Firearms yes or no

[Tchocky]

Depends on how many more Nazi/Redneck posts fly around, and if the discussion actually goes anywhere. I can't see any progression over the last five pages, it's just thinly-veiled ad hominem, dressed up as sea-green incorruptible.
I read through it, and was tempted to jump in. Then I remembered the last three or four gun threads I was in. Not worth it.
You know where I stand, and I you. Can we leave it at that

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I'm sorry if this interrupts your skirmishes, but here is my view on firearms.

• Criminals have easy access to weapons. In a fight between mace and a Glock, who's going to win?
• I've yet to see alternative home defense methods being proposed by those who say 'all who posess guns are scum'
• Its my perogative as a person to protect my family
• Guns dont equal psychos. Look at shootings in history. Many have had motives rooted in society. Psychos dont act based on society.
• "I keep a gun in a gun locker, for home defense" - is that irresponsible?
• Two dead children, or a smoking gun and a dead paedophile?

Anyway, I know I'm going to get flak from someone, so might aswell get my opinions out.

[Yahoshua]

GODAMMIT, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ALREADY!!!!

Have I got your attention yet? I sure as hell hope I do.

Debate this civilly or there will be no point in debating at all. I don't give a good goddamn who you are, what you think, or where you came from but the personal attacks will stop NOW.

If you want to continue debating this in a civil manner then we'll keep going with it.

For starters, we'll go with the "Mythbusting" that Skybird posted and move on from there (please post a link and not a book, some peoples' connections can only handle so much at one time).

Would you like me to go down the list and rebut them individually or do you want to pick your argument Skybird?




*Edit:

One point I'd also like to make is that gun laws don't stop criminals from acquiring firearms:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417/wl_asia_afp/japancrimepolitics;_ylt=AqUGKH8zGCpx6PSpfmX7f8MBxg 8F

[gnirtS]

[quote]

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)
Source Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center

so 34 times more likely to get shot and murdered in the USA than the UK, 42 times more likely to get shot and killed by accident in the USA than the UK.

Yes the UK has a rising gun crime problem (21000 incidents of all categories last year, just over 50% of those involving air gun and 15% more imitation firearms) however its still a hell of a lot safer than the USA.
The way to tackle this rise? Far stricter penalties and punishment for anyone caught buying/selling or having a firearm in their possession for starters. 10-15 years mandatory for owning should help.

I cant see why any law abiding citizen would have any need to own a device whose sole purpose for existing is to kill other humans. Further to that, i cant see why any citizen SHOULD be allowed to own such a device.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

One point I'd also like to make is that gun laws don't stop criminals from acquiring firearms:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417/wl_asia_afp/japancrimepolitics;_ylt=AqUGKH8zGCpx6PSpfmX7f8MBxg 8F

Very true, but there are certainly fewer gun murders in Japan.
Let's see what the gap was in 2000
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=726110

I'm not bothered looking up more

[Tchocky]

double post

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

I'm sorry if this interrupts your skirmishes, but here is my view on firearms.

• Criminals have easy access to weapons. In a fight between mace and a Glock, who's going to win?
• I've yet to see alternative home defense methods being proposed by those who say 'all who posess guns are scum'
• Its my perogative as a person to protect my family
• Guns dont equal psychos. Look at shootings in history. Many have had motives rooted in society. Psychos dont act based on society.
• "I keep a gun in a gun locker, for home defense" - is that irresponsible?
• Two dead children, or a smoking gun and a dead paedophile?

Anyway, I know I'm going to get flak from someone, so might aswell get my opinions out.

Good post!

[JetSnake]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

I'm sorry if this interrupts your skirmishes, but here is my view on firearms.

• Criminals have easy access to weapons. In a fight between mace and a Glock, who's going to win?
• I've yet to see alternative home defense methods being proposed by those who say 'all who posess guns are scum'
• Its my perogative as a person to protect my family
• Guns dont equal psychos. Look at shootings in history. Many have had motives rooted in society. Psychos dont act based on society.
• "I keep a gun in a gun locker, for home defense" - is that irresponsible?
• Two dead children, or a smoking gun and a dead paedophile?

Anyway, I know I'm going to get flak from someone, so might aswell get my opinions out.

You get nothing but accolades for your thinking. I'm glad to see someone from that side of the world has acheived some clarity.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Oh, and don't let any grammar/English teacher see your post.

*sigh* English is not my native language, sonny. If that's the best you can do there's only one thing left to say:

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

GODAMMIT, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ALREADY!!!!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

You asked "COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED?".

In all capital letters no less. So I provided case law that answered your question. But now having been proven wrong you now fall back with an attempt to invalidate one of the two judges who made the ruling.

Y'know you're accuse Subman of zig zagging but you Sir are the king of the zig zag.

Posting #234. I assume in your favour that of course you just have overseen it.

You may see that lawcase as a clear thing. I do not, for reasons indiocated by the passages I quoted from your reference. By that I pointed out my concerns, without writing another novel about it.

The judge is a bit controverse a figure indeed. Don't try to give the public an impression that by showing his background I replaced lacking arguments. I gave both.

I have adressed your request. I also said I am done in this thread. and btw, at that time I was engaged with Subman - not with you. As a matter of fact you may have spoken in his place, but fact remains that Subman made several claims the author of the texts I linked to and quoted has put into doubt by argument and refernces, and subman was completely unwilling or unable to put up counter-arguments. And except your attempt nothing of the material was adressed. Not even concerning those points that had been made statements about before by him. Instead he started playing games to avoid the authors arguments.

If an author's well-founded and illustrated different arguments simply get ignored instead of pointing out where he is wrong, the deicussion already is dead anyway and all people only hold monologues. and I see no reason in just reformulating the many arguments that author I quoted has given. It would still be the same content anyway.

