angelofdeath
-
Posts
3,604 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by angelofdeath
-
-
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
Knife attack at Chinese school wounds 22 children
-
how, sir, can there be "actual evidence" of fear?
what's acceptable in court?
pretty sure if you shoot and kill, cops cant question the trespassing dead.
look, even in stand your ground states, you can 'whip it out' unless there is a means for your life to be in danger. in another words, someone HAS TO HAVE A FUCKING GUN OR KNIFE AND THE ABILITY TO KILL YOU. yelling, getting in your face, etc simply does not fit the bill. there might also need to be a disparity of force. ie. 4 guys beating the shit out of a guy. he is then justified in using lethal force. one 220 lb dude vs another 220 lb dude fist fighting, you cant whip it out.
some how, i just dont think, 'i was scared because i was in a black neighborhood and i saw a black guy, so i shoot him in the head from a block away' is going to hold up as 'i was in fear of my life.' but maybe in your law and order shows, this actually happens.
i really wish some of yall would actually understand how things work before making these sorts of comments.
-
As a gun owner, and especially as a vet, its ridiculously easy to buy new guns, and even easier to buy guns from shows and friends.
Not being a convicted felon and not being in CA are pretty significant in that.
what exactly is 'ridiculously easy' and how does this fit in with the liberal hysteria that you can order full auto ak47's off the interwebz and have them shipped to your house?
so what you are saying is the last round of gun control laws that were supposed to solve everything, namely the brady check system, doesnt work. how come all government does is fix their last failure?
we were told in 1994 when the brady checks came in that gun crime would be eradicated. we were told when clinton signed the crime bill, all gun crime would disappear.
but your post does make one thing clear.
no matter what measure is put into place, 'buying guns from shows and friends' will always happen because there is absolutely no way to get rid of it. no scribblings on paper will get rid of it, no screams from the roof tops will stop people selling things to people who want them. no wait periods, back ground checks or mag bans will stop this. no amount of penalties and regulations and laws keep heroine out of junkies veins, and no amount of scribblings in paper will keep guns out of peoples hands that want to use them to kill innocent people. all these laws do is disarm the peaceful people, create victim zones aka, fish in barrels, and allow only the bad guys to be armed.
one point that is left out is that in most states training is required to get a CCW permit and the permit process usually takes 60-90 days+, excluding the time in class, etc. how is that for a 'waiting period' ?
-
Buddy, nowhere is it legal to shoot someone because they yelled at you. But stand your ground laws can be applied to that..."oh, he was yelling he was going to kill me and got in my face, I was in legitimate fear for my life, I had to diffuse the situation in case he had a weapon."
And again, you respond with this ridiculous/borderline retarded extreme point of view where you think that because I don't necessarily advocate the most extensive self defense rights possible that I'm anti self defense in any form, and don't understand how anything works.
all a 'stand your ground' law says is if your a legally allowed to be somewhere, you have no duty to retreat. that is it. essentially if you do not support the castle doctrine or 'stand your ground' you by definition advocate that all victims must run into a corner, hide, and exhaust all possible means before they are legally allowed to turn and fight. which is why in most statist shit pits, you have these instances where the burglar who breaks into the house with an axe and starts chasing you and you pull out a gun, and YOU go to jail and not them.
you still can only use physical force and/or lethal force if your life is in danger. no where is 'this guy was yelling at me, i was in fear of my life, i shot, im innocent.' BS you are imagining. there has to actual evidence of fear for your life.
-
...what I'm saying is that as long as absolute self defense laws are on the books, there will be people who have an insanely liberal interpretation of them, and will act on that interpretation, regardless of whether or not they end up punished for it.
what 'absolute self defense laws' are 'on the books?'
where is it legal in the US to shoot someone because they yelled at you?
this is nothing but pure display of your ignorance on these matters. the stuff you are advocating more or less already exists in the US and it hasnt worked.
what do you propose? self defense being illegal? duty to retreat when your life is in jeopardy? someone comes at you with a gun but you didnt sufficiently prove that you ran to the very far corner of your house and set up a defensive position fast enough, while under fire, and YOU go to jail for failure to retreat and the assailant walks?
whats also funny is most anti gun people say things like...'oh, no worries, if someone comes at me, i'll just splatter their brains over the wall with a baseball bat.'
yeah, who is barbaric and violent again?
-
you're so amped on switzerland but man, won't you be disappointed when you find out they're socialist in a lot of ways :( also, that whole "every man is armed" thing is because they're famously neutral and those men are their citizen militia.
you and your guns are not a stand in for the national guard so stop acting like switzerland and you are like, totally BFFs.
also, your facts on Australia are completely off. check out the Australian Institute of Criminology stats before you harp on about how our laws have done nothing.
i advocate the same foreign policy that switzerland holds and obviously i know full well what their system of defense is. you really think i dont know this stuff? cmon.
i know full well switzerland has its share of statist policies that pock every nation state.
the switzerland point is to show that the most dangerous implements folks like yourself wet the bed over at night are in civilian hands. full auto machine guns. and their crime rates are low. if 'easy access' is the 'problem' everyone in switzerland should be dead.
the point?
its not the gun, its the idiots behind the trigger.
its funny people ridicule me for being skeptical of an over reliance on 'statistics'
you know why? because each side has the empirical evidence on their side supposedly. how can this be?
