Gun Control means hitting your target.

I imagine this whole thing came up due to the tragic shooting at the movie theatre. I just have one question. How do you think it would have gone down if people in the theatre had carried guns? lets say, 10 other guys with guns. I feel that in a situation where there was a smoke bomb thrown (supposedly?), it would have ended worse. 1 guy shooting = dozens killed and injured, imagine more guys firing off into the dark trying to hit the attacker. Bullets were going through the walls into other cinemas already, what would have happened if more were flying? That's just my thoughts on the matter.

Also for that matter, I do believe guns are good to have, but i'm just not sure we need citizens with automatic weapons in the hands of citizens. However, i respect your rights to decide for yourselves, but you gun fans don't want to listen to the americans who don't want them anyway, so acting as if it's only foreigners you want to ignore is a bit rich.

I'm an Australian, and I detest our gun laws, I wish I could freely own a firearm, sure with these debates, the old "there are many ways to defend yourself" debate pops up, but how about a home invasion of 2 or more people? Sure, I have no issues defending my family against 1 intruder, I'd welcome it, but 2? 3? 5? Doubtful, and I would do anything to protect my partner and 2 month old daughter, and quite frankly nothing presses the mental "oh crap" button like a victim with a gun.

Now, in regards to the crime rate statistics an all that, I'm not very good at Maths etc, but saying that America has a gun crime rate of say 5% and Australia has a gun crime rate of 1% per 100k population, well doesn't that really show skewed results? It's like saying Americans eat more lamingtons than Aussies per capita, well I'd expect that purely because America has a population of over 300 million, and Australia has a population of 25 million?

So, saying per 100k population doesn't really work considering america has something along the lines of 10,000 times our 100k population parameters? Eh?

I hope Americans get to keep their guns, I really do.. I wouldn't want too see one of the last "bastions" of freedom go to hell, that would suck! Cause i really don't want to move to Switzerland!

reply to post by bonnieprince


This is actually a reaction to all of the "let's ban guns" posts that popped up after the shooting. Shooting isn't like the movies, I can't speak for others but I'm pretty proficient with a pistol and I shoot bi-weekly because it is a perishable skill. I've dealt with oc & cs before, it's uncomfortable but I can manage. If I was in that situation, I'm happy that I have the option to protect myself and my family, and not leave their fate in the hands of a stranger and hope he decides not to kill us. Btw, none of his weapons were automatic.

reply to post by SpearMint
Considering that Australia has approximately the same land mass as the U.S. lets pack another 280 million people in there to make it truly comparable with the U.S., and THEN let's see what your crime statistics are. With a population of just 22 million for the entire country Australia ought to have next to zero crime since people have room to spread out and breathe. Make it truly equal to US and then tell us how awesome it is.

reply to post by bonnieprince

Yeah, about those of us who won't listen to the ones who don't want guns............. it's kind of like the city folk voting to outlaw the shooting of wolves, or voting to import coyotes to the rural regions of our state. They don't live the same life we do. They aren't the ones losing livestock and pets, or having their families threatened.

I live 45 minutes away from the state police and county sheriff departments. No matter what happens here I'm on my own for at least that amount of time. City folk don't have that long a wait and even then they complain about response time. The old adage "walk a mile in my shoes" comes to mind.

Guns laws only make things easier for the lowlifes of society.

I am sure some will say more gun laws will prevent situations like the Batman shooting from occurring.....which is a load of crap. All more gun laws do is make a large black market for those items.

As well as making it harder for the lawful people of society to obtain firearms to defend themselves.

It is essential that we have guns!

And just think, all those other countries will feel so foolish once the zombies come.
"Maybe if we reason with them they will not eat us!"

But in all seriousness, a criminal is quite similar to a zombie: they only have once thing on their agenda, to harm you when given the opportunity.

I actually had a run-in last night with a group of young and probably drunk individuals where I would have felt much safer if I was "packing a lunch," so to speak.

