Gun Control means hitting your target.

reply to post by thegagefather
not quite -- so let me clue you in ... i am a gun owner, i've read this silly Treaty and this currently discussed Treaty would involve an International registry (not gonna happen), it would require ANY owners desiring modifications to a stock purchase, to first, acquire a "manufacturing license" (how utterly ridiculous is that ? - optics, rails, basic accessories not included with many stock buys) ... this is the "gun control" we're discussing, care to join ??

ETA: in case you didn't notice, i didn't indicate that i was a LEGAL gun owner ... why ??? cause quite frankly, since i'm an American, it's none of your dang business.
and it should forever stay that way.

reply to post by thegagefather

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

as most would agree, why are you posting this nonsense about something you clearly know very little about ??

reply to post by Wongbeedman

This is coming from a person who disparages the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that gives every Citizen without a Felony record...to OWN A GUN....and say's we make him or her SICK...yet if you are from Europe...an area of the World responsible for COUNTLESS WARS OVER THE AGES...where to this day an ARISTOCRACY STILL EXISTS...as many OLD MONEY or even awards such as KNIGHTHOODS are handed out and Wealthy Aristocrats living in Centuries old Castles HANG THEIR COAT OF ARMS in the MAIN HALL as such a thing is so highly TREASURED.
As well as in the past 100 years alone is responsible for TWO WORLD WARS...THE HOLOCAUST...YUGOSLAVIA...ALBANIA...MULTIPLE WARS BETWEEN TURKEY AND GREECE...THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION AND MASS MURDERS THERE OF....SINCE PART OF RUSSIA IS PART OF EUROPE as well as STALIN'S FORCED RELOCATION AND DEATH OF OVER 20 MILLION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE....THE INVASION OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA.......HELL! I could go on ALL NIGHT!

And we make YOU SICK? Europe is HOME TO THOSE WHO ARE SICK! And those that were worse...got a FREE TICKET TO AUSTRALIA! LOL! Split Infinity

i]reply to post by SplitInfinity


I hate to burst your hate bubble...but america is just as much an aristocracy as the U.K is the way you claim it to be...explain the class warfare and convince me it's not?

We're all in the same boat believe it or not...just one hole big enough in any place will bring us all down...

reply to post by here4awhile

I admit I went off there quite a bit and would like to apologize to my many European Friends as I have been treated very kindly in most of Europe when visiting...with the possible exception of SOME PARTS OF FRANCE...as I have found...the technique that usually works anywhere else in the World...that being...ACT SUPER SICKENING TO A POINT NICE and most people will either also be nice and want to help you out.

This...DOES NOT WORK IN PARIS!!!! I swear that the Nicer you act...the more arrogant and dismissive they become! I have to admit...THIS PISSES ME OFF TO NO END!

But I went off on a rant because the average Family that lives in the United States would help ANY PERSON in need and go out of their way to make sure that person or persons...was comfortable and had Food, Drink, Entertainment and Help...in what ever way Help is needed for whatever the issue. Most people in the Town where I live would give you the shirt off their back...and many of these people are either Naturalized Citizens or just one or two Generational U.S. Citizens. They KNOW what it is like to feel powerless in their own countries...countries where ONLY CRIMINALS AND GOVERNMENTS HAVE WEAPONS OR GUNS...THIS is why they CHERISH BEING AMERICANS! The POWERLESS HAVE NOW BECOME LEGALLY ENDOWED WITH RIGHTS THAT GIVE THEM POWER...and a sense of Security and MOST IMPORTANTLY...THEY ARE NO LONGER AFRAID!

These are NOT MY WORDS...but the words of an IRANIAN AMERICAN FATHER WITH A WIFE AND KIDS WHO OWNS A FAMILY BUSINESS in my Home Town. On Memorial Day and the Fourth of July and he even keeps watch of the Calendar for days...like D-Day or VE-Day or the day that U.S. Forces planted a Flag atop Mt. SURIBACHI on IWO JIMA on Feb. 23rd....to HONOR U.S. MILITARY FORCES SACRIFICES...and he has the BIGGEST AMERICAN FLAG IN TOWN....it covers the whole side of his Breakfast/Luncheon Cafes Building!

And although he has never had to use the Hand Guns...He owns several Weapons...a Rifle and Shotgun for Hunting and several Handguns Why...BECAUSE HE IS FREE TO DO SO! Split Infinity

The OP brought up a good point about "gun free zones" being essential a calling card saying you will not have anyone defending themselves here. I dont support or do business with any corporation/organization that wont support my 2nd Amendment and allow me to carry a weapon into your location openly or concealed. Its just a personal opinion but I would encourage fellow American's who value the legitimacy and application of the 2nd Amendment and concealed carry to do the same.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
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.