-
1
-
-
3. I am not a gun owner, but I am familiar with the tenets of gun ownership and use. The absolute right to defend yourself/stand your ground, however, allows people who own guns without the proper mentality to use them indiscriminately. That is what I have a problem with. You are only talking about responsible gun owners, but what about the irresponsible ones? Of which there are plenty, thanks to how easy it is to obtain guns.
exactly 'how easy is it?'
you just said you are not a gun owner, which also lends us to believe since you are not a gun owner you are unfamiliar with the procedures required to purchase it.
im going to go out on a limb and suggest that nearly everyone on this board who is calling for 'more gun control' lives in a state where said 'gun control' measures are either in place or have already been implemented to no avail.
yeah, what about irresponsible ones? what about irresponsible drivers, who after licensing, training, and regulation, still kill more people than guns do per year.
how exactly do you determine this? you let the government determine this? give them carte blanche choice over who can defend themselves and how? what about the 300,000 veterans who went to see a doctor for PTSD after serving a combat tour who have been disqualified from owning a gun to defend themselves, yet they can kill people for uncle sam? or the cop who left his service weapon out and his son killed himself as mentioned in this thread previously? these are the only trained people capable of bearing a gun? what about that DEA agent who went viral for claiming he was the only one qualified to handle a weapon and proceeded to shoot himself with an unloaded glock 22 in the leg in front of a class full of children? these accidents will be prevented with 'restricted access to guns?' what about those cops that killed all those innocent people in a shooter event a few months back? are you suggesting that if only cops have guns that bad things wont happen?
you want to give the biggest mass murdering organizations in history the legal right to determine who can and cannot defend themselves. sounds 'sensible' to me.
what exactly are your requirements that should be implemented for someone to obtain a gun if you arent in favor of out right bans? and what about the blood that will be on your hands when the next psycho kills people when you have successfully disarmed people not allowing them the liberty to choose tools to effectively defend themselves?
Absolute self defense laws make paranoid people feel the safest, just in case they need to shoot someone in the head a few times for yelling at them.yeah, because this is the LAW.
you are so out of touch with reality and the law, its ridiculous. even the most hardcore 'castle' law doesnt condone this and anyone who shoots someone for 'yelling' at them, will be doing life in prison.
I understand that you think because I hold these views I am basically advocating for the return of National Socialism or some other ridiculously contrived conclusion, but whatever.i've offered this to many people before.
if you feel like taking guns away from people, why dont you do it yourself?
-
Y
No one here realistically thinks that strict gun control will put an absolute end to incidents like this. But it is, again, beyond foolish and entirely delusional to think that it wouldn't reduce them. Exactly how many times has one of these people been stopped by a "good guy" with his own gun?
There was an active shooter event at a mall in oregon a week or two ago.
a CCW permit holder drew his weapon, could not get a clear sight picture and there were innocents in his background, he did not fire. he verbally challenged the shooter and the shooter retreated. the next shot fired was the shooter taking his life. which reinforces my point, if people with a pair of balls stood up, armed or not, these shooters generally either kill themselves or stop shooting the moment they are challenged. this is just basic facts on these types of situations. running and hiding hoping you dont get hit isnt necessarily always the solution for solving these problems.
i posted the percentages in one of my first posts.
50% of the time, active shooters are stopped by armed 'good guys.' of these 'good guys' 2/3's are civilians. 1/3 are active duty uniformed LE.
the other 50% of the time, they either flee and submit to capture or off themselves.
thinking gun control will reduce shootings is like thinking drug laws will stop the drug using population of 12oz from obtaining drugs. it sounds good, but its just not reality. in fact, that is why its easier for kids to get pot than it is to get alcohol.
exactly how many gun free school zone laws have prevented active shooters?
since this law took effect, i honestly cant think of one mass shooting event that happened before them.
obviously if you make a law forbidding guns in schools, you'll stop the shootings, correct? oh, wait.
seems weird. guns banned in schools, actually within 1000 ft of them, and the number of shootings essentially goes from 0 to 14 in a matter of a decade or two.
a few other instances of private citizens ending the 'massacres'
1. In Pearl, Mississippi in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was on his way to another school building , he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. Having that gun was illegal, but it saved lives.
2. In Edinboro, Pennsylvania in 1996, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home.
3. In Winnemucca, Nevada in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license).
4. In Colorado Springs in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since).
5. there is extensive youtube footage of a recent event in a C store where it was being robbed at gun point and an elderly CCW drew his sidearm and started shooting at the assailants and ran them off.
the other problem with documenting civilian interdiction of mass shooting sprees is if the mere sight or brandishing of a firearm stops the criminal from carrying out their actions.
what is unseen is hard to put in stats. various groups estimate these types of uses of firearms to stop would be shooters from 200,000 per year to over a million times per year.
however the first rule of studying economics is to attempt to see what is unseen.
if this 'unseen' active shooter incidents resulted in mass death, you would be pointing to how 'no one stopped it, therefore firearm carriers are useless!'
what if the unseen truth is armed people stop thousands of crimes from happening in the first place?
i know of dozens of anecdotes of acquaintances, whose attackers/criminals stopped what they were doing at the mere sight of their firearms.
if anything, you should be arguing that more people are armed to intervene and stop active shooters, not creating breeding grounds for mischief, mass killings and mayhem.
why dont we adapt your mindset to suicide bombers.
i mean, all we have to do is ban explosives (already done). end of story. yet how do you combat someone willing to sacrifice themselves for a supposed greater purpose?
point being, bad things sometimes happen to good people. regulating pieces of metal and plastic magazines solve nothing. they just make you feel cozy inside and make the world seem less scary to you, because you are scared of guns, probably grew up in the inner city somewhere and have no grounding in the reality of life outside of that context.
And having an absolute right to defend yourself doesn't inspire people to stand up against what's wrong, it inspires them to shoot someone who doesn't deserve it because they're afraid of them and a gun is a quick problem solver.this is a quick demonstration that you are not familiar with guns or the self defensive gun culture in general. when people carry guns for their self defense, their modis operandi is de-escalation and avoidance. why is this? well, its because people who carry to defend themselves are by default non psycho. psycho's dont carry guns to defend themselves, they tend to carry them to shoot innocent people.
if your hysterical notions are really true, that guns necessarily cause deaths and violence and MAKE people carry these things out, all the places where guns exist in high numbers, (say montana and its 29 average per household) where guns are able to be carried with the least infringement and where the legal means to obtain them are less restrictive, you see the lowest amount of gun crime. all places where all the measures you support are in place you see the most deaths, the most violence and the most crime.
besides, there is a huge check on the 'law abiding' gun owner. that is, every bullet that comes out of that gun has a lawyer attached to it. if you fuck up, its your ass. and if protection of your life is the reason for owning a gun, but default you do not want to lose your rights and end up in a jail cell for the rest of your life for doing something stupid.
are you more likely to engage in criminal behavior against person and property if you fear being shot every second for your actions or if you know that you will suffer no repercussions from your actions?
an unofficial poll was conducted a few years back. they compiled interrogation testimony from criminals who engaged in crimes against person and property. the number one fear they had was not getting arrested, was not police...it was from armed victims.
the mindset some of yall have is just ridiculous.
