When we ban guns in the US

[Churchill]

Those of us who carry, obviously.

[kuronosan]

Those of us who carry, obviously.

And what if those that are untrained try to be a hero and hurt more civilians? Is it justified? What if you get more Trayvon incidents where someone *thinks* they are helping a situation and they shoot an innocent bystander? What happens to them?

[Dimmauk]

Remember that one time when that dude went on a rampage with guns, and was stopped by joe blow American with a concealed pistol?Shit was so cash y'all.

[Blubbartron]

I don't think a ban is anywhere near necessary. Tighter regulations would help.

My problem is people who really argue that guns are not the problem (BUT PEO{PLE ARE L OZLL). When was the last time you read a news story where somebody ran into a mall and started stabbing people in the face and nobody tried to stop them?

Who is realistically going to run to a shooter and try to stop them? Seriously? Besides the Jason Bourne and MacGyver wannabies here?

edit: To neph:



Now ask yourself. What would that attack's death toll have been were he armed with pistols and a rifle? Those security guards that overpowered him likely wouldn't have unless they were packing too.

To say that crime is just as likely because of a weapon is ignorant. The likelihood of a crime depends on the person. The severity, however, COMPLETELY depends on the tool involved.

Absolutely correct, which begs the question - why don't you think banning semi-automatic weapons isn't necessary? Semi-auto weapons serve no purpose other than to be capable of inflicting more destruction. As mentioned by Bane, a pump-action shotgun is probably going to be better for home defense. Bolt action rifles are sufficient (arguably superior in terms of accuracy) for hunting and skill shooting. There is absolutely no reason to *need* semi-auto weapons except to inflict more damage.

Honestly, I have no problems with banning guns and making ownership illegal. We don't let people protect their property with mines/bombs, and we shouldn't let them with guns either. The average human being is too goddamn stupid to be trusted with anything that so thoroughly enables them to destroy life.

[Boyiee]

Absolutely correct, which begs the question - why don't you think banning semi-automatic weapons isn't necessary? Semi-auto weapons serve no purpose other than to be capable of inflicting more destruction. As mentioned by Bane, a pump-action shotgun is probably going to be better for home defense. Bolt action rifles are sufficient (arguably superior in terms of accuracy) for hunting and skill shooting. There is absolutely no reason to *need* semi-auto weapons except to inflict more damage.

Honestly, I have no problems with banning guns and making ownership illegal. We don't let people protect their property with mines/bombs, and we shouldn't let them with guns either. The average human being is too goddamn stupid to be trusted with anything that so thoroughly enables them to destroy life.

Step 1: Google this: semi automatic gun
Step 2: Sort by images.
Step 3: Look at what comes up first and most often under semi automatic gun.

Are we to ban all handguns then with the exception of revolvers? I can just carry 5 or 6 of them and still kill 20-30 people.

[Boyiee]

Ya know what, I'm sorry for being a dick, but I just posted this basically and I'm tired of it.

Definitions

Semi-Automatic -

trigger must be pulled for each shot fired, after the firearm is loaded and a
round chambered the trigger is pulled to fire the individual round, the recoil
or gasses from the fired round cause the firearms action to cycle, ejecting the
spent round, re-cocking the hammer or striker, and chambering a new round. The
trigger must again be pulled to fire the firearm and start the cycle over
again.

A Semi-Automatic is not
the same as Full-Automatic (Full-Auto, Machine Gun) in a Full-Automatic once
the firearm is loaded or a round is chambered the trigger is pulled and held
and the firearm continues to fire until the trigger is released or until there
are no more rounds in the magazine.

http://www.earthineer.com/upload/gun...-automatic.jpg

You're basically saying, ban handguns, which are peoples PRIMARY form of self defense and home protection.

I don't know if you have the mindset that if it says semi-auto, it's an M16, but it seems that far too many do.

[RKenshin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-knifeman.html

Where did I say it can't happen? I said its far more rare, and far more difficult for an average person to cause the same amount of damage with a knife/sword/whatever than with a gun.

Or do you believe otherwise?

[Blubbartron]

Step 1, Google this: semi automatic gun
Step 2: Sort by images.
Step 3: Look at what comes up first and most often under semi automatic gun.

Are we to ban all handguns then with the exception of revolvers? I can just carry 5 or 6 of them and still kill 20-30 people.

