Supreme Court Upholds Gun Right

[TW Scott]

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.

No, we're not. We actually understand gun use becuase we have used them. Sure it is pretty easy to kill with a gun, but not as easy as you think. Statistially even a highly trained police officer is expected to miss a perpetrator in a gunfight at least 50% of the time. Mainly becuase of the conditions of most real gunfights. This isn't high noon where two idiots stand in the middle of the street. It's usually dark, foul weather, in alleys and almost always from forms of cover.

Despite that even when at the firing range they tell fiolks that more than likely your first couple of clips you are not likely to hit anything. And that's shooting at a piece of paper than is stationary and you getting to sight properly and everything.

 

[TW Scott]

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. [/quote}
By defination a NOVICE is someone without training. You don;t get to pick the definition of your words. Either cahnge it to trained or stop lying.

I can throw five knives in quick successionand stand a chance of killing somone with three of them normally. I knew one guy who actully could throw three simultaneously and usually hit two out of three bouncing ping pong balls and a three-fer happened quite ofthen as well.

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

The Australian Examples prove nothing. The shooting sprees occurred under already fairly tight gun control laws. Until Australia has more than 86 years without a massacre it is too early to say if the law had an effect.

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.

Actually you adjucated homicides are down marginally. Like Britian Australia does not report them as crime unless there is prosecution.

Okay but explain why in Shall Issue states like Texas and Michigan crime has actually decreased in cities that fdo not make gun ordinances. This despite recent economic woes. Only in the place where guns are not allowed to civillians has crime actually increased.

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

You didn't have one for 80 some years before that. And your firearms related death is down but all other death is up if you count in all death and not just adjucated ones.

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

I don;t acknowledge highly questionable results based on flawed data sets. What scientist in his right mind would?

Also I was using the hypothetical as a demonstration. Though it is not as hypothetical as you think. It happened to a former coworker. Pepperspray did not work. Taser did not work. Only thing that saved her was the guy died his OD before he finished strangling her. But of course you'd rather she would take the risk of being killed than having a more viable way of fighting off an attacker.

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.

Your total homicide numbers are low only becuase of your rules of only declaring adjucated cases. Compare it to the medical records that agencies like the CDC compare and the Australia is only slightlhy less dangerous than the US and given the trends will soon be much more dangerous.

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?

Like I have pointed out before we DON'T have a gun problem. Our problems have nothing to do with our guns as they it does with the people. I never expect a Utopia becuase well to put it honestly man is a half-civilized predator. No matter what you do a few will slip their self imposed leash and go off the deep end. It's those times that a person needs to be able to adequately defend themselves. I mean imagine if in one of your gun massacres one of the civillians had simply shot the A-hole in question before his body count got past one hand. Your country would have a bastly different outlook on guns.

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

Actually US citizen hear about the Aussies and sigh. Such a great promising democracy now just a totalarian regime in the making.

The government does not want to arm us.

No, of course it doesn't. Why arm the people you are turning into sheeple.

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

Ben hit in the eyes with pepperspray. Wasn't blind at all.

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?

What you think vans are slow? Hell they can round a corner and be on you before you get the time to say "Oh crap!"

Ok these scenarios are getting silly.

Yet happen everyday

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.

Show me where we have a gun massacre with a legally bought weapon every month. VA Tech was so shocking becuase the guy exploited a loophole. And he attacked one of the few places where gun are outlawed. If he had gone to a mall more than likely he'd been shot dead before he got past his second victim, if he was that lucky.

The point is that nobody wants this shot to go down. But it will. An armed society has more a chance of keeping it in check than an unamred society. I mean really when your next gun massacre does occur, and it will, what will the death toll be? My guess is we'll see a nice triple digiter.

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.

They might hesitate but if the robber is young or sick they'll run . If the robber is desperate it depends on the desperation. Most 'desperate' criminals are 'desperate' for drugs and are already unhinged to the point where you only defense might be seriously wounding them.

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

BS. Nobody has accidently shot themselves in the eye with a gun. But at least 50% of women have peppersprayed themselves.

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.

I'd like the oppurtunity to own one. Why should the governement have a right to such a tactical level weapon theat i do not. I might even want to carry it around. But then again I don;t plan on using it. So what is the harm in me having a M-16 if I keep it out of criminal hands and never harm someone with it?

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.

Excuse me but crimals have guns and knives. However they do this becuase it does give them an advantage. Some already get acess, illegally, to some of the best weapons on the market. They would have to invent better to get any better. Most criminals would give up their life of crime if they had the means of creating this better gun.

 

[shaman_]

By defination a NOVICE is someone without training. You don;t get to pick the definition of your words. Either cahnge it to trained or stop lying.

Lying? When I used the term I made it very clear what I meant - Someone who hadn't had any particular training, as opposed to your hypothetical expert. If you need to cherry pick through my posts and ignore the words you don't like so that you actually have a point then the dishonesty is on your part.

I can throw five knives in quick successionand stand a chance of killing somone with three of them normally. I knew one guy who actully could throw three simultaneously and usually hit two out of three bouncing ping pong balls and a three-fer happened quite ofthen as well.

But that still wouldn't compare to 15 bullets in two seconds..

The Australian Examples prove nothing. The shooting sprees occurred under already fairly tight gun control laws. Until Australia has more than 86 years without a massacre it is too early to say if the law had an effect.

