|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2011 03:20:44 AM · #1 |
Shooting in Tucson and now every narrow/backward minded anti-gun doorstops attacking, not to crazy son of a bitch gunman, but to guns.
Listen up, you can kill anyone with one gas paddle... everyone from 16 to 90 drives today. Guns are not the reason of any crimes, people are. Guns don't fire by themselves. I am SICK and TIRED of hearing "gun-control" from those who DO NOT understand a crap about the subject. If you take guns from people who obey the law, DO YOU THINK criminal will stop carrying it? How DUMB do you think they are, or HOW DUMB DO YOU THINK WE ARE?
Google, and see how many crimes stopped by people who carry weapons daily. You will not hear any good stories but only the bad ones from time to time. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 07:08:36 AM · #2 |
I was thinking about this with the recent sad news. It is an emotive topic.
Gun law in the US has obvious roots first in revolution and later in the "wild" west. The modern need for weaponry to defend yourself against the state or native Americans has largely evaporated. The last remaining substantive justification is to interrupt criminality (in a country where guns are widespread) - i.e. vigilantism.
There are big pros and cons with vigilantism. On the one hand people are empowered to defend themselves. On the other, people are allowed to take the law into their own hands and become judge, jury and executioner. The problem with this is that the individuals empowered to be vigilantes have a wide range of moralities and intellectual capabilities.
The latest sad events reflect the negative aspects of vigilantism - a legally owned gun used by a mentally unstable person, spurred on by vitriolic politicking, in a misguided fashion. Tighter gun laws would reduce the risks of similar events happening (though of course they cannot be eradicated).
The argument is not a black and white, pro v. anti- gun equation. Laws can be tightened by degree to balance better the pros and cons of permitting gun ownership - like FocusPoint says, there are benefits and the US has a history of widespread gun ownership that cannot be ignored. However, in states with weak gun laws, I'd be surprised if there was not a justified demand for tighter controls.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2011 10:50:13 AM · #3 |
| Guns are causing fish and birds to drop dead. Well, maybe some of the birds. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 11:14:55 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
I am SICK and TIRED of hearing "gun-control" from those who DO NOT understand a crap about the subject. |
What's so wrong with gun control. I'm sorry, but I believe if you want to own a gun you should first be qualified to own it. You should be required to pass a psychological exam showing you're competent and not a risk to others. You should also have to take an accuracy test. I don't believe that guns should be in the hands of unbalanced people. I also hope that if someone on the street decides they need to start shooting to protect themselves, that they aren't going to shoot me in the process because they don't know how or where to shoot. As for the car analogy, you need to be of a certain age to drive, and you need to pass both a written & road test to get licenced. You must submit to eye exams every 4 years and not have anything medically preventing you from being a hazard to others. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 11:32:24 AM · #5 |
It's a hot-button issue. When our constitution was framed, the Founders wanted to be sure that a citizen's militia would be able to resist a tyrant, if one appeared. They did not visualize a time when modern weaponry was in the hands of morally bankrupt psychotic individuals and criminals of every stripe & persuasion.
The difference between then and now, basically, is in the effectiveness of the weapons. Small, deadly, inexpensive weaponry did not exist. It is ironic that, at the time of the revolution, only a small percentage of the population was actually armed...
I've always wondered how it came to pass that we in this country came to consider it a god-given right that we would be allowed to arm ourselves to the teeth without any oversight at all. It's insane. It's beyond insane, it's terrifying. And the "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" shibboleth is just a red herring, it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
R. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 11:50:59 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And the "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" shibboleth is just a red herring, it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
R. |
Disagree. That is sound logically.
If all x's are letters, and you have a bunch of x's, then you have a bunch of letters.. Simple right?
So, it follows that: If guns are illegal, and you own a gun, they you have broken the law.. (status:outlaw).
Oh, and I'd rather be shot to death than beaten to death... Seems much more humane really. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 11:56:09 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
If all x's are letters, and you have a bunch of x's, then you have a bunch of letters.. Simple right?
