BF2S Forums 3 Bullsh*t Arguments from Pro Gun Fraternity

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?

because apparently the almighty vilham thinks that there are no rednecks in new york or california...
LOL that shows how much you DONT know about the US.



always the same from you.....no real contribution, just here to bust peoples balls.
you and bubbalo should start a club.



anyway, none of you whiners are going to change anything....you just put up some numbers and expect everyone to take it as holy scripture.
guess what? our country is not yours.....what works for you, wont work for us. hell we left a shitty country to do it our way....we did it better, and these are our laws.
get over it. unless you live in america it doesnt effect you at all. so go take whatever uneducated opinion you have about firearms and the united states and shove it up your ass.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

hate&discontent wrote:

james@alienware wrote:

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:


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

dead serious.  i'm willing to bet that i have more time training with firearms than you have time nailing some guy or girl in bed ( i put in both, i didn't want to offend you if you were gay or straight)

Your post implies that trained gun users never make fatal mistakes, I don't think you need me to post evidence that this is just wrong.

P.S What is the robber has even better training with a knife than your self-professed excellent time-training?  I.e He sees your gun and throws the knife at you and has quicker reactions etc.  Doh, my mistake this guys obviously can't imagine anyone being better than him at anything.

someone isnt familiar with the 21 foot rule.

someone gets within 21 feet of me with a knife drawn, (though i have full confidence in my knife fighting abilities) i smoke his ass. plain and simple, if they are in my house.
so lets say some cat sticks me from across the room.....unless he separates my brain stem from my spinal cord im still going to shoot him.
besides, i highly doubt a robber would take the time to learn knife throwing....but that just also shows your lack of knowledge about weapons.

i guess you never heard the saying "never bring a knife to gun fight"?  honestly, if that happend well, shit happens, we can play what if games all day.  the reality is that i train on a weekly basis for personal defence, how many robbers train to fight and or kill if necessary?  the bottom line is that i would not put my firearm down, if i did, that is when he kills my wife and the rest of my family anyways.  if i'm gonna go down, i'm going down fighting.

I like to always add the gun laws from my own country, 'cause New Zealand has some of the most harsh gun laws out there.
At sixteen one is able to apply for a firearms licence. This costs around 200 dollars, (rising all the time,) and consists of a one hour lecture, a written test and the police coming to inspect your home to make sure you can store them safely. They also ask for a person who knows you to say that yes, you are a sensible person and should be able to own a firearm.
There are three endorsements you can get on your licence, (I have the standard licence. I hunt so I don't need an armoury of hard-out weaponry.) Grade B is to own a handgun. There are rules regarding this:
- You can only use it at a firing range.
- You must leave it unloaded at all times unless you are at a firing range and ready to fire.
- When transporting your handgun you must keep it in a locked box in, (preferably,) the boot/trunk of your car.
- While driving with the handgun you must only be going from where the handgun is stored, (i.e. your house,) to the firing range. You must not stop anywhere along the way.
Grade C is to be able to be a gun dealer, I won't go into that.
Grade E is to be able to own a military style weapon. I won't go into the rules of this, but in layman's terms it says you should not use this gun. Ever. If you do it has to be heavily modified so it is no longer a military style weapon, (no pistol grip, no banana magazine or magazine with a capacity over 15, not allowed to be automatic, no bayonet holder I could go on.) My mate bought himself an AK. Now it's just a rifle in which it is expensive to get ammunition.

In short, (maybe you should have read this first,) owning a firearm is not a right. It's a privilege.
So in the US in 2000, 29,000 or so people died from gun related deaths. I'm not sure if that's an average o not, and no doubt it would take into account police shootings, suicides, legitimate self-defence gun usage, (and non legitimate self-defence usage, remember a gun is not always the only option.) In New Zealand the average is 80 gun deaths per year, with 78% of these being suicides, (62, which means 18 are intentional or accidental civilian gun deaths.)