-
so do you have any ideas on how to decrease gun violence and shootings or are you just here to protect your right to bear arms?
i have plenty, but not being a policy maker or wanting to run anyone elses life, the answer does not come from politics.
it comes from changing a culture. you see, the swiss are up to their arm pits in military firearms and they dont have shootings.
probably what needs to happen is all the hoplophobes need to stop creating disarmed slaughter zones. people need to be given the absolute right to defend themselves. perhaps armed guards or armed teachers might right reduce school shootings, sort of like the israeli model, that seemed to of worked out pretty damn good. there usually isnt shooting sprees in front of uniformed police officers, perhaps if teachers are trained how to defend their class rooms, you would see an end to violence and see a deterrent factor develop.
maybe the government needs to stop doping up psycho's. maybe american culture needs to learn about guns. maybe they should stop being scared about them and think what they see on 'law and order' is the truth. maybe the media should stop doing what it does. maybe the culture shouldnt glorify violence with instant killings, stupid video games and tv shows and learn a respect for human life. maybe people should learn to raise their kids and be parents. maybe they should stop abusing kids. im not a statistician but it is my understanding that nearly all the psycho's are abused or neglected as kids. maybe not all abused people are psycho, but all the psycho shooters seem to be abused.
i think if all the efforts for feel good, non working gun control were focused in the proper areas, you would actually see results. gun control has been going on, using the same arguments put forth today for over a century. its always one more law, one more regulation and everything will be good. we have over 20K and no firearms owner can honestly say they havent broken some law, somewhere at some time.
everyone needs to drop this mentality that a couple guys in a state capital or nations capital can scribble some words on paper and create utopia. its not reality based.
-
In my humble state I think 14 day waiting period and obvious background checks are fair.
.
we already have background checks across the entire country. so nothing really revolutionary there.
but the only problem with a waiting period is innocent people die. waiting periods dont apply to the gang bangers, they only apply to above board players.
the waiting period was clearly fair to bonnie elmarsri who after her husband repeatedly threatened to kill her got a restraining order. since the state is inefficient at restraining psychopaths, she went to purchase a gun to defend herself. sadly there was a 2 day waiting period and THE NEXT day, bonnie and her two sons, 7 and 13 were murdered.
you see some people dont prepare. they dont recognize that a threat could come at any time or any place, and they simply react to immediate threats. so when you implement a 14 day wait for someone in fear of their life, you reject their right to self defense. and by making the purchase of firearms outside of the 14 day wait, you make them not only vulnerable and possibly dead, you also add felony charges to the list for unlawful transfer of firearms to the list.
we dont have waiting periods on fire extinguishers or other life saving devices. both save lives and privately held arms save more lives than fire extinguishers.
-
you can throw out hypotheticals, or you can look at reality.
# of mass shootings in australia since 1996: 0
# of mass shootings in US since 1996: 20+
in those more than 3/4 of the weapons were obtained legally.
i'd say their sensible gun laws are working pretty well. it seems like our 'oppressive tyrant state's laws aren't working... furthering that gun control isn't a simple solution in the states.
re kent state: is that a real question? that is an example of a poorly trained police/military force, more in line with the hundreds of FUCK COPS threads we have around here. are you just bored and trolling?
so what you are saying is in connecticut where gun laws are among the strictest in the nation and 'less access' is the norm to guns, that this guy didnt steal a gun and do something bad with it?
arent you a gun owner and carry permit holder or were talking about getting a carry permit and you actually believe this BS?
statistics and all that jazz are interesting.
sort of like how back when you could by machine guns through the mail without any background check, waits or oversight of any type, no school shooting happened.
you are sort of using george bush logic. 'well, due to our response to the turrists after 9/11 we have prevented 1000 more attacks from happening' when without a crystal ball you cannot prove these attacks would of happened without his 'response.' you see without the patriot act, killing a few hundred thousand foreigners, drone strikes, MCA06, and other civil liberties violations, we would all be dead. 'attacks on 9/11 - 1. attacks after 9/11-0'
i do like how people like to compare different countries with different values, different histories, and different cultures, not to mention the fact that 300 million guns already exist in the US and you cant un-invent them.
if you like stats and facts...there are some other interesting ones:
there are these silly facts that when CCW became popular in the 90's, you could just watch the crime stats drop. the gun ban cities and states, you can just watch it climb.
in 1997 when the aussie gun buy back happened, 40,000 people used their government checks to buy another gun. this buy back largely consisted of exchanging one old gun for new better guns. good job.
after the disarmament, as of 10 years ago, homicides were up 3.2%, assaults up 9%, and armed robberies are up 44%. in victoria homicides were up 300%. yes, 300%. you see, its a food chain thing. the unarmed are defenseless. if you look like food and there is a predator near by, you might be eaten.
one ironic note about british gun control...when britain had no gun control, or moderate gun control, there was virtually no reported crime to speak of using them. after their complete disarmament, 'hot' robberies are through the roof. that is robberies on occupied homes.
There is also this odd situation in switzerland. if guns in the hands of civilians is such a bad idea, i still cant figure out how those full auto's in peoples closests that military age males are required to have arent responsible for the destruction of the entire swiss people. i know i know, they are only allowed to have limited amounts of ammo in order to allow them to fight their way to their FOB's and such, blah blah blah. fact remains, they possess the worst most evil guns, full auto firearms and there isnt blood in the streets. whether we are talking issued select fire sig 550's, converted semi auto versions which are available for complete civilian ownership or a myriad of other weapons, there are still over 3 million weapons in a country of what, 8 miilion?
do you think its just possible it has to do with american wacko's themselves and not the tools used by them?
i think if yall spent just HALF of your time fantasizing about gun control and devoted that to changing the breeding ground for idiots, you'd of been successful years ago. perhaps getting these dudes off psychotropic drugs is a good starting point and stopping the government from promoting this foolishness.
i recognize reality. no prohibition is going to work in the US. i recognize bad guys will do bad things with bad objects. i also recognize that by definition non-criminals will usually follow all your gun laws, but some how your laws dont apply to the bad guys. so you create a situation where you have disarmed and declawed victims and armed and psychotic bad guys. recognizing this situation, i think the best choice is for the prey to defend themselves with what ever dangerous implements are required to accomplish the task.
there is one thing to note about all these convo's...
even though our aussie and brit brothers share a love of gun control for the most part, they tend to always make one glaring admission. that if they lived in the US, they'd have a gun to protect themselves and their gun control measures just wont work because the US is 'to far gone.'
i dont know about you, but i know one simple common sense thing. if a guy breaks into my house with a semi auto rifle, i can guarandamnfuckingtee you i'd want possess the same thing to fight back.
