The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Son of Orospu on March 20, 2019, 06:51:44 AM
-
I would like to make a new thread to debate firearm rights so we can keep this debate out of some of the other threads. I believe that everyone in the world should be allowed to arm themselves. But, in the US, it is written into the constitution.
-
Gross.
-
I carry a firearm daily. I feel that I have the right to protect myself and my family at all times. Am I wrong?
-
I carry a firearm daily. I feel that I have the right to protect myself and my family at all times. Am I wrong?
If ya'll could stop shooting up schools, then fine. Until then, you're in time-out.
-
I carry a firearm daily. I feel that I have the right to protect myself and my family at all times. Am I wrong?
If ya'll could stop shooting up schools, then fine. Until then, you're in time-out.
Are you talking about the "gun free zones?" Yae, that seems to be working out well.
-
The "NO GUNS" chant is just ignorant.
$50 and a trip to Home Depot . . . I'll have everything I need
to assemble a fully functional shotgun. Casing, chemicals and projectiles.
I am all for nobody else having a gun. ;D
-
Dude, that sounded bad. I feel like I should report you. Are you advocating for some kind of bombing or something?
-
Dude, that sounded bad. I feel like I should report you. Are you advocating for some kind of bombing or something?
Haha, you should have seen some of the devices my buddy and I built 40 years ago.
Mostly aerials, some buried ground shakers. :D
-
I carry a firearm daily. I feel that I have the right to protect myself and my family at all times. Am I wrong?
I have no idea if you are right or wrong but how often does it happen that anyone carrying a gun 'for protection' actually gets to protect themselves?
-
I carry a firearm daily. I feel that I have the right to protect myself and my family at all times. Am I wrong?
I have no idea if you are right or wrong but how often does it happen that anyone carrying a gun 'for protection' actually gets to protect themselves?
If a bad guy has a gun, I have one too. I am not sure what you are confused about.
-
I carry a firearm daily. I feel that I have the right to protect myself and my family at all times. Am I wrong?
I have no idea if you are right or wrong but how often does it happen that anyone carrying a gun 'for protection' actually gets to protect themselves?
If a bad guy has a gun, I have one too. I am not sure what you are confused about.
>implying that you would be the good
"The good guy with a gun" trope is a meme.
-
I carry a firearm daily. I feel that I have the right to protect myself and my family at all times. Am I wrong?
I have no idea if you are right or wrong but how often does it happen that anyone carrying a gun 'for protection' actually gets to protect themselves?
If a bad guy has a gun, I have one too. I am not sure what you are confused about.
>implying that you would be the good
"The good guy with a gun" trope is a meme.
If I am at a gas station, and someone pulled a "gun" on the attendant, I would be the good guy if I took care of the situation. Please explain why I would not be.
-
I carry a firearm daily. I feel that I have the right to protect myself and my family at all times. Am I wrong?
I have no idea if you are right or wrong but how often does it happen that anyone carrying a gun 'for protection' actually gets to protect themselves?
If a bad guy has a gun, I have one too. I am not sure what you are confused about.
Would you know he was the bad guy until he fired?
-
I carry a firearm daily. I feel that I have the right to protect myself and my family at all times. Am I wrong?
I have no idea if you are right or wrong but how often does it happen that anyone carrying a gun 'for protection' actually gets to protect themselves?
If a bad guy has a gun, I have one too. I am not sure what you are confused about.
Would you know he was the bad guy until he fired?
No, I would go to jail if I shot him and could not prove he was a bad guy.
-
Exactly.
-
I carry a firearm daily. I feel that I have the right to protect myself and my family at all times. Am I wrong?
I have no idea if you are right or wrong but how often does it happen that anyone carrying a gun 'for protection' actually gets to protect themselves?
If a bad guy has a gun, I have one too. I am not sure what you are confused about.
Would you know he was the bad guy until he fired?
No, I would go to jail if I shot him and could not prove he was a bad guy.
That depends on whether he was black or not.
-
I have no problem with firearms but nowadays others do. In the old days a guy would just break up with his girlfriend. Now days he shoots up her work. People are getting dumber. “Hey I’m going to me my neighbor in a school parking lot and kill him over a parking space.” Why do 20 year olds now think it’s ok to go to jail for life.
I fear guns will need to be taken away as Americans can no longer handle them. And that’s including the police. They are just as stupid.
-
Exactly.
I would have to prove to 12 people that the other person's life was in danger. If the pistol was pointing at the other person's head, it should be easy.
-
In theory, you're correct.
What if it wasn't a real gun? What if it was a prank and the two people knew eachother? What if you missed and hit someone else?
-
In theory, you're correct.
What if it wasn't a real gun? What if it was a prank and the two people knew eachother? What if you missed and hit someone else?
For the first part, that would be dumb. I would probably get off even if they were pretending. For the second part, I would be held accountable for harming other people. I do not disagree.
-
I have no problem with firearms but nowadays others do. In the old days a guy would just break up with his girlfriend. Now days he shoots up her work. People are getting dumber. “Hey I’m going to me my neighbor in a school parking lot and kill him over a parking space.” Why do 20 year olds now think it’s ok to go to jail for life.
I fear guns will need to be taken away as Americans can no longer handle them. And that’s including the police. They are just as stupid.
I feel the same way. My family has always had guns, lots of hunters, but the weirdos out there buying guns now are ruining everything. The fear mongering about the govt taking our guns doesn't help. It causes even weirder weirdos to go out and buy a bunch of guns. The only people happy about it are the ones making a profit. I also think the internet is making borderline crazy people full on crazy.
-
In theory, you're correct.
What if it wasn't a real gun? What if it was a prank and the two people knew eachother? What if you missed and hit someone else?
For the first part, that would be dumb. I would probably get off even if they were pretending. For the second part, I would be held accountable for harming other people. I do not disagree.
...and you're allowed to carry a gun?
-
If I am at a gas station, and someone pulled a "gun" on the attendant, I would be the good guy if I took care of the situation. Please explain why I would not be.
This seems like a bad scenario to insert yourself into. At least that is what the various firearm/CCW courses I have taken in the past tell me. The liability is enormous and the only positive outcome would be if you stopped someone in the unlikely event the person was homicidal, which in holdups usually is not the case. Outside of that, the risk goes up exponentially if you involve yourself. Let the police and insurance companies deal with the theft, everyone goes home alive.
I understand your point, but this doesn't seem to be a great example.
-
If I am at a gas station, and someone pulled a "gun" on the attendant, I would be the good guy if I took care of the situation. Please explain why I would not be.
This seems like a bad scenario to insert yourself into. At least that is what the various firearm/CCW courses I have taken in the past tell me. The liability is enormous and the only positive outcome would be if you stopped someone in the unlikely event the person was homicidal, which in holdups usually is not the case. Outside of that, the risk goes up exponentially if you involve yourself. Let the police and insurance companies deal with the theft, everyone goes home alive.
I understand your point, but this doesn't seem to be a great example.
I know you live on the liberal side of the US, but here, you are allowed to protect other people, whether or not you even know them. If a bad guy seems to be about to harm someone, you can shoot them.
-
In theory, you're correct.
What if it wasn't a real gun? What if it was a prank and the two people knew eachother? What if you missed and hit someone else?
For the first part, that would be dumb. I would probably get off even if they were pretending. For the second part, I would be held accountable for harming other people. I do not disagree.
...and you're allowed to carry a gun?
Yes, because I am not a threat to anyone other than the bad guys.
-
But you decide who the bad guys are.....
-
But you decide who the bad guys are.....
So do the Police. And, they have to stand in front of a jury as well when they shoot a bad guy.
-
Their badge gives them that power, not that they always make the right decision. You on the other hand could be shooting the wrong person just because of what you think you see at the time.
