BF2S Forums National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

Jay wrote:

do you remember the UK riots last summer? Do you not think they wouldn't have gotten so far out of hand if the store owners had been armed? That's my belief.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Store owner would have the drop on the rioters. When you have a gun pointed at your face do you keep running toward it? I doubt it, and if you say you would you're a lying wanna-be badass.

The moment that first guy gets hit the game turns to GTFO GTFO QUICK

You are a store owner with a gun (yay) 30+ scummy kids break into your shop also with guns, you are saying that if you point yours at them they will all just run off? More likely is you will get shot.

Really guys? from Sh1fty its expected but Jay?

True, coz that's what happened in LA, right?

London needs more Korean store owners, obv.

The London riots happened because the London Metropolitan Police made a series of really bad decisions that allowed it to escalate.

eleven bravo wrote:

the L.A. riots happened because the LAPD made a series of really bad decisions that allowed it to escalate.

Riots in L.A. happen because people want free shit.

Jay wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Jay wrote:

do you remember the UK riots last summer? Do you not think they wouldn't have gotten so far out of hand if the store owners had been armed? That's my belief.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Store owner would have the drop on the rioters. When you have a gun pointed at your face do you keep running toward it? I doubt it, and if you say you would you're a lying wanna-be badass.

The moment that first guy gets hit the game turns to GTFO GTFO QUICK

You are a store owner with a gun (yay) 30+ scummy kids break into your shop also with guns, you are saying that if you point yours at them they will all just run off? More likely is you will get shot.

Really guys? from Sh1fty its expected but Jay?

You're missing the point. The riot wouldn't have occurred in the first place, or it wouldn't have escalated to the extent that it did, if people knew there was danger involved in robbing a shop. After the first rioter was shot and it was broadcast on the news, it would've stopped being fun and most of them would've had their flight mechanism kick in and go home.

Well actually the riots started when a man was shot by Police, so I dread to think how they would have gone should every angry young man be armed.

I'm not against guns in the US, it's part of your culture and it isn't going to go away anytime soon. Infact if I ever holiday again in the US I'd like to do some shooting myself as I've only ever shot an sa80 lying in the rain at 8AM in the morning. I imagine the experience could be a lot more enjoyable. When you start saying things like this though:

west-phoenix-az wrote:

Jay wrote:

I can't believe so many of you accept the logic that you personally are too stupid and untrustworthy to possess a weapon. As if the state is somehow better at that sort of thing. Your government treats you like five year olds and you thank them for it.

That's when I will chime in.

The fact is, and i'm pretty sure it's been mentioned that many times to you that you could not possibily have missed it... is that we can own firearms here. You apply and if you meet the required criteria then you can have a rifle at age 18+ or a shotgun at 17+. The process is a lot more controlled than the US and I imagine more time consuming too, but that's how I'd rather have it. I don't think I personally "am too stupid or untrustworthy to possess a firearm", but I do think at least half the people in this town are. Infact 50% is a nice number for the scum that inhabit this town. So yeah, while I'm not gonna thank my government for it (certainly not if I ever do apply for a firearm licence) I am glad there are strict controls in place because people are fucking stupid.

What on earth makes you think it's driven by fear? That's a ridiculous notion.

It's driven by our Bill of Rights and our belief in the inviolability of those rights, not fear.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Shocking wrote:

I wasn't talking specifically about gun related deaths, but crime & injuries as well. Those instances have to be more common than in a country where firearms are illegal. 1+1=2 kind of thing.

Again since you ignored it last time

Macbeth wrote:

Can you cite how many people are injured by guns every year?

Macbeth wrote:

Can you cite how many people are injured by guns every year?

Macbeth wrote:

Can you cite how many people are injured by guns every year?

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/nonfatal.html

Okay, so according to the CDC between in the year 2010 there was 53,738 firearm injuries. CDC puts the U.S. population at 308,745,538 and puts the per 100,000 firearm injury rate at 17.41. My caluclator puts the overall injury amount of people injured as a percent of our population at 0.017%

Firearm deaths were roughly 30,000 and that rounds out to .0097%. Adding the two together puts the percent of American affected by firearms to 0.027% of the U.S. population.

So should we ban all handguns because half of a half of a percent of Americans are affected negatively by firearms? This is of course assuming those numbers are all violence related to handguns and are not hunting accidents or assaults with hunting weapons.

Because feelings are more important than facts, right? I've posted facts about gun deaths and injuries and the most you can respond back with is - statistics aren't nice. Seriously?

I made a similar analogy a few pages back. It was about about car engines and lowering deaths and injuries. I made the suggestion that we force manufacturers to limit engines to slow 4 cylinders vehicles and electronically limit them since there are many more deaths and injuries related to cars. I would post the stats for those but that would be mean because deaths are tragedies rah rah rah. My point was that that would be equivalent to burning down the house in order to stop a mice infestation. It's draconian. An over reaction.

If you want to reduce gun deaths, or cancer deaths, or car deaths there are other things you can do then 'burning down the house' by banning cars, guns, and cancer or something.

youre really either too worked up about this or completely blind.  i said that the statistics arent really what matter in this case, if there are a significant amount of deaths from anything then we should try to do something about it.

limiting the speed of cars isnt an efficient or realistic method of saving peoples lives.  having them electronically controlled or automated would, since theres always going to be human error.  saying we should limit our cars to a speed that would save people in a head on collision (realistically probably around 30-40km/h) is nonsense. 

i never said banning cars, guns or cancer (...wtf?) so im not sure where youre getting that from.  but there should be strict controls on both cars and guns for everyones safety.  at the very least, there should be some sort of mandatory gun control course you need to take (look at drivers licenses) as well as an aptitude test.

You can't really argue against cancer treatment or vehicles as a similie to gun ownership unless you really love your straw men. The purpose of a gun is to kill.

Macbeth wrote:

Maybe you should have read back a bit instead of, I don't know, jumping in randomly.

that sounds like a serious fwp

hahahahaha