|
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. |
A few points regarding the stance that retaliatory fire would do nothing or would 'make things worse':
-People insisting that regular citizens with proper training would by default be less accurate than a combat trained soldier or police officer is simply a false assertion. The assertion that they may react in more of a panic or adrenaline state/tunnel vision is true, but does this mean they would just close their eyes and start shooting randomly and hope they hit the bad guy and no one else? HARDLY.
-Most people would agree with you that in the darkness, smoke, and chaos, hitting the face would be unlikely from more than 15 feet. Unlikely does not mean impossible. But that also said, you need to do research on the impact a 9mm (most common CCW caliber) can have on the human body even through a kevlar vest. Your stance asserts this guy was basically invincible. He had a tac vest on. He may have had other pieces of armor on. I promise you he wasn't wearing an EOD type suit though. He wasn't.
-The face is not the only vulnerable area on this guy's body. Considering less than perfect conditions for our defender(s), a stray bullet could easily tag his arms, hands, elbows, legs, feet, etc. The assertion that bullets could not likely find their way into vulnerable locations is hard to believe.
-The argument that defenders would just aim for center body mass and wouldn't realize he was wearing armor has been proven incorrect, as every eyewitness knew he was armored even before he started shooting. Even so, see above and research how much effect even a 9mil has in direct impact even on center mass on body armor.
-Many with your point of view also like to paint out the scenario that we are neccesarily talking about a single concealed carry defender vs this heavily armed gunman. What if there were 5? It is simple wolfpack instinct to know that when he turns to fire at the first guy who shoots at him, that is when you take your shot. You don't need combat training to recognize this.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun (who has likely trained at a range a few times if he has a CCW permit) are much less than the odds of that gunman killing every person in the theater if no one stops him.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun are signifcantly reduced because everyone is already on the floor when the gas grenades popped. Everyone is already in the most ideal position not to get hit. The likelyhood that someone by random chance is going to jump up and accidentally get in your line of fire is slim.
-What percentage of patrons that night were likely CCW permit holders? Well, based on the average age of the audience at a midnight showing for Batman, I'd say it was pretty slim at ANY theater, even those in Texas and Mississippi. The assertion that someone in there had a personal protection firearm and didn't use it is unfounded and does nothing for this discussion.
-The likelihood of the citizen defender being shot and killed in no way diminishes the fact that they are more likely to stop him by actually trying than by giving up and praying they don't get killed, like everyone else who didn't bring a firearm.
-83 people were shot. If you admit the number shot by a citizen defender in the chaos would be significantly less than that number, then you really have no case.
-The good guys are the ones shooting at the bad guy in the mask and body armor. Step 1: Shoot at the guy in the mask with the AR. Step 2: Don't shoot at the people in the theater seats who are shooting at the armored guy. Trying to say that multiple people with guns wouldn't realize who the fuck to shoot at is just the most stupid assertion I've ever heard.
And that is all just specific points about this incident. Concerning the debate on whether having CCW permit citizens around in other crimes: Given most criminal gunmen do not use body armor, I'd increase the likelyhood of a citizen defender being able to do something to stop them in any other given situation tenfold.
|
On July 22 2012 19:35 Nevuk wrote:
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.
Off-topic: a saber? dude, that sounds pretty cool ^^
On Topic:
*this will be a collection of posts I read after waking up
On July 22 2012 12:18 Shantastic wrote:
America has done pretty good for itself and been successful in helping a lot of other countries in their time of need. Ironically, all this has been accomplished while her citizens have been allowed to own and carry guns. I don't see what the problem is, or the need to suddenly change that.
The problem is in the thousands of dead people piling up in your graveyards... And liberating Europe in WWII wasnt exactly due to you guys having guns...
Of course the USA have done great things for the world, they also have done terrible things, but gun ownage and lax laws are just a domestic affair and dont have any influence on that I assume.
