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.
The reason I carry? Because people like this really do exist and I'm not about to bet my life that I can disarm his crowbar or that pepper spray would deter him.
Leaving in fear is your choice. What about your community?
Half the households in a country have at least 1 firearm, it's not because most live in fear. Stereotyping is not the way to go about this issue, nor any other issue. It would be unfair to say that most women who get an abortion are murderers and deserve to go to hell, or that pot smokers are low-life losers or hippies. It's just not the case. It is a liberty issue that everyone should be concerned about, liberal or conservative.
Why then? Why they need it if they have nothing to fear?
Emergency preparedness Commerce and employment Historical preservation and study Obtaining food by hunting Olympic competition Collecting Sporting pursuits Target practice Recreational shooting Oh, and constitutional right. Almost forgot that one.
13 000 murders per a year (the highest rate by far of all western countries) is, indeed, a cheap price to pay for freedom to...have sport.
Oh and to follow a constitutional right written more than 200 years ago in a very different context. Almost forgot that one.
Sorry, i'm a bit bully with you...i'm just like..."wtf????". I try, i can understand that guns is not problem, but what's the problem?? And why the richest country in the world can't fix it??
Abusive use of guns shouldn't be a problem for you. But it's one, and it doesn't seem to touch you (not you Nagano, but people of US in general) that much. It's like "20 children died...well....bad luck"
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does?
And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians.
And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom?
Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect?
It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there.
Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread.
We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!".
Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure.
The amount of ignorance about actual gun laws in the USA is understandable, considering there is no easy way to look them up. They vary from state to state, county to county, and city to city. What I think we all need is actual/accurate/complete information about gun laws in the USA. Does anyone know of an up-to-date resource for this?
On December 18 2012 07:31 JingleHell wrote: [quote]
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
How you can ask such a question scares me. Firstly i like how you change mass shootings to gun-related crime, in that case of course its only 1% because of all the gang related crime. But it's obvious assualt rifle's are the prefer'd weapons in mass shootings, one was used on friday, one was used at the batman shooting and countless other school/mall attacks.
And to answer your frankly... dumb question about assault weapons being diffrent to hunting rifles. Do you need a 45 ammo magazine to go hunting? Do you need a semi automatic to go hunting? No, "hunting rifle" does the job fine.
Also do you need a assault rifle for self defence? no.
I thought this was common sense, we are going round in circles here
So you are in favor of banning and confiscating high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic fire?
Yes i think that would be a step in the right direction.
In before the "but if they cant use those then they will simply use other means" arguement.
Banning high-capacity magazines won't fix what it is you're trying to prevent, which I'm assuming is mass shootings. The perp of the VA tech shooting, the most number of kills in a shooting on record, used two handguns. Not scary, military-grade (lol), super gun "assault weapons", but handguns. It's called having multiple magazines. If the solution does not prevent the problem you were trying to fix, it's bad policy.
If you want to ban semi-automatic firearms, that means most firearms in the country, good luck because that's just not possible in the United States, already struck down twice by the Supreme Court.
The reason I carry? Because people like this really do exist and I'm not about to bet my life that I can disarm his crowbar or that pepper spray would deter him.
Leaving in fear is your choice. What about your community?
Half the households in a country have at least 1 firearm, it's not because most live in fear. Stereotyping is not the way to go about this issue, nor any other issue. It would be unfair to say that most women who get an abortion are murderers and deserve to go to hell, or that pot smokers are low-life losers or hippies. It's just not the case. It is a liberty issue that everyone should be concerned about, liberal or conservative.
Why then? Why they need it if they have nothing to fear?
Emergency preparedness Commerce and employment Historical preservation and study Obtaining food by hunting Olympic competition Collecting Sporting pursuits Target practice Recreational shooting Oh, and constitutional right. Almost forgot that one.
13 000 murders per a year (the highest rate by far of all western countries) is, indeed, a cheap price to pay for freedom to...have sport.
Oh and to follow a constitutional right written more than 200 years ago in a very different context. Almost forgot that one.
Sorry, i'm a bit bully with you...i'm just like..."wtf????". I try, i can understand that guns is not problem, but what's the problem?? And why the richest country in the world can't fix it??
Abusive use of guns shouldn't be a problem for you. But it's one, and it doesn't seem to touch you (not you Nagano, but people of US in general) that much. It's like "20 children died...well....bad luck"
I just dont get it...
just to bring it up once more:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This can mean everything from: weapons just for the national guard/national army up to tanks for the people (who could afford it).
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does?
And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians.
And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom?
"Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles.
