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

[Dys]

Wow, these quotes got really broken at some point

many quotes that you see on american gun violence includes justified use from the police and civilians. Like if some crackhead was taken down by the cops. That is recorded as a murder sometimes. Or someone breaks into your house trying to kill you, and you blast them. The brady campaign counts that against you.
Many of them are also criminal on criminal violence. So, obviously, LEGAL guns are not the problem.
You can go on about all this "This makes it easier to kill" But that doesnt matter. A cricket bat can kill someone too. Why should my sporting equipment be taken away and not yours? So mine have multiple uses, one including preventing bodily harm to me and my family. Whats so wrong with protecting myself and those I love?

I have already said that while I am 100% ok with people owning guns, however I dismiss the concept of them protecting you more than they harm you. If they are properly stored then I am 100% behind you and think that is absoloutely reasonable for you to own guns.

If you choose to "protect" yourself by leaving guns laying around the house where anyone can pick them up, I am against it. If you house gets burgeled when your out, it means criminals have more guns, it adds to the already too high chance of a loved one accidently injuring themselves and it generally promotes the all too common disrespect that people seem to have for firearms. They are not toys, life is not a western movie and you can't undo something tragic once it has happened. What happens if you kill someone you think to be breaking into your house, but it turns out to be the kid next door coming to retreive a baseball or something his thrown in through the window?

The whole "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is absurd. I am NOT arguaing that the second ammendment should be changed, but rather if you want to own a gun, there are no restrictions based on age/race/political disposition or anything else, however you must either purchase or prove ownership of a gun cabinet.
Fuck I'm not even suggesting that you have to use it all the time, or that it has to be hard to access, simply that one is in the house. Surely if you are going out, and not taking your firearm, it should be securly locked up?
This is the same as the video game arguaments, people who are not responsible enough to handle the experience of virtually killing someone should not be presented the opportunity to do so (and we have ratings systems, People too irresponsible or young should not be given the opportunity to handle firearms, they should be secure when not in use or on display.
Is it really that out of the question?

 

[Booze Zombie]

Obviously you do not know how it works. The gun is firstly to be used to get compliance, or scare away. most criminals shit themselves looking down a 12 gauge.
If a threat to your safety is observed, most states allow you to defend yourself. This sometimes results in the death of the assaulter, as it would be the only way to stop them from killing you.
very simply stuff.

It might not be so easy to ID the difference between a frightened burglar with a switched-off torch and a guy a gun... Sneaking up on them with a taser and just waiting for the cops after that would ensure minimal damage to all.

I never want to murder someone during my life time, but I would defend myself like any other. Though, I am trying to say very few people who break into a home are actually a threat to you, just your poessesions.

 

[mosinmatt]

Wow, these quotes got really broken at some point

many quotes that you see on american gun violence includes justified use from the police and civilians. Like if some crackhead was taken down by the cops. That is recorded as a murder sometimes. Or someone breaks into your house trying to kill you, and you blast them. The brady campaign counts that against you.
Many of them are also criminal on criminal violence. So, obviously, LEGAL guns are not the problem.
You can go on about all this "This makes it easier to kill" But that doesnt matter. A cricket bat can kill someone too. Why should my sporting equipment be taken away and not yours? So mine have multiple uses, one including preventing bodily harm to me and my family. Whats so wrong with protecting myself and those I love?

I have already said that while I am 100% ok with people owning guns, however I dismiss the concept of them protecting you more than they harm you. If they are properly stored then I am 100% behind you and think that is absoloutely reasonable for you to own guns.

If you choose to "protect" yourself by leaving guns laying around the house where anyone can pick them up, I am against it. If you house gets burgeled when your out, it means criminals have more guns, it adds to the already too high chance of a loved one accidently injuring themselves and it generally promotes the all too common disrespect that people seem to have for firearms. They are not toys, life is not a western movie and you can't undo something tragic once it has happened. What happens if you kill someone you think to be breaking into your house, but it turns out to be the kid next door coming to retreive a baseball or something his thrown in through the window?

