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

[mosinmatt]

Actually, yes it does. Civilians carrying firearms (legally) rarely have to use them. Most of the time, the simple presentation of the firearm is enough to stop the situation, and make the criminal scum shit himself.
One thing that is safe to assume though. When a criminal confronts you with a weapon, assume he will use it. It is everyones job as humans to make sure those around you are not hurt, and to offer aid. In this case it would be first aid.
I would personally like to take a First responders class. But blood makes me want to faint.

just because someone is only threatening you doesn't always mean the threat is empty; the status quo in an armed robbery or something like that can always change.

Firstly, if its true that crimanls only need to see the weapon to feel threatened and comply, isn't it also true that the criminal only needs to present his target with a weapon and not actually use it?

Secondly, empty threats. This is the whole "concealed weapon vs. obvious weapon" argument. You make your weapon obvious when you want to use the mere sight of it communicate who you are and what you are capable of. You carry a concealed weapon when you want it to be a surprise, to give you and edge or so that no one is suspicious of you. Think about it, if you carry a big fuck off Desert Eagle obviously on your hip, people are gonna treat you differently to if you have a sneaky Browning Hi power tucked out of sight in your coat pocket, even though both are just as lethal.

For a criminal who wants or needs to kill, the weapon is out of sight because they want or need the element of surprise. For the criminal or wants or needs to threaten, the weapon is in plain sight because they want you scared. Yes, the threat isn't entirely empty, but if you comply with their demands they are not going to kill you, cause its just too much trouble.

No. You carry concealed cause sheeple little pricks like you are afraid of scary things that go bang. many states allow Open carry. Some places you dont even need a license too. But still, most choose to go with concealed carry to avoid scaring the liberals.
In fact, i carry my little pocket pistol almost everywhere I go.
But I really do not get what you are trying to argue. It almost sounds like you are pro criminal.

 

[Brett Alex]

No. You carry concealed cause sheeple little pricks like you are afraid of scary things that go bang. many states allow Open carry. Some places you dont even need a license too. But still, most choose to go with concealed carry to avoid scaring the liberals.
In fact, i carry my little pocket pistol almost everywhere I go.
But I really do not get what you are trying to argue. It almost sounds like you are pro criminal.

Yes, I'm pro criminal cause I get scared easily... figure that one out folks. You better come sort me out with your pocket pistol then.

Yes I'm scared of guns, thats why I've fired an

Spoiler: F88 Austeyr

on two seperate occasions, an

Spoiler: FN Minimi Light Machine Gun

and a double barrel shotgun.

Of course none of this has anything to do with my points, it was just you attempting to take cheap shots.


What I am trying to argue is that, in that hypothetical, where a criminal is threatening a victim with an obvious weapon with the intent of robbery, I would rather comply with them than try and pull a fast one with a handgun. Because they are threatening me, it indicates that they do not nescescarily want to use said weapon, in fact they are tying to avoid using it. Attempting to aggrevate them with a handgun is only likely to push them into using it.

 

[slappahoe69]

since you're ignoring or not seeing the point in my last rebuttle i guess i'll extrapolate.

you can't predict what a person will do, so you assume the worst-that the person threatening you with a gun or knife is obviously going to kill you, hence he is using it to threaten you with. this gives an armed onlooker ample reason to shoot the criminal in defense of whoever he's holding up, if the victim can't get to his weapon.

by the status quo can always change i meant that something can go wrong in the gunman's plans and he will either accidentally or choose to shoot you anyways.

 

[hypothetical fact]

I trust neither the cops nor the government, call me paranoid if you want, my country isn't the one with the highest amount of security cameras. It's not the government's job to allow you to have them, the government isn't there to tell you what you can and can't have. Either you control the government, or the government controls you.

Now where do we end our V for Vendetta quotes? If I want to fill my house with home made explosive should I? If I get my hands on weapons grade uranium should I keep it? If there is a cult nearbye and I think they want to sacrifice me should I cover my garden with landmines? Under your movie logic yes, but in reality we must accept that if the government doesn't stop people from getting their hands on whatever weapon they like, they become a danger to themselves and others. This can be backed up by countless statistics of family members getting shot by their own gun.

