Gun Control - Page 8

ziegler · 2012-07-24, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Yet people still think it's too many. So we want to reduce the amount of deadly knives too as it proved so damn valuable to protecting our safety when the guns were removed.

How about that.

Listen to yourself.....you have eliminated guns...and now you are perfectly ok with outlawing knives...and I have no doubt that if enough people killed other people with spoons....you'd be ok with outlawing those as well.

People have been killing people for as long as there have been people, and until you ban people, the killing will continue.

Figment · 2012-07-24, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by ziegler

Listen to yourself.....you have eliminated guns...and now you are perfectly ok with outlawing knives...and I have no doubt that if enough people killed other people with spoons....you'd be ok with outlawing those as well.

People have been killing people for as long as there have been people, and until you ban people, the killing will continue.

Listen to yourself strawmanning without regards for facts.

You didn't grasp the basis behind the argument when you posted that link, you wanted it to indicate knives would simply replace guns. That wasn't the case at all: we have standards about how many people we think are acceptable deaths. We try to restrict the possibility of people killing.

You say "people kill, not tools", people tend to require tools to kill. Whether it be hands, knives, guns, pillows, etc.

However, though you might be able to suffocate someone with a pillow, it's not a very effective tool to rob someone. You completely negate the whole point of removing lethal tools that are abused from the people that would abuse them.

Instead, you're in favour of handing whatever tool to whatever people that would use it to kill and figure "at least now it's an even match, may the best shot win". That's an insane argument and comes down to MAD.

Again, if you want to strawman to say that we'll eventually end up taking away spoons, then I ask why you wouldn't be in favour of handing poisonous gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons to the masses to defend their homes. They're just like guns right? "Just tools" that irresponsible people use to kill, but responsible people wouldn't use? It'd be a retarded strawman argument, just as retarded as comparing knives to guns.

For the record, Colorado allows the sale of gas grenades. Whatever would someone need tear gas for unless they plan to use it for crowd control? Why shouldn't the sale of tear gas be restricted?

Firefly · 2012-07-24, 10:50 AM

A guy walks into a theatre armed with an assault rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol. He's wearing a pro-mask and tossing teargas or smoke. He's wearing body armour. You're sitting in a theatre, unaware of anything but Batman, wearing your jeans and your polo shirt with your piece in your fanny pack or maybe you have on a coat so you can wear a holster.

Sure. Go ahead. Stand up and be a cowboy. If that dude had any common sense, he'd open up on you as you're aiming for centre mass and fuck your shit up. Hope your widows have enough to pay for your funeral.

Fucking unreal. Internet board warriors.

Originally Posted by Sabot

So your solution is: Train everybody to handle a gun properly, train them to aim and hit what they're aiming at, and give them combat experience so not to fall into the fetal position and pee themselves when (if, lol) they come under fire?

This last part is critical, and it seems to be what the vast majority of the gun-hawks in this thread are failing to take into account (among other things). I see a lot of you talking out of your ass about "OMG IF I HAD A GUN, I WOULD..." and "ZOMG MOAR GUNS WOULD HAVE..."

Please, stop talking about how awesome you are. I can guarantee you that most of you range-trained pistol-wielding cowboys wouldn't react the way you claim when someone points a loaded weapon at you. Until you've spent months and years training to run towards the sound of gunfire, until you've gotten into your first real, live firefight with real, actual bullets and real, actual no-respawns-allowed death, until you've pissed your pants or even shit your pants when bullets start coming your way, all of your typings on the internet ring false with every single person who ever wore a uniform and deployed downrange or walked a beat.

Ya know what? There's no shame in admitting you'd piss your pants the first time someone aims a weapon at you with the intent of ventilating your body. Better men than you have soiled themselves in that situation. And better men than you wouldn't be sitting here armchair-generalling this situation.

My apologies to the Delta Force community which is obviously present on PSU if I'm out of line.

ziegler · 2012-07-24, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Sabot

No thank you... as someone that has seen what guns do to people, I'd rather restrict them as much as possible. Military personel and law enforcement... that is it. And by that I mean people allowed to carry firearms in public. If you want to own a gun for use at a range or as home defense... fine, just don't bring your weapon out in public.

carried a gun since I was 18;never legally. Never served in the military and would never be a part of police force. I was trained on how to handle a weapon at 12 years old. If you dont like living in america, leave. Go to Britain, or one of the other places in the world that gladly disarms their serfs.

