| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Adolith
Germany37 Posts
If everybody (and that includes stupid/unexperienced people) has guns, what will happen in this public shootout situations? How do they know who is the bad guy when everybody has a gun in his hand? The common person is not trained to handle those kind of situations - I would image there will be a lot of "friendly fire". | ||
|
Ironsights
United States196 Posts
Do you feel the gun laws in your state are sufficient? Do think requiring someone to have a permit or licence to purchase or bear a gun would impair law-abiding citizens from acquiring guns or their freedom to protect themselves with guns? Do you feel that there should be different or higher standards for purchasing and operating different classes of guns, like semi-automatic assault rifles? 1: More than. I feel like the gun laws in my state are oppressive and should be relaxed. Eliminate ID cards and institute Conceal carry. 2: Yes. As is, my grandmother is REQUIRED to keep a FOID card so that when my grandfather passes on, should he go first, she can take ownership of his guns and then give them out to their sons. As the law reads, since she is his sole inheritor, she HAS to take possession first, and if she didn't have a card that state would instantly confiscate the guns, no chance for her to get a card then reclaim them. However, a gun card is a compromise I am willing to endure. I'll sign the list if it makes the other side back off. 3: Only for the purposes of conceal carry type weapons. You should be allowed to purchase and use whatever you like on private property, but should have to be well trained to carry the weapon with intent to use it. It shows quite a lot about your mental stability if in your mind the balance of justice equates a wallet to a life. Whether you kills or wounded them doesn't matter. Whats the first thing they tell you in gun class? Don't aim at anything you're not WILLING TO DESTROY. No shrink on the planet is going to tell you that what you're saying is a mature, logical, well thought idea. You're not Cobra from the 80's. Someone wants your wallet, that sucks ass man, it does. But nowhere in the realm of sanity does discharging your weapon into them come into the picture. I didn't say i wasn't willing to destroy them, I said it was not relevant. What IS relevant is that they deserved to be attacked. If you are willing to attack me you should be willing to suffer teh damages I can offer in defense. Nor did I say I would shoot first. I would of course try and defend myself, if forced into a corner I would produce my weapon. If the attackers flee, its over. If they choose to fight, I'll shoot. End of story. And no, that doesn't show me to be insane, immature, et al. However, I doubt I will be changing your mind since you seem to think liking weapons is a mental disorder. So, by your definition what about the kid in school who takes the fat kids lunch money? Better hope the fat kid doesn't blast him? It's all cool. Even I don't think children should be allowed to carry weapons in school, nor go seeking revenge with a weapon. Hence why I am -OK- with carry permits requiring training. However, if the bully tries to take the "fat kid's" lunch money and the kid gives him an ass whoopin' instead, yes, I am fine with that. As something of a nerd myself in high school, but having been raised in a military family, I can assure you I surprised more than a few bullies and left the hurting for it. your principle: fine and 'good' but your life and well-being is more than just you or your ideals. i know that by the fact that you (most certainly) have a family of your own and that the people who wanted to steal from you had family and friends as well. by what you can read here already, there are many more people who think that fighting for your life in a dangerous position (which can otherwise be avoided) is more foolish than cowardly. It is a gamble with your life where i'd argue that one of the only things gained out of it is a sense of justice I disagree with you, but you present a sound opinion, and one that I will respect. You put more value on the individual life than I do. that is noble. I accept death, accept the risk, and was honestly raised to embrace it. As I said, you never start the fight, but you don't lose it. If ever I started a fight, I was punished for it. If I lost, I was punished. And looking back, I thank them for that. I learned that fighting was wrong, a last resort, but I also learned to be strong. Thank you for a well stated counter point. /Respect You can place your life in all the danger you want. Just don't expect anyone else to come to your rescue or care when you die. You put yourself in a stupid spot to make a stand, awesome job, good luck with that. No one asked you to come rescue us, or to even care. All we ask is that you NOT take our tools away that allow us to make those stands and survive them. And to the point on page 119, about my friend having been with me. I would have of course encouraged him to run. I ask that no one fight/die beside me. Should he choose to stand beside me, I would be honored, but I am not selfish enough to demand it. If my actions led to his death, to no avail, I would honestly regret that. But, as a man of my mind, I would accept that sorrowful burden as necessary. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 22 2012 18:22 Ironsights wrote: First, answering some questions: 1: More than. I feel like the gun laws in my state are oppressive and should be relaxed. Eliminate ID cards and institute Conceal carry. 2: Yes. As is, my grandmother is REQUIRED to keep a FOID card so that when my grandfather passes on, should he go first, she can take ownership of his guns and then give them out to their sons. As the law reads, since she is his sole inheritor, she HAS to take possession first, and if she didn't have a card that state would instantly confiscate the guns, no chance for her to get a card then reclaim them. However, a gun card is a compromise I am willing to endure. I'll sign the list if it makes the other side back off. 3: Only for the purposes of conceal carry type weapons. You should be allowed to purchase and use whatever you like on private property, but should have to be well trained to carry the weapon with intent to use it. Thank you for answering my questions. What state are you in, might I ask? Edit: Illinois? | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On July 22 2012 17:26 Saryph wrote: While I hate the idea of denying the holocaust, wouldn't making it illegal to deny it be a violation of your constitution? How would a law supercede the constitution? I'm asking because I honestly don't understand. First of all, I think holocaust denial should not be illegal. The legal reason for this exception to the general rule is based on the right to protection against discrimination and racism that is also in the constitution of most European countries. Common law simply says that the right to free speech does not weigh as heavily as protection against hate speech. It also needs to be seen in the historical context in which they were written, namely, immediately after the second world war, after most of Europe's jews were exterminated. This was also the time Mein Kampf was banned I can't speak for Germany, it is probably more sensitive there, but in the Netherlands many politicians support the legality of holocaust denial. However, there hasn't been a vote because of the outrage of Jewish organizations, any time such a thing is mentioned. Also the fact that there are so few holocaust deniers and they aren't really going to jail anyway. It just doesn't seem worth it for politicians to wage their career on something so sensitive, with so few real benefits. You are correct that the American constitution provides a much less ambiguous guarantee of free speech. It is one of the things I admire about that crazy country. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
Every 14.6 seconds a burglary takes place in the U.S.… and… 60% of rapes occur during a home invasion. The theory that you can just 'hand them your wallet' and everything will be fine is not even close to accurate. When you give thugs an inch, they'll take a mile. Whereas most common thugs will drop everything and run at the sight of a gun. While I am prepared to fire it if I draw it, I know that most of the time pulling the trigger is unneccesary and illogical. Once someone knows you're armed and willing to use it, everything changes. You're not the helpless victim they thought you were. Many times, they only use intimidation to get what they want: surrounding you in groups, flashing a knife, flashing an unloaded gun or replica air pistol to give you a scare....Most thugs may pretend like they don't give a fuck, that they are true 'gangstas', but most are actually cowards who pray on weakness, who turn tail and run when they know they are now facing death. And most aren't willing to cross the line from thief or sexual predator to murderer. | ||
|
Ironsights
United States196 Posts
Do you feel the gun laws in your state are sufficient? Do think requiring someone to have a permit or licence to purchase or bear a gun would impair law-abiding citizens from acquiring guns or their freedom to protect themselves with guns? Do you feel that there should be different or higher standards for purchasing and operating different classes of guns, like semi-automatic assault rifles? 1: More than. I feel like the gun laws in my state are oppressive and should be relaxed. Eliminate ID cards and institute Conceal carry. 2: Yes. As is, my grandmother is REQUIRED to keep a FOID card so that when my grandfather passes on, should he go first, she can take ownership of his guns and then give them out to their sons. As the law reads, since she is his sole inheritor, she HAS to take possession first, and if she didn't have a card that state would instantly confiscate the guns, no chance for her to get a card then reclaim them. However, a gun card is a compromise I am willing to endure. I'll sign the list if it makes the other side back off. 3: Only for the purposes of conceal carry type weapons. You should be allowed to purchase and use whatever you like on private property, but should have to be well trained to carry the weapon with intent to use it. It shows quite a lot about your mental stability if in your mind the balance of justice equates a wallet to a life. Whether you kills or wounded them doesn't matter. Whats the first thing they tell you in gun class? Don't aim at anything you're not WILLING TO DESTROY. No shrink on the planet is going to tell you that what you're saying is a mature, logical, well thought idea. You're not Cobra from the 80's. Someone wants your wallet, that sucks ass man, it does. But nowhere in the realm of sanity does discharging your weapon into them come into the picture. I didn't say i wasn't willing to destroy them, I said it was not relevant. What IS relevant is that they deserved to be attacked. If you are willing to attack me you should be willing to suffer teh damages I can offer in defense. Nor did I say I would shoot first. I would of course try and defend myself, if forced into a corner I would produce my weapon. If the attackers flee, its over. If they choose to fight, I'll shoot. End of story. And no, that doesn't show me to be insane, immature, et al. However, I doubt I will be changing your mind since you seem to think liking weapons is a mental disorder. So, by your definition what about the kid in school who takes the fat kids lunch money? Better hope the fat kid doesn't blast him? It's all cool. Even I don't think children should be allowed to carry weapons in school, nor go seeking revenge with a weapon. Hence why I am -OK- with carry permits requiring training. However, if the bully tries to take the "fat kid's" lunch money and the kid gives him an ass whoopin' instead, yes, I am fine with that. As something of a nerd myself in high school, but having been raised in a military family, I can assure you I surprised more than a few bullies and left the hurting for it. your principle: fine and 'good' but your life and well-being is more than just you or your ideals. i know that by the fact that you (most certainly) have a family of your own and that the people who wanted to steal from you had family and friends as well. by what you can read here already, there are many more people who think that fighting for your life in a dangerous position (which can otherwise be avoided) is more foolish than cowardly. It is a gamble with your life where i'd argue that one of the only things gained out of it is a sense of justice I disagree with you, but you present a sound opinion, and one that I will respect. You put more value on the individual life than I do. that is noble. I accept death, accept the risk, and was honestly raised to embrace it. As I said, you never start the fight, but you don't lose it. If ever I started a fight, I was punished for it. If I lost, I was punished. And looking back, I thank them for that. I learned that fighting was wrong, a last resort, but I also learned to be strong. Thank you for a well stated counter point. /Respect You can place your life in all the danger you want. Just don't expect anyone else to come to your rescue or care when you die. You put yourself in a stupid spot to make a stand, awesome job, good luck with that. No one asked you to come rescue us, or to even care. All we ask is that you NOT take our tools away that allow us to make those stands and survive them. And to the point on page 119, about my friend having been with me. I would have of course encouraged him to run. I ask that no one fight/die beside me. Should he choose to stand beside me, I would be honored, but I am not selfish enough to demand it. If my actions led to his death, to no avail, I would honestly regret that. But, as a man of my mind, I would accept that sorrowful burden as necessary. Edit: to the fellow on the previous page say he doesn't understand why the right to bear arms still exists here: that is a tough one. the "easy" asnwer is because of the number of people liek me that will die before we hand over our guns, and we raise our families to be the same. I was trained from birth in firearms safety, and was given my first gun when I was six. No way in hell I'll EVER hand it over. The cost in money and life to remove the guns from teh country would be too great. The more philosophical answer is that we believe in that amendment. We are a nation born of rebellion, and we strive to remember that. Sure, the world is great now, but that doesn't mean it always will be. What happens when the next dictator tries to conquer the word? It could happen, and it will. What if that dictator is American? e gads! It could happen. But at least Americans are armed and can choose to fight back. That is the idea, in short. Edit 2: Fixed the "quotes" | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On July 22 2012 18:05 Adolith wrote: One thing I wonder about: If everybody (and that includes stupid/unexperienced people) has guns, what will happen in this public shootout situations? How do they know who is the bad guy when everybody has a gun in his hand? The common person is not trained to handle those kind of situations - I would image there will be a lot of "friendly fire". You can usually tell who the bad guy is by who is wearing a mask, standing on a table, knocking things over or throwing people, or yelling 'get down on the fucking ground. Put your wallet and jewelry out in front of you'. Bad guys usually aren't the ones down on the ground with their hands on their heads. You know, things like that. | ||
|
Ironsights
United States196 Posts
On July 22 2012 18:28 Defacer wrote: Thank you for answering my questions. What state are you in, might I ask? Illinois, sadly. I stay here because it is where my family is...parents, grandparents, cousins...etc. If not for my blood ties to this place, I would most likely have left "home" long ago for a state that is more fitting of my ideals...say Mississippi or Texas. Hell, even Iowa lol. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On July 22 2012 18:32 StarStrider wrote: You can usually tell who the bad guy is by who is wearing a mask, standing on a table, knocking things over or throwing people, or yelling 'get down on the fucking ground. Put your wallet and jewelry out in front of you'. Bad guys usually aren't the ones down on the ground with their hands on their heads. You know, things like that. Yeah bad guys are usually easy to identify. They look something like this | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On July 22 2012 13:08 heliusx wrote: Yeah, I would be fucking mad if anyone just started shooting while I'm in a public place. It's one thing to shoot in self defense. It's a whole different story to start flinging lead to defend some money at the possible expense of someone getting shot. When a criminal enters a building with a handgun....there is already a risk of someone getting shot. Shooting them first minimalizes that risk, whether their gun was loaded or not. If someone has a deadly gun pointed at you, and someone else shoots them and now you no longer have a deadly gun pointed at you, I promise you will not go bitching at that person saying 'dude you could have killed me. I'm suing you'. If you would still do that, you're the biggest chickenshit dickwad I've ever met. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On July 22 2012 18:38 Crushinator wrote: Yeah bad guys are usually easy to identify. They look something like this Or like this. ![[image loading]](http://www.annarbor.com/2009/11/05/robber1.jpg) | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
You are a racist, sir. Not all black men are criminals  | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On July 22 2012 18:44 Crushinator wrote: You are a racist, sir. Not all black men are criminals I lol'd Not all men who wear striped suits and masks are criminals. Some mimes just like to stay anonymous while carrying their life savings around in giant cloth bags of money. Stop projecting :D | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
The constitution can get a little funny - the government cannot censor people. A corporation can as it is considered a private entity (and as a person it's actually a violation of its free speech rights if it cannot prevent an employee from saying something). Also there are limits to all of the bills of rights, which vary depending on the supreme court and president (Habeaus Corpus was suspended by Lincoln as well as George Bush, for example, and slavery was obviously legal under certain courts). Free speech is permissible even if it's incredibly hateful but issuing threats, causing riots (most famous case is yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. A bunch of people got trampled), etc. are still punishable by law because of the effects and intent. If 500 people die because of something you said, the first amendment doesn't justify that (the declaration of independence states life, liberty, pursuit of happiness - and it's in that order for a reason). Defamation is flat out lying about someone with intent to cause harm to their reputation, if I remember the definition, and the issue at hand there isn't free speech but the damage that can be inflicted by spreading falsehoods about someone (say accusing someone of a vicious crime with absolutely no proof). Generally these cases would appear in civil, not criminal courts, where money tends to be what is at stake. Libel is the same thing but printed, I think. Libel is far more commonly an issue than defamation. I'm probably the last person on Earth who wants to DEFEND America, btw. Americans are arrogant and ignorant for the most part, and the oligarchs of the country are content with that (if you know what jury nullification is you're actually not allowed to be on a jury... even though it's one of the primary purposes of having juries in the first place. You are actually allowed to be on the jury, it's just that if the prosecution realizes that you know what it is before the case goes forth they will move to block you from being a juror, typically). We're a polity and were always intended to have strong oligarchical elements, but our current Oligarchs are just... ugh. edit : I was thinking of defamation per se. I did NOT realize that 3 states don't believe in it lol. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:28 Yongwang wrote: More guns = Less crime AND more open government AND more freedom Less guns = More crime AND more authoritarian government AND less freedom No. There is a simple reason for that, barring the numbers themselves who prove you wrong : - Criminal groups will always have automatic weapons, regardless of the regulations. > Equal crime, maybe a bit more in unarmed countries. - A motivated individual who WANTS to commit a crime will commit it anyway, prohibition on weapons or not, since he can always find one. Except a large percentage of them will only find a handgun or something like that, instead of rifles + thousands of bullets (there are exceptions, see Breivik) > For the sake of argument, let's say equal crime rate (harder to find weapon vs easier to defend) - The main problem is the random person having a temporary change in his mind set and compulsively committing an assault. These guys, let's say in France, will NOT have access to a weapon, and thus there is a much lesser chance he will commit a murder. There are actually a *lot* of these guys. Then, you argue about the right to defend yourself. Do you really think we have the need to own a gun or a rifle in a country where only hardcore thugs have weapons ? There are efficient tools, like tasers etc, to defend in case your opponent doesn't have one. I don't feel my liberty is impeded, thank you very much. Do you think the slaughters, like last night in that cinema, would have been avoided if everyone carried a weapon ? No, even less. People would have fired everywhere, mistook one another in the dark for the murderer, and there would most probably have been more casualties. Having a lot of guns is one of the reasons the US have more crime. Having guns is a tradition in the US, it has been for centuries, I can understand why they are in your culture, and not ours. However, they DO imply more crime, and that is not due to "lots of people statistically likely to commit crime", but to people having access to a weapon, and thus a much easier access to crime. I'd say it might be fine to own a handgun (for self defence purposes), but rifles, machineguns, any automatic weapons ? L O L. (as a background, I'm a soldier, so, I'm kinda familiar to weapons and what the power of having them mean on people.) edit : ok I'm sorry I'm necroing the first pages, I don't really have the time to read the whole thread today.... just take it as a reaction to a single comment, and not fueling the ongoing discussion :'( | ||
|
Ironsights
United States196 Posts
On July 22 2012 19:07 Nevuk wrote: The conservative arguments that if someone with a CC license had been there fewer people would have died just don't hold water in my opinion. The dude was dressed in full body armor and it was dark. It's likely more people would have died from accidental crossfire (in fact, almost certain that some would) rather than taking the gunman down. From my understanding, it would have taken weapons stronger than a concealed carry permits to penetrate his armor. It also all took place incredibly rapidly (something like 90 seconds before police were on the scene) and most people thought it was just part of the premiere. I really, really doubt that there wasn't at least one person in the audience with a CC permit (Colorado isn't texas, but it's still a state where it's more common than average to have CC permit/carry a gun around). The constitution can get a little funny - the government cannot censor people. A corporation can as it is considered a private entity (and as a person it's actually a violation of its free speech rights if it cannot prevent an employee from saying something). Also there are limits to all of the bills of rights, which vary depending on the supreme court and president (Habeaus Corpus was suspended by Lincoln as well as George Bush, for example, and slavery was obviously legal under certain courts). Free speech is permissible even if it's incredibly hateful but issuing threats, causing riots (most famous case is yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. A bunch of people got trampled), etc. are still punishable by law because of the effects and intent. If 500 people die because of something you said, the first amendment doesn't justify that (the declaration of independence states life, liberty, pursuit of happiness - and it's in that order for a reason). Defamation is flat out lying about someone with intent to cause harm to their reputation, if I remember the definition, and the issue at hand there isn't free speech but the damage that can be inflicted by spreading falsehoods about someone (say accusing someone of a vicious crime with absolutely no proof). Generally these cases would appear in civil, not criminal courts, where money tends to be what is at stake. Libel is the same thing but printed, I think. Libel is far more commonly an issue than defamation. I'm probably the last person on Earth who wants to DEFEND America, btw. Americans are arrogant and ignorant for the most part, and the oligarchs of the country are content with that (if you know what jury nullification is you're actually not allowed to be on a jury... even though it's one of the primary purposes of having juries in the first place. You are actually allowed to be on the jury, it's just that if the prosecution realizes that you know what it is before the case goes forth they will move to block you from being a juror, typically). We're a polity and were always intended to have strong oligarchical elements, but our current Oligarchs are just... ugh. I would liek to politely point out a few things here. 1: he did NOT have full body armor on, his head was exposed. Aim for the face. Also, a vest doesnt stop the impact, it stops penetration. Thus, shooting him might not have killed him, but WOULD have knowcked him down/slowed him down, thus saving lives. 2: Men and women who beleive in this country, its constitution, and in the rights of its citizens die Every Day, so that you can hold your anti-American beliefs. Wrap your mind around that. No insult intended, just honestly think about it. People like me will give our lives so you can tell the world how stupid/evil we were. We will DIE so that you can sleep safe after blogging about how bad America is. Remeber, we don't hate you, so please, don't hate us. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On July 22 2012 19:14 Ironsights wrote: I would liek to politely point out a few things here. 1: he did NOT have full body armor on, his head was exposed. Aim for the face. Also, a vest doesnt stop the impact, it stops penetration. Thus, shooting him might not have killed him, but WOULD have knowcked him down/slowed him down, thus saving lives. 2: Men and women who beleive in this country, its constitution, and in the rights of its citizens die Every Day, so that you can hold your anti-American beliefs. Wrap your mind around that. No insult intended, just honestly think about it. People like me will give our lives so you can tell the world how stupid/evil we were. We will DIE so that you can sleep safe after blogging about how bad America is. Remeber, we don't hate you, so please, don't hate us. You have probably never had serious (as in, military, street combat and tactics) gun shooting training. A headshot with a handgun is an extremely difficult thing to do, nigh impossible, in a dark place, even on a still opponent. A regular citizen would have no chance to hit it. NONE. I'm giving my life too, so people can do what they want, be it killing themselves if they want to. I don't hold anti-american beliefs either, except maybe one : you say you want to be left free, but that's not your external, diplomatic policy :p This is off-topic though. I don't hate you, too  | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On July 22 2012 19:14 Ironsights wrote: I would liek to politely point out a few things here. 1: he did NOT have full body armor on, his head was exposed. Aim for the face. Also, a vest doesnt stop the impact, it stops penetration. Thus, shooting him might not have killed him, but WOULD have knowcked him down/slowed him down, thus saving lives. 2: Men and women who beleive in this country, its constitution, and in the rights of its citizens die Every Day, so that you can hold your anti-American beliefs. Wrap your mind around that. No insult intended, just honestly think about it. People like me will give our lives so you can tell the world how stupid/evil we were. We will DIE so that you can sleep safe after blogging about how bad America is. Remeber, we don't hate you, so please, don't hate us. 1. He had a gas mask on. Not exactly armor, but it would've made him harder to see in the darkened theater. It was noisy, dark, and he apparently picked a noisier scene to make his entrance. Seeing a figure dressed in black in a dark theater well enough to take a shot at him, even if he is firing weapons is hard enough in the first place. Most people with CC licenses aren't exactly terrible shots but they were civilians basically pushed into a battle-scenario and headshots with handguns are very difficult from anything but a very close distance. (This is what I've been told. I don't know if training has been improved, but I was under the understanding that the majority of people with handguns are trained to aim for the torso). I think that even if he had attacked a theater filled with military/combat police he still likely would have killed a few people from the surprise. 2. I don't hate you. I like many of the ideals in the declaration of independence and constitution. I hate the plutocrats and oligarchs. I hold nothing against soldiers who defend the country or people who are ignorant (I started to type out that Americans tended to be stupid in the other post, but the reality is that we tend to be ignorant. I had no idea what LIBOR was until last week, shit like that). 3. The way veterans were treated after Vietnam was despicable. (Now, we might get into an argument over whether invading Iraq/Vietnam is really protecting my freedom, but that's a different story - and we can have a respectful debate/argument over it). (Hell, I'm the son of an army cavalry major, and a nephew and grandson of pilots. I don't hate my father (or the other two though I hardly know them). He left the military after the first gulf war because he didn't believe that the US military's actions had been moral and disagreed with the direction our military was headed) Sorry if I came off a bit aggressively/blunt. I didn't mean to give the impression that I hated every American. I just think as a people we're under-educated and overconfident. I hate people like Soros, Sheldon Aldeson, Koch brothers, etc. because I don't think it ethical for so few people to hold so much power (I would name more figures but you know what I'm referring to here). (my political views are to the extreme left, a form of societal anarchism, but I actually DO NOT want the second amendment revoked. I think that it's there to prevent martial law and to allow the populace to revolt if the government DOES go too far in some manner). edit : and there are probably a half dozen lethal weapons in my house. They're all legal and I was given cursory training by my father (who I live with, kind of pathetic at 23 but that's our generation) in all of them. I know how to handle a pistol, shoot a rifle, aim a bow, fence with a rapier, and fight with a saber. Knives are probably the only thing he didn't cover with me. He wasn't training me to hunt, he was training me in case I ever needed to defend myself or wanted to join the military myself (which I could have never handled, I would've been kicked out by a drill sergeant after the first few dozen times I told him to go fuck himself in bootcamp. My brother is much tamer and got kicked out of air force boot camp for being ... well ... crazy.) double edit : the important thing to me is more that we have either no or very little ammo for any of these weapons (well, besides the longbow). My father actually has sharpshooting trophies (I guess captains/majors get bored and go to the practice range or something) but after having children he basically got rid of all the ammo for the guns because he thought the risk of one of us injuring ourselves with them was greater than him needing to protect us with them. He never did get rid of the bayonets or saber though, but he doesn't touch them and stores them out of reach of any young child, and none of them have been sharpened in decades. | ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On July 22 2012 18:05 Adolith wrote: One thing I wonder about: If everybody (and that includes stupid/unexperienced people) has guns, what will happen in this public shootout situations? How do they know who is the bad guy when everybody has a gun in his hand? The common person is not trained to handle those kind of situations - I would image there will be a lot of "friendly fire". In the kind of situation that existed in Aurora - tear gas + crowded dark room - anyone attempting to help by using their weapons to end the rampage would be more likely to injure or kill innocent people than the shooter, and if multiple people had the same idea it is likely that those who were slower on the draw would not be able to distinguish between the bad guy and the other good guys as they would all be firing. It would also immensely complicate police intervention and investigation. Public shootout situations are always likely to have crowds and sufficient panic to make identification of the enemy and avoidance of collateral damage difficult for even highly trained professionals. If you find yourself armed and in a location where there is a shooting in progress then you should only shoot if you can clearly identify the shooter and you have a clear enough shot that you are fairly certain you will not hit bystanders, and as soon as you have made the shot you should conceal or drop the weapon to avoid being mistaken by police for the shooter. Ideally, in a fully armed society you would force young people to undergo extensive training before they begin to carry their weapon on their person. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
The PondCast
OSC
WardiTV European League
Fjant vs Babymarine
Mixu vs HiGhDrA
Gerald vs ArT
goblin vs MaNa
Jumy vs YoungYakov
Replay Cast
Epic.LAN
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
CSO Contender
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
