So this is what we are expected to learn
-
@slyadams said:
OK, so remind me what kinds of guns YOU think should be legal to own? It seems like if you think assaut weapons shouldn't be legal then you are drawing a line in the sand somewhere. I'm interested as to where this is and why. Why one type and not the other? The only difference would seem to be how quickly you can kill people, how reliably you can kill people and from what range you can kill people.
I believe our laws have this correct, as I have stated many times above. Try read the posts, and maybe do a little research into our laws.
The fact is, you don't know what our laws are, and yet you are arguing against them. That makes you a little dense if you ask me.
@slyadams said:
Difference is, you are 4 times more likely to be shot dead tomorrow than me.
Yet another statement you will never be able to backup with fact...
@slyadams said:
I am, however, EXTREMELY confused that you don't trust your Government to protect you, but are are confident in them to make the decisions on who is fit to own guns.
How is the government going to protect me if I am walking down the street and a deranged man with a claw hammer charges me? Are you really stupid enough to believe the cops would be there to prevent this?
@slyadams said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
Also, I really do think you need to modify your debating tactics. Calling people pussies, cowards and telling them they are flat wrong is a relatively weak standpoint. Pretty much every debate I've seen you involved in ends with the same behaviour.
What is it with the people in this thread? When did I call anyone a pussy or a coward? You are confusing me with morbiuswilters... jesus, learn to fucking read.
Where was the personal insult in that post? You keep confusing me with other people. Maybe you are reading a different post?
-
@slyadams said:
Pray tell, oh purvayer of all things sooth when did I stray from the path of the debate?
Learn to read. I have described this several times before. The argument is whether the government should allow citizens to own firearms. You keep straying to assault weapons.
"I think guns should be allowed in America."
"No wai! Assault weapons are bad!"
"What? When did I say anything...."
"You are personally insulting me! OMG! You hurt my feelings! Assault weapons are bad!"
-
@slyadams said:
instead just respond to every message with some brain-dead insult.
Again, you are the one confusing me with morbius, but thanks for repeatedly showing how stupid you are.
-
@jakkle said:
...in the same way i would not call small tribes in the Amazon rainforest 'uncivilised': such a thing is ignorant and ill-informed.
Ahh.. hmm... Not to start yet another flamefest, but small tribes in the Amazon are kind of the definition of uncivilized. Of course, you might call it "under-developed" because that's more politically correct, but the point is that in terms of social development they are far behind most of the "Western" countries.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
they are far behind most of the "Western" countries.
I never thought that about european countries before, but some of the crybabies in this thread who can't seem to differentiate between my arguments and your insults are really starting to change my opinion.
-
@slyadams said:
The historical failings of the UK? OK, time to stop arguing with someone who thinks the UK are pussies and have historically 'failed'.
Dude, give it up. Your empire is gone and you got your ass beaten by a bunch of hicks who could barely manage to keep themselves fed through the harsh winter. I actually respect parts of the UK and its history but do you really think your country has a lot going for it and is on the right track?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
instead just respond to every message with some brain-dead insult.
Again, you are the one confusing me with morbius, but thanks for repeatedly showing how stupid you are.
Hey, my insults aren't brain-dead! They are hilarious and witty and win me the hearts of fair maidens across the land!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dtech said:
Afaik Hitler was elected mainly because he promised to solve (and did solve) the large unemployment problem and provided a scapegoat for all of the problems (the Jews).
Hitler was never elected, he was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. Regardless, the Nazi party was elected and the Party's anti-Jewish rhetoric went over quite well with the German population.
You do know that the main event that led to the Nazi's landslide victory was not his anti-Jewish stance, but more to do with his "handling" of the Reichstag fire? The threat was firstly placed on the Communists, which were the first ones to be chased by the rise of the Third Reich. It was thanks to the percieved "Communist threat" that the NSDAP got the majority vote, plus the Communist Party ban. Then they passed the
PatriotEnabling Act, and whoopee!! Willkommen auf Third Reich!If any doubt of which "order" the Nazis took on persecution, let me remind you that "First they came..." poem.
@morbiuswilters said:
@dtech said:
He also got to power with a coup btw, he wasn't elected. (he didn't have a majority, but tricked the largest Christian party into supporting him).
Not a majority, but the Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag and as I said, quite popular. And getting democratically-elected members of parliament to support you is now considered a coup?
Some would say that passing an Enabling Act which basically revokes all previous powers and transferrs them to one single entity might constitute as a coup. Especially if said Act isn't actually passed on to citizen's vote. (To be fair, given the situation after the Reichstag fire gave the Nazi party widespread support.)
@morbiuswilters said:
@dtech said:
I still do not see signs of probable genocide, only of hate against Jews. I'd think he'd force all Jews to emigrate out of Germany, which is exactly what he did during the 30's.
Then you need to study your 20th century European history, dumbass.
You might want to read unbiased 20th century European history yourself, dude. Ask people that actually lived during WWII and you'll find that besides those who lived near "the camps", there were few outside the Nazi party that knew what the regime was doing with all those Jews.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
on the right track?
I don't know, but I do know that governments that realize they are going to go through some serious hard times will often try and disarm the populace in order to keep civil unrest to a minimum and maintain their power.
To me that is a more valid theory than 'they wanted to keep crime down'. But it does sound like they did a great job brainwashing their people, so it will likely work fine.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@ammoQ said:
how to fire a semiautomatic weapon.
What is wrong with a semiautomatic weapon now?
They were arguing about 'assault weapons'.
For those of you who cannot quite seem to understand what you are arguing about: There are single shot (bolt action rifles), semi automatic (each squeeze of the trigger fires a round), full auto (hold the trigger, magazine empties).
An assault weapon is considered a weapon that can 'select' either semi-auto or full auto (burst fire in the case of a few like the M16). A full auto only weapon IS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON. A sem-auto only weapon IS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON.
So everyone arguing about 'semi-auto assault' weapons needs to learn what they are actually talking about. There is no significant reason why anyone should be more against a semi auto rifle than a bolt action rifle, or a pump action shotgun, or a semi-auto shotgun.
If I see a kid in TV firing something that looks like an M16, I probably don't ask myself: "Is this really an assault weapon is this just the mostly harmless semi-automatic version which fires only ~3-5 rounds per second, depending on how fast you manage to pull the trigger?"
I might be wrong, but I think auto mode of an assault riffle is just used to make sure nobody on the other side puts his head out of cover. To actually hit the target, single-shoot or burst mode is the way to go. I understand that a weapon can be used for legal purposes, like hunting, too... but I fail to see where you would need a semiautomatic rifle with 20 round magazines. Self-defence? Too bulky. Hunting? Only if you are a very bad hunter. Sports? Probably not.
