VA shooting

[snafu]

.........Therein lies the paradox and the steam behind the tired old clich

 

[OmegaManiac]

It seems to me that the whole reason that so many "innocent" people(if there is such a thing) get killed by jackasses with guns is simply a lack of education. I say that every kid should be introduced to firearms from a very early age, they should also be taught from this early age the importance of gun safety and respect for the awesome power that they hold in their hands. Demonizing and ignoring firearms and the role they play in our society is a blatant mistake that is quickly becoming the norm. There is no "gun problem" in the U.S. or anywhere else for that matter. There is however a "violent people with no respect for others problem" that is sweeping the globe and will quite likely escalate with the passage of time if we don't take our cue to evolve.
A gun is a mechanical tool, a piece of finely crafted art, and a means for many to feed clothe and protect their families. Every man woman and child today should be educated properly on the subject of guns so that there is a common understanding across the board. If ALL people were given equal and legal opportunity to arm themselves along with the proper education that MUST go with such a great responsibility then perhapse there would be less criminal gun related activity.
I could go on forever on this subject but if you guys are anything like me you just stop reading when someones rant gets too long winded.

 

[snafu]

It seems to me that the whole reason that so many "innocent" people(if there is such a thing) get killed by jackasses with guns is simply a lack of education. I say that every kid should be introduced to firearms from a very early age, they should also be taught from this early age the importance of gun safety and respect for the awesome power that they hold in their hands. Demonizing and ignoring firearms and the role they play in our society is a blatant mistake that is quickly becoming the norm. There is no "gun problem" in the U.S. or anywhere else for that matter. There is however a "violent people with no respect for others problem" that is sweeping the globe and will quite likely escalate with the passage of time if we don't take our cue to evolve.
A gun is a mechanical tool, a piece of finely crafted art, and a means for many to feed clothe and protect their families. Every man woman and child today should be educated properly on the subject of guns so that there is a common understanding across the board. If ALL people were given equal and legal opportunity to arm themselves along with the proper education that MUST go with such a great responsibility then perhapse there would be less criminal gun related activity.
I could go on forever on this subject but if you guys are anything like me you just stop reading when someones rant gets too long winded.

I can't for the life of me see anybody argue this logic. Verry well put.

 

[Komrade Vostok Hazard]

I say that every kid should be introduced to firearms from a very early age, they should also be taught from this early age the importance of gun safety and respect for the awesome power that they hold in their hands.

Good points

Anyone who lived in a rural community would know that EVERYONE and their dog owned (several) guns. The number of hooligans running around shooting people is ZERO.

"if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" is a cliche

It's NOT a cliche. Period. If guns are outlawed, there will be EVEN MORE GUNS being smuggled into said nations with tight gun control laws and sold on the black market. What kind of people will buy them? You got it. CRIMINALS WHO DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS. And with the guns out of the mainstream market, law abiding citizens will have NO WAY TO OBTAIN THEM (without going underground -- making them one with the criminals), and will have piss all of a chance to defend themselves against some gun toting maniac.

 

[Jhony5]

It's NOT a cliche. Period. If guns are outlawed, there will be EVEN MORE GUNS being smuggled into said nations with tight gun control laws and sold on the black market.

CLICHE;
1 : a trite phrase or expression; also : the idea expressed by it
2 : a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation
3 : something (as a menu item) that has become overly familiar or commonplace
My use of the word "cliche" fits perfectly into definition 3, as listed above. C'mon people. Comprehend before you retort. You simply parroted what I posted in DEFENSE of this old cliche...whenI said this..

This sounds so clich

 

[OmegaManiac]

Realizing of course that this thread is not supposed to be about guns as much as it is about whats his **** and ****bags like him I have no real problem with stealing some of the soapbox for one more little bit of wisdom. Here goes, The number one reason that EVERYONE should carry guns at all times is..................Knowing that someone you piss off at any given time can very easily blow your ****ing brains all over your shoes without even skipping a beat on the way to the grocery store is a great incentive for people to be very polite when dealing with friends and strangers alike.

 

[cybacaT]

Jhoney5

Let me start by pointing out that the glaring difference between the banishment of guns here in the States, and the banishment of guns in Oz is obvious. We have way way way more guns on our streets. Way ****ing more.