On July 22 2012 13:32 YuTz wrote:
I don't see how that is a more viable option as oppose to what is enforced now. Organized crime posses just as much danger to "law abiding citizens" when compared to petty criminals with a gun, if not more (drug related deaths, sex trafficing, money laundering, etc).
how is money laundering and protitution a dangerous business in a way of physical harm? oO
A random thug from the streets with a gun in his hands can do so muh terrible things with it, I don't care about who launders his money in Switzerland...
On July 22 2012 13:39 Ironsights wrote:
And that is fine. That is your right, your opinion. you are entitled to your beliefs. But we are entitled to ours. So please, don't sling your hatred. Don't talk about how we are somehow responsbile for the evils in society. Leave us our beleifs. And who knows, one day you may thank us, for when the world we love falls apart, when war comes or hell has arrived, we will be standing on the front lines, ready to die so that you can continue beleiving that we were evil. Its what we do.
no of course having guns in everyone's hands doesnt create evil, but just look at the numbers of death by firearms and acknowledge the price your country pays in lifes every year for this. Is this worth it? Maybe guns protect, but when drawn they lead to an escalation of violence in which you never know who gets hurt. remember the story of the old man who suddenly shoots at robbers? what if he had not the best eyes anymore and hit a customer in the head. Just, what if?
On July 22 2012 14:06 Ironsights wrote:
How am I to know they DIDN'T have a gun(s)? They didn't use them, but they didn't need to. If I had been able to fight back, they might have had guns to use, and I might have been hurt/killed, but at least I could have gone down fighting. Whcih is something I can respect. I threw a punch or two, but outnumbered by older, stronger fellows I didn't hold up long. With an equalizer, I might have.
Yeah and I'm really glad we dont have a shooting every 2 weeks in my part of town where a bullet could easily fly into some house and kill a kid.
guns don't equalize, they escalate.
On July 22 2012 14:58 cinnabun wrote:Also, wtf ever happened to the 2nd amendment and since when did it become okay to ignore it?
Its not about the 2nd amendment. it's about gun control in general, not only US.
On July 22 2012 14:30 Little Rage Box wrote:
I think it's both funny and ironic that the majority of people in these types of threads clamoring for "no more guns" are European. People of some of the most historically savage and violent countries on this planet. People who have decended from ancestors who were oppressed, yet rose up, and threw off those shackles. Almost singuraly through violent means (save from the Russians being destroy by their own system).
so... what? Europe is a quite peaceful place at the moment, I'm not sure what history has to do with it.
On July 22 2012 16:06 Smat wrote:
Gun regulation can be a hot topic because it is very fluid and differs between states. Many people have different opinions as to how much red tape there should be, so it gets talked about a lot. If your idea of strict gun control policy is the European model, then there is really no debate or controversy. The US has pretty much soundly rejected the idea of banning guns from citizentry, which is why 90 percent of the anti-gun folks in this thread are Euro's yelling at American's that there doing it wrong.
It's not yelling (well, some people do but feel free to ignore them), It's more a clash of mindsets, where in Europe it's usually pretty tough to get a gun in the first place and I personally dont know anyone who owns a gun. Of course you cant rewrite history and see if stricter gun laws in the US would make it a place with less violence done with firearms, that is not the point of this thread. I guess the aspect of banning firearms as a whole is also off the table for ovious reasons; but we had little discussion about more strict gun laws. Don't you think you need to get a license and proper training before acquiring a gun? just like a car. I'm not really familiar with the situation in the different states, maybe you can give some insight on this.
In the end I'm sure having strict gun laws makes my home country a safer place. I also believe it works with lax gun laws as demonstrated in Canada, Switzerland etc.
about the US, I think that la gun laws can enhance criminality and that *everyone having guns* doesn't make it a safer place. However, taking away all guns (hypothetically) wouldn't make it the most peaceful country in the world, that is just the situation there obviously.
But in the end stricter gun laws can prohibit people who are unfit to carry arms to get weapons. Now you think I want the state to regulate if you can get a gun, YES I DO! And I believe it already does, in that you cant get a weapon with a criminal record in your history (if this is incorrect, please say so!). don't you think there should at least be a psycho test? Of course you can't filter out every mentally unstable guy, but some will not get past, and that is a GOOD THING.
Hace a nice day 
|
Tried reading through this thread.
50% of the posts from Americans made me puke.
Gave up...
No guns, Obvious answer.
|
A man without proper eyesight to hit his target would not be issued a CCW permit. So an "old man being too blind to hit the robbers" won't happen. no what ifs. It won't happen. And if it does, then the old man has committed manslaughter and shoudl be sentanced.
But, lets not throwing around what ifs. I promise you, as a Right-Wing constitution loving son of a military family, I can come up with some damn good "what ifs" in FAVOR of conceal carry without even having to link you to the NRS, who will provide you with PAGES of personal experiences where personal firearms saved lives.
And as for "the price we pay"...we don't pay a price for our guns, we pay a price in blood for the freedom we have. Soem people exploit that freedom, and turn to evil. Those of us with guns protect ourselves and others from that evil.
|
On July 22 2012 20:55 Ironsights wrote:
A man without proper eyesight to hit his target would not be issued a CCW permit. So an "old man being too blind to hit the robbers" won't happen. no what ifs. It won't happen. And if it does, then the old man has committed manslaughter and shoudl be sentanced.
But, lets not throwing around what ifs. I promise you, as a Right-Wing constitution loving son of a military family, I can come up with some damn good "what ifs" in FAVOR of conceal carry without even having to link you to the NRS, who will provide you with PAGES of personal experiences where personal firearms saved lives.
And as for "the price we pay"...we don't pay a price for our guns, we pay a price in blood for the freedom we have. Soem people exploit that freedom, and turn to evil. Those of us with guns protect ourselves and others from that evil.
What do you do of the innocents who died because of "those of you with guns" who failed ? They are dead. Nice freedom for them !
"But I thought he had a weapon !!" "He was reaching to his belt !" "He might have been dangerous !" "But he rang on my door, so I shot him !"
In my opinion, freedom isn't having the right to draw the blood of *others*.
Heavy self-defense laws, even for soldiers, are there for a reason. Guns are dangerous, and the right to fire one, having the "right" of life and death for someone else, is a HEAVY matter.
I understand your views, but you are conveniently ignoring all the side problems that come with having guns. Sometimes, even if you like something or find it right, the consequences are too heavy for it to be truly a right. And my beliefs say it's the case here. Yours might not.
About eyesight, how often are the check-ups to see if you still have good eyesight ? How long do those permits grant the right to carry firearms ? It's like a driving licence, if there's no verification every few years, it's.... risky at best.
|
On July 22 2012 20:55 Ironsights wrote:
A man without proper eyesight to hit his target would not be issued a CCW permit. So an "old man being too blind to hit the robbers" won't happen. no what ifs. It won't happen. And if it does, then the old man has committed manslaughter and shoudl be sentanced.
Ah Okay
For obvious reasons I'm not that familiar with American law so thx for clearing this.I have to ask: at this age physical fitness can change rapidly, is this considered with regular check-ups?
|
On February 20 2012 11:34 Heweree wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1b1ke.jpg) And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cf3ee.jpg) I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum.
I can second this. And also that the graphs about Sweden are so incorrect. So basically that would mean that of our 9 million people in Sweden, 3 million of them would have guns? That's so ridiculous. It's probably way lower than 1%. Guns are extremely extremely rare in Sweden so those graphs are so made up.
"In one year, GUNS murdered 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States."
|
|
|
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/comp-eng.htm
Canada vs USA Gun statistics.
Take a look at the cities that border each other and compare the murder rates and gun related crimes as well.
The reason Canada is so much safer is because not everyone and their mother can pick up a handgun without difficulty in less than a day. Much harder to kill someone when you don't have easy access to deadly weapons. Most of our illegal handguns come from the US as well.
|
Zurich15345 Posts
On July 22 2012 21:15 sd_andeh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:34 Heweree wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. I can second this. And also that the graphs about Sweden are so incorrect. So basically that would mean that of our 9 million people in Sweden, 3 million of them would have guns? That's so ridiculous. It's probably way lower than 1%. Guns are extremely extremely rare in Sweden so those graphs are so made up. "In one year, GUNS murdered 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States."