You cannot, cannot, possibly be serious when you say something as stupid as that.

Thirteen in fifteen years, the laws get tightened and then none in the twelve years since. I'm not saying that it proves everything I have said it correct but to surely there is something to those stats?

Actually you adjucated homicides are down marginally. Like Britian Australia does not report them as crime unless there is prosecution.

What does that matter? I am comparing Australia with Australia?

Okay but explain why in Shall Issue states like Texas and Michigan crime has actually decreased in cities that fdo not make gun ordinances. This despite recent economic woes. Only in the place where guns are not allowed to civillians has crime actually increased.

Now that is the best comment you have made so far. I don't know much about those states and will look into it. What other states have the same laws as them?

Or I could just say you have to wait 86 years before it means anything.

You didn't have one for 80 some years before that. And your firearms related death is down but all other death is up if you count in all death and not just adjucated ones.

1. No. We had 12 in fifteen years before Port Arthur. 2. No. Homicides overall have been down a little in the last few years.

I don;t acknowledge highly questionable results based on flawed data sets. What scientist in his right mind would?

Also I was using the hypothetical as a demonstration. Though it is not as hypothetical as you think. It happened to a former coworker. Pepperspray did not work. Taser did not work. Only thing that saved her was the guy died his OD before he finished strangling her. But of course you'd rather she would take the risk of being killed than having a more viable way of fighting off an attacker.

But how often is that going to be the case? How many people are going to able to shake off getting tased and sprayed in the face?

Your total homicide numbers are low only becuase of your rules of only declaring adjucated cases. Compare it to the medical records that agencies like the CDC compare and the Australia is only slightlhy less dangerous than the US and given the trends will soon be much more dangerous.

Show me these medical records.

Like I have pointed out before we DON'T have a gun problem. Our problems have nothing to do with our guns as they it does with the people. I never expect a Utopia becuase well to put it honestly man is a half-civilized predator. No matter what you do a few will slip their self imposed leash and go off the deep end. It's those times that a person needs to be able to adequately defend themselves. I mean imagine if in one of your gun massacres one of the civillians had simply shot the A-hole in question before his body count got past one hand. Your country would have a bastly different outlook on guns.

The problem is that you don't think you have a problem.

Actually US citizen hear about the Aussies and sigh. Such a great promising democracy now just a totalarian regime in the making.


No, of course it doesn't. Why arm the people you are turning into sheeple.

Australia is one of the most relaxed, laid back countries that you will ever visit. We have freedom and we don't have the fear that we need guns to defend ourselves. That is all the more rewarding considering that run of massacres in the 80s and 90s when the laws were lax.

Ben hit in the eyes with pepperspray. Wasn't blind at all.

What you think vans are slow? Hell they can round a corner and be on you before you get the time to say "Oh crap!"

You said a wrestler coudn't just walk up and whack a mother of two in the head on the street without her seeing it coming but now but now you're talking about how easily he can drive up, jump out of a van and the van, get her in the van and then drive off. That's not consistent.

Yet happen everyday

Show me where we have a gun massacre with a legally bought weapon every month. VA Tech was so shocking becuase the guy exploited a loophole. And he attacked one of the few places where gun are outlawed. If he had gone to a mall more than likely he'd been shot dead before he got past his second victim, if he was that lucky.

He bought them legally didn't he? The pathetic laws made it so much easier for him to complete his task.

The point is that nobody wants this shot to go down. But it will. An armed society has more a chance of keeping it in check than an unamred society.

In an armed society the killer just gets armour and bigger guns and causes more damage. The killer does not care if he gets shot, he just wants to take out as many as possible first. In an armed society the killer can break into any house and load up on firearms easily.

I can just see the firefight breaking out with everyone firing away in a crowded cafeteria. Bullets going everywhere...

I mean really when your next gun massacre does occur, and it will, what will the death toll be? My guess is we'll see a nice triple digiter.

They might hesitate but if the robber is young or sick they'll run . If the robber is desperate it depends on the desperation. Most 'desperate' criminals are 'desperate' for drugs and are already unhinged to the point where you only defense might be seriously wounding them.

BS. Nobody has accidently shot themselves in the eye with a gun. But at least 50% of women have peppersprayed themselves.

Show me your source for those stats please.

Of course, no one has ever shot themselves before.... Or a relative or a bystander ect. It's a bit more permanent than a taser.

Come on, don't tell me that a gun is easier to use than pepper spray.

I'd like the oppurtunity to own one. Why should the governement have a right to such a tactical level weapon theat i do not. I might even want to carry it around. But then again I don;t plan on using it. So what is the harm in me having a M-16 if I keep it out of criminal hands and never harm someone with it?

Thats an interesting and flawed argument. "I should have guns because that takes them away from the criminals. "

If the civilians, good and bad, all have easy access to all the same tools as the law enforcement it makes their job somewhat harder and makes them less effective.

Excuse me but crimals have guns and knives. However they do this becuase it does give them an advantage. Some already get acess, illegally, to some of the best weapons on the market. They would have to invent better to get any better. Most criminals would give up their life of crime if they had the means of creating this better gun.

Better guns will be invented. That is a fact. The criminals will get them as will the citizens. Massacres will get worse and the homicide rate will probably rise but you will convince yourself that guns make your country safe even though the stats don't agree.

 

[TW Scott]

Lying? When I used the term I made it very clear what I meant - Someone who hadn't had any particular training, as opposed to your hypothetical expert. If you need to cherry pick through my posts and ignore the words you don't like so that you actually have a point then the dishonesty is on your part.

There was dishonesty on my part at all. But glaring dishonesty in yours. Your words were carefully chosen to make it look like anybody could pick up a gun with no training or practice and start killing people hell, left and crooked with head and heart shots. That's precisely why you mentioned Novice.

BTW a person who reads the owners manual and practices alone with the gun can still considered trained. It's just they trained themselves.

But that still wouldn't compare to 15 bullets in two seconds..
You cannot, cannot, possibly be serious when you say something as stupid as that.

I'd be more scared of 2 knives than 15 bullets with the average person. Roiunds 4-15 are liable to high a couple feet if they are squeezing them off that fast.

Thirteen in fifteen years, the laws get tightened and then none in the twelve years since. I'm not saying that it proves everything I have said it correct but to surely there is something to those stats?

There is nothing to those stats as that 15 year period in question was already a pretty draconian set of gun laws. Most guns were kept in safes and not allowed to be carried. Prior to that 15 year period there were NO gun massacres for 80+ years with much looser gun laws. So obviously GUNS were NOT the majopr deciding factor as they were readily available before the 15 year period and not as readily available then.

Now that is the best comment you have made so far. I don't know much about those states and will look into it. What other states have the same laws as them?

I bleieve Arizonia, New Mexico, and few other low crime stats. Oddly New York famous for it's violence has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books.

1. No. We had 12 in fifteen years before Port Arthur. 2. No. Homicides overall have been down a little in the last few years.

1. Okay so 13 in 15 years. Could also be a decline in mental health available to the public? After all the GUN does not make the decision the person does. I would say you had a problem with disturbed people. And more than likely their body counts would have been higher if they went the slasher route.

2. Actually no. The records from your equivalnet of the CDC proves that one false. The records from your Judicial branch are down. However they count only cases that have gone to court. Which it is legally obligated to do, lest they call something a homicide that was an accident.

But how often is that going to be the case? How many people are going to able to shake off getting tased and sprayed in the face?

A lot more than are going to be able to walk with a bullet through the kneecap. The point is Tasers are a physical contact weapon. You have to get close and pray the assaillant is not faster, stronger, and better trained than you. With pepperspary you have the same problems and then have to add in wind. Not to mention that criminals can indeed use these weapons as well. If they are in reach of yours you are definately in reach of theirs. There is also the point that a criminal does not give a crap about gun laws and will carry. What good is your taser then?

Show me these medical records.

The problem is that you don't think you have a problem.

Australia is one of the most relaxed, laid back countries that you will ever visit. We have freedom and we don't have the fear that we need guns to defend ourselves. That is all the more rewarding considering that run of massacres in the 80s and 90s when the laws were lax.

LOL, your gun laws were already the some of the most stringet in the world. Like britain the only guns you had in numbers were in shooting clubs kept in safe. Yes hunters in the oputback had weapons, but I will bet they still have them. Your massacres occured during a period where you were already effectively disarmed.

Now, we have more freedoms in this country then you will ever get back from yours. Including the right to protect ourselves, family and friends. Our biggest problems come when well meaning people like yourself demand that everyone disarm becuase they don;t like guns. Then you get areas like New York and DC, some of the most violent and crime ridden areas in America.

You said a wrestler coudn't just walk up and whack a mother of two in the head on the street without her seeing it coming but now but now you're talking about how easily he can drive up, jump out of a van and the van, get her in the van and then drive off. That's not consistent.

Are you stupid? Your syntax says no, but some of the things you type defy reason. I'll just consider you ignorant for now, after all it is curable.

I said it is unlikely a wrestler would go unnoticed behind a woman. After all their relatively big as men go and suspicious looking people set most other people on edge. It is possible she could get conked on the head, but that would invalidate your levels of protection as well.

A van however is usually inconspicious on a street. There are so many of them Also with the given speed it can be around the corner out of sight seconds before it is on you. Given even moderate skill and planning three people could abduct a single person with little effort and finish pacifying them in the safety of the moving van.

He bought them legally didn't he? The pathetic laws made it so much easier for him to complete his task.

He exploited a loophole that should not have existed in the VA laws. He'd been found mentally imcompetent and should not have been allowed to purchase the gun. However an improperly done check showed him as outpatient and the system didn;t pick up the red flag. This was not a failure of the law as much as it was the system.

Now if say students had been armed and one of them had taken him out early, this conversation would be vastly different.

In an armed society the killer just gets armour and bigger guns and causes more damage. The killer does not care if he gets shot, he just wants to take out as many as possible first. In an armed society the killer can break into any house and load up on firearms easily.

Okay, the ignorance again. Nothing is going to stop a killer. Take all the guns away and they will switch to another weapon. They will train and train to the point where they really will be unstoppable. At least in an armed society we will not be forced to wait for the police to show up and decide they don;t want to take a bullet for little old me.

Besides a bullet proof vest stops the bullet from killing you, provided it is a weak enough shell, it still bruises, hurts and in many cases knocks smaller guys down.

I can just see the firefight breaking out with everyone firing away in a crowded cafeteria. Bullets going everywhere...

Show me where that has happened in any restuarant in Michigan or texas the last ten years

Of course, no one has ever shot themselves before.... Or a relative or a bystander ect. It's a bit more permanent than a taser.

Excuse me, of course accidents happen. And don;t think for a moment tasers are safe for everyone. Sometimes a taser is dealier than a gunshot.

Come on, don't tell me that a gun is easier to use than pepper spray.

It's a lot harder to shoot yourself with a gun than spray your self in the eye with a poorly labelled spray can.

Thats an interesting and flawed argument. "I should have guns because that takes them away from the criminals. "

Did I say that? No I said that since I have not commited a crime why should my raights be restricted?

If the civilians, good and bad, all have easy access to all the same tools as the law enforcement it makes their job somewhat harder and makes them less effective.

Bullshit. Cops around here are glad to have the help of well meaning locals. After all who is better qualified to protect you than you.

Better guns will be invented. That is a fact. The criminals will get them as will the citizens. Massacres will get worse and the homicide rate will probably rise but you will convince yourself that guns make your country safe even though the stats don't agree.

That ignorance thing again. Massacres happen in places where guns are already restricted and banned. They don;t happen where everyone can get one. Why? Becuase no aspiring mass murderer wants to be shot down before he gets to kill his first victim. So go ahead be smug. When your massacre comes and the toll is 100+ I hope you are far, far away and maybe you'll learn something

 

[Buffalo Roam]

The funny thing is that all of the massacres that have taken place, are were guns aren't available to the people, gun free zone's, like Schools, Post Offices, Churches, Court Houses, Universities, Place's of Employment where the Management doesn't allow firearms on premiss.

The City of Washington D.C.

Washington D.C. with the toughest gun control laws in the Nation, a city, with a area of:
- City 68.3 sq mi (177.0 km²)
- Land 61.4 sq mi (159.0 km²)
- Water 6.9 sq mi (18.0 km²)

With:

Over 86 individual "police" agencies have jurisdiction within the District, although most of them do not extend more than a block or two from their wards.

That is more than one police agency per square mile.

District of Columbia Washington Population 581,530,

And a crime rate of:

Per 100,000

Burglary Rate 657,
Larceny-theft Rate 2602,
Vehicle theft Rate 1213, Arson Rate 5,
Property crime Rate 4473,
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter Rate 29,
Forcible rape Rate 31,
Robbery Rate 619,
Aggravated assault Rate 765,
Violent crime Rate 1445,
Murder Rate 29.1

And you think the Police can respond in time protect you?

 

[Roman]

No, we're not. We actually understand gun use becuase we have used them. Sure it is pretty easy to kill with a gun, but not as easy as you think. Statistially even a highly trained police officer is expected to miss a perpetrator in a gunfight at least 50% of the time. Mainly becuase of the conditions of most real gunfights. This isn't high noon where two idiots stand in the middle of the street. It's usually dark, foul weather, in alleys and almost always from forms of cover.

Despite that even when at the firing range they tell fiolks that more than likely your first couple of clips you are not likely to hit anything. And that's shooting at a piece of paper than is stationary and you getting to sight properly and everything.

1) I own guns and shoot them. I even kill animals with them. And it's really fucking easy.

2) Who the fuck is talking about firefights? I'm talking about the ease of getting out a gun, walking up to someone, and killing them from 10 feet away. There's really no way to get out that situation, at all. The guy with the gun just squeezes trigger, and then you have big gory holes in the back of your chest. You can turn and run from someone who has a knife, a bow (have you ever tried shooting stuff with a bow? Waaaaaay harder than using a gun. Why do you think militaries replaced bows with guns?), a sledgehammer, whatever. You can't run from bullets. Move and you die.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

1) I own guns and shoot them. I even kill animals with them. And it's really fucking easy.

Exactly what animals do you kill? that are so easy to hunt?

2) Who the fuck is talking about firefights? I'm talking about the ease of getting out a gun, walking up to someone, and killing them from 10 feet away. There's really no way to get out that situation, at all. The guy with the gun just squeezes trigger, and then you have big gory holes in the back of your chest. You can turn and run from someone who has a knife, a bow (have you ever tried shooting stuff with a bow? Waaaaaay harder than using a gun. Why do you think militaries replaced bows with guns?), a sledgehammer, whatever. You can't run from bullets. Move and you die.

I have been there, and it isn't as easy as you think, I am here because of that fact.

I have witnessed two armed individuals empty their weapons at each other at arms reach and neither one hit the other.

I use a bow and it doesn't take long before you are can become very proficient with that as a weapon, especially if the range is under 30 ft.

Now as to those animals that you shoot with such easy? I have hunted from the time it was legal for me to do so, 45 years, and I have never had a easy time in hunting up, and getting a kill shot on any medium or large sized game animal, and that is from Whitetail Deer, Elk, to Bear, none of those shot were ever accomplished by just walking up and shooting them.

Are you a canned hunter? bait the animal under your stand and shoot them while they eat? that ain't hunting, and that ain't fair chase, that is city boy hunting.

 

[Roman]

Exactly what animals do you kill? that are so easy to hunt?

All of them.
You apparently haven't tried hunting the old fashioned way with a spear, atl atl, throwing ax, your bare hands. You know, like back when it was still hard.