Yes - you have more guns. You have a bigger problem.
BUT...you also have more tools that are part of the solution - bigger govt budget, more cops, more courts etc.

So the scale isn't the issue - no-one's denying it's a massive problem in the US and would take decades to fix.

I believe that the stir for a gun ban began with a mass shooting in Australia. I can't remember the details, but it was quite severe.

We had 1 big massacre that triggered the changes, but like the US we'd had several massacres over the previous years, and finally the public had enough.

There is a real issue here. It would take decades to effectively remove illegal guns from the hands of criminals in America.

That's true.


You're also right - there would be a black market, and no solution will be perfect. No-one's saying gun control would be popular, quick, or easy - but neither is it impossible.

I talk about Australia because we heard all the same lies about how hard it would be, how only crims would have guns etc - yet, we found that gun control worked! We have 1/15th the ratio of people to gun deaths that you have in the US.

The past ideals for citizen armament has changed drastically. Originally the idea for such availability of guns was in the interest of protecting our new found nationality and granted freedoms. Now we have more personal issues involved.

Yes it seems a leap of logic to assume that a right granted to a militia way back when...somehow translates into an individual's right to own/carry weapons.

The VA shooter would most likely not have been capable of arming himself for such an event if guns were all-out illegal. That being said, if our gun laws were geared more toward responsible people with sound mental states, than the same could be said.

This guy didn't have any prior mental health record did he? We was checked out once afaik, but left undiagnosed. The only person who could have stopped him is his teacher who reported some behaviour as worrying.

I maintain that it's difficult to stop all nutjobs, and far easier to keep the weapons out of their reach. Who knows where the next fruitcake with a beef is coming from? Who knows when a sane person who's legally obtained guns is going to snap because things in their life change? It's just too hard to predict. But you can stop them getting their hands on tools of mass killing.

Outright banning guns creates a situation where the private citizen would be in a great deal of jeopardy.

I just don't see this.

Sad to say but gun banishment in America is nothing like gun banishment in Australia. We live in a different world here. More people. More diversity. More crime. More drugs. And...more guns. Much much more.

You have more people, crime, drugs etc...but also have more jails, more cops, more courts. You don't have more diversity of people. The US is somewhat different, but also very similar in many respects.
- you have a very similar culture.
- your violent videos, games etc are the same ones we have here.
- what happens in America in terms of drugs, crime etc...tends to happen here a year or so later.
- you have gun owners who think they have a right to own guns.
- you have had a number of mass slaughters in your own country.

The main difference is we decided to take a stand, and it paid off. It's just a shame that America can't or won't listen and at least try to put a stop to the needless death of so many thousands of Americans each year.

 

[Jhony5]

Outright banning guns creates a situation where the private citizen would be in a great deal of jeopardy.

Your answer...

I just don't see this.

How can you not see this? If they took my handgun away from me tomorrow, which I carry on my person at all times, and I got assaulted while driving my daughter to school, I would be powerless to stop it. As it is now, I can meet or beat any threat posed to me. If I hear glass shatter in my living room at three in the morning, I have a shotgun loaded with Double O Bucks to greet them with. These scenarios are not fantasy driven, nor are they rare in occurrence.

Answer one question for me if you would. What would you do if you heard an intruder enter you home tonight? Lets assume its a violent rapist, or a a homicidal maniac. What do you do? Call the police? Scream? Your either raped or dead or both. Period. No question.

You're also right - there would be a black market, and no solution will be perfect. No-one's saying gun control would be popular, quick, or easy - but neither is it impossible.

What your saying is its worth the death and assault of innocent people on a wide scale to prevent a handful of people from being shot in one fell swoop (VA Tech for example).

Heres the gist of it. Criminals break into homes every minute in America. They do this for a variety of reasons. Burglary. Rape. Kidnap. Murder. Every minute it happens. Up to 5 people have been victimized by home invasion in the US just in the time it took me to type this. The average reaction time for police is 7 minutes. Many times when a person breaks into a home they do not have a gun. They have a knife or no weapon at all. Often they're strung out on drugs and cannot afford a gun. This does not meant hey do not pose a threat to you.