-
@jakkle said:
I totally agree the arrogance and lack of understanding on the part of some in this thread has been nauseating, and it's good to know that its this youre annoyed with rather than our laws. On that subject its always good to learn more about your laws and country, so thanks.
Thank you for at least admitting that 1) there may be some rational reason for allowing citizens to own guns and 2) that MPS and I are merely defending the laws of our own country which have served us well for quite some time. It seems most of your continent-mates are willing to spout off without and real knowledge of the laws, statistic, history or cultures involved. Am I extremely insulting to everyone who disagrees with me? Sure, but I have a reputation to maintain and mocking people amuses me. I'll let you in on a little secret: I've not been trying to convince Europeans to take another look at gun ownership. See, I don't gain anything by Europeans being able to defend themselves so why should I care if they are brutally killed in their own homes? To me it's just evolution -- if your society can't find a way to allow for a personal right of self-defense then you will die out and be replaced by the smarter humans. In fact, having Europeans own guns might actually be a bad thing if the US ever has to "liberate" the Continent.
Personally, I think your laws are bad in the sense that they won't work out well in the end and this is backed up by the spike in crime that has been seen in the UK for the last 12 years. However, it's your country and your problem -- not mine. I'm not going to have football hooligans breaking into my house and raping my cats and the French aren't going to be able to march in and take control of my country with nothing more than body odor and wretched, inscrutable films.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@stratos said:
Now i still believe its probebly easier to get a full auto rifle under the table somewhere in the US then in a north western euro country
Really? Where did AK's come from? It would be a lot easier to get one that has been 'lost' on your side of the world than mine...
You might actually be right. not so much because of the arguments you present, but because it occured to me that when you have a system in place to regulate a commodity it is much less likely to fall into criminal hands. The only sector that has need of unregistered under the radar weapons is organised crime and they will get their weapons laws or no laws.
@stratos said:
But stuff like this still looks weird to me
Why? You can legally register and pay a 'tax stamp' and buy a full auto weapon in certain states. Most are vintage machine guns from world wars.
Its weird to me, in the same way it might be weird to you to ask a cop for a fire to light up your joint.
@stratos said:
seeing a real small girl fire a fully automatic is just creepy.
Seeing a little girl spend her day with her dad doing something that most people will never get to do in their lives is what I see.
I agree she is too young, and I would never agree with that, but this is a parent and it is the parent's decision. You are using one video on the internet to pass judgement on a country.
Saying i find it creepy to see a small girl fire a fully automatic gun/rifle isn't passing judgement on a country. It is stating the fact that i think it looks creepy.
@stratos said:
But whatever, its not my culture.
Thats right, and good thing too, if you ever saw a movie like Die Hard you would likely have a heat attack and die on the spot.
The difference between die hard and a little girl on youtube firing a automatic gun/rifle is that one is a movie and the other is reality. Assuming you meant heart attack. Otherwise the movie theather would need to be pretty hot.
-
@ammoQ said:
If I see a kid in TV firing something that looks like an M16
It is called an AR-15 and it is a completely viable firearm for many purposes. Being a .223 it's recoil is reasonable for a younger person, and all the various after market parts make it even more ideal to adapt to any person's frame.
@ammoQ said:
Self-defence?
An AR-15 is ideal for self defense. Why do you think soldiers and defense firms carry them?
A pistol on/in the nightstand is only so you can fight your way to your rifle/shotgun.
@ammoQ said:
Hunting? Only if you are a very bad hunter.
Actually, a semi automatic rifle is very useful for hunting. You are thinking it is somehow equivalent to hunting with a full auto weapon.
@ammoQ said:
Sports? Probably not.
There are quite a few competitions that involve ONLY military rifles and pistols. An AR-15 or AR-10 are usually the most popular in the rifle category for new age rifles.
I understand you have a certain fear of firearms, but perhaps you should actually understand them before criticizing others.
-
@ammoQ said:
Is this really an assault weapon is this just the mostly harmless semi-automatic version which fires only ~3-5 rounds per second, depending on how fast you manage to pull the trigger?"
A gun is a gun. They are designed to kill. While an automatic rifle is certainly more dangerous, the fact is a suitably motivated individual could probably get dozens of kills with a musket if he was in a place like a college where all the students have been disarmed and they have nowhere to run.
See, in the hands of someone who would commit murder, anything is a weapon. A rock, a car or a live power line. Here's one for you: why don't I go out to a high school football field and wire the metal bleachers up to the mains line? Sure it would take a little work, but I imagine I could accomplish it. Then just wait for the next game and flip the switch: as people try to step off the bleachers they get fried and that starts a stampede. Impratical? Sure, but nobody is going to say "well, we better outlaw electricity because someone might use it to kill a lot of people". We let damn near anybody drive a car. That's 1 ton of steel traveling with far more energy than a bullet does. Hitting a crowd of people at 30 miles an hour could kill dozens. And just like with guns, there's no way to tell if someone is going to use their car to commit murder. Yet we still allow people to drive. It must be that crazy cowboy culture!
-
@stratos said:
The difference between die hard and a little girl on youtube firing a automatic gun/rifle is that one is a movie and the other is reality.
Again, it is not something I would do with my kids until a more 'appropriate' age, but this kind of thing is a big event for people who do it. They usually spend at least a year saving up for the ammo they will blow off at the range and have an insane amount of fun.
But I fail to see what you major issue is with it. I don't think it is any worse than all the assholes I see driving with their kids not buckled into their seats everday.
A little irresponsible, but not a major issue.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
While an automatic rifle is certainly more dangerous
Right, and you forgot to mention how many incidents have you seen in recent history in the news where an automatic weapon was used against a group of people?
The last one I remember was the Hollywood bank shootout. And that was just fucked up all around. But there was also nothing legal about ANYTHING they did, and gun controls laws could not have stopped that. They didn't walk into a store and buy those AK's with 100 round mags...
BUT, the police all had to run to nearby gun stores to grab rifles that would stand a chance against the shooters. Know what they grabbed? AR-15s. I would say thank [deity] that anti-gun nuts didnt have their way and get rid of those rifles. The rounds that ended the skirmish once and for all were the police's .223 rounds. First guy shot himself after being peppered with rounds that were increasingly making it through his body armor, second was dropped by a spray (full auto) of an M16 under a car from a group of SWAT members.
