self-defense? lol

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:17 pm

Hammer wrote:How many cops wear full plate mail? If they did it should be enchanted to stop bullets.

I never said they did? I was using it as an example as to why different weapons penetrate different types of protection, ja?

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:52 pm

Hammer wrote:I'm going to clear some things up since it is obvious to me most of the assholes in this thread have no clue how purchasing firearms in this country works.

This country? Im guessing you mean the us. Well, I never said that banning guns in the US would make things better at a leager scale, because its just to late to change things.

In most european countries, Denmark, England, Sweden, Norway Etc. Gun use isnt a regular thing. Of course, criminals/nogoodders use guns here as well and there are guns around, but it doesnt even get close to how many people in the us have guns and how many of them who use them. Wait! Dont tell me about the murder rate of guns in this or that country. Fact is that getting more guns to more people will only get more people shot, because well now, you cant shoot someone if you dont have a gun. And yes, I know criminals will get guns anyway, but is it really a good idea to give them the opportunity of getting one for free as well? Most criminals might have a wrap sheet as big as Texas or whatever, but people getting into crime, supporting criminals dont. So now gun dealers dont even have to get the guns they sell illegally. They can just buy them in a shop down the street, or a shopkeeper in a gun store could sell them under the table and give a shit about veryfing, age, records etc. and make a good buck on the guns he bought legally and probaly far less cheap than the price hes selling it for.

By bringing more guns into a country youre just cultivating the use of guns, and personally I dont think that real live guns belong anywhere than on a battlefield or at a shooting range being used by police or military personel. Then theres self defense, well now, I dont believe in turning the other cheek and id never regret or hesitate killing someone who tried to kill me or anyone whom I felt didnt deserve it. But I dont believe the solution to violence is flooding the streets with guns and turning the same streets into a skirmish.

Hammer wrote:These "sports cars" also account for less then 1% of all firearms crimes committed in the United States.

Well now, then its not a major problem. But the fact is that having a kill ratio on automatic weapons implies that the very same kill ratio can rise.... and having a kill ratio on automatic rifle killings also leads to the fact that some people are getting killed with these weapons and if the murderers in these cases hadnt had an automatic rifle more people might have survived. Of course a gun is just as deadly as an automatic rifle if its bullets hit you, but automatic fire tend to have its ups taking on forexcample a bunch of policemen with 9mms, opposed to the criminal having an 9mm himself as well.

Hammer wrote:Conclusion: According to the people here I'm just "Another redneck who buys too many guns" but ya know what? I don't give two shits what you think and there aint a damn thing you can do about my hobby.

I dont think youre "Another redneck who buys too many guns" but im pretty sure that there are some rednecks out there who do buy to many guns....

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:01 pm

Doyle wrote:
Slave_Master wrote:Plus, the people who run guns in from Mexico or some foreign country will make a pretty penny, which would probably finance more crime.
It could end up being like prohibition, which represented in many ways a high point for organized crime. There was a lot of illegal cash being made, and a lot of violence. Let's not forget that the St. Valentine's Day Massacre was a direct result of gang warfare cause by the illegal alcohol trade.

Yeah good point! I mean, we went crazy over beer! And now we might have to fight a war in Colombia or something because of drugs! Damn, gun-control might be the cause of the civil war 0f 2005!

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:09 pm

Soldier87 wrote:
Doyle wrote:
Slave_Master wrote:Plus, the people who run guns in from Mexico or some foreign country will make a pretty penny, which would probably finance more crime.
It could end up being like prohibition, which represented in many ways a high point for organized crime. There was a lot of illegal cash being made, and a lot of violence. Let's not forget that the St. Valentine's Day Massacre was a direct result of gang warfare cause by the illegal alcohol trade.
Yeah good point! I mean, we went crazy over beer! And now we might have to fight a war in Colombia or something because of drugs! Damn, gun-control might be the cause of the civil war 0f 2005!

Well drinking beer and getting drunk or doing drugs and getting stoned usually isnt affecting anyone but yourself. Of course some drunk moron might flip out and beat somebody up or a druggie will sell drugs and make other people addicted, but you cant compare that to letting more people have theoption of getting a gun so they can shoot it when they desire. Some people are sensible, yes, Hammer is most likely one of them, but everyone might not be quite as sensible. And just because a person has a clean record and good mental health doesnt mean that very same person cant freak out 5-10 years later and go bunkers, killing people in a drug crazed frenzy or maybe even shoot himself because hes depressed. Its just not sensible to encourage people to buy a gun, any number of things that are complety unrelated to the person buying the gun can happen and that gun might just end up killing an innocent person instead of being used for self defense and target practice.