Why do people keep saying "You have no knowledge about firearms" because I typed a word wrong? Have you forgotten that Norway has mandatory military practice where everyone learns how to shoot with fully automatic assault rifles? (Or at my time, fully automatic hand canons..the ag3 kicks quite well). Me a little bit more than most else as I was a hunter (I have no idea what the equivalent in english is. Basically we had more training with firearms and practiced sneaking behind enemy lines and that sort of thing). This will be the first and last time I ever say this on an internet forum, mostly because I hate it when other people do.
Stop judging people relentlessly because you want to prove them wrong by any means possible.
And you are as stupid as you sound if you think assault rifles have the same function as a hunting rifle. (Hint: One is used for hunting, the other is not)
The reason I carry? Because people like this really do exist and I'm not about to bet my life that I can disarm his crowbar or that pepper spray would deter him.
Leaving in fear is your choice. What about your community?
Half the households in a country have at least 1 firearm, it's not because most live in fear. Stereotyping is not the way to go about this issue, nor any other issue. It would be unfair to say that most women who get an abortion are murderers and deserve to go to hell, or that pot smokers are low-life losers or hippies. It's just not the case. It is a liberty issue that everyone should be concerned about, liberal or conservative.
Why then? Why they need it if they have nothing to fear?
Emergency preparedness Commerce and employment Historical preservation and study Obtaining food by hunting Olympic competition Collecting Sporting pursuits Target practice Recreational shooting Oh, and constitutional right. Almost forgot that one.
13 000 murders per a year (the highest rate by far of all western countries) is, indeed, a cheap price to pay for freedom to...have sport.
Oh and to follow a constitutional right written more than 200 years ago in a very different context. Almost forgot that one.
Sorry, i'm a bit bully with you...i'm just like..."wtf????". I try, i can understand that guns is not problem, but what's the problem?? And why the richest country in the world can't fix it??
Abusive use of guns shouldn't be a problem for you. But it's one, and it doesn't seem to touch you (not you Nagano, but people of US in general) that much. It's like "20 children died...well....bad luck"
I just dont get it...
Because I don't exploit events like CT to scare people into bad policy in the name of security. See: Patriot Act, TSA, Wire-tapping, list goes on.
On December 18 2012 07:31 JingleHell wrote: [quote]
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head.
What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis.
This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked.
Lets just hope the government will actually do something this time
Gun control would have done nothing to stop that massacre. This psycho shot all his victims multiple times. He would have done similar damage with a knife if he stabbed his victims 3-4 times each. Gun control laws wouldn't have stopped Aurora. The shooter had illegally obtained automatic rifles and working grenades. Gun laws didn't stop Virginia Tech, the shooter should never of had access to firearms in the first place due to his diagnosed mental illness.
Add that to the fact that almost all gun homicides are committed by former convicts/felons who should never have had guns in the first place, and the answer is clear. It's not MORE laws, it's ensuring that our current laws are actually enforced. If the gun laws are enforced so poorly now, what makes you think adding more ineffectively enforced gun restrictions is actually gonna fix anything?
This has been argue'd before and is very weak, knife would not do no where near as much damage, not to mention the fact that teachers tried to stop this kid with a GUN, there is a much higher chance that they would of succeded if he only had a knife.
All of his adult victims were 30-50 year old women. I don't believe they would have been able to effectively disarm and subdue the assailant.
On December 18 2012 08:46 micronesia wrote: The amount of ignorance about actual gun laws in the USA is understandable, considering there is no easy way to look them up. They vary from state to state, county to county, and city to city. What I think we all need is actual/accurate/complete information about gun laws in the USA. Does anyone know of an up-to-date resource for this?
For federal laws the ATF is a good reference. As for state laws they each have wikipedia pages that source the state websites.
The reason I carry? Because people like this really do exist and I'm not about to bet my life that I can disarm his crowbar or that pepper spray would deter him.
It is becos such crackheads exists that is why nobody should carry guns
On December 18 2012 07:31 JingleHell wrote: [quote]
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does?
And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians.
And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom?
Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect?
It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there.
Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread.
We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!".
Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure.
Gun rights isn't a liberty issue? Also, you clearly know nothing of how firearm purchases work in the U.S..
And no, you used the right word. "Assault rifles" are already banned in the United States. You read that correctly. The subject this thread is mainly revolving around is "assault weapons". Please know the difference between the two because people like you, who tend to know the least about firearms and laws around it, are typically the ones most opposed to them. It's important to know everything first.