That doesn't make the graphs incorrect.
And I seriously doubt it's less than 1% gun owners. Probably something around 5% of house holds sounds right for a country like Sweden. Which is not a lot compared to the US of course, but it's not like guns are non existent in Europe.
It's just that gun ownership seems something so foreign to many Europeans that they simply refuse to believe that there are in fact many gun owners in their own country. I have written about this rather curious phenomenon before:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586
|
If one is determined enough and spends enough time planning, a man can kill a lot of people in pretty much all country. Gun control doesn't really matter to a person that really, really wants to kill a lot of people. just look at Breivik.
|
On July 22 2012 21:23 Undrass wrote:If one is determined enough and spends enough time planning, a man can kill a lot of people in pretty much all country. Gun control doesn't really matter to a person that really, really wants to kill a lot of people. just look at Breivik.
Yes, but when anyone out of 300 million people know they can do this at any point in time, the ones who do snap are more likely to do it because it's very, very easy to do.
A random suicidal person who has never handled a gun before in their life can pick one up on a Saturday afternoon in the US and go on a shooting spree. A suicidal person in Canada won't even have the thought as the average person doesn't have a clue where to access a gun in the first place, nor the resources to obtain one in a short amount of time.
Gun crime is the result of guns being there in the first place, no one is safer because of it.
|
On July 22 2012 21:23 Undrass wrote:If one is determined enough and spends enough time planning, a man can kill a lot of people in pretty much all country. Gun control doesn't really matter to a person that really, really wants to kill a lot of people. just look at Breivik.
Agreed, people like those two won't be hindered by tighter gun control - however, I am convinced that there are a lot of people that would be, and that's why I'm for tighter gun control. Criminals can get their hands on guns, sure, but if tighter gun control means that x amount of thugs have to be satisfied with a knife rather than a gun, that's a good thing. Just my 2 cents.
|
On July 22 2012 20:13 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 19:35 Nevuk wrote:
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. Off-topic: a saber? dude, that sounds pretty cool ^^
The saber thing, there's two components to that. There's saber style fencing (which I've just done once or twice, it's of zero combat value) and the actual use of sabers, which involves horses. Apparently the reason my father had a saber is that all cavalry officers get them (do all officers get swords? I don't know any other military branches. I just know that for cavalry it's sabers and for a very specific reason), as they're superior weapons to use from horseback. A piercing weapon just gets left behind when you stab someone (or drags you off the horse) but a saber lets you carry the momentum of the horse and your swing behind it. Kind of gruesome, but a very efficient way to eviscerate opposing cavalry or decapitate foot soldiers.
Cavalry in this lingo actually means tanks, though. It's just tradition. So I guess I know how to use them from horseback, I know how to ride horses with a saddle and bareback... wow, I guess my upbringing was more bizarre than I thought. I can't do any of those things WELL, but I can DO them. Which I'm guessing is not something most people can say.
If I were using a saber in a foot fight I would probably just treat it like fencing with a heavy epee. Incorporating slashing seems inefficient for a number of reasons, lunging + stabbing is almost always the most effective way to use those type of weapons. The actual saber here is far heavier than any of the fencing ones I played around with, heavier than a foil or an Epee. It's just a dress uniform sword but it's still clearly a weapon that was made with the idea that it might wind up being used in combat (very sturdy, probably about 30 years old and the only wear has been on the handle and the blade has intentionally been left dull). No idea if he actually took it into combat or not. He certainly never had to use it even if he did (I don't recall any combatants ever trying to climb into a tank during desert storm).
|
|
|
On July 22 2012 21:32 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 20:13 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 19:35 Nevuk wrote:
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. Off-topic: a saber? dude, that sounds pretty cool ^^ The saber thing, there's two components to that. There's saber style fencing (which I've just done once or twice, it's of zero combat value) and the actual use of sabers, which involves horses. Apparently the reason my father had a saber is that all cavalry officers get them (do all officers get swords? I don't know any other military branches. I just know that for cavalry it's sabers and for a very specific reason), as they're superior weapons to use from horseback. A piercing weapon just gets left behind when you stab someone (or drags you off the horse) but a saber lets you carry the momentum of the horse and your swing behind it. Kind of gruesome, but a very efficient way to eviscerate opposing cavalry or decapitate foot soldiers. Cavalry in this lingo actually means tanks, though. It's just tradition. So I guess I know how to use them from horseback, I know how to ride horses with a saddle and bareback... wow, I guess my upbringing was more bizarre than I thought. I can't do any of those things WELL, but I can DO them. Which I'm guessing is not something most people can say. If I were using a saber in a foot fight I would probably just treat it like fencing with a heavy epee. Incorporating slashing seems inefficient for a number of reasons, lunging + stabbing is almost always the most effective way to use those type of weapons. The actual saber here is far heavier than any of the fencing ones I played around with, heavier than a foil or an Epee. It's just a dress uniform sword but it's still clearly a weapon that was made with the idea that it might wind up being used in combat (very sturdy, probably about 30 years old and the only wear has been on the handle and the blade has intentionally been left dull). No idea if he actually took it into combat or not. He certainly never had to use it even if he did (I don't recall any combatants ever trying to climb into a tank during desert storm).
But the idea of an american cavalry officer battling it out with a desert warrior on top of a tank with both using sabers is pretty awesome.
Defending a tank would be much easier with a pistol or a shotgun, though
|
Gun Control
In the state that I live in you can buy a gun at a gun show without having to register it or go through a background check.
A concealed carry permit requires filling out a form, paying a small fee, getting a background check by the local cops, and taking an online course.
|
On July 22 2012 21:22 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 21:15 sd_andeh wrote:On February 20 2012 11:34 Heweree wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. I can second this. And also that the graphs about Sweden are so incorrect. So basically that would mean that of our 9 million people in Sweden, 3 million of them would have guns? That's so ridiculous. It's probably way lower than 1%. Guns are extremely extremely rare in Sweden so those graphs are so made up. "In one year, GUNS murdered 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States." That doesn't make the graphs incorrect. And I seriously doubt it's less than 1% gun owners. Probably something around 5% of house holds sounds right for a country like Sweden. Which is not a lot compared to the US of course, but it's not like guns are non existent in Europe. It's just that gun ownership seems something so foreign to many Europeans that they simply refuse to believe that there are in fact many gun owners in their own country. I have written about this rather curious phenomenon before: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586
that may be the case in germany, but i really find it hard to believe even 5% of people in england have a gun.
|
On July 22 2012 21:21 Figgy wrote:http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/comp-eng.htmCanada vs USA Gun statistics. Take a look at the cities that border each other and compare the murder rates and gun related crimes as well. The reason Canada is so much safer is because not everyone and their mother can pick up a handgun without difficulty in less than a day. Much harder to kill someone when you don't have easy access to deadly weapons. Most of our illegal handguns come from the US as well.
I posted this in the thread previously but unfortunately in long "debates" (talking past each other, really) like this good information tends to get buried under the hundreds of pages of "in my opinion guns are scary and bad..." posts.
White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc.
The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Ak82.png)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm[/QUOTE]
|
On July 22 2012 21:51 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 21:22 zatic wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 sd_andeh wrote:On February 20 2012 11:34 Heweree wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. I can second this. And also that the graphs about Sweden are so incorrect. So basically that would mean that of our 9 million people in Sweden, 3 million of them would have guns? That's so ridiculous. It's probably way lower than 1%. Guns are extremely extremely rare in Sweden so those graphs are so made up. "In one year, GUNS murdered 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States." That doesn't make the graphs incorrect. And I seriously doubt it's less than 1% gun owners. Probably something around 5% of house holds sounds right for a country like Sweden. Which is not a lot compared to the US of course, but it's not like guns are non existent in Europe. It's just that gun ownership seems something so foreign to many Europeans that they simply refuse to believe that there are in fact many gun owners in their own country. I have written about this rather curious phenomenon before: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 that may be the case in germany, but i really find it hard to believe even 5% of people in england have a gun.
Wasn't the UK going as far as not even permitting regular policemen to carry guns?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