After that people finally got the point, and the national guard was allowed to donate full military issue M16s to the police for their permanent usage.
Fact is the cops were lucky, because California's gun laws are increasingly the most restrictive in the country. But a citizen with a properly equipped AR-15 could have better equipped an officer or fired one of the ending rounds from his window if he had been present. So before we say armed citizens are bad, and semi/full auto rifles are bad, let's think how other countries would have ended this attack.
But those rifles have no use I thought!?
-
@stratos said:
You might actually be right. not so much because of the arguments you present, but because it occured to me that when you have a system in place to regulate a commodity it is much less likely to fall into criminal hands. The only sector that has need of unregistered under the radar weapons is organised crime and they will get their weapons laws or no laws.
We're right for many reasons, actually. And the point that occurred to you is one we've tried to make several times. See, in the US there is a saying: "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". I actually hate that saying because it is seems self-evident to me and I hear it frequently, but perhaps you have not. See, MPS and I know that criminals in our country will get guns. What we are saying is that it if you can't stop criminals from carrying guns, why would you bother trying to stop law-abiding citizens? The law-abiding ones are the people you don't have to worry about and they're the only ones who are going to be seriously affected by gun control legislation. Do you think most criminals in the US wait for background checks and get the appropriate documents first? Of course not, they just buy them on the black market. And guns are not fancy, sophisticated technology. It would be pretty easy to set up a small shop that produced firearms and sold them on the black market. They wouldn't be the best guns, but the buyers know that no law-abiding citizen will be in possession of a gun.
@stratos said:
Its weird to me, in the same way it might be weird to you to ask a cop for a fire to light up your joint.
That's not too weird, just sounds like a bad mistake. Seriously, marijuana has been severely decriminalized in the US. Unfortunately there remain laws against it, but cops only really bother with people trafficking large quantities now. Most of the time if you are caught with less than an ounce they will just confiscate it (possibly for personal use later on) and write a ticket if they are permitted to. Of course, this also depends on where in the US you are -- in the more conservative, religious states pot is generally treated as a more serious offense than in the coastal states or in Illinois/Michigan.
@stratos said:
Saying i find it creepy to see a small girl fire a fully automatic gun/rifle isn't passing judgement on a country. It is stating the fact that i think it looks creepy.
Eh, it's kind of weird at first but it's really not as bad as you think. First, the child is not likely to be injured as she has parents protecting her. Second, she is not training to be part in some radical militia, she is just learning how to fire a gun. Third, she will probably grow up to be a lot safer around guns than her peers who were told they are "bad" and should stay away from them. It's well-documented that most of the children in the US who accidentally shoot themselves never received basic gun training because their parents were afraid. By teaching the child that a gun is something forbidden and scary they only piqued their child's interest which resulted in exploration and, unfortunately, death. Personally, I was firing shotguns when I was 9 or so but that was more a consequence of where I lived, too. Nobody I knew really bothered with handguns (in fact, I'd never held a semi-automatic handgun until a month or so ago) because they had a loaded shotgun sitting behind the front door and under the bed. Of course, these were families where everybody knew how to be safe around guns.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@jakkle said:
...in the same way i would not call small tribes in the Amazon rainforest 'uncivilised': such a thing is ignorant and ill-informed.
Ahh.. hmm... Not to start yet another flamefest, but small tribes in the Amazon are kind of the definition of uncivilized. Of course, you might call it "under-developed" because that's more politically correct, but the point is that in terms of social development they are far behind most of the "Western" countries.
fair cop. I tend not to say 'uncivilised' because i see it as still being a civilisation - its just a different one. to be fair though you are right. maybe its just me being wierd , but i tend to think that they are civilised because they still have social structure and the like. I guess it just comes down to defining 'advanced' in relation to civilisation - is it technologically, the number of crimes, wars? or i might just be a pussy. who knows?!
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Right, and you forgot to mention how many incidents have you seen in recent history in the news where an automatic weapon was used against a group of people?
The last one I remember was the Hollywood bank shootout. And that was just fucked up all around. But there was also nothing legal about ANYTHING they did, and gun controls laws could not have stopped that. They didn't walk into a store and buy those AK's with 100 round mags...
BUT, the police all had to run to nearby gun stores to grab rifles that would stand a chance against the shooters. Know what they grabbed? AR-15s. I would say thank [deity] that anti-gun nuts didnt have their way and get rid of those rifles. The rounds that ended the skirmish once and for all were the police's .223 rounds. First guy shot himself after being peppered with rounds that were increasingly making it through his body armor, second was dropped by a spray (full auto) of an M16 under a car from a group of SWAT members.
After that people finally got the point, and the national guard was allowed to donate full military issue M16s to the police for their permanent usage.
Fact is the cops were lucky, because California's gun laws are increasingly the most restrictive in the country. But a citizen with a properly equipped AR-15 could have better equipped an officer or fired one of the ending rounds from his window if he had been present. So before we say armed citizens are bad, and semi/full auto rifles are bad, let's think how other countries would have ended this attack.
But those rifles have no use I thought!?
Very good point, I did not mention that. Fully-automatic weapons are rarely used because, quite frankly, criminals don't need them. See, only a dumb criminal will walk into a place full of armed people. It doesn't matter if he has a revolver or an AK, he knows his chances are much, much better against completely unarmed victims. So what's the point in even using an auto against unarmed people? Really, a small semi-auto handgun will be more than enough to scare everyone and get the job done, and it hides much better. It also ignores the point that most criminals don't plan to shoot a lot of people. Time spent shooting is time that could be spent looting. Also, if you're caught the difference between a bank robbery and a dozen murders is the difference between 10 years and a trip to ol' sparky. So most criminals aren't even going to bother with automatic weapons. Thus we can conclude that in the vast majority of cases the only people interested in large capacity, automatic rifles are law-abiding citizens in which case who the hell cares? If they're not going to be shooting up the local bank then why restrict their right to own those guns?
Of course, this ignores cases like Columbine or the VTech shooter. But as you already stated so well, these people are in it for a "high score" more than anything. They just want to get on the news and cause a bunch of grief. Sure, they are mentally unstable and they might be able to get those automatic weapons, but if guns weren't forbidden on campus in the first place they'd never kill more than a few people and they know that. Think: if a few of the students at Virginia Tech had been armed we would have 3 dead instead of 33. Tragic, yes, but obviously a lot different. And the shooter may have just decided that 3 kills wasn't "cool enough" and just done himself in some other way that harmed no one else at all. Seriously, you know how much shooting it takes to kill 33 people? Especially with how indiscriminate that guy was. He just peppered every room with bullets. He was probably shooting for a good 20 minutes, probably encountered hundreds of students and not a single one could stop him because they'd been disarmed "for their protection".