The whole "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is absurd. I am NOT arguaing that the second ammendment should be changed, but rather if you want to own a gun, there are no restrictions based on age/race/political disposition or anything else, however you must either purchase or prove ownership of a gun cabinet.
Fuck I'm not even suggesting that you have to use it all the time, or that it has to be hard to access, simply that one is in the house. Surely if you are going out, and not taking your firearm, it should be securly locked up?
This is the same as the video game arguaments, people who are not responsible enough to handle the experience of virtually killing someone should not be presented the opportunity to do so (and we have ratings systems, People too irresponsible or young should not be given the opportunity to handle firearms, they should be secure when not in use or on display.
Is it really that out of the question?

did you not read the stats?? "safe storage laws' dont work.
15 states that passed ?safe storage? laws saw 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650
more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults in the first five years. On average, the
annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-ofpocket
expenses, medical bills, and property losses. "The problem is, you see no decrease ineither juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides when such laws are enacted, but you do see an
increase in crime rates." 257

Only five American children under the age of 10 died of accidents involving handguns in
1997.258 Thus, the need for ?safe storage? laws appears to be low.

In Merced, California, an intruder stabbed three children to death with a pitchfork. The
oldest child had been trained by her father in firearms use, but could not save her siblings from
the attacker because the gun was locked away to comply with the state?s ?safe storage? law.

"Safe storage" laws put innocent people at risk.

 

[mosinmatt]

Obviously you do not know how it works. The gun is firstly to be used to get compliance, or scare away. most criminals shit themselves looking down a 12 gauge.
If a threat to your safety is observed, most states allow you to defend yourself. This sometimes results in the death of the assaulter, as it would be the only way to stop them from killing you.
very simply stuff.

It might not be so easy to ID the difference between a frightened burglar with a switched-off torch and a guy a gun... Sneaking up on them with a taser and just waiting for the cops after that would ensure minimal damage to all.

I never want to murder someone during my life time, but I would defend myself like any other. Though, I am trying to say very few people who break into a home are actually a threat to you, just your poessesions.

Sneak up on someone? Are you daffed? Shooting someone in the back, with anything, is ALWAYS bad. How are you going to sneak up on someone anyways? Do you know how hard that is?
Also, like I said. tasers work once. If you miss, your done.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Stopping someone from killing you is not murder. It is self defense.

You're still destroying a life and most people don't break into houses to kill, it's mostly for properly theft.

Would you shoot some poor heroin addict grabbing your TV or would you rather just let him go and get the insurance for your TV? Getting the insurance might not haunt you so much.

I know I would, if your in my house and unwelcome you forfeit any right you had to live, I don't know your there just to steal the tv and i'm not gonna find out. Your gonna get hit with the tac light, identified and hit with 12 gauge or .357 sig hollowpoints.
EDIT: and thanks to the Castle doctrine most states now have I can't be charged with anything, or even sued in civil court .

That sounds monsterous. The criminals are in more danger than civilians now, by the sound of it. Really, does a guy walking out your front door with a TV deserver a hollowpoint bullet in the leg? Wouln't a taser suffice, or just claiming insurance and making your house more secure?

Sneak up on someone? Are you daffed? Shooting someone in the back, with anything, is ALWAYS bad. How are you going to sneak up on someone anyways? Do you know how hard that is?
Also, like I said. tasers work once. If you miss, your done.

I'd prefer to let someone run with my replaceable possesions or stun them than kill them, is my point. You can replace most poessesions. You can't replace a life.

 

[mosinmatt]

Stopping someone from killing you is not murder. It is self defense.

You're still destroying a life and most people don't break into houses to kill, it's mostly for properly theft.

Would you shoot some poor heroin addict grabbing your TV or would you rather just let him go and get the insurance for your TV? Getting the insurance might not haunt you so much.

I know I would, if your in my house and unwelcome you forfeit any right you had to live, I don't know your there just to steal the tv and i'm not gonna find out. Your gonna get hit with the tac light, identified and hit with 12 gauge or .357 sig hollowpoints.
EDIT: and thanks to the Castle doctrine most states now have I can't be charged with anything, or even sued in civil court .

That sounds monsterous. The criminals are in more danger than civilians now, by the sound of it. Really, does a guy walking out your front door with a TV deserver a hollowpoint bullet in the leg? Wouln't a taser suffice, or just claiming insurance and making your house more secure?

cut the taser crap.
In the leg? Bad place to aim. In the back? even worse.
I agree with him. If you are in my home, you are there to do harm, simple as that. You will get 115 lumens in the eyes, and if you dont stop, you are getting buckshot to the chest.
ANd yes. Criminals are in more danger than civilians. THATS THE POINT. Make the criminals too scared to commit crimes, and they wont.

 

[thiosk]

well, america is one step closer to being declared a gun free zone come tuesday, so don't you trouble your little heads.

/wrist

 

[The_General]

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

I like how Switzerland does it. You join the military and you get to keep your rifle in case you are called back in to duty.