Finding an animal just takes time. That's it. It's not hard work- you walk around with your gun, being quiet, and eventually you see an animal (deer, moose, bear, rabbit, squirrel, bird, and so forth). Then you shoot it. Of course, some animals are much harder to get close to than others; but what's it matter, you have a gun. I don't have to get within 30 feet so I can properly javelin it, or 20 feet so I can hit it with a rock. Point, click, dead. No running and throwing things; no sneaking around; no fighting a bear with a flint blade.

Hunting animals during hunting season is more difficult, I would presume, than shooting people, because animals during hunting season are shy (I've hunted birds, moose, deer, and bear, as well as small game, but never people). The people in my office are not shy, they won't prick their ears up and hear me coming and take off, they cannot run at 25 mph through dense underbrush- they are confined to small rooms. Oh no, boom, open a door, and kill them all. Bang bang bang. Very easy.

Have you ever swordfought? I can take a swordsman with only a chair. It's tricky, but in a confined place, swinging and slashing a blade can be parried with some skill and luck, with only improvised things. You cannot parry a gun with a chair, because when you stand up to do so, you'll have three or four holes in your chest. Swords aren't that long; and the longer the sword, the less likely you're going to be able to wield it competently indoors.

I've actually done this with friends. A friend of mine is from a family who does a bunch of ren fair shit. He's quite accomplished at wielding melee weapons, wearing armor, and beating the shit out of you with a bamboo stick that looks like a sword. We tried me with a wood chair vs. him with a real claymore. He won about 3 times out of 4, as in, he just beat me down with the blade. The other quarter of the times, I successfully disarmed him (of course, grappling someone 100lbs heavier than me still meant I lost). Then we got a bb gun. Neither one of us could get to the other without being shot, unless we were ridiculously close.

I'm not really sure why you guys are pretending that shooting stuff is hard, requires very much skill, or is seriously the same as using a bow or knife to kill people. You were in the army or some shit, right BR? How would you have felt if you all were issued only a knife, a bow, and a sword, and told "with only a little training, those are just as dangerous as guns"? You would have got shot to shit by Charlie, that's what.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I've actually done this with friends. A friend of mine is from a family who does a bunch of ren fair shit. He's quite accomplished at wielding melee weapons, wearing armor, and beating the shit out of you with a bamboo stick that looks like a sword. We tried me with a wood chair vs. him with a real claymore. He won about 3 times out of 4, as in, he just beat me down with the blade. The other quarter of the times, I successfully disarmed him (of course, grappling someone 100lbs heavier than me still meant I lost). Then we got a bb gun. Neither one of us could get to the other without being shot, unless we were ridiculously close.

Real Bullshit, he wasn't trying to kill you for real.

Losing 3/4 of the time in play is one thing, losing one time for real is dead.

I'm not really sure why you guys are pretending that shooting stuff is hard, requires very much skill, or is seriously the same as using a bow or knife to kill people. You were in the army or some shit, right BR? How would you have felt if you all were issued only a knife, a bow, and a sword, and told "with only a little training, those are just as dangerous as guns"? You would have got shot to shit by Charlie, that's what.

Because I have done this for real, blood in my mouth, up my nose close, I have pull trigger, and used rocks close, your a fucking wantabee, badass.

I have 5 survival Schools under my Belt, I am a snake eater from before you were born.

 

[Simon Anders]

Ah, this verbal jousting brings a hankering for the days of dueling. Let us know when you need seconds.

 

[nietzschefan]

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.

So we are to live according to laws designed around what mentally unstable people might do?

No thanks. Roll the fucking dice. The world will never be as safe as you want it to be.

 

[TW Scott]

1) I own guns and shoot them. I even kill animals with them. And it's really fucking easy.

Yes it is easy. But how long did you have to train with guns before you stopped blinking as you pulled the trigger? When did you stop flinching? How many weeks did it take to be able to hit a running rabbit?

2) Who the fuck is talking about firefights? I'm talking about the ease of getting out a gun, walking up to someone, and killing them from 10 feet away. There's really no way to get out that situation, at all. The guy with the gun just squeezes trigger, and then you have big gory holes in the back of your chest. You can turn and run from someone who has a knife, a bow (have you ever tried shooting stuff with a bow? Waaaaaay harder than using a gun. Why do you think militaries replaced bows with guns?), a sledgehammer, whatever. You can't run from bullets. Move and you die.

So, a guy can just knife you in thee back completely undetected. Your point? At least in a armed society the situation you give allows the atleast shoot back.

 

[shaman_]

There was dishonesty on my part at all. But glaring dishonesty in yours. Your words were carefully chosen to make it look like anybody could pick up a gun with no training or practice and start killing people hell, left and crooked with head and heart shots. That's precisely why you mentioned Novice.

When I mentioned novice it was clearly in reference to the person I had described in a previous post. You are refusing to see this, or the point that was being made.

BTW a person who reads the owners manual and practices alone with the gun can still considered trained. It's just they trained themselves.

Something I acknowledged days ago

We can go over and over on the novice thing for a few more pages if you want. The point was that it takes a lot less training to get mulitple kills with a gun than it does with a knife, piece of cloth and rock, lasso and the other examples you gave. If you continue to refuse to accept this then I'll think you are being obtuse.

I'd be more scared of 2 knives than 15 bullets with the average person. Roiunds 4-15 are liable to high a couple feet if they are squeezing them off that fast.

.. and yet no one has killed thirty people in a knife throwing rampage have they?

You are being ridiculous here because you think you will be compromising your position otherwise. someone can easily carry a few guns and a few clips and will be so much more dangerous that your knife thrower example. Stop pretending that it is so difficult to kill someone with a gun.

There is nothing to those stats as that 15 year period in question was already a pretty draconian set of gun laws. Most guns were kept in safes and not allowed to be carried. Prior to that 15 year period there were NO gun massacres for 80+ years with much looser gun laws. So obviously GUNS were NOT the majopr deciding factor as they were readily available before the 15 year period and not as readily available then.

The gun laws were actually reduced in the period leading up to the massacres.

Again with the humorous 80 years statistic. If you are going back that far there is no point stopping then, go back hundreds of years before the time the gun was invented. Ah but that would be obviously absurd so we will stick with 80 years because it sounds impressive, even though if it a pointless stat. The country was a very different place at the turn of the century. The weaponry could not even compare to what we have today. Society was a different place where people didn't have to deal with the pressure we have today. There were world wars which bring nations together and periods such as the depression where people could not afford to load up on weaponry to go on a massacre. It was in the second half of the century that shooting sprees had appeal to potential shooters. This was perhaps in part to the copycat phenomenon, part due to the effectiveness of the news media. How many massacres were there in the US in the first half of the last century? None? One? You have several a year now.

To constantly argue that gun laws aren't the main cause of shooting sprees is a straw man. Gun laws don't cause massacres, no one is saying that. However, as the century ended it is clear that shooting sprees WERE appealing to potential Martin Bryant's so the laws had to be adjusted to make it as hard as possible. It appears to have worked in Australia, you can continue to think it is just a coincidence.

It's interesting that a few pages ago I was hearing that there were no gun laws before the 1980s and then the sprees happened, so the the gun laws/buyback had nothing to do with it once they stopped. Now I'm hearing that our laws were draconian before the sprees so that also proves that the buyback/law change had no influence on them stopping.

I bleieve Arizonia, New Mexico, and few other low crime stats. Oddly New York famous for it's violence has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books.

Buffalo Roam found a document that said there is a direct relationship between crime and population density.

1. Okay so 13 in 15 years. Could also be a decline in mental health available to the public? After all the GUN does not make the decision the person does. I would say you had a problem with disturbed people. And more than likely their body counts would have been higher if they went the slasher route.

So we had a problem with disturbed people, just for a period in the 80s and 90s and then that stopped, and hasn't happened since? What was causing it, a big gas leak? Mental health is a factor of course but I don't think it could explain the results seen, particularly because not all our multiple killings were done by people identified with mental problems. I don't know the actual comparison though.

No the gun doesn't make the decision. However if someone in the US wants to go postal, it is much easier and there is less chance of getting found out than here. If we keep going with the "criminals wont follow the laws" point then why have any laws at all?

2. Actually no. The records from your equivalnet of the CDC proves that one false. The records from your Judicial branch are down. However they count only cases that have gone to court. Which it is legally obligated to do, lest they call something a homicide that was an accident.

That is irrelevant when comparing trends taken using the same method.

Could you provide me with a link to support that please.

A lot more than are going to be able to walk with a bullet through the kneecap. The point is Tasers are a physical contact weapon. You have to get close and pray the assaillant is not faster, stronger, and better trained than you. With pepperspary you have the same problems and then have to add in wind. Not to mention that criminals can indeed use these weapons as well. If they are in reach of yours you are definately in reach of theirs. There is also the point that a criminal does not give a crap about gun laws and will carry. What good is your taser then?

Your scenario means that everyone has to have automatics (civilians have to keep up with the crims of course), so you have a high homicide rate due to the very high gun homicide rate.

The scenario I'm saying should be striven for is that guns are harder to come so most criminals wouldn't have them and civilians don't feel the need for them. Sure there is still crime and homicide but not in the same league.

The problem is that you don't think you have a problem.

LOL, your gun laws were already the some of the most stringet in the world. Like britain the only guns you had in numbers were in shooting clubs kept in safe. Yes hunters in the oputback had weapons, but I will bet they still have them. Your massacres occured during a period where you were already effectively disarmed.

Now, we have more freedoms in this country then you will ever get back from yours. Including the right to protect ourselves, family and friends. Our biggest problems come when well meaning people like yourself demand that everyone disarm becuase they don;t like guns. Then you get areas like New York and DC, some of the most violent and crime ridden areas in America.

Nonsense, we have all the freedom that the US has, except without the automatic weapons. We aren't nearly as religious as the US and while patriotic, we aren't as fiercely patriotic so in some ways we have more freedom. But this isn't about Australia vs the US. I actually quite like the US and I am commenting on one disappointing aspect.

People who live in the Australian country areas or outback have a very good reason for having a gun.

Are you stupid? Your syntax says no, but some of the things you type defy reason. I'll just consider you ignorant for now, after all it is curable.

I said it is unlikely a wrestler would go unnoticed behind a woman. After all their relatively big as men go and suspicious looking people set most other people on edge. It is possible she could get conked on the head, but that would invalidate your levels of protection as well.

A van however is usually inconspicious on a street. There are so many of them Also with the given speed it can be around the corner out of sight seconds before it is on you. Given even moderate skill and planning three people could abduct a single person with little effort and finish pacifying them in the safety of the moving van.

So the wrestler just waits in a shop, lane way or around a corner until a singular victim walks past, sees them, takes three or four steps then bang.

Insults aside, your point of these scenarios was to invalidate the alternative defense methods. You are making out the alternatives to be almost useless and the gun is almost perfect which is not the case. As I have said the gun is much more effective at stopping people, assuming the person does not hesitate and knows how to use it. However guns cause so many other problems to society that the others don't.

He exploited a loophole that should not have existed in the VA laws. He'd been found mentally imcompetent and should not have been allowed to purchase the gun. However an improperly done check showed him as outpatient and the system didn;t pick up the red flag. This was not a failure of the law as much as it was the system.

Now if say students had been armed and one of them had taken him out early, this conversation would be vastly different.

Okay, the ignorance again. Nothing is going to stop a killer. Take all the guns away and they will switch to another weapon. They will train and train to the point where they really will be unstoppable. At least in an armed society we will not be forced to wait for the police to show up and decide they don;t want to take a bullet for little old me.

But if the guns are hard to come by the killer will go beserk with ONE old handgun or a knife or a sword. It's not nearly as bad.

Besides a bullet proof vest stops the bullet from killing you, provided it is a weak enough shell, it still bruises, hurts and in many cases knocks smaller guys down.


Show me where that has happened in any restuarant in Michigan or texas the last ten years

It is the scenario that you described above regarding students taking out the killer. I am saying that it will hardly be a neat, harmless solution.

Excuse me, of course accidents happen. And don;t think for a moment tasers are safe for everyone. Sometimes a taser is dealier than a gunshot.

It's a lot harder to shoot yourself with a gun than spray your self in the eye with a poorly labelled spray can.

Did I say that? No I said that since I have not commited a crime why should my raights be restricted?

Because we are talking about the right to own a killing machine that causes many problems.

Bullshit. Cops around here are glad to have the help of well meaning locals. After all who is better qualified to protect you than you.

But if the civilians have the weaponry then the criminals definitely have the weaponry and probably better. The police have lost their superiority and their impact.

That ignorance thing again. Massacres happen in places where guns are already restricted and banned. They don;t happen where everyone can get one. Why? Becuase no aspiring mass murderer wants to be shot down before he gets to kill his first victim. So go ahead be smug. When your massacre comes and the toll is 100+ I hope you are far, far away and maybe you'll learn something

It's not a very nice subject. Any smugness is a response to the tone that often comes out in these internet debates.

Massacres have happened in the states you mentioned Texas, New Mexico, Michigan. Were the existing gun laws in place then? (genuine question)

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Shaman


Massacres have happened in the states you mentioned Texas, New Mexico, Michigan. Were the existing gun laws in place then? (genuine question)

And all of them happened is gun free zones, places were you weren't allowed to have a Gun on your person, by law or by the property owners restrictions.

In some of those States the existing gun laws were not in place, Lubbies in Texas, CCW was not a law then.

Michigan it is still almost impossible to get a carry permit, especially in Detroit.

In Post Offices, it is illegal to posses a fire arm, it is a gun free zone by Federal Law.

Many work places restrict the employee from having weapons on the work site.

As of February 2008, 48 US states allow some form of concealed carry (though 9 of them have discretionary "may-issue" policies, a few of these being effectively "no-issue" in practice) and about half provide for some variant on non-concealed "open-carry". The states of Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia do not have any form of concealed-carry licensing; Wisconsin allows for open carry in most situations, while Illinois only allows it in rural areas subject to county restriction, and the District of Columbia had a blanket ban on ownership, possession and carry of handguns in its jurisdiction which began in 1976, this was struck down June 26, 2008 by the US Supreme Court.

But in many of the May Issue State it is effectively impossible to get a Concealed Carry Permit.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Yes, a Bear Hunt with a Flint Knife, who the hell do you think your kidding, again I have been a avid hunter for 45 years, and I have taken game with everything from a sling to a 375 H&h mag. and it was never simple, it required know the movement patterns, the terrain, the resting places, the body structure of the animal, and most of all getting in range of the Animal for a proper killing shot, I hate having to track down wounded game, let alone if that game animal can bite, or is big enough and bad enough to stomp you into a mud puddle, piss on you and stomp it dry again.

Plus, there are things called hunting seasons, they are regulated, you can only hunt certain Species during each hunting season, the method of killing each of those species is full regulated as to what weapons and size of weapons can be used for the hunt.

Bow's must be 40 lb. in draw weight minimum.

Arrows must be broad heads, matching certian size restriction.

Hand Guns must be .358 (and at that size must be magnums), in caliber or larger.

In Africa to hunt Dangerous Game, the minimum caliber is .375 Mag.

And a whole list of other restrictions as to how you are allowed to hunt game animals.

Yes I can take a walk and kill any number of animals, that isn't the problem, but to do it properly, to feed yourself, and your family, is a whole another matter.

I was raised on a farm, starting back in the 50's, any extra meat that could be added to the freezer, meant more meat that could be sent to market to make money, on a average I killed a deer every 60 day, and that was after spending a lot of time in the fields and woods.

Ammunition was expensive and you made it count, and it still was never as simple as walking around until you could shoot something, let alone shoot what you wanted, when you wanted, for meat to feed the family, plus the other factor was that much of what I brought home for meat was taken out of season and I also had to avoid the Game Wardens, time were still hard, and money wasn't the most plentifully.

