To all the Europeans and Aussie's on this forum...

[spuddyt]

lol, just had a thought: give old grannies an optional euthanasia/self destruct button, "if I got down i'm taking the muggers with me!!!"
anyway, in all seriousness, both sides have an advantage, but I genuinally believe that the americans have, for once, got it right - but only because of the system for prevention of people getting guns is a total failure

 

[Grenbyron]

Maybe if the yanks decided to mass migrate to Australia then I would maybe want a gun for protection from the yanks and their gun totting ways

This from a guy that lives in a country colonized by criminals.

 

[wordsmith]

Good idea, he's got me by the throat so after you've shot him and the knife slits my throat or shooting him and hitting me or shooting him and the bullet passing through both of us you can pat yourself on the back.

BZZT! Wrong answer. He draws his weapon and shouts (as is recommended in the usage of firearms for protection) "Sir, I'm armed with a pistol *draws it*. Drop the knife and back off or I will be forced to take action". From here, he either slits your throat (in which case you both die), he drops the weapon, or he keeps hold of you (which is not an idea that crosses your mind when you're staring down a barrel).

There's also the possibility of you shooting both of us and taking our money anyway because I came to the conclusion if your carrying a concealed handgun you're probably not out selling cookies.

No, as has been said before, a lot of Americans (or at least this is how I've seen it. Americans, feel free to contradict me) DO carry sidearms, and whatever reason the person is carrying the weapon for, they are in the position to help.

Were it me, I would hope that FFC would act in whatever way he could. Whether he was an off-duty police marksman or a guy out selling cookies to local GirlScouts, he has the power to help a fellow human, and so he should use it.

 

[Sprogus]

Maybe if the yanks decided to mass migrate to Australia then I would maybe want a gun for protection from the yanks and their gun totting ways

This from a guy that lives in a country colonized by criminals.

Yeah, but the guns we would have had access to back then would have been single shot rifles. You could pretty much run up and knife someone in the time it takes to reload one of those things.

 

[mosinmatt]

Were it me, I would hope that FFC would act in whatever way he could. Whether he was an off-duty police marksman or a guy out selling cookies to local GirlScouts, he has the power to help a fellow human, and so he should use it.

I guess to the Anglo pilferers, people are not supposed to look out for each other. They are more content with being a victim of a crime, and waiting around for the police.

Maybe if the yanks decided to mass migrate to Australia then I would maybe want a gun for protection from the yanks and their gun totting ways

This from a guy that lives in a country colonized by criminals.

Yeah, but the guns we would have had access to back then would have been single shot rifles. You could pretty much run up and knife someone in the time it takes to reload one of those things.

Those were the "assault weapons" of the time. In fact, nearly every nation that won its independence did so with that eras "assault weapons" be they muskets, or spears.

 

[Insomniactk]

I live in Sweden and the rules here are really hard. First you need a license.
And to get the license you need at least 3 years of practice and you need to be pretty accurate too. Note that automatic-rifles are illegal i Sweden.
I can't say that i understand the lack of laws you have in USA, you don't buy an AK for hunting nor target practice. You shoot other people with it.
Of course, if you do have a rifle you practice with it, but you bought it for self-defense because if you buy a gun for fun and practice, you don't buy and AK.

 

[wordsmith]

I guess to the Anglo pilferers, people are not supposed to look out for each other. They are more content with being a victim of a crime, and waiting around for the police.

Hey watch it, I'm British

You will find a lot of people won't interfere for fear of prosecution, hence the shouted warning in my examples. Police marksmen are required to inform their targets that they are armed, certified to use their weapons, and will open fire if they give them a reason to.

Ironically, in the example above, if the shopkeeper comes out and smacks the guy over the back of the head, it's Assault and Battery (it was outside of the victims peripheral vision, so is treated as a "sucker punch" attack). If you shout the warning before putting a shot in his shoulder, it counts as a citizens arrest. Wierd innit?