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
Pray tell, oh purvayer of all things sooth when did I stray from the path of the debate?
Learn to read. I have described this several times before. The argument is whether the government should allow citizens to own firearms. You keep straying to assault weapons.
"I think guns should be allowed in America."
"No wai! Assault weapons are bad!"
"What? When did I say anything...."
"You are personally insulting me! OMG! You hurt my feelings! Assault weapons are bad!"
Erm, OK. So when you say "I think guns should be allowed in America", people are meant to psychically know you ACTUALLY mean: "I think a subset of guns only known to me should be allowed in America". For god's sake. Unless you are trying to say that assault rifles aren't a type of gun?
You're little diabtribe on the supposed history of this thread is pathetic. You ommit calling me a 'fucking retard'.
-
@jakkle said:
fair cop. I tend not to say 'uncivilised' because i see it as still being a civilisation - its just a different one. to be fair though you are right. maybe its just me being wierd , but i tend to think that they are civilised because they still have social structure and the like. I guess it just comes down to defining 'advanced' in relation to civilisation - is it technologically, the number of crimes, wars?
Yeah, I don't really know how to define it either. I think it comes down to being able to recognize and balance the rights of the individual with the needs of society. I think technology plays an important part in that and I actually do consider recognition of a right to self-defense part of the individual rights that should be acknowledged. Not to say that I see the UK as less civilized due to their stance on gun control, but I don't think it will bode well for you guys. It's easy to become comfortable with our lives and to think we are so advanced that we no longer need to worry about the abuses of power nor personal defense. To think that our liberty is a sure thing we will never have to spill blood over. If we are lucky enough we never will have to kill and die for those rights, but I prefer to be prepared should the worst happen. A lot of Europeans seem convinced the US is in a slide towards tyranny but they seem to forget that we have various and sundry mechanisms to ensure our everlasting liberty, including the right to bear arms. I don't like the direction my country has taken in the last 8 years, but we are far from being that bad at all. What's more, unlike most of Europe we can repel power-grabs by radical factions of our society with something other than a pencil.
See, the people who founded my country put up with a lot of shit from the people who ran yours. They were silenced, jailed, disenfranchised, taxed, searched, ransacked, intimidated and disarmed. So they realized that although the right to vote and the right to speak one's mind and the right to a fair trial are all important to a free and equal society, there was something else needed as well. Americans are not violent radicals. We vote, we bitch, we protest, we fight in court, we write letters and we stand up for what we believe in. Our founding fathers were smart, though, and realized that those things are really only useful against rational men. Sometimes, you have no choice but to shoot a motherfucker. It's unpleasant and violent and personally I wouldn't want to be in a situation where I had to end a life, but part of being a responsible citizen is realizing that sometimes you have to unload hot lead into some asshole's face. Graphic? Sure, but do you think your country was founded peacefully? Let's be honest, violence is a recurring theme throughout human history. And Americans aren't in favor of using violence to steal wealth or oppress others, we're just being honest: we are perfectly willing to kill anyone who tries to enslave us and steal our freedoms. Of all the things people have been killed for in the past, I don't think defense against the infringement of liberty is a bad one at all.
@jakkle said:
or i might just be a pussy. who knows?!
Of course you're a pussy: you're European. Haven't you been reading? :-P
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
OK, so remind me what kinds of guns YOU think should be legal to own? It seems like if you think assaut weapons shouldn't be legal then you are drawing a line in the sand somewhere. I'm interested as to where this is and why. Why one type and not the other? The only difference would seem to be how quickly you can kill people, how reliably you can kill people and from what range you can kill people.
I believe our laws have this correct, as I have stated many times above. Try read the posts, and maybe do a little research into our laws.
The fact is, you don't know what our laws are, and yet you are arguing against them. That makes you a little dense if you ask me.
And I believe our laws are correct on this. The chart you put up before actually shows that I am CONSIDERABLY less likely to be murdered in the UK than the US, but I expect you to blow it off somehow.
You dodge another point. What subset of guns do you believe should be legal?
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
Difference is, you are 4 times more likely to be shot dead tomorrow than me.
Yet another statement you will never be able to backup with fact...
@slyadams said:
I am, however, EXTREMELY confused that you don't trust your Government to protect you, but are are confident in them to make the decisions on who is fit to own guns.
How is the government going to protect me if I am walking down the street and a deranged man with a claw hammer charges me? Are you really stupid enough to believe the cops would be there to prevent this?
You dodge another point. If you don't trust the government to protect you, then how come you trust it to chose who is allowed to own guns?
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
Also, I really do think you need to modify your debating tactics. Calling people pussies, cowards and telling them they are flat wrong is a relatively weak standpoint. Pretty much every debate I've seen you involved in ends with the same behaviour.
What is it with the people in this thread? When did I call anyone a pussy or a coward? You are confusing me with morbiuswilters... jesus, learn to fucking read.
Where was the personal insult in that post? You keep confusing me with other people. Maybe you are reading a different post?
Ah, so you weren't the one who called me a fucking retard here then? Also, if you think little snide remarks like 'you are a little dense' and 'fucking stupid' win you an argument then you are seriously mistaken. Just because someone disagrees with your point of view, it doesn't mean they are stupid and it doesn't mean you should just start personally abusing them. I'd have thought that living in the free-est country in the world you would have some concept of this.
-
@slyadams said:
"I think a subset of guns only known to me should be allowed in America"
See? That is where not jumping in and running your mouth would have been helpful. You jumped in arguing about assault weapons, not knowing what anyone's actual views were.
You can blame no one but yourself here.
@slyadams said:
Unless you are trying to say that assault rifles aren't a type of gun?
No, I am not saying that obviously. But since they are illegal in most places here, I also was never arguing that.
Someone who did a little research before running their mouth might have known that too.
@slyadams said:
You ommit calling me a 'fucking retard'.
I also ommit most of the truly stupid stuff you have said, so it would have been out of context.
-
@slyadams said:
And I believe our laws are correct on this. The chart you put up before actually shows that I am CONSIDERABLY less likely to be murdered in the UK than the US, but I expect you to blow it off somehow.
You've always been considerably less likely to be murdered, even when guns were prevelant there. Meanwhile, I am more likely to be robbed, beaten and raped in your country. What's more, the violent crime in my country has been dropping since concealed carry became widespread whereas violent crime in your country is rising since handgus were outlawed. We've been over this. Many times. Many, many, many times. I understand that your pitiful British education didn't prepare you for critical reading, but we've been through this.
@slyadams said:
You dodge another point. If you don't trust the government to protect you, then how come you trust it to chose who is allowed to own guns?
Jesus Christ, MPS answered this too, but let me boil it down until it is a tasteless sludge (just like your food) that your fussy, English mouth can tolerate. I live in a fairly densely-populated city and I have a police officer within my sight maybe 10 minutes per day, max. The rest of the time, no police officers around. Really, the only two things I see at all times are the tops of my feet and my massive crotch bulge. So, no matter how much the government wanted to protect me, it's just not possible. What's more, I don't want someone following me all the time "protecting" me -- I'd rather take responsiblity for myself and rely on myself.
@slyadams said:
Just because someone disagrees with your point of view, it doesn't mean they are stupid and it doesn't mean you should just start personally abusing them. I'd have thought that living in the free-est country in the world you would have some concept of this.
That's precisely what it means! Why should I show any respect to someone who is wrong and ignorant? Is there a tattoo on my head that says "Public Library"!? No? Then guess what -- I'm not a free fucking source of knowledge for your uninformed ass. If you want to learn, I will call you whatever I want. Meanwhile, what does insulting stupid, inbread Europeans have to do with being "free-est"? The Internet was invented to insult stupid Europeans and it was invented by Americans with my tax dollars so if you don't like it, get the fuck off and go make your own Internet. Hell, making fun of Europeans is a fundamental American right -- it's right there in the Constitution.. uh.. somewhere, uh.. near the middle..
Seriously, though, fuck England. We could have conquered that toilet a hundred times by now but why would we want to possess a land full of poor, inbred and stupid jackasses with bad teeth?
-
@slyadams said:
The chart you put up before actually shows that I am CONSIDERABLY less likely to be murdered in the UK than the US, but I expect you to blow it off somehow.
This has been explained already, why are you trying to reincarnate arguments? Why don't you try reading the thread where this was answered?
@slyadams said:
You dodge another point. What subset of guns do you believe should be legal?
I dodged nothing. I believe our laws have it correct already. Look them up if you are interested. Otherwise, I am not here to educate you on the laws we have already been over in this thread. Considering you have demonstrated a few times that you have no clue what you are talking about, I don't really think you are looking for an intelligent discussion on this and I cannot be bothered with you.
@slyadams said:
You dodge another point. If you don't trust the government to protect you, then how come you trust it to chose who is allowed to own guns?
I never said I don't 'trust the government to protect' me. You cannot stop twisting arguments to try and keep your mouth running here can you?
Police cannot be everywhere all the time. Simple fact. If you don't understand this then perhaps you are the retard I suspect you to be. Trust has nothing to do with it. I trust our fire departments and EMTs as well, but you better believe I know first aid. They cannot be there all the time to save you.
Just because you are willing to take your chances with fate don't mean that I am that ready to leave my fate in a maniac's hands as well.
@slyadams said:
Ah, so you weren't the one who called me a fucking retard here then?
That was not the text you quoted. Perhaps you should learn to communicate.
@slyadams said:
Also, if you think little snide remarks like 'you are a little dense' and 'fucking stupid' win you an argument then you are seriously mistaken. Just because someone disagrees with your point of view, it doesn't mean they are stupid and it doesn't mean you should just start personally abusing them. I'd have thought that living in the free-est country in the world you would have some concept of this.
Cry me a river. Come back to argue when you don't run your mouth and sound like a fool and then try and cry foul when someone calls you the idiot you have made yourself out to be.
-
Sorry for being late on this (I have been known to do work, from time to time), and I am not going to contribute to either side of this gun|assualt rifle|automatic weapon debate. However, there is one thing that irks me, and that is the use of events over 50 years ago in order to characterize a particular country. It goes both ways here... Just because the US citizens of over 50 years ago played a key role in ending both World Wars does not automatically endow all 2nd genereation decendants the characteristic of being 'brave' or whatnot. Just as the actions of French, Dutch, Polish (etc.) citizens of over 50 years ago do not automatically mean that all of the descendents are 'cowards' (as some view it) or 'brave' (as others view it).
People and countries change over time, and it isn't fair to use the actions of the past generations against current generations.
Meanwhile, as a complete joke...@morbiuswilters said:
Seriously, though, fuck England. We could have conquered that toilet a hundred times by now but why would we want to possess a land full of poor, inbred and stupid jackasses with bad teeth?
Like West Virgina? </sarcasm>
-
Wait, did I just see a few posts from people that think you can't own an AK-47 in the US? You definitely can, but it can't be fully automatic. I know someone who owns one and plans to convert it to full auto.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
An AR-15 is ideal for self defense. Why do you think soldiers and defense firms carry them?
I'd say "self defence" has a different meaning for them, since they have to expect a different type of attacker. For the average person, self defence happens either on the street or at home, I'd guess. On the street, you don't carry an AR-15. At home, I'd prefer a smaller weapon.
Actually, a semi automatic rifle is very useful for hunting. You are thinking it is somehow equivalent to hunting with a full auto weapon.
I wonder how many rounds American hunters need to kill a deer?
There are quite a few competitions that involve ONLY military rifles and pistols. An AR-15 or AR-10 are usually the most popular in the rifle category for new age rifles.
I should have guessed that.
I understand you have a certain fear of firearms, but perhaps you should actually understand them before criticizing others.
Fear? Not at all. The range of those weapons is about 1km, and I live ~10000km away from the US, so I think I'm perfectly safe ;-)
BTW, in my country (like in most European countries) military duty is obligatory for young men, and of course we get our StG 77s to play with. Though it's of course strictly forbidden, it would not have been terribly difficult to smuggle the weapon out of the barracks. (Getting the right ammo might be the more difficult part, though)
There is a psychological screening, but since the duty is obligatory and nearly unpaid (and therefore rather unpopular), the psychologists always might assume that someone who seems crazy just simulates to avoid the duty.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dtech said:
How many dutch did you meet, and with how much did you try to debate? You should've met Pim Fortuyn (who didn't end up very fortunate in the end)
So you had one smart, strong leader and you killed him? Way to go, Netherlands. Too bad he wasn't living in a civilized country like The Netherlands where people are never gunned down in the middle of the street. He lived where? No shit? Well, it's good he lived in a country that was so civilized he was able to arm himself against radical psychopaths who might want to assassinate him.
No gun can protect you from a psychopath. He also was shot down from a little distance never knowing his attacker, so he wouldn't have had time to defend himself.
