Are You For Or Against Guns?

[AlwaysFSX]

Paul and Bob had decided they had done enough (considering he was out cold) but Steve had another idea... He pulled out a piece from his jacket and pointed it right at Peter and pulled the trigger... *click* *click* *click* 

 

Obviously the police came, along with more police and a few more police with bigger guns. Luckily Peter didn't die but he is currently in hospital and is yet to wake up, apparently anyway i never really knew the guy.

Do people not understand the idea of shooting to incapacitate, not to kill?

[Yoinkerman]

People don't value human life.  That's the real issue.

 

Do people not understand the idea of shooting to incapacitate, not to kill?

[ygohome]

I am for the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms for the security of a free state.

 

Self defense, yo.   Without having to wait for someone else to come to the rescue and save my bacon.

 

That is my stance on the subject.  After saying that, I don't carry a gun.  I have a shotgun under our bed for home defense.  I sometimes go to a shooting range for practice and fun.  The local range has a wide array of guns to rent by the hour for using there.  An MP5 and a  Smith & Wesson .500 revolver were about the coolest thing I've used.

[Guest]

People don't value human life.  That's the real issue.

Every one has the right to live. When you choose to attack, rob, or mug me or anyone I know and love you lose that right. 

[AlwaysFSX]

People don't value human life.  That's the real issue.

And that is why we're discussing this problem in the first place.

[nicehat]

It's pretty simple to argue that gun-related homicide rate would be higher in a country where guns are so ubiquitous. If you watch the video, it addresses whether stats like that accurately play into the reduction of violent crime, and asks why all the available data isn't being looked at. I guess that's my point - if you cherry pick your data to suit your beliefs, you aren't really being fair to the issue.

 

A follow-up:

 

 

I agree with parts of the video, Just not with his rationale for comparing the UK with itself over a given time period. Those substantial gun laws in his video superimosed on the graph mean nothing as we have no context of what they were. I found that a bit ironic. We need context of UK laws vs countries that have different ones, or none at all. Also, does the UK gun violence include the Anglo-Irish war? Does it include all the violence associated with the IRA and Northern Ireland from 1960s - 1997? Are those gun related stats included? No answers from the video. He does say we need to look at stats in its entirety, which he hasnt done.

 

Nervertheless, i did a 2 second google search, found some numbers that corroborate what I already know from doing research on in the past. These statistics aim to explain the reality of why guns violence is less in those countries than in the US. Again, im not a statistician (far from it), Im just looking at simple numbers and making assumptions for causality. This may or may not be the way to do it, but I can hardly be characterized as "cherry picking". There may be other factors but India is a very substantial case for why at least one of those variables (socio-economics), plays a smaller role than people expect.     

[Mentalguy]

I also believe that guns are a cowards weapon. There is no honor in killing or injuring someone with a firearm. But there are those criminals without honor, and others that will stoop to their level to protect themselves

those who live by the sword get killed by those who don't.

 

Getting into a gun safe takes only a few seconds.  If your life is so endangered that there isn't a few seconds, a gun under your pillow isn't going to help you anyway.  And yes, police here respond very very quickly to "there's a stranger in my house with a gun".  Guns only serve to escalate situations.  Nowhere did I say lay down and die.

Coming from experience, a few seconds could save your life.

Not to mention all the BS around not properly trained people firing their guns off "protecting" themselves or others and actually just hitting people not even involved.  Or kids shooting each other.  Or people shooting themselves accidentally.  Or each other accidentally.  Or getting drunk and shooting someone.  

 

I'd bet the list of people injured and killed by those things is much larger than the list of people "protected" from intruders because of a gun.

I think gun owners (and the population, in general. Maybe by a course in high school) should be trained by professionals in gun safety.

[cae]

Do people not understand the idea of shooting to incapacitate, not to kill?

 

This is not practical. It's video game or movie nonsense.

 

The value of human life is a tough one. It was several years before I was remotely comfortable carrying, because I don't want to take anyone's life, but ultimately decided and practice that my life, and others' lives are more valued than someone who has chosen to initiate violent force against them or myself.

[AlwaysFSX]

This is not practical. It's video game or movie nonsense.

 

The value of human life is a tough one. It was several years before I was remotely comfortable carrying, because I don't want to take anyone's life, but ultimately decided and practice that my life, and others' lives are more valued than someone who has chosen to initiate violent force against them or myself.