 

[Zac_Dai]

If I lived in America I'd probably want a gun to protect myself against other Americans too.

 

[DI7789]

Firstly, Teenagers are not allowed yo own or carry a firearm. You have to be an adult. Pass a background check, pass a test, and get sheriffs approval. So, you're tell me that after all that, people still are not competent enough to defend themselves?
Secondly, Guns prevent 2.5 million crimes per year. Firearms level the playing field. Now a 100 lb girl can defend herself against a 200lb rapist. But I guess too you, she is better off calling the cops, getting raped and beaten and murdered while she waits for them.
Knives do not work, as they require extensive training, and physical strength and skill to use. NOTE: I have studied knife and dagger fighting. It isnt easy.
They say the winner of a knife fight is the one that dies at the hospital.
Pepper spray doesnt always work. Tasers are one shot, and inaccurate.
You will be surprised how fast someone will backdown when they are staring down a barrel.

Two notes: One, teenagers can get guns, as long as there are stupid parents in the world who don't lock their firearms away correctly, teenagers will have access to guns. Two: Given the hypothetical situation involving the 100lb girl and the 200lb rapist, why do you assume the 100lb girl is the only one with the gun? If the rapist has one as well...actually, I'm not too sure as to what might happen, I'm sure your mind can think of the results.

 

[mosinmatt]

Firstly, Teenagers are not allowed yo own or carry a firearm. You have to be an adult. Pass a background check, pass a test, and get sheriffs approval. So, you're tell me that after all that, people still are not competent enough to defend themselves?
Secondly, Guns prevent 2.5 million crimes per year. Firearms level the playing field. Now a 100 lb girl can defend herself against a 200lb rapist. But I guess too you, she is better off calling the cops, getting raped and beaten and murdered while she waits for them.
Knives do not work, as they require extensive training, and physical strength and skill to use. NOTE: I have studied knife and dagger fighting. It isnt easy.
They say the winner of a knife fight is the one that dies at the hospital.
Pepper spray doesnt always work. Tasers are one shot, and inaccurate.
You will be surprised how fast someone will backdown when they are staring down a barrel.

Two notes: One, teenagers can get guns, as long as there are stupid parents in the world who don't lock their firearms away correctly, teenagers will have access to guns. Two: Given the hypothetical situation involving the 100lb girl and the 200lb rapist, why do you assume the 100lb girl is the only one with the gun? If the rapist has one as well...actually, I'm not too sure as to what might happen, I'm sure your mind can think of the results.

She either dies after being raped. She takes him out first, or they both die. Personally, I am 100% for innocent people protecting themselves. How a raped and murdered girl is superior to one who defends herself to you, i will never understand.

I guess to the Anglo pilferers, people are not supposed to look out for each other. They are more content with being a victim of a crime, and waiting around for the police.

Hey watch it, I'm British

You will find a lot of people won't interfere for fear of prosecution, hence the shouted warning in my examples. Police marksmen are required to inform their targets that they are armed, certified to use their weapons, and will open fire if they give them a reason to.

Ironically, in the example above, if the shopkeeper comes out and smacks the guy over the back of the head, it's Assault and Battery (it was outside of the victims peripheral vision, so is treated as a "sucker punch" attack). If you shout the warning before putting a shot in his shoulder, it counts as a citizens arrest. Wierd innit?

I know. Limeys are not allowed to defend themselves. Enjoy your police state.

 

[DI7789]

Firstly, Teenagers are not allowed yo own or carry a firearm. You have to be an adult. Pass a background check, pass a test, and get sheriffs approval. So, you're tell me that after all that, people still are not competent enough to defend themselves?
Secondly, Guns prevent 2.5 million crimes per year. Firearms level the playing field. Now a 100 lb girl can defend herself against a 200lb rapist. But I guess too you, she is better off calling the cops, getting raped and beaten and murdered while she waits for them.
Knives do not work, as they require extensive training, and physical strength and skill to use. NOTE: I have studied knife and dagger fighting. It isnt easy.
They say the winner of a knife fight is the one that dies at the hospital.
Pepper spray doesnt always work. Tasers are one shot, and inaccurate.
You will be surprised how fast someone will backdown when they are staring down a barrel.

