Gun Control

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Figment

Guns do not hurt as much?

Tell that to those firemen that died this week who were killed at ranges and at a speed a knife can't be used.

Also nice: the murderer had served 17 years for killing his grandma, and apparently also killed his sister.

Of course giving such people guns - whether intentional or not - is simply dangerous... One of the victims was a cop as well. I bet he'd have stood more chance against a knife wielder of 62 years old than a gun wielding 62 year old. And probably at least one of them would have had time to react.

Not to mention run away from a 62 y/o.


Knife fight can be avoided, a gun, certainly not an AR-15, not so much.

But hey, otherwise just send your military out without bullets, if you think that makes them more effective at killing people...

Here's a little known fact: the vast majority of gun homicides are committed well within 'melee' range.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Here's a little known fact: the vast majority of gun homicides are committed well within 'melee' range.

Here's a well-known fact: nobody stopped them at that range, while knife murders aren't as lethal and even in their optimum range, while assaillants with a knife often get stabbed by their own knives in the struggle.

[Baneblade]

Indeed, knives are dangerous, they also create much more severe wounds when used correctly. I'd say the best advantage a gun has over a knife is range. In knife range, the gunslinger better draw first blood.

[belch]

Originally Posted by Figment

Here's a well-known fact: nobody stopped them at that range, while knife murders aren't as lethal and even in their optimum range, while assaillants with a knife often get stabbed by their own knives in the struggle.

Oh sure, I prefer the less lethal murder over the more lethal murder...



Maybe, in Europe, blades are also kinder and gentler...?

[Obscura]

Tell me gun fanatics, do you think the founding fathers had assault rifles, pistols, and automatic weapons in mind when they created the second amendment? Do you think your state militia is going to go all red dawn on their asses and fight off a corrupt dystopian government with your AR-15 pee shooter? Did they envision every person owning tanks, jets, and long range missiles too? The government has those, we should too right?

The NRA care absolutely nothing about the fact that 20 children were slaughtered by some of the types of weapons they endorse, look at how it took them DAYS to say one word about it because they feared it would make them lose subscriptions and make them them look even worse than they already do. Thats all they care about, money, and more gun control means less money for them.

And PLEASE, you think that guy would have killed NEARLY that amount of people if he had a knife? The kid was 110 pounds at the most, he would have been overpowered by people at the school in seconds and this would have never happened to this extent. You're just grasping at straws with this "Well knives are dangerous too! As dangerous as guns!" crap and are making yourselves look like the ignorant brainwashed people that you are. Taking 5 year old news stories about knife murders off the internet then arguing about hypothetical bullshit doesn't look good for you either

These people remind of dale off of king of the hill, paranoid rednecks who thinks the government is out to get them. and that their semi-auto AR-15 and a truck full of good ol boys will fight off an modern military that could wipe them out with a drone piloted by some guy 500 miles away sitting comfortably in a base in the nevada desert.

[Obscura]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Why do more people die from gun related deaths in Brazil?

They have better gun control laws and far less gun ownership than we do. By your logic, they should be statistically on par as the average European nation.

Another bullshit arguement? Wanna know why brazil has more gun related deaths? Because the country is ridden with gangs, drugs and crime to the extent of mexico. The police are corrupt, and their military is also corrupt.
The police do these huge raids in the city clearing one favela at a time, gangsters and police get in firefights because they are forced to defend their drug dealing territory and people die. The rival gangs also kill civilians and each other. Not to mention brazils economic situation, poor people in that country are pretty much stuck where they are and can't find a job because nobody wants to hire people from the slums(favelas).

You can't compare our country to brazil in that manner, it not only makes 0 SENSE but it just makes you look you have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about and are just spewing pretentious crap you found on google because you think it makes you look smart. Go back to your hole

[ColdBackHAND]

Originally Posted by Obscura

Tell me gun fanatics, do you think the founding fathers had assault rifles, pistols, and automatic weapons in mind when they created the second amendment? Do you think your state militia is going to go all red dawn on their asses and fight off a corrupt dystopian government with your AR-15 pee shooter? Did they envision every person owning tanks, jets, and long range missiles too? The government has those, we should too right?

Tell me non-gun fanatic, what did the founding fathers have in mind about rifles and pistols. "Assault Rifle" has many meanings. Which one are you referring to.

As for you NRA comment. I'm sure you cried yourself to sleep over the tragedy.

Edit: Which Red Dawn, 2012 or 1984?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Indeed, knives are dangerous, they also create much more severe wounds when used correctly. I'd say the best advantage a gun has over a knife is range. In knife range, the gunslinger better draw first blood.

They're definitely dangerous, but one can't hurt what one can't strike (out of range). Evasion is at least possible against knives, without going all Matrix style.



And no, of course that doesn't stop surprise stabbings, muggings, etc from behind. Nothing but situational awareness does, not carrying a concealed weapon, nor disarming moves, since you can't defend against what you didn't see coming. Probably also why a lot of knives are drawn at the very last moment and well within stabbing range.