This reply only because of your indirect attack on me. As I said - I am done in this threat.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

GODAMMIT, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ALREADY!!!!

Have I got your attention yet? I sure as hell hope I do.

Debate this civilly or there will be no point in debating at all. I don't give a good goddamn who you are, what you think, or where you came from but the personal attacks will stop NOW.

If you want to continue debating this in a civil manner then we'll keep going with it.

For starters, we'll go with the "Mythbusting" that Skybird posted and move on from there (please post a link and not a book, some peoples' connections can only handle so much at one time).

Would you like me to go down the list and rebut them individually or do you want to pick your argument Skybird?




*Edit:

One point I'd also like to make is that gun laws don't stop criminals from acquiring firearms:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417...SpfmX7f8MBxg8F

and i would like to point out this man wasnt a criminal prior to the event its not hardened criminals doing this

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Posting #234. I assume in your favour that of course you just have overseen it.

You may see that lawcase as a clear thing. I do not, for reasons indiocated by the passages I quoted from your reference. By that I pointed out my concerns, without writing another novel about it.

The judge is a bit controverse a figure indeed. Don't try to give the public an impression that by showing his background I replaced lacking arguments. I gave both.

zig

I have adressed your request. I also said I am done in this thread. and btw, at that time I was engaged with Subman - not with you. As a matter of fact you may have spoken in his place, but fact remains that Subman made several claims the author of the texts I linked to and quoted has put into doubt by argument and refernces, and subman was completely unwilling or unable to put up counter-arguments. And except your attempt nothing of the material was adressed. Not even concerning those points that had been made statements about before by him. Instead he started playing games to avoid the authors arguments.

If an author's well-founded and illustrated different arguments simply get ignored instead of pointing out where he is wrong, the deicussion already is dead anyway and all people only hold monologues. and I see no reason in just reformulating the many arguments that author I quoted has given. It would still be the same content anyway.

This reply only because of your indirect attack on me. As I said - I am done in this threat.

zag

[SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

The thing is that this would only have happend if that Seattle man had been very lucky. Just think about the situation before you answer. Think about it. There are a couple of armed civilians running around a 2.600acre campus. There's a lot of shooting. You just run around with your gun, eager to help (which is OK). Now you come around a corner, and in front of you you see another person holding a gun. What next? Ask him whether he's the bad guy? If he is, you'll be dead before you finish the question, and that's too risky.

Let's just assume guns had been allowed on that campus. 100 people with guns running around plus one madman. 80 of the persons with guns are simply too scared (which is just a human reaction, so don't blame them). 20 of them draw their guns trying to find the madman. From my point of view I predict that at least half of them would have died - killed accidentally or mistakenly by some other 'law-abiding' person.

Again, think before you answer. It's not a shooting range. Real shots are fired, and they are fired at you. It's chaos. And there's something else. If you don't know who of the persons with a gun is the bad guy, how are the police going to find out? Again, it's chaos, it's not a peaceful shooting range where the worst enemy is a piece of wood/paper.

I understand your thoughts quite well, as well as I understand your wish to help others and to be a hero (who wouldn't like to be?). But it was an American who coined the term 'collateral damage', and you'd get an awful lot of that in such a chaotic situation.

Hope that makes my thoughts a little clearer. If you still insist on calling me a sheep, don't hesitate.

This is almost too simplistic to warrant a reply, but here goes. I have a carry permit and carry my 45 all the time. It is lame to think everyone on that campus knew what was happening in the lone building so I can't understand how everyone with a weapon would be running around ready to kill. If I heard shots in the distance I wouldn't "run around" with my weapon drawn looking for someone to shoot. That is up to the police, however if I was in one of those rooms and saw the madman pointing the gun in my direction or the direction of another I would not hesitate in sending him to hell. Gun ownership demands responsibility. Anyone who disregards will find himself sharing a cell with the very fools he would protect himself from.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by SkvyWvr

I have a carry permit and carry my 45 all the time.

If I heard shots in the distance I wouldn't "run around" with my weapon drawn looking for someone to shoot. That is up to the police, however if I was in one of those rooms and saw the madman pointing the gun in my direction or the direction of another I would not hesitate in sending him to hell.

Gun ownership demands responsibility. Anyone who disregards will find himself sharing a cell with the very fools he would protect himself from.

Agreed.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by SkvyWvr

I have a carry permit and carry my 45 all the time. It is lame to think everyone on that campus knew what was happening in the lone building so I can't understand how everyone with a weapon would be running around ready to kill. If I heard shots in the distance I wouldn't "run around" with my weapon drawn looking for someone to shoot. That is up to the police, however if I was in one of those rooms and saw the madman pointing the gun in my direction or the direction of another I would not hesitate in sending him to hell. Gun ownership demands responsibility. Anyone who disregards will find himself sharing a cell with the very fools he would protect himself from.

I can agree to that, and I have no doubt that you would act as you described. But even though it might be an annoying question: would you guarantee that all those people would do the same thing in that situation? Sure, there'll be a lot of people who wouldn't lose their heads, I know, but all of them? No John Wayne jr., who wants to be a hero? You can even find such folks on the subsim.com forums, so why not in reality? (Yes, I know about armchair heroes, no need to tell me )

You talk about responsibility. Agreed. And there's nothing wrong with owning and carrying a weapon if the owner knows about the responsibility and doesn't forget it even in tense situations. But if everybody remembered this responsibility no one would be killed by guns. Unfortunately, about 30,000 people are being killed by guns in the USA every year. I don't think my opinion was too simplistic. Pessimistic, maybe.