An outright ban on legal gun ownership removes the most effective and immediate response from the homeowner. YOU CANNOT ARGUE THIS! Your answer is simple. Let the police handle it. Thats wishful thinking. You have seven minutes before they appear.

So the scale isn't the issue - no-one's denying it's a massive problem in the US and would take decades to fix.

Yes it is. The scale of the problem is EXACTLY the issue at hand.


School shootings are a pseudo-phenomenon in America right now. Its an issue being used by the anti-gun lobby, and aided by the sensationalist media, to ban guns altogether.

There are thousands of schools in America. Millions of students that attend them. In the last few decades only about 10 of these schools experienced a shooting. And out of millions and millions of students that have attended schools over the last two decades, maybe less than 50 students have been shot.

That IS NOT a serious problem. Thats a very very rare occurrence. The knee jerk reaction from concerned parents is always "If guns were illegal, this wouldn't have happened". BULLSHIT!

You are far more likely to be shot in your home or at the gas station, than in school. PERIOD. No arguing that fact.

I maintain that it's difficult to stop all nut jobs, and far easier to keep the weapons out of their reach. Who knows where the next fruitcake with a beef is coming from?

This brings up an interesting point. Most gun deaths in America aren't caused by "nut-jobs". Its most often either suicide, or young criminals who have illegally obtained firearms.

So how is making guns illegal, going to get rid of illegal gun ownership?
Thats the problem. Criminals with malice intent already own guns illegally. Making it illegal for me to own a gun, does nothing to disarm a criminal. It only serves to disarm law abiding citizens. I will never surrender my guns, EVER. Therefor if gun ownership was illegal, I am now a criminal by default.

 

[snafu]

First Jhony you are a criminal. You carry your gun in a “gun free zone”. What were you thinking?
Second the cops can respond approximately 7 minutes if someone calls them.
Third you are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be shot on campus or anywhere for that matter, by a mass murder.


I want to reiterate what OmeagaManiac said because it is important. EDUCATION! Gun knowledge and safety should be mandatory curriculum in schools. Elementary, Middle and High school.

 

[hugo]

Buyback has no effect on murder rate
Matthew Moore
October 24, 2006

HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.

"Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says.

In his first year in office, the Prime Minister, John Howard, forced through some of the world's toughest gun laws, including the national buyback scheme, after Martin Bryant used semi-automatic rifles to shoot dead 35 people at Port Arthur.

Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns, Mr Howard and others predicted the removal of so many guns from the community, and new laws making it harder to buy and keep guns, would lead to a reduction in all types of gun-related deaths.

One of the authors of the study, Jeanine Baker, said she knew in 1996 it would be impossible for years to know whether the Prime Minister or the shooters were right.

"I have been collecting data since 1996 … The decision was we would wait for a decade and then evaluate," she said.

The findings were clear, she said: "The policy has made no difference. There was a trend of declining deaths that has continued."

Dr Baker and her co-author, Samara McPhedran, declared their membership of gun groups in the article, something Dr Baker said they had done deliberately to make clear "who we are" and head off any possible criticism that they had hidden relevant details.

The significance of the article was not who had written it but the fact it had been published in a respected journal after the regular rigorous process of being peer reviewed, she said.

Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.

Dr Baker said many more lives would have been saved had the Government spent the $500 million on mental health or other programs rather than on destroying semi-automatic weapons.

She believed semi-automatic rifles should be available to shooters, although with tight restrictions such as those in place in New Zealand.

The director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, Dr Don Weatherburn, said he was not surprised by the study. He said it showed "politicians would be well advised to claim success of their policies after they were evaluated, not before".

HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. ATTEMPTS TO MYTHOLOGIZE SECOND AMENDMENT HISTORY



MYTH 1: The Second Amendment was not crafted with the same breadth of language as the other Amendments. Instead, this Amendment begins by stating clearly its limited purpose: the preservation of "well regulated" state militia forces.

FACT: Unlike certain indefinite rights recognized by the courts (e.g., abortion), the Second Amendment uses broad and explicit language. The introductory clause of the Second Amendment contains precatory language. The subordinate clause's precatory language in no way limits the amendment's sweeping command that "the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed."

