Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
Well, kevlar armor isn't all purpose bullet repellent. Get hit in the chest with a 9mm slug from 30 feet away even with armor on and you're probably gonna drop like a rock.
edit: actually maybe with enough trauma plating...but he'd have to be one equipped son of a bitch.
This would disagree with you
I doubt 1 man with a gun's stopping anyone equiped like that. (and yes I understand this is a remake, but this event actually happened so like I said, Wyatt Earp or dead hero is what you'd of had)
". Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' efforts were ineffective." That is the quote given about what happened.
Now imagine all of the people who were defenseless on the floor returning fire.
-.- Yes, I can imagine that... It would look a lot like this video unless one of them was lucky enough to hit him in the head. So many arm chair hero's come into this thread. AR-15+shotgun vs a few pistols in the room... You really need to get out of that imaginary world of yours. Do I think people should carry guns? yes, would it have helped? fuck no, not unless someone somehow got behind him and point blanked him in the head.
Covering fire, It doesn't matter if they don't land head-shots, you plant enough bullets into a vest and the bastards on other side of them will falter vest prevent puncturing, you still feel the 900mph bullet coming to a complete stop on your ribcage. It would give the police a better chance to arm for the shot to put them down.
America really needs to change their stance on firearms. Concerning what happened in Colorado. In Sweden, a random 20-something year old won't get access to a firearm no matter how hard he tries. You need to be involved in some organized crime syndicate to have access to a gun, and they don't just let anyone join. Organized crime is never about terror, except in extreme cases. It's pretty much always about greed and power, so these criminals never target normal law-abiding people. The crime syndicates wants to recruit ppl that are composed and careful, they want someone who is reliable, that they can trust, so crazies who are capable of something this irrational gets filtered out long before they get access to guns. You need a lot of street-smartness to obtain a firearm in Sweden, and street-smartness is usually what these ppl (who tends to be loners) severely lacks.
ITT: Americans who support their own gun laws, euros who don't support American gun laws. Same result as all the previous threads: we will never come to and understanding because Americans don't understand your logic that you have nothing to fear in a state where guns are banned, and you will never understand that we have nothing to fear as long as we have the right to protect ourselves.
Keep in mind though, whether American or European, regardless of how supposedly hard it is for a criminal to obtain a gun in your country of choice, there is always a criminal who wants to obtain a gun for criminal purposes badly enough to get them anyway. I sure hope you have a good police force.
On July 21 2012 07:54 StarStrider wrote: ITT: Americans who support their own gun laws, euros who don't support American gun laws. Same result as all the previous threads: we will never come to and understanding because Americans don't understand your logic that you have nothing to fear in a state where guns are banned, and you will never understand that we have nothing to fear as long as we have the right to protect ourselves.
Keep in mind though, whether American or European, regardless of how supposedly hard it is for a criminal to obtain a gun in your country of choice, there is always a criminal who wants to obtain a gun for criminal purposes badly enough to get them anyway. I sure hope you have a good police force.
First paragraph pretty much sums up the arguments from this thread lol. Nicely done.
On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote: People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent.
For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you.
Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well.
Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%.
It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws.
Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception.
Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program.
The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy.
The national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms.
My god, that is a poorly written propaganda piece. I don't feel like ripping it apart now, but there are so many flaws to the logic in this artice. I will just keep it short without going into detail. But first claiming a correlation without any clear proof. Second comparing relative values. For example, lets say there are 1000 acts of gun violence in the USA, and it goes down by 5% to 950, and there is 1 act of gun violence in the UK, and it doubles, it goes up to 2. It is still much lower in the UK. Etc.etc.
I'll concede your point that overall the violence figures begin and end at a much lower scale in the UK, if you concede the points that the facts are not lying or skewed that gun violence is increasing in the UK and violent crimes are on the decline in the USA. I'll even concede that this may just be a fluctuation that may just reverse again tomorrow. But at least concede it's true for now, because it is.
Did you even read your own source ? It states that the increase is explained by a change in the recording practice. Arguing on the internet feels so dumb, just google until you find a source which fits your points, and im falling into the same pattern..
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
So maybe he takes more than one shot to hit him in an exposed area. Maybe people freak out. Maybe people mistake him for a '2nd shooter'. Maybe, god forbid, he even has poor aim and a stray bullet from this vigilante's gun hits an innocent bystander.
