9 year old accidently shoots her instructor with an Uzi!
Discussion
The defense argument always seems to ignore the fact that laxer firearm laws make it much more likely that in any criminal encounter you have, the crim has a gun. This in turn makes it much more likely you're going to get seriously injured or killed.
The states is a bit buggered though. They've saturated the market so, no matter what they do in the near future, anyone who wants a gun can have one. In that situation I can understand law abiding people wanting to be armed.
The states is a bit buggered though. They've saturated the market so, no matter what they do in the near future, anyone who wants a gun can have one. In that situation I can understand law abiding people wanting to be armed.
The premise of having a gun to defend yourself against someone else with a gun is ridiculous as other people have pointed out.
Someone points a gun at you and asks for your wallet you just give it to them.
Even if you are carrying a concealed hand gun exactly how are you going to get to it, arm it and fire it before the guy pointing the gun at you pulls the trigger.
I swear people think that when faced with an armed assailant that they are suddenly going to turn into Lt John Mclane or f
king Rambo rather than going into shock with piss running down their leg
The best course of action is just to hand over whatever the guy with the gun wants. Trying to use your weapon is only going to get you killed
Someone points a gun at you and asks for your wallet you just give it to them.
Even if you are carrying a concealed hand gun exactly how are you going to get to it, arm it and fire it before the guy pointing the gun at you pulls the trigger.
I swear people think that when faced with an armed assailant that they are suddenly going to turn into Lt John Mclane or f
king Rambo rather than going into shock with piss running down their legThe best course of action is just to hand over whatever the guy with the gun wants. Trying to use your weapon is only going to get you killed
I wonder, could you take any pro/anti-gun argument and replace the word 'gun' with 'skin-melting-acid'?
As detailed above, collateral damage isn't entirely negated by firearms training.
A gun, like face-melting-acid (in this context), is designed to do one thing; ruin human beings.
"It's my God given right to carry a pot of face-melting-acid with me because someone on the Internet said someone mamy rape my family..."
Sounds batst. Still sounds batst if you revert back to 'gun', if you ask me. But then, a pot of face-melting-acid isnt 'cool'. And, as everybody knows, guns are cool.
As detailed above, collateral damage isn't entirely negated by firearms training.
A gun, like face-melting-acid (in this context), is designed to do one thing; ruin human beings.
"It's my God given right to carry a pot of face-melting-acid with me because someone on the Internet said someone mamy rape my family..."
Sounds bats
t. Still sounds batst if you revert back to 'gun', if you ask me. But then, a pot of face-melting-acid isnt 'cool'. And, as everybody knows, guns are cool.Edited by THX on Thursday 28th August 10:59
croyde said:
Isn't there stats that show countries with similar gun ownership numbers as the States that don't have dizzying amounts of gunshot deaths. Are not Canada and Switzerland two of these countries?
Bowling for Columbine rattled off some seriously scary figures relating to this. I forget what they were but yeah, you're right.Jasandjules said:
I've had guns in the house since I was a small child. I've been shooting them since I was six. I have no fear of them.
BUT I would never give an Uzi to a nine year old.
^^^ Simple as that. Sadly the instructor in this case was instigator of his own demise.BUT I would never give an Uzi to a nine year old.
BBC this morning was attempting a sob-fest about kids holding shotgun certificates in UK. Pathetic. Just wait 'til they find out who's driving tractors and who's got a flying licence!! I think this idea that childhood turns to adulthood at the stroke of midnight on someone's 18th birthday is utter bunk. I know plenty of mid-teens with a hell of a lot more sense than a good many adults.
THX said:
I wonder, could you take any pro/anti-gun argument and replace the word 'gun' with 'skin-melting-acid'?
As detailed above, collateral damage isn't entirely negated by firearms training.
A gun, like face-melting-acid (in this context), is designed to do one thing; ruin human beings.
"It's my God given right to carry a pot of face-melting-acid with me because someone on the Internet said someone mamy rape my family..."
Sounds batst. Still sounds batst if you revert back to 'gun', if you ask me.
I like that, bit batsAs detailed above, collateral damage isn't entirely negated by firearms training.
A gun, like face-melting-acid (in this context), is designed to do one thing; ruin human beings.
"It's my God given right to carry a pot of face-melting-acid with me because someone on the Internet said someone mamy rape my family..."