-
the one-a-month law, as i understand it, is to help combat fencing and straw buyers. im not gonna argue hypothetical scenarios because thats a losing game for both of us, but i will say this: limiting the number of guns one can buy in a month will slow down people who buy guns off straw buyers, wipe the numbers, and resell out of their trunk. do people still get guns other ways (legally or illegally)? sure they do and they will until someone bans guns absolutely. that won't happen.
various drugs are banned absolutely and kids can still get them at playgrounds.
again, you guys operate on this thesis that if the government writes words on a piece of paper, they do exactly what its intention is.
a number of states have 1 gun a month plans in affect.
but there is a really easy lab experiment in affect already to look at. this '1 a month' sort of silliness can be found in the second round of patriot act renewals. it pertains to sinus medicine. you are only allowed to purchase 3.6 grams of sinus medicine that contains a scary nasty ingredient that does real wonders on stuffed up noses, but can also be used to manufacture meth. 3.6 grams amounts to somewhere around 1 big box of the stuff a month. to hell with mothers who suffer sinus problems and have 4 teenage kids, they dont get to buy enough sinus medicine that actually works.
but i digress.
the point of all this was to limit 'easy access' to 'straw purchasers' of the stuff used to create meth that is then 'sold out of the back of car trunks.' when in reality, meth production and selling is through the fucking roof.
this happens with all prohibitions when there is sufficient demand for the product. the market will create a supply.
and if someone is limited by only being able to purchase one weapon a month, i simply don't consider that a problem. sorry, we disagree here.that is simply because you feel you have the right to rule others and run their lives. i dont. i 'consider' alot of things 'problems,' but who am i to judge what other people do with their time, money and resources, so long as they do not harm another.
without going too deep into hypotheticals i would argue that having an extended mag is unnecessary, as you argue that people can fire smaller ones just fine and that extended mags are often more trouble than they're worth.i might be wrong but these 'extended mags' were banned in the state where the shooting occurred.
hmmmm
im not here to talk about effectiveness as a reason for deciding what other people do with their time and money, im merely saying your magazine ban is nothing but a feel good measure that makes the bedwetting types feel like 'they have done something!' to combat evil.
do you agree or disagree that once you start shooting you fire until you're out of ammo? i think that's almost a given, and that its probably something psychological. well, with an extended mag .... you see what im saying.I used 30 rd'ers all the time and do not dump magazines until empty.
your point is with a 30 rd'er, people can fire quicker. ok. sure. but with an hours worth of fiddling around this 'problem of 30 rd+ mags you solved' (assuming a mag ban would work, which it obviously hasnt in conn.) could successfully be over come by a 10 year old and just as much lead could be down range, with perhaps a few second deviation as with 30rd mags.
there was a 'high cap' mag ban in place in the US for 10 years. NATIONALLY. and anyone that wanted a 30rd mag could get one. plain and simple.
so in reality, your argument is nothing but a feel good, warm and fuzzy feeling sort of measure that accomplishes nothing and makes criminals out of non violent, non aggressive folks who want to shoot on the weekends.
-
I'm done with AOD, I could only laugh at the assumptions made on his behalf about me and his piss poor attempts at arguing via huge extrapolations.
I actually started off by saying gun control wouldn't work in your society because of the amount of guns in it right now, but if you started NOW maybe future generations wont have to lived with the fucked up incidences of mass shootings which lax gun control has part in creating.
i often wonder what you folks will say when all your 'sensible' gun control is implemented and every single law is followed and properly enacted. and some idiot still goes out and steals someone's gun and does something heinous with it.
i wish yall would just be honest as to what your end game is.
eradication of all firearms in the hands of non state actors. just man up and say it.
the 'strict' gun control has already been implemented and tried and yall still think it will create the affects you want. isnt that the definition of insanity? trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results?
its always interesting that these convo's are usually with people who dont live in the US, dont know what US gun laws are, have never been around guns or hate them. and ironically think only governments should have guns, the biggest mass murdering organizations on the planet.
there are actually people who think they can order firearms over the internet and obtain said firearms without a background check. i mean peoples grasp of what the workings of firearms laws are is just laughable. they get their info from a mixture of hollywood movies, cop/crime shows and hysterical bed wetting news outlets, that frankly dont know there asses from holes in the ground.
how come when people talk about school shootings, they never mention kent state?
-
Nowhere near as simple as you make out... To say that the Waziri forces are holding the US at bay is as about as inaccurate as it gets, mate.
this must be the artist formerly known as christo.
got ya.
so what you are saying is the goat herders in a-stan with home made ak's have been completely annihilated by coalition forces.
word up.
all the stuff im hearing is dead wrong. i forgot, mission was accomplished in 2003.
the point is that it's hardly having weapons that is the dominant factor of mountain folk being hard to conquer. If they were easily split or the terrain was more accessible to large forces they'd be fucked regardless of their rifles - I'd even say that it's the terrain that is the dominant factor.dominant, maybe, maybe not. rifle culture is a definite factor.
And that means that comparing armed mountain folk to well developed urban environments is completely useless. The terrain is different, the culture is not homogenous and the law of the land is the same in Chicago as it is in Houston. There is zero use in comparing the environment of the AfPak mountains to the United States or any other developed country.that is why anyone 'serious' about any of this already lives in the mountains.
the rocky mountains can probably be safely called the american redoubt. the appalachians, whose length generally remain within a days drive of the countries capital, were not really under federal control until the 1960's.