BUT WHAT THE FUCK MAN, 83 people were shot! Do you think that XYZ factors of risks in return fire aren't worth ATTEMPTING to put this man on the ground before 20, 30, even 40 were lit up? I would gladly be the innocent bystander that takes a stray bullet from a hero citizen gun owner so that god knows how many people don't have to take one from the assailant, you know what I mean?
PS: Most competent gun owners train with their firearm, so that their muscle memory allows them to put the bullet at least close to where they want it, despite rough conditions. Also, even the mere bullet shock on tac vests is enough to put large men on the ground. After several, even without wounding him, he would be at least stunned for a moment.
Yeah you might not get penetrated by the bullet if you have a kevlar vest but it hurts like hell. Shoot him 2-3 times in the vest and he will hit the floor in pain at which time you can overwhelm him.
Or you accidentally shoot someone else who suddenly runs in front of you. Or you miss and hit someone running away from the shooter. Or someone trying to escape bumps into you, causing your gun to fire and hit someone in the crowd. Or you mistake someone else holding a gun for the shooter's partner, and you accidentally kill him. In fact, isn't that exactly what happened at the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, when one bystander pulled out a gun and another bystander shot him?
What percentage of 83 people would your 'what-ifs' result in accidental gunshot wounds? If it isn't a substantial number, you are a fool not to let them roll the dice.
On July 21 2012 07:53 ninini wrote: America really needs to change their stance on firearms. Concerning what happened in Colorado. In Sweden, a random 20-something year old won't get access to a firearm no matter how hard he tries. You need to be involved in some organized crime syndicate to have access to a gun, and they don't just let anyone join. Organized crime is never about terror, except in extreme cases. It's pretty much always about greed and power, so these criminals never target normal law-abiding people. The crime syndicates wants to recruit ppl that are composed and careful, they want someone who is reliable, that they can trust, so crazies who are capable of something this irrational gets filtered out long before they get access to guns. You need a lot of street-smartness to obtain a firearm in Sweden, and street-smartness is usually what these ppl (who tends to be loners) severely lacks.
Except here there are 100s of millions of guns available and they will always be available no matter the legality. So apple ls and oranges x100
On July 21 2012 07:54 StarStrider wrote: ITT: Americans who support their own gun laws, euros who don't support American gun laws. Same result as all the previous threads: we will never come to and understanding because Americans don't understand your logic that you have nothing to fear in a state where guns are banned, and you will never understand that we have nothing to fear as long as we have the right to protect ourselves.
Keep in mind though, whether American or European, regardless of how supposedly hard it is for a criminal to obtain a gun in your country of choice, there is always a criminal who wants to obtain a gun for criminal purposes badly enough to get them anyway. I sure hope you have a good police force.
Very well done. I think we can close this thread. lol
On July 21 2012 07:54 StarStrider wrote: ITT: Americans who support their own gun laws, euros who don't support American gun laws. Same result as all the previous threads: we will never come to and understanding because Americans don't understand your logic that you have nothing to fear in a state where guns are banned, and you will never understand that we have nothing to fear as long as we have the right to protect ourselves.
Keep in mind though, whether American or European, regardless of how supposedly hard it is for a criminal to obtain a gun in your country of choice, there is always a criminal who wants to obtain a gun for criminal purposes badly enough to get them anyway. I sure hope you have a good police force.
Frankly, I feel much, much safer in New York knowing that the vast majority of people here are NOT armed. I think I'd be shitting-my-pants nervous if every person I sat next to on the subway was packing heat. Street beefs explode into violence all the time, and it usually ends with someone hitting someone and then running away. I like the fact that guns are so hard to get - it means that those street beefs generally stay fistfights and don't become homicides.
Funny story - they used to issue firearms to people in my office and they gave mandatory, free access to NYPD-run training courses on how to use and maintain them. After an enormous protest, the policy was discontinued - the vast majority of people simply didn't want the responsibility of having a firearm and they feared the possiblity that it might misfire, that their kids might find it, that they might lose it, that they might mis-use it in a moment of panic, etc. I'm willing to bet that most Americans feel the same way, and it's really just a vocal minority who really want to exercise their right to bear arms.
On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote: People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent.
For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you.
Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well.
Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%.
It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws.
Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception.
Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program.
The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy.
The national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms.
My god, that is a poorly written propaganda piece. I don't feel like ripping it apart now, but there are so many flaws to the logic in this artice. I will just keep it short without going into detail. But first claiming a correlation without any clear proof. Second comparing relative values. For example, lets say there are 1000 acts of gun violence in the USA, and it goes down by 5% to 950, and there is 1 act of gun violence in the UK, and it doubles, it goes up to 2. It is still much lower in the UK. Etc.etc.
I'll concede your point that overall the violence figures begin and end at a much lower scale in the UK, if you concede the points that the facts are not lying or skewed that gun violence is increasing in the UK and violent crimes are on the decline in the USA. I'll even concede that this may just be a fluctuation that may just reverse again tomorrow. But at least concede it's true for now, because it is.
No. I will not concede to how this article states it. Just to be clear, I am not really pro/con gun control. Like I stated earlier, I used to be against, but am pretty neutral on it these days. I think other issues should be addressed first to reduce violence. That said, the artice is just bad (and don't take that personally ).
The problem is that it claims a correlation where none is proven. If someone is shot with a gun, or suicides with a gun the correlation is clear. x persons died by using a gun. But in this article something happens that can't be claimed, it claims that the rates have gone down because there were more guns. This can't be proven, because then you would have to go into each individual case and say, was a crime prevented here because a gun was there as a deterent? Do you see that it is pretty much impossible to claim this?
Where the USA has a homicide rate by firearm of 4.14, the UK has a homicide rate by firearm of 0.07. So the chance of homicide by firearm is about 59 times higher in the USA. Even if you take into acount some relative changes, there is still a huge difference (Uk would have to move up 5900%).
On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote: People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent.
For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you.
Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well.
Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%.
It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws.
Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception.
Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program.
The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy.
The national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms.
My god, that is a poorly written propaganda piece. I don't feel like ripping it apart now, but there are so many flaws to the logic in this artice. I will just keep it short without going into detail. But first claiming a correlation without any clear proof. Second comparing relative values. For example, lets say there are 1000 acts of gun violence in the USA, and it goes down by 5% to 950, and there is 1 act of gun violence in the UK, and it doubles, it goes up to 2. It is still much lower in the UK. Etc.etc.
I'll concede your point that overall the violence figures begin and end at a much lower scale in the UK, if you concede the points that the facts are not lying or skewed that gun violence is increasing in the UK and violent crimes are on the decline in the USA. I'll even concede that this may just be a fluctuation that may just reverse again tomorrow. But at least concede it's true for now, because it is.
Did you even read your own source ? It states that the increase is explained by a change in the recording practice. Arguing on the internet feels so dumb, just google until you find a source which fits your points, and im falling into the same pattern..
First article: yeah, it does feel dumb, when you use outdated information, and I pull from sources with more recent figures. Second article: wait, I thought we were talking about gun crime, not overall crime?
On July 21 2012 07:54 StarStrider wrote: ITT: Americans who support their own gun laws, euros who don't support American gun laws. Same result as all the previous threads: we will never come to and understanding because Americans don't understand your logic that you have nothing to fear in a state where guns are banned, and you will never understand that we have nothing to fear as long as we have the right to protect ourselves.
Keep in mind though, whether American or European, regardless of how supposedly hard it is for a criminal to obtain a gun in your country of choice, there is always a criminal who wants to obtain a gun for criminal purposes badly enough to get them anyway. I sure hope you have a good police force.
Frankly, I feel much, much safer in New York knowing that the vast majority of people here are NOT armed. I think I'd be shitting-my-pants nervous if every person I sat next to on the subway was packing heat. Street beefs explode into violence all the time, and it usually ends with someone hitting someone and then running away. I like the fact that guns are so hard to get - it means that those street beefs generally stay fistfights and don't become homicides.
Funny story - they used to issue firearms to people in my office and they gave mandatory, free access to NYPD-run training courses on how to use and maintain them. After an enormous protest, the policy was discontinued - the vast majority of people simply didn't want the responsibility of having a firearm and they feared the possiblity that it might misfire, that their kids might find it, that they might lose it, that they might mis-use it in a moment of panic, etc. I'm willing to bet that most Americans feel the same way, and it's really just a vocal minority who really want to exercise their right to bear arms.
Thanks for giving me at least some faith back. Although, i dont think that its a vocal minority (depending on the state). But it looks like common sense is common in New York, but i would not even think about telling that about Texas for example.
Anyway, im impressed by your courage to say "no", and the responsibility you show by that.
