Not Just Guns

Reply

  #1  
Old 04-11-13, 08:29 PM
ray2047's Avatar
Group Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 32,986
Not Just Guns

Many years ago I read because of the strict gun laws in Japan they have walk by stabbings instead of drive by shootings.

More proof comes gun control may not be the solution. Four months after a shooting at Lone Star College there has been a mass stabbing.

Never owned a gun, not an NRA member, don't agree with the current interpretation of the second amendment but I don't believe in deluding people with false logic. A lot of the gun control rhetoric seems to be that to me, false logic. What next, ban knives. This last person also had sharpened tooth brushes and hair brushes in addition to an Exacto knife and a scalpel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/us...ston.html?_r=0

Lone Star College Stabbing Undermines Gun Control Argument
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 04-11-13, 09:21 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,022
If we exclude the zealots that just hate guns, then what is the objective of those who want to ban them. One guess would be, they want to enjoy living in a safe and secure world where people aren't killing or hurting other people. Wouldn't we all? Unfortunately, people have been hurting other people since before guns were invented and they will continue to do so long after all guns are destroyed, if and when that could ever happen.

It's not guns and it has never been guns. I guess it's a flaw in human nature. Can we identify the DNA trait that makes some idiot want to do some of these terrible things, I doubt it? Or maybe it's a conditioning problem when we expose so many to so much violence? Whatever it is, taking the guns away from all of the good people just doesn't seen to be connected to a solution to our problem. And while we waste so much time attempting to do so, we are making zero progress down some other path which just might solve the problem.

Bud
 
  #3  
Old 04-11-13, 10:52 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
I agree Bud9051 and Ray2047 guns are not the problem it's the dummies who kill others with said gun. I also read about the stabbings on campus and was horrified. In Virginia they are currently thinking of allowing guns on campus for protection of the college students who have a permit to carry. I applaud this because I think it will make an attacker think twice as he or she will not know if that person is armed or not.

In Maryland you probably would never see that as our laws now are even tougher than they ever were and some of it doesn't make sense. The only thing I agree with is the finger printing aspect as anyone can sign their name John Doe but not be John Doe so that will prevent identity thieves from buying a gun in someone else's name If they already have a criminal background. So that part isn't perfect and not even the toughest of laws will ever keep criminals away from guns. It will slow them down to some extent but never stop them.
 
  #4  
Old 04-12-13, 03:19 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
I am the NRA. I am an Endowment Member, but still don't agree with all the politics of the organization. That's my prerogative. I do have the option of instituting change and voicing my opinion. Their basic tenet is the protection of the Second Amendment, not selling guns. Guns are inanimate objects, which can be used just like knives, bats, hammers and sticks to inflict harm.

There is no interpretation of the Second Amendment. Our forefathers thought it out quite well. It states what is means. It's like different interpretations of the Bible.....different words to reflect today's language......same meaning, same message.
 
  #5  
Old 04-12-13, 04:23 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,542
I know I've said this before, but as an outsider looking at what is happening in the US, I still think it's the stigma around guns that is the problem more then the actual guns themselves or their owners.

What drives me nuts when talking with some folks I know in the US, is the believe that they need a gun (or many) for protection. Right there is the problem. Guns purchased and owned with the intent to point it at another human.
Here, we own guns to hunt wild game (for sport and some extra food in the freezer). There is never the thought or intent of having the business end pointed at another human.

There should be no need for a single mother (or anyone) to own multiple guns if they have no intention of using them in the bush or at a range (or work on a farm).

I may be incorrect in my views, but when there is a knock on my door late at night, I turn the porch light on, not reach for a fire arm.
 
  #6  
Old 04-12-13, 11:15 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,399
Mike, it is a complex subject and simply cannot be analyzed in the space of an Internet forum. Part of the problem is that Canada has a significantly lower population and in most area a lower population density than the United States. While I have not personally "run the numbers" what data I have seen points out that over time the incidents of violent crime in the US has gone down on a per capita basis over the last one hundred years. Now most people would not believe this because they see so much news about crime.

I personally believe that one problem is the way that crimes are reported. Doing so on a per capita basis is flawed because it does not count the actual incidents but the ratio of incidents to the general population. I suspect that overall crime DOES show a decrease over the years but I also believe the numbers are skewed because they do not take into account the vast increase of the population. My personal opinion is that depending on where a person lives they are definitely more likely to become a crime victim today than they were five, ten or fifteen years ago. The reason is because of the increase in both the raw numbers of criminals and the increased population density of any particular area.

I am not an NRA member but I do strongly believe in the Second Amendment. I also strongly believe in the right for a lawful citizen to own as many firearms and of any type that he or she desires as long as they are not used for unlawful purposes. While I cannot foresee a situation, at least a probable situation, where one would be desirable I do not have any problem with my neighbor owning a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and several thousand round of ammo for it. Same is true of a full-automatic rifle, a tank or even a nuclear device. The key is lawful use of the weapon. My sister, on the other hand is absolutely, unalterably, completely and insanely against the personal ownership of ANY kind of firearm. She thinks(?) that only police and military should have any weapons. She will not (and cannot) offer anything but her "feelings" to support this position. She thinks(?) that if all firearms were to be made unlawful that within a short period of time most crime would disappear. I don't know what she is thinking about the hundreds of thousands of weapons in the hands of non-law abiding thugs, that they will suddenly "turn in" or otherwise dispose of their weapons voluntarily?

I have never killed another human being but if it were a matter of their life or mine or some other innocent I would not hesitate for more than a second or two, if that, to remove someone (kill them) if they were posing a real threat. My sister states absolutely that she would not kill anyone no matter what the circumstances. In fact, she went on to state that she would not use a firearm against another person no matter what the circumstances. To me that is just plain foolish.

To me it is not the violence of a certain small segment of the populace that bothers me as much as it is acceptance of that violence by a much larger segment of society as something that we just have to live with. Again, I am not a "trigger happy" vigilante, I have never been in a situation where I thought having a firearm would have helped but I have no delusions that disarming the lawful citizen would have any positive effect upon society as a whole.
 
  #7  
Old 04-12-13, 11:24 AM
Group Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: WI/MN
Posts: 18,709
My sister states absolutely that she would not kill anyone no matter what the circumstances. In fact, she went on to state that she would not use a firearm against another person no matter what the circumstances.
Then it is good there are none in her house, as they could only be used against her. Rule # 1 of owning a firearm for defense is that you must be willing to use it; to pull the trigger and end another human being's life. If not, don't have one.

I get the arguments about limits but I believe what I think is the same thing the NRA believes, that such limits only make more limits easier until nothing is allowed - the 'slippery slope' argument.

There is no one in the world you can rely on to protect you, it must be something you take responsibility for on your own. I prefer having the option of a firearm being part of this, as long as the possibility of the person(s) threatening me having one exists.
 
  #8  
Old 04-12-13, 11:57 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,399
Concerning my sister, I agree, Mitch. I once worked with a man whose wife's daughter had several break-ins at her house. Pete gave her a .22 rifle to use the next time. Well, when that time came she "threatened" the perp with the rifle and he took it away from her. Luckily for her all the creep did was steal the rifle and a few other items.

We didn't work in the "nicest part of town" and Pete confided in me that he always carried a pistol, even though it was against company rules to have a firearm on company premises. I told him that unless he was prepared to kill someone that he should never show that weapon. Far too many cases where a person thought they would scare off an attacker by merely showing a weapon and then the attacker taking the weapon and using it against them.

As for the limits, I am against them. Consider this: Three toughs have broken into your house. You have a 9mm semi-automatic and you start shooting. Two of the toughs go down after you empty the nine-round magazine but the third, while wounded, is still coming. Sure would have been nice to have a 13 round magazine.
 
  #9  
Old 04-12-13, 01:32 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
I know it is over simplified, but it is generalized that it takes two caps to take down a perpetrator. First one is mid body, followed by a second one which will be higher due to the first recoil. Ideally the first one hits the torso and the second one the head. It is called a "double tap". Too much TV, watching even cops expending 50 rounds in a firefight to take down two perps. One shot, one kill. That is why there are sights on weapons. Choose your target, choose your time.
 
  #10  
Old 04-12-13, 02:09 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 21,016
Uhhhh sorry Larry...not quite... If that's what you've been told...well, they were wrong.

Double tap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
  #11  
Old 04-12-13, 02:21 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Good info, basically the same as what I said. But, IMO, in practice the second shot will not be acquired like they state, especially with semi auto weapons. There's no time. In theory, sure, it gives the shooter a trajectory for the second shot, but it is seldom the case.
 
  #12  
Old 04-12-13, 03:11 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 21,016
I understand....but you should see some of the Pro's do it. Even with full power loads..2 shots, 4" at 10 yds so fast you thought it was one. I've seen them do the El Presidente in 6 seconds with all shots in a 10" circle....and that was years ago. I can't imagine how the top tier shooters can possibly do it in around 4 sec. Like everything I guess...practice, practice, practice.
 
  #13  
Old 04-12-13, 03:15 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
That would be cool to watch!! Seems like they get better and better every year. I've mentioned before, Eric England lives in our sleepy neighbor city, and is very unassuming person. Just a few kills ahead of Carlos Hathcock, but back then you had to have an officer "witness" the shot before it went into the books. And the length of shots nowadays, over 1.5 miles...that's awesome.
 
  #14  
Old 04-12-13, 09:14 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,399
Most homeowners are not going to be expert marksmen (or women) in a home invasion scenario. Most people do not have the time or money to qualify as an expert on a situational range and thereby most WILL shoot several rounds ineffectually when faced with the home invasion. THAT is why a larger magazine is preferred.
 
  #15  
Old 04-13-13, 05:18 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Oh, I agree, Furd. Why go into a firefight with a 10 round magazine when your opponent has an unlawful 15 rounder. Just because you chose to obey the law and they didn't??? Perfect example.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes