|
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. |
On July 23 2012 04:03 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:52 Salv wrote:
The argument people use against gun control is, 'Criminals don't follow the law, they will get weapons regardless!' - this is ignoring all gun crime that is done with lawfully purchased and registered weapons. Didn't Holmes from this Colorado shooting use guns he legally purchased? For every 'legally obtained gun' crime, there is another one where they got it illegally. It doesn't matter. The point is, if someone wants to do what he can did, they can do it, whether guns are easy or hard to obtain. Admittedly it is much easier if guns are legal for common men, assuming they don't have background check issues. Doesn't change the fact that if they want to bad enough they will. It's just a matter of the amount of effort they are willing to put in.
So what's the advantage of making it even easier for them to get weapons?
|
On July 23 2012 04:01 Blurry wrote:
Handguns should be illegal, as they serve no purpose other than to kill somebody else. The idea that someone will effectively defend themselves against someone else who has a gun is ridiculous. For every story where someone fights off a criminal with a gun there are dozens where the person just got themselves killed.
You can protect your home just as well with a rifle or a shotgun as you can with a pistol. This way the argument that criminals will be less worried if they know the house they are breaking into is gun-free is baseless. Also, you can't as easily hold up a store because people could see you coming with a shotgun or rifle.
Guns don't make you safer when you're getting mugged, they just force the criminal to either kill you or die.
Source for that info? The one where you said someone getting killed is twelve times more likely than someone defending themselves?
No. They force a criminal to make the jump from petty thief or sexual predator...to murderer. Also most criminals, like most human beings, don't want to die. Most of them won't risk their lives for a good fuck or a wallet or a gold necklace. You talk about guns as if someone has to be shot in order for them to be effective.
|
As I said earlier, but it went ignored by all the anti-gun people. Drugs are illegal. Do you think it's so hard for the homeless guy on the street to go and get some heroin? Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's hard to get, and just because it works for a couple countries doesn't mean it would work for the rest of the world. Just because it will be illegal doesn't mean it will be hard to get. If anything without the time consuming background checks it might be EASIER For psychopaths and criminals to get a gun on a whim.
|
On July 23 2012 04:09 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:03 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 03:52 Salv wrote:
The argument people use against gun control is, 'Criminals don't follow the law, they will get weapons regardless!' - this is ignoring all gun crime that is done with lawfully purchased and registered weapons. Didn't Holmes from this Colorado shooting use guns he legally purchased? For every 'legally obtained gun' crime, there is another one where they got it illegally. It doesn't matter. The point is, if someone wants to do what he can did, they can do it, whether guns are easy or hard to obtain. Admittedly it is much easier if guns are legal for common men, assuming they don't have background check issues. Doesn't change the fact that if they want to bad enough they will. It's just a matter of the amount of effort they are willing to put in. So what's the advantage of making it even easier for them to get weapons?
Well, obviously no one wants to make it easier for the recorded mental health patient or the past criminal to get a gun. Everyone agrees it should be harder. No one wants to make it easier for normal people to get them either. Background checks, registration, mandatory safety training and warnings are fine and no one has issue. The problem comes when you start making it harder for normal people to get them. If someone snaps later and becomes 'not normal', well, thats a whole different debate. But you cannot restrict access for normal, sane folks to get personal protection firearms if they want just because a few psychos slipped through the cracks or someone snapped.
|
On July 23 2012 04:13 hunts wrote:
As I said earlier, but it went ignored by all the anti-gun people. Drugs are illegal. Do you think it's so hard for the homeless guy on the street to go and get some heroin? Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's hard to get, and just because it works for a couple countries doesn't mean it would work for the rest of the world. Just because it will be illegal doesn't mean it will be hard to get. If anything without the time consuming background checks it might be EASIER For psychopaths and criminals to get a gun on a whim.
Guns are illegal in my country and so are drugs. Guns are far harder to get than drugs - it's not even comparable.
|
On July 23 2012 04:16 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:13 hunts wrote:
As I said earlier, but it went ignored by all the anti-gun people. Drugs are illegal. Do you think it's so hard for the homeless guy on the street to go and get some heroin? Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's hard to get, and just because it works for a couple countries doesn't mean it would work for the rest of the world. Just because it will be illegal doesn't mean it will be hard to get. If anything without the time consuming background checks it might be EASIER For psychopaths and criminals to get a gun on a whim. Guns are illegal in my country and so are drugs. Guns are far harder to get than drugs - it's not even comparable.
