Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[BobD]

I disagree. In fact, I beleive that most gun owners are responsible.


(and no offense earlier....I've just heard everything "anti-gun" in the last few days and it's coming to a head)

I'm not talking about Joe and his hunting rifles. I'm talking about a whole bunch of folks who find false security in owning weapons they don't need and are actually more apt to get them killed.

 

[Downinthebend]

I have a problem with assault rifle bans. If they aren't needed for self defense then why do the cops have them? If the cops need them for self defense against people with ill intentions, I better have one too.

 

[irishpat183]

I have a problem with assault rifle bans. If they aren't needed for self defense then why do the cops have them? If the cops need them for self defense against people with ill intentions, I better have one too.

There you go.


If you're going to ban them...ban them all for everyone. Otherwise, you're just disarming citizens, never a good idea.


But they don't really want that. Because secretly, the anti-gun crowd, knows that bad guys will always get guns.

They just have more faith in government institutions than you or I. Because government has a great track record and all.


How many kids has our government killed in Drone strikes? Can we ban them?

 

[Downinthebend]

There you go.


If you're going to ban them...ban them all for everyone. Otherwise, you're just disarming citizens, never a good idea.


But they don't really want that. Because secretly, the anti-gun crowd, knows that bad guys will always get guns.

They just have more faith in government institutions than you or I. Because government has a great track record and all.


How many kids has our government killed in Drone strikes? Can we ban them?

If half of the people in our country cared the same about kids being slaughtered in the Middle East as kids slaughtered in America the drone strikes would end overnight.

 

[BobD]

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Interesting isn't it?

 

[woolybug25]

I have a problem with assault rifle bans. If they aren't needed for self defense then why do the cops have them? If the cops need them for self defense against people with ill intentions, I better have one too.

What are you talking about? The cops dont have assault rifles to defend themselves, they have them to kill dangerous people with. They don't pull out assault rifles when a drunk takes a swing at them, they pull them out shoot someone holding hostages or to take out someone at a distance. They are most definetely not intended for "personal protection", but rather for offensive attacks against people that have left them no better means. Their handgun is for protection, and even that, comes with consequences if fired.

 

[Downinthebend]

http:// http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Then don't carry one. Also if you don't want to get killed in a car accident don't drive. If you don't want to get lung cancer (by smoking) don't smoke too much. If you don't want to poison yourself to death don't drink too much.

 

[Downinthebend]

What are you talking about? The cops dont have assault rifles to defend themselves, they have them to kill dangerous people with. They don't pull out assault rifles when a drunk takes a swing at them, they pull them out shoot someone holding hostages or to take out someone at a distance. They are most definetely not intended for "personal protection", but rather for offensive attacks against people that have left them no better means. Their handgun is for protection, and even that, comes with consequences if fired.

Do the cops have assault rifles to defend themselves or others? Also what is the difference between "personal protection" and "offensive attacks on people that are being dangerous"? Is it only because cops actively try to help others? I would like to think that if I had a gun at that school I would have tried to do something regardless of whether I am a cop or not (i'm not).

 

[Downinthebend]

Do the cops have assault rifles to defend themselves or others? Also what is the difference between "personal protection" and "offensive attacks on people that are being dangerous"? Is it only because cops actively try to help others? I would like to think that if I had a gun at that school I would have tried to do something regardless of whether I am a cop or not (i'm not).

Do I think I should go carrying around an assault rifle? No. But if someone went into my house wanting to harm my family do you think I would want one? Yes.

 

[woolybug25]

Then don't carry one. Also if you don't want to get killed in a car accident don't drive. If you don't want to get lung cancer (by smoking) don't smoke too much. If you don't want to poison yourself to death don't drink too much.

So if I don't want to get killed by a drunk driver, then I shouldn't drive? If I don't want to poisoned by chemical companies dont drink the water? If I don't want get ripped off by a company, then don't purchase goods?


We are talking about how to manage guns in the same way that we manage alcohol, the environment and predatory lending. Your comparison is not anywhere close to being a good comparison. We are talking about protecting the public from those that want to take advantage or harm the general public. It's called Public Safety.

But again... we could just do nothing or add more guns. That should solve it...

 

[woolybug25]

Do the cops have assault rifles to defend themselves or others? Also what is the difference between "personal protection" and "offensive attacks on people that are being dangerous"? Is it only because cops actively try to help others? I would like to think that if I had a gun at that school I would have tried to do something regardless of whether I am a cop or not (i'm not).