Outstanding thread OP, very well articulated and put together, S&F. It's funny that even after a few brainwashed people are told what has taken place in the past in regards to governments disarming it's citizens, they would still support the disarming of *their own countries* populace due to their complete and absolute trust of their government. These types of ignorant sheep scare me more than any criminal as they are allowed to vote.

Here in Canada we have some of the strictest and most **ineffective** gun control in the world in regards to keeping handguns out of the hands of criminals. Handgun ownership in Canada is extremely difficult and requires an extensive background check, firearms safety course and being added to a "restricted firearms" database on Police terminals. The *ONLY* time you may have your handgun on your person is at the range. The laws are so pathetic and asinine that the only people legally allowed to protect themselves via small arm open carry are the police, armored car guards and game wardens. There is no such thing as conceal and carry permits in Canada, the only people allowed such "privileges" again are police and intelligence agents. Scary huh?

Even with all of these strict handgun control measures, it has done **ABSOLUTELY NOTHING** to combat gun crime in cities like Toronto where, to be blunt, black people kill each other with stolen and smuggled handguns in record numbers each year. But Shhhhh, you're not allowed to say that, stating FACT is considered being racist and is a punishable offense here in Canada. The fact of the matter is city people, like in Toronto, have **ABSOLUTELY NOTHING** in common with rural folks, like myself, living outside of the cities. Yet these same idiots who **REFUSE** to see the true problem, and would rather blame guns, continue to push for even more silly asinine gun laws that do **ABSOLUTELY NOTHING** to combat gun crime in their cities but instead affect honest law abiding gun owners like myself.

Basically, in a nutshell, here in Canada city people really aren't mature and responsible enough to own firearms like ""us here der rednecks in the country, yuck yuck"" and who's asinine silly political agenda's should not affect people outside of the cities. It's a horrible system that is completely ineffective, it punishes normal law abiding citizens and allows criminals to conceal and carry smuggled handguns freely.

You folks in the U.S. HOLD ON tightly to your 2nd Amendment and defend it with your life. Once the pathetic anti-gun lobbyists get an *INCH* of leverage they will keeping taking away your gun rights until there is nothing left; DON'T GIVE AN INCH!

to all you folk who think that we should disarm....

and rely on the GOV to keep us SAFE...

ever heard of CO INTEL PRO?

google it, i couldnt make it up...

in short, certain gov forces are not above staging "false flag" type events in order to sway public opinion about a certain "radical" group or idea..

this is already a matter of public record, so im not just making up leftist crap here.

SO HOW FAR WOULD THEY GO IF THEY FELT THEY OUGHTTA? what would it take to disarm america? despite all the violent crime in our country, i never hear a call to disarm following a bank robbery for instance, its always one of these "senseless" killings.. Why shoot up a movie theater or a playground? there seems to be no sense of gain...

CUI BONO?

HEY GUYS, senseless killings dont make sense, if im going to BUG OUT in an unpredictable manner, and use deep planning and resource dedication to kill a buncha peeps,

who says i'll need, or even want, a gun? after all in this model, the psycho killer is a PSYCHO KILLER, not someone like a bankrobber who we can at least understand (motivation-wise i mean, even if we dont agree with him, a bankrobber wants cash, thats easy to understand)

but a psycho killer is not easy to understand, and if senseless body count is my goal, guns might not be my first choice, theyre loud and traceable for starters...

what about FIRE? or cholrine bleach and a few household cleaners... gasoline and stryofoam combine quite nicely ive been told, not to mention the things that you can do with your very own MICROWAVE OVEN...

oh hell, what if you brought a garden weasel to a kinder-kare, and ran amuck? should we ban garden tools? you can really really hurt someone with a shovel... archimedes wasnt kidding

you cant disarm a psycho killer until every last pane of glass, every last fist sized rock, every last good whackin-stick, is gone... and then the psycho killer is still free to try and HIT YOU WITH HIS HANDS

so we ban kung fu, oh and probly ballet too (those kicks are scary) and prolly boxing, and then we institute MANDATORY FINGERNAIL CLIPPING

and we file everybodies teeth down flat... so NO BITING. oh and we all have to surrender our kitchen knives and pizza cutters, because you know what could happen if some psycho took his PIZZA CUTTER to McDonalds

someone has to save the children

reply to post by uwascallywabbit


OMG

i have to respond to myself... i found my own post SO SCARY on re-read that im thankful for the second amendment in a WHOLE NEW WAY

thank god these psychos are lazy enough to choose firearms in their atrocities and not say, fertilizer

the problem is not civilian force, the problem is DESPAIR

people who enjoy their lives, by and large, allow others to do the same.