-
I know you live on the liberal side of the US, but here, you are allowed to protect other people, whether or not you even know them. If a bad guy seems to be about to harm someone, you can shoot them.
I mean I spent most of my life in a place with open-carry allowed, and stopped requiring handgun registrations altogether. The only thing left was the CCW requirement for concealed-carry, but I am well-versed in firearms, and have owned a ton of them.
Just because you can shoot someone doesn't mean it is a good idea. But if you have the epic hero fantasy you want to roll with then by all means go ahead tie up the next many years of your life with the legal repercussions that come along with that scenario, since you will likely have to go through a police investigation at minimum and potentially defend yourself from criminal charges. And don't forget civil suits from the family of the person you shot. You may walk away from that without a scratch so your priorities are you own.
-
and stopped requiring handgun registrations altogether.
Where the fuck was that?!?!
-
Their badge gives them that power, not that they always make the right decision. You on the other hand could be shooting the wrong person just because of what you think you see at the time.
Either I or the Police could potentially shoot the wrong person, and we would both have to be before a jury and try to justify our actions. Do you know who does not get to stand in front of a jury to justify their actions? The dead person, and I don't want for myself or my family or the innocent gas station attendant to be the dead person; I want for the bad guy to be him.
-
Where the fuck was that?!?!
NV
-
I know you live on the liberal side of the US, but here, you are allowed to protect other people, whether or not you even know them. If a bad guy seems to be about to harm someone, you can shoot them.
I mean I spent most of my life in a place with open-carry allowed, and stopped requiring handgun registrations altogether. The only thing left was the CCW requirement for concealed-carry, but I am well-versed in firearms, and have owned a ton of them.
Just because you can shoot someone doesn't mean it is a good idea. But if you have the epic hero fantasy you want to roll with then by all means go ahead tie up the next many years of your life with the legal repercussions that come along with that scenario, since you will likely have to go through a police investigation at minimum and potentially defend yourself from criminal charges. And don't forget civil suits from the family of the person you shot. You may walk away from that without a scratch so your priorities are you own.
As I said, I would rather testify in front of a jury than be dead or have a family member be dead or an innocent person be dead. You seem to act like, "just do it and I will let you." I am more on the side of stopping it before it happens.
-
I agree with your sentiment but there is a spiral regarding guns. It's out of control in some places.
-
As I said, I would rather testify in front of a jury than be dead or have a family member be dead or an innocent person be dead. You seem to act like, "just do it and I will let you." I am more on the side of stopping it before it happens.
If family is at risk, then I agree with you. If it property/money at stake, it just isn't worth it. Those things are all insured, and the police can pursue the suspect. In the event of of a convenience store robbery, you or the attendant are much more likely to end up dead if you involve yourself. Being robbed is scary and traumatizing, but retail workers are trained to just give what is being demanded since that is where it ends in the vast majority of instances. You splattering someone's brains all over to save the gas station $200 will be infinitely more traumatizing for the minimum wage worker behind the counter.
-
I agree with your sentiment but there is a spiral regarding guns. It's out of control in some places.
I would only shoot someone if a reasonable person would agree that I was justified.
-
Who would that reasonable person be?
-
As I said, I would rather testify in front of a jury than be dead or have a family member be dead or an innocent person be dead. You seem to act like, "just do it and I will let you." I am more on the side of stopping it before it happens.
If family is at risk, then I agree with you. If it property/money at stake, it just isn't worth it. Those things are all insured, and the police can pursue the suspect. In the event of of a convenience store robbery, you or the attendant are much more likely to end up dead if you involve yourself. Being robbed is scary and traumatizing, but retail workers are trained to just give what is being demanded since that is where it ends in the vast majority of instances. You splattering someone's brains all over to save the gas station $200 will be infinitely more traumatizing for the minimum wage worker behind the counter.
We are not talking about people's feelings. We are talking about who lives and who dies. I had a friend in Highschool who ended up robbing a bunch of gas stations. The last couple, before he was caught, he shoot the cashiers even though they complied with his demands and were unarmed.
-
Who would that reasonable person be?
A person on a jury?
-
Who would that reasonable person be?
A person on a jury?
A bit late to ask a jury once you've shot them though.
-
Who would that reasonable person be?
A person on a jury?
A bit late to ask a jury once you've shot them though.
Not if you or someone you love is alive and the bad guy is dead. ::)
-
We are not talking about people's feelings. We are talking about who lives and who dies. I had a friend in Highschool who ended up robbing a bunch of gas stations. The last couple, before he was caught, he shoot the cashiers even though they complied with his demands and were unarmed.
I mean, obviously your mind is made up. But there aren't many firearms instructors or LEOs that would recommend your course of action. You seem to refuse to believe that you inserting yourself increases the probability of death significantly.
Although this hyper-specific hypothetical scenario isn't really what the topic of firearm rights is about.
-
We are not talking about people's feelings. We are talking about who lives and who dies. I had a friend in Highschool who ended up robbing a bunch of gas stations. The last couple, before he was caught, he shoot the cashiers even though they complied with his demands and were unarmed.
I mean, obviously your mind is made up. But there aren't many firearms instructors or LEOs that would recommend your course of action. You seem to refuse to believe that you inserting yourself increases the probability of death significantly.
Although this hyper-specific hypothetical scenario isn't really what the topic of firearm rights is about.
First of all, it is not hypothetical if it is an anecdote. But, besides that, I would, in my own mind, err on the side of the good guy, rather than the bad buy.
-
You said:
" I would only shoot someone if a reasonable person would agree that I was justified. "
How would a person on a jury be relevant at that time? Youre at a gas station, not in court.
How do you know if they would agree?
Are you assuming that a jury would agree with you otherwise they would be unreasonable?
-
You said:
" I would only shoot someone if a reasonable person would agree that I was justified. "
How would a person on a jury be relevant at that time? Youre at a gas station, not in court.
How do you know if they would agree?
Are you assuming that a jury would agree with you otherwise they would be unreasonable?
I, like everyone else, would have to weigh the situation. I may only have a second or two to think. However, I would think quickly, and hopefully, it would be an action that I could justify before a jury.
-
First of all, it is not hypothetical if it is an anecdote. But, besides that, I would, in my own mind, err on the side of the good guy, rather than the bad buy.
I mean, it is hypothetical how you framed it initially. You added an anecdote later that doesn't change the context of the discussion.
Erring on the side of the good guy is a good principle to live by. If you are willing to risk your life to save a gas station some petty cash that is already insured then that is your business. It would be a lot harder to defend your family against a real threat later on if you are in prison or dead because you decided to play hero where the probability of it being needed is minimal.
-
First of all, it is not hypothetical if it is an anecdote. But, besides that, I would, in my own mind, err on the side of the good guy, rather than the bad buy.
I mean, it is hypothetical how you framed it initially. You added an anecdote later that doesn't change the context of the discussion.
Erring on the side of the good guy is a good principle to live by. If you are willing to risk your life to save a gas station some petty cash that is already insured then that is your business. It would be a lot harder to defend your family against a real threat later on if you are in prison or dead because you decided to play hero where the probability of it being needed is minimal.
I don't give a shit about the $200 or whatever. I give a shit about the pimply faced kid behind the counter. Why don't you care about them?
-
Why don't you care about them?
Why do you always do this strawman nonsense? It makes it seem like you are just trolling and not actually interested in a conversation.
I would care about the kid, which is why I wouldn't increase the likelihood of said kid dying by inserting myself unless it was absolutely necessary. You seem to not care about the kid by ignoring the high probability that the kid will be fine if he or she just complies with demands. You will find that statistics on convenience store / retail robberies show that the vast majority do not end in homicide. Facts don't care about your feelings, as they say.
-
Are you the guy who lives in a house peppered with bullet holes, and who was worried for the safety of his family?
Because to be honest that kind of shit doesn’t happen so much in countries where guns are restricted and needing a way to kill people at distance is not considered the bedrock of freedom.
-
Are you the guy who lives in a house peppered with bullet holes, and who was worried for the safety of his family?
Because to be honest that kind of shit doesn’t happen so much in countries where guns are restricted and needing a way to kill people at distance is not considered the bedrock of freedom.
He is. And to be honest it really doesn't happen all that often in this country either.
-
Are you the guy who lives in a house peppered with bullet holes, and who was worried for the safety of his family?
Because to be honest that kind of shit doesn’t happen so much in countries where guns are restricted and needing a way to kill people at distance is not considered the bedrock of freedom.
Shooting 120 rounds at a house in a few seconds is already illegal. What laws would you propose that would have stopped my house from being shot up?
-
It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.
She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.
-
It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.
She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.
So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense ::)
And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.
-
It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.
She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.
So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying.
Makes sense. And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.
Just to let you know, anything said is also going to be presented at an LEO trial, which he will have if he shoots someone.
-
Are you the guy who lives in a house peppered with bullet holes, and who was worried for the safety of his family?
Because to be honest that kind of shit doesn’t happen so much in countries where guns are restricted and needing a way to kill people at distance is not considered the bedrock of freedom.
Shooting 120 rounds at a house in a few seconds is already illegal. What laws would you propose that would have stopped my house from being shot up?
Well it’s a bit late for you lot, but I would probably at the birth of your country, argue that giving every tom, Dick and Harry the means to do just that was likely a mistake, and that at every possible juncture since you have missed the opportunity to remedy that mistake.
In respect to the original OP that everyone in the world has a gun, then I believe that is retarded in the extreme and your defence of it stands testament to that retardedness.
-
Just to let you know, anything said is also going to be presented at an LEO trial, which he will have if he shoots someone.
The likelihood of a LEO going on trial for discharging his firearm during a robbery while on-duty is minimal. The chances of a DA bringing charges in that scenario are nearly non-existent unless there is some other exigent circumstance.
And the reality is that a LEO has a much higher probability of getting away with even an unjustified shooting than an average civilian. I am not even sure what you are trying to add to the discussion with your post here.
-
Are you the guy who lives in a house peppered with bullet holes, and who was worried for the safety of his family?
Because to be honest that kind of shit doesn’t happen so much in countries where guns are restricted and needing a way to kill people at distance is not considered the bedrock of freedom.
Shooting 120 rounds at a house in a few seconds is already illegal. What laws would you propose that would have stopped my house from being shot up?
Well it’s a bit late for you lot, but I would probably at the birth of your country, argue that giving every tom, Dick and Harry the means to do just that was likely a mistake, and that at every possible juncture since you have missed the opportunity to remedy that mistake.
In respect to the original OP that everyone in the world has a gun, then I believe that is retarded in the extreme and your defence of it stands testament to that retardedness.
They used an automatic weapon on my house. It was already illegal to own it, and to shoot it at houses that are occupied. So, I will ask you again, which law would have stopped my house from being shout up?
-
Just to let you know, anything said is also going to be presented at an LEO trial, which he will have if he shoots someone.
The likelihood of a LEO going on trial for discharging his firearm during a robbery while on-duty is minimal. The chances of a DA bringing charges in that scenario are nearly non-existent unless there is some other exigent circumstance.
And the reality is that a LEO has a much higher probability of getting away with even an unjustified shooting than an average civilian. I am not even sure what you are trying to add to the discussion with your post here.
I am not sure about where you live, but here, if you save a life by stopping a crime, you do not have to worry much about the DA, because he knows that a reasonable person in the same situation would do the same thing.
-
I am not sure about where you live, but here, if you save a life by stopping a crime, you do not have to worry much about the DA, because he knows that a reasonable person in the same situation would do the same thing.
This is very likely true from a criminal perspective. But when the civil suit comes because the family of the poor kid behind the counter knows that their kid would very likely be alive still if you didn't play hero, you will have a harder time defending yourself with a lower burden of proof. I hope you have insurance that covers that. Maybe everything works out perfectly, and you just have one dead bad guy and you walk away without any issues. Good on you for being the hero, and hopefully killing another human doesn't haunt you forever.
-
Even in a civil suite, stopping a killing by killing the bad guy does not inherently make you a bad guy. The intent on my side would be to stop an innocent person from being killed. The intent on the other side would be to commit a crime and threaten to kill the innocent guy.
-
I would like to make a new thread to debate firearm rights so we can keep this debate out of some of the other threads. I believe that everyone in the world should be allowed to arm themselves. But, in the US, it is written into the constitution.
So, I will ask you again, which law would have stopped my house from being shout up?
And like I said, if you bothered to read it, there is probably little you can do in the US, due to the vast amount of weaponry available in a country addicted to them. You made your bed, you get shot in it.
However in your original post (above) you seem to be under the impression that the rest of the world would like to be in your shoes, and I do not think we do, I mean I have fired guns and would like one, I would also like a tank and a trebuchet, would I want my neighbour to have one? No. Do I understand why it isn't a good idea, yes, ergo I am happy with the laws as they are, and I am pretty sure as a result of that sanity I will not be in the position of someone with an automatic rifle doing to my house what was done to yours.
-
... and a trebuchet
Wait, is there a law against trebuchets? I mean, I am sure you know the power of being able to launch a 90Kg object 300m. How any government could suppress you from that power is unthinkable to me.
-
I would like to make a new thread to debate firearm rights so we can keep this debate out of some of the other threads. I believe that everyone in the world should be allowed to arm themselves. But, in the US, it is written into the constitution.
So, I will ask you again, which law would have stopped my house from being shout up?
And like I said, if you bothered to read it, there is probably little you can do in the US, due to the vast amount of weaponry available in a country addicted to them. You made your bed, you get shot in it.
However in your original post (above) you seem to be under the impression that the rest of the world would like to be in your shoes, and I do not think we do, I mean I have fired guns and would like one, I would also like a tank and a trebuchet, would I want my neighbour to have one? No. Do I understand why it isn't a good idea, yes, ergo I am happy with the laws as they are, and I am pretty sure as a result of that sanity I will not be in the position of someone with an automatic rifle doing to my house what was done to yours.
The weapon was already illegal. They illegally shot at an occupied house. The person they were after was not even here, and they were mad at him over drugs and money. Which part of this could we legislate that would have prevented this crime?
-
Wait, is there a law against trebuchets?
TBH, I don't think the law has ever been challenged, however if the people across the road started to build one I would probably look at it a bit closer.
Orospu, are you being intentionally retarded? Or should I back off a bit until your carer explains that I have no idea of the processes of the law in your case, or any idea of how this could have been ameliorated to your satisfaction, because the US has fucked itself as far as gun- crime goes through its right to bear arms.
My point is we do not envy you!
-
I think Junker has already explained how adding more guns to a situation almost always results in more, not less, deaths. The fact even the hypothetical example involves shooting someone over less than a thousand dollars is pretty clear evidence that more people with guns means more people die.
But, in the US, it is written into the constitution.
But I'd like to focus on this part. I think people really misunderstand the second amendment. Let's look at the actual text.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The second amendment guarantees the rights of a people to a militia, and clearly a militia needs weapons, but the idea that it grants individuals rights is a recent interpretation. It's only in 2008 (District of Columbia v Heller) that the courts agreed that it grants individual rights, and those rights are not unlimited.
To say gun rights for individuals is enshrined in the constitution is false. It's more enshrined in some Bush-era 's judicial interpretation, and even in that your rights to guns are limited. You can have a gun, but not any gun you want and the government can (and should) put strong limitations on ammunition, modifications, and types of guns. The constitution protects your well-regulated militias, which in modern times is the National Guard.
-
It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.
She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.
So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense ::)
And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.
You have no obligation to protect yourself.
-
Haha, you should have seen some of the devices my buddy and I built 40 years ago.
Mostly aerials, some buried ground shakers. :D
What's your hearing like now? I still have "ringing in the ears" from X decades ago.
-
So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense ::)
And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.
And often the criminal can handle the weapon far more expertly that most householders, Son of Orospu and Bullwinkle excluded, of course.
The end result can be that the householder ends up dead :(? and the crook gets another weapon to add to his arsenal.
-
Haha, you should have seen some of the devices my buddy and I built 40 years ago.
Mostly aerials, some buried ground shakers. :D
What's your hearing like now? I still have "ringing in the ears" from X decades ago.
We took safety seriously.
Gloves. Goggles. Distance.
Some duds, some very high yield. ;D
-
We took safety seriously.
Gloves. Goggles. Distance.
Some duds, some very high yield. ;D
What do you think of the toxicity of red lead and magnesium powder as a "rocket" (more like a bazooka) propellant?
Not safe, poor ISP, but it was available - what else mattered to a teenager?
-
It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.
She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.
So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense ::)
And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.
If you want to help load your shit in your robber's car and give him a BJ before he drives away, fine.
That's your choice.
-
I think Junker has already explained how adding more guns to a situation almost always results in more, not less, deaths. The fact even the hypothetical example involves shooting someone over less than a thousand dollars is pretty clear evidence that more people with guns means more people die.
But, in the US, it is written into the constitution.
But I'd like to focus on this part. I think people really misunderstand the second amendment. Let's look at the actual text.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The second amendment guarantees the rights of a people to a militia, and clearly a militia needs weapons, but the idea that it grants individuals rights is a recent interpretation. It's only in 2008 (District of Columbia v Heller) that the courts agreed that it grants individual rights, and those rights are not unlimited.
To say gun rights for individuals is enshrined in the constitution is false. It's more enshrined in some Bush-era 's judicial interpretation, and even in that your rights to guns are limited. You can have a gun, but not any gun you want and the government can (and should) put strong limitations on ammunition, modifications, and types of guns. The constitution protects your well-regulated militias, which in modern times is the National Guard.
What part of "the right of the people" is up for interpretation? It is a right. That means that it is not granted, it is a right to keep and bear arms. And the militia part means that people can group together to form a military like unit, should the need arise, and already have the firearms to do so.
-
It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.
She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.
So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense ::)
And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.
If you want to help load your shit in your robber's car and give him a BJ before he drives away, fine.
That's your choice.
I'd suggest that you stop succumbing to "feelz over realz."
Pure facts and logic say you're wrong, and the best you can counter with is some random strawman. I hope you get a friendly jury when you inevitably become unhinged.
-
It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.
She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.
So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense ::)
And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.
If you want to help load your shit in your robber's car and give him a BJ before he drives away, fine.
That's your choice.
I'd suggest that you stop succumbing to "feelz over realz."
Pure facts and logic say you're wrong, and the best you can counter with is some random strawman. I hope you get a friendly jury when you inevitably become unhinged.
Have a great day, pussy.
-
Ok I've just jumped into this topic to give my view on the actual topic title.
I don't believe any civilian should be allowed to carry a firearm away from their own property. No concealed carrying or anything.
Owning a firearm or two in your own home in a locked, secure case to be used in the event of a threat by home invaders would be acceptable in my eyes.
The problem these days with owning and carrying of guns on the street is the potential and ease in which it can be produced and used in a split second bout of irritation or altercation.
People who say they feel safer if they carry a gun are not safer in my opinion, they just feel it because they think people will think twice about attacking/robbing them.
Although this may appear to be some kind of truth, I think it actually hands the attacker the potential to do more harm by striking first with their own firearm...knowing you potentially have one.
The real issue is in stopping those that do own firearms and do carry them on the street. Those people need to be stopped/come down on, heavily.
This might not go down too well with those in America seeing this written by someone from England, seeing that we do not have owner carrying laws or even home protection laws with locked cabinets...except for those who go to shooting ranges and hunting, which even then there's a certain restriction on calibre of weapon.
Look at the knife crime in England.
Do you think people carrying flick knives for their own protection is a good thing?
What about carrying concealed truncheons or knuckle dusters?
This is what should happen.
All guns and all knives or deliberate offensive weapons carried by a person in public should be come down on extremely heavily, all across the board for those who do not have a licence to carry the weapon.
Ban them all and make sure the punishment fits the crime of having them in carrying or in use.
-
Ok I've just jumped into this topic to give my view on the actual topic title.
I don't believe any civilian should be allowed to carry a firearm away from their own property. No concealed carrying or anything.
Owning a firearm or two in your own home in a locked, secure case to be used in the event of a threat by home invaders would be acceptable in my eyes.
The problem these days with owning and carrying of guns on the street is the potential and ease in which it can be produced and used in a split second bout of irritation or altercation.
People who say they feel safer if they carry a gun are not safer in my opinion, they just feel it because they think people will think twice about attacking/robbing them.
Although this may appear to be some kind of truth, I think it actually hands the attacker the potential to do more harm by striking first with their own firearm...knowing you potentially have one.
The real issue is in stopping those that do own firearms and do carry them on the street. Those people need to be stopped/come down on, heavily.
This might not go down too well with those in America seeing this written by someone from England, seeing that we do not have owner carrying laws or even home protection laws with locked cabinets...except for those who go to shooting ranges and hunting, which even then there's a certain restriction on calibre of weapon.
Look at the knife crime in England.
Do you think people carrying flick knives for their own protection is a good thing?
What about carrying concealed truncheons or knuckle dusters?
This is what should happen.
All guns and all knives or deliberate offensive weapons carried by a person in public should be come down on extremely heavily, all across the board for those who do not have a licence to carry the weapon.
Ban them all and make sure the punishment fits the crime of having them in carrying or in use.
The problem is that, inherently, criminals do not follow laws, although us good people do. If you say that people can not carry weapons anymore, 99.9% of the people would happily compy, but the criminals would continue to carry their knives or pistols or brass knuckles or whatever. That would seem to put us good people at a disadvantage.
-
New Zealand is to ban semi-automatics and military style assault weapons in response to the recent killings, that is sane, I dare say they too will have posturing arm-chair heroes convinced by hours of playing Battlefield that they have the cohones and skills to do the right thing, thankfully it probably won’t be necessary now as both the UK and Australia found when they did similar.
-
Ok I've just jumped into this topic to give my view on the actual topic title.
I don't believe any civilian should be allowed to carry a firearm away from their own property. No concealed carrying or anything.
Owning a firearm or two in your own home in a locked, secure case to be used in the event of a threat by home invaders would be acceptable in my eyes.
The problem these days with owning and carrying of guns on the street is the potential and ease in which it can be produced and used in a split second bout of irritation or altercation.
People who say they feel safer if they carry a gun are not safer in my opinion, they just feel it because they think people will think twice about attacking/robbing them.
Although this may appear to be some kind of truth, I think it actually hands the attacker the potential to do more harm by striking first with their own firearm...knowing you potentially have one.
The real issue is in stopping those that do own firearms and do carry them on the street. Those people need to be stopped/come down on, heavily.
This might not go down too well with those in America seeing this written by someone from England, seeing that we do not have owner carrying laws or even home protection laws with locked cabinets...except for those who go to shooting ranges and hunting, which even then there's a certain restriction on calibre of weapon.
Look at the knife crime in England.
Do you think people carrying flick knives for their own protection is a good thing?
What about carrying concealed truncheons or knuckle dusters?
This is what should happen.
All guns and all knives or deliberate offensive weapons carried by a person in public should be come down on extremely heavily, all across the board for those who do not have a licence to carry the weapon.
Ban them all and make sure the punishment fits the crime of having them in carrying or in use.