The reason I carry? Because people like this really do exist and I'm not about to bet my life that I can disarm his crowbar or that pepper spray would deter him.
Leaving in fear is your choice. What about your community?
Half the households in a country have at least 1 firearm, it's not because most live in fear. Stereotyping is not the way to go about this issue, nor any other issue. It would be unfair to say that most women who get an abortion are murderers and deserve to go to hell, or that pot smokers are low-life losers or hippies. It's just not the case. It is a liberty issue that everyone should be concerned about, liberal or conservative.
Why then? Why they need it if they have nothing to fear?
Emergency preparedness Commerce and employment Historical preservation and study Obtaining food by hunting Olympic competition Collecting Sporting pursuits Target practice Recreational shooting Oh, and constitutional right. Almost forgot that one.
13 000 murders per a year (the highest rate by far of all western countries) is, indeed, a cheap price to pay for freedom to...have sport.
Oh and to follow a constitutional right written more than 200 years ago in a very different context. Almost forgot that one.
Sorry, i'm a bit bully with you...i'm just like..."wtf????". I try, i can understand that guns is not problem, but what's the problem?? And why the richest country in the world can't fix it??
Abusive use of guns shouldn't be a problem for you. But it's one, and it doesn't seem to touch you (not you Nagano, but people of US in general) that much. It's like "20 children died...well....bad luck"
I just dont get it...
About 10,400-11,700 of those crimes wouldn't happen if the current existing gun laws were actually enforced properly. Studies have shown that the majority of those who commit gun homicides have had a prior felony/crime before the murder. Which means that if the laws were properly enforced, they should never of had access to the weapons they used in the first place.
On December 18 2012 08:46 micronesia wrote: The amount of ignorance about actual gun laws in the USA is understandable, considering there is no easy way to look them up. They vary from state to state, county to county, and city to city. What I think we all need is actual/accurate/complete information about gun laws in the USA. Does anyone know of an up-to-date resource for this?
For federal laws the ATF is a good reference. As for state laws they each have wikipedia pages that source the state websites.
Even within states laws vary a lot though... what we need is a carefully compiled overview of gun laws... things like, in what percent of the country (by population that lives in the region) do you need a license before you can purchase a pistol, and is it legal anywhere to buy crazy weapon X, etc.
On December 18 2012 07:31 JingleHell wrote: [quote]
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does?
And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians.
And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom?
"Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles.
Why do people keep saying "You have no knowledge about firearms" because I typed a word wrong? Have you forgotten that Norway has mandatory military practice where everyone learns how to shoot with fully automatic assault rifles? (Or at my time, fully automatic hand canons..the ag3 kicks quite well). Me a little bit more than most else as I was a hunter (I have no idea what the equivalent in english is. Basically we had more training with firearms and practiced sneaking behind enemy lines and that sort of thing). This will be the first and last time I ever say this on an internet forum, mostly because I hate it when other people do.
Stop judging people relentlessly because you want to prove them wrong by any means possible.
And you are as stupid as you sound if you think assault rifles have the same function as a hunting rifle. (Hint: One is used for hunting, the other is not)
Assault rifles are already banned and have been since 1963. You are clueless. AR rifles mean Armalite. There is no functional difference between a hunting rifle and an "assault weapon".
All of his adult victims were 30-50 year old women. I don't believe they would have been able to effectively disarm and subdue the assailant.
Not sure if serious, killing something with a knife is far from a clean, quick, easy affair. Easily overwhelmed. The suspect himself did not look exactly like the hulk either.
On December 18 2012 08:46 micronesia wrote: The amount of ignorance about actual gun laws in the USA is understandable, considering there is no easy way to look them up. They vary from state to state, county to county, and city to city. What I think we all need is actual/accurate/complete information about gun laws in the USA. Does anyone know of an up-to-date resource for this?
On December 18 2012 07:51 radscorpion9 wrote: [quote]
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head.
What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis.
This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked.
Lets just hope the government will actually do something this time
Gun control would have done nothing to stop that massacre. This psycho shot all his victims multiple times. He would have done similar damage with a knife if he stabbed his victims 3-4 times each. Gun control laws wouldn't have stopped Aurora. The shooter had illegally obtained automatic rifles and working grenades. Gun laws didn't stop Virginia Tech, the shooter should never of had access to firearms in the first place due to his diagnosed mental illness.
Add that to the fact that almost all gun homicides are committed by former convicts/felons who should never have had guns in the first place, and the answer is clear. It's not MORE laws, it's ensuring that our current laws are actually enforced. If the gun laws are enforced so poorly now, what makes you think adding more ineffectively enforced gun restrictions is actually gonna fix anything?