Sounds bats
t. Still sounds batst if you revert back to 'gun', if you ask me.t but I like it."They'll have to prise my face- melting acid pot from my cold dead hand."
Same as I think someone else said above - swap Uzi for chainsaw or deep fat fryer and imagine the outcry.
Most British people probably have no idea what a person with a firearms licence here in the UK can buy and own. It originally surprised me.
For example you can own this:
http://www.lannertactical.com/LANTAC-22LR-LA-R15-A...
for about £1500. Fires as quickly as you can keep pressing the trigger and you can have a 30 round magazine. Perfectly legal with a licence which, as long as you are not a crim or have mental problems to be yet discovered, is easy enough to get.
Yet, thankfully, we don't have cases of young men going into shopping centres or cinemas and shooting dead lots of people. Touch wood.
For example you can own this:
http://www.lannertactical.com/LANTAC-22LR-LA-R15-A...
for about £1500. Fires as quickly as you can keep pressing the trigger and you can have a 30 round magazine. Perfectly legal with a licence which, as long as you are not a crim or have mental problems to be yet discovered, is easy enough to get.
Yet, thankfully, we don't have cases of young men going into shopping centres or cinemas and shooting dead lots of people. Touch wood.
jdw100 said:
THX said:
I wonder, could you take any pro/anti-gun argument and replace the word 'gun' with 'skin-melting-acid'?
As detailed above, collateral damage isn't entirely negated by firearms training.
A gun, like face-melting-acid (in this context), is designed to do one thing; ruin human beings.
"It's my God given right to carry a pot of face-melting-acid with me because someone on the Internet said someone mamy rape my family..."
Sounds batst. Still sounds batst if you revert back to 'gun', if you ask me.
I like that, bit batsAs detailed above, collateral damage isn't entirely negated by firearms training.
A gun, like face-melting-acid (in this context), is designed to do one thing; ruin human beings.
"It's my God given right to carry a pot of face-melting-acid with me because someone on the Internet said someone mamy rape my family..."
Sounds bats
t. Still sounds batst if you revert back to 'gun', if you ask me.t but I like it."They'll have to prise my face- melting acid pot from my cold dead hand."
Same as I think someone else said above - swap Uzi for chainsaw or deep fat fryer and imagine the outcry.
It does give me some hope reading this thread. Trouble is you simply will not convince some of the people out there that not having a gun is an option. When presented with the word 'control' or 'legislation' most rednecks will have a conniption, they just wont understand it is for the good of the many, selfish, maybe. Insular, absolutely.
The ridiculous situation is that with proper licencing and the removal of fully/semi automatic from the streets people would be safer. Bad people will always be bad but an arms race only leads to one thing. As has been said if a nasty piece of work points a gun at you and you have one raised the likely result is that one of you is going to get hurt. Remove one of the weapons and the threat is reduced. Besides, how many middle class residents (let's forget billy bob and his cousins for a mo) would really want to keep a loaded .357 snub nose next to the bed with children, maybe cleaners, friends all in the house? A colleague of mine, the most anti gun person I know last week finally gave in and purchased a hand gun. I asked him 'why' and the response was 'everyone else has one'. He keeps the thing locked up, not loaded. So in the event of a break in he would need to go to the safe, open, load, safety off then go and find the intruder. It's ludicrous. Not only would a bad man who is prolly twisted on drugs shoot him without thinking if he did get a shot off he'd probably miss or hesitate then miss. If the intruder wasn't armed and he took the gun he would also be in the st, it's a no win situation for the average non violent average type of person.
So why don't more people get it?
What would gun control threaten. Liberty, no, quite the opposite. Hunting would carry on as normal with the same amount of people shooting themselves and innocent ramblers each year whilst the bemused bears and deers look on. What was it last year 1000 people or so in the US and Canada, small percentage wise but that's a fair amount of broken families for the pursuit of recreation. So the law would let that carry on, but stop concealed weapons. Who would that affect, security personal, no idea... who really needs to carry a handgun under their jacket in public? So restrict hand guns to ranges and targets? Would you really need to hunt with a handgun when you have crossbow, longbow, shotgun options open to you?
Another guy killed today, that camera man. The criminal was wielding an air gun apparently, innocent guy gets shot. Sums it up really. Reduce the threat and less people will be buried.
