Obama and his speech in the Oval Office
-
If I am spraying bullets everywhere, it wouldn't matter what type of gun I have. I would be a danger to everyone around me. A rifle is a far better tool to stop someone who is breaking into your home then a pistol. If they are brazen enough to enter your home (at least in the U.S.), they are likely armed. I like having better odds.
As a general rule, I don't spray with anything but a garden hose.
I did mention about having other weapons in the home. If you break in to someone's home they have every right to believe you're armed, you have no rights.
I did mention about having other weapons in the home. If you break in to someone's home they have every right to believe you're armed, you have no rights.
A shotgun is as bad or worse than a rifle if your concerned with Yosemite Sam firing rounds off willy nilly and hitting your sleeping neighbors.
-
-
the video, chris. IF one of the family had a ccw, they
could have stopped the gang beating and murder,
and moved them away from them, and they
all would have gotten to safety.
in England. But it's a gun free zone. If you want to spout
off about our country, watch the video and defend that.
-
Posted Today, 12:51 PM
It's beyond belief that you don't need any training to own a gun. Chris
******************************************
Young people have to go to training to be allowed to hunt.
CCW licensees certainly do have to go for training, get background checked,
finger printed, etc. The only way to require training for owning a gun, would be
to have a national database of all gun owners. And that, as we saw in NY...
lends itself to being used as a weapon against gun ownership.
Dangerous slippery slope, because of the radical demoquackic extremists.
-
Who has daily mass shootings?
The US does.
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
We also also don't yet have sharia law courts or complete neighborhoods so overran that emergency services won't enter.
Neither do we?
Tens of thousands?
Of people killed by guns every year? Yes. It holds steady between 10-12,000 people every year killed by guns in the US.
Of people killed by guns every year? Yes. It holds steady between 10-12,000 people every year killed by guns in the US.
No it doesn't. There have been four or five this year. Stop buying into doctored statistics.
-
No it doesn't. There have been four or five this year. Stop buying into doctored statistics.
four or five people killed by guns? I'm sure you don't mean that, so please clarify.
-
Good people have a right to protect themselves and their families
whereever they are.
We're a pretty big country, Chris. You live on a little island. Get real.
Good people have a right to protect themselves and their families
whereever they are.
We're a pretty big country, Chris. You live on a little island. Get real.
Bam.
:neutral_face: -
Mass shootings as defined by the FBI.
-
Obama will probably go down as this country's greatest gun salesman ever:
Stunning=> Over 100 MILLION Guns Sold in US Since Obama Became President (Video) -
and, of course, the complete and total victory for libs ...
would be complete disarmament of Americans.
-
Good point, legacy, and probably something I'm guilty of myself. I'll have a go at describing, without trying to use technical terms, what people are thinking.
- What people who advocate 'common sense' gun restrictions want to avoid is anything that can fire a high frequency of bullets/rounds/whatever in a shot period of time. Like a 'machine gun' - I don't know the technical term.
- Also, the ability to fire off a lot of bullets over a longer period of time, so something that you can fire quite quickly, has a lot of bullets.
- Probably also something that would be worth restricting is spare magazines, clips or whatever you're calling it that you can drop out of the weapon and replace pretty quickly.
- The main point is, if you're worried about self defence, fine, get a gun that allows you to defend yourself in a hurry. I'm not an expert but I believe a pistol can hold something in the order of 6 or 7 bullets? Maybe 8 or 9. That's plenty to deter someone from whatever's going on, and also plenty to put down some crazy with a gun, and also plenty to fight off a gang (if they themselves don't have guns for some reason).
- There's no need, in self defence terms, to have what I know as a 'long arm' - a rifle, shotgun etc, something that's not exactly draw and fire quickly like a pistol. There's no need to put about 30 rounds in 5 seconds.
- There's no need to open carry your hunting rifle when dropping the kids off at school, or picking up some groceries.
That's all based on the assumption that having guns readily available for self defence makes sense, of course.
To be frank, the bigger problem is with stupid people, which won't be fixed by legislating on guns, that will just make it harder for them to exercise their stupidity on others. You have people who are so quick to anger because it's the only way they know how to deal with issues. Things escalate over trivial things and people get shot. For example:
I haven't been through all of them, but the few I have check out as reflective of the truth.
