HOME | DD
Reddbecca — Think about it
Published: 2007-04-16 22:15:09 +0000 UTC; Views: 3372; Favourites: 61; Downloads: 28
Redirect to original
Description
Doesn't need much explaining, does it?Simple concept. People who are forced to disarm will always be murdered by someone that refuses to comply with the law. The only way to stop the killing is to stop the disarming.
Related content
Comments: 135
1) shooting sport competitions are just as much a culture as painting or modern art!
2) So what you are saying is that homicides, assaults and armed robberys are misdemeanours? This ban has been in place long before the recession!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Modern art really isn't a culture and as an ex art student I can verify that. And no, I was correcting your spelling.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why are you changing the topic. And don't get technical, you know what I am implying and you ignore it by changing the topic. If you say that rap is a culture but expedition shooting is not, that is very hypocritical.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, rap is a music style. And being a culture does not make something acceptable. Racism is an aspect of culture, there is a gang culture.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
since when do law abiding, gun owning citizens have to suffer because the criminals make bad decisions. Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people, it makes them vulnerable!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Never the solution? You catch somebody trying to murder their wife in the parking lot of a supermarket in broad daylight by stabbing her to death, and having a gun isn't a solution to that problem?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not if you have a another knife ready to stab the would-be killer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Stabbing or shooting, death is a likely outcome either way. The problem with trying to stab somebody who's already got a knife is having to make the boneheaded move of sacrificing a tactical advantage -that being distance- to get right within killing range and hope that you've got the better skill and reaction time to overcome the person that's already started the fight.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"...death is a likely outcome either way"
Yeah, but for who, the victim or the criminal?
Even if gun control is relaxed and everyone who is legally 21 can carry one, doesn't mean that won't be the end of concepts like black markets and fake ids. Even better, how do the ones who issue the permit really know that the signer won't do anything with his gun from the legal grounds of regulated hunting, practicing at target ranges, and self-defense, like random shooting, damaging public and private property or hunting endangered animals or animals out of season? Even better how do you know that in a country with relaxed gun laws, they won't up the ante with grenades, semi-automatics, and the like, in comparison to the pistols with regular rounds that you propose people to use?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Better grab a drink or something as I address these points.
First off, the one who dies is the one with the poor plan and poor execution, so best develop a better plan and be prepared to cheat when necessary. Playing fair isn't in the criminal nature.
How do the ones issuing the permits know anything? Just like everyone else they can't tell what MAY happen in the future, they're just going by what information is available to them. And in the case of permits issued the information available is that no criminal record exists. Besides that a concealed carry permit isn't a get out of jail free card when somebody does something stupid. In some states being a dumbass while possessing a permit can actually enhance the punishment you can receive.
Upping the ante with grenades? We've been going at it for over a hundred years, and outside of islamic suicide bombers nobody's really been motivated to confront armed private citizens with grenades or other explosive devices. The kill radius is huge and the shrapnel zone is far reaching. Depending on what type of grenade you're talking about you've got a danger zone of 15 to 45 meters and about ten seconds between the time you pull the pin and the damn thing goes off.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Guns kill people. Hence, they prove a spiffy form of self defense and a tasty little murder weapon. A gun ban is a detriment to society.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Gun bans are a positive influence on society, you don't fear what someone may be hiding, humans are volatile creatures it is foolish to have access to an instrument capable of ending someones life in a heartbeat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You need to pay closer attention - just because something is "banned," it does not "disappear." In case you didn't notice, "gun crime" does still happen in the UK. So does non-gun crime.
Crime tends to go UP in places that heavily restrict gun ownership/use. Look at Chicago, and "gun-free" Washington DC (aka the Murder Capital of the USA). And Chicago really burns me up, because even though carrying guns is illegal state-wide, the farging HYPOCRITES in the Chicago government get to carry them for THEIR protection.
It's like this: If I had a choice between shooting it out with an attacker, or having a cop come by and do it FOR me, the cop wins hands down.
Guess what? Well, as others have put it: "When SECONDS count, the police can be there in MINUTES."
Self-defense. A human right, a human RESPONSIBILITY.
Until that magical day when guns disappear, and police become omnipotent so they can be exactly at the rights spot at the right time in order to prevent the criminals from ganging up on you, and/or beating, stabbing, choking, or blowing you up...!
Guns are not the solution for EVERYONE, it would be naive to claim otherwise - just as it is to claim that they are NEVER the solution.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are my new best friend xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Gun bans are a positive influence on society...": Unsupported
"...you don't fear what someone may be hiding": Unfounded and relative
"...it is foolish to have access to an instrument capable of ending someones life in a heartbeat." Because self-defense is obsolete? What the hell are you even trying to articulate?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If guns kill people, how come there are terms like "gunman" and somebody has to actually hold the gun and pull the trigger for somebody to be killed?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And I must apologize for the poor wording of my post.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Civilians with guns are not suppose to actively shoot killers, because Civilians die, they are supposed to try and escape so police have one less person to worry about.
The handgun is only needed for self-defense at close so a taser would suffice, argue otherwise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
What the hell does 'actively shoot' mean?! If there's somebody moving through the building, killing people, then if I had a gun, I'd do my best to stop him. Which will very possibly mean killing him in self-defense, and in defense of others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not really, what happens if they get back up and pull the needles out, your fucked. Its happened before. It will happen again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tasers have a maximum range of 15 feet. Do you want to be required to get that close before you can defend yourself, or do you want to keep as much distance between yourself and the hostile attacker as possible?
Tasers can also be foiled by heavy clothing. A coat can be immediately shrugged off with the prongs still stuck inside it and then the taser is useless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I remember feeling quite overwhelmed with anger about this - VTech banned carrying just the year before, if I remember correctly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Indeed...that is the very first thing I thought when I saw the first estimated death toll..... I wondered...how many people would that guy have shot...if only one other person had been armed....had been able to stop him or atleast suppress him...... would it still have been 33!!! people ......
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And the left expects the criminals to obey gun laws.
Last year, the Virginia Legislature killed a bill that would have allowed permit holders to carry on campus.
The president of Virginia Tech said the defeat of this bill would keep his campus safe.
Yes, right.
Wolves never hunt the lions, only the sheep.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
More people with guns would lead to confusion.
While allowing permitted carriers to carry arms on campus sounds ideal in theory, it simply would not work in reality.
Under extreme stress situations (such as a school shooting) these carriers could become disoriented and start blasting at anyone that approaches them, or others carrying firearms, leading to giant shootouts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hardly. You have been reading too many anti-gun stories. The same argument could be used to oppose permit holders being armed in a shopping mall, movie theater or even on the street.
School shooting happen because the shooter knows there will be no resistance. Permit holders being armed in schools would reduce the numbers of school shooting because the criminal would not be assured of having an easy mark.
After all, wolves hunt sheep, not lions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This particular one happened because of a mentally disturbed student that should have never been sold a firearm in the first place. He was already prepared to die, regardless if there were guns on campus or not.
would have probably had less, but some people would have still died.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
So, you're saying that because it wouldn have ONLY saved 'some' people from dying, that it would have been useless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
True. He also had shown a history of problems which caused some concerns. A sad fact is murder is not often the first crime a person commits. All to often the perp is known to law enforcement by the time they kill. The failure of the courts to properly punish criminal early adds to the problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually he said that killing the legislation would make the students and parents "feel" safe, he never said that it would actually "make" them safe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
^ Huh, guess he's not as stupid as I thought then, if that's how he worded it. Talk about covering ALL the bases.
Still, he and everyone else that fought to kill that REAL "common sense gun legislation" have the blood of 32 innocent people on their hands as far as I'm concerned!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |