Once again #2

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#2
Once again, an anti gets irrational over the gun issue.

How did their own government do this?

I repeat: The lives saved by # 2 far outweighs the abuse by a realtive few. If I were to post every news article about guns saving lives in America, you would be foaming from the mouth.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#3
Bla bla bla. The proof is in the pudding. Show me. Show me the endless stream of messages that have brave, packing citizens foiling bank robberies.

How did their own government do this?
I meant that in a cynical way, since the most used response to the gun legislation being the way it is is that Xth amandment that allows citizens to bear arms, based purely on the premises that it's a method of keeping the government in check. I did not literally mean the government did this, of course.
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#4
here is one story that comes up with a simple search
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/baldwin021707.htm
"This past Monday night, a gunman walked into a popular Salt Lake City mall and opened fire with a shotgun. The trench coat-clad gunman was heavily armed and intended to kill as many people as he could. He killed five people before being challenged by an armed off-duty police officer. Once again, a gun saved lives.

Salt Lake City's police chief said, "There is no question that his [the off-duty policeman's] quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people."

According to press reports, "Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden, north of Salt Lake City, jumped up from his seat at a restaurant after hearing gunfire and cornered the gunman, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived." The miscreant was killed in the ensuing shootout.

Mr. Hammond said, "I feel like I was there and did what I had to do."

The mall was crowded with Valentine's Day shoppers. Doubtless, had the off-duty officer not confronted the gunman, the death toll would have been staggering.

The incident in Salt Lake City is merely the latest example of how an armed citizen saved the lives of innocent people. Professor Gary Kleck of the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University has meticulously documented that handguns are used to resist criminals on more than two million occasions annually-far more often than they are used by criminals to commit crimes.

More often than not, the citizen-defender is not even required to discharge his or her weapon, as the mere sight of a firearm is enough to thwart many potential acts of criminality. I can personally attest to at least two occasions when the display of a handgun by a member of my immediate family prompted a would-be criminal to quickly leave the scene.

In addition, noted author and gun rights advocate Don Kates reminds us that Professor John Lott's book, The Bias Against Guns, states categorically that at least three American massacres have been stopped by civilians with guns. Make that four now.

At last count, forty states have some sort of concealed carry law. Two states, Vermont and Alaska, do not even require their citizens to obtain a concealed carry permit in order to legally carry a concealed weapon. It is no coincidence that the states and cities that deny their citizens the right to legally carry a handgun for self defense have the highest crime rates. Just ask yourself: Would I rather take a midnight walk in downtown Montpelier or in downtown Chicago? It is an undeniable fact that an armed citizenry is much safer than a disarmed citizenry.

With Nancy Pelosi and her gun-grabbing Democrats now in charge of Congress, and with neocon President G. W. Bush already on record as supporting Bill Clinton's gun ban, it is doubly important that the American people diligently defend their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Not only does safety on America's streets depend on it, so does liberty itself.
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#5
http://webs.lanset.com/koba/mygunsavedme2.pdf
and here is an interesting one

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm
here is a story about a principal at a school who had a gun in his car and stopped a crazy person from murdering students

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0411/
another interesting read, here are some parts from it
"According to noted researcher John Lott, between 1997 and 2002 there were 32 students shot and killed in elementary and secondary schools in the U.S. This figure even includes gang-related killings. During the same time period, 53 students died while playing football. "

"a gunman entered a school in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, where he killed or injured several teachers and students. A restaurant owner across the street from the school heard the commotion. He grabbed his shotgun, ran to the school and persuaded the shooter to surrender his weapon. The police showed up a few minutes later. "

"In 2001 an off-duty police officer was registering his daughter at Santee High School near San Diego, California. He heard gunshots, drew his service weapon and forced the shooter to take cover. The actions of this brave officer undoubtedly averted further deaths and injuries."

"In 2002 a disgruntled former student with a firearm went to the campus of Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia, where he shot and killed the dean of the school and two students. A pair of students heard the shots and raced to their cars to retrieve their handguns. When confronted with superior firepower, the shooter surrendered."

there are tons more stories out there like this but you wont find them being reported on cnn or any other mainstream media outlet, they are far too biased and liberal to let stories like these guy out there. that would just hurt their agenda
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#6
You don't think that all these incidents happening because some idiot got hold of a firearm in the first place is in any way, hm, odd? Contradictory?