The ridiculous situation is that with proper licencing and the removal of fully/semi automatic from the streets people would be safer. Bad people will always be bad but an arms race only leads to one thing. As has been said if a nasty piece of work points a gun at you and you have one raised the likely result is that one of you is going to get hurt. Remove one of the weapons and the threat is reduced. Besides, how many middle class residents (let's forget billy bob and his cousins for a mo) would really want to keep a loaded .357 snub nose next to the bed with children, maybe cleaners, friends all in the house? A colleague of mine, the most anti gun person I know last week finally gave in and purchased a hand gun. I asked him 'why' and the response was 'everyone else has one'. He keeps the thing locked up, not loaded. So in the event of a break in he would need to go to the safe, open, load, safety off then go and find the intruder. It's ludicrous. Not only would a bad man who is prolly twisted on drugs shoot him without thinking if he did get a shot off he'd probably miss or hesitate then miss. If the intruder wasn't armed and he took the gun he would also be in the s
t, it's a no win situation for the average non violent average type of person.So why don't more people get it?
What would gun control threaten. Liberty, no, quite the opposite. Hunting would carry on as normal with the same amount of people shooting themselves and innocent ramblers each year whilst the bemused bears and deers look on. What was it last year 1000 people or so in the US and Canada, small percentage wise but that's a fair amount of broken families for the pursuit of recreation. So the law would let that carry on, but stop concealed weapons. Who would that affect, security personal, no idea... who really needs to carry a handgun under their jacket in public? So restrict hand guns to ranges and targets? Would you really need to hunt with a handgun when you have crossbow, longbow, shotgun options open to you?
Another guy killed today, that camera man. The criminal was wielding an air gun apparently, innocent guy gets shot. Sums it up really. Reduce the threat and less people will be buried.
croyde said:
Isn't there stats that show countries with similar gun ownership numbers as the States that don't have dizzying amounts of gunshot deaths. Are not Canada and Switzerland two of these countries?
Yes there are, but what those studies can't show are the effects of indoctrination into and lifelong development of the American mindset. yonex said:
It does give me some hope reading this thread. Trouble is you simply will not convince some of the people out there that not having a gun is an option. When presented with the word 'control' or 'legislation' most rednecks will have a conniption, they just wont understand it is for the good of the many, selfish, maybe. Insular, absolutely.
The ridiculous situation is that with proper licencing and the removal of fully/semi automatic from the streets people would be safer. Bad people will always be bad but an arms race only leads to one thing. As has been said if a nasty piece of work points a gun at you and you have one raised the likely result is that one of you is going to get hurt. Remove one of the weapons and the threat is reduced. Besides, how many middle class residents (let's forget billy bob and his cousins for a mo) would really want to keep a loaded .357 snub nose next to the bed with children, maybe cleaners, friends all in the house? A colleague of mine, the most anti gun person I know last week finally gave in and purchased a hand gun. I asked him 'why' and the response was 'everyone else has one'. He keeps the thing locked up, not loaded. So in the event of a break in he would need to go to the safe, open, load, safety off then go and find the intruder. It's ludicrous. Not only would a bad man who is prolly twisted on drugs shoot him without thinking if he did get a shot off he'd probably miss or hesitate then miss. If the intruder wasn't armed and he took the gun he would also be in the st, it's a no win situation for the average non violent average type of person.
So why don't more people get it?
What would gun control threaten. Liberty, no, quite the opposite. Hunting would carry on as normal with the same amount of people shooting themselves and innocent ramblers each year whilst the bemused bears and deers look on. What was it last year 1000 people or so in the US and Canada, small percentage wise but that's a fair amount of broken families for the pursuit of recreation. So the law would let that carry on, but stop concealed weapons. Who would that affect, security personal, no idea... who really needs to carry a handgun under their jacket in public? So restrict hand guns to ranges and targets? Would you really need to hunt with a handgun when you have crossbow, longbow, shotgun options open to you?