I can guarantee you it wouldn't be like that in most countries.
|
On July 23 2012 04:16 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:13 hunts wrote:
As I said earlier, but it went ignored by all the anti-gun people. Drugs are illegal. Do you think it's so hard for the homeless guy on the street to go and get some heroin? Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's hard to get, and just because it works for a couple countries doesn't mean it would work for the rest of the world. Just because it will be illegal doesn't mean it will be hard to get. If anything without the time consuming background checks it might be EASIER For psychopaths and criminals to get a gun on a whim. Guns are illegal in my country and so are drugs. Guns are far harder to get than drugs - it's not even comparable.
There's more profit in drugs. You SHOULD find more drugs than firearms in a country that outlaws firearms. Drugs are also easier to manufacture in large quantities.
No shit.
Are you going to sell an item people use repeatedly and get physically hooked to or are you going to sell a one-time buy in hopes of trying to sell ammunition too?
|
On July 22 2012 23:45 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 22:01 TGalore wrote:On July 22 2012 20:03 StarStrider wrote:
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. Arguments like these are tantamount to blaming the victims for not being armed, in my opinion, and are revolting. It's like blaming a woman for being raped for either not having a weapon to defend herself or "asking for it." What you're asserting here is that some of these people are dead because they chose not to carry a loaded weapon with them into a crowded, closed space full of children and families. It is not nor should it ever be ANY civilian's -responsibility- to be armed. Your post illustrates a common fantasy that so many who own guns seem to have, and that is that they are looking for an opportunity to be a "hero" by killing someone. They see themselves as reacting calmly, with perfect aim, against a more heavily armed assailant in a sudden high stress situation and saving a lot more lives than were lost. But that NEVER happens. It never has in any of the awful mass shootings in our country's history. Relaxed gun laws didn't help during Columbine or Virginia Tech. Hell, more people died at Fort Hood, a military base full of trained soldiers, than in Colorado. The majority of people don't want to carry guns and shouldn't have their safety and interests held hostage by a small percentage of the population that envisions themselves as moonlight superheroes. If those who were pro-gun were truly interested in reducing violence and gun crime rates, then they wouldn't be against so many of the gun safety and anti-proliferation laws that have been attempted to be passed. Would we have a lot less gun crime if all ammunition was serially coded and traceable through a federal database? Absolutely. Would fewer people have died this past week if this man wasn't able to obtain an automatic military assault rifle and instead only had legal access to handguns? More than likely. Should he have been able to buy FOUR GUNS in recent months (really, do you need more than one to defend yourself?) and SIX THOUSAND ROUNDS of ammunition over the INTERNET? I don't think so, but the NRA does and also thinks assault weapons, rampant untracked ammunition, and unlimited guns among the common population is a good idea. It makes me sick. That is a complete distortion. It is a total red herring. It is a complete jump in logic to say that because I claim people would have a better chance of defending themselves if armed than if unarmed, that I am somehow saying they deserve it for not being armed, or that their safety would have been guaranteed. I simply make the assertion that there is a slight chance that it could have been ended before 83 people were shot. Not even likely. Just possible. That possibility is worth carrying. I don't expect everyone to, and I don't blame anyone who doesn't and say 'well when you get raped or mugged, don't cry about it because I warned you'. I'm saying 'give yourself the best chance imo, even if it is a slim one.' How do you know? How many cases are there of killers who got taken out by an armed citizen before they had a chance to kill, that you might just not know about or never heard of because they didn't go national? You, in your infinite knowledge, have studied criminal cases for years and know this to be a fact? You have brought up several cases of mass murder where a citizen did not happen to act. That's it. What does that do for your case? Does this prove that a citizen with a gun could do nothing, because no citizen did anything? Why do you assume that there were concealed carry citizens there but they failed to act or failed to fire back before getting killed? If there were none there, doesn't this hurt, not help your argument? Does it prove that they tried to act but got taken out? How many corpses have we found with guns in their hands or on their person in these massacres? You don't know details like this. You don't know shit. But it's easy to act like you do on an internet forum, therefore everyone is an expert. You generalize and hypothesize. People like you want to marginalize the reality that real citizens with real skills at pointing and shooting could possibly make a difference in these scenarios by painting them out to be living out heroic fantasies from a comic book or a movie. Fuck you. This is real life. It's not about pride or glory or living out some fantasy. It's about possibly saving lives. How dare you marginalize that. You're the sick one friend. Not everyone thinks in terms of a fucking video game, and not everyone thinks as shallowly about it as you do or seem to imagine. I guess every cop just wants to be Magnum PI and every firefighter just wants to be Third Watch. They do it for the medals and ceremonies right? Please get your head out of your ass. For every mass murder you mentioned where no one stopped them with a firearm, I can link you to HUNDREDS of events where gun armed assailants were taken down citizens. Were these assailants intent on killing? How do we know they were going to murder people? Does it matter when you are threatened with a gun? The armed citizens never gave them a chance to find out. Thank god. Is this debate about whether citizens should carry, or whether AR's and ammo should be more strictly controlled? Why do you assume everyone on the pro-gun side wants guns to be free and available for all no matter who they are, what their background, or what kind of gun it is? I dare you to find a single pro-gun person in this thread who is opposed to background checks, psych checks, and mandatory handling and safety courses for all would be gun owners. If they are, they are just an idiot who should be ignored anyway because they are out of touch with reality.
You are ignoring a few things.
Armed robbery isn't usually equal to death sentence for one.
Then, OK, the "bad guy" died. It's still a death. This guy might have, might have not shot, the weapon might have been fake, you might be dead, some lives have been saved, others have been lost. A robber would be far less inclined to shoot if his opponent didn't have a weapon, AND there would be a lot less armed robberies or any other offense with a gun if guns were more controlled/forbidden.
Lastly, for a life truly saved, how many are lost by a misunderstanding, and a failed estimation of danger from the "righteous" guy ? I can link you to hundreds of those, too. And the life of an innocent is NEVER, EVER worth whatever you oppose it.
You're not *wrong*, you just conveniently ignore a whole side of the problem, that is to say that not everybody should be a hero, because they were not TRAINED to do so and are bound to take bad decisions quite often. With firearms, these bad decisions imply deathes. Wrong ones.
|
On July 23 2012 04:13 hunts wrote:
As I said earlier, but it went ignored by all the anti-gun people. Drugs are illegal. Do you think it's so hard for the homeless guy on the street to go and get some heroin? Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's hard to get, and just because it works for a couple countries doesn't mean it would work for the rest of the world. Just because it will be illegal doesn't mean it will be hard to get. If anything without the time consuming background checks it might be EASIER For psychopaths and criminals to get a gun on a whim.
The market for drugs is more widespread because (most) are quite addictive, and obviously because they are fun. The market for guns is more specified, as they are expensive (to a degree) in comparison. Of course, they are both widespread, but they are regulated in completely different ways.
I mean, it's pretty fucking easy to get most drugs with a small amount of social networking. I mean you can get weed literally anywhere, and once you have that connection, you can make further connections to whatever else is available locally. I don't think it would be quite as easy to enter into the black market of guns. Of course this is all speculation though, as I don't know anything about entering the market for illegal firearms.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing with you to be honest, but it's not as much of a parallel as "x is illegal, y is illegal, people get y, why can't they get x." There are some differences in the markets of both (although they do blend together.) The only part of your post I don't get is why anyone would want to get rid of the time consuming background checks; I don't know any sane people trying to argue for that.
|
Obviously not.
There is only one country with an extremely large crime rate that is stupid enough to believe if everyone owned a gun crime will subside. Given some European countries have similar beliefs, they also have exponentially less criminals among their streets.
Ever hear the theory "If there were no armies, there could be no war"? I think it relates closely with firearms as well.
|
On July 23 2012 04:34 fumikey wrote:
Obviously not.
There is only one country with an extremely large crime rate that is stupid enough to believe if everyone owned a gun crime will subside. Given some European countries have similar beliefs, they also have exponentially less criminals among their streets.
Ever hear the theory "If there were no armies, there could be no war"? I think it relates closely with firearms as well.
that country is full of religious people aswell :D
|
On July 23 2012 04:34 fumikey wrote:
Obviously not.
There is only one country with an extremely large crime rate that is stupid enough to believe if everyone owned a gun crime will subside. Given some European countries have similar beliefs, they also have exponentially less criminals among their streets.
Ever hear the theory "If there were no armies, there could be no war"? I think it relates closely with firearms as well.
It's not like this country can go back on its previous 200 years of gun ownership. Guns are already every-fucking-where and the support for keeping them is high because a lot of people:
-Like guns
-Hunt
-Want protection
It's unfortunate, but the situation in the US is a little different due to the sheer amount of guns of all sorts that are all over the country already.