Shooting someone so they can't shoot you back is not practical? You spare their life and others around you... What's not practical about causing the least amount of death that you can?

[Guest]

Shooting someone so they can't shoot you back is not practical? You spare their life and others around you... What's not practical about causing the least amount of death that you can?

Whats not practiacal is having someone attacking/robbing you and having time to pick a non lethal place to hit him. I he didn't want to get shot he shouldn't have attacked me.

[Yoinkerman]

That's all I'm saying, raise the barrier of entry and it should greatly help these problems.  By creating a better cultural outlook.

 

those who live by the sword get killed by those who don't.

 

Coming from experience, a few seconds could save your life.

I think gun owners (and the population, in general. Maybe by a course in high school) should be trained by professionals in gun safety.

[cae]

I agree with parts of the video, Just not with his rationale for comparing the UK with itself over a given time period. Those substantial gun laws in his video superimosed on the graph mean nothing as we have no context of what they were. I found that a bit ironic. We need context of UK laws vs countries that have different ones, or none at all. Also, does the UK gun violence include the Anglo-Irish war? Does it include all the violence associated with the IRA and Northern Ireland from 1960s - 1997? Are those gun related stats included? No answers from the video. He does say we need to look at stats in its entirety, which he hasnt done.  

 

It was recorded violent crime in the UK vs. recorded violent crime in the US over a period of time. It's just one part of the bigger puzzle - the message of his video - that everything isn't being looked at before jumping to a conclusion (gun control) that doesn't address the issue (violent crime). The point is not to provide all the stats for you. The point is to show that there are a lot more stats out there that aren't being set on the table.

 

Nervertheless, i did a 2 second google search, found some numbers that corroborate what I already know from doing research on in the past. These statistics aim to explain the reality of why guns violence is less in those countries than in the US. Again, im not a statistician (far from it), Im just looking at simple numbers and making assumptions for causality. This may or may not be the way to do it, but I can hardly be characterized as "cherry picking". There may be other factors but India is a very substantial case for why at least one of those variables (socio-economics), plays a smaller role than people expect.     

 

We've come full circle. 

[AlwaysFSX]

Whats not practiacal is having someone attacking/robbing you and having time to pick a non lethal place to hit him. I he didn't want to get shot he shouldn't have attacked me.

Not lethal is anything that's not the torso or the head (for the most part, they can bleed to death but hopefully the precious police show up by then).

[cae]

Shooting someone so they can't shoot you back is not practical? You spare their life and others around you... What's not practical about causing the least amount of death that you can?

 

It's not practical because of the adrenaline spike you're likely to receive in a situation like that. Tunnel vision, shakes, who knows what else. Go to a gun range. Watch some people. Even those that are comfortable can still have difficulties hitting center mass at 7 meters in a relatively relaxed environment with a stationary (and stationery  ) target. Throw situational awareness, a moving target, the moral decision to probably take someone's life, and the anvil of stress on top of that. Not. Practical.

[Yoinkerman]

That's the thing, we don't even trust police to be able to exercise good judgement in these situations, yet we're supposed to trust every day average joes with an hour of book training and some time spent at a range?  That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

It's not practical because of the adrenaline spike you're likely to receive in a situation like that. Tunnel vision, shakes, who knows what else. Go to a gun range. Watch some people. Even those that are comfortable can still have difficulties hitting center mass at 7 meters in a relatively relaxed environment with a stationary (and stationery  ) target. Throw situational awareness, a moving target, the moral decision to probably take someone's life, and the anvil of stress on top of that. Not. Practical.

[Hikaru12]

I believe everyone is entitled to a gun but I don't think guns make people safer. I understand both sides of the argument because I believe if people get their guns taken from them the government can then do whatever they want because the people can't rebel. Who knows? Gov's got nukes so it wouldn't really matter any way.

[cae]

That's the thing, we don't even trust police to be able to exercise good judgement in these situations, yet we're supposed to trust every day average joes with an hour of book training and some time spent at a range?  That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

I'd sooner trust either of those options than trust that the initiator of the situation would suddenly have second thoughts and decide to not go through with whatever it is they were planning.

[Fred Castellum]

I believe everyone is entitled to a gun but I don't think guns make people safer. I understand both sides of the argument because I believe if people get their guns taken from them the government can then do whatever they want because the people can't rebel. Who knows? Gov's got nukes so it wouldn't really matter any way.

lol the gov doesn't stand to benefit from anything if they just nuke us

[Guest Kloaked]

Getting into a gun safe takes only a few seconds.  If your life is so endangered that there isn't a few seconds, a gun under your pillow isn't going to help you anyway.  And yes, police here respond very very quickly to "there's a stranger in my house with a gun".  Guns only serve to escalate situations.  Nowhere did I say lay down and die.

 

Not to mention all the BS around not properly trained people firing their guns off "protecting" themselves or others and actually just hitting people not even involved.  Or kids shooting each other.  Or people shooting themselves accidentally.  Or each other accidentally.  Or getting drunk and shooting someone.  

 

I'd bet the list of people injured and killed by those things is much larger than the list of people "protected" from intruders because of a gun.

 

1. It does not simply take a few seconds to get into a gun safe.

2. There is a very high chance that the police will not respond quick enough to save your life unless they live in your house.

3. Guns do not only serve to escalate situations. We've literally covered the reason to have one in most of this thread.

4. People firing off their guns with no formal training is not everyone else's problem. People cut themselves with knives while preparing food all the time. Shit happens. That's life.

5. Police have shot themselves accidentally. There's a very popular video on Youtube of a cop at a school who was teaching kids about - you guessed it - gun safety.

6. Of course the number of people injured or killed by firearms will be larger than people who have "protected" themselves - but I bet you're basing that off of what is reported in mainstream media, are you not? Do you not think the media has an agenda to plant certain ideas into your mind? Don't be a part of the sheeple (sheep people) crowd. Yes, the numbers probably actually add up that way, but my point is you're likely being spoon fed some ideology that somehow people who own guns are unsafe people to be around, and they just need to be banned. I don't know about you, but I would want to be around someone who has some firepower should something happen that threatens my life. I don't want to be around someone armed with just a tazer who insists on calling 911 and patiently waiting. F that.

 

That's the thing, we don't even trust police to be able to exercise good judgement in these situations, yet we're supposed to trust every day average joes with an hour of book training and some time spent at a range?  That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

Who're you going to trust then?

 

FYI: it just takes a small amount of common sense to wield a firearm.

[AlwaysFSX]

It's not practical because of the adrenaline spike you're likely to receive in a situation like that. Tunnel vision, shakes, who knows what else. Go to a gun range. Watch some people. Even those that are comfortable can still have difficulties hitting center mass at 7 meters in a relatively relaxed environment with a stationary (and stationery  ) target. Throw situational awareness, a moving target, the moral decision to probably take someone's life, and the anvil of stress on top of that. Not. Practical.

Mental. Training.

[cae]

Mental. Training.

 

Plenty of that takes place... to hit targets center mass after quickly analyzing the situation to be sure of the target and what or who lies beyond it. Training to aim for limbs or whatever is training to miss and hit something or someone else. Not to mention that if they're holding a handgun and aiming properly, the weapon becomes pretty much center mass anyway.

 

If you're not prepared to make the judgment call to take someone's life, there are non-lethal options like a Taser. My sister didn't think she could make that call, but wanted protection and that's what I recommended. You only have one shot and limited range, and if the assailant had a gun, she'd be at a disadvantage. Carrying a gun is about equaling force, nothing's really better for personal protection in a variety of situations right now.

[nosirrah123]

Basically in the end it comes down to this.

 

If you outlaw guns, all your going to do is ensure that only criminals get can them. A lot of guns used for crimes are illegal anyways, so I don't understand how people think there's some switch we can hit to instantly remove all guns from a country.

[TheNinjaNextDor]

If guns are outlawed we better be damn sure we destroy all of them... and destroy things that we use to make them... and everything associated with them because including the fact that they ever existed. Criminals will get guns one way or another and if you want to take away some hillbilly's gun, good luck.

[nixproducer]

I've never met someone that owns a gun just for "conversation" purposes.

well you need to meet more rednecks, my friend

[Fred Castellum]

I'm for guns, but isn't a tazer gun enough for protection?

A tazer is actually a very viable option, I've got one somewhere in my bag. The problem is its completely ineffective if the attacker is wearing very thick clothing. Shooting them in the face with the Tazer is a no go too so..... lol....