So, it follows that: If guns are illegal, and you own a gun, they you have broken the law.. (status:outlaw). |
That's not the point, and you know it.
R. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 12:32:55 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's a hot-button issue. When our constitution was framed, the Founders wanted to be sure that a citizen's militia would be able to resist a tyrant, if one appeared. They did not visualize a time when modern weaponry was in the hands of morally bankrupt psychotic individuals and criminals of every stripe & persuasion.
R. |
That's a good description of many politicians  Bear_Music.
There has been a law against killing people in this country for a long time. If laws would fix the problem, then the problem is already solved and the gun grabbers have nothing new to offer.
Leave my guns alone, and there will be no problem with me.
I live in a rough neighborhood, with many ILLEGAL immigrants here. If my home is being invaded, I would prefer calling *357 Magnum over calling 911 and waiting 20 minutes.
BTW, it is legal to kill someone who is posing a threat to you or your family in your home here in Florida, though it's not often done, but since the law has been in place the last few years, there have been fewer crimes that could get the criminal killed in the act in that manner.
Message edited by author 2011-01-10 12:37:31.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2011 12:40:20 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
If all x's are letters, and you have a bunch of x's, then you have a bunch of letters.. Simple right?
So, it follows that: If guns are illegal, and you own a gun, they you have broken the law.. (status:outlaw). |
That's not the point, and you know it.
R. |
Ahh, but I think it is.
Effectively, I think a firearms ban would turn out much like the drug war, since it's been proven many times that when we prohibit anything, people will simply create a shadow economy to support it's manufacture and distribution, and as a consequence, we usually see an increase in violence and disorder. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 12:41:09 PM · #10 |
When the gangs and the crazies give up their guns, when home invasions stop, when I feel safe walking when ever and where ever i may be... I'll gladly give up my guns. until then, i'm perfectly capable of protecing myself and my family from most threats. I think that's a right I should have.
But i do agree, crazy people like this guy shouldn't be able to get a gun legally. he passed the FBI background check, this is a failure of the system. he was kicked out of a school for being dangerously crazy. why isn't that on his record somewhere?
|
|
|
|
01/10/2011 12:45:56 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
When the gangs and the crazies give up their guns, when home invasions stop, when I feel safe walking when ever and where ever i may be... I'll gladly give up my guns. until then, i'm perfectly capable of protecing myself and my family from most threats. I think that's a right I should have.
But i do agree, crazy people like this guy shouldn't be able to get a gun legally. he passed the FBI background check, this is a failure of the system. he was kicked out of a school for being dangerously crazy. why isn't that on his record somewhere? |
Exactly! He also was denied entrance into the army after psychological testing. That should have disqualified him from being a gun owner. I'm not anti gun (though I would never own one personally), but I'm against them legally belonging to people who are incapable of rational decisions. And I still think training and testing should be required to own one. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 12:49:20 PM · #12 |
It is on his record. There is a Time magazine article explaining that the states are not complying with the law as far as reporting mental instabilities or some such. I also read that the first Walmart he tried to buy ammo at refused him. The second one obliged.
An unarmed 61 year old woman disarmed him according to reports.
I'd rather those considered too mentally unstable to attend community college not be allowed to own or operate weapons. But that's just me. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 12:54:18 PM · #13 |
People, I am NOT advocating a gun ban. I am advocating GUN CONTROL. And I don't think the "if guns are outlawed" shibboleth makes sense in that context. I don't want gun ownership outlawed, I just want to see it as seriously regulated, at least, as the right to drive an automobile is.
Okay?
R.
Message edited by author 2011-01-10 12:54:34. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 12:59:45 PM · #14 |
Kelli you are so right. People kill, not guns. Gun owners should be trained, tested and then apply before being allowed to purchase.
Re-application should be done too. No criminal should ever be allowed, for example to keep his weapons after the fact.
