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.
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
And then you have cases like this:
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
How do women defend themselves without a gun? Is this a serious question? Every person is vulnerable to someone else out there. The fact that you are especially vulnerable is not a valid argument.
On August 28 2014 12:41 IgnE wrote: How about you people compare the number of pre-meditated homicides with second- and third- degree murder. Most homicides aren't premeditated. The argument is not that if you take away guns people won't be able to kill each other. That's obviously stupid. The argument is that you will have fewer people killing each other after making a rash decision to pull out a deadly weapon that is both cheap and plentiful, making it easy to obtain. Just stop with the idiotic arguments that you can make a bomb or fashion a weapon that is not a gun to kill someone.
Homicide statistics include accidental and justified killings. They aren't all murders.
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
How do women defend themselves without a gun? Is this a serious question? Every person is vulnerable to someone else out there. The fact that you are especially vulnerable is not a valid argument.
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
Would you really draw the gun against retards ? What if the retard actually had a gun too ? And aimed at you ? That's right, you'd either fire or he would.
Much like everything there's an exception. Maybe you'd be allowed to use a gun but that'd be it. What I don't understand is that pretty much everyone can carry a gun. A gun designed to kill. For those who want to defend against bears and the like, there are hunters with special license that can only use a rifle. And to be honest I find it way harder to "hide" in case you're looking to kill someone.
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
Would you really draw the gun against retards ? What if the retard actually had a gun too ? And aimed at you ? That's right, you'd either fire or he would.
Much like everything there's an exception. Maybe you'd be allowed to use a gun but that'd be it. What I don't understand is that pretty much everyone can carry a gun. A gun designed to kill. For those who want to defend against bears and the like, there are hunters with special license that can only use a rifle. And to be honest I find it way harder to "hide" in case you're looking to kill someone.
So you're saying you would prefer to let these people beat you, possibly to death, than draw a gun?
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
Would you really draw the gun against retards ? What if the retard actually had a gun too ? And aimed at you ? That's right, you'd either fire or he would.
Much like everything there's an exception. Maybe you'd be allowed to use a gun but that'd be it. What I don't understand is that pretty much everyone can carry a gun. A gun designed to kill. For those who want to defend against bears and the like, there are hunters with special license that can only use a rifle. And to be honest I find it way harder to "hide" in case you're looking to kill someone.
So you're saying you would prefer to let these people beat you, possibly to death, than draw a gun?
Why not ? At least you'd have a chance to not die. But more importantly I'd chose you to carry a gun (or preferably something else than a gun that don't kill ppl) but not the other one. Like I said there are exceptions in everything. I just don't understand why everyone can carry one.
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
Would you really draw the gun against retards ? What if the retard actually had a gun too ? And aimed at you ? That's right, you'd either fire or he would.
Much like everything there's an exception. Maybe you'd be allowed to use a gun but that'd be it. What I don't understand is that pretty much everyone can carry a gun. A gun designed to kill. For those who want to defend against bears and the like, there are hunters with special license that can only use a rifle. And to be honest I find it way harder to "hide" in case you're looking to kill someone.
So you're saying you would prefer to let these people beat you, possibly to death, than draw a gun?
Why not ? At least you'd have a chance to not die. But more importantly I'd chose you to carry a gun (or preferably something else than a gun that don't kill ppl) but not the other one. Like I said there are exceptions in everything. I just don't understand why everyone can carry one.
I think you have a better chance to not die if you draw a gun. Like I said, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the gun being fired at all. You draw it, they see it, and either surrender or run off.
If the driver had drawn a gun, they all might've backed off. Or the first guy to break the window would be shot and the rest scatter. The biker would even have good odds to live. Modern medicine is amazing, and unless you're hit in the head or the heart, you have pretty good odds to survive. Real guns aren't like the Golden Gun in 007: Golden Eye, they don't kill instantly in one hit anywhere.
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
Would you really draw the gun against retards ? What if the retard actually had a gun too ? And aimed at you ? That's right, you'd either fire or he would.
Much like everything there's an exception. Maybe you'd be allowed to use a gun but that'd be it. What I don't understand is that pretty much everyone can carry a gun. A gun designed to kill. For those who want to defend against bears and the like, there are hunters with special license that can only use a rifle. And to be honest I find it way harder to "hide" in case you're looking to kill someone.
So you're saying you would prefer to let these people beat you, possibly to death, than draw a gun?