Good point, legacy, and probably something I'm guilty of myself. I'll have a go at describing, without trying to use technical terms, what people are thinking.
- What people who advocate 'common sense' gun restrictions want to avoid is anything that can fire a high frequency of bullets/rounds/whatever in a shot period of time. Like a 'machine gun' - I don't know the technical term.
Any weapon currently available without a significant background check and about a borderline exclusive price entry point of high taxes and fees only fires one round with each squeeze of the trigger. Fully automatic (squeeze and spray) are exceptionally difficult to obtain.
- Also, the ability to fire off a lot of bullets over a longer period of time, so something that you can fire quite quickly, has a lot of bullets.
A weapon that can take a 500lb elk from 800-1000 yards isn't going to have much trouble with humans. Yet it's easier to obtain (if you have the $$) than a handgun. Why? Because it isn't "scary" looking.
- Probably also something that would be worth restricting is spare magazines, clips or whatever you're calling it that you can drop out of the weapon and replace pretty quickly.
​Maybe moving to your point about self defense too quickly here, but I don't know how you limit these. If I am defending my home, I shouldn't have any restrictions on owning/using magazines. If I am defending myself outside of my home I think 2 spare magazines are reasonable if concealed properly (or the attempt is there). Walking/driving through an unfamiliar area where there is potentially trouble (again, this isn't me seeking out trouble vigilante-style as is portrayed in the media) I would like the ability to DEFEND myself meaning - neutralize a threat so that I am able to remove myself safely from the situation. This is important: stop the threat, get to safety.
Again if I'm at home, I'm gonna keep squeezing as long as I have a means to defend myself.
- The main point is, if you're worried about self defence, fine, get a gun that allows you to defend yourself in a hurry. I'm not an expert but I believe a pistol can hold something in the order of 6 or 7 bullets? Maybe 8 or 9. That's plenty to deter someone from whatever's going on, and also plenty to put down some crazy with a gun, and also plenty to fight off a gang (if they themselves don't have guns for some reason).
- There's no need, in self defence terms, to have what I know as a 'long arm' - a rifle, shotgun etc, something that's not exactly draw and fire quickly like a pistol. There's no need to put about 30 rounds in 5 seconds.
Again, if I'm defending my home, business, etc. this is absolutely what I want.
- There's no need to open carry your hunting rifle when dropping the kids off at school, or picking up some groceries.
Agreed. It's very silly. But, I shouldn't have to break down a hunting/sporting rifle into 30 pieces and lock it in three safes in my trunk to be able to drive to hunt either. This is why some of the "open carry of long rifles" exist, because some towns/cities have ordinances that require ridiculous handling/storage procedures if not.
That's all based on the assumption that having guns readily available for self defence makes sense, of course.
To be frank, the bigger problem is with stupid people, which won't be fixed by legislating on guns, that will just make it harder for them to exercise their stupidity on others. You have people who are so quick to anger because it's the only way they know how to deal with issues. Things escalate over trivial things and people get shot. For example:
Absolutely. I am guaranteed the right to defend myself and my family against these people.
1st, Thanks for the honest/sincere answer. Gonna respond to your points above in red &bold.
-
I don't have to read about stories with a person armed with a gun saving lives I have an elderly neighbor who was able to save himself because of owning a gun. He had an intruder break out his bedroom window in the early morning hours and an intruder was attempting to enter when he yelled at the intruder he had a gun and the intruder yelled back that he had a gun as well. My elderly neighbor fired a couple shots toward the window and the intruder fled. When police arrived they found a can of mace and a roll of duct tape on the ground next to the window the intruder broke out. Keep your gun control laws pal, I will keep my second amendment rights which you don't have in England.
Do you know what we also don't have? Daily mass shootings and a homicide rate consistent with a third world shit hole.
But sure, cling on to that right to own a gun, it clearly means more to you than the lives of the literally tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year in your country.
Do you know what we also don't have? Daily mass shootings and a homicide rate consistent with a third world shit hole.
But sure, cling on to that right to own a gun, it clearly means more to you than the lives of the literally tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year in your country.
Yeah, but the rate has consistently fallen for 20+ years despite gun ownership increasing.
https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
-
I did mention about having other weapons in the home. If you break in to someone's home they have every right to believe you're armed, you have no rights.