Akil Amar, Professor of Law at Yale University and author of The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 Yale, (1990) has written: "The states' rights reading puts great weight on the word `militia', but this word appears only in the Amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to `the people' not `the states.' As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical when the constitution means `states' it says so. Thus as noted above, `the people' at the core of the Second Amendment are the same `people' at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely citizens."

MYTH 2: The original colonial militia did not include everyone. Rather it included able-bodied adult males between the ages of 18 and 45. The militia was always an organized state-sponsored military force, not simply an ad hoc collection of armed citizens.

FACT: Founding Father George Mason supplied the response to this fantasy: "I ask, Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

A decade ago in his book That Every Man Be Armed, attorney and former law professor Stephen P. Halbrook offered gun prohibitionists a challenge they have yet to accepted. Halbook wrote: "In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the `collective' right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of `the people' to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the 18th century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

MYTH 3: Federal Law distinguishes between the organized militia (the National Guard) and the unorganized militia. The Second Amendment right to bear arms belongs to the organized or, to use its own words, "well regulated" militia.

FACT: The framers provide a response to this myth. A proposed Bill of Rights, in Roger Sherman's handwriting, would have provided for a militia for the states, but it had no guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It was rejected. Instead, the broad language of what became the Second Amendment, with its command that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was adopted.

MYTH 4: Possession of a weapon is not constitutionally protected by the fact that it could in some scenario be used by the state militia. Rather the possession and use of the weapon must be connected with active service in the state militia.

FACT: The real myth is that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a private right to keep and bear arms. The framers knew how to use the King's English. People on active service in the military do not need a constitutional guarantee to carry guns while on duty. The most repressive regimes on earth allow members of the military to carry guns while on duty. The Second Amendment commands that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and for communal defense.

MYTH 5: U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez was not a Second Amendment case at all. It was a Fourth Amendment case. It does not address the meaning of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

FACT: The myth is that the decision is irrelevant to the Second Amendment. Verdugo-Urquidez focused on what the word "people" means in the Fourth Amendment. The court was compelled to canvas the Bill of Rights. The court held that the word "people" has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, i.e., it is an individual right.

MYTH 6: In Perpich v. Department of Defense the court held that members of the National Guard, when not in federal service, "continue to satisfy [the] description of a militia."

FACT: The myth is that "militia" means exclusively the National Guard. Under Perpich the term militia is not restricted to the National Guard: "all portions of the 'militia' - organized or not- [are subject] to call if needed for the purposes specified in the Militia Clauses."

"The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation," writes historian Joyce Lee Malcolm in To Keep and Bear Arms (Harvard University Press 1994).

MYTH 7: The NRA consistently quotes colonial leaders out of context. There is sufficient historical evidence to show that the basic concern of these leaders, in the drafting and passage of the Second Amendment, was the preservation and the efficiency of state militia forces.

FACT: This is a myth. NRA's view is supported by publications from the most prestigious universities in the nation: e.g., Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Rutgers and Yale.

 

[Jhony5]

First Jhony you are a criminal. You carry your gun in a

 

[snafu]

Actually I try not to do that. I keep my gun in my glove compartment when I drop off, or pick up, my daughter from school. Which is still illegal, but what they don't know ain't hurting them. I don't bring my gun into a bank, either. However I was harassed by a manager at a grocery store about a year ago. My shaggy appearance didn't go well with my sidearm. I guess some customers were complaining. Idiots. As I left I was wishing a crack head would enter the store and rob it, shooting a few of those complaining customers. "To bad we asked that guy with the gun to leave".

I smoke marijuana which requires me to be a criminal by the base definition. It really is hard to have fun without breaking the law.

That's alright. I'm a criminal too.

 

[hugo]

That's alright. I'm a criminal too.

Me too. I frequently consume a 24 oz Bud on the way home from work. Government busybodies have created a nation of criminals.

 

[cybacaT]

jhony

If they took my handgun away from me tomorrow, which I carry on my person at all times, and I got assaulted while driving my daughter to school, I would be powerless to stop it.