I'm sure you're well trained, but have you trained under conditions where there's smoke grenades, confusion and panic from everyone around you, and a huge element of surprise. And even if you are, what about the 10 other guys with pistols in the theatre, what if they see you shoot, and decide you must be the enemy? My only point is that in many situations, guns might not be useful. Sure, wake up at 2am, miles from the cops, and you need something to defend your family with, that's great, standing in a public place and suddenly 10 other people decide to pull out their guns to deal with the problem, you're in for a lot of friendly fire (and keep in mind they have variable training since to my knowledge there's no real requirements to have a certain level of training).

reply to post by bonnieprince

soooo, does your rant above regarding skill mean that you're for or against additional gun control ??

while the scenario you present is always a possibility when guns are permitted, what are the chances such a location would be chosen as a shooting gallery ??

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bonnieprince

 

soooo, does your rant above regarding skill mean that you're for or against additional gun control ??

while the scenario you present is always a possibility when guns are permitted, what are the chances such a location would be chosen as a shooting gallery ??

I'm for some training requirements, and perhaps a limit on auto weapons. Also, it becomes a shooting gallery if you're attacked there and decide to defend yourself. I was using the recent tragedy to highlight that you aren't always safer if you have a gun to defend yourself, as if everyone carries one (or even a lot of people) it can lead to people getting hit in the chaos. I suppose i'm more looking at the view i've seen here and in other threads that he somehow would have been stopped if people in the cinema were carrying guns.

reply to post by bonnieprince

and perhaps a limit on auto weapons

What country do you live in that allows it's citizens to own fully automatic weapons? In the U.S. unless you own a class 2 license (hard to get as far as I know) fully automatic weapons are illegal.

reply to post by bonnieprince

Also, it becomes a shooting gallery if you're attacked there and decide to defend yourself.

while i don't dispute this because fire would be exchanged.
what does defending oneself have to do with the location becoming a shooting gallery unless you are the one starting it ?

i offer you results from polling the criminals themselves ...

gunowners.org...
3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."

74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

this is a rather comprehensive and interesting publication should you have an interest.

i realize that you are shamefully using this tragedy to make your point, but it doesn't change the fact that inside that theatre complex was a NO GUN / NO CARRY policy which legal, law-abiding attendees honored.

i am not guessing what could have been but i'm relatively sure the proper return of fire would have minimized the loss.

what amazes me is the popular opinion of so many who are not familiar with guns, doubt the ability of those who exercise them regularly.

i'm not saying there would be a crack shot in the crowd, Annie Oakley or a sniper for that matter. however, one well-placed shot could have had significant impact and no one should deny that.

yes, the guy wore a gas mask, but guess what, it doesn't reduce the size of the target one bit.
and they aren't (yet that i'm aware) bullet-proof or bullet-resistant.

what is still a shock to me is the realization that the primal reaction of 300 ppl was to run or hide. that simply floors me ... ... just plain wow.

reply to post by SpearMint

It's a lot harder to kill people with a truck than a gun.

I seem to remember a man by the name of Timothy Mcveigh killing quite a few people in Oklahoma city with a rented moving truck full of Ammonium Nitrate, so Yes, trucks can and have killed. Without guns what doe you think people would resort to. Lest's just say for a moment that all firearms dissapeared from the planet. What do you think the psychos who wish to mass murder would do?

They would learn chemistry and physics, as well as bomb making. They would be going around blowing people up and gassing them with deadly gasses made from everyday available items. If people want to kill they will kill. I choose to keep and bear arms because it is my right to do so.

en.wikipedia.org...

McVeigh and Nichols purchased or stole the materials they needed to manufacture the bomb, which they stored in rented sheds. In August 1994, McVeigh obtained nine Kinestiks from gun collector Roger E. Moore, and ignited the devices with Nichols outside Nichols' home in Herington, Kansas.[34][35] On September 30, 1994, Nichols bought forty 50-pound (23 kg) bags of ammonium nitrate from Mid-Kansas Coop in McPherson, Kansas, an amount regarded as unusual even for a farmer. Nichols bought an additional 50-pound (23 kg) bag on October 18, 1994.[23] McVeigh approached Fortier and asked him to assist with the bombing project, but he refused

In case your wondering what a Kinestick is here you go. It is not a gun.

en.wikipedia.org...

A binary explosive or two-component explosive is an explosive consisting of two components, neither of which is explosive by itself, which have to be mixed in order to become explosive. Examples of common binary explosives include Oxyliquit (liquid oxygen/combustible powder), ANFO (ammonium nitrate/fuel oil), Kinestik (ammonium nitrate/nitromethane), Tannerite (ammonium nitrate/aluminum), and FIXOR (nitroethane/physical sensitizer).

Binary explosives are often used in commercial applications because of their greater handling safety

Originally posted by Honor93
what is still a shock to me is the realization that the primal reaction of 300 ppl was to run or hide. that simply floors me ...

... just plain wow.

Here's the thing, It is highly unnatural to run towards gunfire even if you have deliberately trained in force on force and done a bit of run n gun, the sound of rifle fire indoors coupled with the muzzle flash in a dark room will probably disorient you for a split second before you get off the X and return fire and seek cover, if you havent trained, you're going to freeze or flee, saying that you'd do anything else is not being honest with yourself.

If someone opened a door and let a 500 lb tiger in there and it started mauling the # out of people are you going to go rush the tiger? Of course not, you're going to try to get the hell out of dodge, or If you're me you'll give it 31 rounds of 124gr +p and hope it decides that mauling people in the room is no longer a viable option and dies, or leaves.

I DO thank you for the solid contributions to the thread though!

i live in america, a country i willingly chose to defend, and as far as i am concerned, i can and will defend not only her, but also my family, friends, and whoever is in my circle. i am proud to have my 2nd ammendment right.
i conceal carry, as do most of my friends, and feel if and when i need to protect myself/family, i can and will make a choice in a , if i can solve this without excessive force. so far, i have not had to ever pull my weapon out. as i said, i can and do make that choice.. as do most law abiding, gun carrying, citizens. s & f op.. great post. semper fi!!

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by Honor93
what is still a shock to me is the realization that the primal reaction of 300 ppl was to run or hide. that simply floors me ...

... just plain wow.

Here's the thing, It is highly unnatural to run towards gunfire even if you have deliberately trained in force on force and done a bit of run n gun, the sound of rifle fire indoors coupled with the muzzle flash in a dark room will probably disorient you for a split second before you get off the X and return fire and seek cover, if you havent trained, you're going to freeze or flee, saying that you'd do anything else is not being honest with yourself.

If someone opened a door and let a 500 lb tiger in there and it started mauling the # out of people are you going to go rush the tiger? Of course not, you're going to try to get the hell out of dodge, or If you're me you'll give it 31 rounds of 124gr +p and hope it decides that mauling people in the room is no longer a viable option and dies, or leaves.

I DO thank you for the solid contributions to the thread though!

edit on 26-7-2012 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)

and here's the 'other' thing ... trained gun owners (who are locked, loaded and carrying), are not so willing to run and hide. even in a dark room, filled with smoke ... IF a shooter can see the muzzle-flash then you can see your target.

also, as heavily concealed as this character is reported to have been, leaves more than 180 degrees worth of a "blind side" in which the shooter (in this case) wouldn't have been able to see an approach from anyone.

in case you're just making stuff up, i NEVER suggested what i would do in said situation.
why drag me into it ?? i nor my weapon were there.

i said i'm shocked that the primal reaction of 300 ppl was to flee.
IF one of the 300 tackled the guy, (no guns needed), the outcome could be much different.

look, we weren't there so i'm not suggesting any of us could have had an impact.
but i will continue to suggest that one shot from the audience could have produced an immediate result and ended any further carnage.

i am a "trained" gun owner, as are most, so your attempt to dismiss our abilities is beyond reasonable.
i'm equally sure there are capable gun owners who are still beating themselves up over adhering to the "policy" of NO CARRY at that location.

you're welcome for the contributions but i have to add ... you are asking entirely the wrong person about a tiger cause he'd likely be sitting at my side

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Exactly, just like "Gun Free Zones" means "Please Rob, Kill, Rape here zone" because the citizens are unarmed.

I never grew up around guns.. but won't having the gun encourages those as well? its both ways. if someone comes behind you and have you on point blank, even if you have gun, he is going to have his ways with you, esp when he knows you might have a gun, knowing the person he is going to rob will have a gun will make the robber more aggressive.

And what if he isn't a robber? What if he's a rapist or a serial killer?

Any way you slice it, gun control advocates are basically calling for a police state. Because even if that isn't what the government wants to do, that's what it's going to take to protect an entire nation filled with unarmed people from one another. A 98 pound woman is no match for a 300 pound rapist.

reply to post by usmc0311


Meh, not like it's all that hard. Kids make sparkler bombs every year, and one big enough can be murderous. Seriously, this stuff is far more dangerous than shooting at a target, and kids can buy what they need without their parents.

Laws don't protect against the lawless...whether it be a man in China stabbing 20+ children or an Austistic Man with personality disorders in the New Town Tragedy or Timothy McVeigh using ferilizer to kill hundreds of people, or a mad man using Sarin in the Tokyo Subway
...Evil people will find a way to do evil things

These are the type of people I'm talking about.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Meanwhile....

Originally posted by TKDRL

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.

Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

Source

Even more contemporary. Guns go down, violent crimes such as rape go up. Gee, I wonder why. If I was a person that liked to rape women, I would go to a place that I know women are likely not to be armed.