BF2S Forums Psychology of anti gunners.

Nicholas Langdon wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Diray wrote:

But knives usually have a purpose. Guns are MADE for killing.
If you want to bring up knives, you may as well mention tablelegs, rocks, pieces of cloth(gags), Jackie Chan, etc...

well guns are for defensive purposes if sum1 robs into your house and threaten to kill you, you pull out a desert eagle that fucker will never want to come back

guns are weapons and knives are a tool. yes knives can be used as weapons, but a gun cannot be used as a tool.

Sure it can. My father and i use his gun as a "tool" for target shooting.  There are those who use their fire arms as "tools" for hunting.  When we go to the range on the weekends, i'm sure my dad has no intention or plan to take someone's life. But i'm sure if he really had to (IE someone threathen his or my life) he could.  Same thing with a knife.  Some people carry knives.  Those who carry them as a tool, probably have no intention or wish to take someone's life with it, but if they were placed in a situation where they had to they would.

Last edited by KVNY (2006-09-01 01:59:31)

NasmNLH wrote:

To ts-pulsar,

That was an interesting and informative read.  Thank you for sharing it. 

To Diray,

There are a variety of knives made for a variety of purposes.  That includes knives that one might call a "defensive tactical folder" which would be made for utility and defense (killing people if you must).

Firearms do have uses other than "killing people".  This includes competitive shooting sports, recreational target shooting, and hunting.  There are in fact firearms that would be impractical to be going around shooting people with.

That still does not remove that fact that knives were developed as tool, and guns were developed to kill. What they later evolved to, is somewhat irrelevant. They still kill. A paintball gun can kill if you hit the right spot.

NasmNLH wrote:

Also regarding this quote "We let the police handle that kind of stuff, and let the insurance pay the damage."  What happens where the police can't respond quickly enough and the damage is irreparable and the insurance company can't bring you and/or your family back to life?

Example?
This may apply to any random guy who got his hands on a firearm, but to any person who is proficient with a gun, I really don't think it would make much difference. Even less so if there was more than just one.

NasmNLH wrote:

I am an American and a soon-to-be legal firearms owner/carrier.  I believe in self-defense and being as prepared as possible to defend my life if the need should arise.  I understand that using/carrying firearms is a huge responsibility and am prepared to accept that.  I am not looking for any fights, nor am I looking to kill anyone.  I hope I will never be in such a life-threatening situation.  I do not expect I will ever be in a such a situation.  I do plan on being prepared to defend my life with lethal force (including the use of a firearm) if I have to. 
... -If the right to keep and bear arms was taken away from me I would not know what to do.  I would feel ill-equipped to defend myself.  I would lose a lot of opportunity to have fun.  I would be worried about possible oppression by our government.  I would very likely attempt to move to another, more enlightened place, if gun ownership was outlawed.

Again, that is in america, and does not necessarily apply to the rest of the world.
Firearms is really not the only solution. That's more of a regressive way of living, in my opinion, referring back to the days where brigands and bandits were running rampant.

I have confidence in the police where I live.

Diray wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

2) No, its open to all, but you guys seem to assume a lot more about America and Americans, mostly for the bad, your fellow foreigners are not making good names for people like you who are much more level headed.  (I.e. I've been called sick, crazy, and "readily prepared to take someone's life") Which are all not true.

Ofcourse, I'm talking from the perspective of a person who lives in Danmark, where it is illegal to harm or in any way restrain a person who have broken into your house.
Knock him down, tie him up and wait for the police? No, you will only be sued  - and most likely have to pay a large sum to the guy you knocked out.
We let the police handle that kind of stuff, and let the insurance pay the damage.
For instance, unrelated I know, someone just got shot and killed by the police here in Danmark a few days ago, when he tried to escape the police in a car.

Either way, are we talking about >america< only? I was just explaining the situation ''over here''.

Oh yes I understand, but I didn't know that you can't harm or restrain someone BREAKING INTO YOUR OWN HOUSE, that is weird.  How do you feel about that??

Nehil wrote:

Also if you want less murders and crimes you have to change the mentality towards guns, and really, think about it, if you wanted to buy a illegal gun, do you know where to go and who to ask? In Sweden I don't have a fucking clue, I don't know anyone that has ever owned a gun, neither do I know anyone that has ever been shot or robbed inside our country, maybe I'm just lucky but sure as hell it ain't becuase I don't know any people.

Also, I have been away for some time, but seeing whats happend here while I was gone, I've come back to verbally kick some ass.

EDIT*
Just noticed who made that article....do I really have to say anything?