I really do not like the prospect of anyone bing able to have a firearm. Not only does it allow suicides and murders to be more easily comitted, it also encourages people to take matters in their own hands rather than trust the authorities. Weapons should be police and soldiers only, if you ask me.

 

[mosinmatt]

well, america is one step closer to being declared a gun free zone come tuesday, so don't you trouble your little heads.

/wrist

Cause gun free zones worked for Columbine and Vtech, right?

I really do not like the prospect of anyone bing able to have a firearm. Not only does it allow suicides and murders to be more easily comitted, it also encourages people to take matters in their own hands rather than trust the authorities. Weapons should be police and soldiers only, if you ask me.

Even though governments are the biggest murderers of all time? Stalin would love you too.
Gotta trust those authorities. Do what ever they say, cause they know best. right?

 

[Booze Zombie]

cut the taser crap.
In the leg? Bad place to aim. In the back? even worse.
I agree with him. If you are in my home, you are there to do harm, simple as that. You will get 115 lumens in the eyes, and if you dont stop, you are getting buckshot to the chest.
ANd yes. Criminals are in more danger than civilians. THATS THE POINT. Make the criminals too scared to commit crimes, and they wont.

How are you any better than a criminal gang "defending their turf", then? You can kill a couple burglars, sure... real pieces of work don't give a damn though. They'd just kill you and be done with it. But those are rare people, normally more suited to active duty in Iraq than criminality.

 

[thiosk]

Cause gun free zones worked for Columbine and Vtech, right?

If you make laws to limit gun use, only the criminals will have guns.
If you have guns you are a citizen. Once the government has taken them away you are a subject.

 

[mosinmatt]

cut the taser crap.
In the leg? Bad place to aim. In the back? even worse.
I agree with him. If you are in my home, you are there to do harm, simple as that. You will get 115 lumens in the eyes, and if you dont stop, you are getting buckshot to the chest.
ANd yes. Criminals are in more danger than civilians. THATS THE POINT. Make the criminals too scared to commit crimes, and they wont.

How are you any better than a criminal gang "defending their turf", then? You can kill a couple burglars, sure... real pieces of work don't give a damn though. They'd just kill you and be done with it. But those are rare people, normally more suited to active duty in Iraq than criminality.

my home isnt "my turf"
real pieces of work? who? what? What the hell you talking about?

 

[Dys]

Wow, these quotes got really broken at some point

many quotes that you see on american gun violence includes justified use from the police and civilians. Like if some crackhead was taken down by the cops. That is recorded as a murder sometimes. Or someone breaks into your house trying to kill you, and you blast them. The brady campaign counts that against you.
Many of them are also criminal on criminal violence. So, obviously, LEGAL guns are not the problem.
You can go on about all this "This makes it easier to kill" But that doesnt matter. A cricket bat can kill someone too. Why should my sporting equipment be taken away and not yours? So mine have multiple uses, one including preventing bodily harm to me and my family. Whats so wrong with protecting myself and those I love?

I have already said that while I am 100% ok with people owning guns, however I dismiss the concept of them protecting you more than they harm you. If they are properly stored then I am 100% behind you and think that is absoloutely reasonable for you to own guns.

If you choose to "protect" yourself by leaving guns laying around the house where anyone can pick them up, I am against it. If you house gets burgeled when your out, it means criminals have more guns, it adds to the already too high chance of a loved one accidently injuring themselves and it generally promotes the all too common disrespect that people seem to have for firearms. They are not toys, life is not a western movie and you can't undo something tragic once it has happened. What happens if you kill someone you think to be breaking into your house, but it turns out to be the kid next door coming to retreive a baseball or something his thrown in through the window?

The whole "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is absurd. I am NOT arguaing that the second ammendment should be changed, but rather if you want to own a gun, there are no restrictions based on age/race/political disposition or anything else, however you must either purchase or prove ownership of a gun cabinet.
Fuck I'm not even suggesting that you have to use it all the time, or that it has to be hard to access, simply that one is in the house. Surely if you are going out, and not taking your firearm, it should be securly locked up?
This is the same as the video game arguaments, people who are not responsible enough to handle the experience of virtually killing someone should not be presented the opportunity to do so (and we have ratings systems, People too irresponsible or young should not be given the opportunity to handle firearms, they should be secure when not in use or on display.
Is it really that out of the question?

did you not read the stats?? "safe storage laws' dont work.
15 states that passed ?safe storage? laws saw 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650
more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults in the first five years. On average, the
annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-ofpocket
expenses, medical bills, and property losses. "The problem is, you see no decrease ineither juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides when such laws are enacted, but you do see an
increase in crime rates." 257

Only five American children under the age of 10 died of accidents involving handguns in
1997.258 Thus, the need for ?safe storage? laws appears to be low.