Just because gun toting psycho's tend to be taken down by someone else with a firearm doesn't make guns life savers. To argue so is ludicrous. Off duty cops don't count imo. Based on their personal experience and training I wouldn't say they qualify as normal civilians in regards to gun use/ownership.

And apart from that, for every story about a "life saving" gun incident, you can find one where no one intervened and people just died. Just because you can "counter" a negative message with a positive one doesn't mean guns are good or private ownership is a smart, responsible choice.

But then again, I once heard a US army official saying that "this new nuclear device is aimed at saving lives". I mean, c'mon, fuck off, mate.

and lmao @ the football analogy. How childish can your argumentation get, man? I bet in that period ('97-'02) more people were injured by handguns than assault rifles. Does this mean assault rifles are safer than handguns now?

Piss off with your information distortion.
 

EDouble

Will suck off black men for a dime
#9
Fuck You Duke
these are peoples lives here, I guess you dont even take a moment between
jumping on America Legislation on Gun Control to give a second thought

"
It's good to see American gun legislation is working well to protect the responsible American citizen from their own government.


EDIT: Ah-ma-gawd! I just forgot. This would of course never have happened if the victims were *also* carrying weapons! How could I have not seen that? Damn.
"
ROLL EYES AT THE END Id dare you do that in my face you stupid mothrfucker
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#10
Fuck You Duke
these are peoples lives here, I guess you dont even take a moment between
jumping on America Legislation on Gun Control to give a second thought

" "
ROLL EYES AT THE END Id dare you do that in my face you stupid mothrfucker

What the hell do "people's lives" have to do with this specifically? Either make a valid point founded on proper argumentation or leave. I don't have anything against name calling and I wont lose sleep over being called a stupid "mothrfucker", but if you're such a big man to sling insults over the net, I'm sure you're mature enough to present your case in an intelligible manner, yes? If all you have to bring to the table are 3 lines consisting of mostly pure, unrefined bullshit, then please, sod off. Make a case with or without insults, your choice, or leave WoW.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

Kareem

Active Member
#14
Once again how does banning guns solve the problem? you think homicide will drastically decrease? Humanity has been slaughtering one another for thousands of years. What do you propose? More government in our lives? no thank you. banning the guns isn't gonna stop gun related crime or death. has the war on drugs stopped drug use or sales? no. why? because no matter what you do someone who really wants something will find away to get it. Take the guns away from the law abiding citizen an ya might as well strap a target to their head cause the criminals will still get the guns. There is no way you are ever gonna stop gun violence 100% EVER. I think what needs to be done is harsher sentencing. You use a gun or attempt to use a gun in a deadly manner or crime whether your attempt was successful or not give em 25 to life.

Of course that isn't gonna stop the people that don't care or are suicidal but I think the majority of those who use guns in crimes don't think they will be caught. So make a tougher sentencing an I bet ya fire arms related crimes would lower significantly.

My name is Kareem an I approve this message.

*paid by for the citizens for Kareem for president 2012*
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#15
Once again how does banning guns solve the problem? you think homicide will drastically decrease? Humanity has been slaughtering one another for thousands of years. What do you propose? More government in our lives? no thank you. banning the guns isn't gonna stop gun related crime or death. has the war on drugs stopped drug use or sales? no. why? because no matter what you do someone who really wants something will find away to get it. Take the guns away from the law abiding citizen an ya might as well strap a target to their head cause the criminals will still get the guns. There is no way you are ever gonna stop gun violence 100% EVER. I think what needs to be done is harsher sentencing. You use a gun or attempt to use a gun in a deadly manner or crime whether your attempt was successful or not give em 25 to life.

Of course that isn't gonna stop the people that don't care or are suicidal but I think the majority of those who use guns in crimes don't think they will be caught. So make a tougher sentencing an I bet ya fire arms related crimes would lower significantly.

The problem isn't the pro-criminals. Like you said, they'll always have guns. The problem is ordinary Joe going berserk for whatever reason and having that pea shooter in his nightstand. Illustrated by this Cleveland drama. Guy gets pissed at neighbours over fireworks and promptly shoots and kills three.

Harsher sentencing? Sure, all for it, but is it going to stop pro-criminals? Course not.

Take the guns away from the law abiding citizen an ya might as well strap a target to their head cause the criminals will still get the guns.

Most law abiding citizens will never come into contact with a criminal, and if such an unlucky event would occur, I doubt having a gun in your dresser is going to help you out of that situation. There's also a reason why people aren't responsible for their own safety against criminals. We call it the police. Can the police always save you? Nope. But handing out guns like it's liquorice is not going to improve the situation.

It's a risk-benefit trade off between having ordinary members of the public( of whom you as government have no idea whether they are fit and responsible enough to own a firearm) having the damn things, with all the inherent risks that come with it, and the public retaining a certain degree of self-protection rights.

For me, and for most of the civilized world, it's decided that the benefit of small increased protection does not outweigh all the bad mojo that comes along with every redneck waving shotguns about. I guess America(ns) see this differently. That's your good right.
 

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#16
Most law abiding citizens will never come into contact with a criminal, and if such an unlucky event would occur, I doubt having a gun in your dresser is going to help you out of that situation. There's also a reason why people aren't responsible for their own safety against criminals. We call it the police.
This whole paragraph is wrong and delusional. You must live in some isolated Shangra La. US crime index rates show that 4,500+ per 100,000 inhabitants come into contact with a criminal each year. If it's a house break-in, then yes, having a gun in your dresser drawer will and has helped people out of that situation. If outside the home, then you're right, a gun in the dresser won't help, which is why they should be carrying. (For once we agree.)

The police are not there to protect anyone. That's not their job and they are not obligated. Even if they were, there wouldn't be time for them to do so. There are 10 million criminals who have the luxury of deciding when and where they strike. And it's not always near a donut shop where police can respond quickly. Your personal safety is your own responsibility.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#17
This whole paragraph is wrong and delusional. You must live in some isolated Shangra La. US crime index rates show that 4,500+ per 100,000 inhabitants come into contact with a criminal each year. If it's a house break-in, then yes, having a gun in your dresser drawer will and has helped people out of that situation. If outside the home, then you're right, a gun in the dresser won't help, which is why they should be carrying. (For once we agree.)

The police are not there to protect anyone. That's not their job and they are not obligated. Even if they were, there wouldn't be time for them to do so. There are 10 million criminals who have the luxury of deciding when and where they strike. And it's not always near a donut shop where police can respond quickly. Your personal safety is your own responsibility.
Serious question: Do you really think the idea of every citizen armed is a good plan? That something like that will actually work?
 

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#18
Serious question: Do you really think the idea of every citizen armed is a good plan? That something like that will actually work?
I don't have to think anything. There's a town in the US that requires citizens to be armed. The crime rate went down to zero. In those cities with easy carry laws, the crime rate is much less than strict cities. Facts are facts.

Anyway, every citizen doesn't want to be armed. I'm not saying give everyone a gun, everyone without a criminal record. I'm saying the more law-abiding citizens who want guns are allowed to have guns, the safer things will be. The more these citizens carry their guns, the safer everyone else will be. Of course, everyone who wants to get a gun or carry one should have to go through a gun safety course.
 

S. Fourteen

Well-Known Member
#19
There is no doubt in my mind that far too many Americans die from gun violence each year. But in a country where that number is 200 times lower, people are still beaten to death with baseball bats because some kid wanted to let off steam. Women are still raped, strangled and left in a dirty bath tub. Guns make it easier for people to kill people, so I've been having serious thoughts about getting one, and getting a license to carry.

Jokerman or others, do you have any suggestion for a good entry level handgun?
 

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#20
Jokerman or others, do you have any suggestion for a good entry level handgun?
I would recommend a revolver. They're simple and reliable. Super easy to load, unload, inspect, etc. Revolvers can stay loaded 24/7 and they never jam. I would get one made by Smith & Wesson or Ruger. Get a stainless one with a 4" barrel. S&W 620 or 638, or Ruger SP101, would be my first choice. They're chambered for .357 Magnum and .38 S&W Special +P calibers. You practice with the .38 and carry it with .357. Once you become proficient with it, you can decide if you want to carry that or a snub-nosed revolver or a compact semi-automatic, and keep the .357 as a house gun.

For semi-automatics, go with a .9mm from Glock, Beretta, or Sig. But i wouldn't start off learning to shoot with a semi.

I suggest you take a firearms course first. You'll get to try different guns and calibers and learn safety rules. The NRA gives courses in just about every state, or your local firing range might have one. You can find an NRA one near you here: http://www.nrahq.org/education/training/find.asp
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top