Why not ? At least you'd have a chance to not die. But more importantly I'd chose you to carry a gun (or preferably something else than a gun that don't kill ppl) but not the other one. Like I said there are exceptions in everything. I just don't understand why everyone can carry one.
I think you have a better chance to not die if you draw a gun. Like I said, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the gun being fired at all. You draw it, they see it, and either surrender or run off.
If the driver had drawn a gun, they all might've backed off. Or the first guy to break the window would be shot and the rest scatter. He'd even have good odds to live. Modern medicine is amazing, and unless you're hit in the head or the heart, you have pretty good odds to survive. Real guns aren't like the Golden Gun in 007: Golden Eye, they don't kill instantly in one hit anywhere.
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets.
On August 28 2014 12:41 IgnE wrote: How about you people compare the number of pre-meditated homicides with second- and third- degree murder. Most homicides aren't premeditated. The argument is not that if you take away guns people won't be able to kill each other. That's obviously stupid. The argument is that you will have fewer people killing each other after making a rash decision to pull out a deadly weapon that is both cheap and plentiful, making it easy to obtain. Just stop with the idiotic arguments that you can make a bomb or fashion a weapon that is not a gun to kill someone.
Homicide statistics include accidental and justified killings. They aren't all murders.
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
How do women defend themselves without a gun? Is this a serious question? Every person is vulnerable to someone else out there. The fact that you are especially vulnerable is not a valid argument.
Why should anyone be defenseless?
What? Are you saying that most homicides that aren't accidents or "justified" are, therefore, premeditated? What kind of a response is that?
Being defenseless is just a fact of life for everyone.
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
Would you really draw the gun against retards ? What if the retard actually had a gun too ? And aimed at you ? That's right, you'd either fire or he would.
Much like everything there's an exception. Maybe you'd be allowed to use a gun but that'd be it. What I don't understand is that pretty much everyone can carry a gun. A gun designed to kill. For those who want to defend against bears and the like, there are hunters with special license that can only use a rifle. And to be honest I find it way harder to "hide" in case you're looking to kill someone.
So you're saying you would prefer to let these people beat you, possibly to death, than draw a gun?
Why not ? At least you'd have a chance to not die. But more importantly I'd chose you to carry a gun (or preferably something else than a gun that don't kill ppl) but not the other one. Like I said there are exceptions in everything. I just don't understand why everyone can carry one.
I think you have a better chance to not die if you draw a gun. Like I said, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the gun being fired at all. You draw it, they see it, and either surrender or run off.
If the driver had drawn a gun, they all might've backed off. Or the first guy to break the window would be shot and the rest scatter. He'd even have good odds to live. Modern medicine is amazing, and unless you're hit in the head or the heart, you have pretty good odds to survive. Real guns aren't like the Golden Gun in 007: Golden Eye, they don't kill instantly in one hit anywhere.
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets.
It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them.
Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with?
On August 28 2014 12:41 IgnE wrote: How about you people compare the number of pre-meditated homicides with second- and third- degree murder. Most homicides aren't premeditated. The argument is not that if you take away guns people won't be able to kill each other. That's obviously stupid. The argument is that you will have fewer people killing each other after making a rash decision to pull out a deadly weapon that is both cheap and plentiful, making it easy to obtain. Just stop with the idiotic arguments that you can make a bomb or fashion a weapon that is not a gun to kill someone.
Homicide statistics include accidental and justified killings. They aren't all murders.
On August 28 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:
On August 28 2014 12:39 Millitron wrote:
On August 28 2014 12:29 RaiZ wrote:
On August 28 2014 12:07 Millitron wrote:
On August 28 2014 11:53 Velious wrote:
On August 28 2014 11:20 Millitron wrote:
Automatic guns are not inherently a bad thing. Before 1986, there were mail-order catalogs selling machine guns and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Yet they were still rarely used in crime. They're hard to use effectively, harder to conceal than handguns, and don't really offer any advantages to criminals when you consider how much harder to use they are.
The mobsters in the 20's and 30's were doomed when they started using fully automatic weapons. Mobs often had some public support before they used full autos. At first, it was from people who hated prohibition, and then in the 30's it was from practically everyone. The Mob was often seen as a group of modern Robin Hoods. But they switched to full autos to better fight the newly-formed FBI, killed a few too many innocent bystanders during shoot-outs with the Feds, and blew any good PR they had. Now suddenly the masses were more than happy to snitch on the Mafia.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
How do women defend themselves without a gun? Is this a serious question? Every person is vulnerable to someone else out there. The fact that you are especially vulnerable is not a valid argument.