Okay, enough about NZ, it's a boring as fuck country. The main reason for the lax gun laws in the states is because everyone is scared of someone who may try to harm them. Fair enough, it's protection, (I suppose.) But what the fuck guys? It's not doing anything to protect you. Argue any way you want, but the point remains that American love shooting each other. I like shooting my little bunny-killer .22 as well, (cheap ammunition,) I had fun the other day trying out my new silencer which I bought for no reason whatsoever, (aside from getting rid of possums in the Pohutakawa trees - it's a residential area so it's not great if the neighbors hear gunshots.) But jee-zus, I use my gun for killing pests like goats, rabbits, ferrets and possums. I have a gun only because I live in an area in which I can use it, yet in the States you have Mum and Dad suburbia locked and loaded to deal with people. Everyone is so read to kill a person, if someone was snooping around your house at night and you slept with a loaded gun under you pillow, (bad idea, one over-active dream and you may end up giving yourself another mouth,) you would shoot the intruder. It's your right of course. I suppose it wouldn't matter to you if it was some poor drunk bastard who got the wrong house, or god forbid, someone who was stealing you shit. Kill them! Kill them all! Just because it's your right to shoot someone doesn't mean you should.

There have been many arguments about gun control, especially regarding the United States, on these forums, and this example was given to me:
So you're asleep at night and some bastard comes into your house with a gun and he ties you all up, steals your shit and then decides he wants to rape your daughter. Here are two examples of how this could be played out:

- You have a gun and you shoot the bastard like he rightfully deserves. Statistically this is the third most likely outcome if you have a gun.
- You don't have a gun and are helpless as the intruder has his way with everything and anything he wants.

Here are a few more examples of what might go down:

- You have a gun, but instead of shooting the intruder you shoot yourself or a member of your family as like most American gun owners you have no formal training in dealing with firearms. Who can blame you for not getting the training? Guns are so simple a two year-old can operate one. Statistically this is the most likely outcome if you have a gun.
- You have a gun and on attempting to shoot the intruder,he instantly feels threatened and shoots you and/or your family. The point here being, if the other party isn't armed, the offender has no reason to kill anyone, (although again some people are so sick and twisted that they might anyway, statistically it is much less likely though. Offenders only bring a gun so they can protect themselves. No reason to protect themselves = no reason to use a gun.) Statistically this is the second most likely outcome if you have a gun.
- Carrying on for the second initial point, you do not have a gun, this bastard does what he wants. Rape is a terrible thing, but at the end of the day everyone is still alive and can hopefully recover. However gun wounds to the head are awfully hard to recover from, even though Edward Norton would have you believe otherwise.

Anyway, these points aside no one can ever know how an episode similar to this would turn out. In short though, a gun is not the best options. If there were harsher gun laws maybe offenders wouldn't carry firearms? If firearms laws were more relaxed maybe offenders wouldn't risk busting into people's homes? The second one is what the US constitution wants to aim for, but realistically that is NEVER EVER going to happen. If someone carries a handgun for protection, and the other decides he wants to use his handgun against this person, the second person will most likely be the one who kills the other - logically he will be more efficient at killing the first man than if there is an element of doubt as to whether the first man had a gun or not, as he wouldn't want to give the first man enough time to draw his weapon and defend himself. There are arseholes in this world who will forever try to harm us. Throwing around weaponry is not the way to deal with this, it only exacerbates things.

What happened in Virginia was caused by lax gun laws. Throw around blame at whomever and whatever you want be it Marilyn Manson, MTV, Movies or Computer Games, or even the shooter himself. These things did not allow this unhinged man to actually get his hands on two handguns and enough ammunition to insure the deaths of 32 people. The Second Amendment fails at doing whatever the fuck it was designed to do 200+ years ago, be it protect against a British invasion or self defence or whatever. It is an extremely lacking argument for people who like guns.

Here's some arithmetic for you, and I found this rather interesting.