And if your daughter is one of the thousands killed each year because she touched your gun, or it malfunctioned, or it went off while you were transporting it/changing bullets/cleaning it etc?
You'd probably have a greater chance of her being shot by you, than being assaulted on the way to school. The only difference is you'd have no-one to blame but yourself.

As it is now, I can meet or beat any threat posed to me.

Perhaps - but what kind of world is it you're creating? If the decisions everyone made are based purely on self defence, then we could all stroll around with a pitbull in one hand, and a semi-auto in the other. But there's always someone with a bigger, better weapon who can gun, or bomb you down. It's a never-ending cycle.
In Britain they've got a camera on every corner with microphones, and now speakers - for self defence. So every movement you make is recorded, much of what you say is being listened to, and soon you'll be getting told what to do as you move around.
In both cases above - the CURE is far worse than the illness!!
What kind of sick, unstable and unhealthy societies are you creating? On the US side, you've created one where gun deaths are a part of life, crime is out of control, and violence is considered the solution to everything. On the British side, civil liberties have been thrown out the window, and they're rapidly moving towards a real Big Brother scenario.

If I hear glass shatter in my living room at three in the morning, I have a shotgun loaded with Double O Bucks to greet them with. These scenarios are not fantasy driven, nor are they rare in occurrence.

Did you ever consider that an unarmed assailant might be much easier to stop than one that's armed? Chances are that guy breaking in has a gun too. Now your whole family is at risk from both your erratic shooting to stop the intruder, and his blasting away at anything that moves. Great solution.

What would you do if you heard an intruder enter you home tonight? Lets assume its a violent rapist, or a a homicidal maniac. What do you do? Call the police? Scream? Your either raped or dead or both. Period. No question.

Good news! I live in Australia! So there's very little chance the intruder has a gun. That means I can stop him. First priority - get my family out. Second - call the Police. Third - stop the guy.
We had a peeping tom in the neighbourhood - I went out and chased him down until I had him cornered, and then called the cops.
Another time I had an armed (with knife) robber hiding from police in my front yard. He'd just robbed a place. I went out and confronted him and he bolted - the Police were again right on his tail.
If he had a gun, or I had a gun, we would've almost certainly ended up with dead people. And in these cases above, because of strict gun laws, no-one needed to die.

Often they're strung out on drugs and cannot afford a gun.

Most burglaries are by druggies looking for cash, or things they can sell. If one breaks into your house, give them what you have, and they'll move on. If they have guns and you have guns, the problem just gets much, much worse.

Let the police handle it.

Yes! These people are trained to use their weapons - trained not to over-react. Trained to use other methods before using their weapons. Trained to be level-headed in a crisis. Yes - the police are the right people to deal with criminals.

You are far more likely to be shot in your home or at the gas station, than in school. PERIOD. No arguing that fact.

That's correct. I don't see anyone arguing for greater gun control simply because of school shootings. It's the 30,000 dead Americans that is the reason. Iraq looks like a kindergarten compared to what you gun-toting Americans do to each other - in your own country - each year!

Therefor if gun ownership was illegal, I am now a criminal by default.

Well...yeah. Let the people decide though - there needs to be a free debate in the US, and it's a democracy. If given all the facts and figures, the American people decide that 30,000 dead Americans is a reasonable price to pay so that some people can hunt...then so be it. But at the moment the NRA has their hands around the throat of your govt, media, and society. Politicians fear to speak against them for fear of the NRA attack dog launching into them.

It's a sad state of affairs.

 

[cybacaT]

hugo

Figures from 2001, and some interesting observations:
http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000473.html

"Here is the price that ordinary Americans are paying for the privilege

- 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century

- Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.

- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)

If Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA."

And sorry, but I'm going with the University study - not some study done by a couple of gun advocates (undoubtedly NRA funded):

Decline in gun deaths doubled since Australia destroyed 700,000 firearms

14 December 2006

The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.

"Not only were Australia's post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn't happened again, but we also saw a life-saving bonus: the decline in overall gun deaths accelerated to twice the rate seen before the new gun laws," says study lead author, Professor Simon Chapman.

"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide," said Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney. "This was a milestone public health and safety issue, driven by an overwhelming swing in public opinion, and promptly delivered by governments."