You make me laugh, you aren't a hunter, if you were, you would never make such stupid statements.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I'm not really sure why you guys are pretending that shooting stuff is hard, requires very much skill, or is seriously the same as using a bow or knife to kill people. You were in the army or some shit, right BR? How would you have felt if you all were issued only a knife, a bow, and a sword, and told "with only a little training, those are just as dangerous as guns"? You would have got shot to shit by Charlie, that's what.

You could get a 7 day leave for doing a silent kill with a machete.

The SOG, GB's, and Force Recon, used bows, and I know of several people from the 173 AB that used Bows to.

I would not have felt under armed with a Bow in Vietnam, depending on the situation, I had been shooting bow and arrow since I was 7.

I carried a Gerber MK 1, combat knife, and a machete is nothing but a short sword.

I know for a fact that all of those weapons were used in hand to hand combat, so what are you trying to prove?

And again, by your question's, I know you haven't been there for real.

Renfest combat, is still a show, in the end you are not trying to kill each other for real, your sparing, with your friend was still under the rule of play, no one was trying to kill, and no one intended to kill.

I also know that you haven't had much real experience with weapons, and killing for real, because you think it is so simple to kill, be it a animal or a human.

I have been there, for real, combat, when the people I faced wanted me dead, so they could live another minute, well I am still here, and I have come to terms with killing another Human it took a long time, and it still has it's consequences, I was and sill am capable of pulling a trigger on another Human, but it isn't easy, and it isn't simple, and it take skill and practice to do so effectively.

Animal or Human, it still requires a different frame of mind to kill, and the weapon doesn't matter as much as the mind.

If you intend to Kill, the weapon is of secondary matter, you will accomplish the task if you wish to, and no law is going to stop you.

There have been time's when I have seriously considered making abortion retroactive for some asshole who seriously deserved it, but so far none of them have been worth the time I would have to spend away from my family and friends to do much about it, and in the end the Wheel has got those who needed it.

But if one of my Family or friend ever get killed, or seriously hurt, that will be a whole another level of consideration.

 

[Echo3Romeo]

The SOG, GB's, and Force Recon, used bows, and I know of several people from the 173 AB that used Bows to.

You know who else used a bow?

That's right.

Personally, I've never found the SOPMOD M4 lacking, but there is something about bringing a bow in a gunfight that just reeks of epic badassery.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

You know who else used a bow?

That's right.

Personally, I've never found the SOPMOD M4 lacking, but there is something about bringing a bow in a gunfight that just reeks of epic badassery.

I am looking for that article that covered one of those individuals, I have found reference to it.

His name is Robert Graham

MACV's Studies and Observations Group was once so secret that the U.S. government denied its existence.

By Rob Krott

From his own personal knowledge of MACV-SOG operations and from interviews with more than 100 MACV-SOG veterans, along with recently declassified documents, Plaster has crafted a heavily anecdotal and riveting account. He offers tales of close, violent combat actions between MACV-SOG teams and large numbers of North Vietnamese Army (NVA) troops. While some infantrymen in Vietnam despaired of ever seeing the enemy, MACV-SOG teams often found themselves fighting their way out of a hornet's nest of angry NVA battalions. Plaster recounts some of the most extraordinary tales of the Vietnam War. Some stories will lay to rest old rumors; others will just raise more questions. For example, Plaster describes how two Chinese advisers were killed when reconnaissance team (RT) Maine ambushed an NVA company command element, killing the commander, his three platoon leaders and two Chinese advisers as they gathered for lunch. Plaster also tells about the "crazy Canadians" who served in the U.S. Army with MACV-SOG, including Robert Graham, who once carried a Simpsons (Sears) 55-pound hunting bow and shot broadhead-tipped arrows at the NVA during a firefight.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Echanis later returned to the States and began teaching in a hwarangdo school in La Habra, California. "He was just too tough on the students," says Randy Wanner, the current instructor. "Besides, he was a military man and liked it. That's where he was happy."

So Echanis survived his ordeal and returned to become a kind of modern day ninja instructor for the Hand-to-Hand Combat / Special Weapons School. He is justifiably proud of his accomplishment. "I believe I am the only Caucasian man," says Echanis, "teaching charyok training to military personnel in the United States." Beyond that, says Echanis, "I teach mind control and hypnosis three days a week for Operations and Intelligence." Echanis also teaches hwarangdo to Navy S.E.A.L.S., Marine Force Recon units. Echanis credits his skills and capabilities to his teacher, HwaRangDo Founder Dr. Joo Bang Lee. "Were it not for him," says Echanis, "I would know nothing about the martial arts." Today, the former Green Beret and Airborne Ranger is the chief instructor for about 200 instructors in these special warfare branches of the service.

Michael Echanis, was killed in a bomb blast aboard a plane while serving
as a military advisor in Nicaraguan.

 

[TW Scott]

Michigan it is still almost impossible to get a carry permit, especially in Detroit.

Incorrect we passed the Shall- Issue policy several years ago. Where they must find a really good reason to deny a CCW. However some larger cities mistakenly believe banning guns locally will curb violence. Notably Bay City, Saginaw, Midland, FLint and Detroit. Oddly these are the cities with the worst crime rates in Michigan as well and by far have the most shootings.