Why should anyone be defenseless?
What? Are you saying that most homicides that aren't accidents or "justified" are, therefore, premeditated? What kind of a response is that?
Being defenseless is just a fact of life for everyone.
Being defenseless should not be a fact of life for everyone.
I'm saying that the number of homicides that are both murder and not premeditated make up a smaller percent of the total than is otherwise apparent.
Justified homicides include police shooting criminals, or victims killing assailants.
On August 28 2014 13:09 travis wrote: Out of curiosity, who here has been seriously attacked and hurt for absolutely no reason?
I knew of an Iraq veteran who came home and was at a bar. He was then stabbed over a dozen times from behind by a person with mental problems. The mentally ill person didn't like the color the guy's shirt (definitely not gang related thing, just mental problem). As far as I know, nobody was armed with a firearm in the bar.
The Iraq veteran managed to live but can no longer stand infront of people with his backs to them and he also walks with a humped back.
Hahaha what. Interesting. I imagine prohibition and it's repeal had some sway over the politics of the time as well. I suppose handguns and automatic weapons serve different purposes from the perspective of criminal activity, but allowing regular citizens to legally purchase and own automatic weaponry just seems.. excessive.
I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
Would you really draw the gun against retards ? What if the retard actually had a gun too ? And aimed at you ? That's right, you'd either fire or he would.
Much like everything there's an exception. Maybe you'd be allowed to use a gun but that'd be it. What I don't understand is that pretty much everyone can carry a gun. A gun designed to kill. For those who want to defend against bears and the like, there are hunters with special license that can only use a rifle. And to be honest I find it way harder to "hide" in case you're looking to kill someone.
So you're saying you would prefer to let these people beat you, possibly to death, than draw a gun?
Why not ? At least you'd have a chance to not die. But more importantly I'd chose you to carry a gun (or preferably something else than a gun that don't kill ppl) but not the other one. Like I said there are exceptions in everything. I just don't understand why everyone can carry one.
I think you have a better chance to not die if you draw a gun. Like I said, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the gun being fired at all. You draw it, they see it, and either surrender or run off.
If the driver had drawn a gun, they all might've backed off. Or the first guy to break the window would be shot and the rest scatter. He'd even have good odds to live. Modern medicine is amazing, and unless you're hit in the head or the heart, you have pretty good odds to survive. Real guns aren't like the Golden Gun in 007: Golden Eye, they don't kill instantly in one hit anywhere.
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets.
It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them.
Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with?
Mob mentality doesn't mean that everyone in a group becomes a super hero.
It does mean that a group of 20 people who already have the herd mentality of causing violence are more likely to continue forward and escalate than turn 180 and start doing the exact opposite.
On August 28 2014 12:07 Millitron wrote: [quote] I definitely don't agree. The vast majority of gunshots are against paper targets and tin cans. Its loads of fun to shoot stuff, even with just a bolt action rifle. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but shooting an army of tin cans with a full auto gun must be a whole different order of fun.
And there are rare occasions where you might actually have a serious use for a full-auto gun. The one district of stores in L.A. that didn't get looted and burned during the Rodney King riots were protected because their owners were on the rooftops with rifles. Luckily for everyone, the crowd backed off, but if the rioters had turned violent and not backed down after the first shot or two, the store owners would've been doomed with their pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.
In case you can't watch the video, a gang of around 20 bikers chase a family in an SUV in some kind of extended road rage incident. Eventually the SUV is cornered, and the bikers start smashing their way through the windows. The video then ends. A quick googling reveals that, thankfully, the driver is only beaten, but he easily could have been killed. I don't know what anyone could do to defend themselves in a similar situation without a gun. Preferably a fully-automatic one.
Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
Would you really draw the gun against retards ? What if the retard actually had a gun too ? And aimed at you ? That's right, you'd either fire or he would.
Much like everything there's an exception. Maybe you'd be allowed to use a gun but that'd be it. What I don't understand is that pretty much everyone can carry a gun. A gun designed to kill. For those who want to defend against bears and the like, there are hunters with special license that can only use a rifle. And to be honest I find it way harder to "hide" in case you're looking to kill someone.
So you're saying you would prefer to let these people beat you, possibly to death, than draw a gun?
Why not ? At least you'd have a chance to not die. But more importantly I'd chose you to carry a gun (or preferably something else than a gun that don't kill ppl) but not the other one. Like I said there are exceptions in everything. I just don't understand why everyone can carry one.
I think you have a better chance to not die if you draw a gun. Like I said, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the gun being fired at all. You draw it, they see it, and either surrender or run off.
If the driver had drawn a gun, they all might've backed off. Or the first guy to break the window would be shot and the rest scatter. He'd even have good odds to live. Modern medicine is amazing, and unless you're hit in the head or the heart, you have pretty good odds to survive. Real guns aren't like the Golden Gun in 007: Golden Eye, they don't kill instantly in one hit anywhere.
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets.
It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them.
Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with?
Mob mentality doesn't mean that everyone in a group becomes a super hero.
It does mean that a group of 20 people who already have the herd mentality of causing violence are more likely to continue forward and escalate than turn 180 and start doing the exact opposite.
Would you rather let them beat you to death than draw a gun?
On August 28 2014 12:29 RaiZ wrote: [quote] Thank GOD ! Nobody used a gun here... See what I mean ?... That's right, if they had a gun that would automaticall results in at least 2 deaths.
Guns don't kill ppl. Only retards kill ppl. But you know what ? Guns help a ton to kill. Have you ever considered it ? The amount of excuses I see here that says if ppl didn't get guns they'd find other ways to kill, are just ridiculous...
Sure they'd find other way to kill, but you know, at least they'd have to think twice about how to kill them, simply because you don't kill ppl more easily than with gun. Knife ? You'd have to get close to the target. Car ? There'd be a lot of witnesses or you'd need to kill him at night preferably or at empty places. Bow ? Well... Not as easy to kill as with a gun still. And you'd leave an obvious trademark. Cross bow ? Same shit.
Not to mention the multitude ways of killing ppl that mostly include to get you close to the intended victim.
So yes, Banning guns would help getting way less homicides. I'm 99% sure of it. Because there will always be retards no matter the place so it doesn't matter if you're smart and only use for self-defence only.
If you really fear about getting robbed or anything, know that there are multiple way to defend yourselves without guns.
Fuck that I ain't reading this topic anymore because it seems like it's a lost cause.
You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
Would you really draw the gun against retards ? What if the retard actually had a gun too ? And aimed at you ? That's right, you'd either fire or he would.
Much like everything there's an exception. Maybe you'd be allowed to use a gun but that'd be it. What I don't understand is that pretty much everyone can carry a gun. A gun designed to kill. For those who want to defend against bears and the like, there are hunters with special license that can only use a rifle. And to be honest I find it way harder to "hide" in case you're looking to kill someone.
So you're saying you would prefer to let these people beat you, possibly to death, than draw a gun?
Why not ? At least you'd have a chance to not die. But more importantly I'd chose you to carry a gun (or preferably something else than a gun that don't kill ppl) but not the other one. Like I said there are exceptions in everything. I just don't understand why everyone can carry one.
I think you have a better chance to not die if you draw a gun. Like I said, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the gun being fired at all. You draw it, they see it, and either surrender or run off.
If the driver had drawn a gun, they all might've backed off. Or the first guy to break the window would be shot and the rest scatter. He'd even have good odds to live. Modern medicine is amazing, and unless you're hit in the head or the heart, you have pretty good odds to survive. Real guns aren't like the Golden Gun in 007: Golden Eye, they don't kill instantly in one hit anywhere.
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets.
It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them.
Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with?
Mob mentality doesn't mean that everyone in a group becomes a super hero.
It does mean that a group of 20 people who already have the herd mentality of causing violence are more likely to continue forward and escalate than turn 180 and start doing the exact opposite.
Would you rather let them beat you to death than draw a gun?
On August 28 2014 12:39 Millitron wrote: [quote] You can draw a gun and defend yourself without firing a shot. He could've drawn and scared the bikers off. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired.
Again, how do I, a person with muscular dystrophy, defend myself without a gun?
Would you really draw the gun against retards ? What if the retard actually had a gun too ? And aimed at you ? That's right, you'd either fire or he would.
Much like everything there's an exception. Maybe you'd be allowed to use a gun but that'd be it. What I don't understand is that pretty much everyone can carry a gun. A gun designed to kill. For those who want to defend against bears and the like, there are hunters with special license that can only use a rifle. And to be honest I find it way harder to "hide" in case you're looking to kill someone.