I'm not an imbecile. When I said ban semi-automatic weapons, I knew exactly what I was saying. There's no reason for people to be strolling around with hand guns. Shit, I don't even trust cops to have hand guns. At the end of the day, they're just people, and people have a tendency to be really fucking dumb.

[Blubbartron]

Ya know what, I'm sorry for being a dick, but I just posted this basically and I'm tired of it.



http://www.earthineer.com/upload/gun...-automatic.jpg

You're basically saying, ban handguns, which are peoples PRIMARY form of self defense and home protection.

I don't know if you have the mindset that if it says semi-auto, it's an M16, but it seems that far too many do.

And as mentioned in that post that threw you on the "this guy must be a retard" tangent, I mentioned that shotguns are superior home defense. Better stopping power, and less need for accuracy in a tense situation with people that probably don't go to a range as often as they should if they think they'll *ever* have to fire the weapon in an emergency.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Also I was not pointing anyone out with the semi-auto thing, its been rampant in the media and its been rehashed a few times in the other thread. Bane specifically talked about rifles in his post.

And I'm a gun owner btw with many gun owning friends. If I were to go on a rampage it would be with handguns. Connecticut guy did it right unfortunately, although I'm sure it was more execution style with them all huddled up or frantic or whatnot. Running through a mall with an assault rifle is stupid, could walk into the food court with concealed handguns and take out 50 easy. I'm for stricter limitations, not banning, less ease of access, longer wait periods, etc.

I mentioned rifles specifically because, like i said, there's just no need for them in most households. Generally, rifles are higher powered, have a larger magazine, and are more accurate in the hands of an amateur. The only reason to have a semi auto rifle is to put out more high-powered bullets faster, and the only times you ever need that is against dangerous wild animals, or people.

Any tool can be used to deadly effect, especially with training or practice. The trick is finding a good balance of which tools are too effective for widespread availability and which do their job well enough to be effective, but not so well that they can easily be misused (Think nukes vs regular missiles, on a smaller scale). I think semi-auto rifles are on the wrong side of that scale, but semi-auto pistols are right in the middle. They could go either way. I'd be inclined to let them remain legal, under the assumption that doing so would make it easier to pass the legislation that made semi-auto rifles much more heavily restricted. But if it could get through with all semi-autos so restricted, I'd be fine with that too.

And I know you weren't saying that to me specifically, but I think explaining my views might be helpful.

Edit: Oh wow, whole bunch of posts while I was writing that.

[Churchill]

Remember that one time when that dude went on a rampage with guns, and was stopped by joe blow American with a concealed pistol?Shit was so cash y'all.

Actually has happened quite a few times. I was there when it happened at the PX a few years back. Though we didn't have weapons, it was just mcguiver shit where we made balls out of rubber bands and chewing gum.

[Deadgye]

I'm not an imbecile. When I said ban semi-automatic weapons, I knew exactly what I was saying. There's no reason for people to be strolling around with hand guns. Shit, I don't even trust cops to have hand guns. At the end of the day, they're just people, and people have a tendency to be really fucking dumb.

Yeah no. You're an imbecile. If I want to have a handgun in my house for self defense then I'll have a handgun in my house. Fucking shotguns and bolt action rifles? Get the fuck out of here.

[Karasu]

Remember that one time when that dude went on a rampage with guns, and was stopped by joe blow American with a concealed pistol?Shit was so cash y'all.

It almost happened just recently.
Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter

[Zeb]

[Ashmada]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-knifeman.html

Nice anecdotal evidence. Completely dismantles the strawman's claims that only firearms can be used in rampages. Poor strawman, he's never right!

I don't have statistics on hand, so you'll have to trust me on this: those rampages aren't anywhere as common on this side of the atlantic as on yours. Yes, we do have some (Brevik & Amrani are the only 2 that come to mind), but they're much much much rarer. Guess why?
Sure, there are socio-cultural factors involved, but gun restriction laws do play a monumentous part in it.

[Dotsudoku]

I lose a little part of my mind every time someone compares taking away firearms to taking away alcohol or drugs.

Don't get me wrong, I know how common it is to hear about someone growing large quantities of handguns in their basement, but

[Nephlite]

Where did I say it can't happen? I said its far more rare, and far more difficult for an average person to cause the same amount of damage with a knife/sword/whatever than with a gun.

Or do you believe otherwise?

Guns deliver damage and death more efficiently than an edged weapon (I agree). But, edged weapon attacks are still far more prevalent than gun attacks. It's a matter of availability. Everyone says guns are more accessible than ever before because there are more guns, which is true. Not nearly as much as an edged weapon. That's why when we're trained as police officers to respond to a deadly threat force, you treat someone with a knife just like you would a gun because in the end, you can end up just as dead. They teach us the Fairbairn's Timetable of Death in knife defense, which is a far more hands on and requires MUCH more repetition than gun offense. The difference between something like 6 weeks of hands on knife/hands defense compared to two weeks of gun DEFENSE and four weeks of gun OFFENSE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Fairbairn

Chart developed from his teachings:



The average sport knife sold in the U.S. (I say Sport Knife but I mean any crappy Gerber you can pick up at Wal-Mart) has an average blade length of 3 inches. Only one of the spots identified on the chart is more than 3 inches (The heart is 3 1/2 inches but i'm saying thrusting power if you're aiming for the spot, you'll at least nick it) and it's the stomach. The target areas might not seem that big but look at the areas that get cut the most during a knife encounter (arms). Easy to bleed out and die from a small shallow wound on those areas.

Knife attacks are generally much more dangerous because 99% of the time, they are spontaneous. They happen well within your average reaction zone (4-6 feet generally). It's a quick flick of the wrist or thumb on spring-loaded models of stabbing instruments and if the person knows what they're doing, they're on you and the knife is in you before you can blink. Reaction is always slower than action. Of course, training can help and being wary is always a good thing but just because you didn't die from a knife attack, does it make it any less dangerous/gruesome/damaging to your mind? Some of those kids in China will be scarred and maimed for life. Some of them will probably never recover from the injuries inflicted upon them. I would rather die than to suffer an excruciating life of agony and pain from a near-mortal wound inflicted upon me that debilitates or permanently scars me and then the emotional trauma?

And yes I agree, it's far more likely someone will defend themselves against a knife than a gun. People associate gun with danger because that's how it's portrayed and (rightfully so) it's something you should run away from. But not a knife because people haven't been taught that knives or edged weapons are just as dangerous as a gun. Whatever might have instilled this line of thinking weather it be gun violence is more hyped, or maybe knives are just an everyday part of our daily lives that we don't think that the kitchen knife we pick up to cut our sandwiches could someday be used to kill us, I don't know.

All I know is regardless of how you feel about guns, don't discredit the maniacal and brutal aspect of the human psyche. While a gun attack is a very efficient, methodical, and brutal way of killing people, it takes a far greater amount of "bat shit insane" to go up to a person (especially a child) and stab that person with a knife. It takes a level of crazy far beyond the most talented and brutal gun touting psycho to get up close and personal with another human being (ESPECIALLY a child) and maim, stab, cut off something, make less beautiful, or kill someone with a knife. Ask anyone who's been in a firefight and ask them how fucked up they were after killing someone with a gun. It'll be far less than when you had to ram a knife in to someones temple or dig a blade up their ribcage to sever all the internal organs in the upper torso.

[Xno Kappa]

Spent the day at the range popping off .454 rounds with my brand new Raging Judge Magnum. Come at me bro.

[Nephlite]

Nice anecdotal evidence. Completely dismantles the strawman's claims that only firearms can be used in rampages. Poor strawman, he's never right!

I don't have statistics on hand, so you'll have to trust me on this: those rampages aren't anywhere as common on this side of the atlantic as on yours. Yes, we do have some (Brevik & Amrani are the only 2 that come to mind), but they're much much much rarer. Guess why?
Sure, there are socio-cultural factors involved, but gun restriction laws do play a monumentous part in it.

I won't get in to a debate with you because I know it won't amount to anything but stop trying to downplay the violence that's been well documented, especially in the article it says this:

It recent spate of school attacks in the country have raised concerns about copycats.
Little coverage was given to yesterday's stabbing spree on state-run news channels.
There were six similar attacks in just seven months in 2010 that killed nearly 20 people and wounded more than 50.

[Correction]

A derr durr durp

There anything approaching a point in this mess? You can still kill more people with a gun than a knife, and mass fatalities have happened far more often with firearms than knives.

Yes knives are deadly, but who said they weren't?

I would rather die than to suffer an excruciating life of agony and pain from a near-mortal wound inflicted upon me that debilitates or permanently scars me and then the emotional trauma?

So what?