EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
guN-viCe
United States687 Posts
| ||
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:14 ninini wrote: Are you serious? If someone breaks into my property and tries to claim it from me by threatening me with a gun, I can just walk over to the nearest police station, and then they will look at some papers and then reclaim my property for me. I'm sure it would work the same in USA. USA have the most capable police force in the world. Why don't you let it do its job? I believe that the reason why USA have such a hard time to restrict guns is because it's such a big industry, with a high consumtion both from civilians and the military, so the industry is pressuring the government against change. That's how all the mega-industries operate. They do what they can to protect their own interests. maybe I misunderstood but did you just say someone threatening you with a gun will allow you to walk over to the nearest police station? How did you get from A to Z? You definitely skipped the majority of letters. Also how did you come to the conclusion that US has the most competent police force in the world? Arguing this stuff on the internet is pointless, no one is right except for themselves. my personal opinion is that I would want a gun and be trained in firearms because you can be placed into situations where you are required to use it whether or not you want to be. I'm not looking to go and kill people, but people who are looking to kill people don't think that way because they have access to guns. they think that way because they're messed up in the head and will look for any weapon to accomplish what they want to do Blaming guns for violent crime is like blaming video games for violent crime. Scapegoating | ||
|
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
On July 21 2012 07:39 Jisall wrote: Exactly, less guns means that the police and criminals will be the only ones to have guns, leaving average Joe's to take Krav Maga lessons in hopes that the criminals get to close. Along the "Guns don't kill people, only people kill people" that's the most stupid argument. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting I'll leave this here, compare Europe and the US. Anyway, I think this thread is kind of useless, like always we will get: -Americans thinking they are safer with guns -Rest of the world thinking they are safer without guns And everybody is happy with the current situation in its own country  | ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:11 heliusx wrote: If you had ANY proper firearm training you would know a guns SOLE purpose is to kill. You DO NOT point at anything you do not want to die EVER. And if you did receive "training" please go demand a refund so you can get a real run down. Police in N.Y (probably elsewhere also) are trained to shoot debilitating/non-fatal areas of the body if the threat is not 100% clear or imminent. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. A gun can kill, yes, we know that, most legal gun owners have no intention on doing so though. A large majority of people who own guns would rarely be forced to shoot to kill. It's weird too, they actually have a term "shoot to kill", implying you can do otherwise. It's not so cut and dry, I can't just start blasting people in the face with a shotgun once they are on my property. | ||
|
Kahlgar
411 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote: Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. | ||
|
Tarot
Canada440 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:19 Kahlgar wrote: I was born and raised in Paris where carrying a knife bigger than a few inches is illegal and i'v never seen a firearm carried by anyone not in the police/military in 25 years. Same for me. I live in Toronto and have never seen a gun in real life except on police officers. Although I think that if more gun control laws were implemented in the US specifically, it would be extremely difficult to enforce, and would take a long long time before the positive effects show. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
It is a fundamental right to protect us from crazy shit, and I think people do not recognize their value, the founding fathers knew this. The country is based around the people, and if the government or some crazy person threatens their safety, a weapon/firearm is all that we have to protect ourselves from immediate danger. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:24 Heweree wrote: Along the "Guns don't kill people, only people kill people" that's the most stupid argument. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. How do you suppose American govt gets rid of guns though? You need to take into account here's appoximately 250,000,000 known firearms in the USA. Literally all are not registered in any form besides a few states which require that. Do you think criminals will turn in their weapons? Do you think people won't hide their weapons? Smuggle more? | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:25 v3chr0 wrote: Police in N.Y (probably elsewhere also) are trained to shoot debilitating/non-fatal areas of the body if the threat is not 100% clear or imminent. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. A gun can kill, yes, we know that, most legal gun owners have no intention on doing so though. A large majority of people who own guns would rarely be forced to shoot to kill. It's weird too, they actually have a term "shoot to kill", implying you can do otherwise. It's not so cut and dry, I can't just start blasting people in the face with a shotgun once they are on my property. you expect civilians to have the same training as the police force? And for your last statement, yes you can't blast people in the face if they are on your property, but if you have the signs that your life is in danger (usually very clear) its a differnt story. Nobody is going to just pull out a shotgun and blast people for walking on your property, unless you are from texas or something lol | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:20 heliusx wrote: Says a dude who thinks "brandishing a firearm" in an atempt to cause bad guys tO flee and thinks shooting someone in the legs is "just as easy". As you put it. As Ive said no proper training and never been in a high stress high danger situation. Nor have you been taught to deal with it properly. Sigh. You're trolling me right? I've been in high stress danger situations numerous times. As I stated, there was one incident where I drew it and laid it on the dash. There were several others where I kept my hand a close distance from the holster. I was in the military. I have trained with numerous law enforcement at the range, been through many self defense and firearm and safety classes. But you can keep thinking what you want about an anonymous stranger on the internet based on the few posts I made toward those who would say: a gun can't be drawn without a kill - in order to try to show that gun owners are a bunch of barbaric cavemen just looking for a justifiable reason to take another human being's life. I respect the responsibility more than anyone, which is why I would never ever squeeze unless I was willing to accept the consequences of taking a life and felt it was justified in the defense of myself or my family. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:25 v3chr0 wrote: Police in N.Y (probably elsewhere also) are trained to shoot debilitating/non-fatal areas of the body if the threat is not 100% clear or imminent. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. A gun can kill, yes, we know that, most legal gun owners have no intention on doing so though. A large majority of people who own guns would rarely be forced to shoot to kill. It's weird too, they actually have a term "shoot to kill", implying you can do otherwise. It's not so cut and dry, I can't just start blasting people in the face with a shotgun once they are on my property. You can't really do that when you are defending though. When defending, you shoot to stop, which is basically shoot to kill. Only time you would ever do else-wise is when you are in an already commanding position which you have under control (in relative terms, ie, a significant tactical or positional advantage). | ||
|
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:27 heliusx wrote: How do you suppose American govt gets rid of guns though? You need to take into account here's appoximately 250,000,000 known firearms in the USA. Literally all are not registered in any form besides a few states which require that. Do you think criminals will turn in their weapons? Do you think people won't hide their weapons? Smuggle more? I totally agree with it, that's the main issue, it would be a hard path but worth it in the end imo. Most countries went through though, it needs to be progressive. It won't happen in 1 day, but it must start at some point. It probably won't happen in the US anyway. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote: Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:25 v3chr0 wrote: Police in N.Y (probably elsewhere also) are trained to shoot debilitating/non-fatal areas of the body if the threat is not 100% clear or imminent. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. A gun can kill, yes, we know that, most legal gun owners have no intention on doing so though. A large majority of people who own guns would rarely be forced to shoot to kill. It's weird too, they actually have a term "shoot to kill", implying you can do otherwise. It's not so cut and dry, I can't just start blasting people in the face with a shotgun once they are on my property. Ive never heard of anyone police or otherwise trained in such a way. Maybe you are referring to a standoff between multiple police and a suspect MAYBE. I doubt that though. There's no shoot to disable. You shoot to kill. If you think otherwise, I've said it already do yourself a favor and don't carry a firearm you will get yourself or someone hurt. I realize we love video games here but Jesus... | ||
|
Kahlgar
411 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:30 Heweree wrote: I totally agree with it, that's the main issue, it would be a hard path but worth it in the end imo. Most countries went through though, it needs to be progressive. It won't happen in 1 day, but it must start at some point. It probably won't happen in the US anyway. agreed, the "well it's way too hard to change so fuck it" mentality is garbage, it would prolly take a few dozens years to get rid of the guns in circulation and to change the culture regardings firearms but it would also save a lot of lives. tho let's face it, no politician in their right mind would ever try to pull off something like that given how unpopular that kind of reform would be | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:30 Heweree wrote: I totally agree with it, that's the main issue, it would be a hard path but worth it in the end imo. Most countries went through though, it needs to be progressive. It won't happen in 1 day, but it must start at some point. It probably won't happen in the US anyway. It would be dangerous too. I wouldn't want to be the one going around trying to persuade people to give up their firearms. Edit: wrote forearms lol | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote: yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. ok then require a process to to recieve a license for being able to carry a gun. A 1-2 year program, where you recieve extensive training on the use of a firearm and teaching a sense of responsibility. There would be a bunch of less crazies, because they won't be able to tell who is armed and who isnt. What is interesting is the shooter at the theater was fully vested and protected, even though nobody would be armed and then turned himself over to the police without retaliation, the only people he would need to use his vests against. | ||
|
guN-viCe
United States687 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote: yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Well, I disagree. Most people who have concealed carry permits are responsible with their guns and go to the shooting range. Five trained gun wielding citizens might have saved everyone in that theater. In your mind people just shoot in random directions or what? Lol. Sorry, I think you are biased and illogical. | ||
|
Holey
United States68 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On July 21 2012 09:38 guN-viCe wrote: Well, I disagree. Most people who have concealed carry permits are responsible with their guns and go to the shooting range. Five trained gun wielding citizens might have saved everyone in that theater. In your mind people just shoot in random directions or what? Lol. Sorry, I think you are biased and illogical. wait what you are allowed to carry concealed side arms???? edit: wow 49 states allow some form of concealed carry. Never knew that. | ||
| ||