Two notes: One, teenagers can get guns, as long as there are stupid parents in the world who don't lock their firearms away correctly, teenagers will have access to guns. Two: Given the hypothetical situation involving the 100lb girl and the 200lb rapist, why do you assume the 100lb girl is the only one with the gun? If the rapist has one as well...actually, I'm not too sure as to what might happen, I'm sure your mind can think of the results.

She either dies after being raped. She takes him out first, or they both die. Personally, I am 100% for innocent people protecting themselves. How a raped and murdered girl is superior to one who defends herself to you, i will never understand.

She isn't. But its a difficult situation to resolve positively, if a 100lb girl is carrying a gun with her (something I deem quite unlikely) then surely a rapist would carry a gun as well (Because a criminal without a gun is like an Escapist member without a brain). No matter what happens, the likelihood of the girl being one gun up on the criminal is unlikely. But lets say it happens, she pulls a gun on him and he comes up empty handed, she's not likely to have firearm training and may just pull the trigger because she's nervous. She ends up on trial for killing him and goes to jail.

But lets consider the least probable situation, she pulls a gun, he doesn't, and she has trianing. If the rapist has half a brain cell then he'll run away and the girl will report him to the police, resulting in his capture and gives an overall "good" result. Out of all of those situations, the best resolution is also the least likely to happen, rendering the argument for "guns are for protection" somewhat useless (It doesn't mean the argument can't be used to prove different points, just not this one)

 

[Lt. Sera]

To answer the original question: It's possible to own a gun legally here, but I won't bother with it as I most likely will never be in a situation that requires me to have one. And having a gun simply doesn't do it, since an untrained person with a gun won't amount to anything good.

I'd have to get training and lots of it before a gun would be of any use to me and it's simply not worth the time, money and effort since it's a useless skill/item to me.

I'll leave other people to the whole skewed settings of hypothetical situations, I don't think just using theories cuts it in these debates: numbers and actual accounts of a lot of experiences do. What is good for one person in one country may be awefully wrong for another in the same, or a different country. T'is quite a lengthy and often useless debate to have if you ask me, especially since a lot of people are often really entrenched in their positions on these matters.

 

[mosinmatt]

She isn't. But its a difficult situation to resolve positively, if a 100lb girl is carrying a gun with her (something I deem quite unlikely) then surely a rapist would carry a gun as well (Because a criminal without a gun is like an Escapist member without a brain). No matter what happens, the likelihood of the girl being one gun up on the criminal is unlikely. But lets say it happens, she pulls a gun on him and he comes up empty handed, she's not likely to have firearm training and may just pull the trigger because she's nervous. She ends up on trial for killing him and goes to jail.

But lets consider the least probable situation, she pulls a gun, he doesn't, and she has trianing. If the rapist has half a brain cell then he'll run away and the girl will report him to the police, resulting in his capture and gives an overall "good" result. Out of all of those situations, the best resolution is also the least likely to happen, rendering the argument for "guns are for protection" somewhat useless (It doesn't mean the argument can't be used to prove different points, just not this one)

Bull. That is exactly what you are saying. You are always going on about this, training, training, and more training.
No, a 100lb girl is quite likely to have a gun. States do not denie CCW licenses based on sex and weight.
I am just going to ignore yet another limey that knows nothing about anything.

 

[Ploppy]

read what i write I HAVE TRIED FOR SEVEN YEARS AND IM STILL TRYING TO WRITE

And this justifies unwarranted or xenophobic insults how? Writing problems or no, an agressive attitude, combined with petty insults and ignorant statements such as:

ignerant unwashed foreiner go back to your castle youre turnips need tinding

are not conductive to civil discourse. Attacking people who disagree with you rarely persuades them you're right.

If you have difficulty with English, fine. But on occasion that will have the effect of making it harder for others to understand what you mean. Insulting them and getting defensive won't help, it just makes people less inclined to try and understand you. They are unlikely to be attacking you personally, just requesting clarity. So it may be best not to take comments on writing ability personally.

 

[Rolling 20]

I think the Americans are drowning in their own ignorance. They refuse to acknowledge that the school murders and shootings and gang wars are heavily effected by their fire arms laws. No offense to you guys, but it's got to stop.

Half of me, thinks the amount of US guns is ridiculous. The other half thinks gun are cool and no ones gonna take my civil liberties away when I have a .50cal. I like to stick to the former, as the latter is a paranoid child.

Agreed guns I believe can deter oppression(though I'm sure to be labeled as a whacko for that statement, some may trust their government but I don't. As Vladimir Lenin said: "One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

I won't label you as a whacko, but the statement is flawed. The guns are good in a military sense. And Lenin's statement isn't saying that. That statement could be re-written to say "One whacko with a gun can control 100 without one".
And the evidence points to that being true, a whackjob with a gun has repeatedly gone into schools and universities and banks and the like and taken over completely.

 

[Ploppy]

hey look at yourself first i have said twice that i have had writing problems and how am i trying to convince them of anything except that i have writing problems and insulting people because cant type is not exactly nice eather since that person may not be able to write so you are basicly getting mad at a cripple because they cant walk and how would they not understand me just because i misspell a word every once and awhile because anybody can read what im writing unless they cant read anything because its not properly pronunciated(i think thats the word periods and stuf)and i would also like to mention that you are the 10th person to mention that i cant type congradulations

(times harrased over spelling youtube 1 over two years the escapist 10 over two weeks thus the escapist has more douches per capita)

... Did you even ready my post? How was I insulting or harassing you exactly? I asked you not to be needlessly insulting, and recommenced treating those who comment on your writing or who don't understand what you say with patience rather than hostility. After all, it's not their fault any more than difficulty with English is yours. I'm not calling you out on your writing at all, merely pointing out that it's not always a personal attack on you when people do.

I'm calling you out on your attitude, you've twice called people stupid for disagreeing with you, myself included. You've used the phrases "ignorant unwashed foreigner" and "go back to your castle you're turnips need tending", and then followed that up with this gem:"the escapist has more douches per capita". It's nothing to do with your spelling and grammar to ask you to be civil, is it? If you at least act in a civil manner, you'll find less people 'harassing' you about you writing. [I wasn't by the way. I actually said "If you have difficulty with English, fine." I have problems with written language myself, so i'm hardly going to attack anyone else for it. Fortunately, Fire fox's spell checker is quite good.]

 

[Goatlemon]

Hey, Goatlemon:

Let's pretend you're paying a visit to America.

You're walking out of a supermarket at 21:00. It's dark and you want to go home. Suddenly, a criminal grabs you, puts a knife on your throat, and says "Gimme your wallet.". The knife is cutting your throat a bit, making you bleed pretty badly. You feel like you're about to pass out.

I'm 20 meters away, having witnessed the entire situation. I'm carrying a concealed handgun. What do you want me to do?

I want you to call the police and an ambulance, keep a safe distance away and in no way aggravate or scare the criminal.

It's just a wallet; it's not worth someone dying over.

And do you mind explaining why this was directed at me? I'm not the only person here against guns.

 

[Social Pariah]

Everyone having a gun by default is just asking for trouble... I enjoy looking around a crowd and knowing that only a fraction of the populace has a practical means of killing me at that point in time. The reasons for firearm legality are purely economical, which has used the masses desperateness for control and "personal security" to fully justify it to the populace.