|
On July 23 2012 04:23 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 23:45 StarStrider wrote:On July 22 2012 22:01 TGalore wrote:On July 22 2012 20:03 StarStrider wrote:
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. Arguments like these are tantamount to blaming the victims for not being armed, in my opinion, and are revolting. It's like blaming a woman for being raped for either not having a weapon to defend herself or "asking for it." What you're asserting here is that some of these people are dead because they chose not to carry a loaded weapon with them into a crowded, closed space full of children and families. It is not nor should it ever be ANY civilian's -responsibility- to be armed. Your post illustrates a common fantasy that so many who own guns seem to have, and that is that they are looking for an opportunity to be a "hero" by killing someone. They see themselves as reacting calmly, with perfect aim, against a more heavily armed assailant in a sudden high stress situation and saving a lot more lives than were lost. But that NEVER happens. It never has in any of the awful mass shootings in our country's history. Relaxed gun laws didn't help during Columbine or Virginia Tech. Hell, more people died at Fort Hood, a military base full of trained soldiers, than in Colorado. The majority of people don't want to carry guns and shouldn't have their safety and interests held hostage by a small percentage of the population that envisions themselves as moonlight superheroes. If those who were pro-gun were truly interested in reducing violence and gun crime rates, then they wouldn't be against so many of the gun safety and anti-proliferation laws that have been attempted to be passed. Would we have a lot less gun crime if all ammunition was serially coded and traceable through a federal database? Absolutely. Would fewer people have died this past week if this man wasn't able to obtain an automatic military assault rifle and instead only had legal access to handguns? More than likely. Should he have been able to buy FOUR GUNS in recent months (really, do you need more than one to defend yourself?) and SIX THOUSAND ROUNDS of ammunition over the INTERNET? I don't think so, but the NRA does and also thinks assault weapons, rampant untracked ammunition, and unlimited guns among the common population is a good idea. It makes me sick. That is a complete distortion. It is a total red herring. It is a complete jump in logic to say that because I claim people would have a better chance of defending themselves if armed than if unarmed, that I am somehow saying they deserve it for not being armed, or that their safety would have been guaranteed. I simply make the assertion that there is a slight chance that it could have been ended before 83 people were shot. Not even likely. Just possible. That possibility is worth carrying. I don't expect everyone to, and I don't blame anyone who doesn't and say 'well when you get raped or mugged, don't cry about it because I warned you'. I'm saying 'give yourself the best chance imo, even if it is a slim one.' How do you know? How many cases are there of killers who got taken out by an armed citizen before they had a chance to kill, that you might just not know about or never heard of because they didn't go national? You, in your infinite knowledge, have studied criminal cases for years and know this to be a fact? You have brought up several cases of mass murder where a citizen did not happen to act. That's it. What does that do for your case? Does this prove that a citizen with a gun could do nothing, because no citizen did anything? Why do you assume that there were concealed carry citizens there but they failed to act or failed to fire back before getting killed? If there were none there, doesn't this hurt, not help your argument? Does it prove that they tried to act but got taken out? How many corpses have we found with guns in their hands or on their person in these massacres? You don't know details like this. You don't know shit. But it's easy to act like you do on an internet forum, therefore everyone is an expert. You generalize and hypothesize. People like you want to marginalize the reality that real citizens with real skills at pointing and shooting could possibly make a difference in these scenarios by painting them out to be living out heroic fantasies from a comic book or a movie. Fuck you. This is real life. It's not about pride or glory or living out some fantasy. It's about possibly saving lives. How dare you marginalize that. You're the sick one friend. Not everyone thinks in terms of a fucking video game, and not everyone thinks as shallowly about it as you do or seem to imagine. I guess every cop just wants to be Magnum PI and every firefighter just wants to be Third Watch. They do it for the medals and ceremonies right? Please get your head out of your ass. For every mass murder you mentioned where no one stopped them with a firearm, I can link you to HUNDREDS of events where gun armed assailants were taken down citizens. Were these assailants intent on killing? How do we know they were going to murder people? Does it matter when you are threatened with a gun? The armed citizens never gave them a chance to find out. Thank god. Is this debate about whether citizens should carry, or whether AR's and ammo should be more strictly controlled? Why do you assume everyone on the pro-gun side wants guns to be free and available for all no matter who they are, what their background, or what kind of gun it is? I dare you to find a single pro-gun person in this thread who is opposed to background checks, psych checks, and mandatory handling and safety courses for all would be gun owners. If they are, they are just an idiot who should be ignored anyway because they are out of touch with reality. You are ignoring a few things. Armed robbery isn't usually equal to death sentence for one. Then, OK, the "bad guy" died. It's still a death. This guy might have, might have not shot, the weapon might have been fake, you might be dead, some lives have been saved, others have been lost. A robber would be far less inclined to shoot if his opponent didn't have a weapon, AND there would be a lot less armed robberies or any other offense with a gun if guns were more controlled/forbidden. Lastly, for a life truly saved, how many are lost by a misunderstanding, and a failed estimation of danger from the "righteous" guy ? I can link you to hundreds of those, too. And the life of an innocent is NEVER, EVER worth whatever you oppose it. You're not *wrong*, you just conveniently ignore a whole side of the problem, that is to say that not everybody should be a hero, because they were not TRAINED to do so and are bound to take bad decisions quite often. With firearms, these bad decisions imply deathes. Wrong ones.