The problem is that, inherently, criminals do not follow laws, although us good people do. If you say that people can not carry weapons anymore, 99.9% of the people would happily compy, but the criminals would continue to carry their knives or pistols or brass knuckles or whatever. That would seem to put us good people at a disadvantage.
I agree with you in terms of how it is right now and this is why I mention about punishment fitting the crime.
Just like potential murderers or whatever will still murder regardless of the death penalty, so will certain criminals carrying guns, shoot people.
There will never be a perfect answer to stopping it altogether but I believe you can significantly reduce the potential of gun crime and the number of people carrying by simply banning firearms, altogether as a stringent rule on the streets.
You not only take away the ease in which guns can come into criminal contact but you also have a message sent out for any potential criminal who feels carrying a gun is cool and a scare tactic in committing a crime, that being caught in possession on the streets results in 5 years hard labour just for carrying and no exceptions to the rule.
From there the penalties get stiffer.
Now, fair enough you will not stop the hard core gun toting people in a quick fix but you will massively lower the number who potentially take that road...meaning...by percentage, that gun crime becomes insignificant on the whole and people will naturally feel much safer knowing the real penalties for use of such weapons.
Let's put it plainer. Even certain hardcore gun users/criminals take great pains to ensure their weapons are brought in by stealth and they know in those weapons their jail time would be substantial.
Not many want to go to jail for a length of time that strips their young lives away to be replaced by a wasted ageing streetwalker after parole, if it becomes a case.
In a childish sort of way it comes down to this.
If I bring a knife, you bring a bigger knife. If You bring a bigger knife, I bring a sword. If I bring a sword, you bring a small gun and so on and so on.
What I'm saying is, people being allowed to carry and use in what they deem, a situation requiring it, may come up against someone who brings the bigger gun to the table knowing what you're allowed to carry.
Not only does it put your life in bigger danger but potentially could lead to many more lives being lost in the event of you reacting to a situation that may not actually require it.
Basically scare tactics being reacted upon by real time actions of you and your gun, creating a real time reaction from the criminal using his/her gun which may have not even happened if you'd never produced your gun.
If's and but's...yet the situation would be generally created in that scenario, I think.
The reality in life is, most people would be far too scared to even go for a gun and use it. The bigger reality is most people wouldn't be able to effectively use a gun for its intended purpose.
You may if you are army trained.
Some may if they are shooting range trained.
By the looks of it, most criminals can't even use a gun properly from what I've seen.
The likelihood of anyone using a firearm in a situation would result in collateral damage rather than localised.
That's obviously just my opinion based on how I see the things panning out.
-
The problem is that, inherently, criminals do not follow laws, although us good people do. If you say that people can not carry weapons anymore, 99.9% of the people would happily compy, but the criminals would continue to carry their knives or pistols or brass knuckles or whatever. That would seem to put us good people at a disadvantage.
You seem ignorant of how proper gun control laws work elsewhere in the world. They work.
-
New Zealand is to ban semi-automatics and military style assault weapons in response to the recent killings, that is sane, I dare say they too will have posturing arm-chair heroes convinced by hours of playing Battlefield that they have the cohones and skills to do the right thing, thankfully it probably won’t be necessary now as both the UK and Australia found when they did similar.
People should not be allowed to raise their fists above their belly button.
That would eliminate fist fights.
And there should be a law that makes everyone be nice.
Plus some law to appease the lesbians. ::)
-
It's much harder for people who are basically used to gun carrying, to be coaxed away from gun carrying.
If I was to go to a place where they openly carried guns, I'd be as wary as all hell.
People get desensitized to all kinds of stuff and this is the case with gun carrying in parts of the world where it becomes regular and normal.
People are still wary but not generally scared like someone from outside of that area who comes into it would be.
I well understand how people need to feel safe.
Most people feel safer with a big dog in their homes.
Some feel safer with a baseball bat beside their bed.
What I generally think about, also, is kids getting their hands on someone's weapon and treating it as some kind of game.
Of course, in a home with a gun locked away, the chances of that happening are slim...but then again the chances of being able to get to it and use it if your home is invaded, diminished, unless it's beside your bed or something.
The real issue is to stop the spread of the disease of gun crime before you can stop the people from wanting to own the weapons that they feel they can aid in doing that but not realising they are adding to it.
-
A North Korean Brit talking about guns.
Nice.
-
It's like saying car keys should be locked in a safe to keep them away from children.
People treat guns as something scary and dangerous.
A pot of boiling water is scary and dangerous.
The cabinet under the sink is scary and dangerous.
If you are afraid of firearms, don't have any. Your choice.
-
A North Korean Brit talking about guns.
Nice.
Maybe you need to learn a few things. Jimmythecrab may be able to help you, because you are definitely switched off.
-
I understand your apprehension about kids getting ahold of a firearm. I, personally, had three boys. They got their first firearm around the time they were physically able to handle them, around 8 to 10 years old, and they had knives from the time that I felt they would not poke each other, maybe 6 or so. I feel that my sons will never mishandle a firearm due to the fact that they have been not only handling, but also shooting them for most of their lives. In fact, my eldest son just had a birthday a few weeks back, and he got a new 12 gauge shotgun. He was planning to come by today to shoot and visit, but the weather is shitty, so I am trying to entice him with pot roast instead, lol.
However, I do understand that some people are not very responsible when it comes to children and firearms. You can't legislate stupid, and I don't think that you should take firearms away from normal people because of these idiots.
-
I forgot to mention that my boys started off with BB guns. They got those as soon as they could physically hold them, and I kept them in my room until I felt that they were responsible enough to keep them in their rooms.
-
What is glaringly apparent from all the statistics I have seen, is the perceived feeling of safety is false.
Guns kill, they do so in accidents, by suicide and murder, incidences of all three obviously go up if you have access to a gun, you can’t have a fatal accident with a gun if you don’t have one, but suicide is also more prevalent in households with a gun than without, it is a relatively easy and final way to shuffle off, so parents with guns are actually putting their children at greater risk of death.
The frequent line taken by our resident hardmen is, if everyone gets a gun it’s self-evident that crime will be less, presumably as the site of Bully coming down the street packing is a deterrent in itself (forgive me while I gather myself), but this from Scientific American;
Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.
So, you are not safer with a gun, and if you have kids they are in more danger if you possess them, and nobody fears Wyatt Bulwinkle and his swagger.
-
In the US, the least likely places to get shot are the ones where people are likely to have a firearm. Coincidence?
-
A North Korean Brit talking about guns.
Nice.
Maybe you need to learn a few things. Jimmythecrab may be able to help you, because you are definitely switched off.
I do agree you could never teach me anything.
-
A North Korean Brit talking about guns.
Nice.
Maybe you need to learn a few things. Jimmythecrab may be able to help you, because you are definitely switched off.
I do agree you could never teach me anything.
Please don't do this shit in this serious thread. We are trying to have a discussion.
-
It's like saying car keys should be locked in a safe to keep them away from children.
People treat guns as something scary and dangerous.
A pot of boiling water is scary and dangerous.
The cabinet under the sink is scary and dangerous.
If you are afraid of firearms, don't have any. Your choice.
It's not about being afraid of firearms so don't have any. It's about being around the potential of the consequences of people owning firearms and the real potential of them being used on a whim.
Let's make this simpler.
If People of London were suddenly told they can buy a gun to protect themselves...before long the city of London would be like the O.K. Corral on many occasions with gangsters openly shooting up and innocents panic defending themselves.
Look at the knife crime. More knife crime and more people carrying to protect themselves, resulting in more knife crime.
I don't know how the laws work in American cities and towns that allow open gun carrying or concealed carrying but it seems like a jail sentence waiting to happen for an innocent, never mind a would be felon.
Like I said earlier. In some places it may be accepted without much ado.
You appear to have been brought up with guns, so I can see your point on them.
I haven't been brought up with guns or in the immediate known vicinity of them, except the odd rogue person who may go into frenzy mode every few years or so in the region.
At the end of the day if your rights are getting taken away with how you own a gun then soon enough it's going to be too risky actually doing so.
I'm all for having rights but there has to be a limit on weapons for the masses.
-
In the US, the least likely places to get shot are the ones where people are likely to have a firearm. Coincidence?
Bullshit!
As you again didn’t remove your blinkers long enough to read, I’ll put it again.
researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.
-
I always have a knife on me, and it is legal, yet, there are pretty much no knife crimes in my county. There is a shooting every now and then, but I don't think those people had legal firearms to begin with, much less were legal to be in the country.
-
In the US, the least likely places to get shot are the ones where people are likely to have a firearm. Coincidence?
Bullshit!
As you again didn’t remove your blinkers long enough to read, I’ll put it again.
researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.
I can cherry pick data and show how states with firearms are much more safe than ones without. We could do this all day, depending on the way you interpret data.
-
A North Korean Brit talking about guns.
Nice.
Maybe you need to learn a few things. Jimmythecrab may be able to help you, because you are definitely switched off.
I do agree you could never teach me anything.
Please don't do this shit in this serious thread. We are trying to have a discussion.
Ok dude.
-
A North Korean Brit talking about guns.
Nice.
Maybe you need to learn a few things. Jimmythecrab may be able to help you, because you are definitely switched off.
I do agree you could never teach me anything.
Please don't do this shit in this serious thread. We are trying to have a discussion.
Ok dude.
Thanks.
-
In the US, the least likely places to get shot are the ones where people are likely to have a firearm. Coincidence?
Bullshit!
As you again didn’t remove your blinkers long enough to read, I’ll put it again.
researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.
I can cherry pick data and show how states with firearms are much more safe than ones without. We could do this all day, depending on the way you interpret data.
I have no doubt that you love your kids Son-Of, as I have no doubt that you have bought into this NRA bullshit about more guns is a safer world, for the best of reasons.
But it doesn’t stack up, look at the deaths by gun rate for Westernised countries for yourself.
And when it comes to cherry-picking, when the research into gun crime in the 80’s & 90’s started to go against the reasoning you (NRA) espouse, the gun lobby (the makers and sellers) ploughed millions into getting a law mandating the CDC so that none of its funding could be used to advocate or promote gun control, effectively stopping any further research, why would they do that if they had your best interests at heart rather than scaring you into buying more of their people killers with the tag-line “but what about the children?”
They don’t give a fuck.
-
What’s the biggest killer of children?
-
In the US, the least likely places to get shot are the ones where people are likely to have a firearm. Coincidence?
Bullshit!
As you again didn’t remove your blinkers long enough to read, I’ll put it again.
researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.
I can cherry pick data and show how states with firearms are much more safe than ones without. We could do this all day, depending on the way you interpret data.
I have no doubt that you love your kids Son-Of, as I have no doubt that you have bought into this NRA bullshit about more guns is a safer world, for the best of reasons.
But it doesn’t stack up, look at the deaths by gun rate for Westernised countries for yourself.
And when it comes to cherry-picking, when the research into gun crime in the 80’s & 90’s started to go against the reasoning you (NRA) espouse, the gun lobby (the makers and sellers) ploughed millions into getting a law mandating the CDC so that none of its funding could be used to advocate or promote gun control, effectively stopping any further research, why would they do that if they had your best interests at heart rather than scaring you into buying more of their people killers with the tag-line “but what about the children?”
They don’t give a fuck.
Rights don't have feelings, and couldn't care less about whining liberal crap. People where I live walk into Walmart with a pistol on their hips, and guess what... no Walmart shootings here. I often open carry when I go shopping. Not always, but often. If I am not open carrying, I am concealed carrying, so people don't know I have a weapon, but the thought of myself and others possibly having a firearm surely makes the bad guys think twice.
-
If you've got a fucking point sokarul, make it or fuck off.
Osp'
Also when cherry picking would you think it best to take your data from say a children’s hospital, you know a place dedicated to the safety of the kids, or a lobby group for the firms that make the weapons that are killing the kids?
-
Rights don't have feelings, and couldn't care less about whining liberal crap. People where I live walk into Walmart with a pistol on their hips, and guess what... no Walmart shootings here. I often open carry when I go shopping. Not always, but often. If I am not open carrying, I am concealed carrying, so people don't know I have a weapon, but the thought of myself and others possibly having a firearm surely makes the bad guys think twice.
I wouldn't be seen dead in Walmart, but hey I walk into shops all the time and no-one is carrying a gun and guess what...........no shootings either, so no point made.
-
If you've got a fucking point sokarul, make it or fuck off.
Osp'
Also when cherry picking would you think it best to take your data from say a children’s hospital, you know a place dedicated to the safety of the kids, or a lobby group for the firms that make the weapons that are killing the kids?
Yeah, I am sure that a children's hospital has nothing better to do than research firearms rather than, I don't know, like, treat kids with cancer and other mundane stuff. ::)
-
Rights don't have feelings, and couldn't care less about whining liberal crap. People where I live walk into Walmart with a pistol on their hips, and guess what... no Walmart shootings here. I often open carry when I go shopping. Not always, but often. If I am not open carrying, I am concealed carrying, so people don't know I have a weapon, but the thought of myself and others possibly having a firearm surely makes the bad guys think twice.
I wouldn't be seen dead in Walmart, but hey I walk into shops all the time and no-one is carrying a gun and guess what...........no shootings either, so no point made.
The facts of the matter are that nearly all mass shootings are done in a place where you are not allowed to have a firearm, whether it is here in the US, in NZ, or the EU. Also, Walmart is a great place to buy beer and eggs and stuff. They suck now for their firearms and ammo, but, every once in a while, they have a great deal on a shotgun or longrifle.
-
So, you are not safer with a gun, and if you have kids they are in more danger if you possess them, and nobody fears Wyatt Bulwinkle and his swagger.
Same thing can be said of baseball bats.
If you are afraid of a tool, don't buy one.
-
and stopped requiring handgun registrations altogether.
Where the fuck was that?!?!
Pretty much everywhere in the US after the Brady Bill expired in 2004.
-
Have a great day, pussy.
Nice.
-
>tfw your argument is "I have a gun and I haven't been shot, that means more guns = better"
-
>tfw your argument is "I have a gun and I haven't been shot, that means more guns = better"
My argument is actually, "If you want to shoot at me, I have a weapon and will fire back."
-
>tfw your argument is "I have a gun and I haven't been shot, that means more guns = better"
My argument is actually, "If you want to shoot at me, I have a weapon and will fire back."
*shrug* great.
-
>tfw your argument is "I have a gun and I haven't been shot, that means more guns = better"
My argument is actually, "If you want to shoot at me, I have a weapon and will fire back."
*shrug* great.
If someone was shooting at you, and you did not live in a socialist country where you were actually allowed to defend yourself, would you not shoot back?
-
Fun activity: find conservative Facebook groups and post photos of Reagan with Marx's quotes about guns and photos of Marx with Reagan's quotes on guns and watch.
-
Rights don't have feelings, and couldn't care less about whining liberal crap. People where I live walk into Walmart with a pistol on their hips, and guess what... no Walmart shootings here. having a firearm surely makes the bad guys think twice.
I wouldn't be seen dead in Walmart, but hey I walk into shops all the time and no-one is carrying a gun and guess what...........no shootings either, so no point made.
The facts of the matter are that nearly all mass shootings are done in a place where you are not allowed to have a firearm, whether it is here in the US, in NZ, or the EU. Also, Walmart is a great place to buy beer and eggs and stuff. They suck now for their firearms and ammo, but, every once in a while, they have a great deal on a shotgun or longrifle.
Let's fix that.
The facts of the matter are that nearly all mass shootings are done in the US, where there are lots of guns.
The fact that the gunman will pick a target that is unarmed is people who want to cause max damage before they are stopped, you would have the whole of that NZ mosque armed and the school teachers at a small Scottish school (Dunblane) tooled up too, in your world they wouldn’t happen for fear of meeting you or Bully, but the Las Vegas sniper has made your argument redundant as he would have picked you off as easily as the other 58, so again what is the point of everybody carrying guns.
Gun control works, after 16 primary school children and teacher were shot by a guy with legally held handguns in 1996 (UK), they were outlawed, the next mass killing involving guns was 14 years later, when a nutter with .22 rifle and 12 gauge killed 12 in Cumbria, 14 years!
-
Have a great day, pussy.
Nice.
No, it wasn't. I'm sorry.
-
I am actually not opposed to teachers carrying. The kids around here have adults all around them who are carrying weapons, and yet, they are perfectly safe to walk around the grocery store without those "guns" shooting them. Why would a supposed intellectual not be allowed to defend themselves, their students, and anyone else? They are entrusted with young people, yet they can not be entrusted with a firearm?
-
Oh FFS! You really aren’t getting this are you?
Your (NRA’s) whole premise is fucked, you are so wrong about what more guns added to the mix would do it is laughable, the people who sell you guns have sold you a lie and you have bought them both wholesale.
14 years!
-
Have a great day, pussy.
Nice.
No, it wasn't. I'm sorry.
It's all good man. I have yet to see a topic on firearms that doesn't get heated.
-
Let us look at this issue anecdotally. I live in a place where people carry firearms to Walmart, and many other stores. We don't have store shootings here. Other places do not allow people to carry firearms and they get mass shootings. I know that correlation does not equal causation, but at the least you can admit that more shootings are conducted at places where other people do not have firearms, right?
-
I live in a place where people carry firearms to Walmart, and many other stores. We don't have store shootings here. Other places do not allow people to carry firearms and they get mass shootings.
Nice one. You have more mass shootings than anyone else.
-
I would propose that every teacher in the US be trained with and issued a single stack .380 (9X17mm) at the least. They should have some kind of background and mental check, and if they can't pass that, then they should not be teachers in the first place. I would not want someone who is not capable of owning, handling, or carrying a firearm in charge of my kids.
-
I live in a place where people carry firearms to Walmart, and many other stores. We don't have store shootings here. Other places do not allow people to carry firearms and they get mass shootings.
Nice one. You have more mass shootings than anyone else.
What is your proposal to keep these bad guys from shooting the good guys?
-
Have a great day, pussy.
Please don't do this shit in this serious thread. We are trying to have a discussion.
Where the comment should have been.
-
Let us look at this issue anecdotally.
Oh yes let’s
I live in a place where people carry firearms to Walmart, and many other stores. We don't have store shootings here.
I live in a place where nobody carries a firearm into any store and the police don’t have weapons either, everybody is just great and we (the whole country) hasn’t had a mass shooting since 2010.
Other places do not allow people to carry firearms and they get mass shootings.
In the US, which has 31% of the worlds mass shootings from 5% of its population.
I know that correlation does not equal causation, but at the least you can admit that more shootings are conducted at places where other people do not have firearms, right?
No, except in America which is a shooting black spot, because of its retarded addiction to guns.
-
Do you have gangsters crossing your borders? Oh, wait, that sounds like a racist joke about how they can't swim.
-
Not quite sure what point you are trying to make, but you seem to be clutching at straws.
How about you go back through my posts and actually try and address some of the points I've made, that you have missed, I will highlight them for you.
-
Not quite sure what point you are trying to make, but you seem to be clutching at straws.
How about you go back through my posts and actually try and address some of the points I've made, that you have missed, I will highlight them for you.
How many knife assaults did your country have last year? Isn't it illegal to walk around with a knife?
-
This was about firearms, do you want to change that as you are losing?
-
This was about firearms, do you want to change that as you are losing?
No your country does not allow you to carry any weapons, and if you use a weapon to defend yourself, whether it is justified or not, you go to jail.
-
This was about firearms, do you want to change that as you are losing?
No your country does not allow you to carry any weapons, and if you use a weapon to defend yourself, whether it is justified or not, you go to jail.
No, you are now just spouting bullshit again, we have every right to defend ourselves, and if I was to stab, or incapacitate an intruder using an improvised weapon or my ninja skills as long as I didn't go batshit, that is fine, we just don't encourage it or plan for it, as we don't have to.
-
This was about firearms, do you want to change that as you are losing?
In your shit hole country, a farmer who has a shotgun to protect his flock but uses it against some hoodlums that are breaking into his home will serve decades in prison. Please, explain how that is right?
-
They can't even trust you to carry a knife. How do your peoples even cut rope?
-
It isn't right but the fact that he was deemed to have used undue force and killed the 'hoodlum' makes it murder. You'll find that most Brits would support his actions though.
Not much need to go around cutting rope in 21st Century Britain either.
-
It isn't right but the fact that he was deemed to have used undue force and killed the 'hoodlum' makes it murder. You'll find that most Brits would support his actions though.
Not much need to go around cutting rope in 21st Century Britain either.
You don't use rope in Briton? Maybe that is because you are not trusted to have a knife.
Here in the US, in most places, if you kill someone who is not legally allowed to be in your house, you are justified.
-
Good ol' US of A.
Seems there is a lot of justification for killing people there.
-
Are you, or are you not allowed to be trusted with a knife. I have heard that you are not, unless you are in the kitchen. Please clear this up for me.
-
Of course we are trusted with knives, just not allowed to carry them around for no apparent reason. Many people carry knives here, for their work.
-
Well if you are talking about Tony Martin, there are a few circumstances that were not normal, he had an illegal pump action shotgun he said he found (?), the defence that he had been robbed 10 times was most likely fabricated and the robber that died was shot in the back trying to get away, I know that probably doesn’t mean anything to you hard-asses but we frown at shooting people in the back.
You can carry knives with a four inch blade, or if your job (rope cutter?) needs one, otherwise why would you?
EDIT
His license for a gun had been revoked for shooting up a guys car who had took apples from a tree on his land, and UK sheep do not need defending we have hunted all their predators to extinction.
-
Of course we are trusted with knives, just not allowed to carry them around for no apparent reason. Many people carry knives here, for their work.
So, your government will not even trust you to carry a knife, yet you somehow have the ability to lecture me about carrying a firearm?
-
Eh?
-
Well if you are talking about Tony Martin, there are a few circumstances that were not normal, he had an illegal pump action shotgun he said he found (?), the defence that he had been robbed 10 times was most likely fabricated and the robber that died was shot in the back trying to get away, I know that probably doesn’t mean anything to you hard-asses but we frown at shooting people in the back.
You can carry knives with a four inch blade, or if your job (rope cutter?) needs one, otherwise why would you?
I have carried the same knife for something like 14 years now. I use it almost daily. It is my pry-bar, screwdriver, scraper, and rope cutter. And, as a last ditch resort, it could be a weapon as well. I am just mistified why your government makes you justify why you want to have a knife before you are allowed to carry one.
-
Eh?
I am sorry. If you would like for me to restate it in Spanish or French, I would be happy to do so.
-
You started a shit thread where you could spout your right wing badly researched reactionary crap, I called you out, you lost, forgot the original premise and now say I shouldn’t be here.
Remember, whether or not you wear the tag, you will always be my bitch.
-
I have carried the same knife for something like 14 years now. I use it almost daily. It is my pry-bar, screwdriver, scraper, and rope cutter. And, as a last ditch resort, it could be a weapon as well. I am just mistified why your government makes you justify why you want to have a knife before you are allowed to carry one.
The big difference is we don't think about weapons much, I do have one in my rucksack that I cycle every day with, it's a leatherman multi-tool one, really sharp but I carry it for the pliers, and that is fine.
-
So, would you agree that "guns" or other weapons are justified under some circumstances?
-
I have carried the same knife for something like 14 years now. I use it almost daily. It is my pry-bar, screwdriver, scraper, and rope cutter. And, as a last ditch resort, it could be a weapon as well. I am just mistified why your government makes you justify why you want to have a knife before you are allowed to carry one.
The big difference is we don't think about weapons much, I do have one in my rucksack that I cycle every day with, it's a leatherman multi-tool one, really sharp but I carry it for the pliers, and that is fine.
Mine is a Leatherman Wave. I have been thinking about trading it out, but the damn thing is still sharp and looks like it could have come off the shelf after 14 years.
-
What part of "the right of the people" is up for interpretation? It is a right.
Yes, the right to a well-regulated militia. You have this in the form of your state's National Guard. Your rights, per the second amendment, are not currently being restricted and still wouldn't even with much stricter gun control laws.
I would propose that every teacher in the US be trained with and issued a single stack .380 (9X17mm) at the least. They should have some kind of background and mental check, and if they can't pass that, then they should not be teachers in the first place. I would not want someone who is not capable of owning, handling, or carrying a firearm in charge of my kids.
With all due respect, come the fuck on. We have a problem getting enough decent teachers or enough decent police already, and you want to merge these two jobs? Unless you plan to offer six figures with public employee benefits, good luck filling these jobs. And if you can get politicians to triple teacher pay, please stop wasting your time on FES and start lobbying politicians. Our future generations need you.
Fuck, when I was in high school a local school's resource officer (Uniformed, trained policeman) had their gun taken away by students that were fucking around. If trained cops can't handle it, teachers sure as fuck can't.
-
What part of "the right of the people" is up for interpretation? It is a right.
Yes, the right to a well-regulated militia. You have this in the form of your state's National Guard. Your rights, per the second amendment, are not currently being restricted and still wouldn't even with much stricter gun control laws.
I would propose that every teacher in the US be trained with and issued a single stack .380 (9X17mm) at the least. They should have some kind of background and mental check, and if they can't pass that, then they should not be teachers in the first place. I would not want someone who is not capable of owning, handling, or carrying a firearm in charge of my kids.
With all due respect, come the fuck on. We have a problem getting enough decent teachers or enough decent police already, and you want to merge these two jobs? Unless you plan to offer six figures with public employee benefits, good luck filling these jobs. And if you can get politicians to triple teacher pay, please stop wasting your time on FES and start lobbying politicians. Our future generations need you.
Fuck, when I was in high school a local school's resource officer (Uniformed, trained policeman) had their gun taken away by students that were fucking around. If trained cops can't handle it, teachers sure as fuck can't.
It is not a right of the militia, it is a right of the people. I, for one, am part of the people. Are you?
As far as teachers being armed, is your only defense against it is that we have some kink of lack of workers?
-
It is not a right of the militia, it is a right of the people. I, for one, am part of the people. Are you?
The right of the people to a militia. Which you and I both have, in our state's respective National Guards. Really the biggest threat to this right is the federal government using National Guard for foreign operations, as has frequently happened in the war in the Middle East over the last 15 years.
As far as teachers being armed, is your only defense against it is that we have some kink of lack of workers?
I'll parse out the flaws a bit more. Ignoring the fact it would increase gun violence, which I'm sure you'll dispute, we'll just focus on the pure policy flaws with it.
It will massively increase the cost of teachers. Like, to a factor of three or four times their current cost, at a minimum. Almost no current teacher would be qualified for this, and I can't imagine many would even pass the training to a satisfactory level. We are currently under-funding education. You're massively increasing the cost of education, which isn't politically possible.
To be flippant, we won't even give teacher's enough pencils and notebooks, and you think we can add the cost of weapons, additional insurance, training, and the massive pay increase to every teacher?
There's also no precedent of this working. Our closest case-study I can find would be the massive increase in school resource officers (Armed, trained police) in schools post-columbine. I can't find an instance of a school shooting stopped by these officers. I can literally tell you more times that a school resource officer has lost their gun than stopped a shooter.
-
It is not a right of the militia, it is a right of the people. I, for one, am part of the people. Are you?
The right of the people to a militia. Which you and I both have, in our state's respective National Guards. Really the biggest threat to this right is the federal government using National Guard for foreign operations, as has frequently happened in the war in the Middle East over the last 15 years.
As far as teachers being armed, is your only defense against it is that we have some kink of lack of workers?
I'll parse out the flaws a bit more. Ignoring the fact it would increase gun violence, which I'm sure you'll dispute, we'll just focus on the pure policy flaws with it.
It will massively increase the cost of teachers. Like, to a factor of three or four times their current cost, at a minimum. Almost no current teacher would be qualified for this, and I can't imagine many would even pass the training to a satisfactory level. We are currently under-funding education. You're massively increasing the cost of education, which isn't politically possible.
To be flippant, we won't even give teacher's enough pencils and notebooks, and you think we can add the cost of weapons, additional insurance, training, and the massive pay increase to every teacher?
There's also no precedent of this working. Our closest case-study I can find would be the massive increase in school resource officers (Armed, trained police) in schools post-columbine. I can't find an instance of a school shooting stopped by these officers. I can literally tell you more times that a school resource officer has lost their gun than stopped a shooter.
I carry a pistol every day. The least of which is a .380. People around me are not shot up, and, I don't seem to be a threat to my granddaughters. Most of the time, I carry a 9mm (9X19) and I have yet to shoot up a school, and never will. The teachers are adults, who supposedly have some kind of degree. Why should they not be allowed to carry a small little .380?
-
The teachers are adults, who supposedly have some kind of degree. Why should they not be allowed to carry a small little .380?
Holy non-sequitur Batman...
-
The teachers are adults, who supposedly have some kind of degree. Why should they not be allowed to carry a small little .380?
Holy non-sequitur Batman...
Which part is the non-sequitur? The part about teachers having some kind of degree, or the part that they are smart enough to own and handle a firearm?
-
The teachers are adults, who supposedly have some kind of degree. Why should they not be allowed to carry a small little .380?
You can, in some states, with the school district's approval.
https://www.mcall.com/news/education/mc-nws-guns-in-schools-list-20181108-story.html
If you want to make it mandatory to arm teachers, please see my last post.
-
The teachers are adults, who supposedly have some kind of degree. Why should they not be allowed to carry a small little .380?
Holy non-sequitur Batman...
Which part is the non-sequitur? The part about teachers having some kind of degree, or the part that they are smart enough to own and handle a firearm?
The part where your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
-
Just shoot the teachers in the head with a pellet gun! https://twitter.com/ISTAmembers/status/1108461641400807424
-
Just shoot the teachers in the head with a pellet gun! https://twitter.com/ISTAmembers/status/1108461641400807424
Sometimes reality is better than the memes...
-
Just shoot the teachers in the head with a pellet gun! https://twitter.com/ISTAmembers/status/1108461641400807424
I read an article once about these drills some schools are experimenting with. Turns out a lot of them made them worse at responding to emergencies. The drills had some erry similarities to KGB style mock executions.
-
(https://defacingcurrency.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/marx_gun_control.jpg)
-
Just shoot the teachers in the head with a pellet gun! https://twitter.com/ISTAmembers/status/1108461641400807424
I'm imagining sex-ed. :o
-
Why not just arm the students, and outlaw body armour.
The best shots with good reflexes will survive.
-
There's also no precedent of this working. Our closest case-study I can find would be the massive increase in school resource officers (Armed, trained police) in schools post-columbine. I can't find an instance of a school shooting stopped by these officers. I can literally tell you more times that a school resource officer has lost their gun than stopped a shooter.
A school shooting may have been narrowly averted on Wednesday — thanks in part to the quick response of a school resource officer, who shot a gunman before anyone else was harmed.