Guns or No Guns?? Your views.

I'd like to start with something I heard on a Dr. Laura episode:

A woman called in saying that her boyfriend beat her. She wanted to know if she should stick with him.

Dr. Laura said "I miss the old days. Back a hundred years ago, your brother and father would take the guy out behind the barn, and beat the crap out of him. Then they would say "you have a choice. you can be a man and a father, or you can get the hell out of town"

She finished with "today you can't do that. The law protects everyone, even the jerks."


What so many people are missing here is a very simple fact... some bastards deserve to die

Act like a jerk, and if the law protects you, then you pass your genes on and the world becomes full of a-holes.


I like George Carlin's philosophy: "I get to do what I please, but if I piss you off, then you might shoot me. I'll take that into consideration as I go about my business in this world."

Guns give people manners. And the uncalculated benefit is that they also get the bad genes out of the way.

While the above statement is not politically correct, everyone knows deep down inside it is true.

I think the world is safer and better when you teach boys how to be men, men are armed, and jerks get the heck out of town.

(Note: Apologies for the borderline language. I think in this case it serves to make the point more clear. Thank you.)



[edit on 4-6-2010 by 30_seconds]

Originally posted by Scarcer
What facts

Do you even have experience with firearms? I find that 95% of people scared of firearms are the same ones who haven't spent more than 15 minutes firing them and go on blogs and articles talking how semi-autiomatic "assault" rifles and 20 rd "high capacity" magazines are the devils ass.

Er.... the Fact that every single massacre in the states since 2005 has ended with either the shooter killing themselves or in one instance a police officer shooting them.....Not once did an armed citizen intervene or shoot the bad guy.

The Fact that you're 4 times more likely to be killed or injured if you own a gun, than you are if you don't.

There are plenty of facts about guns around, some in this thread.. some on the internet in general.


* Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)

* The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

* American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)


But as waynos said, it's better to have a discussion than throw around "Facts" and "Stats" because they can all be manipulated to prop up any position or argument people like.

Discussing this was better.

But Waynos took the time-line that someone posted about the massacres by gunmen in the US... and did some work and proved/showed that a gun carrying populace did Nothing to prevent these from happening.

[edit on 4/6/10 by blupblup]

Reply to post by blupblup

For the fourth time, that conclusion has no merit unless you can prove a gun carrying public was in attendence.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by blupblup

 

Prove there is a "gun carrying public" around during the incidents in the timeline. Otherwise the conclusion has no merit.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Something else to think about in his 'presentation'....

How many stories can be found of a gun owner putting an end to shenanigans by some individual BEFORE ANYONE has been killed?

Newspapers are full of them. A full page of these types of stories are printed in the NRA(omg!) magazines, American Rifleman and American Hunter EVERY MONTH. Each story credits the newspaper that the story was taken from.



[edit on 4-6-2010 by butcherguy]

reply to post by Scarcer


How?. The incidents posted are all patently different situations. Even the Marine didn't actually shoot AT anyone, as the report makes clear. Do you want me to post links to stories of citizens foiling attacks or robberies in the UK? Really? There was one only a week or two ago where an old lady beat off an attacker, she didn't have a gun. And importantly NEITHER did the attacker. There seems to be an impression over there that all the criminals and muggers here are armed but the rest of us are not. While there are obviously some instances of this, it is generally not the case, that is why our situation is different.

These are isolated attacks, find me any example you like where a multiple shooter, out to go on/part way into a rampage, was stopped by an armed citizen. This is what I was looking for, and as far as I can see there aren't any, not one. This is the point that was made in relation to the Cumbria shootings and why I am addressing that particular point.

You cannot assume that a mugger was about to go on a shooting spree before someone shot him/scared him off. How on earth can you quantify that leap?

And yet, in the country where people are armed, you do still have muggings and murders, don't you? Be honest?

Like I said before, I am happy to accept the word of US based members that gun ownership by the public in the USA is absolutely justified.