In Merced, California, an intruder stabbed three children to death with a pitchfork. The
oldest child had been trained by her father in firearms use, but could not save her siblings from
the attacker because the gun was locked away to comply with the state?s ?safe storage? law.

"Safe storage" laws put innocent people at risk.

Those stats are so heavily spun it's ludicrous. I still haven't found the cited sources you claimed they have earlier. Honestly at best they are as heavily spun as the anti gun lobbyists, and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt.
Most cases of rape do not occur in the home, so unless you are carrying a firearm on your person (in which case it isn't laying around the house and therefore is irrelevant to my problem with them) it doesn't make a difference whether you leave guns laying around your house loaded or not. It is legal to carry a concealed firearm, and I don't necissarily have a problem with that. You must be assesed and awarded a specific license to legally conceal a handgun, otherwise it's a chargable offense. I don't see the relevance of that stat at all.

Only five American children under the age of 10 died of accidents involving handguns in 1997

... Not only is that a long time ago, I consider anyone under the age of 18 to be a child, and I also consider rifles, shotguns and machine pistols as firearms. Children under 10 are not likely to play with a firearm kept out of their reach, or hidden as they are not likely to find it unless it's in plain sight. What relevance does that statistic have to anything?

You've also listed a once of example of three people being murdered by some crazy guy with a pitchfork. Where were the parents in that? Even if the eldest daughter had the gun, what kind of trauma would she have suffered from shooting him, surely responsible parents being home caring for their kids is best way to avoid this. Are you suggesting that children should be allowed to have access to their own firearms because of a once off incident where the child had allegedly been trained in the use of firearms, even though thats something most children don't have to worry about?

Again I ask you, is it that unreasonable to store guns in a safe place when they are not in use? Just think about it a little bit before you throw statistics at me, common sense and your own insight is far more valuable than the numbers someone with an agenda throws at you.

 

[mosinmatt]

You've also listed a once of example of three people being murdered by some crazy guy with a pitchfork. Where were the parents in that? Even if the eldest daughter had the gun, what kind of trauma would she have suffered from shooting him, surely responsible parents being home caring for their kids is best way to avoid this. Are you suggesting that children should be allowed to have access to their own firearms because of a once off incident where the child had allegedly been trained in the use of firearms, even though thats something most children don't have to worry about?

Again I ask you, is it that unreasonable to store guns in a safe place when they are not in use? Just think about it a little bit before you throw statistics at me, common sense and your own insight is far more valuable than the numbers someone with an agenda throws at you.

SO your saying those kids are better off dead, than if they killed the mad man? Sick...

My guns are in a reasonable place. One is under my bed, one is on my night stand, the others in the closet.
Same and sound.

 

[Booze Zombie]

my home isnt "my turf"
real pieces of work? who? what? What the hell you talking about?

Psychopaths, Mister Mosin, psychos, professional killers, etc. They don't really care about dying, because to them, it's part of life, so they become monsters in our eyes and they don't really care if you have a gun or not.

With that type of person, feel glad that most are soldiers. They are rare, like geniuses, only the grim reaper is their muse and death is their vice.

You can become like that if you view someone entering your house for petty cash as a threat, in my opinion.

That is to say, a lot of people who want guns for protection are actually more violent than the people they're afriad of.

 

[Goatlemon]

You've also listed a once of example of three people being murdered by some crazy guy with a pitchfork. Where were the parents in that? Even if the eldest daughter had the gun, what kind of trauma would she have suffered from shooting him, surely responsible parents being home caring for their kids is best way to avoid this. Are you suggesting that children should be allowed to have access to their own firearms because of a once off incident where the child had allegedly been trained in the use of firearms, even though thats something most children don't have to worry about?

Again I ask you, is it that unreasonable to store guns in a safe place when they are not in use? Just think about it a little bit before you throw statistics at me, common sense and your own insight is far more valuable than the numbers someone with an agenda throws at you.

SO your saying those kids are better off dead, than if they killed the mad man? Sick...

My guns are in a reasonable place. One is under my bed, one is on my night stand, the others in the closet.
Same and sound.

How is you constantly putting words in people's mouths and ignoring their posts any different from gun control people lying?

Did you actually consider what he asked you to, or did you just decide to accuse him of meaning something he never said?