On July 21 2012 07:54 StarStrider wrote: ITT: Americans who support their own gun laws, euros who don't support American gun laws. Same result as all the previous threads: we will never come to and understanding because Americans don't understand your logic that you have nothing to fear in a state where guns are banned, and you will never understand that we have nothing to fear as long as we have the right to protect ourselves.
Keep in mind though, whether American or European, regardless of how supposedly hard it is for a criminal to obtain a gun in your country of choice, there is always a criminal who wants to obtain a gun for criminal purposes badly enough to get them anyway. I sure hope you have a good police force.
I'm an American and I don't support our current gun laws. I would like to see the 2nd amendment radically changed, if not removed altogether.
On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote: People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent.
For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you.
Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well.
Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%.
It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws.
Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception.
Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program.
The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy.
The national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms.
My god, that is a poorly written propaganda piece. I don't feel like ripping it apart now, but there are so many flaws to the logic in this artice. I will just keep it short without going into detail. But first claiming a correlation without any clear proof. Second comparing relative values. For example, lets say there are 1000 acts of gun violence in the USA, and it goes down by 5% to 950, and there is 1 act of gun violence in the UK, and it doubles, it goes up to 2. It is still much lower in the UK. Etc.etc.
I'll concede your point that overall the violence figures begin and end at a much lower scale in the UK, if you concede the points that the facts are not lying or skewed that gun violence is increasing in the UK and violent crimes are on the decline in the USA. I'll even concede that this may just be a fluctuation that may just reverse again tomorrow. But at least concede it's true for now, because it is.
No. I will not concede to how this article states it. Just to be clear, I am not really pro/con gun control. Like I stated earlier, I used to be against, but am pretty neutral on it these days. I think other issues should be addressed first to reduce violence. That said, the artice is just bad (and don't take that personally ).
The problem is that it claims a correlation where none is proven. If someone is shot with a gun, or suicides with a gun the correlation is clear. x persons died by using a gun. But in this article something happens that can't be claimed, it claims that the rates have gone down because there were more guns. This can't be proven, because then you would have to go into each individual case and say, was a crime prevented here because a gun was there as a deterent? Do you see that it is pretty much impossible to claim this?
Where the USA has a homicide rate by firearm of 4.14, the UK has a homicide rate by firearm of 0.07. So the chance of homicide by firearm is about 59 times higher in the USA. Even if you take into acount some relative changes, there is still a huge difference.
You're right, there is an appeal to a perspective based on an interpretation of facts. I never believed in trying to prove an absolute by using these statistics, but things can be reasonably inferred from the data. If you look at the data and interpret something else, well, you're welcome to do that, but to me the data is saying something, and it happens to fit what I would find logical, so if you have some data that is more absolute that directly counters my hypotheses I'd like to read it.
I TOTALLY agree about the homicide rate. I would never try to assert that it is even CLOSE to the ballpark of the US. But don't forget to compare apples and apples and compare GUN CRIMES, not just homicide by firearms. This would include any crime where a gun appeared, whether just brandished or not. This is the statistic you would want to look at to determine whether gun control laws of UK are squashing gun crimes at an increasing rate or not. Sad reality is the gun crimes are going in the opposite direction. Now from that, I infer that means something (ie. gun laws do nothing, when someone wants a gun to commit a crime with, they'll get it whether its easy or not). You can disagree with my INFERRENCE, but you cannot disagree with the increase right?
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Just to be argumentative, if the entire crowd got up and unloaded on him he would of went down.
Lots of people would still have died. You really expect a bunch of people to see someone shooting at them, in a room filled with smoke, to suddenly coordinate, remain calm, and aim well enough to kill this guys before he takes lives away? This argument is as silly as the argument that not having gun control laws make us safer.
Back to the switzerland argument. Give everyone military training and a gun, and people will remain collected in times of danger.
Besides the right to bear arms is a right guaranteed by the U.S. constitution under the 2nd amendment. This thread is null.
We should be giving people an education, not a gun. The 2nd amendment was written in a time when there was still slavery, only white males could vote, and it took 60 seconds to reload a gun. George Washington never saw an AR-15.
Well, as long as there are people anything can be bad, a gun isnt a bad thing perse but it is the same with dogs, if the owner is retarded...well u get the jist
On July 21 2012 07:54 StarStrider wrote: ITT: Americans who support their own gun laws, euros who don't support American gun laws. Same result as all the previous threads: we will never come to and understanding because Americans don't understand your logic that you have nothing to fear in a state where guns are banned, and you will never understand that we have nothing to fear as long as we have the right to protect ourselves.
Keep in mind though, whether American or European, regardless of how supposedly hard it is for a criminal to obtain a gun in your country of choice, there is always a criminal who wants to obtain a gun for criminal purposes badly enough to get them anyway. I sure hope you have a good police force.
Frankly, I feel much, much safer in New York knowing that the vast majority of people here are NOT armed. I think I'd be shitting-my-pants nervous if every person I sat next to on the subway was packing heat. Street beefs explode into violence all the time, and it usually ends with someone hitting someone and then running away. I like the fact that guns are so hard to get - it means that those street beefs generally stay fistfights and don't become homicides.
Funny story - they used to issue firearms to people in my office and they gave mandatory, free access to NYPD-run training courses on how to use and maintain them. After an enormous protest, the policy was discontinued - the vast majority of people simply didn't want the responsibility of having a firearm and they feared the possiblity that it might misfire, that their kids might find it, that they might lose it, that they might mis-use it in a moment of panic, etc. I'm willing to bet that most Americans feel the same way, and it's really just a vocal minority who really want to exercise their right to bear arms.
I'm glad they are hard to get too. We should be tougher on regulation that keeps it out of the 'bad guys' hands. But I am also for licensing and mandatory training.... basically I'm on the moderate end of pro-gun. Most hardline NRA people hate my ideas. I recognize the value in only putting guns in some people's hands who earn the trust (ie they don't have mental health history, they don't have a criminal record, etc.) and the value of mandatory training courses complete with scary videos to be sure that every gun owner has the utmost respect for the power of this deadly weapon, knows they are entrusted with a deadly serious trust not to wield it except in times of life and death defense, and knowing how to store and handle it properly to prevent misfire or it getting in the wrong hands.
Polls are showing that more and more Americans over the years are switching from being pro-gun control to pro-gun ownership, because they recognize the safety an armed, trained citizen can provide to the public over a population of pushovers who can't do anything against gun wielding criminals except hope the cops show up in time.
This is insane. Im shocked to see this many John Wayne wannabe psycopaths on a forum like TL.net. Some people posting here should really get checked out.
Random teenager breaks into my house: Shoot him in the face Hear suspecious noice downstairs, better assume its psycho rapists: Shoot them in the face
I really thought people with opinions like those expressed by alot of Americans in this thread were too braindead inbred to operate a computer. But alas my faith has been shattered.
Nice to see there's some sensible Americans in here aswell
On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote: People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent.
For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you.
Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well.
Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%.
It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws.
Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception.
Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program.
The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy.
The national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms.
My god, that is a poorly written propaganda piece. I don't feel like ripping it apart now, but there are so many flaws to the logic in this artice. I will just keep it short without going into detail. But first claiming a correlation without any clear proof. Second comparing relative values. For example, lets say there are 1000 acts of gun violence in the USA, and it goes down by 5% to 950, and there is 1 act of gun violence in the UK, and it doubles, it goes up to 2. It is still much lower in the UK. Etc.etc.
I'll concede your point that overall the violence figures begin and end at a much lower scale in the UK, if you concede the points that the facts are not lying or skewed that gun violence is increasing in the UK and violent crimes are on the decline in the USA. I'll even concede that this may just be a fluctuation that may just reverse again tomorrow. But at least concede it's true for now, because it is.
Did you even read your own source ? It states that the increase is explained by a change in the recording practice. Arguing on the internet feels so dumb, just google until you find a source which fits your points, and im falling into the same pattern..
First article: yeah, it does feel dumb, when you use outdated information, and I pull from sources with more recent figures. Second article: wait, I thought we were talking about gun crime, not overall crime?
Okay, since you read my post but didnt understand the point, here is, for a fun change, a reliable source for gun offences in the uk released by the goverment: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01940.pdf
Firearm offences are declining in the uk, only disturbed by that change in the recording which already stated in the article you linked before.
News agencies are reporting that James Holmes purchased his weapons legally.
From the New York Times;
A federal law enforcement official said investigators knew where at least two of the guns had been purchased, and suggested that they were bought recently, but would not say where or precisely when. Another law enforcement official said that information investigators had obtained about the purchase of the AR-15 rifle indicates that it was bought locally and apparently legally, as were the other guns, adding, “there’s nothing nefarious there.”
EPT
).