Also, the only thing guns would have gotten here is that he probaly would've been shot down a few moments later, no-one would've known why he did it and he wouldn't have had to rot in jail for a little less than 2 decades. ('cuze my foreign grammar)
-
The gun debate is always an interesting one. The thing is, why allow guns when there are other effective forms of self defense (such as tasers, capcisum spray, ect) which are non-fatal? If a criminal already has a gun pointed at you, are you going to pull out your pistol and try to take them down?
I can't see a situation where by using a gun would be a more effective form of defense then any of it's alternitives.
This isn't to say that all uses of guns are un-nessacary, however there are better, less fatal, solutions when wanting to defend yourself.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Very good point, I did not mention that. Fully-automatic weapons are rarely used because, quite frankly, criminals don't need them. See, only a dumb criminal will walk into a place full of armed people. It doesn't matter if he has a revolver or an AK, he knows his chances are much, much better against completely unarmed victims. So what's the point in even using an auto against unarmed people? Really, a small semi-auto handgun will be more than enough to scare everyone and get the job done, and it hides much better. It also ignores the point that most criminals don't plan to shoot a lot of people. Time spent shooting is time that could be spent looting. Also, if you're caught the difference between a bank robbery and a dozen murders is the difference between 10 years and a trip to ol' sparky. So most criminals aren't even going to bother with automatic weapons. Thus we can conclude that in the vast majority of cases the only people interested in large capacity, automatic rifles are law-abiding citizens in which case who the hell cares? If they're not going to be shooting up the local bank then why restrict their right to own those guns?
I mostly aggree with your reasoning, but then there are gangs engaged in gang wars. For a little drive-by-shooting, nothing beats a full-automatic machine gun. And then there are those criminals that go for the big deal and they expect resistence of say, half a dozen armed security men. For such gangster, firepower is necessary.
Of course, this ignores cases like Columbine or the VTech shooter. But as you already stated so well, these people are in it for a "high score" more than anything. They just want to get on the news and cause a bunch of grief. Sure, they are mentally unstable and they might be able to get those automatic weapons, but if guns weren't forbidden on campus in the first place they'd never kill more than a few people and they know that. Think: if a few of the students at Virginia Tech had been armed we would have 3 dead instead of 33. Tragic, yes, but obviously a lot different. And the shooter may have just decided that 3 kills wasn't "cool enough" and just done himself in some other way that harmed no one else at all. Seriously, you know how much shooting it takes to kill 33 people? Especially with how indiscriminate that guy was. He just peppered every room with bullets. He was probably shooting for a good 20 minutes, probably encountered hundreds of students and not a single one could stop him because they'd been disarmed "for their protection".
IMO there is hardly a way to stop weirdos like them. Someone who doesn't care for his own life and the identity of his victims can find many ways to kill several dozens.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
And I believe our laws are correct on this. The chart you put up before actually shows that I am CONSIDERABLY less likely to be murdered in the UK than the US, but I expect you to blow it off somehow.
You've always been considerably less likely to be murdered, even when guns were prevelant there. Meanwhile, I am more likely to be robbed, beaten and raped in your country. What's more, the violent crime in my country has been dropping since concealed carry became widespread whereas violent crime in your country is rising since handgus were outlawed. We've been over this. Many times. Many, many, many times. I understand that your pitiful British education didn't prepare you for critical reading, but we've been through this.
Pitiful British education? The education system that leaves America dead? You obviously know fuck all about anything outside your country. You do realise that then American education system is laughed at the world over? People who know absolutely nothing about what goes on outside their borders. You are the embodiment of this. I would be prepared to bet a great deal of money that I am more educated that you, but yet you want to make sweeping judgements about people and their country. You are a pathetic little moron and I'm done with you. I actually wanted to have a real debate about this, but you seem to be so stubborn and ill informed that its really not worth it. Every time I make a point or ask a question, I get back a stream of abuse. Can I just ask, how old are you? I'm genuinely interested.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
You dodge another point. If you don't trust the government to protect you, then how come you trust it to chose who is allowed to own guns?
Jesus Christ, MPS answered this too, but let me boil it down until it is a tasteless sludge (just like your food) that your fussy, English mouth can tolerate. I live in a fairly densely-populated city and I have a police officer within my sight maybe 10 minutes per day, max. The rest of the time, no police officers around. Really, the only two things I see at all times are the tops of my feet and my massive crotch bulge. So, no matter how much the government wanted to protect me, it's just not possible. What's more, I don't want someone following me all the time "protecting" me -- I'd rather take responsiblity for myself and rely on myself.
I'll bet you're also glad that the person who you want protecting from is also carrying protection. It really isn't that hard to understand that in a country where a large subset of guns are legal, it is easier for people to get them illegally that in a place where you cannot buy them at all. It really isn't hard to graps, seriously.
@morbiuswilters said:
@slyadams said:
Just because someone disagrees with your point of view, it doesn't mean they are stupid and it doesn't mean you should just start personally abusing them. I'd have thought that living in the free-est country in the world you would have some concept of this.
That's precisely what it means! Why should I show any respect to someone who is wrong and ignorant? Is there a tattoo on my head that says "Public Library"!? No? Then guess what -- I'm not a free fucking source of knowledge for your uninformed ass. If you want to learn, I will call you whatever I want. Meanwhile, what does insulting stupid, inbread Europeans have to do with being "free-est"? The Internet was invented to insult stupid Europeans and it was invented by Americans with my tax dollars so if you don't like it, get the fuck off and go make your own Internet. Hell, making fun of Europeans is a fundamental American right -- it's right there in the Constitution.. uh.. somewhere, uh.. near the middle..
Good luck in life. You disagree with me, therefore you are wrong and ignorant. You are a pathetic fool.
@morbiuswilters said:
Seriously, though, fuck England. We could have conquered that toilet a hundred times by now but why would we want to possess a land full of poor, inbred and stupid jackasses with bad teeth?
And the award for the person who most embodies the type of American that the rest of the world hates goes to you my friend. You go and conquer everyone if you want, you're clearly the only country that matters and your view points are the only ones that matter. Once again, pathetic.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
The chart you put up before actually shows that I am CONSIDERABLY less likely to be murdered in the UK than the US, but I expect you to blow it off somehow.
This has been explained already, why are you trying to reincarnate arguments? Why don't you try reading the thread where this was answered?
Actually, it hasn't. I made the point that in your country I am considerably less likely to be murdered. I used your own source to explain this. If its not the propensity of guns that causes this, what is it? Are Americans just much more violent and brainless than the rest of the world?
