The Question Of Guns Is A Simple One:

While I'm not as agile as I used to be, I still carry a Glock with a 19 round magazine + one chambered and a spare mag in my purse as well as sleep with it. I keep two 33 round magazines in my night stand. Whenever I stop at a red light, stop sign or get in/out of car my hand is in my purse. It takes the police too long to respond and this old lady is not going to be a victim if I have a chance to respond.

I keep an old Ka-Bar around too as a backup.

As far as "assault-rifles" are concerned, it is a good way to spend the afternoon shooting targets from back porch. The 30 round magazines just mean you don't have to reload so often. Mine has a bipod support because it has gotten kind of heavy.

I've had the opportunity to shoot targets with full auto selected and while it's sort of fun, it empties the magazine too fast and you're not very accurate with placement.

Originally posted by ObservingYou
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

So why not a compromise?

Lauren Hill once said:

No more compromises,
I see through your disguises,
Blinding through your mind control,
Tryin to steal my eternal soul,
Appealing through material,
To keep me as you're slave..
But I'll get out.

Compromising got us here in the first place. The time has come for decision.

ETA: Nice to see you agree with my proposal, but the fact remains, can you see the US government disarming their forces?

Government and TRUST are the clear issues that need to be addressed.

edit on 21-12-2012 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)

Quoting Lauren Hill is irrelevant to me. It's another persons opinion. Nice though it is, it's irrelevant in a debate.

As for trust, I agree, but isn't it worth attempting? If the government stated tomorrow that they plan to restrict gun ownership and use to the methods I outlined in a previous post I think a lot of Americans would be happy with that.

I also think that most Americans would understand that disarming the police at the same time would be a stupid thing to do.

You still have laws and methods of dealing with the use of firearms by officers, none of that changes. A police officer can shoot someone now, or they can shoot someone after a ban on guns, but which of those is immediately "right"?

IMO it makes no difference whether a police officer is armed, it makes a difference when they choose to fire that weapon. They do it now, and they do it without reason in many cases.

So what's the difference here? Police would still be armed with or without guns in the hands of the public on the street. People would still be shot by police in either scenario. Those officers still have to face the same procedure to justify their actions.

The ONLY thing that has changed is that there are fewer guns in the hands of the public, and fewer opportunities for crazy people to pick them up and murder kids. That's the only difference.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by ObservingYou
(A post of mine that deserves a thread)

I've said it once I'll say it a thousand times.

In an ideal world, guns wouldn't and shouldn't exist - they are a force of destruction after all.

HOWEVER, having said that, answer me this Americans -

"Do you trust your government to have arms whilst you do not have any?"

Especially with acts like the Patriot act popping up..

Thoughts?

I've seen this suggested as one of the excuses, and I really don't see the logic.

I was actually pro-gun for a long time for this very reason, until I saw real revolution playing out in Egypt, Libya, Syria. That's when logic hit me and I realised some facts I had been missing out on.

Do you really believe that your guns are a match for a massive intelligence agency, mass media PR, an army hundreds of thousands strong, tanks, fighter jets, drones...?

A revolution succeeds through defection of an army or through outside assistance. There is no chance in hell the American people are going to overthrow their own government with their guns, no chance.

If another revolution does happen in the US, your ownership of guns will not mean anything. You would not succeed without more fire-power, and that would come through military defection or supply from outside. In which case, your current guns are pointless.

I know people will refuse this, but it's true. Look at all the other revolutions around the world and you'll see the same thing. They succeed because of military defection or outside supply, not because the population have guns up against tanks, jets, explosives, drones or anything else a government has at its disposal.

That's not true and an overly simplistic, binary way of looking at things. Revolutions must have momentum and a nidus before outside support and defections from the military.

Indeed, I don't dispute that at all. In fact, if you were to go back through my posts in discussions of revolution you would see that I have a considerable grasp of what causes revolution, with the sense of injustice being the primary driver for a protest becoming a revolution.

At no point have I argued against that core belief. The evidence is there to show that this is what happens.

But that doesn't change the fact that any American revolution now would need outside assistance or defection within.

Your guns would not make an iota of difference in a revolution. You would need a more comparable force against a government, your rifles and handguns will not do it.