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:11 pm

By bringing more guns into a country youre just cultivating the use of guns, and personally I dont think that real live guns belong anywhere than on a battlefield or at a shooting range being used by police or military personel. Then theres self defense, well now, I dont believe in turning the other cheek and id never regret or hesitate killing someone who tried to kill me or anyone whom I felt didnt deserve it. But I dont believe the solution to violence is flooding the streets with guns and turning the same streets into a skirmish.

Not banning guns is not the same thing as flooding the streets with guns. And like I already said, since the criminals will get their guns illegaly, it's better to have an organized armed citizenship that will defend themselves than to be preyed upon by armed criminals. Say you're getting mugged/murdered by a man with a gun. Would you rather fight back without a weapon, hoping the cops come in time to prevent your death, or shoot the fucker in the head, maybe with the help of a fellow citizen who witnesses your predicament?

I've already destroyed your battlefield argument, stop using it.

and having a kill ratio on automatic rifle killings also leads to the fact that some people are getting killed with these weapons and if the murderers in these cases hadnt had an automatic rifle more people might have survived.

That's assuming all assault rifle related deaths were part of a mass murder, which isn't true.

Of course a gun is just as deadly as an automatic rifle if its bullets hit you,

Yes, and automatic fire isn't all that accurate, meaning a semi auto rifle is just as deadly, if not deadlier. Like the link someone posted said, banning assault rifles is just a stepping stone to banning all firearms.

but automatic fire tend to have its ups taking on forexcample a bunch of policemen with 9mms, opposed to the criminal having an 9mm himself as well.

Automatic fire being inaccurate as it is, odds are the cops will shoot the fellow before any cop is seriously injured. I am, however, all for police officers having semi-automatic assault rifles. On a separate note, they also need to be paid more. Putting your life on the line with a piddly shit Glock 17 for 23,000 dollars a year is pretty lame.

Well drinking beer and getting drunk or doing drugs and getting stoned usually isnt affecting anyone but yourself.

What? The problems of prohibition had nothing to do with people drinking alcohol. It's supply and demand. People wanted alcohol, alcohol was illegal, so they had to go to the mobsters to get it. Thus the mobsters became very wealthy, and financed crime. The very same thing will happen in a "gun-free" society.

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:11 pm

We arent encouraging people to buy guns, but telling them that the world is becoming more despotic every day because of so called "liberal freedoms" then the world is truly coming to an end, and it will start with the Civil War of 2005!

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:14 pm

Soldier87 wrote:We arent encouraging people to buy guns, but telling them that the world is becoming more despotic every day because of so called "liberal freedoms" then the world is truly coming to an end, and it will start with the Civil War of 2005!

Okay, consistently calling it "TEH CIVL WAR OF 2005!!11" is really starting to piss me off. Yes, there will be a civil war sometime soon, if guns are banned. But please don't reference that Titor asshole.

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:21 pm

Slave_Master wrote:[Not banning guns is not the same thing as flooding the streets with guns. And like I already said, since the criminals will get their guns illegaly, it's better to have an organized armed citizenship that will defend themselves than to be preyed upon by armed criminals. Say you're getting mugged/murdered by a man with a gun. Would you rather fight back without a weapon, hoping the cops come in time to prevent your death, or shoot the fucker in the head, maybe with the help of a fellow citizen who witnesses your predicament?

I've already destroyed your battlefield argument, stop using it.

Oh, and how did you destroy my argument?! Isnt shooting it out in the streets making the streets a battlefield!? Shooting it out means combat, which you are saying is the right thing to do. How can you have destoroyed my argument, when you are only enforcing it with your own comments? Please.

That's assuming all assault rifle related deaths were part of a mass murder, which isn't true.

I never assumed that. I just said that automatic rifle kill people, the more autmatic rifles around, the more people will get killed by them. Same thing as any other firearm.

Yes, and automatic fire isn't all that accurate, meaning a semi auto rifle is just as deadly, if not deadlier. Like the link someone posted said, banning assault rifles is just a stepping stone to banning all firearms.