I'm sorry mate, but to say that this was the only reason for that outcome (which is horribly overstated anyway) is completely ludicrous. I'm not going to type out an essay why.i have an acquaintance who is one of the nations experts on insurgency / COIN.
he would strongly beg to differ with both your position on the subject of the IRA rebellion as well as your rosy view that all governments are indestructible military forces that can never fail.
If you'll notice, I've already agreed to this. The US is already way too far gone given the amount of firearms in your society now. And the US is living this reality in its schools, shopping centers, churches, movie cinemas, etc. etc.if you really believe that, then why in the hell do you spend all your time arguing for gun control in the US if it is to far gone?
really, some school shootings amount to living in belfast throughout the 20th century of IRA violence?
Again, I've already agreed to this. The US is already fucked and I cannot offer any solution to the problem. My main problem with your position is that you think that guns are not part of the problem. As other people have said, it's not just the firearms, its people's reasons to use them. Deep economic division, racial tensions, drug culture, gang culture, etc. etc. all add to the mix, it's not just firearms.i do not deny that guns are part of the EQUATION of a shooting. who could?
what i am denying is their inherent evil. its an inanimate object that can be used for good and it can be used for bad. just like nearly any other object.
if its an entire set of things that is 'the problem' why do you seem to concentrate only on the gun part and taking guns away from people who didnt kill anyone in a shooting?
is that odd? after a shooting, everyone wants to punish the people who didnt shoot anyone.
But the point is, the US has all these social problems, the last thing you want to add to that is guns. But, it's too late now, the horse has already bolted.cool
then why dont you STFU and advocate arming all good people?
Secondly, I disagree with your unrelenting fundamental belief that gun control is a bad thing for everyone in every country. I can walk down any street in this country without feeling I need a firearm to defend myself. Simple as that mate, my country isn't awash with shooters and I'd much prefer it that way.where i live, its probably highly unlikely that i'll ever need to use a firearm in self defense. its sad though, because where you are most free to have said firearm, you are less likely to need it, and where you REALLY need it, you are not allowed to possess or carry them. its completely ass backwards.
i personally could give two shits what other conglomerates and tax jurisdictions do, i care about what the government that claims jurisdiction over me, my family, my friends and my countrymen does. and to deny someone a means to defend themselves is nothing but evil. any way you cut it. but since you say the US is 'to far gone' i'd imagine you hold the same position.
who actually 'prefers' to be 'awash with shooters?' i dont want to be 'awash' with drunk drivers, drug addicts, violent drunks, stupid people, and other such people either, but sadly these people exist.
Sure, I understand that and your security environment is vastly different than mine. People here have very little NEED to defend themselves. But if you allow people to arm themselves you enter a security dilemma. My neighbour may arm himself with the means to defend himself but that firearm also has the potential to be used as an offensive weapon.you can say this about literally everything.
your neighbor has gasoline and a lighter, well by golly, this is has the potential of burning down your house. your neighbor has a truck, well, by golly, he might plow into your house and run you over while you are typing.
because everyones situation is different is exactly why freedom works. if you dont like guns, then dont own any. call the cops when danger comes knocking.
i wish you well.
How can I trust that the good intentions he has today will be the same intentions he has tomorrow? How can I trust that he will be able to proficciently use that weapon against an attacker and not lose his weapon to another person that can then use it against me? I cannot just trust in hope that my neighbour's weapon will not be used against my family, I have no choice but to am myself. And of course the dilemma expands from there with the people around me.all these what if's are pretty damn funny you know.
'what if the nation passes over 20,000 gun laws, and criminals dont abide by them and the government doesnt effectively create a gun free zone that they legislated and some kids get shot in school?'
oh wait.
99.9% of the people in my country and most that I've been to have no reason to arm themselves. Gun control can be a good thing.thats cool. you mind your business, and i'll mind mine
what i possess is no business of yours.
i realize you do not favor self reliance, independence or feel a need to provide for you and your families own self defense. that is a personal choice. that is totally fine. im not suggesting we force you to own a gun. others think differently on the subject of defending themselves. and no one has any right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do, unless they are harming another persons life, liberty or property. all im asking for is a mutual respect...i wont aggress against you, you dont aggress against me. but all im hearing from you is about how you support using aggression to take away inanimate objects from people who have done no harm to anyone.
-
No, sorry, that is not what has happened in Afghanistan at all. They are armed with much more than Lee Enfields (c'mon dude, you've heard of the IED/VBIEDs, right??) and they are sponsored by other govts external to Afghanistan that provide weapons, training, sanctuary, intelligence, logistics, etc. etc. I'm pretty sure you don't believe the situation in Afghanistan is as simple as you put it. Even when the Afghans were fighting the Red Army they were getting massacred until an external power provided them with strategic level weapons, training, funding, intelligence, etc.
are you suggesting that the dudes kicking it in waziristan have NOD's, drones, air support, .50 cal's and HITR's w/ kestrels, vectronix vectors and S+B scopes?
I think you get my point.
a rifle culture in mountainous terrain is very tough to defeat. in fact you could almost say that it is a law, a rifle culture in mountainous terrain is rarely crushed.
I'll make another one. the IRA in the UK. after the easter rising the IRA, had no more than 500 trigger pullers, ever. largely because of the leadership of one guy, michael collins, they attained a free state and later held the british empire at a stand still for the better part of a century.
scotland yard, the RIC and the rest amounted to well approximately 50,000K during late teens/1920's. i believe its safe to say, a small determined force can safely maintain their freedom. its not a matter of if its possible, its a matter of can they do it.
even if you extrapolate the IRA's per capita numbers to the US...their numbers amount to less than .3% of the gun owners in america. even if the government was 99% successful at door to door confiscation and destruction of weapons which is entirely impossible, that leaves almost 1 million people with about 3 million guns. this outnumbers the active duty US fighting force by leaps and bounds. and doesnt take into account the guys who wouldnt follow orders or would just go home.
i think its safe to say, there is no way guns will disappear in the US.
perhaps you can write a letter to the UK and tell them you could of simply stopped all the shooting, skirmishes, bombings and such by simply passing some more gun laws and outlawing bombing. wait....
Yes, we can all agree that there are many times in history that masses of oppressed people would have benefited from the means to defend themselves. But you're being very self serving if you think small arms can do anything to protect 'a people' from an organised and well funded govt force intent on enacting a policy. Here, have an M16 and go run in to that tank on the other side of that mine field that is covered by 38 machine gun pits and air cover.im not suggesting a .223 can match a tank, but a couple thought out bottles of ingredients made from machine shop scraps can.
i dont think it is ever morally justified to take away a means of someone to defend themselves. in the game of self defense, the use of any tool is justified if your life is in danger.
If that other person didn't have an AK then you'd be even better off, right?maybe.
but that is like saying we can un-invent something that exists in the hundreds of millions.
akin to saying...'we could stop the 40k highway deaths per year if cars werent invented.' you cant un-invent them and it is physically, logistically, morally and legislatively impossible to remove them. so i'll take the position that they will exist, will always exist in my life time and arent going anywhere because its impossible.
I fear my govts policy of cutting the defence budget more than I fear their tyranny. Do we have gun crime? Yeah, sure. Not enough to make me want to arm myself though.that is beautiful freedom.
your choice not to want to defend yourself, and the other side, ones right to choose to have the means to defend themselves.
in areas like where i frequent, response time for LE is upwards of 20-40 min. the armed citizen is the front line.
i've probably been looking at this all wrong.
im missing the boat.
since prohibition is so ineffective, it would probably be easier to obtain firearms if they were banned than if they were legal. sort of like drugs. its much easier for a school kid to get weed at 15 than to get alcohol which is legal. anyone can get illegal liquor or 'moonshine' in any college town in the south at the drop of a hat.
yup, i have changed my position completely.
-
And the whole govt tyranny argument? Oh please. In the US you have far more to fear from your fellow citizen than you do your govt. I've travelled and lived in some pretty poor and oppressed nations as well has lots of normal developed places. The country where I fear for my safety the most during day to day life is most easily in the US. Racial, economic and drug problems mixed with a high prevalence of firearms - yeah, you guys are fucked for a looooooong time yet.
i think if you look at history, and the numbers, you'd see that governments have stacked up 280 million people like cordwood, outside of warfare. 'private' killings, amounted to a few million.
maybe i have a distorted view of 'the threat.'
i dont think the argument is valid that guns keep people free. this is not really the case. but they CAN be used to keep people free. after all, the US was created by private gun owners resisting their own government. a couple thousand cave dwellers in the hindu kush with home made khyber pass AK's and lee enfield rifles have held the worlds largest and strongest military at bay for what, 10 years now?
but i do know one thing.
for instance.
arming the jews in the warsaw ghetto in winter 1942 and spring of 1943 might of been futile. but at least they had a chance. at least they died a hero's death
is a gun a talisman? nope, but it does offer people a fighting chance. if someone is shooting at me with an AK, i sure would like to have an AK to shoot back at them. instead of....i dont know. throwing pens at them?
-
i'm OK with high capacity mag bans and one-a-month programs though.
i think this is the thing i take issue with.
most people support something because it sounds good and they think that it will achieve what it sets out to. they tend to never think it through.
what is a 1 gun a month program going to do to combat the guy on the corner with a trunk full of .380's? all that stuff is already illegal and they were most likely obtained by stealing, which last time i checked theft was illegal.
what a 1 gun a month program will do is not only limit peoples freedom of choice and trample their natural rights, but it will limit their ability to be armed to protect against the person who will obtain weapons no matter what. one gun a month means, you can buy a .22 to learn how to shoot, but you cant buy a carry gun till 30 days later or a shotgun till 30 days later to defend your house properly. what about if this persons home is invaded by a violent criminal on uppers and all he has is a .22 he is learning to shoot with? and he shot the guy but since a .22 lacks sufficient stopping power, the guy still managed to slay 2 of this family members while he was bleeding out because he wasnt incapacitated effectively? what about the people who might lose their life because they are not able to obtain the firearms needed to defend themselves? what about limiting the single father who has a 17 year old daughter who cant legally purchase a firearm but is trained in its use and he wants her to be armed when in the house and he has his only gun on him or in his car? an extremist might say the government is responsible for the 17 year olds lack of self defense if someone maniac broke into her house while her dad was on night shift.
clinton enacted a magazine ban. a handful of states have them currently.
i fail to see how making a magazine more expensive will make them disappear. i also fail to see how making a 20 round or a 10 round mag illegal by decree will save someone's life. anyone with an hour to spare can reload a 10 rd mag in an AR faster than the average joe can even shoot through a 30 rd mag.
not to mention, the irony...
the batman shooter used a 100 rd mag. they are prone to malfunctions. thank goodness there wasnt a high cap mag ban in place that was actually effective (impossible, but taht is another subject)and the guy used reliable 10 round mags and got an hours worth of practice in reloading before he started shooting. the casualty count would of been much higher.
things are not often how they seem.
-
that guy is an idiot.
not only is he talking about 2 entirely different things...namely, most people possess guns only on their own property and people use cars to go on public property and other peoples private property, but he is assuming that cars are currently more regulated than guns. hell, if your car stays on your property, it doesnt even need plates. you dont even have to put it in your name if you dont really want to. you dont need a license to purchase a car either. or a back ground check. yet cars kill 40K people a year, which is more than guns last time i looked at the 'official' numbers.
anyone can go out and buy a car, have it towed to their house, and do whatever they want with it.
if he wants to extend this logic to guns, then anyone who wants to just keep it on their own property should have basically no infringements at all.
currently all manner of transporting, carrying, buying, selling, shooting and transferring of guns is highly regulated, requiring licensing, paper work, background checks, wait times, permits, FOID cards, registration schemes, bullet printing schemes, taxes, fees, classes, training, etc. current number of gun laws that exist in the US is around 20,000. this was approximately 10 years ago. who knows what the number is now.
from the article
So what can we do? A starting point would be to limit gun purchases to one a month, to curb gun traffickers.a number of states already have this.
Likewise, we should restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines so that a shooter can’t kill as many people without reloading.clinton did this.
mags were still around.
anyone trained by a few hours of dry practice can speed reload a 10 round mag faster than a normal person could empty a 30rd mag.
