|
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 09:38 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote: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. 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.
In the situation of that theater people firing back would have probably been a disaster IMO. Imagine the chaos. Smoke or tear gas or w/e. body armor and you don't know what quality it is. Dark theater with injured all over. I would have ran even if it was legal for me to carry inside.(it isn't)
|
On July 21 2012 09:29 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Give it a rest you've clearly demonstrated your firearm iq.
|
|
|
On July 21 2012 09:41 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:38 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote: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. 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. In the situation of that theater people firing back would have probably been a disaster IMO. Imagine the chaos. Smoke or tear gas or w/e. body armor and you don't know what quality it is. Dark theater with injured all over. I would have ran even if it was legal for me to carry inside.(it isn't)
Friendly fire is a concern amongst trained military personel (real trained not visit the shooting range trained) and they are typically in constant communication. If you put multiple armed people in a dark crowded theatre you would have chaos.
|
On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science.
More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence.
Violence happens. All. The. Time.
A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence.
|
On July 21 2012 09:38 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote: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. 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.
Well you're assuming that being shot at in the middle of a crowd is the same as being at a shooting range, guess what? it's not.
Soldiers do the same drills over and over again to be able react automaticly in situations when their brains are flooded by adrenaline or w/e, civilians on the other hand have about 0 chance of thinking clearly when their lives are at stakes.
|
Yes. We need guns. Just in case there's a need for a revolution.
|
On July 21 2012 09:48 BillyJoe wrote:
Yes. We need guns. Just in case there's a need for a revolution.
thats why its a fundamental right, it is the last resort for the people
|
On July 21 2012 09:50 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:48 BillyJoe wrote:
Yes. We need guns. Just in case there's a need for a revolution. thats why its a fundamental right, it is the last resort for the people
it's not the 18th century anymore tho, good luck pulling off a revolution with handguns
|
No point in legalising guns, the last thing you want is for citizens to start thinking they should take the roll of the police. Chaos is what occurs in those scenarios, and trusting people to make the right decisions, especially when panicking and under stress, is completely stupid.
The USA is just far too used to their country being the wild-west, that might make it comfortable for some Americans to think that owning a gun means that they can 'defend themselves' but all it'll cause is more killing and less security.
Also the people who go into theatres and kill people or those who crash airplanes into buildings will continue to do that regardless of how many civilians are armed, it doesn't matter, they will do what they want, because they don't mind getting killed. The worst thing that can happen is that even more people get killed in crossfire because an idiot with a gun, scared of everything that moves, thinks he's helping by pulling that trigger.
TL;DR: The only reason guns aren't outlawed in America is because people have become too accustomed to thinking about number one, and not particularly caring about the safety of others.
|
On July 21 2012 09:48 BillyJoe wrote:
Yes. We need guns. Just in case there's a need for a revolution.
Army is on your side you win, army is against you you lose.
Army will most likely not shoot its own citizens.
|
On July 21 2012 09:51 Kahlgar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:50 biology]major wrote:On July 21 2012 09:48 BillyJoe wrote:
Yes. We need guns. Just in case there's a need for a revolution. thats why its a fundamental right, it is the last resort for the people it's not the 18th century anymore tho, good luck pulling off a revolution with handguns
In a modern day American revolution at some point there would likely be defections in the military. Their equipment would go with them.
|
On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote: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. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence.
Actually... Everywhere where you find legalized guns you find less crime... Infact wherever prohibition is crime grows... War on drugs, War on terror, war on alcohol (alcohol prohibition)... so many examples.
|
On July 21 2012 09:52 InoyouS2 wrote:
No point in legalising guns, the last thing you want is for citizens to start thinking they should take the roll of the police. Chaos is what occurs in those scenarios, and trusting people to make the right decisions, especially when panicking and under stress, is completely stupid.
The USA is just far too used to their country being the wild-west, that might make it comfortable for some Americans to think that owning a gun means that they can 'defend themselves' but all it'll cause is more killing and less security.
Also the people who go into theatres and kill people or those who crash airplanes into buildings will continue to do that regardless of how many civilians are armed, it doesn't matter, they will do what they want, because they don't mind getting killed. The worst thing that can happen is that even more people get killed in crossfire because an idiot with a gun, scared of everything that moves, thinks he's helping by pulling that trigger.
TL;DR: The only reason guns aren't outlawed in America is because people have become too accustomed to thinking about number one, and not particularly caring about the safety of others.