What im saying is that they are guns as well and just because they are only used for klling 1% a year, they should be banned all the same.

Automatic fire being inaccurate as it is, odds are the cops will shoot the fellow before any cop is seriously injured.

Well something tells me that the police officer pinned down by automatic rifle fire wont agree with you.

I am, however, all for police officers having semi-automatic assault rifles. On a separate note, they also need to be paid more. Putting your life on the line with a piddly shit Glock 17 for 23,000 dollars a year is pretty lame.

Yep, I totally agree as well. They should have more fire power and protection so they would be able to do their job properly. Its a fucking mystery to me why every single street cop doesnt carry a kevlar west. I know kevlars west propely arent cheap, but the money for them should be found somewhere anyway.

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:26 pm

Slave_Master wrote:
Soldier87 wrote:We arent encouraging people to buy guns, but telling them that the world is becoming more despotic every day because of so called "liberal freedoms" then the world is truly coming to an end, and it will start with the Civil War of 2005!
Okay, consistently calling it "TEH CIVL WAR OF 2005!!11" is really starting to piss me off. Yes, there will be a civil war sometime soon, if guns are banned. But please don't reference that Titor asshole.

We arent encouraging people to buy guns, but telling them that the world is becoming more despotic every day because of so called "liberal freedoms" then the world is truly coming to an end, and it will start with the Civil War of 2005!

So what youre saying is that we should all arm ourselfs for the battle ahead?! Well I think thats cultivating and encouraging people to get a gun. Why? Because its making a state of fear in peoples mind, a state that can only be fixed by getting your own gun. Legalizing guns just sends people the message that now, anyone can have a gun, not just the criminals. So everytime an argument breaks the first thing on your mind is, this guy has a gun! And the second thing is, well then its good I ahve one too. And dont tell me that breaking up a fist fight is harder than stopping some idiot from drawing his gun because hes pissed of and caught up in the moment.

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:29 pm

Oh, and how did you destroy my argument?! Isnt shooting it out in the streets making the streets a battlefield!? Shooting it out means combat, which you are saying is the right thing to do. How can you have destoroyed my argument, when you are only enforcing it with your own comments? Please.

If it was going to be a shootout just because law-abiding citizens had guns, there would already be a ton of shootouts, except law abiding citizens don't have guns. Add to that a well-armed police force, and the second someone pulls a gun and robs someone in the street, they'll get filled with holes. I don't see a shitload of organized killing sprees, so your battlefield argument is bullshit. Read my fucking posts before copying and pasting your same old shit.

I never assumed that. I just said that automatic rifle kill people, the more autmatic rifles around, the more people will get killed by them.

YEHA BECUZ GUNS JUMP OFF TEH TABEL AND KIL EVERY1 BY THEMSELFS

What im saying is that they are guns as well and just because they are only used for klling 1% a year, they should be banned all the same.

Yeah, and it's a stepping stone to banning all guns, and since they aren't much a danger, they shouldn't be banned.

Well something tells me that the police officer pinned down by automatic rifle fire wont agree with you.

Notice you said pinned down, not shot. Automatic gunfire is for suppressing fire, nothing more.

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:41 pm

If it was going to be a shootout just because law-abiding citizens had guns, there would already be a ton of shootouts, except law abiding citizens don't have guns. Add to that a well-armed police force, and the second someone pulls a gun and robs someone in the street, they'll get filled with holes. I don't see a shitload of organized killing sprees, so your battlefield argument is bullshit. Read my fucking posts before copying and pasting your same old shit.

WTF, im not talking about people forming attacks on strategic postions and organizing bombing runs, im talking about people shooting it out!! If eveyrone has a gun, shootouts will happen more often. Its logic. Dont give me that bullshit about "everything being stabile and ok" if everyone had a gun. I just dont buy it, giving guns to people wont result in sensible gun use, just more gun use and fear of guns.

YEHA BECUZ GUNS JUMP OFF TEH TABEL AND KIL EVERY1 BY THEMSELFS

A gun wont jump off the table and kill someone, but you can sure as hell bet on someone will reach for it and kill someone with it.

What im saying is. Dont put a gun on the table so someone can pick it up and use it. Its just not a sensible thing to do.