We should impose a universal background check for gun buyers, even with private sales. Let’s make serial numbers more difficult to erase, and back California in its effort to require that new handguns imprint a microstamp on each shell so that it can be traced back to a particular gun.maryland implemented handgun registration and ballistics fingerprinting with all handguns.
its largest city and the DC metro area have usually the highest numbers of murders in the country per year or within the top 5. these schemes have yet to be used to solve one shooting.
many states have no private sales unless its through an FFL.
a person without a felony conviction, documented mental illness or habitual drunkard or narcotics abuser can pass a back ground check. i believe the shooter at sandy hook would pass wonderfully.
sounds like a lot of hub bub that accomplishes nothing, has been in place or was in place that doesnt solve the problem, and acts as a means to slow down, and make it harder for the good guys to get guns. you know, the people who want to defend themselves and other innocents
-
there isn't a simple solution
we can throw rhetoric back and forth all day. mass bans and new laws will not stop the psychos or criminals, and likely won't protect the innocent.
america's dissipated sense of community, fading family structure, culture of celebrating violence, and embraced complacency fuel these shootings as much as the weapons themselves. without restructuring our society we will continue to face atrocity.
hows that for speaking in vague generics?
these vague generics are ok because they do not call for solutions based in law and cannot be solved by legislation.
and they get to the heart of the matter. its not the tool, its the person.
some people will never understand this.
ever.
i think we should stop prosecuting the people committing murder and start prosecuting firearms, ammunition and magazines as murderers. makes perfect sense.
-
Please tell me why ANYONE would need an AK or any automatic weapon "big gun" etc?
Do you need 29 guns in your house to "protect yourself"? As someone mentioned if you are trying to protect yourself from the big bad government by owning some guns it won't help you.
Sure you should be able to have a handgun in your house in case someone comes to kill you so you can protect yourself but why would you need an M4 in your closet AND a handgun on your night table and w.e else. I'm pretty certain all the people with 30 guns don't have armies chasing them down.
There is no reasoning with people like you though.
im not here to tell anyone what they 'need'
i dont think people need more than a 1500 sq ft house, but some people want 6,000 sq ft houses. i dont think people should do drugs, but im not one to tell them not to. hell, some people think they NEED 10 bongs and 5 lbs of weed. hey, whatever.
if you look at actual incidents, there are many instances where there are multiple assailants.
lets face it, handguns suck. they dont really do anything good at all, except allow you to carry them with you when you go about your daily business. any thing a hand gun can do, you can do better with a rifle. if you have multiple assailants in your house, wouldnt you rather have a tool that does the job instead of one that is bad at the job? what you are suggesting is:
you only need a 5 oz hammer. really, do you really need that 28 oz framing hammer? its absolutely ridiculous. you can bang in a 20 penny spike with a 5 oz hammer. it might take you 8 times as long but, being the all knowing being that i am, i know that you done NEED nor should you possess a 28 oz hammer.
whereas myself if i have to bang in a 20 penny nail into hardwood, i'll grab my framing hammer and leave the tack hammer in the drawer.
point being, why use a tack hammer when a framing hammer does the job better, faster and more efficiently?
the point of defending yourself is to WIN. not perish.
who in the world elected you the person that dictates what people can and cannot own?
by the way, i realize you arent a 'gun' person and your posts show you have little knowledge on the subject, but for the most part, m4's are non existent in the US unless you are military or LE. they are select fire weapons under mcclure volkmer '86.
-
1
-
-
yes, you should. i don't believe your defense tool is going to stop someone intent on doing you harm from carrying it out. it's not a deterrent til after the fact. you think that because criminals know that people are armed it stops them carrying out crime? that's what I'm getting when you say that places with gun control laws have gun crime THROUGH THE FUCKING ROOF
so you think if you tell a government agency that the gun is for 'collecting' or 'hunting' that this will somehow keep guns out of wacko's hands? hmmm sounds like something that will really work.
really? guns aren't a deterrent? how come all these people dont do crazy stuff in front of uniformed police officers?
i dont know what stops people from carrying out crime, but i do know that by looking at common sense and empirical evidence the largest majority if not well over 85% of these massacres occur in legally sanctioned no gun zones.
i do not care to conjecture as to why this is anymore than just telling you that the areas where no guns are allowed, are where these active shooter events happen and where they are most likely to continue happening.
i am also saying that the places where all your gun control measures are in place, and there is no 'easy access to guns' are where the largest portion of crime takes place.
and it's nice that some places restrict things that have no place in the hands of a civilian (in my opinion) but if it's not national ban then it's about effective as pissing in to the wind.really?
hmmmm.
how do you propose to remove these guns from peoples possession?
i think you guys like to say stuff that makes you feel good, but dont really think everything through.
if your logic extends to national areas, why not international areas? why are your bans supposedly working in one country, but not in others? why not a need for a global ban, cause anything else is pissing in the wind.
so in your eyes the ease of access is not at all a problem that contributes to the levels of violence in your country? that's, quite frankly, retardednot really.
people have easy access to lots of things much more dangerous than guns. besides, guns arent really 'easy' to access. and in places where they are used the most for bad things, they are VERY hard to get, unless of course you mean on the black market, which wait, that stuff is illegal, but i digress.
how do you explain that before the advent of NFA when you could order full auto machine guns through the mail with no back ground check, no wait times, no nothing, that everyone wasnt killed by them in the entire country?
the places with the easiest access to guns are in fact, well, hate to be blunt, but the safest. the places with the hardest access to them, these are the places you dont want to be because people are getting killed left and right.