After 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed categories of firearms designed to kill many people quickly. In his immediate reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, Prime Minister John Howard said of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns: "There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free availability in this country of weapons of this kind

 

[Jhony5]

And if your daughter is one of the thousands killed each year because she touched your gun, or it malfunctioned, or it went off while you were transporting it/changing bullets/cleaning it etc?

It really doesn't work like that. It's not all that difficult to prevent all these scenarios from coming true.
I'm not going to use freak mishaps as a reason to leave myself vulnerable to attack. Fact is, more people are shot on purpose, than by accident. Thousands of people ARE NOT killed annually by accidental shooting. I'd google the stats myself, but I already know better. When you consider the millions and millions of gun owners in America, the relatively low amount of accidental shootings are well in check. I'm not an alarmist.

My 7 year old daughter is a heck of a shot with a .22 cal rifle. I have been trained to use weapons responsibly and to respect the fact that a gun is a dangerous tool, as has my daughter. The real danger by gun owners is when the gun becomes a dirty little secret, hidden in the back of a drawer. She knows what a gun can do to a living thing, therefor she respects its power.

Perhaps - but what kind of world is it you're creating?

I'm not creating jack or ****. I'm living with the realities of my world. Until I can watch the news and not see so much random violence and victimization, I will continue to carry a weapon.

Did you ever consider that an unarmed assailant might be much easier to stop than one that's armed?

Yes I have. But I don't know Karate. Nor am I willing to take the chance that I can repel an unknown quantity with my street fighting skills.

Chances are that guy breaking in has a gun too. Now your whole family is at risk from both your erratic shooting to stop the intruder, and his blasting away at anything that moves. Great solution.

Wait a minute. Which is it? Is the intruder armed or not?

First you assert that I should consider the fact that the intruder might not be armed, than you claim that an intruder probably is armed. In both cases you attempt to portray my ability to defend as making the situation worse. Thats ****ing bullocks! Your struggling to create a situation in which the victim is wrong for defending him/her self. Blame the victim. Thats great.

Fact is, if a man breaks into my home, he is going up against an experienced shooter with considerable armaments. As well I have a big ol ****in dog. The intruder is about to have a real ****ing bad night.

Good news! I live in Australia! So there's very little chance the intruder has a gun.

BAD NEWS! I don't. Even if guns were outlawed, the criminals would still have stolen/smuggled guns or knifes or whatever.

First priority - get my family out. Second - call the Police. Third - stop the guy

First problem:Leaving your room to access your children without alarming the intruder.
Second problem: You don't know if the criminal has a gun or a knife. Since you're in Australia, only criminals have guns. You're ****ed. You can't get your family out without the intruder knowing. If hes just there for a burglary, than he would run off. If hes there for something else, you just ****ed up real bad. Call the police first, than attempt to get your family out. Either way, your chicken **** society has removed your best defense. Self Defense

Most burglaries are by druggies looking for cash, or things they can sell. If one breaks into your house, give them what you have, and they'll move on.

Oh I'll give him what I have alright. "Here ya go Mr robber man. You can have these buckshots". Thats the only thing free here. If he wanted a stereo and jewels, he shoulda picked the faggot anti-gun victims down the street.

If guns were against the law, than he could enter my home with a far greater degree of confidence.

Yes! These people are trained to use their weapons - trained not to over-react. Trained to use other methods before using their weapons. Trained to be level-headed in a crisis. Yes - the police are the right people to deal with criminals.

I would only consider that if a police officer was in my home while I slept. Reality shows this is not the case. Remember, the police are seven minutes away. Most cops will tell you, the best line of defense is self-defense. Police are often card carrying NRA members and they understand the power of a gun.

That's correct. I don't see anyone arguing for greater gun control simply because of school shootings.

Thats about all I've heard post VA tech. Thats about all I heard after columbine. People are alarmist. They don't look at the big picture.

Well...yeah. Let the people decide though - there needs to be a free debate in the US, and it's a democracy. If given all the facts and figures, the American people decide that 30,000 dead Americans is a reasonable price to pay so that some people can hunt...then so be it.

We have. Its been this way since the creation of our nation. The people have spoken. If the majority felt that guns should be outlawed, than guns would be outlawed. Its that simple. The NRA doesn't make our laws. We do.

 

[snafu]

My son knows where my guns are.
He knows not to play with them.
He considers all weapons loaded.
He knows to never put his finger on or pull the triger of a gun unless he intends to shoot something.
He knows to never point a gun at anything unless he intends to shoot it.

These are very simple rules of safety that should be taught to everybody.

 

[hugo]

Yep, the ole university study. As if universities, are not , by and large, centers of modern liberalism, as oppossed to the classical liberalism of our founding fathers.

Basic statistics: an initial sample size of a mere 500 is a bit small to conclusively conclude anything.

 

[cybacaT]

jhony5

My 7 year old daughter is a heck of a shot with a .22 cal rifle.

Wow - that's really sad man. I wonder what permanent damage you do to the psyche of a child teaching them to kill things at such a young age? Nothing wrong with hunting mind you (although 7yo??), but if you're teaching her about shooting and killing people then you have some issues to deal with - I'd call it parental abuse personally.
Given that you feel a need to carry weapons there is some case on the grounds of safety for teaching your kid where the weapons are, and that they are never to touch them - ever. But beyond that? At 7 years of age?
Time to check yourself dude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CybacaT
Perhaps - but what kind of world is it you're creating?

I'm not creating jack or ****. I'm living with the realities of my world. Until I can watch the news and not see so much random violence and victimization, I will continue to carry a weapon.

You are part of the problem - not the solution. It's precisely BECAUSE people think they need to pack guns that there are people packing guns!! I mean this isn't rocket science. Get rid of the guns, and you don't need guns to defend against guns. Sheesh!

Quote:
Chances are that guy breaking in has a gun too. Now your whole family is at risk from both your erratic shooting to stop the intruder, and his blasting away at anything that moves. Great solution.

Wait a minute. Which is it? Is the intruder armed or not?

I gave 2 examples. Where you are at the moment, chances are the intruder has a gun...you have a gun...and death is quite likely.
Move to a more educated/civilised society where guns are in the hands of people who actually need them, and chances are the intruder doesn't have a gun, and neither do you. Far less likely for deaths to result.

Quote:
Good news! I live in Australia! So there's very little chance the intruder has a gun.

BAD NEWS! I don't. Even if guns were outlawed, the criminals would still have stolen/smuggled guns or knifes or whatever.

I think we dispelled that myth earlier. In Australia we were told EXACTLY the same thing by the gun lobby. We outlawed guns, and guess what? Gun crimes have dropped, gun deaths have dropped - we don't have criminals armed with guns out roaming the streets.
Time to apply some grey matter to the propoganda slogans you've had rammed into your head from birth. You'll find many of them (like this one) could be better used to fertilise your garden.

First problem:Leaving your room to access your children without alarming the intruder.

The children are already alerted. I am big on home security - every door and window has an alarm sensor which is regularly tested. So if someone breaks in, the cops know about it immediately, and the alarm in the house alerts my family and neighbours (who do respond). This is a peaceful way of ensuring that an intruder won't stick around long - if they dare enter at all.

Second problem: You don't know if the criminal has a gun or a knife.

Actually, since I live in a country where guns are outlawed, there's very little chance at all that he has a gun. Most I'd have to contend with is a knife, but remember the police are already on their way.

Quote:
Most burglaries are by druggies looking for cash, or things they can sell. If one breaks into your house, give them what you have, and they'll move on.

So you'd kill someone who wanted to steal your stereo?
I don't see it like that. Chances are the dude is messed up on drugs, and simply trying to pay for his habit. He doesn't want violence, doesn't want to hurt anyone, just wants the quickest easiest cash source he can find.
Does he deserve death for being a junkie? I don't think so.
I'd rather give him the stereo and wave him goodbye. Insurance works well.
But you'd shoot someone over a simple theft? Bravo.

Quote:
That's correct. I don't see anyone arguing for greater gun control simply because of school shootings.

Thats about all I've heard post VA tech. Thats about all I heard after columbine. People are alarmist. They don't look at the big picture.

The big picture isn't VA Tech - the big picture is 30,000 dead Americans which you're smugly prepared to write-off as acceptable losses because you like to pack a gun.

 

[Jhony5]

Wow - that's really sad man. I wonder what permanent damage you do to the psyche of a child teaching them to kill things at such a young age?

I haven't taken her hunting, yet. I have spent considerable time training her to load, unload, and maintain a .22 Cal rifle. As well we go shooting about every two weeks. She loves it. First time we went I asked her if she wanted to go, I did not push this on her. Now, she bugs the **** outta me to take her shooting.

if you're teaching her about shooting and killing people then you have some issues to deal with

Thats quite a leap ain't it?

I'd call it parental abuse personally.

So would Rosie O'Donnell.

Where you are at the moment, chances are the intruder has a gun...you have a gun...and death is quite likely.

I want to concentrate on this particular statement, because I feel it is at the heart of the matter.

I am simply living with the reality that I am presented with. If the intruder has a gun, I am powerless to do anything effective to defend myself. If I have a gun, than I can defend myself very effectively. If I find that an intruder is in my home, I will not presume his intentions. I will presume the worst case, and attempt to kill him, shooting him quietly in the back if possible. Then again in the head to kill the threat. No questions will be asked. No mercy granted. He took the chance, he pays the price.

In Australia we were told EXACTLY the same thing by the gun lobby. We outlawed guns, and guess what? Gun crimes have dropped, gun deaths have dropped - we don't have criminals armed with guns out roaming the streets.

Declined but not done away with. In Australia only criminals have guns. The reality of the situation is apparent. Guns still exist, and only the criminals have them.
America is different. Realize this. Guns deaths would drop if we outlawed guns, however, the statistics would most certainly reflect a frightening trend. Less suicides, less deaths from self-defense (i.e. lawfully armed citizens shooting assailants in protection of serious bodily harm or death), and more deaths from violent criminals shooting unarmed homeowners/citizens.

This is a peaceful way of ensuring that an intruder won't stick around long - if they dare enter at all.

You seem awful preoccupied with the safety and well being of intruders. Why is this? ****ing *****. Coward. Chicken **** mother****er. Afraid to kill someone that treads upon your turf? Break into my home and you might as well start shooting, cuz lead is about to come flying at 'cha. My choice in home defense is a Remington 870 12 gauge pump action, loaded with double O buckshot. A weapon and round that can easily travel through doors and drywall.

Actually, since I live in a country where guns are outlawed, there's very little chance at all that he has a gun. Most I'd have to contend with is a knife, but remember the police are already on their way.

You like to gamble with your life? Take the chance? You have seven minutes. It takes seconds to get stuck like a pig and bleed to death.

What your statements have declared, is that you are willing to bet on your life and the lives of your children. I am not the gambling type. Like I said, check the stats of your, how is it you put it, "educated/civilized society", regarding the unheard of, over 200% increase in stabbing deaths in the years following the gun ban. I ****ING DARE YOU to post those stats. If you do not, I will. Or you could stick your cowardly head back in the ****ing Australian sand. Yes gun deaths went down, but violent deaths are still cruising along, now undeterred.

So you'd kill someone who wanted to steal your stereo?

It would depend on how secure I felt the situation was at the time. However, I would not hesitate at all to kill him/her if they didn't obey instructions, or that I felt the situation was insecure. The law can prosecute homeowners for this. Think ahead, and prepare for this. Before the police arrive, place one of your kitchen knifes in his hand if he was unarmed. Explain to the cops that you were in fear for your life.

Personally it would give me a raging hard-on to shoot some scum **** dead and get away with it. **** ya, followed by regular visits to his grave to piss upon his rotting corpse.

You know why I don't worry about being shot dead while breaking into someones home? Because I don't break into peoples homes. Thats why.

the big picture is 30,000 dead Americans which you're smugly prepared to write-off as acceptable losses because you like to pack a gun.

Yep. If my child was shot dead today by a gunman, I would blame the gunman, not the gun. Same if she was run over by a drunk driver, I would not blame the automobile manufacturer. Same as if she was stabbed with a boyscout knife, I would not blame the current laws that allow for knifes to be legal.