(Some gun-crazy fundamentalist/terrorist jews) (No, I don't have anything against jews in general, just those that are terrorists)

sorry, but you really fail to understand a few extremely massive differences in this argument. As an american living in Britain(and as a result, Europe), travelled the globe (literally), and also lived in Germany, I feel much safer and better in the states than i do over here. What's that you say? banning an inanimate object equals less murder? don't think so how about cultural issues and other issues like a massively lower population speread over a massive area of land? 9,000,000 people in a place the size of California which has over 30,000,000. And don't think that banning weapons will protect you when the race riots and full blown attacks will come screaming out of the woodwork. Don't think so? 2 words: french riots. another 2 words: seething racism, which is lying under the surface in heavy amounts in britain. Who will protect you when those riots happen? another one. I won't take any advice from a group of who people who couldn't decide whose side to be on in a war that engendered and bred the purest of hate that existed on the earth, yes i am referring to WWII. This also coming from a country who has some of the highest socialistic ways of running a country in the world, yet are watching their country's standard of living go through the floor, to have the worst in western Europe. And last thing, attacking the writer of a well thought out and proper article on a subject that involves somehting very deep and serious such as this the way you have simply completes the impression that you are totally misunderstanding the entire situation.

Diray wrote:

That still does not remove that fact that knives were developed as tool, and guns were developed to kill. What they later evolved to, is somewhat irrelevant.

How do you know that knives were originally made as tools? Knives and swords have been around for a long time.

Flecco wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Flecco wrote:

What need does a civilian have for a Light Machine Gun, assault rifle or .50 cal cannon/rifle/mg? That kind of thing goes well beyond self defence.

You are obviously VERY unfamiliar with U.S. Firearms law and regulations.  First off your use of the term assault rifle is incorrect, but we won't even go there right now, that would take WAY too long.  LMG, MG's, SMG's are HEAVILY RESTRICTED, and have been since 1934 in the U.S., you can't just walk to your local gun shop and pick up a full auto anything.  It is a very long and arduous process to obtain what are known GENERALLY as Class III weapons.  Firearms are not just for self defense.  They are fun to collect and shoot, but I guess you wouldn't understand that.  .50 cal rifles are not that much more destructive than other rifles of similiar yet slightly smaller calibers.  You show a little ignorance to firearms terminology and U.S. Firearms law.  Just trying to help you out a bit I guess.  No offense intended.

I wasn't stating it about US laws at all. I meant generally around the civilised nations of the world, why is it people assume we are talking about the US of A?

Excuse my rashness I'm sorry, I'm used to talking to complete idiots in the other thread I started (more with the earlier posts in that thread), I do apologize, the poster of this thread posted an article that is ABOUT the USA, so what else should I expect when you don't specify a country...

Diray wrote:

NasmNLH wrote:

Also regarding this quote "We let the police handle that kind of stuff, and let the insurance pay the damage."  What happens where the police can't respond quickly enough and the damage is irreparable and the insurance company can't bring you and/or your family back to life?

Example?
This may apply to any random guy who got his hands on a firearm, but to any person who is proficient with a gun, I really don't think it would make much difference. Even less so if there was more than just one.

What I'm getting out of this it that you don't believe an armed civilian at home would be able to stop an armed criminal from killing him and/or his family.  Is that correct?  If so, I would say to you that anyone who arms themselves for defense should train in order to be prepared to use his firearm to defend himself.  That said I would hope to be better trained than the criminal.  Also the fact that it is the civilian's home makes it more likely for the civilian to come out on top because he is more familiar with the layout of his home than the criminal.  I would agree that if there were more than one criminal breaking into your home it would be difficult to defend yourself, but at least you have a fighting change if you have a firearm.  The firearm gives you much better defensive capability than other possible defensive weapons.  As far as example goes you could refer to http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx for stories of armed civilians defending themselves. 

Diray wrote:

NasmNLH wrote:

I am an American and a soon-to-be legal firearms owner/carrier.  I believe in self-defense and being as prepared as possible to defend my life if the need should arise.  I understand that using/carrying firearms is a huge responsibility and am prepared to accept that.  I am not looking for any fights, nor am I looking to kill anyone.  I hope I will never be in such a life-threatening situation.  I do not expect I will ever be in a such a situation.  I do plan on being prepared to defend my life with lethal force (including the use of a firearm) if I have to. 
... -If the right to keep and bear arms was taken away from me I would not know what to do.  I would feel ill-equipped to defend myself.  I would lose a lot of opportunity to have fun.  I would be worried about possible oppression by our government.  I would very likely attempt to move to another, more enlightened place, if gun ownership was outlawed.

Again, that is in america, and does not necessarily apply to the rest of the world.
Firearms is really not the only solution. That's more of a regressive way of living, in my opinion, referring back to the days where brigands and bandits were running rampant.

I have confidence in the police where I live.

You are correct and make a good point that I am looking at things from an American perspective and simply do not know what it is like where you live.  I also do understand that my views may not apply to the rest of the world.  I do believe that every living being on earth has a right to defend his/her own life.  Extending that I also believe no one should be crippled in that endeavor by not being able to lawfully own a certain weapon.  That being said it leads us to your next statement of having condifence in the police where you live.  It is good that you do have that confidence and I would hope that anyone could say the same.  The problem arises when the police are not available in those first moments that may matter most.  I imagine any police force would be hard pressed to respond in time to every incident in their jurisdiction.  I for one live on the outskirts of a rural town where local police would be very hard-pressed to make it in time to save my life from a criminal at my home. 

Everyone is in a different situation and it would be hard to comment not being the other person.  I can say however that having a firearm and training has saved civilians' lives.  If I had to shoot and kill someone in self-defense it would be terrible and I would be forever affected by it, but I would be glad that I had the tools and techniques to survive.

Would not a taser be a more protective peice of equipment. It incapacitates rather then causing terminal dammage. Correct me if i am wrong.

Here's what I think, if any of you care to read:

1. Less guns != Less murders... Less guns = Less murders with guns.
2. Guns are very lethal, so say someone tries to murder me with a knife and I make it to the hospital and they save me. I went from murder victim to aggravated assault victim. That doesn't change the fact that someone went ahead and tried to murder me. If they had used a gun, chances are I'd be dead. But again, murder intent is still there.
3. Less guns != Criminals have less guns... Strict gun control laws != Criminals have less guns. Less guns DOES mean that your average person will have a hard time finding one. And gun laws do prevent well intentioned people from getting them. Criminals are breaking the law anyway, do you think they care to purchase a gun legally.
4. For the crazy neighbor that might kill me if he has a gun... well if I have a gun then he would think twice before pulling that gun, thus creating a balance. However if he was really crazy and still pulls that gun, well me having a gun makes a level playing field where I can actually defend myself.
5. Last, those Scandinavian countries don't compare to say Mexico or South American countries. I think gun issues correlate highly with wealth issues, and police efficiency and well lets face it, we're not too wealthy down here, and our police kinda sucks, and those countries not so much. You have to take a different approach to things down here.

Notes:
- I just recently moved to Mexico and sadly I had to get rid of my toys (read: guns). Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and it is actually kind of pissing me off. We have a very unsafe country and not being able to carry a weapon (not that I ever carried one, but here there is no concealed carry or anything, at all. And I think 9mm is the highest caliber weapon you can have in your home for protection, the only place you can have one, hence my M95 and Mk23 weren't exactly gonna sit well with the police ) makes me wonder what kind of effect that has on crime. Criminals here aren't scared to do anything. What's to stop them from walking up to someone in the street pretending to have a gun and try and mug them. They know with almost 100% certainty that they won't have anything to defend themselves with, and I know with 100% certainty that they could very well have a gun since they are easy to come by in the "black market". If I was allowed to carry a weapon on me, those mofos would be in for a big surprise if they try and mug me.

- The other problem is that quite frankly, if someone tried to assault me with a gun (fake, pretending, or real) and I pull the gun on them, odds are I'm gonna shoot. Police are trained to take control of a situation and avoid firing their weapons at all costs. Us regular peasants can't be bothered with all of that, we just want to be safe. We as a society don't like this, because ideally we'd like to see these people punished by the systems we have taken centuries to build and perfect. So I can understand the trade off here between everyone carrying weapons, and banning them completelly for police enforcement only. I think some European countries have managed to take the second approach successfuly and that is really what our ultimate goal should be. However, in the mean time, we should be allowed to protect ourselves in countries like mine where criminals have a huge impact on our society.

- Finally, my reason for having guns. They are simply just a lot of fun to shoot. Nothing beats setting up some soda cans at 250 yards and go out with my friends and snipe at them on a saturday afternoon. There's lots of other cool things you can shoot at (used cellphones, broken processors, 2 Liter diet-coke bottles with mentos in them, etc) that are not people haha. .50 cal bullets do wonders on all of these things. Of course people find me crazy for enjoying this activity but when I convince them to try it, 99% of them enjoy it. Sadly there will be no more of that for a while.

KVNY wrote:

Nicholas Langdon wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

well guns are for defensive purposes if sum1 robs into your house and threaten to kill you, you pull out a desert eagle that fucker will never want to come back

guns are weapons and knives are a tool. yes knives can be used as weapons, but a gun cannot be used as a tool.

Sure it can. My father and i use his gun as a "tool" for target shooting.  There are those who use their fire arms as "tools" for hunting.  When we go to the range on the weekends, i'm sure my dad has no intention or plan to take someone's life. But i'm sure if he really had to (IE someone threathen his or my life) he could.  Same thing with a knife.  Some people carry knives.  Those who carry them as a tool, probably have no intention or wish to take someone's life with it, but if they were placed in a situation where they had to they would.