 

[Brett Alex]

since you're ignoring or not seeing the point in my last rebuttle i guess i'll extrapolate.

you can't predict what a person will do, so you assume the worst-that the person threatening you with a gun or knife is obviously going to kill you, hence he is using it to threaten you with. this gives an armed onlooker ample reason to shoot the criminal in defense of whoever he's holding up, if the victim can't get to his weapon.
by the status quo can always change i meant that something can go wrong in the gunman's plans and he will either accidentally or choose to shoot you anyways.

For a criminal who wants or needs to kill, the weapon is out of sight because they want or need the element of surprise. For the criminal or wants or needs to threaten, the weapon is in plain sight because they want you scared. Yes, the threat isn't entirely empty, but if you comply with their demands they are not going to kill you, cause its just too much trouble.

That didn't cover it for you?

Well anyway, if the threaten-er wants to kill you, why hasn't he already done so? Why hasn't he just grabbed me from behind and opened a smile in my neck, then grabbed my wallet?

Think about it, why would he waste the time of even talking to me if he just wanted to kill me?

So (please correct me if I'm wrong) you are asserting that he would say "Gimme your wallet or I'll cut you, I'm serious I'll do it!"
I would say "Holy shit man don't hurt me oh god etc."
He says "Hurry the fuck up gimme your wallet!"
and then me reaching for it and giving it to him... and then he stabs me?

He's just taken like 20 seconds that he could have spent running away, made a commotion for passers-by to see, and possibly inform authorites and identified his voice to passers-by.

If he stabs me from behind a gun is useless cause I can't use it if I'm already dead. If he holds me at knife point a gun is useless because I can't reach mine, and any bystanders run the risk of causing him to panic.

As for this:

by the status quo can always change i meant that something can go wrong in the gunman's plans and he will either accidentally or choose to shoot you anyways.

Something can go wrong like, oh I dunno, a stranger across the street pulling an automatic on him?

 

[mosinmatt]

This can be backed up by countless statistics of family members getting shot by their own gun.

That is EXTREMELY rare. More people are killed in cars, and swimming pools that by gun accidents. Does that mean we should ban them? Hell no.
All your arguments hold no merits, and are simply pulled out of your ass.

 

[magic8BALL]

Do you wish you all had the legal authority to own a firearm? Or do you believe America has been completely irresponsible with it?

...but as an Australian I do have leagal authority to own a firearm.

...it's just I don't have the need or desire, so I don't.

Anyone can have a gun here, as long as they can prove they are a member of a responsible gun club, or need a firearm for work, and they themselves are aware of, and agree to restricitions on storage and use.

I find it quite ammusing that Americans find it offensive to even consider having their guns taken off them. Even the denial of particular firarms from civilians in certain states get's these guys up in knots I hear. California denying residents the Barett Light Fifty .50BMG semiautomatic sniper riffle for instance. What do you even want one of those? .22's down roo's, and the only thing bigger in the states I can think of are buffalo's, but you shouldn't be shooting those anyway.

 

[mosinmatt]

since you're ignoring or not seeing the point in my last rebuttle i guess i'll extrapolate.

you can't predict what a person will do, so you assume the worst-that the person threatening you with a gun or knife is obviously going to kill you, hence he is using it to threaten you with. this gives an armed onlooker ample reason to shoot the criminal in defense of whoever he's holding up, if the victim can't get to his weapon.
by the status quo can always change i meant that something can go wrong in the gunman's plans and he will either accidentally or choose to shoot you anyways.

For a criminal who wants or needs to kill, the weapon is out of sight because they want or need the element of surprise. For the criminal or wants or needs to threaten, the weapon is in plain sight because they want you scared. Yes, the threat isn't entirely empty, but if you comply with their demands they are not going to kill you, cause its just too much trouble.

That didn't cover it for you?

Well anyway, if the threaten-er wants to kill you, why hasn't he already done so? Why hasn't he just grabbed me from behind and opened a smile in my neck, then grabbed my wallet?

Think about it, why would he waste the time of even talking to me if he just wanted to kill me?

So (please correct me if I'm wrong) you are asserting that he would say "Gimme your wallet or I'll cut you, I'm serious I'll do it!"
I would say "Holy shit man don't hurt me oh god etc."
He says "Hurry the fuck up gimme your wallet!"
and then me reaching for it and giving it to him... and then he stabs me?

He's just taken like 20 seconds that he could have spent running away, made a commotion for passers-by to see, and possibly inform authorites and identified his voice to passers-by.

If he stabs me from behind a gun is useless cause I can't use it if I'm already dead. If he holds me at knife point a gun is useless because I can't reach mine, and any bystanders run the risk of causing him to panic.

As for this:

by the status quo can always change i meant that something can go wrong in the gunman's plans and he will either accidentally or choose to shoot you anyways.

Something can go wrong like, oh I dunno, a stranger across the street pulling an automatic on him?

None of any of that made sense.
But I am glad you have so much faith in people threatening to kill you. I guess I just care more about myself and others to actually HELP people.
But I guess I will put you on the list that I will just leave to bleed.

 

[mosinmatt]

Do you wish you all had the legal authority to own a firearm? Or do you believe America has been completely irresponsible with it?

...but as an Australian I do have leagal authority to own a firearm.

...it's just I don't have the need or desire, so I don't.

Anyone can have a gun here, as long as they can prove they are a member of a responsible gun club, or need a firearm for work, and they themselves are aware of, and agree to restricitions on storage and use.

I find it quite ammusing that Americans find it offensive to even consider having their guns taken off them. Even the denial of particular firarms from civilians in certain states get's these guys up in knots I hear. California denying residents the Barett Light Fifty .50BMG semiautomatic sniper riffle for instance. What do you even want one of those? .22's down roo's, and the only thing bigger in the states I can think of are buffalo's, but you shouldn't be shooting those anyway.

Dang skippy. DOn't know much about nuthin' do ya? Why have a .50BMG? Why not? There isn't a reason Not to own one.
Just cause you don't "need" one, doesn't mean you can't have it. That is what freedom is about. unlike the prison colony you live in, we have freedom.
Also, Barret is over rated SHIT!
PS: Becareful of the dingos. They'll eat yo baby.

 

[Brett Alex]

I guess I just care more about myself and others to actually HELP people.
But I guess I will put you on the list that I will just leave to bleed.

If you call taking pot shots at a target less than a metre from my head helping, and if you call taking someones life to save another person financial loss caring about others, I'd hate to see what you call hurting someone.

... and how many times have you personally been threatened with certain death by a stranger?

EDIT: Ah now I see, you don't actually wan't a reasoned arguement at all do you? That would explain why you ignored my response, then resplied to a response I made to another user, and ignored that to.

Dang skippy. DOn't know much about nuthin' do ya? Why have a .50BMG? Why not? There isn't a reason Not to own one.
Just cause you don't "need" one, doesn't mean you can't have it. That is what freedom is about. unlike the prison colony you live in, we have freedom.
Also, Barret is over rated SHIT!
PS: Becareful of the dingos. They'll eat yo baby.

Oh really? This is what you are reduced to? The freedom rhetoric and racial slurs? Well done. You give responsible gun owners a bad name.

 

[mosinmatt]

I guess I just care more about myself and others to actually HELP people.
But I guess I will put you on the list that I will just leave to bleed.

If you call taking pot shots at a target less than a metre from my head helping, and if you call taking someones life to save another person financial loss caring about others, I'd hate to see what you call hurting someone.

... and how many times have you personally been threatened with certain death by a stranger?

EDIT: Ah now I see, you don't actually wan't a reasoned arguement at all do you? That would explain why you ignored my response, then resplied to a response I made to another user, and ignored that to.

Dang skippy. DOn't know much about nuthin' do ya? Why have a .50BMG? Why not? There isn't a reason Not to own one.
Just cause you don't "need" one, doesn't mean you can't have it. That is what freedom is about. unlike the prison colony you live in, we have freedom.
Also, Barret is over rated SHIT!
PS: Becareful of the dingos. They'll eat yo baby.

Oh really? This is what you are reduced to? The freedom rhetoric and racial slurs? Well done. You give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You keep sayin potshots. Obviously you dont know what you're talking about.
Its always "Civilians taking potshots", and people keep mentioning "Police marksmen" and other shit.
News flash. Police are not marksmen. Nor are they put in patrol cars.

 

[Brett Alex]

You keep sayin potshots. Obviously you dont know what you're talking about.
Its always "Civilians taking potshots", and people keep mentioning "Police marksmen" and other shit.
News flash. Police are not marksmen. Nor are they put in patrol cars.

Still going to nitpick and ignore the body of the arguement?

For one, I never mentioned Police marksmen.

But lets just say I did.
If there was a regular cop there, not a marksman, I wouldn't want him taking pot shots at me either. If he knew what he was doing, I wouldn't mind him trying to talk the guy out of it, but what I'd really prefer is the one option you can't seem to comprehend, for him (or any other armed bystanders) to let the guy take my wallet, and then try and aprehend the criminal, once he is a safe distance from me.

 

[mosinmatt]

You keep sayin potshots. Obviously you dont know what you're talking about.
Its always "Civilians taking potshots", and people keep mentioning "Police marksmen" and other shit.
News flash. Police are not marksmen. Nor are they put in patrol cars.

Still going to nitpick and ignore the body of the arguement?

For one, I never mentioned Police marksmen.

But lets just say I did.
If there was a regular cop there, not a marksman, I wouldn't want him taking pot shots at me either. If he knew what he was doing, I wouldn't mind him trying to talk the guy out of it, but what I'd really prefer is the one option you can't seem to comprehend, for him (or any other armed bystanders) to let the guy take my wallet, and then try and aprehend the criminal, once he is a safe distance from me.

You keep saying potshots. No one takes potshots, only gangstas that hold their gun sideways.
If you think a good Samaritan will start shooting at you cause someone is slitting your throat, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Brett Alex]

You keep saying potshots. No one takes potshots, only gangstas that hold their gun sideways.
If you think a good Samaritan will start shooting at you cause someone is slitting your throat, you are sadly mistaken.

Then whats the argument? If thats not it I seem to have lost it somewhere.

 

[ChickaYeah]

The right to bear arms was never intended to be for personal defense from other citizens. It was included in the Bill of Rights to be for defense against the state it self, so that the population always has the power to rise up, form a militia, and defend itself against an oppressive regime. Dunno if it's as relevant today as it was when it was written, but that was the reason behind it, not some kind of LOL BUT WUT IF U GET ATAKKED BY SUMONE thinking.

 

[mosinmatt]

The right to bear arms was never intended to be for personal defense from other citizens. It was included in the Bill of Rights to be for defense against the state it self, so that the population always has the power to rise up, form a militia, and defend itself against an oppressive regime. Dunno if it's as relevant today as it was when it was written, but that was the reason behind it, not some kind of LOL BUT WUT IF U GET ATAKKED BY SUMONE thinking.

It was meant for defense from threats both foreign and domestic. This is everything from some gang bangers, to a foreign army, to the politicians.

 

[ChickaYeah]

The right to bear arms was never intended to be for personal defense from other citizens. It was included in the Bill of Rights to be for defense against the state it self, so that the population always has the power to rise up, form a militia, and defend itself against an oppressive regime. Dunno if it's as relevant today as it was when it was written, but that was the reason behind it, not some kind of LOL BUT WUT IF U GET ATAKKED BY SUMONE thinking.

It was meant for defense from threats both foreign and domestic. This is everything from some gang bangers, to a foreign army, to the politicians.

And also quote:
"Article the fourth..... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, with foreign threats I could see where you're coming from; a militia would help against that, I imagine. I'm pretty sure there's nothing in there about gang bangers, though. That's kinda supposed to be what the police is for. At least, that's how I interpret it. One of the most simultaneously brilliant and frustrating things about that whole document is how it can grow and be interpreted in so many ways, depending on what it needs to do for the country.

 

[Brett Alex]

Why is it that the idiots are the only gun supporters that get replies in this thread? Myself and several others have made very valid points that get ignored in favor or responding to an idiot. This does seem to be the normal anti-gun tactic though.

Because you say sensible stuff that people agree with. There is no need to argue with someone who shares a similar view.