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
You dodge another point. What subset of guns do you believe should be legal?
I dodged nothing. I believe our laws have it correct already. Look them up if you are interested. Otherwise, I am not here to educate you on the laws we have already been over in this thread. Considering you have demonstrated a few times that you have no clue what you are talking about, I don't really think you are looking for an intelligent discussion on this and I cannot be bothered with you.
Wel dodged again. You believe assault rifles shouldn't be legal, but other type of gun should. Please enumerate this subset. If you can't, then you are obviously blowing smoke.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
You dodge another point. If you don't trust the government to protect you, then how come you trust it to chose who is allowed to own guns?
I never said I don't 'trust the government to protect' me. You cannot stop twisting arguments to try and keep your mouth running here can you?
Police cannot be everywhere all the time. Simple fact. If you don't understand this then perhaps you are the retard I suspect you to be. Trust has nothing to do with it. I trust our fire departments and EMTs as well, but you better believe I know first aid. They cannot be there all the time to save you.
Just because you are willing to take your chances with fate don't mean that I am that ready to leave my fate in a maniac's hands as well.
And the maniac will also have a gun, and so you're back where you started. Only in your world, you have no chance to run or overpower the guy.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
Ah, so you weren't the one who called me a fucking retard here then?
That was not the text you quoted. Perhaps you should learn to communicate.
What? In that post you called me a fucking retard. I really fail to see how you can deny it when there is a link right there. If you can't even admit this small point, then debating with you is pointless as you are obviously aruging for arguments sake. Pathetic.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
Also, if you think little snide remarks like 'you are a little dense' and 'fucking stupid' win you an argument then you are seriously mistaken. Just because someone disagrees with your point of view, it doesn't mean they are stupid and it doesn't mean you should just start personally abusing them. I'd have thought that living in the free-est country in the world you would have some concept of this.
Cry me a river. Come back to argue when you don't run your mouth and sound like a fool and then try and cry foul when someone calls you the idiot you have made yourself out to be.
When you grow up, you will learn that you don't win debates by shouting, swearing and abusing people.
I've asked mobius how old he is, because I am genuinely interested. I get the impression I'm talking to a couple of teenagers.
-
@slyadams said:
I've asked mobius how old he is, because I am genuinely interested. I get the impression I'm talking to a couple of teenagers.
Nope, you're debating a couple of gun loving yanks, one of whom is particularly pedantic at the best of times, and highly amusing at other times.
the REAL wtf, is why this thread hasn't been locked yet. Americans and Guns are right up there with Religion as far as pointlessly off topic.
The number of blatant flamebait insults in this thread clearly indicates it should be locked, all I can figure, is the people in a position to do so, are taking sides.
-
@belialNZ said:
all I can figure, is the people in a position to do so, are taking sides.
That's exactly the problem. Though it's not forbidden to discuss and moderate in the same thread (like in slashdot), it looks bad to post an opinion and lock the thread afterwards. Could be seen as some kind of "haha, now see who has the last word" behaviour. Anyway, should the level of the discussion decrease further, I might eventually lock the thread later.
-
@ammoQ said:
I'd say "self defence" has a different meaning for them
It means staying alive no matter the odds. What does it mean for you?
@ammoQ said:
At home, I'd prefer a smaller weapon.
That is your preference then. A lot of people would like to have weapons fit for any need and clearing a house as well as protecting their property (people often have yards and other land here too).
So that is your preference, I don't see how that negates the weapon's usefulness in anyway.
"I don't need a monster truck. They should ban monster trucks since no one else could ever need one."
@ammoQ said:
I wonder how many rounds American hunters need to kill a deer?
Usually one, how does this make any difference in having a bolt action or a semi-auto rifle? You cannot always guarantee a clean kill, some people would like to have a round ready in case there is a problem. If you are saying in your country no one ever needs to take a second shot on large game, then you are either clueless or lying.
Also, where there are deer, there are often bears and other animals. Would you like to take a shot on a deer and suddenly be confronted by a bear? In that case you will be hoping and praying for something that can fire more than one round.
Has it also occurred to you that bagging a deer is not the only form of hunting out there? Often farmers like AR-15s for varmint hunting. With a rifle like this, they can position themselves looking out over a field and take shots at varmints all day. Much more effective when not recreational, and instead is costing you money.
Perhaps this is more due to your preconceived notions of these rifles peppering their targets with multiple rounds? Sounds like a media problem again to me.
@ammoQ said:
I should have guessed that.
Yes you should have. Over here anyone of use could be drafted at any time. Therefore encouraging competitions for markmanship is not only a great activity and a lot of fun, it could help us in a war someday to have a large portion of people familiar with AR-15s.
-
@Jedaz said:
I can't see a situation where by using a gun would be a more effective form of defense then any of it's alternitives.
The only time the use of deadly force is authorized is when you are imminent danger of significant bodily damage or death. Therefore, when put into a situation when I know it is me or the attacker, I will opt for the most lethal thing I can get my hands on, thank you very much.
Less than lethal weapons are great for police, but a bad idea for regular people.
-
@ammoQ said:
And then there are those criminals that go for the big deal and they expect resistence of say, half a dozen armed security men. For such gangster, firepower is necessary.
I think you watch too many movies.
-
This conversation (the polite term for it) is SO pointless.
Seriously, the issue is a lot more complex that simplistic comparisons of gun ownership levels vs. death rates.
I'd be a fool to voice my personal opinion on the topic, outside of my opinion on this thread, which is, KILL IT.
-
@slyadams said:
Every time I make a point or ask a question, I get back a stream of abuse.
You don't make points or ask questions. You express your ignorant point of view in regards to things that have already been debated out.
@slyadams said:
Can I just ask, how old are you? I'm genuinely interested.
I think we can all guess your age range. All this crying about 'abuse' over the internet. It is amazing to hear that this bothers you this much.
How about you try reading and understanding instead of joining an argument you know nothing about and then crying that people are not nice to you?
-
@slyadams said:
Good luck in life. You disagree with me, therefore you are wrong and ignorant. You are a pathetic fool.
Good luck in life. You cry when people insult you on the internet. You are a crybaby.
-
And you sir, are a prick, pure and simple.
I sincerely hope that you fumble with your your fake penis (gun) and shoot yourself in the foot and are forced to watch you sister raped when you are next home invaded.
So... after that level of abuse, can we PLEASE lock this thread?
-
@slyadams said:
If its not the propensity of guns that causes this, what is it? Are Americans just much more violent and brainless than the rest of the world?