You said that the cops carry them to protect themselves. They certainly do not. Assault weapons for police officers are an offensive component of their arsenal. They are not brought out to defend, but rather attack.

The same reason crazy people use them to shoot up schools and movie theaters.

 

[phgreek]

Almost anything scary or dangerous. Even when they actually find the guts to pull the trigger, most people when faced with great danger fire extremely inaccurate. I once had someone throw the gun at me.

...personally, I never shot anyone, never pulled a gun, so I cannot with certainty say how I'd react. But I do take it real seriously. I got my initial training from a retired Police officer...he made me write down the situations where I'd pull my gun...he then scratched out cowboy stuff, and after three iterations, and some red-faced lectures, I have my "triggers"...really hinges on rather you have a place to retreat to. I go over the triggers as I practice shooting. Sure, no comparison to the training police get, and who knows if someone is shooting at me...but I know my head is right, and my shooting is pretty good going in.

 

[Downinthebend]

So if I don't want to get killed by a drunk driver, then I shouldn't drive? If I don't want to poisoned by chemical companies dont drink the water? If I don't want get ripped off by a company, then don't purchase goods?


We are talking about how to manage guns in the same way that we manage alcohol, the environment and predatory lending. Your comparison is not anywhere close to being a good comparison. We are talking about protecting the public from those that want to take advantage or harm the general public. It's called Public Safety.

But again... we could just do nothing or add more guns. That should solve it...

People are going to drink and drive regardless of the laws. If you don't want to get killed by a drunk driver don't drive. The second and third things you mentioned are frauds.

Heres a newsflash: People who are intent on killing 20+ people don't care if they have 1 more charge for illegal possession of a firearm.

We are talking about protecting the public from those who want to harm them, and it is called public saftey. I'd just rather not be in your "safe" world where only those who want to kill me and the government have guns. I'd rather be able to protect myself from those wanting to kill me before the government can help.

If anything, expanding gun use would solve it better than "removing" guns.

You said that the cops carry them to protect themselves. They certainly do not. Assault weapons for police officers are an offensive component of their arsenal. They are not brought out to defend, but rather attack.

The same reason crazy people use them to shoot up schools and movie theaters.

So if robbers who were armed went into a bank and started shooting people the cops wouldn't defend the people with assault rifles? If that is called "offense" I don't know what "defense". If someone is in my house shooting my family I don't give a **** if its "offense" or "defense". The cops have assault rifles because of the ill intentions of bad people. Ill intentions of bad people is not only directed at cops.

They are brought out to defend in the same way that any cop's weapon is being used, unless you're trying to tell me that cops "attack" bad people when bad people are harming innocents. And if that is what you mean then what is the difference?

 

[BobD]

What were you doing to them that they felt extemely endangered!! LOL....

BobD the dangerous

Glad I could make you laugh. I was in the Army.

 

[phgreek]

I don't know if its offered for civilians but would recommend researching active shooter training if you can. (Assuming you haven't already.)

These mass shootings are exactly that: active shooter.

I've had a lot of military and police training and think the active shooter training is the best. Target shooting is great and all but nothing beats the strategy of the scenarios and getting shot at back.

As Bobd alluded to...I think...being shot at is different. The best I got is mental gymnastics and paper in terms of preparation. Seriously would love to get more training of the active shooter flavor. I am not aware of any for civies, but honestly, I hadn't looked because I just assumed it was police and military only. I guess I need to get off my duff....

 

[chicago51]

Couple Points

One of the problems is that gun owners tend to be too militaristic at time. The shooter at Newtown had enough amunition to put to 2 or 3 rounds in almost every kid he shot. Do we need clips that hold 30 rounds? For the military yes for home owners no, for hunter no.

It was mentioned cops have assault weapons. Yes and they have had extensive training. A couple of hours doesn't make you an expert on how to use a gun. Not the mention the extensive background checking that goes on the become a cop in the first place.

Now I have question. Okay so there are some that say that gun restrictions what stop what happened at Newtown. Okay what will I'm open to hearing to suggestions? Maybe we should just accept it as routine tragedy nothing we could do. Or maybe we need more guns. You know if we had armed our teachers and school administrators maybe this could have been prevented. Seriously if think restricting guns isn't the answer what is then? Don't just say "well we can't help it things like this are going to happen".

 

[Grahambo]

That's actually what I did in a shooting class I took last summer. It was in a simulator that had you in a 360 degree setting (a grocery store).

Very cool, and intense, stuff.

I've done those. They are alright.

I don't know if this is just through the academy I went through or if its offered elsewhere but we had a mock town setup and the instructors would setup a scenario, we would all be in a little protective gear, given sim rounds, and basically...go.

Cool stuff. Pretty intense. Nothing prepares you like the real thing but nonetheless it was pretty unique stuff; definitely eye popping and gets the adrenaline kicking.

When that adrenaline kicks up, the nerves shoot up...the world is a MUCH different place.

 

[Grahambo]

As Bobd alluded to...I think...being shot at is different. The best I got is mental gymnastics and paper in terms of preparation. Seriously would love to get more training of the active shooter flavor. I am not aware of any for civies, but honestly, I hadn't looked because I just assumed it was police and military only. I guess I need to get off my duff....

I'm definitely in favor of stricter gun control..however..I see no difference in someone getting trained the way I did (military..police academy). I was just like Joe Civilian until I was trained. I think if someone was willing to fork over the money to get trained professionally, I am okay with that.

Not talking police trained because there are other aspects that Joe Civilian wouldn't need but in regards to the active shooter scenarios, etc. If you can pass the same tests that I did and get re-qualified as much as I do, then I think you should be able to carry. Again, if someone took the effort and time to get trained in these type scenarios, it could help.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

During DEP the Gunny put us through 10 minutes of PT before being on the simulator to get out hearts pumping according to him it was the closest thing he could do to simulate the adrenaline from a fire fight.

 

[scUM Hater]

The USA has to put a bigger priority on helping people with psychiatric problems. Guns are guns, you can place bans on assault weapons, but people will still have shotguns and pistols to do damage if they are disturbed enough. It all starts with getting them help.

 

[Downinthebend]

Couple Points

One of the problems is that gun owners tend to be too militaristic at time. The shooter at Newtown had enough amunition to put to 2 or 3 rounds in almost every kid he shot. Do we need clips that hold 30 rounds? For the military yes for home owners no, for hunter no.

It was mentioned cops have assault weapons. Yes and they have had extensive training. A couple of hours doesn't make you an expert on how to use a gun. Not the mention the extensive background checking that goes on the become a cop in the first place.

Now I have question. Okay so there are some that say that gun restrictions what stop what happened at Newtown. Okay what will I'm open to hearing to suggestions? Maybe we should just accept it as routine tragedy nothing we could do. Or maybe we need more guns. You know if we had armed our teachers and school administrators maybe this could have been prevented. Seriously if think restricting guns isn't the answer what is then? Don't just say "well we can't help it things like this are going to happen".

Do you think for a second that the shooter cared about if he broke laws? If the answer "No" then why do you think limiting clip size would limit him?

You don't think that having the teachers have guns would have helped in any way? But yes lets go with your method of having the guns ONLY available to those who have bad intentions (and the government). I think the solution is to have 3-4 people per 100 in a building be trained and carry a gun.

Also I before anyone brings up video games, lets use a real world example: what our government does on a daily basis.

 

[cody1smith]

Couple Points

One of the problems is that gun owners tend to be too militaristic at time. The shooter at Newtown had enough amunition to put to 2 or 3 rounds in almost every kid he shot. Do we need clips that hold 30 rounds? For the military yes for home owners no, for hunter no.

It was mentioned cops have assault weapons. Yes and they have had extensive training. A couple of hours doesn't make you an expert on how to use a gun. Not the mention the extensive background checking that goes on the become a cop in the first place.

Now I have question. Okay so there are some that say that gun restrictions what stop what happened at Newtown. Okay what will I'm open to hearing to suggestions? Maybe we should just accept it as routine tragedy nothing we could do. Or maybe we need more guns. You know if we had armed our teachers and school administrators maybe this could have been prevented. Seriously if think restricting guns isn't the answer what is then? Don't just say "well we can't help it things like this are going to happen".

These people target places that have no way of stopping them. Put cops in schools and these crazy fu***** will go to parks or plays. How often do people shoot up gun shops or NRA meetings. If you think for one minute this guy would have went crazy and shot up his moms employment if she was working at Bass pro Shops you are wrong.

 

[phgreek]

I'm definitely in favor of stricter gun control..however..I see no difference in someone getting trained the way I did (military..police academy). I was just like Joe Civilian until I was trained. I think if someone was willing to fork over the money to get trained professionally, I am okay with that.

Not talking police trained because there are other aspects that Joe Civilian wouldn't need but in regards to the active shooter scenarios, etc. If you can pass the same tests that I did and get re-qualified as much as I do, then I think you should be able to carry. Again, if someone took the effort and time to get trained in these type scenarios, it could help.

I don't know as we agree on "control" per se...but as a personal choice I'd do the training. Will ask the guys at my range...

 

[Downinthebend]

I don't know as we agree on "control" per se...but as a personal choice I'd do the training. Will ask the guys at my range...

It is my opinion that people shouldn't need training to have guns in the house but it is more than realistic to require training to carry guns (although I'd prefer this not to be a federal/state license or whatnaught). I'd also be opposed to people carrying assault rifles around as the mental damage that does is.. not worth it.

 

[irishpat183]

These people target places that have no way of stopping them. Put cops in schools and these crazy fu***** will go to parks or plays. How often do people shoot up gun shops or NRA meetings. If you think for one minute this guy would have went crazy and shot up his moms employment if she was working at Bass pro Shops you are wrong.

Exactly. There is a reason shooters target schools, post offices, malls....etc

Lack of resistance.

There are MILLIONS of illegal guns out there, you think criminals are just gonna hand them over because we pass new laws? So basically what people are saying is to force the law on those that own legal guns....you know, the ones that (for the most part) follow the rules already.

Again, someone address the lives that guns have saved in public shooting situations. Why do you gun control advocates continue to ignore these?!!! And there are many more of good stories than bad, it's just the media knows we love a good tragedy. You have got to see that.

 

[Downinthebend]

Exactly. There is a reason shooters target schools, post offices, malls....etc

Lack of resistance.

There are MILLIONS of illegal guns out there, you think criminals are just gonna hand them over because we pass new laws? So basically what people are saying is to force the law on those that own legal guns....you know, the ones that (for the most part) follow the rules already.

Again, someone address the lives that guns have saved in public shooting situations. Why do you gun control advocates continue to ignore these?!!! And there are many more of good stories than bad, it's just the media knows we love a good American tragedy. You have got to see that.

fixed. The media doesn't care about tragedies committed against brown people overseas.

 

[woolybug25]

People are going to drink and drive regardless of the laws. If you don't want to get killed by a drunk driver don't drive. The second and third things you mentioned are frauds.

Heres a newsflash: People who are intent on killing 20+ people don't care if they have 1 more charge for illegal possession of a firearm.

So under your philosophy, we shouldn't try to legislate things drinking and driving and fraud. After all, people will do it either way, so we should just make it legal then?

We are talking about protecting the public from those who want to harm them, and it is called public saftey. I'd just rather not be in your "safe" world where only those who want to kill me and the government have guns. I'd rather be able to protect myself from those wanting to kill me before the government can help.

If anything, expanding gun use would solve it better than "removing" guns.

I don't know how many ways I can say this to you. Assault rifles are not reactionary weapons. They are not designed for self-defense, they are designed for proactive, offensive killing of people. They are designed for a different use than handguns and rifles.

So if robbers who were armed went into a bank and started shooting people the cops wouldn't defend the people with assault rifles? If that is called "offense" I don't know what "defense". If someone is in my house shooting my family I don't give a **** if its "offense" or "defense". The cops have assault rifles because of the ill intentions of bad people. Ill intentions of bad people is not only directed at cops.

They are brought out to defend in the same way that any cop's weapon is being used, unless you're trying to tell me that cops "attack" bad people when bad people are harming innocents. And if that is what you mean then what is the difference?

Cops do "attack" bad people and there is a difference. When would the average Joe ever need an automatic weapon, high velocity bullets or 300 round clips to protect their family? Never, thats when.

 

[Downinthebend]

So under your philosophy, we shouldn't try to legislate things drinking and driving and fraud. After all, people will do it either way, so we should just make it legal then?



I don't know how many ways I can say this to you. Assault rifles are not reactionary weapons. They are not designed for self-defense, they are designed for proactive, offensive killing of people. They are designed for a different use than handguns and rifles.



Cops do "attack" bad people and there is a difference. When would the average Joe ever need an automatic weapon, high velocity bullets or 300 round clips to protect their family? Never, thats when.

No, you legislate fraud. You also make shooting people illegal. That doesn't mean that people won't do it. And it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be protected when they do. I don't know how many ways I can say this to you. Assault rifles are used in the same form as other guns used by cops: They are intended to shoot people with bad intentions.

You're right the average joe would never be attacked in his own house by people with or without guns and need to defend himself. That clearly would never happen. Because they are all following the laws saying don't shoot people and don't carry guns. And if he is attacked by people with or without guns who the **** are you to say he shouldn't have something that might make him a little more secure?

 

[woolybug25]

No, you legislate fraud. You also make shooting people illegal. That doesn't mean that people won't do it.

We don't just make fraud and drinking and driving illegal and leave it at that. We make proactive legislation to defend the general public from people that want to use these methods against them. We pass fraud legislation, we put BAC limits into place. You have no problem with that, but when it comes to guns, you think it should be treated differently. You are saying that it is ok to limit legal things like drinking in order to protect the public, but you feel that anyone should be able to have whatever types of guns with no regulation of who, when or how those rights are used.

And it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be protected when they do. I don't know how many ways I can say this to you. Assault rifles are used in the same form as other guns used by cops: They are intended to shoot people with bad intentions.

Go slap a cop and tell me what kind of gun he pulls on you. Start screaming at the next cop that pulls you over and tell me what gun he pulls on you. It wont be an assault rifle. Because defensive self protection isn't why they use them. They use them the same way a young man in the Army would use one, with the intent to kill with with an effectiveness and intent completely different than "personal protection".

Listen, I am a gun owner, so i'm not coming at you as some dude that has never fired a gun. If you really cannot see the difference between a killing machine assault rifle and a personal protection handgun, then we are simply on different wavelengths.

You're right the average joe would never be attacked in his own house by people with or without guns and need to defend himself. That clearly would never happen. Because they are all following the laws saying don't shoot people and don't carry guns. And if he is attacked by people with or without guns who the **** are you to say he shouldn't have something that might make him a little more secure?

Don't twist my words, I never once said that people don't ever have to defend themselves against intruders or that they don't have the right to protect themselves. What I am saying is that the use of a gun manufactured for the shear reasoning of war and killing on a mass scale is not necessary for this purpose.

Who am I to say that someone shouldn't be able to use completely unnecessary and dangerous means to provide "better" security? I guess nobody, but why don't you ask someone that had their kid mowed down this week who they think they are? Go ask someone that lost their child in the movie theatre in Aurora, CO how they feel about free and unobstructed availability of assault rifles.

Who the **** do those people think they are anyways, right?

 

[Downinthebend]

We don't just make fraud and drinking and driving illegal and leave it at that. We make proactive legislation to defend the general public from people that want to use these methods against them. We pass fraud legislation, we put BAC limits into place. You have no problem with that, but when it comes to guns, you think it should be treated differently. You are saying that it is ok to limit legal things like drinking in order to protect the public, but you feel that anyone should be able to have whatever types of guns with no regulation of who, when or how those rights are used.



Go slap a cop and tell me what kind of gun he pulls on you. Start screaming at the next cop that pulls you over and tell me what gun he pulls on you. It wont be an assault rifle. Because defensive self protection isn't why they use them. They use them the same way a young man in the Army would use one, with the intent to kill with with an effectiveness and intent completely different than "personal protection".

Listen, I am a gun owner, so i'm not coming at you as some dude that has never fired a gun. If you really cannot see the difference between a killing machine assault rifle and a personal protection handgun, then we are simply on different wavelengths.



Don't twist my words, I never once said that people don't ever have to defend themselves against intruders or that they don't have the right to protect themselves. What I am saying is that the use of a gun manufactured for the shear reasoning of war and killing on a mass scale is not necessary for this purpose.

Who am I to say that someone shouldn't be able to use completely unnecessary and dangerous means to provide "better" security? I guess nobody, but why don't you ask someone that had their kid mowed down this week who they think they are? Go ask someone that lost their child in the movie theatre in Aurora, CO how they feel about free and unobstructed availability of assault rifles.

Who the **** do those people think they are anyways, right?

I'll talk about the other stuff some other time, but wasn't the gun used a semi-automatic?