I will never ever give up my guns. <---- stress the period

Figment · 2012-07-24, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by ziegler

carried a gun since I was 18;never legally. Never served in the military and would never be a part of police force. I was trained on how to handle a weapon at 12 years old. If you dont like living in america, leave. Go to Britain, or one of the other places in the world that gladly disarms their serfs.

I will never ever give up my guns. <---- stress the period

Indoctrinated since you were a kid by an irresponsible parent who let's you illegaly play with guns under the pretends of "training", huh?

Sabot · 2012-07-24, 11:08 AM

Tru dat... when the bullets whistles past your head, and you are aware of the danger a bullet in the gut presents... your body doesn't care how well you can fire your pistol. It will evacuate anything wheighing you down in order to prepare for what's coming... be it fleeing or fighting. Before hand the only thing you can hope for is that you don't panic and put yourself and others in danger. Without training and experience, this is ALWAYS an unknown, and no amount of time at the gun range will change that.

Originally Posted by ziegler

carried a gun since I was 18;never legally. Never served in the military and would never be a part of police force. I was trained on how to handle a weapon at 12 years old. If you dont like living in america, leave. Go to Britain, or one of the other places in the world that gladly disarms their serfs.

I will never ever give up my guns. <---- stress the period

I'm speachless.... reality check, please!

Greeniegriz · 2012-07-24, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Indoctrinated since you were a kid by an irresponsible parent who let's you illegaly play with guns under the pretends of "training", huh?

Parent shows kid safely how a firearm works and how it should be respected and is immediatley labelled as irresponsible? Guess my entire military family is irresponsible then...

Cheers,

GG

Sent from Auraxis using Tapatalk

ziegler · 2012-07-24, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Listen to yourself strawmanning without regards for facts.

For the record, Colorado allows the sale of gas grenades. Whatever would someone need tear gas for unless they plan to use it for crowd control? Why shouldn't the sale of tear gas be restricted?

It is not a strawman...you stated yourself you are willing to restrict/ban/regulate knives...because too many people have used them for bad things. It's only logical, that if you ban guns, then knives, you will move on to the next thing in the list. At some point, you will realize you cant and shouldnt ban everything.

Heh..indoctrinated....educated...however you want to label it is fine.

Baneblade · 2012-07-24, 11:27 AM

I'm not ashamed to admit I pissed myself the first time I was shot at. You don't get PTSD from Battlefield 3 (never played it).

Still, it seems like Mr. Holmes wasn't even a hard target, he relied entirely on the chaos and confusion, and on his body armor. He might as well have been naked though.

I can't say for sure if things would have turned out differently if I had been there or not, but I would have survived and would have done something useful while surviving. If the opportunity came to take a shot, I would have taken it. And by opportunity, I don't mean planting your feet and squaring your shoulders.

ziegler · 2012-07-24, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Greeniegriz

Parent shows kid safely how a firearm works and how it should be respected and is immediatley labelled as irresponsible? Guess my entire military family is irresponsible then...

Cheers,

GG

Sent from Auraxis using Tapatalk

well of course, anything you teach your children without the permission of the State is irresponsible.
I like that he assumed that it was my parents that taught me gun safety to begin with. I didnt state who it was. It wasnt my parent though.

TO Figment: It also isnt illegal for a 12 year old to shoot a gun.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...-statutes.aspx
Read that. Or better yet, since this is about america, you can keep your serf beliefs across the pond where they belong.

Firefly · 2012-07-24, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Indoctrinated since you were a kid by an irresponsible parent who let's you illegaly play with guns under the pretends of "training", huh?

Maybe in your country. In the United States, a number of states and a number of agencies and private companies have firearms safety courses for young people.

http://bit.ly/NPHMMm

Baneblade · 2012-07-24, 12:37 PM

I learned gun safety and how to use a gun at 10. I've never felt the need to abuse them or show off with them.

Child death due to accidental shootings are almost 100% due to lack of any sort of education about guns. Children that know something about guns are not prone to shooting themselves or others.

Figment · 2012-07-24, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Greeniegriz

Parent shows kid safely how a firearm works and how it should be respected and is immediatley labelled as irresponsible? Guess my entire military family is irresponsible then...

Cheers,

GG

Sent from Auraxis using Tapatalk

Yes.

Like you don't let 8 year olds watch Mortal Kombat because they'll get nightmares, you simply don't let children play with lethal objects. Not even by instructing them on it. Telling them to be careful around them and teaching them about consequences and that it's incredibly dangerous is one thing, TRAINING them and giving them time with weapons whether or not supervised is another entirely!

Tbh, it's like learning a child to drive a car. I find it irresponsible to allow a child to drive a car that's not built as an instructor car so you can adequately respond as the co-driver.

Possible to train in driving, sure, fastly more dangerous than letting a professional handle the instructing instead of amateur drivers? Definitely. Same goes for gun handling.

Originally Posted by Firefly

Maybe in your country. In the United States, a number of states and a number of agencies and private companies have firearms safety courses for young people.

http://bit.ly/NPHMMm

As stated above, a professional training is something different from "daddy showing how it's done" in the backyard firing at make up targets and bullets travelling through terrain potentially hurting other people.

And yes people firing guns in backyards for training have killed people before. :/

As for from what age this should be done? I would say 10-12 is too young. 16 probably about the time they need to be taught about responsibilities anyway. Again, only with professional instructors.

We might disagree on what age is the treshold, but I've seen videos of 4 year olds being shown how to use guns. I mean really?

Originally Posted by ziegler

It is not a strawman...you stated yourself you are willing to restrict/ban/regulate knives...because too many people have used them for bad things. It's only logical, that if you ban guns, then knives, you will move on to the next thing in the list. At some point, you will realize you cant and shouldnt ban everything.

Heh..indoctrinated....educated...however you want to label it is fine.

At some point beyond knives. Sounds fine with me.

Greeniegriz · 2012-07-24, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Yes.

Like you don't let 8 year olds watch Mortal Kombat because they'll get nightmares, you simply don't let children play with lethal objects. Not even by instructing them on it. Telling them to be careful around them and teaching them about consequences and that it's incredibly dangerous is one thing, TRAINING them and giving them time with weapons whether or not supervised is another entirely!

Tbh, it's like learning a child to drive a car. I find it irresponsible to allow a child to drive a car that's not built as an instructor car so you can adequately respond as the co-driver.

Possible to train in driving, sure, fastly more dangerous than letting a professional handle the instructing instead of amateur drivers? Definitely. Same goes for gun handling.

Not sure anyone said letting kids "play" with firearms. Of course letting a kid (in this instance kid = 12 year old) handle a firearm is dangerous, supervised or not. They are dangerous when an adult handles them.

Honestly, "training" needs to be defined. I'm quite sure you wont see any 12 year olds running a tactical course, doing a CC class, or anyone of the other available classes that ranges and organizations, gov and private, run (excluding hunter safety courses, I did mine at age 11-13, cant recall exactly). However, you might see them sitting next to their dad while he cleans his gun or at the gun range with his dad plinking with a 22.

I think its hard to say when someone (specifically civilians) would be considered "trained".

I wont assume to know what kind of "training" Ziegler had at 12, as you seem to.

Also, kids (regardless of age) today see firearms in use everyday on TV. I think its important to talk to kids about firearms at an early age. Just talk. They should know what is acceptable use of a gun way before they ever get a hand on one.

Cheers,

GG

ziegler · 2012-07-24, 01:39 PM

Figment....I truly feel sorry for you. I dont want to judge you, but something tells me you've never been out of sight from concrete.

Out here in the country, responsibility comes early. Hell, I've known kids that were responsible for tending livestock at 6. Drive tractors and trucks on the farm as soon as they were big enough to reach the pedals.

What you find irresponsible and what others find irresponsible is two different things. I am not telling you that you have to train your kids to be prepared or use tools. You shouldnt think that you have a right to tell me I cant.