Another guy killed today, that camera man. The criminal was wielding an air gun apparently, innocent guy gets shot. Sums it up really. Reduce the threat and less people will be buried.
but just look at the uproar when they tried to legislate after sandy hook to close the loophole to stop trade shows & private sales being allowed to sell firearms to people without background checks. It was voted down and the exec vice president of the NRA went as far as to say 'gun free school zones attract killers' & 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun', & suggested legislation to put armed officers in every school in the nation.The ridiculous situation is that with proper licencing and the removal of fully/semi automatic from the streets people would be safer. Bad people will always be bad but an arms race only leads to one thing. As has been said if a nasty piece of work points a gun at you and you have one raised the likely result is that one of you is going to get hurt. Remove one of the weapons and the threat is reduced. Besides, how many middle class residents (let's forget billy bob and his cousins for a mo) would really want to keep a loaded .357 snub nose next to the bed with children, maybe cleaners, friends all in the house? A colleague of mine, the most anti gun person I know last week finally gave in and purchased a hand gun. I asked him 'why' and the response was 'everyone else has one'. He keeps the thing locked up, not loaded. So in the event of a break in he would need to go to the safe, open, load, safety off then go and find the intruder. It's ludicrous. Not only would a bad man who is prolly twisted on drugs shoot him without thinking if he did get a shot off he'd probably miss or hesitate then miss. If the intruder wasn't armed and he took the gun he would also be in the s
t, it's a no win situation for the average non violent average type of person.So why don't more people get it?
What would gun control threaten. Liberty, no, quite the opposite. Hunting would carry on as normal with the same amount of people shooting themselves and innocent ramblers each year whilst the bemused bears and deers look on. What was it last year 1000 people or so in the US and Canada, small percentage wise but that's a fair amount of broken families for the pursuit of recreation. So the law would let that carry on, but stop concealed weapons. Who would that affect, security personal, no idea... who really needs to carry a handgun under their jacket in public? So restrict hand guns to ranges and targets? Would you really need to hunt with a handgun when you have crossbow, longbow, shotgun options open to you?
Another guy killed today, that camera man. The criminal was wielding an air gun apparently, innocent guy gets shot. Sums it up really. Reduce the threat and less people will be buried.
So they run around saying i need a gun because of all the bad guys and then complain when you try and legislate against some bad guys getting there hands on guns.
The language used by these people says everything, 'bad guy' 'good-guy', 'outlaw' movie talk.
The biggest problem with the whole issue is the pro-gun crowd don't seem to want to give an inch & infact make gun tragedies an excuse to further the pro-gun agenda.
i fear many more generations will pass before anything changes.
croyde said:
Most British people probably have no idea what a person with a firearms licence here in the UK can buy and own. It originally surprised me.
For example you can own this:
http://www.lannertactical.com/LANTAC-22LR-LA-R15-A...
for about £1500. Fires as quickly as you can keep pressing the trigger and you can have a 30 round magazine. Perfectly legal with a licence which, as long as you are not a crim or have mental problems to be yet discovered, is easy enough to get.
Yet, thankfully, we don't have cases of young men going into shopping centres or cinemas and shooting dead lots of people. Touch wood.
That is eye opening to me.For example you can own this:
http://www.lannertactical.com/LANTAC-22LR-LA-R15-A...
for about £1500. Fires as quickly as you can keep pressing the trigger and you can have a 30 round magazine. Perfectly legal with a licence which, as long as you are not a crim or have mental problems to be yet discovered, is easy enough to get.
Yet, thankfully, we don't have cases of young men going into shopping centres or cinemas and shooting dead lots of people. Touch wood.
I thought basically the only thing we could ever get is a shotgun.
I understand .22's are quite weak however im guessing they could still kill pretty easily?
Prawnboy said:
but just look at the uproar when they tried to legislate after sandy hook to close the loophole to stop trade shows & private sales being allowed to sell firearms to people without background checks. It was voted down and the exec vice president of the NRA went as far as to say 'gun free school zones attract killers' & 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun', & suggested legislation to put armed officers in every school in the nation.
So they run around saying i need a gun because of all the bad guys and then complain when you try and legislate against some bad guys getting there hands on guns.
The language used by these people says everything, 'bad guy' 'good-guy', 'outlaw' movie talk.
The biggest problem with the whole issue is the pro-gun crowd don't seem to want to give an inch & infact make gun tragedies an excuse to further the pro-gun agenda.
i fear many more generations will pass before anything changes.
I'm not saying it will happen and I agree, but it is still a strange state of affairs. The problem, in its most basic form is that guns are seen as a part of american culture and of historical relevance which needs protecting. This may have been the case a few hundred years back. The NRA are as much as problem as the far left groups, both useless dis-organisations. If you read more about the second amendment the term 'bear arms' is ambiguous at best, it would be coming from 1791. It's bizarre (for me) that something written clearly in the shadow of a civil war that gave the 'right' to defend yourself outside a militia group would be bastardised into this BS notion and spoken with a straight face in the 21st century.So they run around saying i need a gun because of all the bad guys and then complain when you try and legislate against some bad guys getting there hands on guns.
The language used by these people says everything, 'bad guy' 'good-guy', 'outlaw' movie talk.
The biggest problem with the whole issue is the pro-gun crowd don't seem to want to give an inch & infact make gun tragedies an excuse to further the pro-gun agenda.
i fear many more generations will pass before anything changes.
They should let Harvard loose on the text, it would be quickly unraveled and make the lawyers an absolute fortune
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 28th August 12:26
redtwin said:
That is good advice, however I imagine it would be very hard to follow if the thing an intruder wants to take is your daughter's virginity.
Yeah, that idea is sort of why accidental gun deaths are so common.
Did you consider the overwhelming likelihood in that case is that the "intruder" was... how we say... not so unwelcome?
Of course you didn't, because you're a paranoid nutjob with a gun who just shot your daughter's beau. Hooray!
yonex said:
If you read more about the second amendment the term 'bear arms' is ambiguous at best, it would be coming from 1791. It's bizarre (for me) that something written clearly in the shadow of a civil war that gave the 'right' to defend yourself outside a militia group would be bastardised into this BS notion and spoken with a straight face in the 21st century.
exactly, this was the arms they were talking about. difficult to go on a primary school killing rampage with one of those.
THX said:
Colonial said:
(ignoring suicide - people will kill themselves no matter what).
Some argue that pulling a trigger is a relatively impulsive method of suicide. That cutting wrists, hanging, or jumping from a bridge takes more resolve. If you're going to 'cry for help', there's more chance of help arriving whilst slowly bleeding to death, or parked on top of an edge.
Less time with a gun help in your own mouth.
jdw100 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
It is perfectly legal to possess acid even in the UK.
I know, I always keep a pot of it next to the bed in case someone breaks in to rape my daughter!the internet said:
Three basic competing models were offered to interpret the Second Amendment:
The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective right" model, holds that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia.
Judicial reluctance to consider seriously whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement perhaps reflects a tendency to view the Second Amendment, with its apparent guarantee of gun ownership, as embarrassing and politically incorrect. Under the twentieth-century “State’s rights” view, “the people” have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard.
The second, known as the "sophisticated collective right model", holds that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.
Indeed, the fact that the collective right theory was once so confidently advanced by gun control enthusiasts is on its way down the collective memory hole as though it had never been asserted. With its demise, the intellectual debate over the original meaning of the second Amendment has turned in a different direction. Although now conceding that the right to keep and bear arms indeed belongs to individuals rather than to states, almost without missing a beat, gun control enthusiasts now claim with equal assurance that the individual right to bear arms was somehow "conditioned" in its exercise on participation in an organized militia.
The third, known as the "standard model", is that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
However, the weight of serious scholarship supports the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual rights and to deter governmental tyranny. From the Federalist Papers to explanations when the Bill of Rights was introduced, it is clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect individual rights.
So preservation of 'individual rights' and unwillingness to provoke an 'embarrassing' debate leads an entire nation to where they are now. I did know it was a bit odd, but I never knew it was this contrived. Reading the challenges against the law and the reasons that they were dismissed is fascinating! It's the very core of civil rights it seems, very difficult to understand.The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective right" model, holds that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia.
Judicial reluctance to consider seriously whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement perhaps reflects a tendency to view the Second Amendment, with its apparent guarantee of gun ownership, as embarrassing and politically incorrect. Under the twentieth-century “State’s rights” view, “the people” have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard.
The second, known as the "sophisticated collective right model", holds that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.
Indeed, the fact that the collective right theory was once so confidently advanced by gun control enthusiasts is on its way down the collective memory hole as though it had never been asserted. With its demise, the intellectual debate over the original meaning of the second Amendment has turned in a different direction. Although now conceding that the right to keep and bear arms indeed belongs to individuals rather than to states, almost without missing a beat, gun control enthusiasts now claim with equal assurance that the individual right to bear arms was somehow "conditioned" in its exercise on participation in an organized militia.
The third, known as the "standard model", is that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
However, the weight of serious scholarship supports the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual rights and to deter governmental tyranny. From the Federalist Papers to explanations when the Bill of Rights was introduced, it is clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect individual rights.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff