Supreme Court Upholds Gun Right

[TW Scott]

there is a difference between a gun death and other vilont deaths, that is the fact that with a knife or hands the person has to be right up against there victom, they have to look them in the eyes, smell them, feel them as they die.

Now sociopaths love this but most people dont, its much easier to quickly pull a triger than to cut someones throat

Not so. Any person with a little practice can kill another human at distance with a thrown knife. It can be done quietly, quickly, cleanly and if the person is reasonably careful with absolutely no forensice evidence left on the perpetrator. A common bow can do this as well, or a piece of cloth and rock. lasso and many, many other objects.

To kill someone intetionally takes some effort and training. yes, some are slightly easier but there is a price for that ease. Guns are loud, even using a silencer thay are loud. Someone uses a gun to kill your neighbor down the hall and more than likely you are going to notice. Someone uses a knife, bow, or even a noose and your first clue will likely be the smell of urine and fecal matter, if that.

Now let's be honest, if someone wants to go on a rampage and kill people, no law is going to stop him or even slow him down. He will do what it takes to aquire the tools he wants to do the job. The only thing strict gun control laws absolutely prohibit is the genral populace's ability to adequately defend themselves. Which if you even thought on it for a moment is just as criminal as going on a shooting spree.

Guns are the great equalizer. it allows the 90 lb mother of two to handle the 300 lb wrestler attacker on fair footing. Even if the wrestler has a gun the fight is fair, much more fair than if neither had a gun. it's just that simple.

 

[Asguard]

actually i was more thinking of domestic vilonce (which after all is what most gun deaths are) that leads to death. Its much easier to grab a gun and fire once and then regret it than to stab someone 40 times or cut there throat.

 

[Roman]

Yeah, some students were found with Uzis in our university. Apparently, they are as easy to get as apple pie. Whoopie.

Maybe all students should get machine guns.

It'd be harder to shoot a school up.

 

[TW Scott]

actually i was more thinking of domestic vilonce (which after all is what most gun deaths are) that leads to death. Its much easier to grab a gun and fire once and then regret it than to stab someone 40 times or cut there throat.

Actually no, most gun deaths are suicide. Also, it only take one stab to kill if you do it even remotely right. Hell a frying pan upside the head is just as deadly. Since most dometic violence happens in the kitchen, away from where most people keep their guns, I would be more afraid of cutlery and frying pans.

Now some things are labelled domestic violence when they should have been labelled murder. In fact some premeditated and planned murders are classified as domestic violence only becuase the victim is family. in my opinion guy who calmly plans to murder his wife is not in the same league as woman who in fit of rage beats in her husbands skull during an argument. Yet in statistics they are lumped together as domestic violence.

 

[shaman_]

Not so. Any person with a little practice can kill another human at distance with a thrown knife. It can be done quietly, quickly, cleanly and if the person is reasonably careful with absolutely no forensice evidence left on the perpetrator. A common bow can do this as well, or a piece of cloth and rock. lasso and many, many other objects. To kill someone intetionally takes some effort and training. yes, some are slightly easier but there is a price for that ease. Guns are loud, even using a silencer thay are loud. Someone uses a gun to kill your neighbor down the hall and more than likely you are going to notice. Someone uses a knife, bow, or even a noose and your first clue will likely be the smell of urine and fecal matter, if that..

With no training at all you can kill multiple people in seconds with gun and from a greater distance.

Now let's be honest, if someone wants to go on a rampage and kill people, no law is going to stop him or even slow him down. He will do what it takes to aquire the tools he wants to do the job. The only thing strict gun control laws absolutely prohibit is the genral populace's ability to adequately defend themselves. Which if you even thought on it for a moment is just as criminal as going on a shooting spree.

Guns are the great equalizer. it allows the 90 lb mother of two to handle the 300 lb wrestler attacker on fair footing. Even if the wrestler has a gun the fight is fair, much more fair than if neither had a gun. it's just that simple.

While it is an understandably convincing anecdote, it is short sighted. The society where every mother of two has access to guns is one where every single criminal certainly has one and probably much better ones. Not to mention how many more arguments turn into shootings due to the fact that everyone has one. You haven't necessarily stopped a crime here you have just created a situation where two people might end up shooting away at each other. Anyway, if the wrestler suspected the mother was packing he could suprise her and just take her gun don't you think?

Can't the woman use capsicum spray, taser or an alarm?

So how do automatic and semi-automatic weapons fit into that story? The mother needs to fire many bullets quickly to get through the armor that the wrestler is wearing?

 

[TW Scott]

With no training at all you can kill multiple people in seconds with gun and from a greater distance.

Actually with no training at all you aren;t likely to be able to laod tghe gun, switch off the safety or even adjust your aim to compensate for recoil shyness or flinch. A person who has never fired a gun before is more likely to hurt himself with the gun than anyone he intends to.

While it is an understandably convincing anecdote, it is short sighted. The society where every mother of two has access to guns is one where every single criminal certainly has one and probably much better ones. Not to mention how many more arguments turn into shootings due to the fact that everyone has one. You haven't necessarily stopped a crime here you have just created a situation where two people might end up shooting away at each other. Anyway, if the wrestler suspected the mother was packing he could suprise her and just take her gun don't you think?

You fail to grasp a single defining attribute of criminals. They go for easy prey. If everyone in that society carries a gun the criminal either leaves or finds a different way fo fleecing people. Sure there are the rare few who like hurting people but disarming society makes no difference to them anyways.

As for the belief that if everybody who wanted to carry a gun could would result in a mass of shooting, that is pure poppy cock. Texas and Michigan have had a shall issue policy to concealed weapons for some time now. The arrest rate among the people with the firearms was lower than among the unarmed population.

Yes if the wrestler suspected the mother was packing he could indeed surprise her and might even take the gun away. However, that is contigent on the wrestler appraoching unnoticed, knowing where the gun is and being quick enough to get it before she does. Not all that likely, and even then at least the mother still had a better chance than an unarmed one ever did. Slim chance versus no chance still favors slim.

Can't the woman use capsicum spray, taser or an alarm?

Capiscum spray is not 100% effective and in MANY cases just aggravates the attacker(s). A taser can be used yes, in some states but is close combat weapon primarily and easier to disarm than a gun is. An alarm only helps if there are people nearby who can overpower tha attacker(s).

So how do automatic and semi-automatic weapons fit into that story? The mother needs to fire many bullets quickly to get through the armor that the wrestler is wearing?

Well a fully automatic weapon would be a great deterrent. Even gangs of rapists would be thinking twice. A semi-automatic is just one bullet per trigger pull and their advantage is greater ammo capacity than a revolver. And yes a mother may need more than one round to take down her attacker(s).

 

[Echo3Romeo]

With no training at all you can kill multiple people in seconds with gun and from a greater distance.

This really isn't true at all. There are a lot of things that need to become second nature to a person before they can use a firearm effectively in such a scenario, and it takes lots of practice to get them down to muscle memory. Why else would police officers and members of the military train regularly with their service weapons?

Capiscum spray is not 100% effective and in MANY cases just aggravates the attacker(s). A taser can be used yes, in some states but is close combat weapon primarily and easier to disarm than a gun is. An alarm only helps if there are people nearby who can overpower tha attacker(s).

Tasers have trouble with the barbs penetrating thick clothing, too.

 

[shaman_]

Actually with no training at all you aren;t likely to be able to laod tghe gun, switch off the safety or even adjust your aim to compensate for recoil shyness or flinch. A person who has never fired a gun before is more likely to hurt himself with the gun than anyone he intends to.

I meant that even if you'd had no training you could go out in your backyard or out to the country and still work out enough to do a lot of damage to other people. Self training?

You fail to grasp a single defining attribute of criminals. They go for easy prey.

Ah but in a society where everyone has a gun the mother of two is still the easiest pray.

If everyone in that society carries a gun the criminal either leaves or finds a different way fo fleecing people. Sure there are the rare few who like hurting people but disarming society makes no difference to them anyways.

As for the belief that if everybody who wanted to carry a gun could would result in a mass of shooting, that is pure poppy cock.

No thats not what I meant. A certain % of gun deaths start with a domestic dispute or argument. People lose control, even those who aren't what we label criminals. One graph I found from 1990 had the 37% murders starting with an argument. For the number of incidents where a gun saves a life there are many where the guns within arms reach also needlessly take lives.

Texas and Michigan have had a shall issue policy to concealed weapons for some time now. The arrest rate among the people with the firearms was lower than among the unarmed population.

Yes if the wrestler suspected the mother was packing he could indeed surprise her and might even take the gun away. However, that is contigent on the wrestler appraoching unnoticed, knowing where the gun is and being quick enough to get it before she does. Not all that likely, and even then at least the mother still had a better chance than an unarmed one ever did. Slim chance versus no chance still favors slim.

Not all that likely? I think you are stretching a little. A wrester just needs to come from behind and whack her on the head. He wouldn't have too much trouble doing it. Most of the time the gun will be in the bag anyway. It would be particularly obvious in summertime as well.

I'm not saying that people should be completely defenceless. I just think that in 2008 we need to take the blinkers off that a gun is the only way to defend yourself.

Capiscum spray is not 100% effective and in MANY cases just aggravates the attacker(s). A taser can be used yes, in some states but is close combat weapon primarily and easier to disarm than a gun is. An alarm only helps if there are people nearby who can overpower tha attacker(s).

No none of these suggestions are 100% effective. These items could potentially be removed from someone just as a gun could, although a couple of them are smaller. But a gun is certainly not 100% effective, and it causes a lot more problems that the other possiblities.

Well a fully automatic weapon would be a great deterrent. Even gangs of rapists would be thinking twice. A semi-automatic is just one bullet per trigger pull and their advantage is greater ammo capacity than a revolver. And yes a mother may need more than one round to take down her attacker(s).

But not many per second.

I can understand the point you are trying to make with the handguns for protection (although I think that this solution causes more problems than it fixes). But automatic weapons? You can't really make a case for that, surely?

 

[TW Scott]

I meant that even if you'd had no training you could go out in your backyard or out to the country and still work out enough to do a lot of damage to other people. Self training?

You could do the same with any of the methods i mentioned and garner less attention and expense.

Ah but in a society where everyone has a gun the mother of two is still the easiest pray.

I don't think you get it. There is no easy prey when everyone has a gun. When everyone has a gun a mugger suffers a real serious chance of being killed. Only the truly stupid and violent will continue violent actions. You were never going to stop them in the first place.

No thats not what I meant. A certain % of gun deaths start with a domestic dispute or argument. People lose control, even those who aren't what we label criminals. One graph I found from 1990 had the 37% murders starting with an argument. For the number of incidents where a gun saves a life there are many where the guns within arms reach also needlessly take lives.

First of all, most murders start with a disagreement. Usually about money. There is a difference however as no matter how a husband plots and schemes when he finally kills his wife it is counted as domestic violence in those charts.

Now honestlythe times a gun leads to a needless death that was unplanned is a tiny fraction compared to the times a gun has averted a crime. Sometimes it's not just about saving a life but averting becoming a victim.

Not all that likely? I think you are stretching a little. A wrester just needs to come from behind and whack her on the head. He wouldn't have too much trouble doing it. Most of the time the gun will be in the bag anyway. It would be particularly obvious in summertime as well.

Actually most women I know have a situational awareness that would not allow a 300lb behemoth to sneak up on them. Besides if you are going to carry a gun you carry it in a concealed holster. I have seen models you can hide in a pair of cutoff and the person could sneak it in past a police pat down. So to tell the truth it is damned unlikely.

Still no matter the situation the woman who carried the gun has a much better chance of avoiding victomhood if she carried a gun. Yes certain circumstances the gun is all but useless, but wouldn;t you rather only be vulnerable during those times as opposed to all the time the other way.

I'm not saying that people should be completely defenceless. I just think that in 2008 we need to take the blinkers off that a gun is the only way to defend yourself.

Actually, it is not the only way but it is the most effective by several order of magnitude. It is a weapon that is deadly with only a modicum of training, does not require brute strength, keeps the victim out arms reach of the predator, and as a added bonus is better than a defense whistle as summoning cops.

No none of these suggestions are 100% effective. These items could potentially be removed from someone just as a gun could, although a couple of them are smaller. But a gun is certainly not 100% effective, and it causes a lot more problems that the other possiblities.

Okay now to seperate the bullshit.

A can of pepperspray is useful against a causal assaillant ie That blind date that doesn't understand no. Against a determined attacker or multiple attackers it only pisses them off. The range is pitifully short and you actually have to be almost in his face to use it.

Tasers are iffy. I know several people who can still function while being tased. Even so the standard stungun varieties are melee ranged as in you have to be able to reach out and touch them. The ranged ones are actually larger than most semiautomatic pistols and are only usefull against one person at a time.

Alarm whistle. Like i pointed out it only works if there are people around. otherwise you might as well be yelling "Come and get it."

But not many per second.

Actually with a stock Berretta 92F I can squeeze of 15 in two seconds.

I can understand the point you are trying to make with the handguns for protection (although I think that this solution causes more problems than it fixes). But automatic weapons? You can't really make a case for that, surely?

The only problem a handgun causes is that the Individula feels a bit of independance from the state. Oh wait that is a another benefits. Sorry, but gun owned by the law abidding population are less dangerous than the cars owned by the same. Hell more people drown each year than are killed by guns.

As for Automatic weapons. If Charlie the drug dealer dwon the street can get a Kalishnakov for 50$ on the street, why the hell can't the amercian public be trusted with them. If you're worried about lethality, then there is much more to worry about hunting rifles.

here's the point. Just becuase you choose not to use the best form of protection available currently does not mean you are allowed to dictate that others remain defenseless.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

With no training at all you can kill multiple people in seconds with gun and from a greater distance.

Wrong, that kind of proficiency take skill and practice, to engage multiple targets at long range is difficult, it demands precision, and concentration.

While it is an understandably convincing anecdote, it is short sighted. The society where every mother of two has access to guns is one where every single criminal certainly has one and probably much better ones. Not to mention how many more arguments turn into shootings due to the fact that everyone has one. You haven't necessarily stopped a crime here you have just created a situation where two people might end up shooting away at each other.

And you have stopped crime buy banning the means to self defence for the Mother of Two?

What crimes have you stopped?

Have you ever seen the guns taken from criminals, junk, most of them are nothing but junk.

And at that in interviews with the prison population, the biggest thing they fear is running up against a armed citizen.

Anyway, if the wrestler suspected the mother was packing he could surprise her and just take her gun don't you think?

And with out a gun what are her chances against a 300 lb. wrestler?

Any thing is possible, but most criminals don't even want to take the chance of getting hurt, especially with a gun shot, that type of injury is reported to the police, and a it's like having a big red sign saying I am a dumb criminal, come and arrest me.

Can't the woman use capsicum spray, taser or an alarm?

Capsicum spray doesn't always work, especially if the criminal is drugged up, in some incidents it supercharges the rage factor.

As for a alarm, guess what? You have to wait for the Police to respond, now exactly how long does it take for police to arrive?

You can be dead by then.

So how do automatic and semi-automatic weapons fit into that story? The mother needs to fire many bullets quickly to get through the armor that the wrestler is wearing?

Simpler to train the individual to operate. Under stress the less things you have to do to defend your self the better you will do.

And what is the difference between a semi automatic, and a revolver?

At a practical rate of fire, (meaning the rate of fire you can hit you target consistently) there is no difference, Having been around guns all my life I can tell you that I can out shoot the majority of people using a double action revolver, I can out shoot most of my friends with a cap and ball revolver, and that is a Civil War weapon.

The vast majority of shooting average 2 1/2 rounds fired, so there is no practical difference between Revolvers and Semi Automatics, and as for full autos, the true machine gun, that take a whole another level of training to to utilize effectively.

Full auto fire is only really useful for suppression of counter fire, (there is a whole doctrine on the use of automatic weapons), or if you have mass wave attacks, and you are defending from fixed positions.

One of the things that I do for fun, is take people like you out to the range, and let them use a M-16, Mac-10, and a Thompson 1928, and then watch them find out that hand and shoulder fire machine guns are fun to shoot but as practical weapons, unless you are trained to use them properly, almost useless.

You are less accurate with a machine gun than you are with a semi auto, revolver, pump, or lever, action weapon.

 

[shaman_]

You could do the same with any of the methods i mentioned and garner less attention and expense.

It would take considerably more time to become an expert knife thrower, and you would still somewhat less dangerous than the novice with the automatic.

I don't think you get it. There is no easy prey when everyone has a gun. When everyone has a gun a mugger suffers a real serious chance of being killed. Only the truly stupid and violent will continue violent actions. You were never going to stop them in the first place.

Those who aren't stupid and violent would also be deterred from mugging women with tazers and capsicum spray wouldn't they?

First of all, most murders start with a disagreement. Usually about money. There is a difference however as no matter how a husband plots and schemes when he finally kills his wife it is counted as domestic violence in those charts.

Now honestlythe times a gun leads to a needless death that was unplanned is a tiny fraction compared to the times a gun has averted a crime. Sometimes it's not just about saving a life but averting becoming a victim.

No domestic violence was not the description, it was 'argument'. If most homicides are coming from these arguments then there must surely be more than a "tiny fraction". Could you back that up with some stats?

Actually most women I know have a situational awareness that would not allow a 300lb behemoth to sneak up on them. Besides if you are going to carry a gun you carry it in a concealed holster. I have seen models you can hide in a pair of cutoff and the person could sneak it in past a police pat down. So to tell the truth it is damned unlikely.

Still no matter the situation the woman who carried the gun has a much better chance of avoiding victomhood if she carried a gun.

Of course but it is a problematic tool for defense. Why not use something that doesn't cause so many other problems to society?

Actually, it is not the only way but it is the most effective by several order of magnitude. It is a weapon that is deadly with only a modicum of training, does not require brute strength, keeps the victim out arms reach of the predator, and as a added bonus is better than a defense whistle as summoning cops.

Do you think that all people who carry these guns are going to have had the appropriate training that you pointed out was required? Pepper spray or a taser, which also keeps the victim out of arms reach, require almost no training.

Okay now to seperate the bullshit.

A can of pepperspray is useful against a causal assaillant ie That blind date that doesn't understand no. Against a determined attacker or multiple attackers it only pisses them off. The range is pitifully short and you actually have to be almost in his face to use it.

Tasers are iffy. I know several people who can still function while being tased. Even so the standard stungun varieties are melee ranged as in you have to be able to reach out and touch them. The ranged ones are actually larger than most semiautomatic pistols and are only usefull against one person at a time.

Alarm whistle. Like i pointed out it only works if there are people around. otherwise you might as well be yelling "Come and get it."

Thats separating the bullshit? O k.

Pepper spray will work to fifteen feet, you don't have to be in their face. It is extremely painful, will keep an attacker at bay and requires little training.

People can function while being tased? All the footage I have seen, which is pretty funny by the way, contradicts that. I will take your word for it though.

The alarm I was referring to are the ones you keep on your keychain and they produce a piercing alarm. Yes it will only work if there are people nearby.

So no they aren't perfect but if everyone had these they would deter muggers as well. There is also the issue where a gun requires training and some may hesitate when it comes to firing. No one will hesitate with these.

What about knives? You said any person with a little practice can kill another human at distance with a thrown knife.

Actually with a stock Berretta 92F I can squeeze of 15 in two seconds.

No, I mean the a mother doesn't need that many to take down her attacker.

The only problem a handgun causes is that the Individula feels a bit of independance from the state. Oh wait that is a another benefits. Sorry, but gun owned by the law abidding population are less dangerous than the cars owned by the same. Hell more people drown each year than are killed by guns.

.. and more die from smoking and diet but I don't see you fatty's eating salad and jogging. Yeah I know Australians are as fat as Americans.

As for Automatic weapons. If Charlie the drug dealer dwon the street can get a Kalishnakov for 50$ on the street, why the hell can't the amercian public be trusted with them. If you're worried about lethality, then there is much more to worry about hunting rifles.

You are now talking about automatics just to keep up with the criminals. The criminals are tempted to get better guns so they are ahead of civilians. (Once again, you can't see everything in black and white that only criminals shoot people). So everybody has to have a weapon that fires multiple shots per second just so they can protect themselves. Where does the suburban arms race end?

If the gun laws were tighter you would be talking about handguns or knives just to keep up with the criminals. See the problem.

here's the point. Just becuase you choose not to use the best form of protection available currently does not mean you are allowed to dictate that others remain defenseless.

No I am looking at a bigger picture than you are. I am looking at the problems in society caused by everyone having guns while you are focusing on the rare situation (wrestlers attacking mothers) where the gun actually is helpful.

 

[TW Scott]

It would take considerably more time to become an expert knife thrower, and you would still somewhat less dangerous than the novice with the automatic.

You're kidding right. Knife throwing takes maybe an afternoon to learn in your own back yard.Contrary to popular movies one is enough to bring most people down. People can go through hundreds of rounds before they ever get proficent enough to put one in a vital area on a human being. Recoil-Shyness is a pain to get over. Not to mention that Knife throwing can be practiced anywhere. Shooting a gun you better be at a range or out in some deep woods.

Those who aren't stupid and violent would also be deterred from mugging women with tazers and capsicum spray wouldn't they?

Not really. Cheap sunglasses handles the majority of capsacium spray and tazers that most people can by are close combat weapons. So they are not a deterrent to anyone expcept honest people and frat boys.

No domestic violence was not the description, it was 'argument'. If most homicides are coming from these arguments then there must surely be more than a "tiny fraction". Could you back that up with some stats?

LOL, The argument could be hours, days or even decades old before a planned murder takes place. You really are not paying attention.

Of course but it is a problematic tool for defense. Why not use something that doesn't cause so many other problems to society?

Becuase the other methods do not work and honestly a GUN causes absolutely no problems on it's own. Takes guns completely out of a society and the murder and suicide will NOT decrease. It stays the same or increases dramatically.

Do you think that all people who carry these guns are going to have had the appropriate training that you pointed out was required? Pepper spray or a taser, which also keeps the victim out of arms reach, require almost no training.

Pepeer Spray is an Arms reach weapon only useful at about two inches past your own reach. tazers are a arms reach weapon as well. Also there is nothing wrong with requiring people take a gun safety course. In fact it should be mandatory for all children starting at the age they start getting into stuff they shouldn't. of course the classes should be tailored to the age group in wquestion before you start hapring there.

Thats separating the bullshit? O k.

Pepper spray will work to fifteen feet, you don't have to be in their face. It is extremely painful, will keep an attacker at bay and requires little training.

Pepper Spray may have a fifteen foot range, but it takes some practice and a windless day to acheive that. I have been sprayed with the stuff as a dare and it is no more painful than a punch to the eyes. Igt will not keep an attacker at bay unless they are a total wimp.

People can function while being tased? All the footage I have seen, which is pretty funny by the way, contradicts that. I will take your word for it though

.

You should. I have a cousin who likes to show cops a fun time by grabbing them while their tazing him. All pre agreed since his last violation. It's not easy but it can be done. Hell I know I can still operate normally under the effects of 110 on a 10 amp circuit breaker. Hurts like hell but if i was intent of getting someone I could do it.

The alarm I was referring to are the ones you keep on your keychain and they produce a piercing alarm. Yes it will only work if there are people nearby.

Exactly which makes it nice for some circumstances but other than being in a mall, it's not teribly protective.

So no they aren't perfect but if everyone had these they would deter muggers as well. There is also the issue where a gun requires training and some may hesitate when it comes to firing. No one will hesitate with these

.

Actually people do hesitate with Pepperspray, Tazers and Alarms. Hesitation is a fear response and only training can get you over it. However i do believe people should carry them. Why restrict yourself to just one defensive measure. Layered defenses works best. you can then tailor your response to your attacker.

What about knives? You said any person with a little practice can kill another human at distance with a thrown knife.

Yes, they can but nobody starts running they see a knife. Meanwhile pull even the smallest gun and thugs are making tracks.

No, I mean the a mother doesn't need that many to take down her attacker.

Why not? He might be tough, on drugs,

.. and more die from smoking and diet but I don't see you fatty's eating salad and jogging. Yeah I know Australians are as fat as Americans.

Insult me like that again and I will complain. I happen to eat more salads than anything else and no not macaroni and potato salad. I would jogg but I already have a knee that gives out under strain thanks to slight accident. I do however walk.

You are now talking about automatics just to keep up with the criminals. The criminals are tempted to get better guns so they are ahead of civilians. (Once again, you can't see everything in black and white that only criminals shoot people). So everybody has to have a weapon that fires multiple shots per second just so they can protect themselves. Where does the suburban arms race end?

Excuse me but only a Criminal shoots people. the moment you decide to shoot a person unprovoked you are a criminal. the only reason a person should shoot another is self defense. What does it matter if Bob the mail man carries a M-16 on his rounds if he NEVER attacks someone with it?

If the gun laws were tighter you would be talking about handguns or knives just to keep up with the criminals. See the problem.

The gun control laws in many places are damn tight and the criminals already own Assault rifles, Machineguns and even old rocket launchers. They are in an arms race with the Cops and Government. adding civillians to the mix just give the civillians a fighting chance.

No I am looking at a bigger picture than you are. I am looking at the problems in society caused by everyone having guns while you are focusing on the rare situation (wrestlers attacking mothers) where the gun actually is helpful.

there is absolutely nop problem in society caused by a firearm. None. Guns have never commited a crime using humans. It's the other way around. People are the problem, guns just happen to be a tool. If they didn;t have that they'd use any number of other tools.

See your probelm is you beleive the tool is responsible for the actions of the person. No, it's the persons fault. They might be desperate becuase of finacial hard times, lack of skills, or any number of factors, but they still chose to do it.

 

[shaman_]

Wrong, that kind of proficiency take skill and practice, to engage multiple targets at long range is difficult, it demands precision, and concentration.

Well I didn’t say “at long range”. I said at a greater distance to throwing knives, rocks and lassos. My point being that a novice (who had practiced a little) could do more damage with an automatic than an expert knife thrower.

And you have stopped crime buy banning the means to self defence for the Mother of Two?

You're not reading the whole post. I’m suggesting alternatives that are nearly as useful as a firearm for discouraging crime but do not lead to a high gun homicide rate or enable monthly school massacres.

What crimes have you stopped?

Have you ever seen the guns taken from criminals, junk, most of them are nothing but junk.

TW Scott said they have automatics. Which is it?

And at that in interviews with the prison population, the biggest thing they fear is running up against a armed citizen.

And with out a gun what are her chances against a 300 lb. wrestler?

But capsicum or a taser would be handy.

The civilians here aren’t all carrying weapons and we don’t have an epidemic of wrestlers attacking mothers….

As I said before, the Australian example might not be relevant to the US but no one has told me why yet.

Any thing is possible, but most criminals don't even want to take the chance of getting hurt, especially with a gun shot, that type of injury is reported to the police, and a it's like having a big red sign saying I am a dumb criminal, come and arrest me.



Capsicum spray doesn't always work, especially if the criminal is drugged up, in some incidents it supercharges the rage factor.

That doesn’t matter once he is blind though.

In the situation where the criminal is 'drugged up' you may still have problems with a gun too.

As for a alarm, guess what? You have to wait for the Police to respond, now exactly how long does it take for police to arrive? You can be dead by then.

No it doesn’t work that way. The theory is that the piercing alarm is so loud that the criminal knows that someone will look out a window or come around the corner so he just runs.

As I have said these are not 100% but neither is a gun.

Simpler to train the individual to operate. Under stress the less things you have to do to defend your self the better you will do.

Firing a weapon isn’t less though is it? It takes more concentration, more guts and requires more training than the alternatives I have been suggesting.

And what is the difference between a semi automatic, and a revolver?

Well I was more concerned about the automatics than the semi-automatics. I wont group them together any more.

At a practical rate of fire, (meaning the rate of fire you can hit you target consistently) there is no difference, Having been around guns all my life I can tell you that I can out shoot the majority of people using a double action revolver, I can out shoot most of my friends with a cap and ball revolver, and that is a Civil War weapon.

The vast majority of shooting average 2 1/2 rounds fired, so there is no practical difference between Revolvers and Semi Automatics, and as for full autos, the true machine gun, that take a whole another level of training to to utilize effectively.

Full auto fire is only really useful for suppression of counter fire, (there is a whole doctrine on the use of automatic weapons), or if you have mass wave attacks, and you are defending from fixed positions.

One of the things that I do for fun, is take people like you out to the range, and let them use a M-16, Mac-10, and a Thompson 1928, and then watch them find out that hand and shoulder fire machine guns are fun to shoot but as practical weapons, unless you are trained to use them properly, almost useless.

You are less accurate with a machine gun than you are with a semi auto, revolver, pump, or lever, action weapon.

So the automatic has no relevancy in the ‘for self defense’ argument?

 

[TW Scott]

Well I didn’t say “at long range”. I said at a greater distance to throwing knives, rocks and lassos. My point being that a novice (who had practiced a little) could do more damage with an automatic than an expert knife thrower.

You know what, that right there just proved you have no idea what you are talking about. An Expert knife thrower could kill you one knife no sweat and you'd never hear a thing. A novice with a gun at ten yeards is as likely to miss you completely as knife thrower is to hit you.

You're not reading the whole post. I’m suggesting alternatives that are nearly as useful as a firearm for discouraging crime but do not lead to a high gun homicide rate or enable monthly school massacres.

Alternatives are fine and dandy however alternative will not stop school shooting. Why? Becuase it isn't the law abiding citizen that is commiting the school shootings It's the criminals and to them gun control laws just mean targets who do not shoot back.

TW Scott said they have automatics. Which is it?

Actually it's both. Many hoods just have junk. Gangs and moderately successful criminals have the good stuff.

But capsicum or a taser would be handy.

They are handy but there are times whne they won't do the job. I'm sure you have seen some people you knew would just laugh off anything short of getting hit by a car. Well sometimes they travel in groups.

The civilians here aren’t all carrying weapons and we don’t have an epidemic of wrestlers attacking mothers….

No but your homicides have not decreased. Your violent crime is on the rise. Hmm, I see a correlation

As I said before, the Australian example might not be relevant to the US but no one has told me why yet.

The Australian example is a failure anyway in the public safety regard. It's just now that your disarmed your government finds it very hard to rearm you.

That doesn’t matter once he is blind though.

Capsacium rarely blinds the target anyway.

In the situation where the criminal is 'drugged up' you may still have problems with a gun too.

But not as much. Just takes a few more bullets to remind them to go down.

No it doesn’t work that way. The theory is that the piercing alarm is so loud that the criminal knows that someone will look out a window or come around the corner so he just runs.

Or throws you in his van and drives away. or grabs the alarm and claims you were attacking him with your pepper spray. Or god forbid just kills you and high tails it and tnaks goodness that no one got a good description.

As I have said these are not 100% but neither is a gun.

But a gun is closer to a 100% than any of the others.

Firing a weapon isn’t less though is it? It takes more concentration, more guts and requires more training than the alternatives I have been suggesting

.

Not really. Peper spary htakes some cojones and planning. As does a taser. Especially since many jurisdistion make you get tased before you can buy one.

So the automatic has no relevancy in the ‘for self defense’ argument?

Hey, I firmly believe in peace through superior firepower.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Well I didn’t say “at long range”. I said at a greater distance to throwing knives, rocks and lassos. My point being that a novice (who had practiced a little) could do more damage with an automatic than an expert knife thrower.

Long range for the average person is 30 feet, and that is also the lethal range for attacks with a Knife.

You're not reading the whole post. I’m suggesting alternatives that are nearly as useful as a firearm for discouraging crime but do not lead to a high gun homicide rate or enable monthly school massacres.

There are no alternatives that are as almost as useful as a hand gun.

Every thing else requires being at contact ranges with the criminal to be effective.

TW Scott said they have automatics. Which is it?

The average person when using the term automatic, really is talking about a semi automatic fire arm.

But capsicum or a taser would be handy.

Yes they would, there are some occasions where they might come in handy, but in most situations, they are almost useless because of the range limitations, and wind, clothing, glasses, drugs, or just plain pissed off rage.

The civilians here aren’t all carrying weapons and we don’t have an epidemic of wrestlers attacking mothers….

But you are starting to have a epidemic of POCC, plying their trade in safety, and causing mayhem to boot.

As I said before, the Australian example might not be relevant to the US but no one has told me why yet.

Because it isn't working, your crime rates are going up, and the Government is spinning the numbers to try and hide the fact.

That doesn’t matter once he is blind though.

I was a Platoon Sergeant for most of my career, as as such I was also involved in training for NBC, one of the things that you have to do every year is go trough the gas chamber, were they are using military grade Tear Gas, after a few cycles training the troops I could stand in the chamber with my mask off and give my training lecture on the proper employment of the gas mask, I wasn't blinded, at all all it take is the nerve to do it.

In the situation where the criminal is 'drugged up' you may still have problems with a gun too.

That is why multiple shots.

No it doesn’t work that way. The theory is that the piercing alarm is so loud that the criminal knows that someone will look out a window or come around the corner so he just runs.

In the middle of no were? How about in the down town area of any big city, with the back ground noise? windows shut? and just plain none of my business attitude of city dwellers.

The bystander effect (also known as bystander apathy, Genovese syndrome, diffused responsibility or bystander intervention) is a psychological phenomenon in which someone is less likely to intervene in an emergency situation when other people are present and able to help than when he or she is alone.

Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police
New York Times
Martin Gansberg
March 27, 1964

For more than half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens.

Twice their chatter and the sudden glow of their bedroom lights interrupted him and frightened him off. Each time he returned, sought her out, and stabbed her again. Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead.

As I have said these are not 100% but neither is a gun.

Exactly right, the effectiveness of all other forms of self defence are way below 100%, below 50%

Self Defense Sprays and Energy Weapons
When these self defense weapons are employed properly they..

can incapacitate an attacker
are fairly easy to use
generally do not harm the attacker
have a lower risk of harming innocent bystanders
These less than lethal and non lethal weapons are very popular, partly due to the fact that they..

do not usually require a licence
are inexpensive
can be concealed
Although, these self defense weapons can be effective, they do have negative points that you must take into consideration.

For instance they..
..can be somewhat controversial
..can be too weak to fully incapacitate an attacker
..can take several seconds produce the desired reaction

Firing a weapon isn’t less though is it? It takes more concentration, more guts and requires more training than the alternatives I have been suggesting.

All of the methods you have listed require training and practice to use effectively.

Under stress, unless you train nothing is going to do you a bit of good, I know of a case where the victim actually sprayed her self with the pepper spray because she held the can wrong, and the wind was against her.

As for guns, I can have you reliably hitting a soda can at 10 meters, by the end of two hours.

Well I was more concerned about the automatics than the semi-automatics. I wont group them together any more.

The one I really like for dumb criminal was the drive by shooting that took place in California, the Banger had got a AKM through his drug connection from Mexico, he tried to do a drive by against his rival in the hood, when he triggered the AKM, at full auto he lost control and the noise scared him so badly that he shot his driver and shotgun in the front seat of the car, Dumb Crook of the Month Award.