We have to agree, there must be rules to protect the 'guns' from not becoming a killer weapon. A person with an illegal gun should be given life. Wife beaters and gangsters etc should lose their guns on suspicion on a balance of probability . Losing your weapons should be easier than buying them!
But that would be unconstitutional, hey? Not the American way to be unconstitutional. protect the human's right, stuff the victims' rights. That is constitutional. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 01:03:42 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
People, I am NOT advocating a gun ban. I am advocating GUN CONTROL. And I don't think the "if guns are outlawed" shibboleth makes sense in that context. I don't want gun ownership outlawed, I just want to see it as seriously regulated, at least, as the right to drive an automobile is.
Okay?
R. |
All a fine idea...
Did you know I can build a gun (and the bullet) out of a bit of discarded pipe and dirt? Now, it won't exactly keep pace with a modern gun design, but it will fire lethal projectiles, and depending on my work level, perhaps fairly accurately (since we're talking about this in response to the Az. shooting, keep in mind that was a point-blank shot so accuracy was not important.)..
So, in recap, until you can keep people away from dirt and pipes you probably won't see the end of nutjobs having guns.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2011 01:09:58 PM · #16 |
Another point RE: the Giffords assassination attempt..
Since it was indeed a point-blank shot, I submit that the gun actually SAVED HER LIFE.
Sound like odd logic? Ok, I'll explain.
Essentially, since he was so close, a knife or other bladed object would have been a viable option. And although we are afraid of gun shot wounds, they are in effect (discounting hydrological shock, which is minimal in all but the largest handguns (.500 S&W for example)) nothing more than holes through your body.
Now, taking that information, we know that most bullets are < 1/2" in diameter, while we also know that most knives are >1" in diameter. (funny enough, this is the reason that broadhead arrows are so darn effective, they are often >1" dia)...
Given that if he had chosen a knife instead of a gun, it's very likely that he would have delivered a fatal stab wound at such a close range (severed arteries are a BAD thing...)... So, it is actually possible (maybe even likely?) that a knife would have delivered a fatal blow..
*shrug* - mostly my point is that we spend too much time talking about the damned weapon of choice, really it's the people that are the problem, not the object they choose. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 01:16:07 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Another point RE: the Giffords assassination attempt..
Since it was indeed a point-blank shot, I submit that the gun actually SAVED HER LIFE.
Sound like odd logic? Ok, I'll explain.
Essentially, since he was so close, a knife or other bladed object would have been a viable option. And although we are afraid of gun shot wounds, they are in effect (discounting hydrological shock, which is minimal in all but the largest handguns (.500 S&W for example)) nothing more than holes through your body.
Now, taking that information, we know that most bullets are < 1/2" in diameter, while we also know that most knives are >1" in diameter. (funny enough, this is the reason that broadhead arrows are so darn effective, they are often >1" dia)...
Given that if he had chosen a knife instead of a gun, it's very likely that he would have delivered a fatal stab wound at such a close range (severed arteries are a BAD thing...)... So, it is actually possible (maybe even likely?) that a knife would have delivered a fatal blow..
*shrug* - mostly my point is that we spend too much time talking about the damned weapon of choice, really it's the people that are the problem, not the object they choose. |
And a knife wouldn't have killed and wounded 13 others.
Look, I think most people in here have been able to make good points without resorting to ignorantly ridiculous bullshit. Kindly do the same :D |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 01:19:29 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Another point RE: the Giffords assassination attempt..
Since it was indeed a point-blank shot, I submit that the gun actually SAVED HER LIFE.
Sound like odd logic? Ok, I'll explain.
Essentially, since he was so close, a knife or other bladed object would have been a viable option. And although we are afraid of gun shot wounds, they are in effect (discounting hydrological shock, which is minimal in all but the largest handguns (.500 S&W for example)) nothing more than holes through your body.
Now, taking that information, we know that most bullets are < 1/2" in diameter, while we also know that most knives are >1" in diameter. (funny enough, this is the reason that broadhead arrows are so darn effective, they are often >1" dia)...
Given that if he had chosen a knife instead of a gun, it's very likely that he would have delivered a fatal stab wound at such a close range (severed arteries are a BAD thing...)... So, it is actually possible (maybe even likely?) that a knife would have delivered a fatal blow..
*shrug* - mostly my point is that we spend too much time talking about the damned weapon of choice, really it's the people that are the problem, not the object they choose. |
And a knife wouldn't have killed and wounded 13 others.
Look, I think most people in here have been able to make good points without resorting to ignorantly ridiculous bullshit. Kindly do the same :D |
Really, you see that as "ignorant bullshit" huh?
Kindly, don't use the word kindly while you're insulting me. ok asshat?
Oh, and I do disagree, I think a person with a couple of very sharp knives might have wounded / killed even more people. Remember that he was stopped because he was unable to reload.. Knives don't need reloading.
**********
ETA: I should make note here (for credibility purposes) that I grew up on working ranches, and as such I've used all three methods of killing, many, many times. I can assure you that guns are the least effective.
 K10DGuy - just out of curiosity, how much killing have you done to make you such an expert on the subject of weapon type vs. lethality?
Message edited by author 2011-01-10 13:32:29. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 01:31:42 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Another point RE: the Giffords assassination attempt..
Since it was indeed a point-blank shot, I submit that the gun actually SAVED HER LIFE.
Sound like odd logic? Ok, I'll explain.
Essentially, since he was so close, a knife or other bladed object would have been a viable option. And although we are afraid of gun shot wounds, they are in effect (discounting hydrological shock, which is minimal in all but the largest handguns (.500 S&W for example)) nothing more than holes through your body.
Now, taking that information, we know that most bullets are < 1/2" in diameter, while we also know that most knives are >1" in diameter. (funny enough, this is the reason that broadhead arrows are so darn effective, they are often >1" dia)...
Given that if he had chosen a knife instead of a gun, it's very likely that he would have delivered a fatal stab wound at such a close range (severed arteries are a BAD thing...)... So, it is actually possible (maybe even likely?) that a knife would have delivered a fatal blow..
*shrug* - mostly my point is that we spend too much time talking about the damned weapon of choice, really it's the people that are the problem, not the object they choose. |
And a knife wouldn't have killed and wounded 13 others.
Look, I think most people in here have been able to make good points without resorting to ignorantly ridiculous bullshit. Kindly do the same :D |
Really, you see that as "ignorant bullshit" huh?
Kindly don't use the word kindly while your insulting me ok asshat?
Oh, and I do disagree, I think a person with a couple of very sharp knives might have wounded / killed even more people. Remember that he was stopped because he was unable to reload.. Knives don't need reloading. |
Your point that the type of weapon used being irrelevant is lost in the bullshit that is your attempt to justify one particular decision as some kind of heroic choice. It IS ignorant. I don't care if you don't 'think' so.
*edit* Oh, I see, so now you're equating killing animals with a room full of humans as some kind of expert opinion. lol. Whatever man. I guess ignorance is bliss.
Message edited by author 2011-01-10 13:33:00. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 01:35:37 PM · #20 |
| Cory, surely you are not advocating for mentally unstable persons to be able to buy weapons, are you? I think that is the primary issue here - failure of the system to maintain adequate checks and balances. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 01:36:05 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Your point that the type of weapon used being irrelevant is lost in the bullshit that is your attempt to justify one particular decision as some kind of heroic choice. It IS ignorant. I don't care if you don't 'think' so. |
WTF are you smoking? Where the hell did I imply that his choice of a gun was somehow fucking heroic? The guy's a huge ass-hat psycho..
And as an aside, you're pretty cool with your 1-line responses that are effectively equivalent to "You're so f-ing stupid I don't even need to state my point.".. Maybe if you actually had something to say I'd find you to be less of an sniping asshole.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2011 01:38:47 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Did you know I can build a gun (and the bullet) out of a bit of discarded pipe and dirt? Now, it won't exactly keep pace with a modern gun design, but it will fire lethal projectiles, and depending on my work level, perhaps fairly accurately (since we're talking about this in response to the Az. shooting, keep in mind that was a point-blank shot so accuracy was not important.)..
So, in recap, until you can keep people away from dirt and pipes you probably won't see the end of nutjobs having guns. |
Well, countries with a history of stringent gun control don't have anything LIKE the problems we do with gunshot deaths, Cory. And can build a freakin' BOMB out of common household chemicals, so by the above logic the gov't has no business regulating explosives?
Look, you know as well as I do that it takes a whole different level of intestinal fortitude to knife somebody than it does to shoot them. For you to argue with a straight face that the gun "saved her life" is, as K10D guy said, unmitigated bullshit. Sorry, but that's how I see it. And I'm far, far from a bleeding heart, ban-all-the-guns peacenik, believe me.
R. |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 01:40:56 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
People, I am NOT advocating a gun ban. I am advocating GUN CONTROL. And I don't think the "if guns are outlawed" shibboleth makes sense in that context. I don't want gun ownership outlawed, I just want to see it as seriously regulated, at least, as the right to drive an automobile is. |
Exactly - or, to put it into a constitutional context for the "cold, dead hands" crowd: Even if the individual right to possess firearms is constitutionally protected - as recent Supreme Court opinions have held - that does not mean that reasonable regulation and even restriction on gun ownership cannot, and even should not, be enacted.
ALL constitutional protections are subject to reasonable restriction (not that what counts as "reasonable" is always clear.)
Just as a person's individual right to free speech does not allow a person to legally advocate violence and/or the overthrow of the government by force;
Just as a person's individual right to worship does not allow that person to demand that others worship in the same manner (or at all) or that the government provide explicit sanction for his/her particular belief/worship practices;
Just as the right to free assembly does not prevent the police from breaking up a mob or preventing protesters from blocking legal access to abortion clinics;
Just as the press' right to report does not allow a reporter to commit defamation;
Just as the "first freedoms" (aka, those granted by the First Amendment) are subject to reasonable regulation and even restriction under certain circumstances, so too the right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment.
Odd that the people who the most vitriolic in their defense of one, often are willing to accept and even advocate for, the most egregious denials of the freedoms granted by the other. (See - "god and guns" NRA nuts, who proclaim the USA a "christian nation" and feel that Islamic groups can be told what they can and cannot build on private property because Islam is not a "real religion" subject to the protections afforded by the 1st Amendment; see also - liberal 1st Amendment purists who think that anyone with a hunting rifle is automatically a "gun nut" and would be perfectly willing to ban private possession of any form of firearm.)
|
|
|
|
01/10/2011 01:41:07 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Cory, surely you are not advocating for mentally unstable persons to be able to buy weapons, are you? I think that is the primary issue here - failure of the system to maintain adequate checks and balances. |
Of course not... I'm making the point that we all have kitchen knives, even the psychotic - and that often times the knife is actually more lethal.
Here, before you all think you know something about lethality have a read of these, then come back here and let's talk.
Also, do note that in addition to my childhood of ranching, as a teenager I also spent a good many years studying martial arts... Not that I find it useful in my life anymore (many, many changes in lifestyle), but I do know quite a bit more than your average person about killing and fighting, what works and what doesn't.
//forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?153585-Knife-vs.-Gun-shot-lethality
//www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=letality+of+knife+vs+gunshot#hl=en&&sa=X&ei=ylErTaH_Dsn-nAenoYWhAQ&ved=0CBIQBSgA&q=lethality+of+knife+vs+gun+shot&spell=1&fp=9bef8cda26d1a6ec |
|
|
|
01/10/2011 01:41:56 PM · #25 |
The foul language is not necessary. Kindly just shoot at each other. :)
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:38:01 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:38:01 PM EDT.
|
