Gun rights

[badasshairday III]

I want to own my own RPG, maybe a suitcase micro nuke

I knew somebody would bring this up. How about, no? We have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[bubka]

I guess some people see nuclear weapons as "our guns"

 

[badasshairday III]

I guess some people see nuclear weapons as "our guns"

It doesn't matter. This is a democracy, so the "some" would be over ruled by the "most" who do not see nukes as "our guns."

 

[Bryan]

the whole idea of arming everybody to shoot back when shot at is just a band aid. I doubt that it would even give you much more of a chance statistically, just an illusion of security.

What about the case of our very own "Old Baldy"? He says he would be DEAD now, were it not for his gun.

 

[s.a.f]

[quote="s.a.f":35penh4e]
Man this idea is hilarious I can imagine those chinese plotting right now. "hey lets invade America so we can rape their women and steal their plasma tv's".
If your armed forces with their Aircraft carriers and hi tech missles cant stop an invasion force you think a few householders with shotguns are going to be able to drive them off.
[attachment=0:35penh4e]Media,7256,en.jpg[/attachment:35penh4e]

Come on saf, let's be real. No they aren't plotting to invade America so they can rape and steal tvs. I'm just saying that in any invasion there is this type of crap that goes on. I'm just saying we don't know what the future holds. Nobody could have predicted WWII or any major conflict before it happens. Have you heard of the Rape of Nanking? It was when the Japenese invaded China during WWII and they basically pillaged the town called Nanking. The sh*t they did was heinous. If the Chinese were armed back then, I doubt it would have been as terrible as it was.

Let's also recall that it was the British who were trying to keep arms away from normal Americans so that they could keep the 13 colonies under their control. With weapons, normal citizens can and will fight back.[/quote:35penh4e]

If WW3 kicks off we'll have more to worry about than what happens if an invasion is'nt thwarted by a countries defending army. It also happened in Germany with the red army, Poland ect ect. A few women with civilian firearms are no match against an army.
If the people of Nanking had a few rifles it would of probably just led to more brutal aggresion from the Japanese.
Guns dont belong in a modern civilian society thats what we have the armed forces or the police force for. All these paranoid 'what if' suggestions are poor excuses. This is the 21st century not the middle ages, wild west or colonial times. Theres no threat to the west of an invading army.

 

[s.a.f]

What about the case of our very own "Old Baldy"? He says he would be DEAD now, were it not for his gun.

But why was he in danger in the first place - because of the easy availability of guns in the U.S and thats just one case, for every legally sold gun that kills in self defense how many fall into the wrong hands and are used for illegal purposes.
Imagine a world where everyone had a gun would it be a safer one? I dont think so.

 

[iamnaked]

The way I see it, the potential of civilian militias is an important counterbalance against extreme abuses of state power. I'm sure the Nazi party would have opted for a more peaceful solution to the Jewish problem if every German had the right to bear arms.

 

[Bryan]

What about the case of our very own "Old Baldy"? He says he would be DEAD now, were it not for his gun.

But why was he in danger in the first place - because of the easy availability of guns in the U.S and thats just one case, for every legally sold gun that kills in self defense how many fall into the wrong hands and are used for illegal purposes.
Imagine a world where everyone had a gun would it be a safer one? I dont think so.

You took what I said a little OUT OF CONTEXT. What I said was directly in response to asussieavodart, who had made the following statement:

the whole idea of arming everybody to shoot back when shot at is just a band aid. I doubt that it would even give you much more of a chance statistically, just an illusion of security.

As you can plainly see, the issue here wasn't speculation about WHAT COULD BE, if neither criminals nor honest citizens had access to guns. The issue here is whether or not a gun confers safety to a legal owner RIGHT NOW, under current circumstances. And Old Baldy is alive, by virtue of his gun.

 

[Hammy070]

I won't waste much time trying to convince rabidly anti-gun Hammy or Aussie but Bryan and Bubka are another matter. (From here on out, whenever I use the name Bryan, I'm including Bubka also.)

("The best thing to do is just give the criminal what he wants". WTF!!?? That could be the most naive, ridiculous statement I've ever heard. That type of statement usually comes from someone who has never experienced violence directed towards them by a criminal. Sometimes criminals don't want to leave witnesses for Godsakes. I grew up in Detroit and experienced violence on numerous occasions. I never did what the criminal told me to do unless I had no choice. And when I had a firearm, I used it. The prosecutor concluded it was self-defense. At least some government officials feel we aren't just supposed to do whatever the criminal tells us to do. I would have been killed, no doubt about it. The 2nd amendment saved my life for Godsakes.)

