny. The NRA has been playing defensive for years. It's the only game they know. I think laws expanding gun rights need to be implemented. Violence plummets in areas where more people are armed in more places, a solid fact that anti-gun lunatics refuse, blatantly, to acknowledge.
Criminals don't give a damn about the people they're hurting or killing. At all. But they certainly don't want to bleed out on the sidewalk themselves. The threat is the ONLY thing that dissuades them.
Of course, simply dissuading crime isn't a long time answer, isn't the only solution. But the short term result is that innocent people are saved - more than would have died otherwise. And before you whine about that logic, the medical community and the government work together to force drugs on the populace which possess serious, proven mortality rates "because the few deaths are statistically irrelevant next to the (theoretical) lives saved."
On the other hand, the fact that guns SAVE lives - there's cold, hard proof of that.
If the fact are so overwhelmingly in support of gun ownership, then why haven't you posted any of that evidence? something beyond just "I say" or "The people I like say" something that's hard fact.
If I were a gun owner, I would give them up when told to, and then do what I could to convince others to vote for pro-gun politicians to repeal the laws. America is a democracy. You might laugh at that claim, but it is, and the people ultimately decide the laws. If enough Americans care about gun-rights, then eventually you'll elect politicians who will allow Americans to have guns. If enough Americans, however, don't care about gun rights and want gun control, then you'll just have to deal with that and accept that you and your opinions are in the minority.
Resorting to violence, when you have democratic means to voice your opinion, is the act of a barbarian. You have a vote - use it instead of a gun. And if you and your group have fewer votes than your citizens, then try to change their minds through debate. And if you can't do that, well, accept your fate.
Because Peaceful Protest is SO effective at fighting government oppression. Also, why the restriction to just one weapon for self defense? If a person has two or more for self defense it suddenly doesn't count?
Ok. So the the percentage of folks who have more than one weapon (that they don't show anybody) jammed next to their gigantic box of condoms and their King James Bible in their bedside nightstand is also extremely low.
And life isn't a video game, dog. If the US government (who also has access to nukes) decides to wage oppression (which would never happen, ever), they have the friggin entire military, tanks and badass F-22's to throw at it's own people. Whatever you have stored in your closet for a rainy day is so friggin useless it's not even funny.
Against Uncle Sam, yes.
But not useless against some would be predator on the street or a home invader who sees a small woman as an easy target.
2.It would require a bit more skill which would mean more training, which would mean more time.(as opposed to guns which is essentially "point to kill")
"Point and kill" only happens in video games. Combat marksmanship in the real world is a whole other story.
3. It would be a lot harder to conceal effective killing weapons, smallest blade I can think of is a dagger which is generally used for parrying.
Yes, I'm sure your four to six incher will do just fine against the sword, mace, machete, or axe that your new order will encourage the predators out there to start wielding.
I'm sure I'm over simplifying it somewhat, but I thought I'd put in my entirely unhelpful two cents in.
And unhelpful...not to mention ignorant....it indeed was.
I honestly don't see why any civilian would need a gun
1: The police can legally sit by and watch you die while they sip coffee 2: Even if the police did care, out where I live, it takes them nearly an hour at the best of times to respond to an emergency call (which by the way, they don't have to respond to).
TD5160: The reason we have the right to bear arms, is so we can fight against the government, should they try to opress us like this. Damn right, I'm gonna start shooting :P
Oh, look, another guy who thinks a civilian with a gun is a match against trained army.
you know what also dissuade them? not having a gun to shoot others with.
And then they decide to stab, beat, or strangle the person they're after instead.
Some improvement.
Some indeed. would you rather have: a. a person beaten up and left to live b. a person shot and dead
"Point and kill" only happens in video games. Combat marksmanship in the real world is a whole other story.
except that it takes extremely little mastery to shoot weapons accurately enough to kill at short range. something you cant say about other weapons.
Yes, I'm sure your four to six incher will do just fine against the sword, mace, machete, or axe that your new order will encourage the predators out there to start wielding.
yeah, because criminals in countries where they go no acess to easy weapons go around runing with swords and maces. oh wait, they dont.
That's why I need an equalizer, sunshine.
Yes, lets equalize things, lets give the criminals the power to kill you in seconds without much effort. its such a good proposal you should be the next president. maybe then you can force police to care too.
GunsmithKitten: 1: The police can legally sit by and watch you die while they sip coffee 2: Even if the police did care, out where I live, it takes them nearly an hour at the best of times to respond to an emergency call (which by the way, they don't have to respond to).
That's why I need an equalizer, sunshine.
First of all, it's a shame law enforcement is so lax there. But if you live out in the wilderness, you're practically never going to see a criminal though, right?
And I still don't understand why other first world countries, that don't allow their civilians to be armed, don't seem to have this particular breed of criminal. Or at least, they're presumably nowhere near as prevalent...
Though eventually I would give it up and would be ok with the decision to take away guns, I will hide and wait until everyone else has handed their guns in too.
Yes, lets equalize things, lets give the criminals the power to kill you in seconds without much effort. its such a good proposal you should be the next president. maybe then you can force police to care too.
You misunderstand. The "equalizing" is done on behalf of the citizen, since a thug is generally going to be stronger, faster, and more resilient than their victim, and could easily overpower them when both are unarmed or armed only with physical weapons. If you're frail, old, or handicapped, a taser or pepper spray isn't going to do jack to protect you, while a handgun would.
Ballistic weapons give the citizen a fair chance. A better chance, even, considering criminals tend to have next-to-no experience with firearms while a responsible gun owner knows quite well how to use their weapon, and especially the layout of their own house/property. Beyond this, we need only look at Washington DC, which, after making all handgun ownership illegal in the (70s?), saw a massive increase (think: more than double and triple) in murder up until its reversal in 2008, after which the annual number of murders very quickly (within two years) fell below the rate prior to the law. This is largely because, after that point, only criminals had firearms, and despite many attempts to seize illegal firearms, including sweeping any houses that were "suspect," police found but a trivial number of them, even when focusing most of their resources on it. And that's the CAPITAL OF THE COUNTRY, where the President lives.
GunsmithKitten: 1: The police can legally sit by and watch you die while they sip coffee 2: Even if the police did care, out where I live, it takes them nearly an hour at the best of times to respond to an emergency call (which by the way, they don't have to respond to).
That's why I need an equalizer, sunshine.
First of all, it's a shame law enforcement is so lax there. But if you live out in the wilderness, you're practically never going to see a criminal though, right?
And I still don't understand why other first world countries, that don't allow their civilians to be armed, don't seem to have this particular breed of criminal. Or at least, they're presumably nowhere near as prevalent...
You do understand her point about police and protection, right? The police have no obligation to protect citizens, since that is not their job. Their job is to stop (or apprehend) criminals after the fact. Protection is left in the hands of the people.
Besides this, police officers are far more likely to shoot an innocent person than an armed civilian. Five times more likely, in fact, despite US civilians killing over twice as many people overall. Check it:
Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
You do understand her point about police and protection, right? The police have no obligation to protect citizens, since that is not their job. Their job is to stop (or apprehend) criminals after the fact. Protection is left in the hands of the people.
Well that's a damn shame for the US then. Because here, on this side of the Atlantic, last time I checked, the police do have obligation to protect.
I suppose your legislation sucks there, how about pushing for changes so that your police has obligation to protect?
Oh, I forgot, that takes effort. Easier to wave a gun around.
Crime stopping is better left in the hands of civilians, since many officers are roid-raging, violent, and dangerous.
So are many civilians, what's your point? Nobody's denying the existance of corrupt cops, but I'd be quite interested in what happens if you leave the law/protection in the hands of the vigilante man. Maybe you should abolish the police altogether, see what happens.
Because Peaceful Protest is SO effective at fighting government oppression. Also, why the restriction to just one weapon for self defense? If a person has two or more for self defense it suddenly doesn't count?