Yeah, and it's a stepping stone to banning all guns, and since they aren't much a danger, they shouldn't be banned.

Oh, so theyre not much of a danger? Well im sure those people who are getting killed by an automatic rifle fire would agree with you on the spot. I dont care about the fact that automatic rifles arent use that often for killing people, they are used and thats enough to ban along with any other gun. Of course its a whole lot harder to get an automatic rifle in the US than getting a pistol or a revolver and thats a good thing, because that means only soldiers like Hammer who know how to handle a gun will be able to have one. It should be the same with all fire arms, because the average guy like "you and me" dont have the training, sense or reason to carry a gun around when he hit town or drive around the free way.

Notice you said pinned down, not shot. Automatic gunfire is for suppressing fire, nothing more.

Oh, so its ok for a criminal to get the option to pin someone down?! That is entirely besides the point, an automatic rifle will kill just as any other firearm, therefore they arent anymore sensible to have around than pistols and revolvers.

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:47 pm

ok no matter how contradicting this statement is:
guns dont warrant that people die.
as micheal moore said, people in canada have the same number of guns as the US with a much lesser population and our gun violence deaths are like 50 a year compared to the US's 12000

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:52 pm

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD wrote:ok no matter how contradicting this statement is:
guns dont warrant that people die.
as micheal moore said, people in canada have the same number of guns as the US with a much lesser population and our gun violence deaths are like 50 a year compared to the US's 12000

Of course thats true and thats why we shouldnt make other countries as gun oriented and gun loving as the US. For crists sake, some parents give their kids guns as a birthday present! They lt them grow up around firearms. Actually I do see some sense in this: A parent who has a sensible mind and a sensible attitude towards firearms will teach their kid the same sense and attitude and assuming the kid doesnt rebel totally on what their parents teach them it will be all for the better. But fact is, everyone just arent that sensible and some parents will teach their kids that its ok to shoot anyone who piss you off, just because the gun in your hand gives you the right and power to do so.

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:53 pm

Forty-six & Two wrote:
WTF, im not talking about people forming attacks on strategic postions and organizing bombing runs, im talking about people shooting it out!! If eveyrone has a gun, shootouts will happen more often. Its logic. Dont give me that bullshit about "everything being stabile and ok" if everyone had a gun. I just dont buy it, giving guns to people wont result in sensible gun use, just more gun use and fear of guns.

that arguement is full of shit. 35 states issued concealed carry permits in the U.S. millions carry weapons lawfully and yet the streets aren't running with blood from every little arguement escalating into a gun battle. the truth is that people who carry weapons are usually well-adjusted individuals and people who know what the fuck they're doing.

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:54 pm

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD wrote:ok no matter how contradicting this statement is:
guns dont warrant that people die.
as micheal moore said, people in canada have the same number of guns as the US with a much lesser population and our gun violence deaths are like 50 a year compared to the US's 12000

hey dipshit, due to the fact that canada has a lesser population than the raw numbers are going to be less. however per 100,000 people the numbers are actually much higher. do some research not just watching some bullshit documentary you idiot.

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:55 pm

everyone knows the americans are gun nuts.
say something about taking their guns away and they threaten to shoot you.

EDIT: yes, yes the above average american gun nut trythebill. calm down about your guns i could give less than 2 shits if people carry assault weapons under trenchcoats as long as i aint hit by the bullets.

who cares about per capita, the fact is 12000 people died in a year of guns in the US and 50 in the whole of canada. we have the same number of guns as our american counterparts so why arent we killing 12000 people a year even if we have a lower pop. the guns are still there.

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:04 pm

Forty-six & Two wrote:
Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD wrote:ok no matter how contradicting this statement is:
guns dont warrant that people die.
as micheal moore said, people in canada have the same number of guns as the US with a much lesser population and our gun violence deaths are like 50 a year compared to the US's 12000
Of course thats true and thats why we shouldnt make other countries as gun oriented and gun loving as the US. For crists sake, some parents give their kids guns as a birthday present! They lt them grow up around firearms. Actually I do see some sense in this: A parent who has a sensible mind and a sensible attitude towards firearms will teach their kid the same sense and attitude and assuming the kid doesnt rebel totally on what their parents teach them it will be all for the better. But fact is, everyone just arent that sensible and some parents will teach their kids that its ok to shoot anyone who piss you off, just because the gun in your hand gives you the right and power to do so.

If a child is raised around firearms, and is taught how to use them responsibly, he is far less dangerous than some kid who knows nothing about guns, being in a gun-free family, and picks one up.

everyone knows the americans are gun nuts.
say something about taking their guns away and they threaten to shoot you.

First, it's a crass generalization to say we, as a whole, are gun nuts. Secondly, gun nuts is rather derrogatory. I haven't been making bullshit blanket statements like "ALL CANADIANS R ANTI-GUN NUTS", so maybe you should follow my example. And where did you get the idea that if someone "say[s] something about taking their guns away and [we] threaten to shoot [them]."? Oh wait, you watched Bowling for Columbine. That makes you an expert, obviously.

who cares about per capita, the fact is 12000 people died in a year of guns in the US and 50 in the whole of canada.

Canada also has a much lower density of population as we do.

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:06 pm

trythebill wrote:that arguement is full of shit. 35 states issued concealed carry permits in the U.S. millions carry weapons lawfully and yet the streets aren't running with blood from every little arguement escalating into a gun battle. the truth is that people who carry weapons are usually well-adjusted individuals and people who know what the fuck they're doing.

Im not talking about the US distinctly. As ive already said plenty of times, its to late to ban guns in the US, its aprt of thier culture. And actually its going fairly well, but please dont tell me that things would look worse if guns had never become such a everyday commodity. Alot less people would have been shot and alot less people would teach thier kids that guns are a way of life. On top of that I just dont think that having many people carrying around a guns is anyway to decrease the number of people shot with a gun.

So how do you think things will look 20 years from now if a country like England legalized guns and had restrictions similar to the US? Do you really think that people will have become more sensible because guns were legalized in their country? Do you think the number of people getting killed will drop? Do you think there will be less shoot outs in the street, bars and at robberies? If you think thats the case, then I dont understand what the hell youre reasoning for it is. Please enlighten me!

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:06 pm

The U.S. is the thrid most populous country in the world with about 280,000,000 (that is 280 million people) Last estimate is that we have around 245 million firearms.

In 2002, 63% of the 15,980 murders, or 10,000, were committed with firearms. So if we 'assume' that each of the 10,000 murders were committed with a different firearm, which is NOT true, we find an incidence of less the .005% of the firearms were used in murders. THAT IS LESS THAN 5 THOUSANDTHS OF A PERCENT. You want to convince me that GUNS are a problem? NOT EVEN CLOSE with that low a level of misuse.

In the 5.3 million VIOLENT crimes committed, firearms were used in less than 7% of those crimes, 353,880 crimes. That is still just a little over one tenth of one percent (.1%+) of all firearms misused, again assuming that every crime was committed with a unique firearm which is not the case.

According to The International Crime Victimization Survey which was conducted by Leiden University in Holland and published by the Dutch justice ministry in 2000, the U.S. is strictly middle of the road. In fact in violent crime nor in overal victimization we don't even rank in the top ten countries, BUT CANADA DOES!!!! Remember that these figures are calculated correctly for the RATE of crime based on crimes per, say, 100,000 population. Of course the U.S. has more crimes in overall numbers, but we would expect that since we have 10 times the population of Canada, or whatever it is. The full article can be read here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... rim123.xml

If you possessed any shred of knowledge you could see that per capita is really what matters when digesting facts. From this data we can see that if Canada and the United States had equal populations the violent crime raw numbers would be much higher in Canada. Since they are not the raw numbers are much lower while the per capita is higher. If standing by my rights and wishing to use the tools avaliable to protect my self from harm brought on me by criminals and tyrannical goverments than I guess I am a "gun nut"

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:09 pm

Forty-six & Two wrote:
So how do you think things will look 20 years from now if a country like England legalized guns and had restrictions similar to the US? Do you really think that people will have become more sensible because guns were legalized in their country? Do you think the number of people getting killed will drop? Do you think there will be less shoot outs in the street, bars and at robberies? If you think thats the case, then I dont understand what the hell youre reasoning for it is. Please enlighten me!

if violent crime in england keeps skyrocketing they might not be anyone alive there in 20 years. if england enacted laws similar to the u.s. i think it would be a much safer place. you cannot seriously tell me that if england passed a CCW law the streets would become less safe(hard to do since the streets are about as safe as a war torn african nation right now)