Except I work for the police. :whistle:

I can't talk about much, but an off-duty incident (can't mention it as he's being tried) occurred out of hours outside as I was coming home, in a busy city centre during rush hour. The armed man had no idea I was planning his apprehension for about 30 minutes, in various areas, and he ended up being arrested on a bus which I too got on, and directed a squad on my iphone to a busy street where the bus was in traffic, and guided them to the back entrance where they entered and caught him, the look on his face was priceless :hairy: . Wish I filmed it. The whole thing was quite complex but I do work in intelligence and so...an armed idiot is childs play :smack:

I was unarmed, unprotected, not even required to do anything infact except report him, in those circumstances. But I have a tendency to treat such situations like a game, which isn't always looked upon highly

I believe that every situation has a non-violent solution, if the above ended up becoming violent, I'd class it as a failure. I can talk about the above just because it wasn't on duty, and isn't really the best example. I was brought up in Glasgow, most violent city in Europe, but not as bad as an average American city. Gun murders here are almost always organized crime related, serious violence though isn't and involves general population mostly (which includes non-serious criminals). If we had a gun owning population, almost all gun murders would be general population related. Of that I am 100% certain, and it's why the most violent city in Western Europe has a murder rate 10 times lower than Detroit. Might I also add that the majority of murders are alcohol related, a violent drunken incident and usually at the weekend, and involve knives, not guns. It is an EXTREME rarity to be murdered (knife incidents a handful a year, guns never) by a stranger (including criminals). If someone even attempted in politics to have a 'right to arms' discussion it would be looked at with puzzlement, and perhaps laughter. That is why I am anti-gun of any kind, and especially anti-2nd ammendment which implies a RIGHT to own firearms, as if it was a normal state of affairs. If we see guns in Glasgow we act as if we've never seen a gun before, never heard one being fired, because 99% of us havn't, and hopefully it will stay that way. I work for the police, and have seen a gun 3 times in 2 years, I work in HEADQUARTERS too.

If gun ownership is normal, then gun use cannot be seen as abnormal.

 

[badasshairday III]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico

http://www.scribd.com/Doctor/21670/Crime-S ... cs-Murders

^^^^

Mexico has the strictest gun laws on the planet. Even more strict than the UK, however Mexico's gun violence is worse than the US.

 

[s.a.f]

Probably due more to poverty than anything.

 

[powersam]

Probably due more to poverty than anything.

someone also mentioned earlier a lot of guns crossing the border into mexico

 

[Old Baldy]

OldBald: you are telling me you can really believe that NRA propaganda and still look yourself in the mirror every day? I know this comes of condescending, but unless you are in the Michigan militia, I find that difficult to believe.

I hope you're right Bubka.

Obama's voting record on anti-gun proposals would eventually make the U.S.A. akin to Hammy's Scotland. I don't ever want that. I just have the belief that a country could very well sink into tyranny (i.e., eventually[?]) without a 2nd Amendment.

Remember what I said, Obama supported DC's total prohibition of firearms ownership by private citizens. That is strong evidence pointing to his real opinion of the 2nd Amendment.

But we'll see because it looks like Obama will win by a landslide. (However, he will have DC vs. Heller to deal with if he tries to be too draconian in his anti-gun proposals!) unk:

Like I said, I think Obama is a nice, decent, honest man. I just wish he would embrace the 2nd Amendment in its true context. To me, it's right up there with the 1st Amendment. I just don't trust a society where all the firearms are owned by the police and military.

And you know Bubka, the vast majority of police and military personnel in the U.S.A. have been polled over the years and they feel, overwhelmingly, that an individual has the fundamental right to own a firearm (i.e., to guard against lawlessness and tyranny). That should also tell you something about power corrupting. This isn't coming from a NRA advertisement. These polls have been conducted by polling organizations like Reuters, etc.

Overall though, I hope you're right about my fear of Obama (i.e., that I'm overreacting). Time will tell.

Tidbits: The landed gentry in the British Isles are allowed to own firearms IIRC. Only the common folk are "forbidden" if you get my drift. You see Bubka, the people over there accept class distinctions more so than we do in the wonderful U.S.A. Their's was the type of philosophy that lead to our Revolutionary War IMHO.

As to me personally, a gun saved my life. (And the authorities said my usage of the firearm was ok and proper. The criminal didn't die but I meant to kill him. The prosecutor said "that's ok, you were justified to use deadly force". Legally, for me, it was over in about 2 weeks and the criminal went to jail for a very long time IIRC.)

So my opinion was set at a very young age. It will NEVER change.

I'm sorry Bubka and Bryan, that's just the way it is for me. Life experiences have made me embrace the 2nd Amendment. I don't know any other way. That experience with the armed criminal was VERY scary for me. I was shaking to the bone. I lost alot of innocence with that one.

 

[Old Baldy]

I don't believe gun ownership is the real problem. Norway and Switzerland both allow civilian gun ownership, and gun crime rates are extremely low over there.

I also disagree that you can close pandora's box once you've opened it. I certainly wouldn't feel safe in a US neighbourhood like Detroit without a gun in my house just because the law had said it is now illegal, as I'm sure the non-compliance rate would be pretty high.

+1

 

[Old Baldy]

Come on now. If someone breaks into your house, you are going to wish you had a gun to protect your family.

Q. Why the hell do you call the cops?
A. Because they have guns to protect you with.

Are the cops really going to come that quickly from stopping a psychopath from doing some heinous crime against your family? Probably not. But you better damn well believe if you had the shot gun and buck a shot towards that person, they are going to be running for the f****ing hills.

+1

(Guys, I ain't kill happy, I just defended myself. That's all I did. The police can't be expected to be everywhere. And Badasshairday is correct when he uses the term psychopath - the criminal was "hardened" based on what I found out later from the prosecutor.)

I came in the house, (the door was locked) but he was already there rummaging through things, fired his gun at me when I came upon him, I ran faster than any white boy has ever run, got my pistol, turned around, he was coming down the stairs and I fired. He went down in a heap.

It happened real fast but seemed to be going in slow motion for me. That was it. Just that simple.

He fired once when he initially saw me and later raised the gun again when he saw me while he was coming down the stairs. I aimed for the heart but got him in the stomach. Blood was everywhere, I was shaking like a leaf in a hurricane. Called the police and they took care of the rest of it. I got my gun back in two weeks with no charges filed (i.e., after talking to the prosecutor for about an hour).

The prosecutor asked only one "pointed" question. He wondered why I just didn't run out of the house. I told him "I didn't think I had time to get away that fast" (i.e., I had locked the door behind me when I came home). He said ok and never brought that up again. Now the law in Michigan is that we don't have to retreat. Back then, we did for the most part.

That's all there was to it. No glory, no "big man", no hero, etc. Just a very scary life changing experience.

 

[HughJass]

The way I see it, the potential of civilian militias is an important counterbalance against extreme abuses of state power. I'm sure the Nazi party would have opted for a more peaceful solution to the Jewish problem if every German had the right to bear arms.

modern western democracies have moved well beyond that


the prospect of a violent government take over in the US, UK, Australia, Europe etc is Alex Jones material

 

[HughJass]

the whole idea of arming everybody to shoot back when shot at is just a band aid. I doubt that it would even give you much more of a chance statistically, just an illusion of security.

What about the case of our very own "Old Baldy"? He says he would be DEAD now, were it not for his gun.

it's good that he's alive, but that oneexample can't make the case that carrying a gun definetely increases your chances of survival

like I said before, when the laws that allow someone to own a firearm are the same laws that are helping arm crims, any advantage a legal gun owner and good citizen might have is going to dramatically reduced

arming everybody as a sole solution to gun violence is just treating the symptom and not the cause

 

[badasshairday III]

like I said before, when the laws that allow someone to own a firearm are the same laws that are helping arm crims, any advantage a legal gun owner and good citizen might have is going to dramatically reduced

arming everybody as a sole solution to gun violence is just treating the symptom and not the cause

I just have to say this. This may not be completely relevant to this discussion, but arming a lot of people probably would cause crimes to stop because everyone would be too scared to f*** with anyone.

On a grander scale, look at pakistan and India, two countries with bad blood since the British left. They have fought 3 wars since independence. Today, both are armed with nukes and the ability to launch them to each other countries. Do you think they are EVER going to have an all out full scale war again? They continue to have border skirmishes, but they will not have a full scale war, because that would basically mean nuclear annihilation. :shock:

 

[iamnaked]

The way I see it, the potential of civilian militias is an important counterbalance against extreme abuses of state power. I'm sure the Nazi party would have opted for a more peaceful solution to the Jewish problem if every German had the right to bear arms.

modern western democracies have moved well beyond that

the prospect of a violent government take over in the US, UK, Australia, Europe etc is Alex Jones material

They also said we had moved beyond financial crises, and look what just happened...

 

[Slartibartfast]

...don't tell me, I think I know this one.

We may have strict rules on gun-ownership, but bows & crossbows can be bought without a license... obviously not considered a dangerous weapon, even one of these: http://www.bestcrossbows.co.uk/product- ... +scope.htm