This has been argue'd before and is very weak, knife would not do no where near as much damage, not to mention the fact that teachers tried to stop this kid with a GUN, there is a much higher chance that they would of succeded if he only had a knife.
All of his adult victims were 30-50 year old women. I don't believe they would have been able to effectively disarm and subdue the assailant.
What???? You think people would just stand there and let him stab them? have you heard about being able to pick things up and fight back? you dont need to use your fists. Have you even seen the guy? He was a skinny 140lb's kid.
Are you really argueing that a knife can do more damage then assault rifle? lol
In the United States people own guns to protect themselves against threats as well as a Tyrannical Government. It is written in the constitution and therefore is a cornerstone of our government. The right to own guns is going nowhere. Guns are our protection against a Government that listens not to the people but to itself.
For those saying that the 2nd amendment is not applicable to modern times I present to you the Switzerland Example. Most have heard of this overly used cliche of an example so google it if you do not understand.
With recent events it is easy to scapegoat gun owners for what has happened. But in reality, if someone as sick and twisted as this man was is determined to hurt people, we will do it regardless of if he had legal access to guns or not.
Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Banning guns is starting another war on drugs. A war that cannot be won. Guns are here to stay embrace it. Banning guns will work as well as banning Heroin, Meth or even Weed has. Two states have already tried to legalize weed and this forum gives them praise. Same situation with guns.
Imagine if school teachers carried how this situation would have changed. This man attacked a school because it was defenseless and he wanted to kill as many people as he could before taking the cowards way out. Would he have done the same if he realized he would get one or two shots off before receiving return fire? I doubt it.
All of his adult victims were 30-50 year old women. I don't believe they would have been able to effectively disarm and subdue the assailant.
Not sure if serious, killing something with a knife is far from a clean, quick, easy affair. Easily overwhelmed. The suspect himself did not look exactly like the hulk either.
The logical progression for a spree killer is not gun -> knife. Knifes do not provide the sheer killing power guns do. Spree killers would switch to homemade bombs. Sometimes bombs would be the first choice as shown in this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
On December 18 2012 07:51 radscorpion9 wrote: [quote]
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does?
And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians.
And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom?
Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect?
It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there.
Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread.
We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!".
Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure.
Gun rights isn't a liberty issue? Also, you clearly know nothing of how firearm purchases work in the U.S..
And no, you used the right word. "Assault rifles" are already banned in the United States. You read that correctly. The subject this thread is mainly revolving around is "assault weapons". Please know the difference between the two because people like you, who tend to know the least about firearms and laws around it, are typically the ones most opposed to them. It's important to know everything first.
Out of curiosity, where did you hear that Assault rifles were banned in the U.S.? Are you referring to the sunset law that was passed by Clintion and expired under Bush? If not then I have no idea where this claim of assault rifles ban originates from, because I'm certain I'd get a letter by the feds stating that my AR-15 is illegal...
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head.
What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis.
This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked.
Lets just hope the government will actually do something this time
Gun control would have done nothing to stop that massacre. This psycho shot all his victims multiple times. He would have done similar damage with a knife if he stabbed his victims 3-4 times each. Gun control laws wouldn't have stopped Aurora. The shooter had illegally obtained automatic rifles and working grenades. Gun laws didn't stop Virginia Tech, the shooter should never of had access to firearms in the first place due to his diagnosed mental illness.
Add that to the fact that almost all gun homicides are committed by former convicts/felons who should never have had guns in the first place, and the answer is clear. It's not MORE laws, it's ensuring that our current laws are actually enforced. If the gun laws are enforced so poorly now, what makes you think adding more ineffectively enforced gun restrictions is actually gonna fix anything?
This has been argue'd before and is very weak, knife would not do no where near as much damage, not to mention the fact that teachers tried to stop this kid with a GUN, there is a much higher chance that they would of succeded if he only had a knife.
All of his adult victims were 30-50 year old women. I don't believe they would have been able to effectively disarm and subdue the assailant.
What???? You think people would just stand there and let him stab them? have you heard about being able to pick things up and fight back? you dont need to use your fists. Have you even seen the guy? He was a skinny 140lb's kid.
Are you really argueing that a knife can do more damage then assault rifle? lol
His progression wouldn't have been to stab a teacher once. He would have stabbed them multiple times (he shot a victim up to 11 times and all victims at least twice). I'm not arguing that he would have done more damage with a knife, rather that it's dumb to simply conclude that he would have done significantly less damage if he had a knife.
EPT
. I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
