This will be mines in less than 2 weeks

[Sand]

I don't know about you, but as an unarmed person, I'm more afraid of someone waving a gun in my face than I am of someone waving their fists in my face.

 

Since I have actually had a gun pointed at my face by a criminal who is now doing hard time for that act I can tell you that the experience was very overrated and not all that fearsome.

[thepixiesrock]

Hades, you're such a hard ass and everything. I wish I was more like you.

[Sand]

Hades, you're such a hard ass and everything. I wish I was more like you.

 

 

[Surreptishus]

Hades, you're such a hard ass and everything. I wish I was more like you.

 

You are well on your way.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Surreptishus

[kumquatq3]

Is this gun supposed to get me to stop making fun of Eddo's topics?

[kumquatq3]

That's a small gun you got there champ.

 

It's not the size of the gun, it's how you shoot it

[alanschu]

Since I'd hate to see Godwin's Law not be correct, do you think that the Nazis would have been able to so effectively keep the Jews in line in concentration camps if they were only armed with knives. The gun has an increased ability to main and kill someone compared to a knife, especially in the hands of an assailant that is not particularly well trained in either. I don't know about you, but as an unarmed person, I'm more afraid of someone waving a gun in my face than I am of someone waving their fists in my face.

Let me turn this around then, would the Nazis have been able to effectively keep the Jews in line in concentration camps if the Jews were armed to the teeth?

 

First off, what exactly are you "turning around?" I've not stated any opinion on gun control, and the text of mine that you quoted had nothing to do with gun control, but rather was addressing Hades' comments that the weapon type is irrelevant, but only the intentions matter, since if someone wants to do something, they'll do it. I call bull****, because if a criminal really wants to do commit a crime, in almost any situation he'll be better equipped with a handgun than he will with his bare fists. For you to "turn this around" on my point, you'd have to be talking about the gun being less effective of a tool than the knife.

 

 

To answer your question, no, they wouldn't. In fact, you could have brought up that the Gun Control Laws in Nazi Germany allowed for such a thing to happen. If you'd like, you could also bring up the hypothesis that part of the reason why Germany initially overlooked Switzerland was that its armed population (in combination with the unfavourable Alps) would have made it a bitch to take. Although this would be irrelevant, as I doubt that Jewish prisoners inside concentration camps would be "armed to the teeth."

[alanschu]

I don't know about you, but as an unarmed person, I'm more afraid of someone waving a gun in my face than I am of someone waving their fists in my face.

 

Since I have actually had a gun pointed at my face by a criminal who is now doing hard time for that act I can tell you that the experience was very overrated and not all that fearsome.

 

 

And I'm sure everyone in the world reacts just the same as you in that situation. If that's the case, why do criminals bother using guns period? All the need are their fists.

[Sand]

True enough, kummie. In short range fire, which is often the case in criminal acts a 9mm will actually blow a hole right through you, and if basic lead rounds are used and nothing vital is struck a person has a better chance of surviving than if the gun was a smaller caliber, like a .22 for a .22 wouldn't have the force behind it to puncture through the flesh a second time and more than likely "richocet" inside the body thusly tearing up the inside.

 

If the bugger was using a .22 instead of a 9mm I would have been more worried, Alan.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

First off, what exactly are you "turning around?" I've not stated any opinion on gun control, and the text of mine that you quoted had nothing to do with gun control, but rather was addressing Hades' comments that the weapon type is irrelevant, but only the intentions matter, since if someone wants to do something, they'll do it. I call bull****, because if a criminal really wants to do commit a crime, in almost any situation he'll be better equipped with a handgun than he will with his bare fists. For you to "turn this around" on my point, you'd have to be talking about the gun being less effective of a tool than the knife.

 

Hmmmm.... *Note to self, carefully read posts to establish context and direction before making a reply*

[Tale]

I don't know about you, but as an unarmed person, I'm more afraid of someone waving a gun in my face than I am of someone waving their fists in my face.

 

Since I have actually had a gun pointed at my face by a criminal who is now doing hard time for that act I can tell you that the experience was very overrated and not all that fearsome.

 

 

And I'm sure everyone in the world reacts just the same as you in that situation. If that's the case, why do criminals bother using guns period? All the need are their fists.

I know plenty that get by with their knives.

 

And by plenty, I mean there was one guy, but he settled for me offering him some chips. He thought I was ballsy.

[213374U]

I'd think it'd have worked better if you had offered to shoot only one of his kneecaps off.

[alanschu]

I know plenty that get by with their knives.

 

And by plenty, I mean there was one guy, but he settled for me offering him some chips. He thought I was ballsy.

 

Hahaha

 

Though I don't typically hear of muggings and whatnot taking place without at least the threat of a weapon being present. Unless maybe the guy was a tank. The thing is, despite my sleight frame, a gun could still make me an effective mugger. With a knife, maybe. Though I suspect that if I was to take a random sample of a thousand people, I'd get more people attempting some sort of retaliation had I had a knife rather than a pistol.

[Walsingham]

I just remembered that I never got into this thread to talk about gun control. I'm talking about gun attitude. Whatever the pros and cons of having a firearm as a legal right I would prefer to think that associates of this board would exhibit less childish glee at the prospect of killing in self defence or otherwise. Possessing the means to kill is a bloody serious thing, and you should think less about the 'ptoo ptoo' and more about what the significance of the action is.

 

Like I said already, the science of firearms is fascinating, and the shooting thereof is a highly skilled art. But the dying of people is not cake and balloons time.

[alanschu]

I concur.

[Tale]

I support guns for the same reason they're protected by the Constitution. Not for the sake of personal protection from thieves, attackers, or foreign nations, but for the sake of protection from a corrupt government. It has been said to the point of being a cliche, but people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of their people. The right to own guns is an assurance that no matter what happens, no matter how corrupt or detached the government gets from the people it governs, as long as the people have the right to bear arms, they will have some say in that government, if only through revolt.

 

Of course, the spirit of that interpretation has long been subverted.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Tale

[LadyCrimson]

It really doesn't matter in the USA anyhow anymore. Why? Because you have millions of weapons on the loose. That is the big difference between Sweden and USA. Once you have polluted your society with more guns than there are people, gun laws will have zero to none effect. Just like in any other war zone on earth.

Bold emphasis mine.

 

I don't know about zero effect, but I agree with mkreku's point. The USA has so many guns (and weapons in general) floating around already - unless people voluntarily give the vast majority of them up, it's pretty hard to control who has them, where they are, etc, no matter what laws you pass. There are occasionally towns that give up their guns like that, but it's not common.

 

Is the USA "really that bad?" Since I've never lived anywhere else, I couldn't say. I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as some think it is or try to paint it out to be, certainly. Stats can never tell you what it's like to actually live in a specific place. But fear has become a saleable product in the US. The odds of the average US citizen encountering a really "deadly" situation or a gun in their face is still fairly damn low overall I think, but it depends a lot on where you live...the coastal or other large city areas are very different than the more rural or mid-West areas - a rich suburb on one side of the freeway much different than the lower-middle class on the other side of the same freeway - micro-city environments within the main city and all that. But of course the news media pumps up every violent crime to the point where citizens live in fear of being the victim.

[Gorgon]

First you have to completely dismantle the non military part of the gun industry, then you ban all civilians from owning firearms and impose draconian punishments for having posession of an unlicenced weapon, then you Waco-siege the remaining hillbilly militia crackpots.

[Guard Dog]

First you have to completely dismantle the non military part of the gun industry, then you ban all civilians from owning firearms and impose draconian punishments for having posession of an unlicenced weapon, then you Waco-siege the remaining hillbilly militia crackpots.

Yeah what the hell Gorgon says. We don't need that old 2nd amendment, and so to get rid of it lets also throw out the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Guard Dog

[alanschu]

I was thinking he was being less than serious when he made his post.

[theslug]

I support guns for the same reason they're protected by the Constitution. Not for the sake of personal protection from thieves, attackers, or foreign nations, but for the sake of protection from a corrupt government. It has been said to the point of being a cliche, but people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of their people. The right to own guns is an assurance that no matter what happens, no matter how corrupt or detached the government gets from the people it governs, as long as the people have the right to bear arms, they will have some say in that government, if only through revolt.

 

Of course, the spirit of that interpretation has long been subverted.

I'm surprised no one mentioned this so far. Yeah, you take away guns the next thing you know a tank is rolling down your street. There is a reason why the creators the constitution put guns as an amendment so people could protect themselves, from say I don't know troops being stationed in your house and you can do nothing about it. And Tienanmen Square anyone?

[Pidesco]

Yeah, you take away guns the next thing you know a tank is rolling down your street.

 

Is this meant sarcastically?

[Tale]

Yeah, you take away guns the next thing you know a tank is rolling down your street.

 

Is this meant sarcastically?

I doubt it's meant literally, but symbolically.

[Pidesco]

It's just that there are plenty of countries with fairly strict gun control legislation where military and political oppression is practically nonexistent.

[Tale]

It's just that there are plenty of countries with fairly strict gun control legislation where military and political oppression is practically nonexistent.

Yes, and then there are countries that are the other way around. Just because one thing does not always lead to a negative outcome does not mean that negative outcome should be trivialized.