Addressing these points in reverse:
I don't ignore those problems, I just think they are rare and signifcantly less common than you believe.
I would contend that the numbers of outright gun kills that could be or are prevented or dissuaded by armed citizen defenders (or would never occur in the first place with the knowledge that so many people might be armed) would be vastly higher than accidental discharge deaths or innocents hit by well-meaning defenders, which would be worth it would you agree? Can you disprove this assertion? Or is it just my opinion vs yours?
And I will never ever shed one tear for any man with malicious intent injured or killed when he is threatening to kill another by pointing a gun at them...there is no might have when it comes to this situation. The Police do the same thing, why is it ok for them to make that judgement and not a citizen, they are just men with guns after all in the end, and protectors of good against evil per se, same as any other man operating in defense of citizens. He will be charged with manslaughter if he was in the wrong. If an armed assailant gets shot, I am not going to feel bad for them, no matter if they were planning on using it or not (or if they were just using a fake). They deserve every amount of pain or death they receive. You can't tell me they can threaten innocent lives yet be shown mercy in one sentence then say innocent lives at risk are a reason for a good guy citizen not to come to their aid and take the shot.
|
On July 23 2012 04:40 Valentine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:34 fumikey wrote:
Obviously not.
There is only one country with an extremely large crime rate that is stupid enough to believe if everyone owned a gun crime will subside. Given some European countries have similar beliefs, they also have exponentially less criminals among their streets.
Ever hear the theory "If there were no armies, there could be no war"? I think it relates closely with firearms as well. It's not like this country can go back on its previous 200 years of gun ownership. Guns are already every-fucking-where and the support for keeping them is high because a lot of people: -Like guns -Hunt -Want protection It's unfortunate, but the situation in the US is a little different due to the sheer amount of guns of all sorts that are all over the country already.
I don't see how this invalidates efforts towards more gun control. This thread is kind of funny, at this point it has come full circle and is mostly just discussing the same things that was discussed in the first 15 pages. You can't just nullify 200 years of history certainly, but if there was a desire for change you could do it in small steps.
A lot of people liking guns isn't really a valid reason for keeping them around. They like guns because they're easily available/ingrained in culture, not vise versa. If they were a billion times harder to obtain, people wouldn't see them as valid hobbies. In any case, it's moot, because of how insignificant sports/hobby guns are in a discussion on gun control.
|
On July 23 2012 04:48 OrchidThief wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:40 Valentine wrote:On July 23 2012 04:34 fumikey wrote:
Obviously not.
There is only one country with an extremely large crime rate that is stupid enough to believe if everyone owned a gun crime will subside. Given some European countries have similar beliefs, they also have exponentially less criminals among their streets.
Ever hear the theory "If there were no armies, there could be no war"? I think it relates closely with firearms as well. It's not like this country can go back on its previous 200 years of gun ownership. Guns are already every-fucking-where and the support for keeping them is high because a lot of people: -Like guns -Hunt -Want protection It's unfortunate, but the situation in the US is a little different due to the sheer amount of guns of all sorts that are all over the country already. I don't see how this invalidates efforts towards more gun control. This thread is kind of funny, at this point it has come full circle and is mostly just discussing the same things that was discussed in the first 15 pages. You can't just nullify 200 years of history certainly, but if there was a desire for change you could do it in small steps. A lot of people liking guns isn't really a valid reason for keeping them around. They like guns because they're easily available/ingrained in culture, not vise versa. If they were a billion times harder to obtain, people wouldn't see them as valid hobbies. In any case, it's moot, because of how insignificant sports/hobby guns are in a discussion on gun control.
I don't think he was using 'like guns' as a justification, nor would most, its just that as you said, theyre easily available and engrained in culture therefore they like them as a hobby or for the benefits they provide. It just IS that way, maybe it shoudn't be, but it's not likely to change any time soon.
|
On July 23 2012 04:40 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:23 Nouar wrote:On July 22 2012 23:45 StarStrider wrote:On July 22 2012 22:01 TGalore wrote:On July 22 2012 20:03 StarStrider wrote:
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. Arguments like these are tantamount to blaming the victims for not being armed, in my opinion, and are revolting. It's like blaming a woman for being raped for either not having a weapon to defend herself or "asking for it." What you're asserting here is that some of these people are dead because they chose not to carry a loaded weapon with them into a crowded, closed space full of children and families. It is not nor should it ever be ANY civilian's -responsibility- to be armed. Your post illustrates a common fantasy that so many who own guns seem to have, and that is that they are looking for an opportunity to be a "hero" by killing someone. They see themselves as reacting calmly, with perfect aim, against a more heavily armed assailant in a sudden high stress situation and saving a lot more lives than were lost. But that NEVER happens. It never has in any of the awful mass shootings in our country's history. Relaxed gun laws didn't help during Columbine or Virginia Tech. Hell, more people died at Fort Hood, a military base full of trained soldiers, than in Colorado. The majority of people don't want to carry guns and shouldn't have their safety and interests held hostage by a small percentage of the population that envisions themselves as moonlight superheroes. If those who were pro-gun were truly interested in reducing violence and gun crime rates, then they wouldn't be against so many of the gun safety and anti-proliferation laws that have been attempted to be passed. Would we have a lot less gun crime if all ammunition was serially coded and traceable through a federal database? Absolutely. Would fewer people have died this past week if this man wasn't able to obtain an automatic military assault rifle and instead only had legal access to handguns? More than likely. Should he have been able to buy FOUR GUNS in recent months (really, do you need more than one to defend yourself?) and SIX THOUSAND ROUNDS of ammunition over the INTERNET? I don't think so, but the NRA does and also thinks assault weapons, rampant untracked ammunition, and unlimited guns among the common population is a good idea. It makes me sick. That is a complete distortion. It is a total red herring. It is a complete jump in logic to say that because I claim people would have a better chance of defending themselves if armed than if unarmed, that I am somehow saying they deserve it for not being armed, or that their safety would have been guaranteed. I simply make the assertion that there is a slight chance that it could have been ended before 83 people were shot. Not even likely. Just possible. That possibility is worth carrying. I don't expect everyone to, and I don't blame anyone who doesn't and say 'well when you get raped or mugged, don't cry about it because I warned you'. I'm saying 'give yourself the best chance imo, even if it is a slim one.' How do you know? How many cases are there of killers who got taken out by an armed citizen before they had a chance to kill, that you might just not know about or never heard of because they didn't go national? You, in your infinite knowledge, have studied criminal cases for years and know this to be a fact? You have brought up several cases of mass murder where a citizen did not happen to act. That's it. What does that do for your case? Does this prove that a citizen with a gun could do nothing, because no citizen did anything? Why do you assume that there were concealed carry citizens there but they failed to act or failed to fire back before getting killed? If there were none there, doesn't this hurt, not help your argument? Does it prove that they tried to act but got taken out? How many corpses have we found with guns in their hands or on their person in these massacres? You don't know details like this. You don't know shit. But it's easy to act like you do on an internet forum, therefore everyone is an expert. You generalize and hypothesize. People like you want to marginalize the reality that real citizens with real skills at pointing and shooting could possibly make a difference in these scenarios by painting them out to be living out heroic fantasies from a comic book or a movie. Fuck you. This is real life. It's not about pride or glory or living out some fantasy. It's about possibly saving lives. How dare you marginalize that. You're the sick one friend. Not everyone thinks in terms of a fucking video game, and not everyone thinks as shallowly about it as you do or seem to imagine. I guess every cop just wants to be Magnum PI and every firefighter just wants to be Third Watch. They do it for the medals and ceremonies right? Please get your head out of your ass. For every mass murder you mentioned where no one stopped them with a firearm, I can link you to HUNDREDS of events where gun armed assailants were taken down citizens. Were these assailants intent on killing? How do we know they were going to murder people? Does it matter when you are threatened with a gun? The armed citizens never gave them a chance to find out. Thank god. Is this debate about whether citizens should carry, or whether AR's and ammo should be more strictly controlled? Why do you assume everyone on the pro-gun side wants guns to be free and available for all no matter who they are, what their background, or what kind of gun it is? I dare you to find a single pro-gun person in this thread who is opposed to background checks, psych checks, and mandatory handling and safety courses for all would be gun owners. If they are, they are just an idiot who should be ignored anyway because they are out of touch with reality. You are ignoring a few things. Armed robbery isn't usually equal to death sentence for one. Then, OK, the "bad guy" died. It's still a death. This guy might have, might have not shot, the weapon might have been fake, you might be dead, some lives have been saved, others have been lost. A robber would be far less inclined to shoot if his opponent didn't have a weapon, AND there would be a lot less armed robberies or any other offense with a gun if guns were more controlled/forbidden. Lastly, for a life truly saved, how many are lost by a misunderstanding, and a failed estimation of danger from the "righteous" guy ? I can link you to hundreds of those, too. And the life of an innocent is NEVER, EVER worth whatever you oppose it. You're not *wrong*, you just conveniently ignore a whole side of the problem, that is to say that not everybody should be a hero, because they were not TRAINED to do so and are bound to take bad decisions quite often. With firearms, these bad decisions imply deathes. Wrong ones. Addressing these points in reverse: I don't ignore those problems, I just think they are rare and signifcantly less common than you believe. I would contend that the numbers of outright gun kills that could be or are prevented or dissuaded by armed citizen defenders (or would never occur in the first place with the knowledge that so many people might be armed) would be vastly higher than accidental discharge deaths or innocents hit by well-meaning defenders, which would be worth it would you agree? Can you disprove this assertion? Or is it just my opinion vs yours? And I will never ever shed one tear for any man with malicious intent injured or killed when he is threatening to kill another by pointing a gun at them...there is no might have when it comes to this situation. The Police do the same thing, why is it ok for them to make that judgement and not a citizen, they are just men with guns after all in the end, and protectors of good against evil per se, same as any other man operating in defense of citizens. He will be charged with manslaughter if he was in the wrong. If an armed assailant gets shot, I am not going to feel bad for them, no matter if they were planning on using it or not (or if they were just using a fake). They deserve every amount of pain or death they receive. You can't tell me they can threaten innocent lives yet be shown mercy in one sentence then say innocent lives at risk are a reason for a good guy citizen not to come to their aid and take the shot.
Then explain to me why and how most armies in the world are componsed of soldiers who have EXTENSIVE training and lessons on when, how, and what they incur if they shoot their weapon wrongly. That's because an innocent life is worth everything, even to the point of letting someone who would deserve to die alive, when in doubt.
And citizens with no clue can fire at will ?....
And again, both people having a gun means there is really often a dead people there. Most robbers are not killers. But being confronted to someone who has a gun, and wants to defend himself, mean there is a really high chance one of them will end up dead. HOW IS THAT GOOD ? You might find it cowardly, but do you really prefer dying instead of just being robbed ?
I'm a soldier. I know how to defend myself, how to attack, disable someone, you name it. I would NOT use these skills, unless my life (or my family) are in immediate danger. Robbers are "forced" to be ready to kill in order to rob in your country. They don't in mine. Why are there less dead people ? Because either both don't have weapon, or only the robber has. Cases of deathes by firearms are extremely rare here, barring the mafia killing each others. And we don't have a higher rob rate either. How do we do it ? Do we just die, are we afraid of not defending ourselves ? No, most thugs just don't have a weapon.
You want to defend yourself, it's a good idea, but it's escalating. Robbers WILL rob. And people WILL die. You are advocating the death penalty for people wielding fake weapons to rob a hundred dollars..... Are you fucking SERIOUS ?
The cops having lax rules on opening fire is disturbing me greatly, too, but you HAVE to realise that you are afraid of not being able to defend BECAUSE thugs have guns. Why do they have guns ? Because they need to, since everyone has one. It's a circle very difficult to get out of. You are knee-deep in it, so your beliefs are radically different than most other countries, since we don't have that problem. It's a society matter, it doesn't mean you're right.
This thread is not about "should US citizens have weapons to defend themselves since all thugs have them", but "should citizens, wherever they are, have the right to freely carry guns." there are all kind of societies here. Yours need weapons, sadly, but it's not a fatality and you should open your views to other types of society.
Having a gun mostly increases the chance you will have to kill someone, or be killed, instead of increasing your chances to survive.
|
My position is simple: more guns = more gun deaths.
Making it easier to put guns into the hands of private citizens just means that you'll have more people panicking and accidentally shooting innocent people or at least people who are not a threat to their lives. The rate of gun ownership is also correlated with higher rates of suicide.
The bottom line, says Miller, is that "people are less likely to die from attempting suicide when they don't have access to guns in homes."
I do sympathise with the self defence argument, but I can't help feeling that gun ownership needs to be subject to a very thorough licensing system, linked to tests on multiple aspects of responsible gun ownership, and that owners should be subject to regular police/authority inspections to ensure that they are storing weapons properly in the home.
In the same way that we have licences for driving and other things, anybody who does own a gun should have to demonstrate that they are capable of using it responsibly. And that demonstration needs to be compelling.
|
On July 23 2012 04:53 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:48 OrchidThief wrote:On July 23 2012 04:40 Valentine wrote:On July 23 2012 04:34 fumikey wrote:
Obviously not.
There is only one country with an extremely large crime rate that is stupid enough to believe if everyone owned a gun crime will subside. Given some European countries have similar beliefs, they also have exponentially less criminals among their streets.