the best defense for any society is to allow its people to prosper in freedom, which by and large, guarantees peace through prosperity.

and failing that, we all might need to be prepared to put Ol Yeller down if it comes right to it, and that might be true if Ol Yeller is the farm dog with rabies, or a beloved piece of our GOV that is frothing at the mouth and coming after our constitution

the defense of self and family is so obvious, such a basic native right, that i cannot believe that is ever questioned, the link in the OP about that poor man in the UK is stomach turning

www.youtube.com... we did it on a small scale once and if it comes down to it the 2nd amendment will protect the rest of them even if they use their 1st amendment rights to say we shouldnt have the right to bear arms even in their defense

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
www.youtube.com... we did it on a small scale once and if it comes down to it the 2nd amendment will protect the rest of them even if they use their 1st amendment rights to say we shouldnt have the right to bear arms even in their defense

It isn't going to be as easy this time.....

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”

I'm neither pro or con gun control. I couldn't care less about the issue, and out of all the issues in America, it certainly seems like the least important at the moment.

Regardless, let's take a look at what this half-thought metaphor really means.

Gun Control = "Forcing citizens to follow certain procedures that assure they know how to properly handle a firearm in order to own one"

Now the phrase is "Forcing citizens to follow certain procedures that assure they know how to properly handle a firearm in order to own one is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”

Next step,

Reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars. = "Impose laws that assure every citizen does not endanger the lives of others with a vehicle they may handle under the influence of mind-altering substances"

Now the phrase is "Forcing citizens to follow certain procedures that assure they know how to properly handle a firearm in order to own one is like trying to Impose laws that assure every citizen does not endanger the lives of others with a vehicle they may handle under the influence of mind-altering substances"

In conclusion - If you're a danger to society because you can't properly handle a weapon (which could be either a car or a gun) you should take the bus, or not own a gun. Having the "right to bare arms" does not not mean you have the "right to bare arms irresponsibly." Just as the FIRST amendment (right to freedom of speech/press) does not mean you can hold a hate rally or slander someone.

Besides that, if you seriously think owning a gun, even an assault weapon, will help you defend yourself against the US military, you've single-handedly disproven "survival of the fittest." And since most pro-gun citizens in America are Christians, congratulations.

Case closed.

reply to post by thegagefather


I don't think we are speaking of the same "gun control" here.

My perspective is simple. I am a middle aged man with three children and a wife. It is my job to protect my family. I have never been in prison, arrested or ticketed for that matter. I have a college degree and am in Middle Management with a Fortune 50 company. Southern US born I owned my first .22 at twelve. I do not fear any man and I would kill anyone or anything that threatens the lives of my family, period. If the President of the U.S. deserves protection so does my family. My life has been dedicated to the protection and provision for my family. I do not need anyone’s permission or law, although I am a legal CWP holder. I stand by Country, my friends, and strangers in need, a gun is a tool they are owned by fools, heroes and, the common man and woman. Learn to use one safely and your perspective will change forever.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by thegagefather

 

I don't think we are speaking of the same "gun control" here.

Oh, sorry. You guys were all referring to the delusion and racist type of "gun control" in which you insinuate Obama has threatened to rip the guns from your homes, despite the fact that he actually never said that, and adamantly denies it, then?

That's fine, my point is still valid. And anyone who's rational can still take some insight from it.

When Obama was running for the Illinois state senate in 1996, the Independent Voters of Illinois, a Chicago-based non-profit, issued a questionnaire asking if candidates supported legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns,” to “ban assault weapons” and to instate “mandatory waiting periods and background checks” for gun purchases. Obama answered yes on all three accounts. When that survey came to light during his run for the White House in 2008, Obama’s campaign said that a staffer had filled out the survey and that some of the answers did not represent Obama’s views, “then or now.”

Obama also cosponsored legislation to limit handgun purchases to one per month. He also voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, and stated his support for the District of Columbia’s handgun ban that was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. He also called it a “scandal” that President George W. Bush did not authorize a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. During the 2008 campaign, Obama said that he had “no intention of taking away folks’ guns,” but added that he would support “reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures” that respected the Second Amendment while also “cracking down on the various loopholes that exist.” He expressed his intent, as president, to make sure law enforcement was given access to information that would allow them to trace guns used in crimes back to “unscrupulous gun dealers.”

And now for the sarcasm section!

I can't buy more than one handgun in my name PER MONTH?!
And I can't violate LOCAL gun laws and then claim self-defense?!?!
This is a clear case of facist, socialist, muslim, nazis taking over the Oval Office.

reply to post by thegagefather



So now I am an antiobama racist? What are you on dude?

Because of murders, we make it harder for law abiding people to get guns.
Because of vehicular homicide, we make it harder for law abiding citizens to get cars.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by thegagefather

 

So now I am an antiobama racist? What are you on dude?

Which "gun control" were you referring to that I wasn't? I assumed it was the nonexistent one in which guns are going to be banned.

FYI, the intent is to make it harder for the "non-law-abiding" citizens to get cars and guns. If you can't get one because of those laws, then you didn't meet the predetermined qualifications for "law-abiding." And if you're too lazy to fill out the extra 2 pieces of paperwork to get a car, or you want a gun but aren't willing to take a course in gun safety, then you don't deserve either. Plain and simple.

And those are literal examples of the "extra hoops" you need to go through in order to get the gun/car in states with similar laws in place.

There are no other requirements besides time-restraints.

Im my opinion, believing claims fueled by racism without doing the research is racism in itself.

Originally posted by SpearMint
Arrogant right from the very first paragraph.


You don't need a gun to protect yourself. You don't need to kill to protect yourself.

In the very rare case that you need to defend your life against someone else, there are many other options, you NEVER need a firearm, maybe there's an exception in some cases when they have a gun, but then banning guns would make it a lot harder for that to happen.

Why would any other country to ignorant by default? How arrogant is that statement... any other country is quite capable of common sense, in fact many would say more capable.

Second guessers are often guilty of conspiracy after the fact to aid and abet criminals.

I seriously thought about taking a picture of James Holmes to the range today.

I need more practice with a head shot, since criminals are wearing body armor.

Originally posted by thegagefather

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”

I'm neither pro or con gun control. I couldn't care less about the issue, and out of all the issues in America, it certainly seems like the least important at the moment.

Regardless, let's take a look at what this half-thought metaphor really means.

Gun Control = "Forcing citizens to follow certain procedures that assure they know how to properly handle a firearm in order to own one"

Now the phrase is "Forcing citizens to follow certain procedures that assure they know how to properly handle a firearm in order to own one is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”

Next step,

Reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars. = "Impose laws that assure every citizen does not endanger the lives of others with a vehicle they may handle under the influence of mind-altering substances"

Now the phrase is "Forcing citizens to follow certain procedures that assure they know how to properly handle a firearm in order to own one is like trying to Impose laws that assure every citizen does not endanger the lives of others with a vehicle they may handle under the influence of mind-altering substances"

In conclusion - If you're a danger to society because you can't properly handle a weapon (which could be either a car or a gun) you should take the bus, or not own a gun. Having the "right to bare arms" does not not mean you have the "right to bare arms irresponsibly." Just as the FIRST amendment (right to freedom of speech/press) does not mean you can hold a hate rally or slander someone.

Besides that, if you seriously think owning a gun, even an assault weapon, will help you defend yourself against the US military, you've single-handedly disproven "survival of the fittest." And since most pro-gun citizens in America are Christians, congratulations.

Case closed.

edit on 22-7-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)

Would you accept the same infringements on the First Amendment that you are appear to willing to accept on the Second Amendment?