Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[brandonnash]

Do you mean North Korea or is there something I missed about South Korea (Note, I'm not too informed about asian news)

Yes...north Korea. Forgive me. I had a 12 hour day at work that started with only about 2 1/2 hours sleep and got going at 1 this morning. Been up for a bit and may be a bit delirious.

 

[phgreek]

Really who fired more shots/killed more people in the columbine shooting?
A) the guy with the tec-9 and 1 52 round drum and 1 32 round mag and 1 28 round mag
B) the guy with a 9mm carbile and 13 ten round mags

It would seem that had nothing to do with ability to fire rapidly, and near incessantly, but rather the paths they took, who they came across, and the willingness to shoot.

It is absolutely for certain that the guy that had to change clips often was more vulnerable to intervention or mechanical failure...more opportunities...you simply can't question that...If he shot every clip he had...he had to stop 12 times to change it...providing 12 opportunities for failure or intervention.

 

[phgreek]

Personally, when I get back to the states, I'm going to start choking out or calling the cops on anyone I see carrying who acts even a little bit suspiciously. Once someone has started shooting, it's too late so people carrying weapons forces me to either be proactive or pretend that a loaded weapon is not a threat.

In fact, that would be a good grassroots movement: call the police on anyone you know is carrying a concealed weapon. If you feel threatened, you're completely within your rights to do this.

...and eventually, when you really need a cop...or while you are selfishly forwarding your agenda, you are ironically endangering others by inundating cops with BS...great idea dude...great idea

 

[Irish#1]

Pray tell me why the criminals would follow those laws?

They won't and that's why something needs to be done to make it harder for them to get them.

 

[ND NYC]

one thing i must admit before this horrible tragedy i had no idea that there are estinated to be close to 300,000,000 guns in this country.

does anyone else find that remarkable? one for damn near every man woman and child.

and we wonder why our society/culture is so obsessed with violence. even you gun guys have to admit that the number of guns is staggering. (i hope)

 

[cody1smith]

It would seem that had nothing to do with ability to fire rapidly, and near incessantly, but rather the paths they took, who they came across, and the willingness to shoot.

It is absolutely for certain that the guy that had to change clips often was more vulnerable to intervention or mechanical failure...more opportunities...you simply can't question that...If he shot every clip he had...he had to stop 12 times to change it...providing 12 opportunities for failure or intervention.

If someone wants to kill a bunch of people they will figure out a way. The Oklahoma city bombing 911 1927 school deal all killed many more than this shooting all were killed by something other than a gun. No one that would REALLY be capable of pulling something like this off would just stop at "****, the gun store wont sell me a gun" or "My 14 round magazine is not enough guess i will just keep playing video games"

Small gun control laws such as limits on magazines or waiting periods are just the start. 40 years ago if you would have told my grandpa that someday the government will forbid you from allowing people to smoke in the restaurant he built and paid for with zero assistance from them he would have laughed in your face.

 

[Irish#1]

+1,000

It's already starting. In 1994 Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced the assault weapons ban that became law. That ban included 18 specific models of semiautomatic weapons. She has already stated that she plans to introduce an "updated" assault weapons ban. This ban will have 100
specifically named firearms including "weapons that can accept detachable magazines as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds."

So it's not just "assault rifles" that they are after.

This is the same tired excuse the NRA has been using for years. If we give an inch we'll end up giving up a mile. Yet the assault rifle ban was let to die after the intial ban period so that excuse doesn't hold water anymore.

 

[Downinthebend]

This is the same tired excuse the NRA has been using for years. If we give an inch we'll end up giving up a mile. Yet the assault rifle ban was let to die after the intial ban period so that excuse doesn't hold water anymore.

the "we'll give a mile if we give an inch" is more in reference to government power in general, and doesn't seem to be incorrect to me.

 

[cody1smith]

one thing i must admit before this horrible tragedy i had no idea that there are estinated to be close to 300,000,000 guns in this country.

does anyone else find that remarkable? one for damn near every man woman and child.

and we wonder why our society/culture is so obsessed with violence. even you gun guys have to admit that the number of guns is staggering. (i hope)

How many pair of shoes are in the u.s. I mean who really needs more than 3 or 4 pairs depending on your hobby? waste full i tell ya when 30 million people are out of work and kids are starving? Something needs to be done. if it keeps 1 child from starving i say you should only get 3 pair of shoes.
Maybe not for long but this is a free country if i want 100 guns i should have them!!!!!!!!!!

 

[IrishinSyria]

...and eventually, when you really need a cop...or while you are selfishly forwarding your agenda, you are ironically endangering others by inundating cops with BS...great idea dude...great idea

If I'm in a room with somebody who has a loaded weapon, I am literally seconds away from losing my life. It takes an enormous amount of trust to just ignore that fact and pretend like everything is perfectly normal. Maybe it's a side effect of being at war, but I don't feel that trusting of most strangers, especially not of strangers who carry guns. So immediately, if I see somebody who is not in a uniform yet carries, I'm going to be extra cautious of them. Some stranger has a tool that is designed to kill. If I perceive them acting in any way that could indicate they might use that tool, I have to do something to mitigate that threat OR hope that I'm wrong.

I'm not saying that every, most, or even a significant fraction of gun owners are killers. All I'm saying is that the way I look at it, the presence of guns dramatically decrease the time one has to respond to a potential life-threatening situation and thus make some form of pre-emptive action a logical response.

 

[Irish#1]

ND NYC mine are A B
But C was the reason we have that right.
While I believe C would never happen and at most be ineffective. There are 300 million plus in our country figure if even a 3rd of that ever said no more and rose up quantity has a quality all its own.

So true, but this was when this country was fighting for its freedom and our military barely resembled an army. Our situation back then basically required our citizens to arm themselves and at that time, probably at least half of the families had to hunt for their food.

Today we have the best military force in the world to protect us and I am not afraid of a military overthrow of the government like the doomsday prepsters.

As far as for personal protection I wonder how many who own guns have had to actually use them to protect their family and/or home?

 

[Downinthebend]

So true, but this was when this country was fighting for its freedom and our military barely resembled an army. Our situation back then basically required our citizens to arm themselves and at that time, probably at least half of the families had to hunt for their food.

Today we have the best military force in the world to protect us and I am not afraid of a military overthrow of the government like the doomsday prepsters.

As far as for personal protection I wonder how many who own guns have had to actually use them to protect their family and/or home?

I feel like we are going in a circle. The 2nd amendment wasn't only attended against foreign governments, it was intended against any oppressive government be it domestic or foreign (and then throw in some other purposes, like hunting, militias, etc).

 

[cody1smith]

If I'm in a room with somebody who has a loaded weapon, I am literally seconds away from losing my life. It takes an enormous amount of trust to just ignore that fact and pretend like everything is perfectly normal. Maybe it's a side effect of being at war, but I don't feel that trusting of most strangers, especially not of strangers who carry guns. So immediately, if I see somebody who is not in a uniform yet carries, I'm going to be extra cautious of them. Some stranger has a tool that is designed to kill. If I perceive them acting in any way that could indicate they might use that tool, I have to do something to mitigate that threat OR hope that I'm wrong.

I'm not saying that every, most, or even a significant fraction of gun owners are killers. All I'm saying is that the way I look at it, the presence of guns dramatically decrease the time one has to respond to a potential life-threatening situation and thus make some form of pre-emptive action a logical response.

Excellent post that is the reason that people sholud carry. If a guy is standing in an elevator waiting for it to fill up and kill everyone on it and all the sudden on the 8th floor 3 guys with weapons strapped to there hip steps on he might re think his position.

the reason countries don't come here and take us on very often is because we have a bunch of bad *** **** and were are not scared to use it. Why do you think we have not kicked the **** out of iran yet? If the had no weapons to amount to **** do you think we would still just be sending Emails? They have nuclear capabilities and we are scared of that and because of it we are for the most part leaving them alone.

 

[Irish#1]

If I'm in a room with somebody who has a loaded weapon, I am literally seconds away from losing my life. It takes an enormous amount of trust to just ignore that fact and pretend like everything is perfectly normal. Maybe it's a side effect of being at war, but I don't feel that trusting of most strangers, especially not of strangers who carry guns. So immediately, if I see somebody who is not in a uniform yet carries, I'm going to be extra cautious of them. Some stranger has a tool that is designed to kill. If I perceive them acting in any way that could indicate they might use that tool, I have to do something to mitigate that threat OR hope that I'm wrong.

I'm not saying that every, most, or even a significant fraction of gun owners are killers. All I'm saying is that the way I look at it, the presence of guns dramatically decrease the time one has to respond to a potential life-threatening situation and thus make some form of pre-emptive action a logical response.

I know what you're saying. I was eating lunch at a little mom and pop restaurant about a year ago. The place has about 30 people sitting eating. The owner is waiting on tables and is carrying a gun on his hip. I asked him if he was afraid of getting robbed? He replied, "Not while I'm carrying this". So I asked, You ready to shoot if they try to rob you? He replied, "Absolutely". I then replied, "Even with everyone in here? He replied, "Yep". I don't know what the odds are of him getting robbed, but rest assured I won't be there if it happens.

 

[Downinthebend]

Excellent post that is the reason that people sholud carry. If a guy is standing in an elevator waiting for it to fill up and kill everyone on it and all the sudden on the 8th floor 3 guys with weapons strapped to there hip steps on he might re think his position.

the reason countries don't come here and take us on very often is because we have a bunch of bad *** **** and were are not scared to use it. Why do you think we have not kicked the **** out of iran yet? If the had no weapons to amount to **** do you think we would still just be sending Emails? They have nuclear capabilities and we are scared of that and because of it we are for the most part leaving them alone.

Instead of sending emails to Iran, I don't know we could **** them off by overthrowing their governments.

Oh wait, 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[cody1smith]

So true, but this was when this country was fighting for its freedom and our military barely resembled an army. Our situation back then basically required our citizens to arm themselves and at that time, probably at least half of the families had to hunt for their food.

Today we have the best military force in the world to protect us and I am not afraid of a military overthrow of the government like the doomsday prepsters.

As far as for personal protection I wonder how many who own guns have had to actually use them to protect their family and/or home?

How many smoke alarms do you have in your house?
I personally have ten never used a one of them now that i think about i think i will take them all down

 

[woolybug25]

So true, but this was when this country was fighting for its freedom and our military barely resembled an army. Our situation back then basically required our citizens to arm themselves and at that time, probably at least half of the families had to hunt for their food.

Today we have the best military force in the world to protect us and I am not afraid of a military overthrow of the government like the doomsday prepsters.

As far as for personal protection I wonder how many who own guns have had to actually use them to protect their family and/or home?

To add to this, what are assault rifles going to do to help in a government overthrow or attack from another country? That was the intent of being able to arm and form militia. It was a different time. If people tried to overthrow our govt or protect themselves from a country strong enough to invade us, then guess what??? You are bringing a knife to a gun fight. Grow up Peter Pan... Count Chocula... this isn't "The Wolverines" and your assault rifles aren't going to help you take back the U of SA.

Good points, Irish1

 

[cody1smith]

To add to this, what are assault rifles going to do to help in a government overthrow or attack from another country? That was the intent of being able to arm and form militia. It was a different time. If people tried to overthrow our govt or protect themselves from a country strong enough to invade us, then guess what??? You are bringing a knife to a gun fight. Grow up Peter Pan... Count Chocula... this isn't "The Wolverines" and your assault rifles aren't going to help you take back the U of SA.

Good points, Irish1

You guys must be the kind to "walk away" after you get punched in the face.

 

[woolybug25]

You guys must be the kind to "walk away" after you get punched in the face.

No, we are the guys that don't say stupid $hit to get themselves punched in the face in the first place.

 

[Downinthebend]

To add to this, what are assault rifles going to do to help in a government overthrow or attack from another country? That was the intent of being able to arm and form militia. It was a different time. If people tried to overthrow our govt or protect themselves from a country strong enough to invade us, then guess what??? You are bringing a knife to a gun fight. Grow up Peter Pan... Count Chocula... this isn't "The Wolverines" and your assault rifles aren't going to help you take back the U of SA.

Good points, Irish1

You're right, a populace primary armed with guns would never be able to fight off the USA.

Wait a minute...

 

[woolybug25]

You're right, a populace primary armed with guns would never be able to fight off the USA.

Wait a minute...

That happened in the US?

Crazy, dude.

 

[cody1smith]

No, we are the guys that don't say stupid $hit to get themselves punched in the face in the first place.

yeah because the only time something bad happens is when you "say stupid ****" No one would ever do something bad for no apparent reason, against seemingly innocent people. All the gas station workers that get killed every year need to keep there damn mouth shut.

 

[cody1smith]

That happened in the US?

Crazy, dude.

Nope but they fought the US and as far as i can tell we didnt kick the **** out of them.

 

[woolybug25]

yeah because the only time something bad happens is when you "say stupid ****" No one would ever do something bad for no apparent reason, against seemingly innocent people. All the gas station workers that get killed every year need to keep there damn mouth shut.

Yup. And I am sure an assault rifle is necessary for that type of protection. You are changing the subject, btw. But that is what your side has been doing all along in this thread. Its just a revolving amount of one liners and played out arguments that have been addressed over and over again in this thread.

Do you have any original thoughts, or would you just like to respond with another idiotic statement that has already been said a million times in this thread?

 

[woolybug25]

Nope but they fought the US and as far as i can tell we didnt kick the **** out of them.

And that has something to do with my point? No it doesn't.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

To add to this, what are assault rifles going to do to help in a government overthrow or attack from another country? That was the intent of being able to arm and form militia. It was a different time. If people tried to overthrow our govt or protect themselves from a country strong enough to invade us, then guess what??? You are bringing a knife to a gun fight. Grow up Peter Pan... Count Chocula... this isn't "The Wolverines" and your assault rifles aren't going to help you take back the U of SA.

Good points, Irish1

As it stands now yes it would be in effective.
Now imagine 50 million people united with those same guns.
It may be unrealistic, as of 2010 which is the latest numbers I can find quickly between active and reserves our military strength is about 2.3 million.
Again quantity does have a quality all it's own.

 

[woolybug25]

As it stands now yes it would be in effective.
Now imagine 50 million people united with those same guns.
It may be unrealistic, as of 2010 which is the latest numbers I can find quickly between active and reserves our military strength is about 2.3 million.
Again quantity does have a quality all it's own.

If you think for a second that if it came down to the American public defending themselves with their personal firearms, that they would have a chance, then you are being delusional.

Do you really think that if a country attacked us and demobilized the most powerful military in the world that the general public armed with personal firearms would be the ones to take them down? Grow up, dude. This isn't Hollywood.

 

[cody1smith]

Yup. And I am sure an assault rifle is necessary for that type of protection. You are changing the subject, btw. But that is what your side has been doing all along in this thread. Its just a revolving amount of one liners and played out arguments that have been addressed over and over again in this thread.

Do you have any original thoughts, or would you just like to respond with another idiotic statement that has already been said a million times in this thread?

First where was that posted or something close?

And Do you honestly believe in your mind that limited gun control will help? People are the problem not the guns. Why cant we blame it on the person that did it? Not the parents or video games or medicine. he did some bad things now he is burning in hell. But no one can let it go. So now we will punish ever legal gun owner in the united states.

 

[cody1smith]

And that has something to do with my point? No it doesn't.

Kinda, you said a group of civilians could not take on the Us government with guns? He was simply stating that it can be done. -hints the picture of the Taliban

 

[IrishinSyria]

Excellent post that is the reason that people sholud carry. If a guy is standing in an elevator waiting for it to fill up and kill everyone on it and all the sudden on the 8th floor 3 guys with weapons strapped to there hip steps on he might re think his position.

the reason countries don't come here and take us on very often is because we have a bunch of bad *** **** and were are not scared to use it. Why do you think we have not kicked the **** out of iran yet? If the had no weapons to amount to **** do you think we would still just be sending Emails? They have nuclear capabilities and we are scared of that and because of it we are for the most part leaving them alone.

In a way, you're right. The danger poised by guns is so significant that carrying one yourself may actually be a logical response to it at an individual level. However, as a matter of public policy, saying..."guns are really dangerous and lots of people are getting killed. We need more guns" is nonsensical.

Glad you brought up Iran (which, by the way, does not have nuclear weapons according to every report I've ever seen.) Iran is acting rationally in pursuing nuclear weapons..they would, as you pointed out, dramatically increase the costs associated with any invasion of Iran. There is another side to this however. Were a country to invade a nuclear Iran, they would have no choice but to use massively overwhelming (read: nuclear) force. So while a nuclear Iran may be less likely to be invaded, the consequences of an invasion would be much more likely to be total destruction.

Even if one decides nukes are good for Iran, it does not follow that nukes are good for the world. The more countries have nuclear weapons, the greater the number of conflicts that could potentially trigger a nuclear world war. Individually, countries may be less likely to be invaded, but collectively there is a greater likelihood of complete destruction. Mutually assured destruction works great right up to the point where it doesn't work at all. The start of WW1 is, perhaps, the best example of what I'm talking about.