So you're saying you would prefer to let these people beat you, possibly to death, than draw a gun?
Why not ? At least you'd have a chance to not die. But more importantly I'd chose you to carry a gun (or preferably something else than a gun that don't kill ppl) but not the other one. Like I said there are exceptions in everything. I just don't understand why everyone can carry one.
I think you have a better chance to not die if you draw a gun. Like I said, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the gun being fired at all. You draw it, they see it, and either surrender or run off.
If the driver had drawn a gun, they all might've backed off. Or the first guy to break the window would be shot and the rest scatter. He'd even have good odds to live. Modern medicine is amazing, and unless you're hit in the head or the heart, you have pretty good odds to survive. Real guns aren't like the Golden Gun in 007: Golden Eye, they don't kill instantly in one hit anywhere.
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets.
It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them.
Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with?
Mob mentality doesn't mean that everyone in a group becomes a super hero.
It does mean that a group of 20 people who already have the herd mentality of causing violence are more likely to continue forward and escalate than turn 180 and start doing the exact opposite.
Would you rather let them beat you to death than draw a gun?
But he wasn't beaten to death.
He did not know that he wasn't being beaten to death during the beating. In fact, for all he knew, his wife and daughter were next.
On August 28 2014 12:49 RaiZ wrote: [quote] Would you really draw the gun against retards ? What if the retard actually had a gun too ? And aimed at you ? That's right, you'd either fire or he would.
Much like everything there's an exception. Maybe you'd be allowed to use a gun but that'd be it. What I don't understand is that pretty much everyone can carry a gun. A gun designed to kill. For those who want to defend against bears and the like, there are hunters with special license that can only use a rifle. And to be honest I find it way harder to "hide" in case you're looking to kill someone.
So you're saying you would prefer to let these people beat you, possibly to death, than draw a gun?
Why not ? At least you'd have a chance to not die. But more importantly I'd chose you to carry a gun (or preferably something else than a gun that don't kill ppl) but not the other one. Like I said there are exceptions in everything. I just don't understand why everyone can carry one.
I think you have a better chance to not die if you draw a gun. Like I said, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the gun being fired at all. You draw it, they see it, and either surrender or run off.
If the driver had drawn a gun, they all might've backed off. Or the first guy to break the window would be shot and the rest scatter. He'd even have good odds to live. Modern medicine is amazing, and unless you're hit in the head or the heart, you have pretty good odds to survive. Real guns aren't like the Golden Gun in 007: Golden Eye, they don't kill instantly in one hit anywhere.
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets.
It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them.
Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with?
Mob mentality doesn't mean that everyone in a group becomes a super hero.
It does mean that a group of 20 people who already have the herd mentality of causing violence are more likely to continue forward and escalate than turn 180 and start doing the exact opposite.
Would you rather let them beat you to death than draw a gun?
But he wasn't beaten to death.
He did not know that he wasn't being beaten to death during the beating. In fact, for all he knew, his wife and daughter were next.
So basically, the circumstance is not the false dichotomy of "gun or die" that you presented.
On August 28 2014 12:51 Millitron wrote: [quote] So you're saying you would prefer to let these people beat you, possibly to death, than draw a gun?
Why not ? At least you'd have a chance to not die. But more importantly I'd chose you to carry a gun (or preferably something else than a gun that don't kill ppl) but not the other one. Like I said there are exceptions in everything. I just don't understand why everyone can carry one.
I think you have a better chance to not die if you draw a gun. Like I said, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the gun being fired at all. You draw it, they see it, and either surrender or run off.
If the driver had drawn a gun, they all might've backed off. Or the first guy to break the window would be shot and the rest scatter. He'd even have good odds to live. Modern medicine is amazing, and unless you're hit in the head or the heart, you have pretty good odds to survive. Real guns aren't like the Golden Gun in 007: Golden Eye, they don't kill instantly in one hit anywhere.
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets.
It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them.
Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with?
Mob mentality doesn't mean that everyone in a group becomes a super hero.
It does mean that a group of 20 people who already have the herd mentality of causing violence are more likely to continue forward and escalate than turn 180 and start doing the exact opposite.
Would you rather let them beat you to death than draw a gun?
But he wasn't beaten to death.
He did not know that he wasn't being beaten to death during the beating. In fact, for all he knew, his wife and daughter were next.
So basically, the circumstance is not the false dichotomy of "gun or die" that you presented.