ANd you miss the point. The rifles and shotguns would get things rolling. If every gun owner, 100 million of them, took to the streets, even our technologically advanced army will roll under. "Quantity has a quality all it's own." Absent that, if a minority took to the streets and put up a fight, it is very likely that they would be joined by their brothers and sisters in the Army. You have to realize that our military is populated by pro-gun, pro-constitution types.

reply to post by detachedindividual


Yeah....Because cops are MUCH more law-abiding than the average citizen. And, much less likely to have their guns stolen.....

DUDE.....I know you are "detached" from something, but what reality and planet do you live in and on???

...seriously?!?

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by AzureSky

 

Those teachers managed to save dozens of students at a time without the use of guns. They acted heroically during a terrifying event.

Don't disgrace their memories by saying it wouldn't of happened had they been armed.

You assume everyone has abilities, everyone can kill someone, everyone can react in a situation.

Fact is, when in an terrifgying event, 2/3 of you will cry and pee your pants. The only thing that makes you feel heroic IS a gun.

Even with a gun, you couldn't be half the hero these educators were.


You people disgust me.

I'm sure that NO ONE intends to disgrace their memories. And, NO ONE disputes that they are Heroes...

But the fact remains that they are now, dead, Heroes! And they will never, ever, be able to save another life!
What some are stating, is that the outcome, could have been different. And, in that respect, their heroism, might not have been their final act.

edit on 12/21/2012 by GoOfYFoOt because: ...

So, where do we draw the line?

If a shooter has a bullet proof vest, and still manages to kill armed teachers, would you be back suggesting those teachers should be wearing bullet proof vests too?

How about armour piercing bullets? Should those teachers then be armed with the same?

It then becomes and arms race, and you end up with teachers looking like the military.

And as others have said, what then happens when the police arrive and see three people with high-powered weapons in a gun fight and kids cowering in a corner - the police response would be to kill all three.

This idea of arming teachers in response to a pointless situation like this is insanity, perpetrated by the likes of the NRA. It only takes a moment or two of common sense thinking to know that this suggestion is so stupid those who make it should be embarrassed, quite frankly.

Is it just me, or do many of these U.K. types act as if we can walk down the block and find guns laying around like soda cans????

Just an observation. I taught as a flight instructor in california for approx 5 years. In that time i taught students from Japan, Europe and of course America.The Japanese kids were incredibly fast to learn, and pick up abstract concepts with regards to aerodynamics etc, even despite the massive language barrier. The europeans and scandinavians were pretty much the same to a varying degree.Im sorry to say the American kids were in a very different state of affairs (and im not being derogotory in any way here, just pointing out my own experience). I found Them very naive and unwordley. They had difficulty grasping even basic concepts. Now this is not a reflection on the individuals in question, it is obviousley a social/ educational construct problem in general.Most were highly religious which initself breeds tolerance issues, which would come out in general conversation. So all in all, substandard in intelectual and social cababilities, compared to the other nationalities we took to commercial pilot level and beyond. I found it terrifying that these uneducated, generally rascist, antisemetc and homophobic kids, all had 9mm pistols in the glove box of thier pickups/ cars. So in a nutshell, What I saw was a highly uneducated bigoted and volatile culture armed to the teeth. A recipe in my opinion for disaster.

reply to post by detachedindividual

In the UK police officers are not armed in their daily duties, they have access to specialist armed teams when it is needed, and when there is a crime deserving of such a response.

That is entirely plausible for America in future years.

How comforting.

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: www.captainsjournal.com...

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. news.bbc.co.uk...

Violent crime rate more than doubled in the four years after the 2001 UK gun ban winteryknight.wordpress.com...

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Read more: www.city-data.com... www.city-data.com...

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. All the recent shootings in the US have taken place in gun free zones.

But I guess misery loves company, right DI?

Originally posted by NavyDoc
ANd you miss the point. The rifles and shotguns would get things rolling. If every gun owner, 100 million of them, took to the streets, even our technologically advanced army will roll under. "Quantity has a quality all it's own." Absent that, if a minority took to the streets and put up a fight, it is very likely that they would be joined by their brothers and sisters in the Army. You have to realize that our military is populated by pro-gun, pro-constitution types.

In order to have enough public support, the issue would have to be a significant one. It would have to be a real and genuine reason to attempt a revolution. The American public didn't get off their ass for the Patriot Act, did they? That single-handedly destroyed the sense of liberty and personal freedom of millions of Americans, and no one uttered a word about it.

If there was ever cause for the American public to be out on the street in massive numbers protesting, that was it. But nothing happened.

If an issue is so large as to cause massive public anger, the military would already likely be on your side. If the cause is enough to create so much public outrage, the military "public" would feel the same.

So, whenever a genuine public outrage caused the potential for revolution, your military would already be on side. Again, it wouldn't matter if you have guns or not.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by AzureSky

 

Those teachers managed to save dozens of students at a time without the use of guns. They acted heroically during a terrifying event.

Don't disgrace their memories by saying it wouldn't of happened had they been armed.

You assume everyone has abilities, everyone can kill someone, everyone can react in a situation.

Fact is, when in an terrifgying event, 2/3 of you will cry and pee your pants. The only thing that makes you feel heroic IS a gun.

Even with a gun, you couldn't be half the hero these educators were.


You people disgust me.

I'm sure that NO ONE intends to disgrace their memories. And, NO ONE disputes that they are Heroes...

But the fact remains that they are now, dead, Heroes! And they will never, ever, be able to save another life!
What some are stating, is that the outcome, could have been different. And, in that respect, their heroism, might not have been their final act.

edit on 12/21/2012 by GoOfYFoOt because: ...

So, where do we draw the line?

If a shooter has a bullet proof vest, and still manages to kill armed teachers, would you be back suggesting those teachers should be wearing bullet proof vests too?

How about armour piercing bullets? Should those teachers then be armed with the same?

It then becomes and arms race, and you end up with teachers looking like the military.

And as others have said, what then happens when the police arrive and see three people with high-powered weapons in a gun fight and kids cowering in a corner - the police response would be to kill all three.

This idea of arming teachers in response to a pointless situation like this is insanity, perpetrated by the likes of the NRA. It only takes a moment or two of common sense thinking to know that this suggestion is so stupid those who make it should be embarrassed, quite frankly.

Well, anyone with half a brain can bypass a vest - I'd opt for the knee caps personally aha.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

Yeah....Because cops are MUCH more law-abiding than the average citizen. And, much less likely to have their guns stolen.....

DUDE.....I know you are "detached" from something, but what reality and planet do you live in and on???

...seriously?!?

So you admit that this is how things are NOW. So how does removing or restricting the guns in public hands INCREASE the opportunity for Police to shoot people?!

This is a basic failure in logic.

If there is LESS of something, there cannot be MORE of it!

Do you guys broach the subject of mathematics at all in your educational system? Because it seems you don't.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by AzureSky

 

Those teachers managed to save dozens of students at a time without the use of guns. They acted heroically during a terrifying event.

Don't disgrace their memories by saying it wouldn't of happened had they been armed.

You assume everyone has abilities, everyone can kill someone, everyone can react in a situation.

Fact is, when in an terrifgying event, 2/3 of you will cry and pee your pants. The only thing that makes you feel heroic IS a gun.

Even with a gun, you couldn't be half the hero these educators were.


You people disgust me.

I'm sure that NO ONE intends to disgrace their memories. And, NO ONE disputes that they are Heroes...

But the fact remains that they are now, dead, Heroes! And they will never, ever, be able to save another life!
What some are stating, is that the outcome, could have been different. And, in that respect, their heroism, might not have been their final act.

edit on 12/21/2012 by GoOfYFoOt because: ...

So, where do we draw the line?

If a shooter has a bullet proof vest, and still manages to kill armed teachers, would you be back suggesting those teachers should be wearing bullet proof vests too?

How about armour piercing bullets? Should those teachers then be armed with the same?

It then becomes and arms race, and you end up with teachers looking like the military.

And as others have said, what then happens when the police arrive and see three people with high-powered weapons in a gun fight and kids cowering in a corner - the police response would be to kill all three.

This idea of arming teachers in response to a pointless situation like this is insanity, perpetrated by the likes of the NRA. It only takes a moment or two of common sense thinking to know that this suggestion is so stupid those who make it should be embarrassed, quite frankly.

Sorry to disappoint, but I like mud. So, sling away!

Bottom line is, every conversation about the shooting in CT is filled with nothing but, hypotheticals!

I'm not screaming that we need to train all of our teachers at Parris Island! But a few teachers in each school WITH training, could have done more than all of the recent rhetoric combined!

And, if law-abiding citizens were more involved with their OWN protection, instead of passing the buck back to their elected nanny-state, we wouldn't have the need, for our current military-styled police!

Think of ALL the money that could be spent in proactive ways, instead of funneled into the reactive agencies of law-enforcement...

reply to post by detachedindividual


All I'm saying is half of Europe and the Middle east have erupted into POLICE STATES.. Agreed?

The UK and US are next. I don't trust those guys with guns in their hands, if I don't posess any my self.

The Law enforcements in both countries are disgustingly corrupt. It will come to blows, and we will be choosing sides, as NAVY dude also mentioned, the real patriots will be joing our forces.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

In the UK police officers are not armed in their daily duties, they have access to specialist armed teams when it is needed, and when there is a crime deserving of such a response.

That is entirely plausible for America in future years.

How comforting.

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: www.captainsjournal.com...

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. news.bbc.co.uk...

Violent crime rate more than doubled in the four years after the 2001 UK gun ban winteryknight.wordpress.com...

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Read more: www.city-data.com... www.city-data.com...

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. All the recent shootings in the US have taken place in gun free zones.

But I guess misery loves company, right DI?

Ah, what very selective evidence you choose!

I have just downloaded the PDF of Australian crime statistics, and guess what!

• Over the past two decades, an average of 19 people per year have been killed by offenders using firearms.
• The number of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms decreased from 14 percent in 2008–09 to 13 percent of total homicides in 2009–10.
• The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation)

I would suggest that if you intend to quote statistics, you offer an accurate depiction instead of something found on a right wing blog (yes, I found your source too!)

So, if you're the type of person who likes to use data and statistics as evidence, as we all should, are you now willing to concede that your point was wrong?

If anyone wants to see the factual evidence for themselves, you can run a search on "australian gun crime statistics 2012" and you'll find the link to the PDF the second one down. I'm not going to link the PDF directly as some do not trust downloads obviously.

Originally posted by ObservingYou
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

All I'm saying is half of Europe and the Middle east have erupted into POLICE STATES.. Agreed?

The UK and US are next. I don't trust those guys with guns in their hands, if I don't posess any my self.

The Law enforcements in both countries are disgustingly corrupt. It will come to blows, and we will be choosing sides, as NAVY dude also mentioned, the real patriots will be joing our forces.

I agree that there are nations within Europe which are becoming more concerning, but this is nothing to do with gun ownership. Owning a gun would not change anything!

This is about economic collapse and uncertainty, protest and the potential for revolution. It makes no difference at all if the people there have guns or not. The police have more guns, the police are trained to use them, the military has more substantial weaponry to fight.

The people would still need the defection of a military or faction thereof to be able to stand a chance against a government. Your guns are not going to help you against the government, it's not gonna happen.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by NavyDoc
ANd you miss the point. The rifles and shotguns would get things rolling. If every gun owner, 100 million of them, took to the streets, even our technologically advanced army will roll under. "Quantity has a quality all it's own." Absent that, if a minority took to the streets and put up a fight, it is very likely that they would be joined by their brothers and sisters in the Army. You have to realize that our military is populated by pro-gun, pro-constitution types.

In order to have enough public support, the issue would have to be a significant one. It would have to be a real and genuine reason to attempt a revolution. The American public didn't get off their ass for the Patriot Act, did they? That single-handedly destroyed the sense of liberty and personal freedom of millions of Americans, and no one uttered a word about it.

If there was ever cause for the American public to be out on the street in massive numbers protesting, that was it. But nothing happened.

If an issue is so large as to cause massive public anger, the military would already likely be on your side. If the cause is enough to create so much public outrage, the military "public" would feel the same.

So, whenever a genuine public outrage caused the potential for revolution, your military would already be on side. Again, it wouldn't matter if you have guns or not.

Again, your thinking is too binary: little in life is black and white, all or none. Many people did not find the Patriot Act that intrusive and not enough felt strongly about it. It was not a nidus for a revolution because it really did not affect the average person at all, at least not in a perceptible manner. It was not that big to warrent revolution.

Look at the history of revolutions. They never start with the entire populace deciding on the same day to spontaneously revolt all at once. They usually are movements that start simple and small and grow and gain momentum, so yes, our rifles are an invaluable part of that process and that is why TPTB hate and fear them. Think about it, the same government who brought us the patriot act also wants us to disarm and you trust them on the disarmament aspect but not the patriot act aspect?

Originally posted by DaTroof
Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang are no match for the US military. There's no "stopping the government" with armed citizenry.

Really? Were you watching the Iraq war? Our military was almost brought to it's knees by a few thousand insurgents with AKs and IEDs. What would millions of armed citizens do?

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
Sorry to disappoint, but I like mud. So, sling away!

Bottom line is, every conversation about the shooting in CT is filled with nothing but, hypotheticals!

I'm not screaming that we need to train all of our teachers at Parris Island! But a few teachers in each school WITH training, could have done more than all of the recent rhetoric combined!

And, if law-abiding citizens were more involved with their OWN protection, instead of passing the buck back to their elected nanny-state, we wouldn't have the need, for our current military-styled police!

Think of ALL the money that could be spent in proactive ways, instead of funneled into the reactive agencies of law-enforcement...

It's not hypothetical to say that the police would have a hard time if they arrived on the scene and there was a shoot out between two people with kids cowering in the corner.

What would you do?

I would shoot both armed gunmen (gun people) in order to protect those kids, and any police officer worth their badge would do the same.

And what happens when that armed person takes a kid hostage, should all those armed teachers have hostage negotiation training too? Hell, with all the hypothetical scenarios on both sides, lets just say that every school needs an army, tanks, explosives, just to make sure they have all bases covered!

There are two scenarios here, either people are disarmed and controls are in place to prevent people from going into schools and shooting up the place, or we start escalating the situation and arming MORE people in those environments as a form of self defence.

If you REALLY think the latter is the more sensible option then I pity the state America is in right now, because that is just bizarre to me.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

In the UK police officers are not armed in their daily duties, they have access to specialist armed teams when it is needed, and when there is a crime deserving of such a response.

That is entirely plausible for America in future years.

How comforting.

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: www.captainsjournal.com...

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. news.bbc.co.uk...

Violent crime rate more than doubled in the four years after the 2001 UK gun ban winteryknight.wordpress.com...

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Read more: www.city-data.com... www.city-data.com...

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. All the recent shootings in the US have taken place in gun free zones.

But I guess misery loves company, right DI?

Ah, what very selective evidence you choose!

I have just downloaded the PDF of Australian crime statistics, and guess what!

• Over the past two decades, an average of 19 people per year have been killed by offenders using firearms.
• The number of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms decreased from 14 percent in 2008–09 to 13 percent of total homicides in 2009–10.
• The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation)

I would suggest that if you intend to quote statistics, you offer an accurate depiction instead of something found on a right wing blog (yes, I found your source too!)

So, if you're the type of person who likes to use data and statistics as evidence, as we all should, are you now willing to concede that your point was wrong?

If anyone wants to see the factual evidence for themselves, you can run a search on "australian gun crime statistics 2012" and you'll find the link to the PDF the second one down. I'm not going to link the PDF directly as some do not trust downloads obviously.

edit on 21-12-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)

The problem is, the very fact they talk about "gun crime" is disingenuous because it is an intentional attempt to divert the issue.

homicide rate being the lowest during the period of World War II (1939-1945). The rate then increased substantially to a plateau of about 1.5 per 100,000 population in the 1950s and 1960s. An upward trend occurred during the 1970s, reaching the level of around 2.0 per 100,000 population at the end of that decade. Since then, the rate has remained relatively stable, except for two temporary fluctuations in the 1980s. One of those temporary fluctuations resulted in the highest homicide rate recorded in Australia (rate of 2.4 per 100,000 population in 1988). This is more than double the rate observed in 1950.

If gun bans made you safer, shouldn't your murder rate been much higher in the 1940's to 1950's when there were no such bans?

reply to post by detachedindividual

I would suggest that if you intend to quote statistics, you offer an accurate depiction instead of something found on a right wing blog (yes, I found your source too!)

Source? How about sourceS. There are only thousands of sources making the same claims for anyone who cares to check it out. City Data is a right wing blog? BBC is a right wing blog. Maybe you've got a bad case of govenment bred paranoia.

Would government make up statistics to exhonerate themselves and justify their actions? Nah, never.