Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by LSU Tiger Z71 True, but 1 gun nut with a gun can slaughter a whole crowd in a matter of seconds (provided he has enough ammo and a machine gun), which will be impossible if he was only armed with a knife.
If he was only armed with a knife he probably would be easy to overtake by a crowd of people.
back at you
Do you think that the people who wanted to do that would give up their guns to the government? You better hope someone is packing a gun in that crowd..
england and australia got a gun ban. crime went way up..
Crime went up pretty uniformly all over the world, without respect to whether any particular country banned guns or not. There has been a huge explosion in crime in nearly every country in the past few decades. The causes have little to do with gun laws. Mostly, it has to do with the maldistribution of global wealth, the technological capacity to move goods , people and ideas around the world quickly and cheaply, the high profits that can be made through illegal activities, mainly drugs, the easy availability of credit, an erosion of trust in established governments, increased personal freedom in most countries, the list could go on and on.
Do you think that the people who wanted to do that would give up their guns to the government? You better hope someone is packing a gun in that crowd..
LoL What is the point of having a government (or a police or army) if you don't believe that they can and / or will protect their citizens?
I guess Americans are schizophrenic (or paranoid) when it comes to their government and personal safety?
American gun fetishists believe that rules and regulations that are applied to their police cannot be applied on them....
You sure you're not talking about bicyclists? Replace 'gun fetishists' with 'bicyclists' and 'their police' with 'motorists' and you'll have a great argument... but then that's for another thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D
FYI shooting at a range gives you 0 combat experience, since the targets don't shoot back.
Well, see, that’s where you have a bit of a misconception. You are generalizing. You assume that all gun owners own their guns for ‘warfare’ related reasons and for shooting people. That’s simply not true. Now I cannot speak for everyone, and I certainly know that there are militant types floating around, but the gun owners I know own guns because they like them--it's a hobby. They like to tinker with them. They like to collect ‘gun stuff.’ Some of them hunt. Some of them shoot skeet or trap with shotguns. Some shoot at a range (like the one I previously mentioned). They are just ‘into it.’ But, they are not into the ‘militant thing.’ The people I know who are into the ‘militant thing’ go out in the woods and have paintball gun wars. If you want to practice being Rambo (combat tactics), a real gun is not necessarily a good training device because you can’t actually shoot people unless you want to be a bride in the state penitentiary for the rest of your life.
I mentioned that I like medieval crossbows and traditional longbows. I have a few of them. I hardly ever use them (I did at one time). I just like them. And I keep them around because they are 'cool.' And although I could go out and kill someone with them, the thought has never crossed my mind. I think that’s where MOST gun owners sentiments are at. You generalize too much. Not everyone is Jeffrey Dahmer here in the States.
Interesting that most of the same tired old arguments re-surface on C-D about every 3 - 4 months. Is it worth re-hashing them? Maybe one more time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCreass
Interesting point....
Also, if the government ever turned on us, owning a couple of pistols would be no match for the might of a 21st century army or air force (it's not the 18th century anymore).
It's certainly not what one person with a Colt Single Action Army can do against a Bradley fighting vehicle. You wholly mis-understand the passion of the average American citizen. Too many of us have come from socialist countries where socio-liberalist policy is rammed down the throats of the populace.
It's the passion and the sense of righteous indignation at the idea of others who claim to "Know Best" having their way with our hard-won freedoms. This is coupled with our intent, and ability, to die trying in the face of political repression.
The tribal hillsmen, fighting the might of the modern Soviet Army in Afghanistan 20 years ago, were more than capable of being such an incessant flea in the Russian's hide that they eventually left, having been nearly bankrupted by it all. Those tribesmen, in effect, won, only to become The Taliban. BTW, so far we have not been able, as an alliance of many nations, with vast technical resources, to suppress them.
Regarding the use of our very own military against the citizenry: (To quick-quote Wiki here):
A recent survey of National Guard members concluded that, by a big majority, it's youthful and impressionable members still would not knowingly ignore this law nor obey even a direct Presidential order to go forth and haul us patriots out of our homes into the streets while they strip-search our homes for firearms.