If New Zealand, a country where gun ownership is a privilege, had the same number of people as the US did, (298 million,) and thus the average number of gun deaths, (suicides, police kills e.g. all of them,) was multiplied by 74.5, (4 million people in NZ times by 74.5 equals 298 million,) then we would have 5960 gun deaths.
Can't know for sure of course whether this would be the average number, but it is 23,040 short of the US gun death rate in 2000, which to my knowledge was not an extraordinary year for gun deaths in the US. The difference of the deaths of a country where gun ownership is a privilege, and one where gun ownership is a right is a very significant number. It is 20,047 more deaths than the September 11 attacks. It is 19,490 more deaths than the entire coalition deaths in the War in Iraq. A fucking four year war zone worth of American and Allied deaths and day-to-day gun fatalities in the United States in one year exceed them! Again, this is just the calculated DIFFERENCE, not the actual NUMBER of deaths between a country where gun ownership is a privilege and where gun ownership is a right.

The Second Amendment is a complete failure. However as changing it even in the light of the tragedy at Virginia Tech will never happen, I ask you people who swear by it to refrain from killing anyone I know or care about.

TY, it's legal for you to own a silencer??  here in the states, well Michigan anyway, is a felony.  that means a huge fine, they take your guns and prison time.

look at my post #5, i'm more scared of going to the hospital than downtown Detroit, MI.

hospital > guns (deaths)


to be continued tomorrow, my work day is done, goodnight people

Last edited by hate&discontent (2007-04-17 16:58:31)

great post ty.
one thing though, you made the statement about someone snooping around a house and getting shot.
that is what a irresponsible gun owner would do. the people that choose to educate themselves would be shocked to find out that in NO place in the united states is it legal to shoot someone for snooping around your house.



in fact in my state (missouri) you have to get as far away from the intruder as possible. ONLY WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE is when you announce to the intruder that you have a firearm and will shoot. if the intruder still continues to come closer THEN you shoot.




part of the problem is our history. many of the tales that are told to people glorify men with guns. buffalo bill cody, wild bill hickock, doc holliday, wyatt earp....the list goes on and on.....even jesse james who was clearly a terrorist is made out to be a glorified bank robber.

another part of the issue, and here is my big concern-criminals already have the guns. no one will be able to take them from them, so say all law abiding americans turn in their firearms under some made up agreement. (this is strictly hypothetical) then we, the legal owners that turn our guns in are at a serious disadvantage.


i do not think this will ever be resolved. like you said, americans like to shoot each other for some reason. great post though, always nice to know other countries laws.

Vilham wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

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?

Is white / Caucasian / non-Hispanic not a race?  A football coach here got in trouble for using the term "coon ass."  That term is used for a small percentage of blacks from the deep south.  He was only generalizing a small group of a particular race right?  So why would people be offended?

nighthawk843 wrote:

bob_6012 wrote:

Ok, so ya made a case. Let's first examine you. You are from England, have you ever been in the USA? Who are you to judge our laws? You believe marijuana should be legalized, however this is my own personal observation and mine alone. It is MY right to purchase a firearm if I so choose, so since the constitution was written over 200 years ago it's no longer applicable to today? I own 8 firearms, and I keep one of them at the ready in case I need it. Why is it a bullshit argument if I use it for self-defence, if someone is going to enter my place of residence illegally I'm going to use it for defence, not to kill them but it is a widely known fact that the sound of a pump action shotgun chambering a round is a great deterrent to anyone trying to break into a house. I am going to get a concealed and carry licence here in a month. Why you may ask. Because if I need that firearm just once then it was worth it, I'm not going to go out and kill someone but if I or any of my loved ones in my presence are threatened I will defend myself. And the last note, I don't care if there's a waiting period on guns, in my state there is not. If one has the money and is in good standing with the FBI then it is not hard to get a gun and I'm not sure why you even bothered to put it in here. Guns are not bad, 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. If someone wants a firearm that badly they will do whatever they can to get one. So why should you punish the law abiding citizens because some assholes can't follow the law?

I have been to the USA and I am from the UK. Personally, since to some extent we did allow the Independance of America and probably have a slight, if not rather twisted, influence on your present culture I would feel it fair of us to comment.

