Another idiot with a gun

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why? Did you shoot yourself in the foot?

Well I purchased them because I could. I never said I did not like guns but I did say it is ridiculous to let anyone and everyone own them. Hey I like Ballistic missiles too, so should I own one of them too. If they were available, I probably would buy one. For good reasons they are not.

I would gladly hand them back if there was gun control.

That doesn't make sense - you're saying that the only reason you'd buy something like that is because you can. What kind of reasoning is that? If you're going to take a stand on principle that owning a gun is a bad idea, surely you would exercise the personal choice to not buy one.

Purchased a gun soon after moving here. Over the years I have realized how ridiculous the homicide rate is here and how easy it is to buy a gun. So yes my stance has changed. Not that hard to understand.

You must have me confused for one of 'the group'; where no matter what the evidence or how ironclad it is, you guys never rethink your opinion on a topic. I could be for something today and then alter my stance in the wake of new evidence or reasoning; but that's just me.

That's fine, BY - but that isn't the same argument you advanced in the preceding post.

You clearly stated that you'd buy a missile if it were legal to do so, just because you could.

I don't understand how that is consistent with the idea of taking a principled stance against something because you recognise that buying such an item isn't a good idea.

[thepizzadude 26]

As I said to Charles, maybe he can show me how a person can kill 32 people within a few minutes, using bricks.

I can kill far more with a car. I just have to find a tightly packed crowd and run em all down at 80 miles per hour

Its not really practical though is it...

Back to the OP, it's not what people do in the cases that were, originally, under discussion before this topic went off wildly into areas of speculation and what nots

I don't believe it either. 80 with a car is just not realistic, not even if they were to all lie down and agree to be driven over.

Well - I think we've yet to see a murder/suicide where the person wiped out their entire family by driving at them in a car

I'm sure if you look you could find where someone has driven off a bridge into a river and killed whole family inside vehicle, or driven into path of other car, it is not unheard of. Who really knows if it is accidental or not. I can cite a few cases where a mother put their children in a car and drove it into a lake and watched as they drown, too chickensh** to just kill themselves they kill the kids.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You don't get many deliberate attempts at murder with a car. The only time it happens is when someone happens to be in a car when they are having a roaring argument and even then it's not common nor is it overwhelmingly successful. Murder with guns is however.

A car is a terrible murder weapon, all told - you can hear and see it coming, lot harder to dodge a car than to dodge bullets...

[Ban Hammer 14,236]

The point about guns is they are designed to kill and to kill from a measured distance from the target so that the shooter can remain safe and sound. They are great weapons, that's why all armed forces use them, rather than plastic bags, sedans or bricks.

A gun can kill hundreds of people within an hour. No one is going to get a car and repeatedly run over hundreds of people. Let alone kill hundreds of people with a brick.

That line of reasoning from some is just so third worldish. A gun has one purpose and one purpose alone, to kill. It can do so in a short amount of time and most people, include a navy seal like Charles, have little to do to stop a bullet heading towards them. Hence why they are controlled in every other developed country. Excluding the third world of course, which some clearly have no issue being classed with.

The other thing people do not account for is that they think they have a chance to defend themselves if they are armed. Okay fine. So what if a group of people holding guns approaches a person or breaks into a house. Or is this John Wayne gun owner Singlehandedly going to take them all down?

inaccurate - the mere presence of a gun can deter a crime from being committed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said to Charles, maybe he can show me how a person can kill 32 people within a few minutes, using bricks.

I can kill far more with a car. I just have to find a tightly packed crowd and run em all down at 80 miles per hour

Its not really practical though is it...

Back to the OP, it's not what people do in the cases that were, originally, under discussion before this topic went off wildly into areas of speculation and what nots

I don't believe it either. 80 with a car is just not realistic, not even if they were to all lie down and agree to be driven over.

Well - I think we've yet to see a murder/suicide where the person wiped out their entire family by driving at them in a car

I'm sure if you look you could find where someone has driven off a bridge into a river and killed whole family inside vehicle, or driven into path of other car, it is not unheard of. Who really knows if it is accidental or not. I can cite a few cases where a mother put their children in a car and drove it into a lake and watched as they drown, too chickensh** to just kill themselves they kill the kids.

The point remains that murder by car is rare. Murder by gun is not.

[Heracles 417]

I'm sure if you look you could find where someone has driven off a bridge into a river and killed whole family inside vehicle, or driven into path of other car, it is not unheard of. Who really knows if it is accidental or not. I can cite a few cases where a mother put their children in a car and drove it into a lake and watched as they drown, too chickensh** to just kill themselves they kill the kids.

65% of homicides in the US are committed by means of firearms.

[Heracles 417]

The point about guns is they are designed to kill and to kill from a measured distance from the target so that the shooter can remain safe and sound. They are great weapons, that's why all armed forces use them, rather than plastic bags, sedans or bricks.

A gun can kill hundreds of people within an hour. No one is going to get a car and repeatedly run over hundreds of people. Let alone kill hundreds of people with a brick.

That line of reasoning from some is just so third worldish. A gun has one purpose and one purpose alone, to kill. It can do so in a short amount of time and most people, include a navy seal like Charles, have little to do to stop a bullet heading towards them. Hence why they are controlled in every other developed country. Excluding the third world of course, which some clearly have no issue being classed with.

The other thing people do not account for is that they think they have a chance to defend themselves if they are armed. Okay fine. So what if a group of people holding guns approaches a person or breaks into a house. Or is this John Wayne gun owner Singlehandedly going to take them all down?

inaccurate - the mere presence of a gun can deter a crime from being committed.

These statistics seem to suggest otherwise. Or is it better to be dead than robbed? Money I can get back, a life I cannot.

This line of reasoning anyway is on par with 3rd world countries. No one in first world countries thinks like this. You realize what that means right?

People killed by means of firearms

No Gun Control

South Africa: 31,918 ~ killed every 16 minutes (wow)

Columbia: 21,898 ~ killed every 24 minutes

Thailand: 20,032 ~ killed every 26 minutes

USA: 9,369 ~ killed every 56 minutes

Philippines: 7,708 ~ killed every 68 minutes

Gun Control

Canada: 144 ~ killed every 3,650 minutes

AUS: 59 ~ killed every 8,908 minutes

UK: 14 ~ killed every 37,542 minutes

New Zealand: 10 ~ killed every 52,560 minutes

-------

Homicides with Firearms

No Gun Control

Columbia: 85%

USA: 65%

Gun Control

UK: 8%

AUS: 16%

Canada: 34%

New Zealand: 13%

-------

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

No Gun Control

Columbia: 62.7

USA: 4.55

Gun Control

UK: 1.45

AUS: 1.57

Canada: 1.58

New Zealand: 1.36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...s-with-firearms

Edited September 10, 2009 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm I hear that you can also use a gun to open beer bottles, and to light your cigarette.

You can also use it as a labour saving device to shoot fruit off a tree so that you don't have to get the ladder out and risk a nasty fall.

[Peikko 1,575]

The point about guns is they are designed to kill and to kill from a measured distance from the target so that the shooter can remain safe and sound. They are great weapons, that's why all armed forces use them, rather than plastic bags, sedans or bricks.

A gun can kill hundreds of people within an hour. No one is going to get a car and repeatedly run over hundreds of people. Let alone kill hundreds of people with a brick.

That line of reasoning from some is just so third worldish. A gun has one purpose and one purpose alone, to kill. It can do so in a short amount of time and most people, include a navy seal like Charles, have little to do to stop a bullet heading towards them. Hence why they are controlled in every other developed country. Excluding the third world of course, which some clearly have no issue being classed with.

The other thing people do not account for is that they think they have a chance to defend themselves if they are armed. Okay fine. So what if a group of people holding guns approaches a person or breaks into a house. Or is this John Wayne gun owner Singlehandedly going to take them all down?

inaccurate - the mere presence of a gun can deter a crime from being committed.

Accurate - he is talking about the purpose in terms of design. The design of a gun is not to act as a deterent by looking menacing. The design of a gun is to kill, period and another of your specious arguments to try to pretend that guns are something that they are not. Why you don't want to own up to the idea is bizarre to say the least. Are you afraid of something Charles? What is this fear?

[HAL 9000 96]

I want pizza today.

you too?

Everyday Charles... everyday...

[HAL 9000 96]

And I am from another developed country, so naturally I have gone through all of the proper background checks anyway. What about the illegal aliens or those from 2nd or 3rd world countries where you can pretty much buy a clean record? That is what I am concerned about.

Private sales should have to go through the appropriate background checks as do retail sales.

Personally I would never do a private sale for a weapon. Never. In a pvt sale-- It's not like you can run a gunfax on it's background and it's not like they can do a nutchex on you.

Some states allow concealed carry for an LPR provided they have the training class & the concealed carry class, fingerprints and background check. It's suprising what information can be found out during the background check---especially for those of us that have been in the military, immigrated here or had anything to do with any Govt agency.

Yeah that's what I was talking about. Do you think that would be an unwarranted affront to your constitutional right to bear arms?

[Ban Hammer 14,236]

The point about guns is they are designed to kill and to kill from a measured distance from the target so that the shooter can remain safe and sound. They are great weapons, that's why all armed forces use them, rather than plastic bags, sedans or bricks.

A gun can kill hundreds of people within an hour. No one is going to get a car and repeatedly run over hundreds of people. Let alone kill hundreds of people with a brick.

That line of reasoning from some is just so third worldish. A gun has one purpose and one purpose alone, to kill. It can do so in a short amount of time and most people, include a navy seal like Charles, have little to do to stop a bullet heading towards them. Hence why they are controlled in every other developed country. Excluding the third world of course, which some clearly have no issue being classed with.

The other thing people do not account for is that they think they have a chance to defend themselves if they are armed. Okay fine. So what if a group of people holding guns approaches a person or breaks into a house. Or is this John Wayne gun owner Singlehandedly going to take them all down?

inaccurate - the mere presence of a gun can deter a crime from being committed.

Accurate - he is talking about the purpose in terms of design. The design of a gun is not to act as a deterent by looking menacing. The design of a gun is to kill, period and another of your specious arguments to try to pretend that guns are something that they are not. Why you don't want to own up to the idea is bizarre to say the least. Are you afraid of something Charles? What is this fear?

i'm afraid you don't have a vibrator

[Heracles 417]

I was watching First 48 on A&E last night and they had a case where a guy was shot in his truck, in a grocery store parking lot. Then it got me thinking about that the self-defense scenario many paint here; basically it simply does not play like that, ever. Out of all the murders I have seen on the news in DC this year, not once has it been reported that a person managed to save themselves by shooting the perpetrators back. Not once. Instead, a scene that is played out every 56 minutes in America is someone is shot dead. Whereas, if the US had the same gun control as most other developed countries, this would very well be reduced to at least one every 650 minutes.

You can see the frustration on the detectives face. Maybe those that are pro anything goes gun wise should go work with them for a while and then come tell us how awesome it is to allow thugs to carry guns.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Booyah!

[zqt3344 21]

Constitutional right! All Americans should carry guns! Only way to protect yourself from the pimps, thugs and liberal ACORN Ovomit tree huggers out there!

I was watching First 48 on A&E last night and they had a case where a guy was shot in his truck, in a grocery store parking lot. Then it got me thinking about that the self-defense scenario many paint here; basically it simply does not play like that, ever. Out of all the murders I have seen on the news in DC this year, not once has it been reported that a person managed to save themselves by shooting the perpetrators back. Not once. Instead, a scene that is played out every 56 minutes in America is someone is shot dead. Whereas, if the US had the same gun control as most other developed countries, this would very well be reduced to at least one every 650 minutes.

You can see the frustration on the detectives face. Maybe those that are pro anything goes gun wise should go work with them for a while and then come tell us how awesome it is to allow thugs to carry guns.

[Peikko 1,575]

Constitutional right! All Americans should carry guns! Only way to protect yourself from the pimps, thugs and liberal ACORN Ovomit tree huggers out there!

I was watching First 48 on A&E last night and they had a case where a guy was shot in his truck, in a grocery store parking lot. Then it got me thinking about that the self-defense scenario many paint here; basically it simply does not play like that, ever. Out of all the murders I have seen on the news in DC this year, not once has it been reported that a person managed to save themselves by shooting the perpetrators back. Not once. Instead, a scene that is played out every 56 minutes in America is someone is shot dead. Whereas, if the US had the same gun control as most other developed countries, this would very well be reduced to at least one every 650 minutes.

You can see the frustration on the detectives face. Maybe those that are pro anything goes gun wise should go work with them for a while and then come tell us how awesome it is to allow thugs to carry guns.

So you just shoot someone when you don't agree with them? Excellent idea. I'm off to pick up my weapon now.