At least knife disarm moves can be learned by anyone in defense classes. In that respect, IMO it should be made obligatory to follow a course in CQC self-defense against knives in teen schools. Teens should be made aware of the consequences and dangers of a CQC fight with weapons. That keeping distance to a potential threat helps in being able to prevent a stabbing as well (seeing it coming) and isn't cowardice, but smart. That includes keeping a cool head by teaching some self-discipline in not letting oneself get baited or (group) pressured into a fight.

Especially important since most knives are carried by teen (gang)members (between 15 and 23 especially), when hormones and rivalries flare up and they try to impress others. And when taught then, they'll be able to use those defense classes the rest of their lives.



^ Knife crime ages.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ColdBackHAND

Tell me non-gun fanatic, what did the founding fathers have in mind about rifles and pistols.

Well if you want to know, why not actually read the bit about the regulation of the militia? Because that's explicitly written for that purpose. They explicitly mentioned what type of weaponry a white person is OBLIGATED to own, down to the amount of rounds of ammunition.

Kinda like forced health care insurance, but with weaponry.

[AnamNantom]

Originally Posted by Obscura

Tell me gun fanatics, do you think the founding fathers had assault rifles, pistols, and automatic weapons in mind when they created the second amendment? Do you think your state militia is going to go all red dawn on their asses and fight off a corrupt dystopian government with your AR-15 pee shooter? Did they envision every person owning tanks, jets, and long range missiles too? The government has those, we should too right?

The NRA care absolutely nothing about the fact that 20 children were slaughtered by some of the types of weapons they endorse, look at how it took them DAYS to say one word about it because they feared it would make them lose subscriptions and make them them look even worse than they already do. Thats all they care about, money, and more gun control means less money for them.

And PLEASE, you think that guy would have killed NEARLY that amount of people if he had a knife? The kid was 110 pounds at the most, he would have been overpowered by people at the school in seconds and this would have never happened to this extent. You're just grasping at straws with this "Well knives are dangerous too! As dangerous as guns!" crap and are making yourselves look like the ignorant brainwashed people that you are. Taking 5 year old news stories about knife murders off the internet then arguing about hypothetical bullshit doesn't look good for you either

These people remind of dale off of king of the hill, paranoid rednecks who thinks the government is out to get them. and that their semi-auto AR-15 and a truck full of good ol boys will fight off an modern military that could wipe them out with a drone piloted by some guy 500 miles away sitting comfortably in a base in the nevada desert.

No reason to roll over and give up the right to bear arms. Besides this, you may not know that all servicemen swear to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...thofenlist.htm

I swore it once, and I'm a citizen. There are plenty of servicemen and women who will use the weapons issued to them to defend those who don't have the same. Your argument about citizens not having tanks doesn't stand if you consider for a moment that US Military members are citizens too.

I'm fairly certain that most people who work for the Fed Gov, especially the US Military will not go along with corrupt maneuvers by any "mandates" or "orders" that call for breaking Constitutional law.

[ColdBackHAND]

Originally Posted by Figment

Well if you want to know, why not actually read the bit about the regulation of the militia? Because that's explicitly written for that purpose. They explicitly mentioned what type of weaponry a white person is OBLIGATED to own, down to the amount of rounds of ammunition.

Kinda like forced health care insurance, but with weaponry.

My question was not for self enlightenment. And when I do need to be enlightened, I'll certainly will not run to you. Not that you are a bad person. You have good thoughts. I just have access to better options.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ColdBackHAND

My question was not for self enlightenment. And when I do need to be enlightened, I'll certainly will not run to you. Not that you are a bad person. You have good thoughts. I just have access to better options.

See, the thing is, when I state something, I'm called a liar. When I quote the section, it is ignored completely. When I mention it's an entirely obsolete document, then the gun owners will note that its meaning has changed to personal defense (IMO, suggesting it's even more obsolete and clearly not what the FA had in mind...).

Hence I'd just say read the whole original Militia Regulation document really well without leaning on what external sources say it says (or how it should be interpreted). I don't think most people have, given what they say it says. State militias are not for personal state use according to that document. It also does not grant people the right to their own personal militias, just the right to a state militia (obeying the state and regulated by the state and meant for Napoleonic era warfare). :/

[Figment]

Originally Posted by AnamNantom

I'm fairly certain that most people who work for the Fed Gov, especially the US Military will not go along with corrupt maneuvers by any "mandates" or "orders" that call for breaking Constitutional law.

But then the question remains, who would you need weapons against if not the army?

The whole argument to have weapons to fight the government breaks down here: your citizens (in the army) aren't willing to take up arms against their own populace. Your nationals identify themselves too much as American Citizens and are too mixed in the army and other institutes to really see a state vs state likely. Democrats and Republicans in most states are about 3-8% in difference. In fact, many claim the (majority of?) military personnel would support a civilian uprising if needed. That includes you.

I would presume you would argue the same for the (state) police and the federal police (civilians too).


In terms of government and others, that just leaves other citizens (including public servants/bureaucrats and politicians) that don't share your (group's) opinion and intelligence agencies (which follow the administration's directive) as targets. And those you don't need weapons for either, you can just vote them out of office, empeech even and if you can't, then you're just facing a temporary (almost) democratically elected majority... (no proportional representation, so only semi-democratic).

Which means that by taking up arms, you would in fact enforce the will of the minority onto the majority and other minorities, which in itself is a despotic thing to do. Do you see the paradox?

So... who exactly are the targets you need an AR-15 assault rifle for?

[belch]

Originally Posted by Obscura

Tell me gun fanatics, do you think the founding fathers had assault rifles, pistols, and automatic weapons in mind when they created the second amendment? Do you think your state militia is going to go all red dawn on their asses and fight off a corrupt dystopian government with your AR-15 pee shooter? Did they envision every person owning tanks, jets, and long range missiles too? The government has those, we should too right?

The NRA care absolutely nothing about the fact that 20 children were slaughtered by some of the types of weapons they endorse, look at how it took them DAYS to say one word about it because they feared it would make them lose subscriptions and make them them look even worse than they already do. Thats all they care about, money, and more gun control means less money for them.

And PLEASE, you think that guy would have killed NEARLY that amount of people if he had a knife? The kid was 110 pounds at the most, he would have been overpowered by people at the school in seconds and this would have never happened to this extent. You're just grasping at straws with this "Well knives are dangerous too! As dangerous as guns!" crap and are making yourselves look like the ignorant brainwashed people that you are. Taking 5 year old news stories about knife murders off the internet then arguing about hypothetical bullshit doesn't look good for you either

These people remind of dale off of king of the hill, paranoid rednecks who thinks the government is out to get them. and that their semi-auto AR-15 and a truck full of good ol boys will fight off an modern military that could wipe them out with a drone piloted by some guy 500 miles away sitting comfortably in a base in the nevada desert.

Originally Posted by Obscura

Another bullshit arguement? Wanna know why brazil has more gun related deaths? Because the country is ridden with gangs, drugs and crime to the extent of mexico. The police are corrupt, and their military is also corrupt.
The police do these huge raids in the city clearing one favela at a time, gangsters and police get in firefights because they are forced to defend their drug dealing territory and people die. The rival gangs also kill civilians and each other. Not to mention brazils economic situation, poor people in that country are pretty much stuck where they are and can't find a job because nobody wants to hire people from the slums(favelas).

You can't compare our country to brazil in that manner, it not only makes 0 SENSE but it just makes you look you have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about and are just spewing pretentious crap you found on google because you think it makes you look smart. Go back to your hole

Speaking of crawling out of a hole....

Does every anti-gun advocate have to be smarmy, arrogant, and so quick to insult and yet with such a thin skin that they can't stand any judgement, ot opposition to their own ideas? Well, let's find out shall we?

Ok, you say that knives are not as dangerous as an assault rifle. Fair enough. What about gasoline?

Man guilty of murder in arson attack

So, following your logic, we should seriously look at banning gasoline, right? Yes, you are really making yourself look brilliant with your obsessive demand that everyone feel the same way that you do about firearms. Especially considering that there is no other tool that is as deadly...or even more deadly.... than an assault rifle....

168 dead, 680 inhured...no assault rifle used

It's alright for you to fear a man with a gun. I understand why the very idea scares you. My concern is that you appear to believe that murderous intent lies only within a gun owners heart and mind. Your almost desperate cries for gun owners to toe the line based on your ideas of threat...well, it's born out of ignorance to the truth about murder, the truth about violent acts. You mocked the idea of knives being dangerous, which is revealing.

Yes, you've never seen a mass stabbing. The idea is absurd. But, I almost guarantee you haven't seen what a mob of men wielding machetes can do to the innocent, or you wouldn't be running your mouth spouting foolishness like you have...or would you?

Rwandan Genocide

Firearms can be used to kill. I don't see any gun owners claiming otherwise. Why are the anti-gun advocates so unwilling to admit that the firearm is not the only tool, nor even the most casualty producing tool, that can be used by those wishing to harm innocents?

[belch]

Originally Posted by Figment

See, the thing is, when I state something, I'm called a liar. When I quote the section, it is ignored completely. When I mention it's an entirely obsolete document, then the gun owners will note that its meaning has changed to personal defense (IMO, suggesting it's even more obsolete and clearly not what the FA had in mind...).

Hence I'd just say read the whole original Militia Regulation document really well without leaning on what external sources say it says (or how it should be interpreted). I don't think most people have, given what they say it says. State militias are not for personal state use according to that document. It also does not grant people the right to their own personal militias, just the right to a state militia (obeying the state and regulated by the state and meant for Napoleonic era warfare). :/

Pure fiction. If you found any "original Militia Regulation document", it was most certainly not meant as a sole guideline to forever more establish what a militia is.

Nice try, friend.