Things are different here, there is no point in us going over to gun ownership here, we would only make our own situation worse.

thisguyrighthere, you make a fair point. I do not offer those as absolute conclusive proof, only to show that I was searching for any instance of armed citizen intervention stopping a multiple killer in his tracks. After all, if the argument goes that armed citizens in the UK would have stopped him, then it must have happened in the USA many times before, right?

Are there any multiple shootings in the timeline that I have missed?

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by Scarcer
What facts

Do you even have experience with firearms? I find that 95% of people scared of firearms are the same ones who haven't spent more than 15 minutes firing them and go on blogs and articles talking how semi-autiomatic "assault" rifles and 20 rd "high capacity" magazines are the devils ass.

Er.... the Fact that every single massacre in the states since 2005 has ended with either the shooter killing themselves or in one instance a police officer shooting them.....Not once did an armed citizen intervene or shoot the bad guy.

The Fact that you're 4 times more likely to be killed or injured if you own a gun, than you are if you don't.

There are plenty of facts about guns around, some in this thread.. some on the internet in general.

But as waynos said, it's better to have a discussion than throw around "Facts" and "Stats" because they can all be manipulated to prop up any position or argument people like.

Discussing this was better.

But Waynos took the time-line that someone posted about the massacres by gunmen in the US... and did some work and proved/showed that a gun carrying populace did Nothing to prevent these from happening.

No just saying, anyone can throw numbers around and call them facts.

Please show me facts.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by blupblup

 

Prove there is a "gun carrying public" around during the incidents in the timeline. Otherwise the conclusion has no merit.

But exactly.... do you not see the flaw here?
So all these incidents, 11 I believe.... in a nation of armed and responsible, gun carrying citizens, just happened to all occur when there was nobody with a gun around?

All of them?

But what we Brits are being told is that if we had guns, even though this was a rural/farming area where there are guns, then this wouldn't have happened?

So do you see.... your argument makes no sense.

People should carry guns because then these incidents wouldn't happen

THAT is the argument that has been repeated over and over by Americans on this thread....

But the fact is....all the massacres you've had over there since 2005, None have been ended/resolved by a citizen with a gun?

It makes NO difference.... do you see?

reply to post by blupblup


When the people who created this government included the second amendment, it wasn't so that people could have the opportunity to do any of the things the public fears a gun owner might do, it was to prevent the government from taking away the last power the people have to defend themselves against a government gone mad.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master." - George Washington

This horse has been beaten to death long ago. People who are against guns are not going to change their minds until they get attacked or someone close to them gets killed and they wake the hell up to reality. Until then, they choose to live in this idealistic utopia in their heads where the world is a peaceful paradise and everyone does yoga and craps skittles. A world where criminals suddenly grow a conscience and obey laws against things like assault and murder if they just wish for it hard enough.

reply to post by AwakeinNM




Indeed.... arguing does nothing and nobody will change their mind... I said exactly the same on the last page.

Originally posted by blupblup

It's clearly obvious from the facts that an armed population does nothing to stop incidents like this, in fact you're more likely to be killed and injured by a gun if you own one... and yes It may be people who kill and not guns... but if those people have guns, it makes the killing a lot easier.

But this argument between Brits and Americans is just pointless.... It's like religion... those who believe it, have an unshakable faith and no matter what you say and how out of date and crazy their views may sound to the non-religious.... they will not move from their position.
It's the same with guns... if you're brought up in that culture and your media and society tells you 24hrs a day that there threats everywhere and says you're an idiot and un-American if you don't carry a gun.... and you truly believe your government is going to come and round you up.... then of course you're going to want to carry a gun.

It's mass paranoia in a sense.

Where as I suppose to them, we are mass ignorance.


We can never understand it and they can't understand why we don't all go around with guns...

It will never change and this thread has only highlighted the massive gulf in logic and understanding and similarities between our two nations... both culturally and on the topic of guns.