So the automatic has no relevancy in the ‘for self defense’ argument?

Yes that do, as most shoulder fired autos have a selector switch and can be fired in the semi automatic mode.

I used to hunt with a M-14 until my state outlawed full automatics for hunting, I used it in it's semi automatic mode. 7.62mmX51mm, 308 Winchester.

 

[shaman_]

You know what, that right there just proved you have no idea what you are talking about. An Expert knife thrower could kill you one knife no sweat and you'd never hear a thing. A novice with a gun at ten yeards is as likely to miss you completely as knife thrower is to hit you.

Who cares if the novice misses, they have an automatic. They can just keep firing and hitting people! Can the expert throw that many knives per second?

As I have clarified a couple of times, the novice I am referring to has at least used the weapon before.

Alternatives are fine and dandy however alternative will not stop school shooting. Why? Becuase it isn't the law abiding citizen that is commiting the school shootings It's the criminals and to them gun control laws just mean targets who do not shoot back.

Tighter gun laws and a buyback will reduce the number of massacres. Surely the Australian example lends some support to that?

Actually it's both. Many hoods just have junk. Gangs and moderately successful criminals have the good stuff.



They are handy but there are times whne they won't do the job. I'm sure you have seen some people you knew would just laugh off anything short of getting hit by a car. Well sometimes they travel in groups.


No but your homicides have not decreased. Your violent crime is on the rise. Hmm, I see a correlation

Actually homicides have been down marginally the last few years. Violent crime has risen but it has been on a slow, steady rise since WW2.

Meanwhile we haven’t had a massacre in years and total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides have all dropped dramatically.

But you wont acknowledge that maybe there is something to these results. Instead we focus on the hypothetical situation with wrestlers attacking mothers.

But that is misdirection from my previous point. From the description you guys are giving, we are a nation totally defenseless. We can’t even get tasers and pepper spray in most states! Yet our crime is relatively low and our homicide rate is ¼ that of the US -not to mention the comparison of gun homicides.

We do have penalties to deter criminals and police to enforce these penalties. Wrestlers attacking mothers is not a regular occurrence. But of course our government needs to be smarter and take measures to prevent crime, more police, security cameras in the city ect. We also need to get to the root of the cause, is it drug or gambling related, broken family ect? There needs to be intelligent solutions which are relevent for 2008 and which don't cause further problems. Loading up all the citizens with automatics and expecting that to be a safe Utopia is madness. You already have a gun problem, do you really think more guns is going to make it better?

The Australian example is a failure anyway in the public safety regard.

All the australians I know look at the news from the US and shake our heads. Great country.. pity about their gun culture.

It's just now that your disarmed your government finds it very hard to rearm you.

The government does not want to arm us.

Capsacium rarely blinds the target anyway.

Rarely? If you hit the eyes there will be temporary blindness.

Or throws you in his van and drives away. or grabs the alarm and claims you were attacking him with your pepper spray. Or god forbid just kills you and high tails it and tnaks goodness that no one got a good description.

Or perhaps he knew that someone would get his number plate due to the alarm so he decides against it? Why didn’t she use the pepper spray? What about the awareness that your female friends had that wouldn’t allow a van to sneak up on them?

Ok these scenarios are getting silly.

But a gun is closer to a 100% than any of the others.

You may certainly be right there but a gun causes so many more problems than the others. That's the point. It’s a better deterrent but you have a nation where everyone is armed to the teeth, your gun homicide rate is high and there is a school massacre nearly every month.

Not really. Peper spary htakes some cojones and planning. As does a taser. Especially since many jurisdistion make you get tased before you can buy one.

I don’t think so. You really need to get your aim right with a gun or you could miss, hurt yourself or an innocent. What you are doing is possibly going to end the life of the person attacking you. Some would certainly hesitate if the person robbing them looked young, sick or desperate.

The aim of the pepper spray can be adjusted as it is fired. Much easier.

Hey, I firmly believe in peace through superior firepower.

But you undermine your own position when you say that. You almost put a good case together for self defense of mothers with a handgun and then it gets absurd when you say you’d like a weapon that can destroy many people in a matter of seconds.

Why do criminals have guns instead of knives? Because they think it will give them an advantage. If every citizen has guns the criminals will need to get better ones.

 

[shaman_]

Long range for the average person is 30 feet, and that is also the lethal range for attacks with a Knife.

Come on, the person with the automatic can do so much more damage than the knife thrower. This isn’t marksmanship competition with one shot each, the automatic can just keep firing and hitting people.

There are no alternatives that are as almost as useful as a hand gun.

Every thing else requires being at contact ranges with the criminal to be effective.

The spray doesn’t quite require contact range

The average person when using the term automatic, really is talking about a semi automatic fire arm.

Yes they would, there are some occasions where they might come in handy, but in most situations, they are almost useless because of the range limitations, and wind, clothing, glasses, drugs, or just plain pissed off rage.

Almost useless in most situations? That's more than bending the truth.

The only factor mentioned there that has any real validity when comparing to the alternatives is glasses. You can still get it into there eyes though but it is a bit trickier. Criminals could wear goggles which would definitely be a problem..

But you are starting to have a epidemic of POCC, plying their trade in safety, and causing mayhem to boot.

POCC?

Because it isn't working, your crime rates are going up, and the Government is spinning the numbers to try and hide the fact.

Homicides are down, gun related violence is way down and we haven’t had a massacre since 1996. Crime has risen slightly but it is a trend that has been going for a while.

By your definition we are completely defenseless, yet our crime rate is still relatively low and our homicide rate is ¼ that of the US. We don't even have pepper spray and tasers.

I was a Platoon Sergeant for most of my career, as as such I was also involved in training for NBC, one of the things that you have to do every year is go trough the gas chamber, were they are using military grade Tear Gas, after a few cycles training the troops I could stand in the chamber with my mask off and give my training lecture on the proper employment of the gas mask, I wasn't blinded, at all all it take is the nerve to do it.

Tear gas is not the same as pepper spray. From wiki
An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control”[5] with extensive information on pepper spray and tear gas. They write:

"The effects of pepper spray are far more severe, including temporary blindness which last from 15-30 minutes, a burning sensation of the skin which last from 45 to 60 minutes, upper body spasms which force a person to bend forward and uncontrollable coughing making it difficult to breathe or speak for between 3 to 15 minutes."

That is why multiple shots.

In the middle of no were? How about in the down town area of any big city, with the back ground noise? windows shut? and just plain none of my business attitude of city dwellers.

Perhaps Australians are more helpful than Americans. Then again people are generally all very similar.

Yes for each of these alternatives there are some situations where they aren’t as effective.

The bystander effect (also known as bystander apathy, Genovese syndrome, diffused responsibility or bystander intervention) is a psychological phenomenon in which someone is less likely to intervene in an emergency situation when other people are present and able to help than when he or she is alone.

Exactly right, the effectiveness of all other forms of self defence are way below 100%, below 50%

How did you come up with that calculation? You guys have come up with some extreme scenarios to display the ineffectiveness. You know, what if the little old lady is in the roughest part of town being attacked by a drugged up criminal who is furious at her and is wearing glasses, and there is a gale force wind. See completely useless. They are a deterrent to make a criminal think, ‘no that is going to be a risk and basically too much work’.

As I said early on, if a criminal wanted to disable a mother of two who had a gun he just needs to walk up and punch her in the face extremely hard. Done, over in one second.

Self Defense Sprays and Energy Weapons
When these self defense weapons are employed properly they..

can incapacitate an attacker
are fairly easy to use
generally do not harm the attacker
have a lower risk of harming innocent bystanders
These less than lethal and non lethal weapons are very popular, partly due to the fact that they..

do not usually require a licence
are inexpensive
can be concealed
Although, these self defense weapons can be effective, they do have negative points that you must take into consideration.

For instance they..
..can be somewhat controversial
..can be too weak to fully incapacitate an attacker
..can take several seconds produce the desired reaction

All of the methods you have listed require training and practice to use effectively.

Under stress, unless you train nothing is going to do you a bit of good, I know of a case where the victim actually sprayed her self with the pepper spray because she held the can wrong, and the wind was against her.

For every instance you can think of where someone has accidentally hurt themselves with one of these there are plenty more where someone has hurt themselves or others with a gun. Yes they all require practice or training but a gun requires far more.

As for guns, I can have you reliably hitting a soda can at 10 meters, by the end of two hours.

The one I really like for dumb criminal was the drive by shooting that took place in California, the Banger had got a AKM through his drug connection from Mexico, he tried to do a drive by against his rival in the hood, when he triggered the AKM, at full auto he lost control and the noise scared him so badly that he shot his driver and shotgun in the front seat of the car, Dumb Crook of the Month Award.

That's pretty funny.

Yes that do, as most shoulder fired autos have a selector switch and can be fired in the semi automatic mode.

It can be used as a semi automatic, but then again a gun could also be used as a club. But when it comes to criminals or alcohol, rage or domestic related incidents they are going to go straight for the more dangerous option most times. Surely the handgun is enough for self defense though?

I used to hunt with a M-14 until my state outlawed full automatics for hunting, I used it in it's semi automatic mode. 7.62mmX51mm, 308 Winchester.

This comment reminds me why we will never come to an agreement. You have grown up using these weapons; you appreciate them and use them responsibly. You are not going to give up a part of your life because of what you see as laws created to account for criminals and mentally unstable people. You particularly aren’t interested in suggestions from other countries.

The problem is taking some freedom away from people. Even if the society were much better for it, it will be opposed all the way.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Freedom is not something to take away from a honest citizen, just to try and control the dishonest, all you have done is made the honest person a easier target for the dishonest criminal.

And you still don't change the behavior of the criminal.

POCC? Plan Old Common Criminal, I heard it from the Brit's, a way of distinguishing between IRA Terrorist and the POCC, as I understand the situation the POCC did not take kindly to Ira prisoners.

Those who would trade freedom for the promise of safety will have nether.

 

[Roman]

This really isn't true at all. There are a lot of things that need to become second nature to a person before they can use a firearm effectively in such a scenario, and it takes lots of practice to get them down to muscle memory. Why else would police officers and members of the military train regularly with their service weapons?

So they can be better at shooting than the average person?
Duh.


I'm not a gun nut by any means, but it is extremely easy to kill stuff with a gun compared to anything else. You just stand, point, and pow, there are holes. You guys are making shit up.

 

[shaman_]

Freedom is not something to take away from a honest citizen, just to try and control the dishonest, all you have done is made the honest person a easier target for the dishonest criminal.

Well firstly, homicides are not just committed by ‘honest citizens’. That is a little black and white. There is a large percentage that are from domestic disputes, alcohol and people losing control. Instead of fighting they reached for the gun that was close by.

Secondly, the laws that allowed you to originally have this freedom were devised in a different era and the weaponry was a shadow of what you have to choose from today.

I think that the more I hear ‘you can’t take our freedom’ in the defense of the gun laws, the more I hear it as “sure it's a bad law but it's there and you can’t take it off me now haha!”.

This comment (and many in my recent posts) is not directed strictly at you Buffalo Roam.

And you still don't change the behavior of the criminal.

POCC? Plan Old Common Criminal, I heard it from the Brit's, a way of distinguishing between IRA Terrorist and the POCC, as I understand the situation the POCC did not take kindly to Ira prisoners.

Those who would trade freedom for the promise of safety will have nether.

Well I think I have proven you wrong there. I am free and I am safe. But it would not matter how well I argued my case or how convincing the stats were, you will keep repeating the same lines about defense and freedom.

But with your very high homicide rate, ridiculously high gun homicide rate and regular massacres I certainly wouldn’t want your ‘freedom’.