BF2S Forums 3 Bullsh*t Arguments from Pro Gun Fraternity

I find it interesting how assault rifles are encouraged in Switzerland, assault rifles no less, and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the World.
As well as the fact that after Britain's gun control laws were passed, the crime rate went up in the UK. Great critical thinking skills.

Vilham wrote:

Haha all the people I knew would take offence to that did... thanks for confirming my opinion of you guys.

Lets face it pro gun lobbies are full of red necks. How many New Yorkers, Californians etc are in pro gun lobbies?

I didn't take offence.  You toothless tit.

The_Mac wrote:

I find it interesting how assault rifles are encouraged in Switzerland, assault rifles no less, and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the World.
As well as the fact that after Britain's gun control laws were passed, the crime rate went up in the UK. Great critical thinking skills.

Well, I guess the fact that these people usually go to mandatory military training and then are given the gun to keep. They are disciplined first.

-konfusion

hate&discontent wrote:

james@alienware wrote:

hate&discontent wrote:

o.k., one reason, some asshole breaks into my house and has my family by knife point (since your from across the pond you can relate) i come home and walk into this mess, pull my .45 ACP, 2 to the chest of the asshole, family safe, problem solved

If you want to be like that....   why don't you just sue them!

yeah right, why don't you pull your head out of your ass

Read the forum rules.

THE RULES wrote:

15. # Never engage in personal attacks. Ever.

But following your laws of 'self-defence':      This is very judgemental but being honest with ourselves..who isn't...it's human nature :   your forum name on a computer game forum is "hate&discontent" that makes me ask questions.....

If that is unfair I am sorry however it still stands.

actually my name comes from a saying "750 grains of hate and discontent" referring to a .50 BMG sniper rifle.

hate&discontent wrote:

james@alienware wrote:

hate&discontent wrote:

you = fail

At least give a sensible reason why.


It's quite clear, something's not right with guns in the USA.

o.k., one reason, some asshole breaks into my house and has my family by knife point (since your from across the pond you can relate) i come home and walk into this mess, pull my .45 ACP, 2 to the chest of the asshole, family safe, problem solved

Well if he has your wife at knife point I'll assume that the knife-weilding intruder is standing behind her holding her in front of him as a shield.  He sees your gun, craps himself and slits her throat (and even if he didn't would you shoot through your wife?).  And how about this, you give the guy what he wants, the Police catch him and put him in prison and no one dies.  I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself when possible but if a crinimal really wants to rob you of something he'll just go one better than what he thinks you've got.

Which brings me onto a good point, why are semis illegal because as many of the pro-gunnersd are saying criminals can get hold of illegal arms anyway.  So if he has an illegal semi and you have a pistol isn't that as good as not having a weapon at all?

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-04-17 15:58:10)

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 ALIVE
2)  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.

Vilham wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Haha all the people I knew would take offence to that did... thanks for confirming my opinion of you guys.

Lets face it pro gun lobbies are full of red necks. How many New Yorkers, Californians etc are in pro gun lobbies?

You fail to see what you are saying.  Calling someone a redneck may offend someone.  It is no better then calling someone a mick, dego, zipper head, porch monkey, etc.  When I say mick, Cam calls me a racist.  You seem to get a free pass.

Where did i mention you in my first statement? I DIDNT. /fail

I am talking about the term you use.

hate&discontent wrote:

actually my name comes from a saying "750 grains of hate and discontent" referring to a .50 BMG sniper rifle.

Thank you for further weakening your point of view.

Point
I assume from your information you were in some kind of armed forces.
Evidence
"USMC 0311 SEMPER FI"


Point
You are obviously very proud that you own a gun.
Evidence
"Walk Softly And Carry A .45 ACP"


Point
Guns (from what I have read [I don't claim to know anything more about your life])  are prominent are accepted in your lifestyle.
Evidence

hate&discontent wrote:

i remember taking my shotgun to wood shop class

This makes your argument seemingly bias, as you are so involved and seemingly attached to guns.

Last edited by james@alienware (2007-04-17 16:01:56)

usmarine2005 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

You fail to see what you are saying.  Calling someone a redneck may offend someone.  It is no better then calling someone a mick, dego, zipper head, porch monkey, etc.  When I say mick, Cam calls me a racist.  You seem to get a free pass.

Where did i mention you in my first statement? I DIDNT. /fail

I am talking about the term you use.

So a term that generalises a small group of individuals and not a race is now considered racist?

With this situation:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Well if he has your wife at knife point I'll assume that the knife-weilding intruder is standing behind her holding her in front of him as a shield.  He sees your gun, craps himself and slits her throat (and even if he didn't would you shoot through your wife?).  And how about this, you give the guy what he wants, the Police catch him and put him in prison and no one dies.  I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself when possible but if a crinimal really wants to rob you of something he'll just go one better than what he thinks you've got.

You post this resposne:

hate&discontent wrote:

i guess it comes down to training, i have full confidence in myself to shoot some idiot and not hit my wife.

Are you serious?


You thinking bringing your gun and your hand (however well trained) into an equation already involving your wife and an (most likely unstable) - [you've just got out a gun] intruder armed with a knife

will help?





'hate&discontent' (or infact anyone else who wishes to comment) I would like a reply to this post and my other one above tomorrow baring in mind I have put forward my view sensibly and with reasoning.

Goodnight

Last edited by james@alienware (2007-04-17 16:10:26)

Can some explain to me why it is that many countries around the world that have banned guns, still have gun violance? Japan had a Mayer shot yesterday.

Your argument is that the bad guys can not have guns, or ammo legally. Yet, they still have them. People get drugs into your country every day, they get guns and ammo in there as well.

If a guys wanted to kill 32 people, and there were no guns at all, he would have found something else to do it with. I vote we ban any sale of chain now because it was used to keep people from escaping.

Bottem line, bad people that want to to bad things, will. Period. Jack the Ripper never used a gun........