Sorry; absent a change to the Constitution (which ain't gonna happen; too onerous and complex) no-one can simply and easily abscond with our firearms.
Perhaps the right to bear arms should be extended to owning rocket launchers and grenades (as I'd jokingly replied to another poster), since the weapons ante has been well and truly "upped".
Well, of course you can always argue about the merits or suitability of the weapon of the hour (lasers, energy weapons, AK47s, ARs, RPGs, etc.). It's a convenient theatrical diversion, to shout "Why would anyone want a rocket launcher in their back yard? [substitute: AK47, plastic Glock pistol, hi-capacity magazines, 44 Mag revolvers, .50cal Barrett target rifles, and on forever.] For hunting?"
Blah blah blah.
First my Patriot missle launcher, then my black-powder musket! Allowing the nose of the camel into the tent, etc.
If such an unlikely thing were to happen (the government/army turning on the people), you know what I'd do? I'd RUN....but I'm sure I'll get called a coward for that.
Of course you would. And yes, we would, if it involved a lack of interest or fortitude to stand up for the Constitution of this country. Why not let's just re-write it all, as per some UN committee guidelines instead, huh? So much more, what... lovingly Koom-Bai-Yahhh?
Guns...yes, if I actually owned a house here in the US, I might be inclined to own a gun (in fact, I would buy one). I'd probably stand a better chance of defending my home against an intruder, but guns seldom protect people when it comes to street crime (because even if you carry a concealed weapon in public, it'd be pretty useless if you were jumped by a gang).
So... by your logic it's better to go unarmed and just hope that the gang doesn't jump you? Or as our Dutch hero Tricky D has asserted from time to time, he'd fight 'em all off with his overpowering martial arts skills. (PS: Tricky, once, when I was young and strong, I took four years of Kyokoshinkai karate. Never did I ever feel confident that I could have just "dismissed", say, three determined attackers armed with bats or knives. To do that is foolish and arrogant. Now, if they come at me and my compact .45ACP, things won't go so well for them...)
Within my professional friends* (one of them was once the head of a very large State Dept. of Ecology, another is an architect who designs homes for the likes of Bill Gates, etc.; another is a now-retired detective for a large NW city, and myself, an engineer, biologist, geologist and now gunsmith) all have had at least one situation where just having a menacing sidearm visibly available prevented our becoming another crime victim or statistic. The detective actually had to fire two rounds of .38 spl into the meth-head crazy that was lurching for his Rolex. That decision and instant fight-stopper sorta changed the knife-wielding thug's determination, and he's now incarcerated for 20 years to re-think his options....
Too harsh a sentence I suppose....
(*i.e.: NOT ape-headed knuckle-dragging Rednecks)
In my case, it would be three times & instances now. One in Canada, no less, where I actually had a handgun carry permit, and of course few folks do, so the drunken thugs who pushed me around weren't exactly expecting me to unholster my 4" bbl'd 44Mag Smith... First I asked politely if they'd desist, then I warned them they might get hurt. They laughed... Then... you shoulda seen their suddenly repentant faces when I unholstered the hand-cannon. No shots fired, and I remained unscathed.
By your laws and concepts, what should I have done? Begged? Willingly just given up my valuable possessions, antd hen rolled into the fetal position prior to the kicking and hitting?
Sorry. No sale on those truly idiotic options.
I'm assuming you've never had the tar scared out of you by some perp, late one night in a parking lot, where you also had no means to defend yourself except your cell phone. Those things no longer weigh enough to carry any real damaging energy when you throw them at one of the three gang-bangers intent on relieving you of your wallet, watch or purse.
Oh, and then slashing you with a knife (Ban Knives!) or hitting you with a baseball bat (Register Baseball Bats!)
Home owner/renter or just a downtown walker after a movie, with your signif. other. Guess we shouldn't go there; we should cower and let the criminals own those once-safe neighborhoods, huh?
Don't over-exaggerate the cases you try to dream up in defence of gun registration. The FACTS, proven and documented, are that gun registration / confiscation always results in an increase in crime. In countries drowning in Draconian gun laws (Britain, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Russia, and about 20 more) the true victims are always the now-unarmed citizenry. Always.
These numbers don't lie; those who disguise these facts, however, do.
Last edited by rifleman; 05-10-2009 at 10:53 AM..
Reason: typos
Originally Posted by LSU Tiger Z71 LoL What is the point of having a government (or a police or army) if you don't believe that they can and / or will protect their citizens?
I guess Americans are schizophrenic (or paranoid) when it comes to their government and personal safety?
Do you think that the police can respond to someone shooting up in the crowd as someone that is actually in the crowd can?
Also, I don't really trust the government to protect my home and my family. They can't do the job that I can.
Well, see, that’s where you have a bit of a misconception. You are generalizing. You assume that all gun owners own their guns for ‘warfare’ related reasons and for shooting people. That’s simply not true. Now I cannot speak for everyone, and I certainly know that there are militant types floating around, but the gun owners I know own guns because they like them--it's a hobby. They like to tinker with them. They like to collect ‘gun stuff.’ Some of them hunt. Some of them shoot skeet or trap with shotguns. Some shoot at a range (like the one I previously mentioned). They are just ‘into it.’ But, they are not into the ‘militant thing.’ The people I know who are into the ‘militant thing’ go out in the woods and have paintball gun wars.
I'm not the 1 who overrates the combat abilities of American gun owners. That is the domain of the cocky gun fetishist.
Interesting that most of the same tired old arguments re-surface on C-D about every 3 - 4 months. Is it worth re-hashing them? Maybe one more time...
I didn't read all 10,000 words of your post -- your CD posting name is enough to convince me which side of the fence you sit on, which is fine, and I respect that, but you don't seem to respect those who don't feel the same way about guns. You also admitted "re-hasing", so why should I (or anyone) bother reading the same points that have been made on CD a million and one times by hundreds of people with a 17th century chip on their shoulders, just like you?
Just skimming it was enough to prove that your post was nothing more than an elaborate rant about how terrible the gun laws are in other countries, socialism (and how you "escaped" its evil clutches), equating gun ownership with freedom and the usual glorification of violence and weaponry. If you don't like the way other countries do things, don't go to those countries; no one is forcing you and with an attitude like yours, you'd be about as welcome as an ant infestation, so my advice to you is to just stay put and everything will be just fine.
Last edited by EnjoyTheSilence; 05-10-2009 at 11:04 AM..
Also, I don't really trust the government to protect my home and my family. They can't do the job that I can.
So you believe to be better suited to do the job of your police?
Why not join the police? Because ya don't wanna protect and serve the public?
Quote:
Do you think that the police can respond to someone shooting up in the crowd as someone that is actually in the crowd can?
Do you know what happens when several people in a crowd start shooting?
Besidez, the gun maniac knows that he will be shooting at a crowd so he'll be prepared while the general public and security won't be.
So in the end it will be next to impossible for the police to quickly apprehend the real maniac because they have more suspects.
Originally Posted by LSU Tiger Z71 So you believe to be better suited to do the job of your police?
Why not join the police? Because ya don't wanna protect and serve the public?
No, defense of my home is my responsibility! I will not sit idle while someone tries to do wrong against my property.
You're ASSuming that I wouldn't protect someone if they were getting mugged, etc. You don't have to be a police officer to do that.
Quote:
Do you know what happens when several people in a crowd start shooting?
Do you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True, but 1 gun nut with a gun can slaughter a whole crowd in a matter of seconds (provided he has enough ammo and a machine gun), which will be impossible if he was only armed with a knife.
LoL What is the point of having a government (or a police or army) if you don't believe that they can and / or will protect their citizens?
I guess Americans are schizophrenic (or paranoid) when it comes to their government and personal safety?
Reality Takes Hold, again.....
Always. 
Do you know what happens when several people in a crowd start shooting?