It couldn't be the numerous population centers, the vast diversity of people, and cultures. The vast spread of poor and wealthy all living together?
Have you ever even seen a map of population of the US compared to England?
Also, you are comparing crime in our big cities that have no firearms allowed. And then you are arguing that our lax firearm laws cause there murders. It seems incredible to me you could not read the thread and keep up with the adults talking. Maybe you wouldn't keep going after this point long after everyone else has shut up about it.
@slyadams said:
What? In that post you called me a fucking retard.
What can I say? Learn to quote properly and don't just assume we can all read your mind.
@slyadams said:
When you grow up, you will learn that you don't win debates by shouting, swearing and abusing people.
Well unfortunately for you there is no shouting, swearing or abusing any who didn't ask for it by trying to continue an argument that has been answered already.
@slyadams said:
I get the impression I'm talking to a couple of teenagers.
I can see how you might think that, I am sure it seems like you are talking to people much older than you are. Being that you are acting ~5 years old, us being teenagers seems about right in comparison.
-
@belialNZ said:
I'd be a fool to voice my personal opinion on the topic, outside of my opinion on this thread, which is, KILL IT.
I am sorry, there are adults talking here. Please just stay out of it if it bothers you so much. No one is forcing you to read it.
-
@belialNZ said:
And you sir, are a prick, pure and simple.
I sincerely hope that you fumble with your your fake penis (gun) and shoot yourself in the foot and are forced to watch you sister raped when you are next home invaded.
So... after that level of abuse, can we PLEASE lock this thread?
How about you learn to quote while you are trolling?
-
@slyadams said:
Actually mate, I don't need to prove it. I'm happy with the laws in my country, you are happy with the laws in your country. Difference is, you are 4 times more likely to be shot dead tomorrow than me. I'll stay where I am. Thanks all the same.
You may be right. I may be 4 times more likely to be shot dead tomorrow than you. However, you're 100 times more likely to be beaten to death after watching your wife being raped by intruders in your home because they ignored you when, while drinking your tea with your pinkie extended you said, "Please, old chap. I'd prefer if you didn't come in now. You're interrupting tea and all. Taa taa, now.". Meanwhile, 96 other times I've shot the intruder and then called the police while enjoying a nice cold beer.
-
@KenW said:
@slyadams said:
Actually mate, I don't need to prove it. I'm happy with the laws in my country, you are happy with the laws in your country. Difference is, you are 4 times more likely to be shot dead tomorrow than me. I'll stay where I am. Thanks all the same.
You may be right. I may be 4 times more likely to be shot dead tomorrow than you. However, you're 100 times more likely to be beaten to death after watching your wife being raped by intruders in your home because they ignored you when, while drinking your tea with your pinkie extended you said, "Please, old chap. I'd prefer if you didn't come in now. You're interrupting tea and all. Taa taa, now.". Meanwhile, 96 other times I've shot the intruder and then called the police while enjoying a nice cold beer.
Indeed, since the statistics he is trying to use against me (and doing horribly at I might add) say nothing about the likelihood of an armed citizen becoming the victim of an attack. But I wouldn't expect him to know that. Crying about a few insults is much more likely to make people feel sorry for him.
-
@belialNZ said:
This conversation (the polite term for it) is SO pointless.
Have you considered, sort of, not actually reading to it? Or at least not replying to it?@belialNZ said:
outside of my opinion on this thread, which is, KILL IT.
If your life's ambition is to moderate a forum, I don't think you'll succeed here.
-
@ammoQ said:
I mostly aggree with your reasoning, but then there are gangs engaged in gang wars. For a little drive-by-shooting, nothing beats a full-automatic machine gun. And then there are those criminals that go for the big deal and they expect resistence of say, half a dozen armed security men. For such gangster, firepower is necessary.
I agree with MPS that these scenarios are more likely to be bad movie plots than anything else, but let's look at them anyway. First, gang wars: we have gangsters killing other gangsters. Sometimes innocents might get caught in the crossfire, but that would the extreme exception. So what do I care if gangsters want more effective firepower to kill each other with? Hey, at the end of the day, it means more dead gangsters and I'm all for that. Of course, this also ignores the fact that organized crime really only exists because of moronic restrictions on highly-desired goods (usually drugs) which creates a black market. Second, the bank robbers: let's assume someone really was going to try to steal a well-defended stockpile of valuables and that there was no alternative but "going in the front door" and taking the guards on. Nobody would do this alone, they would assemble a team because 3 guys backing you up are worth more than all the firepower you can have. What's the big difference between 4 guys with machine guns and 4 guys with semi-auto shotguns and pistols? In fact, a fully automatic gun would probably be a liability in such a situation. Additionally, what point is there in killing anyone? Even if these are completely immoral people, killing one security guard could end up getting them the death penalty whereas stealing a few million dollars would just be jail time. Any halfway intelligent thief is going to avoid committing murder if he can.
@ammoQ said:
IMO there is hardly a way to stop weirdos like them. Someone who doesn't care for his own life and the identity of his victims can find many ways to kill several dozens.
You may not be able to stop them from coming in and shooting the place up, but if even a few students or faculty had been armed the VTech killer would not have managed to accumulate 33 kills. Even one saved life would have been fantastic, but most likely a citizen who is carrying a concealed firearm could have taken him down much sooner. Also, these guys are going for the infamy of the act and if they know they might not be able to kill more than 4 or 5 people before they are killed, they are a lot less likely to try it. The VTech shooter might have put all of his psychotic energies into another task. Of course, this is somewhat hopeful on my part, but it's well-proven that concealed guns act as a major deterrent for muggings and rape. Even if it didn't deter the psycho, having the ability to take him down would likely end the spree a lot quicker. Why do you think these people target schools, churches and malls? Lots of people who are unlikely to be armed. The state of Texas actually enacted its conceal carry laws after a psycho crashed into a restaurant and killed something like 21 people with a shotgun. Nobody could do anything because none of them were armed: you had a room full of Texans standing there, watching their loved ones being gunned down and with absolutely no way to stop the madness. If even one of them had a pistol that son of a bitch wouldn't have taken anywhere near two dozen lives. And even if you assume the absolute worst case, that the individual who was carrying concealed couldn't stop the rampage, at least they would have had a chance. Their only option wouldn't be cowering on the floor, praying that it was all a bad dream as a lunatic calmly walks around the room and murders one after the other.
-
We need guns for everyone....
How else are we going to kill all the headcrabs? with crowbars? they make a good backup, but only when you don't have time for a reload.