Ever hear the theory "If there were no armies, there could be no war"? I think it relates closely with firearms as well. It's not like this country can go back on its previous 200 years of gun ownership. Guns are already every-fucking-where and the support for keeping them is high because a lot of people: -Like guns -Hunt -Want protection It's unfortunate, but the situation in the US is a little different due to the sheer amount of guns of all sorts that are all over the country already. I don't see how this invalidates efforts towards more gun control. This thread is kind of funny, at this point it has come full circle and is mostly just discussing the same things that was discussed in the first 15 pages. You can't just nullify 200 years of history certainly, but if there was a desire for change you could do it in small steps. A lot of people liking guns isn't really a valid reason for keeping them around. They like guns because they're easily available/ingrained in culture, not vise versa. If they were a billion times harder to obtain, people wouldn't see them as valid hobbies. In any case, it's moot, because of how insignificant sports/hobby guns are in a discussion on gun control. I don't think he was using 'like guns' as a justification, nor would most, its just that as you said, theyre easily available and engrained in culture therefore they like them as a hobby or for the benefits they provide. It just IS that way, maybe it shoudn't be, but it's not likely to change any time soon.
So you're saying at this point there's no point in trying to increase gun control because there's so many of them? Isn't that a bit of a shortsighted philosophy? I mean even the greatest journey starts with a single step.
|
No.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 23 2012 04:48 OrchidThief wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:40 Valentine wrote:On July 23 2012 04:34 fumikey wrote:
Obviously not.
There is only one country with an extremely large crime rate that is stupid enough to believe if everyone owned a gun crime will subside. Given some European countries have similar beliefs, they also have exponentially less criminals among their streets.
Ever hear the theory "If there were no armies, there could be no war"? I think it relates closely with firearms as well. It's not like this country can go back on its previous 200 years of gun ownership. Guns are already every-fucking-where and the support for keeping them is high because a lot of people: -Like guns -Hunt -Want protection It's unfortunate, but the situation in the US is a little different due to the sheer amount of guns of all sorts that are all over the country already. I don't see how this invalidates efforts towards more gun control. This thread is kind of funny, at this point it has come full circle and is mostly just discussing the same things that was discussed in the first 15 pages. You can't just nullify 200 years of history certainly, but if there was a desire for change you could do it in small steps. A lot of people liking guns isn't really a valid reason for keeping them around. They like guns because they're easily available/ingrained in culture, not vise versa. If they were a billion times harder to obtain, people wouldn't see them as valid hobbies. In any case, it's moot, because of how insignificant sports/hobby guns are in a discussion on gun control.
It doesn't invalidate the efforts, and just in case you were wondering, I would like to see heavier restrictions on gun ownership than we currently have. I was just reinforcing the fact that these little steps are quite hard to take in this country for the reasons that it has already been in our culture for so long, and that they already are everywhere.
On July 23 2012 04:58 OrchidThief wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:53 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 04:48 OrchidThief wrote:On July 23 2012 04:40 Valentine wrote:On July 23 2012 04:34 fumikey wrote:
Obviously not.
There is only one country with an extremely large crime rate that is stupid enough to believe if everyone owned a gun crime will subside. Given some European countries have similar beliefs, they also have exponentially less criminals among their streets.
Ever hear the theory "If there were no armies, there could be no war"? I think it relates closely with firearms as well. It's not like this country can go back on its previous 200 years of gun ownership. Guns are already every-fucking-where and the support for keeping them is high because a lot of people: -Like guns -Hunt -Want protection It's unfortunate, but the situation in the US is a little different due to the sheer amount of guns of all sorts that are all over the country already. I don't see how this invalidates efforts towards more gun control. This thread is kind of funny, at this point it has come full circle and is mostly just discussing the same things that was discussed in the first 15 pages. You can't just nullify 200 years of history certainly, but if there was a desire for change you could do it in small steps. A lot of people liking guns isn't really a valid reason for keeping them around. They like guns because they're easily available/ingrained in culture, not vise versa. If they were a billion times harder to obtain, people wouldn't see them as valid hobbies. In any case, it's moot, because of how insignificant sports/hobby guns are in a discussion on gun control. I don't think he was using 'like guns' as a justification, nor would most, its just that as you said, theyre easily available and engrained in culture therefore they like them as a hobby or for the benefits they provide. It just IS that way, maybe it shoudn't be, but it's not likely to change any time soon. So you're saying at this point there's no point in trying to increase gun control because there's so many of them? Isn't that a bit of a shortsighted philosophy? I mean even the greatest journey starts with a single step.
There is a point to increasing gun control, I'm just pointing out why it is difficult to start, and why it has not made much progression here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