We know that now. Hindsight is 20/20. You cannot tell me that you would not fear for your life in the same situation.
They had just been chased for ~7 minutes by the bikers, who repeatedly tried to get into the SUV. Finally, the SUV gets stuck in traffic and the bikers immediately begin breaking the windows and slashing tires. If you wouldn't fear for your life in that situation, you're crazy.
On August 28 2014 13:07 RaiZ wrote: [quote] Why not ? At least you'd have a chance to not die. But more importantly I'd chose you to carry a gun (or preferably something else than a gun that don't kill ppl) but not the other one. Like I said there are exceptions in everything. I just don't understand why everyone can carry one.
I think you have a better chance to not die if you draw a gun. Like I said, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the gun being fired at all. You draw it, they see it, and either surrender or run off.
If the driver had drawn a gun, they all might've backed off. Or the first guy to break the window would be shot and the rest scatter. He'd even have good odds to live. Modern medicine is amazing, and unless you're hit in the head or the heart, you have pretty good odds to survive. Real guns aren't like the Golden Gun in 007: Golden Eye, they don't kill instantly in one hit anywhere.
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets.
It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them.
Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with?
Mob mentality doesn't mean that everyone in a group becomes a super hero.
It does mean that a group of 20 people who already have the herd mentality of causing violence are more likely to continue forward and escalate than turn 180 and start doing the exact opposite.
Would you rather let them beat you to death than draw a gun?
But he wasn't beaten to death.
He did not know that he wasn't being beaten to death during the beating. In fact, for all he knew, his wife and daughter were next.
So basically, the circumstance is not the false dichotomy of "gun or die" that you presented.
We know that now. Hindsight is 20/20. You cannot tell me that you would not fear for your life in the same situation.
They had just been chased for ~7 minutes by the bikers, who repeatedly tried to get into the SUV. Finally, the SUV gets stuck in traffic and the bikers immediately begin breaking the windows and slashing tires. If you wouldn't fear for your life in that situation, you're crazy.
I definitely would be fearing for my life. I'm also not cocky enough to think I'd go full rambo when 20 guys start attacking me, and if I did own a gun, I'd probably fumble it pretty damn badly.
And if I did actually did manage to draw it before they started beating me (because I doubt I'd be able to once they'd begun), with a whole biker gang surrounding me, there's no way in hell I'd believe I could stop them from drawing any guns of their own.
On August 28 2014 13:12 Millitron wrote: [quote] I think you have a better chance to not die if you draw a gun. Like I said, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the gun being fired at all. You draw it, they see it, and either surrender or run off.
If the driver had drawn a gun, they all might've backed off. Or the first guy to break the window would be shot and the rest scatter. He'd even have good odds to live. Modern medicine is amazing, and unless you're hit in the head or the heart, you have pretty good odds to survive. Real guns aren't like the Golden Gun in 007: Golden Eye, they don't kill instantly in one hit anywhere.
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets.
It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them.
Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with?
Mob mentality doesn't mean that everyone in a group becomes a super hero.
It does mean that a group of 20 people who already have the herd mentality of causing violence are more likely to continue forward and escalate than turn 180 and start doing the exact opposite.
Would you rather let them beat you to death than draw a gun?
But he wasn't beaten to death.
He did not know that he wasn't being beaten to death during the beating. In fact, for all he knew, his wife and daughter were next.
So basically, the circumstance is not the false dichotomy of "gun or die" that you presented.
We know that now. Hindsight is 20/20. You cannot tell me that you would not fear for your life in the same situation.
They had just been chased for ~7 minutes by the bikers, who repeatedly tried to get into the SUV. Finally, the SUV gets stuck in traffic and the bikers immediately begin breaking the windows and slashing tires. If you wouldn't fear for your life in that situation, you're crazy.
I definitely would be fearing for my life. I'm also not cocky enough to think I'd go full rambo when 20 guys start attacking me, and if I did own a gun, I'd probably fumble it pretty damn badly.
And if I did actually did manage to draw it before they started beating me (because I doubt I'd be able to once they'd begun), with a whole biker gang surrounding me, there's no way in hell I'd believe I could stop them from drawing any guns of their own.
The use of the gun in such a situation would not be to kill 20 bikers; it would be to scare them off. It's a deterrent, as I've said before. You're not going to start fucking with someone, even 20 on 1, if that person has a gun. Why would you risk death just to have fun, make a point or steal?
EPT
