Guns or not Guns

[marharth]

and if everyone had a gun, aint NO ONE gunna try and mug you with a freaking knife. lol :P

Erm, reaction times suggest the opposite...

 

Average person with a concealed weapon cannot react to someone running at them with a knife from 15 feet away. With weapon drawn, it's still around 10 feet.

 

Trained persons can average about 8 feet.

 

Trained officers who are used to pulling their gun can draw, aim and shoot in about 9 feet, a little over 6 feet if already drawn.

 

Anything less than that and all be the most twitchy or well trained person would simply not have the time to even level the weapon so that they aren't likely to hit a bystander or themselves.

 

It's all about reaction time, so the knife would win if the person is already less than 6 feet away... always. It's why police officers and the military try to maintain a distance of atleast 6 feet from any threat which has not been neutralized or covered by another.

 

A knife also has the advantage of being easier to conceal and being able to stab someone without unnecessary movements or noise. For random acts of violence for people who don't care about who gets hurt, they still tend to be the weapon of choice.

Well it is possible to disarm someone with a knife, using a gun would not be the best method though.

[hoofhearted4]

its like my dad says. my glock has 16 rounds. i dont need to aim lol....thats a joke. were this on a street, yea, not aiming would be a bad thing. in my house. as someone said, ill put 15 holes in my wall if one hits you. got 2 more clips next to my gun.

 

 

back ground checks are really useless. anyone with a history isnt going to get their gun legally, all it does it make someone wait 35 years for it to process lol.

 

 

and obviously, the gun isnt the answer all to absolute protection. sure if someone come sup from behind, or attacks you in your sleep (gets in undectected) your dead whether or not your packing. but the chances are less if the criminal suspects you might be armed.

 

idc how stupid you are. if you see two people, one with a gun, one without, even with the element of surprise, even if youve done this before, even if everything is on your side, you will still pick the unarmed person.

 

i do agree with the gun training course though BUT that would only work if it were free. with gun costs high as is, and the economy we are in, its hard enough to buy a gun nvm afford training with that. plus for most training seminars you need to bring your own bullets (and most recommend something like 300) thats another chunk of change.

 

as i said, owning a gun is hard. or i should say buying one legally is hard (which i did fyi)

[Balagor]

I have come to the conclusion that I am neither for or against. It depend on the country you live in. When we had this topic last time I found some crime statistic on the net. Please find them your self this time. However those statistic were showing less armed robberies and less armed killings per 100.000 citizens in my country compared to US. In my country guns are absolutely illegal.

I can not prove that there is a connection, and will not try to. As I said in the beginning; it depends on the country. Would citizens of the U.S. be far worse of without guns, or not. I don´t know.

 

@Nin. With such a poor psycological evaluation, and the fact that you would shoot at a mooving curtain, I´m happy that you do not own a gun. (not that I´m gonna be there behind your curtain, mind you) :tongue:

[Nintii]

I have come to the conclusion that I am neither for or against. It depend on the country you live in. When we had this topic last time I found some crime statistic on the net. Please find them your self this time. However those statistic were showing less armed robberies and less armed killings per 100.000 citizens in my country compared to US. In my country guns are absolutely illegal.

I can not prove that there is a connection, and will not try to. As I said in the beginning; it depends on the country. Would citizens of the U.S. be far worse of without guns, or not. I don´t know.

 

@Nin. With such a poor psycological evaluation, and the fact that you would shoot at a mooving curtain, I´m happy that you do not own a gun. (not that I´m gonna be there behind your curtain, mind you) :tongue:

 

Balagor I have no problem with the tests, but our gov. uses it to "legally" say sorry you cannot own a firearm due to certain short comings in your testing ... which we all know is rubbish because they simply don't want you to own one

in the first place ... that's how they "legally" deny you the right to own a weapon.

 

As a business owner, I could most probably get away with getting a firearm license due to me "handling sizeable amounts of cash", one of the extreme few breaks to owning a firearm ... but where does that leave the rest of the population ?

 

Btw, I don't mind you behind my curtain as long as you have a feather duster or are cleaning the windows ... but you're such a dear that I'd most probably let you in and make you some coffee :biggrin:

 

P.s don't take me so seriously ... :teehee:

Edited September 26, 2011 by Nintii

[Aurielius]

Though I am going to break ranks with those that feel that to have an assault weapon is their god given right,

But you can cut down a tree with it, and it's fun to shoot and blow up stuff if your buddy has a vacant lot somewhere.

In my stretch of the country we use chainsaws for trees and M-80's for minor explosions. I think I'll pass on asking you over to help trim any of my trees :ninja: .

[Ritherdon]

The same year that an Al-Qaeda attack killed close to 5,000 Americans in and around the World Trade Center, 22,000 Americans were killed by other Americans using handguns alone.

 

I consider the latter to be the greater tragedy, because although 9/11 was shocking, unexpected, and brutal, nothing can contend with the fact that Americans actually managed to inflict more damage on themselves throughout the remainder of 2001. I am in no way belittling the impact of that particular terrorist attack, but when a population proves to be better at killing itself than its enemies are, something is heinously wrong.

 

And I suppose the gun supporters will shrug it off and pin the blame on inner city dwellers, gangs, the "criminal element" of society, but nothing could be further than the truth. It's more like an even mix of anything and everything that could prompt someone to raise their weapon and take another life.

 

In a society full of guns, you have incidents like the Jose Guerena shooting, where police mistakenly breached the home of a US Marine, who had no clue they were police. He brought his gun out to defend his home, and was shot at 70+ times, receiving 22 rounds. He was an American hero who was doing what every American who believes in self-defense with firearms would have done; he was prepared to defend his family with his AR-15. The police initially claimed he'd shot at them, but an investigation showed that he had died without ever firing a shot.

 

The real question for gun supporters is; how many lives are worth your "right to bear arms"?

[Aurielius]

The real question for gun supporters is; how many lives are worth your "right to bear arms"?

Unless and until the 2nd Amendment is repealed, as many as it takes...it's called a fundamental American right which is why it's in the constitution. Having lived north of the border the attitude is fairly similar to gun ownership in the Great White North, it is just not as a protected right as ours. Just FYI the RCMP are not immune to accidental fire, so spare me anecdotes, I remember when James Cross was kidnapped and how they reacted all over Quebec.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Aurielius

[Aurielius]

The real question for gun supporters is; how many lives are worth your "right to bear arms"?

 

 

Unless and until the 2nd Amendment is repealed, as many as it takes...it's called a fundamental American right which is why it's in the constitution. Having lived north of the border the attitude is fairly similar to gun ownership in the Great White North, it is just not as a protected right as ours. Just FYI the RCMP are not immune to accidental fire, so spare me anecdotes, I remember when James Cross was kidnapped and how they reacted all over Quebec. Je me souviens.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Aurielius

[HeyYou]

The same year that an Al-Qaeda attack killed close to 5,000 Americans in and around the World Trade Center, 22,000 Americans were killed by other Americans using handguns alone.

 

I consider the latter to be the greater tragedy, because although 9/11 was shocking, unexpected, and brutal, nothing can contend with the fact that Americans actually managed to inflict more damage on themselves throughout the remainder of 2001. I am in no way belittling the impact of that particular terrorist attack, but when a population proves to be better at killing itself than its enemies are, something is heinously wrong.

 

And I suppose the gun supporters will shrug it off and pin the blame on inner city dwellers, gangs, the "criminal element" of society, but nothing could be further than the truth. It's more like an even mix of anything and everything that could prompt someone to raise their weapon and take another life.

 

In a society full of guns, you have incidents like the Jose Guerena shooting, where police mistakenly breached the home of a US Marine, who had no clue they were police. He brought his gun out to defend his home, and was shot at 70+ times, receiving 22 rounds. He was an American hero who was doing what every American who believes in self-defense with firearms would have done; he was prepared to defend his family with his AR-15. The police initially claimed he'd shot at them, but an investigation showed that he had died without ever firing a shot.

 

The real question for gun supporters is; how many lives are worth your "right to bear arms"?

 

Those statistics are totals. They do not differentiate between gun crime, accidents, or police shootings. In Jose's case, the POLICE are the ones that screwed up. Jose never fired his weapon, and the cops killed him anyway. Shall we take guns away from cops too?

[Ritherdon]

You guys are missing the point. The presence of guns, and the pervasive attitude that a multitude of guns are what is best for safety, is where the issue reaches a wall for liberal-minded individuals. When a gun is right there, it is far too easy to use it for all the wrong reasons. The assumption that a population without guns is somehow at the mercy of criminals or dissenters, or can be easily subjugated by its own government, isn't entirely off-base, but the reality of having guns around every corner is that they are far more likely to be used improperly.

 

No one is trying to take your guns away, but those who oppose rampant gun ownership would likely enjoy gun owners coming to realize the pitfalls of the situation, and beginning to understand that the problem isn't responsible gun owners, but irresponsible gun owners who can get their hands on firearms all too easily because... guns are freakin' everywhere.

 

The police shooting incident was brought up to highlight the problem even with responsible gun owners. Jose did what any of you would have done - he heard his house being broken into and grabbed his gun. He is dead now because of it, and not just because the police opened fire, but because he was armed when they did so.