A shotgun is as bad or worse than a rifle if your concerned with Yosemite Sam firing rounds off willy nilly and hitting your sleeping neighbors.
A shotgun is as bad or worse than a rifle if your concerned with Yosemite Sam firing rounds off willy nilly and hitting your sleeping neighbors.
exactly.
That is a training issue which I strongly recommend people do. I am a shooting instructor.
That said, even without training, having the ability to potentially stop the threat is better than using the "not getting eaten by the bear" method of survival.
And again, yes. plenty of other professions & situations where the ability to remain calm and rely on training to perform under intense pressure is applicable: Trauma surgeons, firemen, airline pilots, search & rescue, EMTs, EOD (bomb squads) etc.
-
Mass murder situations - where thered really no rhyme or reason to it- is a pretty recent phenomena. Perhaps the root causes ought to be examined.
-
Mass murder situations - where thered really no rhyme or reason to it- is a pretty recent phenomena. Perhaps the root causes ought to be examined.
Mass murder situations - where thered really no rhyme or reason to it- is a pretty recent phenomena. Perhaps the root causes ought to be examined.
People don't want to address it because it is probably really complicated and just saying "it is the guns!" is easier than dipping into the root causes.
-
So a crazy person walks into a movie theatre and sprays it with bullets from an AR-15, and we are worried about some law abiding citizen with a 9mm, sitting and watching the movie?
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Legacy and Logic - you guys both seem to misunderstand one thing I advocated (and this may just be a 'me' thing rather than an 'anti-gun' thing):
If guns are going to be legal, of any kind, you should be free to have whatever kind you want in the home for home defence. So:
If I am defending my home, I shouldn't have any restrictions on owning/using magazines.
Agreed.
Walking/driving through an unfamiliar area where there is potentially trouble (again, this isn't me seeking out trouble vigilante-style as is portrayed in the media) I would like the ability to DEFEND myself meaning - neutralize a threat so that I am able to remove myself safely from the situation. This is important: stop the threat, get to safety.
Agreed, but if you're driving through a dodgy neighbourhood (maybe one of those fictional 'no-go zones'?) you can probably drive away quickly enough. Stopping and getting involved in a gun fight doesn't seem like the safest course of action.
For walking, yes, you might need to neutralise someone (or a couple of people) and run for safety, as you said. Does it take 30 bullets to do that?
A weapon that can take a 500lb elk from 800-1000 yards isn't going to have much trouble with humans. Yet it's easier to obtain (if you have the $$) than a handgun. Why? Because it isn't "scary" looking.
Sure, but how many mass shootings, or really any shootings, have there been with hunting rifles? Legislation against that is missing the point. I agree some people just want to ban 'scary looking' things, and I'm torn on that. I can see that if the practical application of a gun is no different to a handgun, why should it be banned? At the same time, open carry of a 'big scary gun' makes a non-negligible proportion of the public feel unsafe, and that leads to rising tensions.
I would certainly not be against open carry for hunting trips, that's just stupid. But when dropping timmy and sally off at ballet and little league, it's a bit unnecessary. Lock it in the boot trunk if you're on your way and you need to stop via somewhere where it's out of place. If you're going in to a hunting supply store nobody's going to bat an eye.
That whole thing though, should be common sense. It shouldn't even be a law, people should be smart enough to not carry a 'big scary gun' in to a supermarket or mcdonalds. Of course you have the right to, but why would you? You have the right to do all kinds of things, but people don't exercise those rights just because they can.
-
Bam.
I've seen this before, and shockingly, it's using misleading information to reach its conclusion.
I could go in to the statistics underlying this, but it basically comes down to this:
In the US, violent crime is defined as murder/manslaughter, rape, robbery and assault.
In the UK, violent crime is defined as all of those things, along with any instances of any time someone felt a bit threatened, was pushed, 'jostled' is even in the definition - because, you know, we're british - regardless of whether there was intent or any harm done.
So, people are whiny bitches and a lot of 'assaults' get reported which actually aren't all that violent. This makes up the overwhelming majority of the total number of supposedly violent crimes in the UK.
So comparing like for like, ignoring the 'assaults' for the above reason, you find that rape and robbery are at about the same levels in the US and UK, but you're about 5 times more likely to be a victim of murder/manslaughter in the US.
I hope that helps clarify the situation.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login