Err, that's exactly why guns are legal, because people want to keep themselves and their families safe. (and too hunt)
|
On July 21 2012 09:22 askTeivospy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:14 ninini wrote:On July 21 2012 08:25 Belial88 wrote:On July 21 2012 07:31 darthfoley wrote: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%. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/december/crime-stats_121911/crime-stats_121911 By contrast, The United Kingdom enacted extreme firearms bans years ago, and gun crime in the U.K. has doubled in a decade. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html 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. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx 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. http://www.nrahq.org/law/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/ http://www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp http://www.nrahq.org/women/index.aspThe 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. I'm tired of hearing about what the founding fathers thought, not only were they alive nigh 200-300 years ago, but our country shouldn't be based on what a few guys thought was right a long ass time ago. What was relevant back then is still relevant... the founding fathers thought people should be able to own firearms to protect their own property. It's not that hard to understand. People had private property back then too. 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
So you're implying that threatening to take someones land is the same as threatening to take their life. Come on, this is not the 18th century. If someone shoots you at your property, do you think he will stay? Obviously the scene will be investigated eventually. We are talking about property here, and how the gun serves the purpose of protecting it. My point is that thanks to the police, having a gun to protect your property is irrelevant. If we're talking about protecting your life, then you would need to carry a gun at all times, even when outside of your property, and that would be just ridiculous. It would literally be the wild west.
If someone tries to rob for instance a gas station, and they don't have any protection there, it's very unlikely that any person involved will get hurt. But if you arm the clerk with a gun, the danger of someone getting hurt increases dramatically, because it puts two ppl at an even stature. This is bad, because when we feel threatened, we are the most unstable. If I was in that situation as a clerk, I would prefer not having a gun, because that would make me feel less threatened by the robber. Even if I would have an urge to protect the property of my employer, I realize that if I did indeed have a gun, the chance of me missing the target, and receiving counter-fire, or him shooting first would be too great, so in the end it would be safer for me to not have a gun. Obviously, I realize that by having a gun, there's a much smaller chance of him getting away with the money, but that's secondary to risking a life in my book. The same could be said if they broke into your house to steal your jewelry. The greater threat you are to them, the greater threat they will be to you. I think this is a no-brainer if you just stop and think about it.
|
On July 21 2012 09:32 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:25 v3chr0 wrote: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. 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...
I'd actually like to see the source for this belief. To my understanding, the only situation that an officer would discharge their weapon is if they Had to. If the situation didn't require lethal force, then they'd be hard pressed to explain why they shot someone.
|
I cannot help but feel its double edged. In some situations people carrying guns would save lives and in others kill more people. It really should vary country by country by the countries specific circumstances. In a country with almost no violent crime, no, you have no reason to carry a gun on you, and as careful as you are mistakes happen, the more people carrying guns the more likely it is. But in a dangerous country yeah I am not going to strip people of the only defense they have. That said for a carry permit training should be required and regular testing. I have no desire to see untrained civilians waving guns around in an already tense situation.
|
On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations.
This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can.
With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain.
|
On July 21 2012 09:52 InoyouS2 wrote:
No point in legalising guns, the last thing you want is for citizens to start thinking they should take the roll of the police. Chaos is what occurs in those scenarios, and trusting people to make the right decisions, especially when panicking and under stress, is completely stupid.
The USA is just far too used to their country being the wild-west, that might make it comfortable for some Americans to think that owning a gun means that they can 'defend themselves' but all it'll cause is more killing and less security.
Also the people who go into theatres and kill people or those who crash airplanes into buildings will continue to do that regardless of how many civilians are armed, it doesn't matter, they will do what they want, because they don't mind getting killed. The worst thing that can happen is that even more people get killed in crossfire because an idiot with a gun, scared of everything that moves, thinks he's helping by pulling that trigger.
TL;DR: The only reason guns aren't outlawed in America is because people have become too accustomed to thinking about number one, and not particularly caring about the safety of others.
Well they are already legalized. There's also a reason people who open or c carry have to be certified and keep up to date. They are taught not to use your weapon in stupid situations, not that it will stop all idiots from making things worse. In the case of defending your home I just don't see the harm in a properly maintained firearm/shooter.
|
On July 21 2012 09:41 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:38 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote: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. 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. In the situation of that theater people firing back would have probably been a disaster IMO. Imagine the chaos. Smoke or tear gas or w/e. body armor and you don't know what quality it is. Dark theater with injured all over. I would have ran even if it was legal for me to carry inside.(it isn't)
I think you underestimate conceal carry permitted people. They are very serious about their guns and safety of themselves and others. These people aren't gangsters or players in Counter-Strike.
If people started shooting at this terrorist, there's a good chance he would flee, get distracted, or get injured/die.
I'm not saying friendly fire couldn't occur. I just think it's unlikely and the benefits outweigh the risk by far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