OK  before you post, think, practicing with somthing doesn't make it a tool. and when you are hunting it is still a weapon, not a tool, because you are using it to kill. and before any of you retards start saying im against hunting, shut up, im not some bleeding heart.

look folks forget this anti semite, us vs europe crap.

yanky land gun laws are stuffed, partly because of thier proximity to so many third world countries (most Sth American nations) and becasue of thier ignorant black and white views of the world and everything in it. they have high crime rates due to the tremendous divide between rich and poor in thier own cities, and the idolization of criminals and criminal behaviour not to mention materialism, by the media.

europe is different, in MOST european countries do you not have compulsory national/military service? there is also a more even spread of wealth between the classes. and less recent history of civil unrest

though england has a TOTAL handgun ban yet now suffers from the worst gun crime in Europe!

as they say guns do not kill people, idiots with guns kill people.

i'm an australian city dweller, gun owner and sporting shooter (target and small game hunting/pest eradication) and i can say i'm glad that we have found a happy medium here. getting a firearm license here costs approx $300 and involves state (police), federal (police and where applicable military background) and international (interpol database AND ASIO) criminal record/association checks, then you NEED an approved gun safe, then you need to APPLY for a permit to purchase (w/ reason of intended use, storage location, etc) then you will get a face to face visit to inspect your storage security. then and only then can you legally purchase a firearm. AND THATS JUST FOR A BOLT ACTION RIFLE! all ammunition must be locked in a seperate compartment at ALL times when not in use. and you can always count on a random visit from uniformed officers to check everything again over and over

the notion of firearms for self defence in any nation is b/s! unless you work in law enforcement or security of course. carrying for self defence only creates a criminal mindset reflecting thier need to acquire "bigger" guns and becomes a self fulfilling prophecy..........

apparently there has not been a murder commited by a licensed firearm owner in my state for twenty plus years. sure handgun related crime is on the rise here as everywhere, but they are most commonly using using HIGHLY prohibitted (read banned) firearms

.50 BMG rifles are a joke. there is no need for them, and inventing competition sports to give reason to the civilian posession of such weapons is a joke. look at the ammo type .50 BMG (browning machine gun) no INTELLIGENT hunter would ever use such a round on an animal because its overkill, and long range target shooting is no excuse either. i can hit a 14 inch target centre at 100 yards with a .30cal consistently and im a novice.........

semi auto rifles are a joke too, there is no need for a WEAPON w/ a 30 round clip, folding stock and CQB sights when it only takes one shot to fell a deer (they dont shoot back if you clowns haven't realized)

i think US gun laws and views, are a reflection of small man syndrome, explains the big cars too

De_Jappe wrote:

Isn't it a fact that at country's/places where people carry guns, there are more murders. How much more proof do you need. I'm tired of reading dumbasses with a gun opinion on how they are finally safe now that they have  gun.

Most of the guys who have a gun are not responsible enough to have them and abuse it.

There are other things to make you feel more safe. Don't walk alone at night for example. Don't underestimate the power of screaming.

Imho people with guns are just trying to be 'cool', or can't think logic. Yes, that's the kind of people that carry guns.

1. No, it's not a fact. There are more murders where people commit more murders. Not where there are guns. The correlation is that a gun is an excellent way to perpetrate a murder and so it's the weapon of choice for murderers. Take away the guns and you end up with wives who kill their cheating husbands with a knife, or with a good blow to the head. You don't get rid of that murderous instinct.

2. Ok, I can't say I disagree with that. But then again most people who drive a car aren't responsible enough to do it. My point... well they don't correlate really but I still think there's a lot of dumbasses behind the wheel and I just wanted to point that out.

3. Here is where I completelly disagree and decided I wanted to reply to your post. Why should I not be able to walk alone at night? And screw that, here in Mex you can't walk alone in the middle of the day some places. I don't want to have to scream and hope that it scares the guy away. I want to be able to point my gun into a the guys face, that screams volumes louder than anyones voice. I don't want to accept that my country is unsafe and I just have to deal with it, I'd rather be allowed to take action. And for those of you that would reply "it's the polices job to protect you". Well yes it is, and I trust the police when I was living in Texas, but here the police can be crap so no, I don't trust them to do their job. But still, that doesn't mean that I'll go prancing around at night because I know it is inherently more unsafe than walking with a group or in the day. I just want to have that option.

4. I can think logically, and I have a gun. I don't carry it on me because I don't feel the need to where I used to live (Dallas, TX), but now that I am in Mexico I wish that I was allowed to carry it but I can't (Fucking gun laws). And I find gun shooting fun and cool, but I didn't buy one to act cool or to feel cool, I just enjoy recreational shooting and there is nothing wrong with that.