To-may-to & To-mah-to, I think the term is.

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by blupblup

 

Prove there is a "gun carrying public" around during the incidents in the timeline. Otherwise the conclusion has no merit.

But exactly.... do you not see the flaw here?
So all these incidents, 11 I believe.... in a nation of armed and responsible, gun carrying citizens, just happened to all occur when there was nobody with a gun around?

All of them?

But what we Brits are being told is that if we had guns, even though this was a rural/farming area where there are guns, then this wouldn't have happened?

So do you see.... your argument makes no sense.

People should carry guns because then these incidents wouldn't happen

THAT is the argument that has been repeated over and over by Americans on this thread....

But the fact is....all the massacres you've had over there since 2005, None have been ended/resolved by a citizen with a gun?

It makes NO difference.... do you see?

Just want to point out a flaw here again.

How many massacres have been avoided due to the intervention of an armed citizen in America?

This is NOT included, just a list of massacres, where an armed citizen was not present.

Does it take into account how many criminals are listed as killing themselves by the police to avoid any lawsuits from the families of the gunmen?

reply to post by 30_seconds


You might well ask if the 2nd amendment is relevant is an industrialised, civilised and settled society? After all, the America of the 18th Century was a very different place to today, is it not?

I am not saying I know the answer, but that is the obvious question I think of whenever anyone mentions the writing of the American constitution more than two centuries ago.

Slavery was legal then as well.

Originally posted by butcherguy


This is NOT included, just a list of massacres, where an armed citizen was not present.

So you're saying that I shouldn't assume that an armed citizen was present, but It's ok to assume that one wasn't present?

Look... seriously.

This argument is pointless.

We wrapped it up several pages ago...

It boils down to this simple observation:

Originally posted by blupblup
Our nations are clearly fundamentally different.

You think carrying guns solves problems, we think carrying guns creates them...

That's it... it doesn't get any more basic than that.

Thanks

reply to post by blupblup


Where did each incident occur?

Terry Ratzman - "no guns allowed" church

Jeffrey Weise - "no guns allowed" high school

Charles Carl Roberts IV - "no guns allowed Amish schoolhouse"

Seung-Hui Cho - "no guns allowed" university

Robert Hawkins - "no guns allowed" mall

Steven Kazmierczak - "no guns allowed" school

Bruce Jeffrey Pardo - rich Californians , most anti-gun state in the union

Micheal McLendon - This guy probably had the highest chance of being stopped by an armed individual but for one reason or another wasnt. Did he pick his homes and targets knowing they were unarmed? Who knows.

Robert Stewart - "no guns allowed" rehab

Jiverly Wong - no guns at the workplace, that wouldnt be safe

George Sodini - dont know if it was "gun free" or not but most people wouldnt bother carrying while working out.

You see where I'm going with this?

If anything this list goes to support the conclusion that banning guns promotes massacres.

Here is a collection of events in which a firearm was used to defend oneself: OpSD Most recent are listed in the column on the right. It's updated everyday. If it seems as though one may have had the makings of a "massacre" then so be it. You can be the judge.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by butcherguy
Just want to point out a flaw here again.

How many massacres have been avoided due to the intervention of an armed citizen in America?

This is NOT included, just a list of massacres, where an armed citizen was not present.

Does it take into account how many criminals are listed as killing themselves by the police to avoid any lawsuits from the families of the gunmen?

I did ask this before but it may have been missed in the general flow of the thread.

How can you show that anyone shot in a confrontation was going to go on a shooting spree afterwards? I don't know that you can, so it becomes an unanswerable question.

You can however look at all the sprees that HAVE happened and surely at least one of them must have been stopped in this manner, mustn't they?