In my eyes, if your so frightened of someone entering your house that you own 8 firearms, including pumpaction shotguns, it seems you don't have much faith in your fellow citizens or your government to protect you from a threat. Its quite similar to your nuclear deterent, if we own one and you own one, we wont kill eachother will we? Unfortunately there are those who do own weapons and kill people - like the recent Virginia shootings. This is both tragic and a symbol of America's stupidity, why not make gun ownership a little harder so that not every crazy South Korean can lock and load and head down the the local Uni they go to and wipe out what 32 people?

Guns are not bad, true, but they are there for a bad purpose, to kill people. To use the old line of its the 'owner' to me is like hiding yourself behind a perspex screen, everyone can see how stupid you look, but you feel protected.

Your comment on the fact that those who want firearms will get one anyway is true but the way you see punishment on 'law abiding citizens' as unfair is to me ridiculous. You don't seem to understand the point this post is making. Its like our Anti-terror laws in the UK, the idea is the guilty will be punished and the innocent protected. The punishment is universal for the harm that those few cause, that is what all law is for, whether it be for murder or theft. Not everyone does it, but unlike theft, firearms are the things that get alot of people killed very quickly because they are sold so freely. If you put laws on this sort of thing, you would have these College shootings and you would have less gun crime because of it.

The liberal approach doesn't work with guns, the more there are the more chance they will be used for the wrong reasons. Cut out the sale of so many differing gun types and you'll have less murders with guns...simple

I mean how the hell can you justify killing people with an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.

I only keep one ready just in case, I hope to God I will never ever need it. It's obvious we both have differeing views on the subject and we will probably never see eye to eye on it. I still say that it is up to the individual owner to keep their guns locked up no matter how "stupid" I may look. I don't understand how one is "stupid" for expecting a owner to be responsible with a deadly object, but I guess that's just my take on it. Things work for you over in the UK and they work for us over here in the USA so why don't we just leave each other alone and let us both do our own things how we want without getting into each other business?

"it seems you don't have much faith in your fellow citizens or your government to protect you from a threat."

Exactly. Your fine government stopped all those subway (the tube) bombers just in time. Whew. What an omnipotent government can do huh? Very impressive. Kind of justifies all the confiscatory taxes and VAT you pay huh? Oh, wait. On second thought, maybe not.

This is why government will always be a second line of defense, average citizens have to stand up against violence sometimes, the police cannot be everywhere all the time can they? Unless you trust all your neighbors to be an arm of the state, which then turns you into East Germany under the socialists/communists wouldn't it?

Sgtbilkothe3rd wrote:

"it seems you don't have much faith in your fellow citizens or your government to protect you from a threat."

Exactly. Your fine government stopped all those subway (the tube) bombers just in time. Whew. What an omnipotent government can do huh? Very impressive. Kind of justifies all the confiscatory taxes and VAT you pay huh? Oh, wait. On second thought, maybe not.

This is why government will always be a second line of defense, average citizens have to stand up against violence sometimes, the police cannot be everywhere all the time can they? Unless you trust all your neighbors to be an arm of the state, which then turns you into East Germany under the socialists/communists wouldn't it?

And how many of your gun toting citizens stopped 9/11?  Stupid argument, badly made....

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-04-17 17:35:07)

Esteban,

You miss my larger point, that if you rely wholly on government for protection, then you or someone you care about are bound to be disappointed, sometimes in the most deadly of ways. You cannot stop people who have harmful intent by needlessly restricting the freedoms of law-abiding folks. The criminals pay no mind to such considerations (laws on the books), and you know it. Unless you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself. Criminals will do what they want, when they want. Deterrence is a factor in their plans however, and the only way to make them think twice.

You seem to assume (by your posts) that every criminal who walks away from his deed will be caught by the police 100% of the time. Yet this is fallacious and spurious as well.

Last edited by Sgtbilkothe3rd (2007-04-17 17:49:44)