-
reason for ownership restricted, no high powered semi auto rifles, minimum barrel length on handguns to make concealment harder, training courses in handling of firearms before being issued gun license and/or firearm. that's just off the top of my head
you should need to establish a 'reason' to possess a tool that is used to defend yourself?
they have this in NYC. i believe they have eliminated murder in this jurisdiction.
phewww. thank good ness.
a few other states have 'carry permits' that require 'good and substantial' reasons for possessing and carrying said firearms. these states generally house the murder capitals of the country.
high power semi auto rifles are currently illegal in parts of the US. Handguns are also illegal in parts of the US or restricted to the point of any person who isnt politically connected not being able to own one. Some states already require training and licenses before being able to possess a firearm. carry permits in most states require training.
there is one common thread. in ALL locations where those conditions exist in the US, gun crime is THROUGH THE FUCKING ROOF. in all places where you can carry without a license and engage in private sale firearms transfers, hardly anything happens. for decades.
do you think that just MAYBE, it has something to do with people and not with inanimate objects being the main problem? if it is simply presence of guns and easy access, why dont mass murder shooting sprees happen in states where 29 guns per house hold exist or where carrying without a license is legal?
if 'easy access' is the problem, what about back when full auto firearms could be ordered through mail or brought home as war trophy's? or when you could order 20mm cannons through the mail? mass shootings back then?
if you want to simply look at correlation and point to causation, we can play that game as well.
-
I think that if there was a higher threshold to gun ownership it would have a positive effect. That is why I am arguing for it.
Perhaps if owning a gun carried more liability and training it would have some benefit? Is it your assertion that the only answer is more guns? Some cops 3 year old kid here in Washington just blasted his brains out and there is no law holding the owner responsible for it.
what is this higher threshold. i want specifics.
i have a feeling that you probably do not have the first clue as to what the gun laws in the country are. but i might be wrong.
training?
i've personally been to govt sponsored firearms training. it was more or less the biggest joke i've ever seen. what if the wacko's just started going to this government training and learned how to more effectively kill people? that is largely what you suggested about the 'idiots' at the shooting range.
you guys talk out of both sides of your mouth.
you ridicule people who train with firearms as being serial killers, then you say we should mandate training.
makes perfect sense!
i believe that is called negligence.
interesting, it was a COP's kid....supposedly, under your view, the only people 'qualified' to own and possess firearms.
this indicates that even the most well trained in the view of the public are not so infallible.
They don't have guns in prison because the people bringing in the drugs do not have to worry about being shot with them. These absolutist arguments are childish. Tons of people are deterred from graffiti because of the legal ramifications.you are refusing to acknowledge the analogy on drugs.
you are talking about passing a law, prohibitions, and that this will keep said objects out of peoples hands when in fact they wont.
you have the perfect case. it doesnt matter what laws you pass, what the consequences are, people are still going to get what they want. and if you did magically zap away 200 million guns out of america, i'd suspect the pyscho's would resort to much more easier to access methods of destruction that are totally legal and do not carry the connotations people get from guns.
if the most controlled environment in the world, a prison, cannot keep something that people want out of it, how are you going to keep guns out of peoples hands in the real world?
There is also of course a real difference between violent death and accidental death. Like the swimming pool argument, we do have life guards for a reason. By that line of thought should we have gun control or should we get rid of the lifeguards and just let things work themselves out?are you suggesting all the kids that drown in back yard pools would of been prevented if you passed a law requiring all pools in america to have a life guard, 24/7 instead of just promoting good parenting and actually watching kids?
you operate on one false assumption. that if a law is passed, the results will be what are intended in the law.
this is a very bad assumption to make.
-
Perhaps I was not clear, while there are good guys intervening here they are not doing so with guns.
Yes, I make a separation between law enforcement and the general population.
The gun being fired at the range is far more likely to kill a innocent person than a criminal. Most likely the user.
Perhaps I misspoke about the guys down at the range but I can not think of a single instance of one of these shootings being stopped by a hero with a concealed carry. Is there one?
We live in a society of laws, of course they can make a difference. I do not think that gun control is the entirety of the answer but I do think it is part of it.
your first line proves the most important point.
most active shooters cease or kill themselves at the VERY FIRST SIGN OF RESISTANCE. given that CCW permits are generally held by under 5% of a given population of a given state, and active shooter events are more rare in the grand scheme of things that rattle snake bite deaths, its not surprising unarmed people are able to subdue someone.
i take it you care not to comment on the fact that 2/3 of the time civilians subdue the attacker...
do you think you can carry around a cop in your pocket?
if you had to be in a gun fight, would you rather be able to shoot back or would you rather be a sitting duck?
so i cannot use 'good guys' to mean someone with a gun in general? i meant it specifically people killing crazy motherfuckers murdering other people are GOOD GUYS. it doesnt matter if they have a badge or not.
i believe congresswoman giffords attacker was subdued by a CCW holder without using his firearm.
he claims that being armed gave him the courage to engage. guns are not always the answer. there are 4 safety rules. for instance, if you cannot get a clear shot or if you engage an active shooter but risk killing innocents because they are in your line of fire, its best not to engage or you will be responsible for murdering innocents.
your line about guns at 'guns ranges being more likely to kill their users than criminals' is the most hysterical thing ive ever heard.
this sounds like your position:
and why do yall always speak in these silly abstract ideas?
i have yet to hear one solid plan that would solve your problem other than...'we just need more gun control'
give me something specific that needs to be put into law that already isnt, that will create utopia.
go
-
1
-
27 dead in elementary school shooting
in Channel Zero
Posted
I dont think people should follow this because its 'the law' i think people follow this because it respects other peoples rights. all stand your ground laws do is reinforce ones rights. they do not infringe on them. some of yall act like a stand your ground law is carte blanche to blow away someone looking at you side ways. they only change one thing, the duty to retreat.
sure, some people wont 'follow' this law just like they wont follow your law that restricts 'clip' capacity. ijust like some people wont follow murder laws. if they do not follow basic moral precepts for using self defense they are just another murderer.
but you miss an important part of the equation, people acting in self defense go to extreme length's, for some reason, to obey the law.
i continually have conversations with permit holders who would rather cut off their left nut than to carry a firearm for protection in a place where it is prohibited. they actually can sometimes go into more hysterics than people like you do when someone talks about using a gun in self defense. if you actually know people in the gun culture, you'll find out that they have this absurd worshipping and almost idolatry of the law. its why they get so mad when a new gun laws are passed, because they are the only ones that will be following them.
its a great error think that these people who are already thoroughly vetted through all the mechanisms that you like are going to be scared shitless to break a minor firearms law and then whip out their boom sticks and blast people for looking at them cross ways from 2 city blocks away.
your posts demonstrate one thing very clearly. you do not understand the real gun culture of self defense in america. if you dont understand something, you look like a buffoon when talking about it.