Of course even if only one or two incidents wer stopped in this way, and you have to ignore all those of the last five years to find one, its not a very good argument for arming the UK population is it.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Scarcer

 

How?. The incidents posted are all patently different situations. Even the Marine didn't actually shoot AT anyone, as the report makes clear. Do you want me to post links to stories of citizens foiling attacks or robberies in the UK? Really? There was one only a week or two ago where an old lady beat off an attacker, she didn't have a gun. And importantly NEITHER did the attacker. There seems to be an impression over there that all the criminals and muggers here are armed but the rest of us are not. While there are obviously some instances of this, it is generally not the case, that is why our situation is different.

These are isolated attacks, find me any example you like where a multiple shooter, out to go on/part way into a rampage, was stopped by an armed citizen. This is what I was looking for, and as far as I can see there aren't any, not one. This is the point that was made in relation to the Cumbria shootings and why I am addressing that particular point.

You cannot assume that a mugger was about to go on a shooting spree before someone shot him/scared him off. How on earth can you quantify that leap?

And yet, in the country where people are armed, you do still have muggings and murders, don't you? Be honest?

Like I said before, I am happy to accept the word of US based members that gun ownership by the public in the USA is absolutely justified.

Things are different here, there is no point in us going over to gun ownership here, we would only make our own situation worse.

thisguyrighthere, you make a fair point. I do not offer those as absolute conclusive proof, only to show that I was searching for any instance of armed citizen intervention stopping a multiple killer in his tracks. After all, if the argument goes that armed citizens in the UK would have stopped him, then it must have happened in the USA many times before, right?

Are there any multiple shootings in the timeline that I have missed?

I'll respect your balanced opinion and attitude here.

The first that comes to mind is the Fort Hood shooting in 2009. But this took place on a base, and the man was shot by another man on site, so arms are far more frequent then they would be.

I do have to say though, why should my rights be taken away because someone else is misusing a tool? A bit, I have to say that the whole gun issue is blown out of purporsion. By default, all stores should be armed and prepared, as any business, and many people getting shot are already involved in gang activity, and many people freak out over this, but that's an expected risk of being a part of that in the first place.

As far as those so fearful of armed mugging and assault, many people paranoid of weapons need to spend some time to understand them and possibly arm them, after sufficient experience if they decided to opt out of the option, then there is always the option of a powerful pepper spray.

The drama is more sorounding the general fear itself, rather than the fear of those actually at risk.

Just going to start putting these up, it could maybe go on forever.

When you get sick of 'em, let me know.

*Police said that early one morning, an armed suspect burst into a home office in an area described by one resident as "a quiet neighborhood." Hearing the burglar, the resident quickly armed himself with a firearm. When the burglar approached, the resident feared for his life and shot the suspect, killing him. "I'm not for someone being shot," said Nora Dietz, a concerned neighbor, "but you have to protect yourself." (The Baltimore Sun, Baltimore, MD, 3/29/10)

Originally posted by butcherguy
Does it take into account how many criminals are listed as killing themselves by the police to avoid any lawsuits from the families of the gunmen?

That's an interesting viewpoint.

Can you find an examples of this?

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Scarcer]

Another, these are from "The Armed Citizen" section of the NRA magazines.

*A crazed, knife-wielding man attempted to stab people at random in a convenience store parking lot. Police said he'd already chased a delivery driver and others when he ran down a car leaving the lot. He lunged at the car's driver with the knife, wounding him. That's when the driver, whose two young stepdaughters were in the vehicle, produced a handgun and fired about six shots, killing the attacker. The driver will recover from his injuries. "You've got to protect yourself," said witness Byron Cook. "He had his two kids in the car and they were terrified." (WREG-TV, Memphis, TN, 03/05/10)

reply to post by Scarcer
Still putting them up, can do it all day.......

One afternoon, two male suspects entered a jewelry store and demanded money from the store owner at gun point. The store owner then pulled his own gun from underneath a desk and fired a shot at the men, causing them to flee. Police later found one of the men with a gunshot wound in his chest lying in the grass neaby. The other suspect remains at large. (NBC-26, Green Bay, WI, 09/09/09)