Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Pretend your a criminal, your going to mug this lady in the streets.
You have a gun. Even though theres high gun control in your state, you still obtained a gun illegaly. BECAUSE YOUR A CRIMINAL AND THATS WHAT CRIMINALS DO!. Now. If this woman has a gun hidden under her shirt, your going to be in big trouble. She going to pull out her gun and attemp to shoot you (most likely)
Now. Which is more intimedating, a man that MIGHT have a gun, or a man that you know doesnt have a gun?
So, in your situation the mugger is pointing a gun at someone to mug them. I see the highest probability of what happens next to be one of these two events.
1) The vitim has no gun. He/she gives up their wallet/purse/phone etc, knowing they can't takle the mugger on. The mugger scarpers before police arrive. Victim is shaken and upset, but
ALIVE2) The victim has a gun. He/she tries to pull the gun out of their pocket / bag or wherever to "deter" the mugger. Mugger thinks "Oh shit they have a gun" then shoots the victim first, killing them. Remember, the mugger
already has the gun pointed at the victim. Who do you think is going to be able to shoot first? The one with the gun pointed at the other person already, or the person who has to retrieve the gun, aim it and then pull the trigger.
The main difference in these two is that the person with the so called "protection" ends up dead.
bob_6012 wrote:
I am going to get a concealed and carry licence here in a month
bob_6012 wrote:
it is irresponsible owners that create the problems. If they would keep their weapons locked up like the law says they should we wouldn't be having as big of a problem with the wrong people having weapons
A wonderful bit of hypocrisy here from bob_6012. First he says he intends to carry a loaded weapon around, then he says it's the people who carry loaded weapons around instead of locking them up that cause the problems. So you're intending to be one of the ones to cause problems? (And before you ask, yes I did read the rest of that wall of text which made up your post. I found it to be full of fairly weak arguments, poorly phrased and not convincing in the slightest).
S3v3N wrote:
In England, how many deaths are the result of stab wounds.
So should knives be outlawed?
and
HeimdalX wrote:
Imagine someone with a Hummer plowing through a crowded shopping mall. Should they ban cars too? You can use a lot of things to kill people. Didn't they ban the importation of swords in England because people got killed because of those too? You gonna ban kitchen knives next?
Yes knives and other things have been used to kill people. The difference is that that is not the primary purpose of those things.
Knives: Primary purpose - to cut and prepare food
Baseball bats (and similar sporting equipment): Primary purpose - to play sports with
Screwdrivers: Primary purpose - to use in DIY.
Compared to:
Guns (outlawed in UK): Primary purpose - to kill and wound
Swords (outlawed in UK): Primary purpose - to kill and wound
Can you see (and more importantly understand) the difference here? FYI, it actually
is illegal to carry most knives on the street in the UK. The only exceptions are fold away knives with blades less than 3 inches long (i.e Swiss Army Knives) or knives that you have a legitimate reason for carrying (e.g. a chef carrying his knives to work). If you're caught carrying a knife in any other situation you can be charged with anything from carrying a deadly weapon to (I believe) attempted murder. So no, we are not
going to ban knives because for the most part we already have.
ATG wrote:
Why is it you bad toothed brits hate guns so much?
A friend of mine years ago was in Englad and he went to Paul McCartneys farm. He said Paul came out with a pistol in his belt and told them to get the fuck of his property.
So, should Sir Paul not be allowed a firearm?
btw, this was before George was attacked in his home, maybe 15 years ago, and I have no idea if its a true story.
I have three points on this one.
1) "Bad toothed Brits"? Falling back on insulting stereotypes doesn't actually help your argument. It's usually the last ditch effort of someone who knows their arguments aren't as logical as they thought, so they resort to juvenile name-calling in the hope that it'll upset their opponents so much that they will lose their temper and start ranting incoherently. If you want us to consider your reasoning, it would be far better to stick to rational arguments.
2) "No idea if it's a true story". Again, falling back on unconfirmed gossip can't help your case. Anyone can dredge up old stories that they've heard from a friend / a guy down the pub / on TV that prove their point. I could go back through this thread alone and find comments which would back up any slightly varying viewpoint I chose to take. Unfortunately, because many are opinions, (aka gossip), they are not valid as factual arguments.
3) No, Sir Paul should not be allowed a firearm. However, the gun laws came in to force after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. If the event your friend described did happen, I imagine it happened before that (20+ years ago). If not, tell your friend he should go to the police with thisa information as Sir Paul McCartney was breaking the law.
S3v3N wrote:
An Unloaded Firearm is pretty much useless. You gun control types have it all wrong. Ammunition is responsible for a persons death. Ask any medical professional, what killed the person, Its not the colt 1911A. IT was the .45ACP round fired out of it.
Exactly how many people buying guns (for whatever reason) would buy them without ammunition? "Hello, I would like a gun for personal protection. Ammunition? No, I don't want any ammunition with it" I don't know if you were serious with this post, or if you were making a joke but I hope it was the latter as the former makes it quite a pointless post.
max wrote:
If I'm crazy enough to kill loads of people, I will also find a way to kill without guns. For example any 10 year old with some half-decent instructions can make a bomb. Sure it doesn't have the blast radius of C4 but its still deadly
True enough. If someone is determined to go on a killing spree then they will find a way. However, with the time and effort it takes to make the bomb, many people will have cooled off, which is why I think the 7 day waiting period some states have is a very good idea. I think it's much more likely people will follow through on a murderous impulse if all they have to do is pick up a gun and pull a trigger than if they have to sit down and spend hours mixing the ingredients for a bomb.
parker wrote:
i live in the #1 most dangerous city in the united states, highest homicide rate, period. i have comfort in knowing that my kimber 1911 will spit pure fire if need be to protect my family and myself. see, you dont understand because you dont have to deal with gangbangers and drive-bys.
dont think for a second you know what you are talking about when you try to dictate OUR rights.
While you have my respect for sticking it out in a city I would have left years ago, I am worried that your comment of "spit pure fire" sounds like you are looking forward to using your Kimber 1911. But with regard to the drive-bys and gangbangers, I would say that a large part of the problem is that the thinking is cyclical.
Citizens & Police: A few criminals have guns. We should have guns too.
Criminals: Police are starting to be issued guns. We need more guns
Citizens & Police: Criminals have lots of guns. We need more guns.
Criminals: Citizens & Police have lots of guns. We need
even more guns.
And so on. Why did the gangbangers get themselves guns in the first place? To give them an advantage over an increasingly armed population. Criminals will
always try to have an advantage over those they seek to harm. "They have knives, we should get guns." "They have guns, we should get more guns / bigger guns" etc. The more you arm yourselves, the more the criminals will do to stay ahead. I realise this is a generalisation, but I still feel it is valid nonetheless.
Also, I don't see anyone here trying particularly to dictate your rights. I see a lot of people voicing their views on a very difficult, volatile and emotive topic. It does seem that the pro-gun faction tends to get very defensive about people infringing their rights, and I believe will probably view my post in the same light. However,
I am not trying to infringe anyone's rights, I am merely stating my opinion. I am also aware that several of the anti-gun faction are dishing out the insults and refusing to keep an open mind. I hope I have managed to avoid doing the same myself.
Now, despite what I have said, I'm not totally against guns. I don't think they should be banned entirely. I just think the should be a hell of a lot better controlled.
For my final comment, I'd like you to think about this. Go to the friends and relatives of those who have been killed or injured in this or any other shooting and listen to
their opinion on the subject. Then tell me how necessary guns are.