 

[mosinmatt]

my home isnt "my turf"
real pieces of work? who? what? What the hell you talking about?

Psychopaths, Mister Mosin, psychos, professional killers, etc. They don't really care about dying, because to them, it's part of life, so they become monsters in our eyes and they don't really care if you have a gun or not.

With that type of person, feel glad that most are soldiers. They are rare, like geniuses, only the grim reaper is their muse and death is their vice.

You can become like that if you view someone entering your house for petty cash as a threat, in my opinion.

That is to say, a lot of people who want guns for protection are actually more violent than the people they're afriad of.

Soldiers are not psychos you asshat, not are they professional killers.
damn anglo pilferers. I can see why they support criminals all the time.

 

[Dys]

You've also listed a once of example of three people being murdered by some crazy guy with a pitchfork. Where were the parents in that? Even if the eldest daughter had the gun, what kind of trauma would she have suffered from shooting him, surely responsible parents being home caring for their kids is best way to avoid this. Are you suggesting that children should be allowed to have access to their own firearms because of a once off incident where the child had allegedly been trained in the use of firearms, even though thats something most children don't have to worry about?

Again I ask you, is it that unreasonable to store guns in a safe place when they are not in use? Just think about it a little bit before you throw statistics at me, common sense and your own insight is far more valuable than the numbers someone with an agenda throws at you.

SO your saying those kids are better off dead, than if they killed the mad man? Sick...

My guns are in a reasonable place. One is under my bed, one is on my night stand, the others in the closet.
Same and sound.

I'm saying it wouldn't have been all lolipops and smiles if she had access to a gun, I'm saying that a once of incident does not justify all children being exposed to guns, most are not able to fire them properly and should not have to deal with the responsibility. It would make far more sense for the parents to have been looking after and, y'know, parenting their kids.

As for where you store your firearms, I think it is far from ideal and even farther from the worst cases I've seen/heard. Yes your gun storage may be reasonable in your circumstance at the moment, but that is not a reasonable level of gun storage for all other people. I wouldn't be impressed if someone with young teenagers or tweens kept firearms that casually stored.

I don't trust people to cook themselves dinner, much less judge what is a safe spot to keep a firearm. If we have a blanket guideline and insist on you owning a gunsafe (we can't force you to use it), then you actually have to think about it before you do something different,. Most people will keep their guns more secure than necissary rather than less. The people who are not gun enthusiasts, and who do not properly understand and respect their guns will simply follow the trend of using the gunsafe, especially for automatic weapons and shotguns (If you have a concealed firearm law I don't really care where you keep your handgun providing it's concealed and out of childrens reach). I really cannot see why so many people seem to think this is out of the question (you are not the first person to argue this with me).

 

[Booze Zombie]

my home isnt "my turf"
real pieces of work? who? what? What the hell you talking about?

Psychopaths, Mister Mosin, psychos, professional killers, etc. They don't really care about dying, because to them, it's part of life, so they become monsters in our eyes and they don't really care if you have a gun or not.

With that type of person, feel glad that most are soldiers. They are rare, like geniuses, only the grim reaper is their muse and death is their vice.

You can become like that if you view someone entering your house for petty cash as a threat, in my opinion.

That is to say, a lot of people who want guns for protection are actually more violent than the people they're afriad of.

Soldiers are not psychos you asshat, not are they professional killers.
damn anglo pilferers. I can see why they support criminals all the time.

No, I said the psychos are soldiers. Stop reading wrong.

As in, most psychos would rather go to a war zone than murder you in your sleep, so who are you really defending yourself from, you idiot?

 

[Brett Alex]

Anyway, I checked to see if there were any more counter points to my arguments here when I got home from work, but it seems Armitage Shanks has addressed everything already. I've never felt so unnecessary.

*slowly walks away sobbing*

Well I've been trying to provide replies, but Mr. Mosinmatt has resorted to racial slurs and ignorance, rather than discussing the issues.

I'll give it another shot.

There are no such thing as gun victims. Guns are not sentient beings.
Brown shirts? Wait until next year When Obama gets his private police force that is as well funded as the military to "protect" domestic soil. He said it with his own mouth. Sounds like Brown shirts to me. Probably be his Blank Panther friends.

Wow, just... wow.

Well putting aside the bigotry, but Obama as the totalitarian president? Obama? Really? Do you not remember anything of the adminstration in charge of the last 8 years?

my home isnt "my turf"

Yeah, that really pulls his argument about you being just like gangster apart. You totally explained it by just saying "No, you're wrong!"

But really, you act as if you and most other Americans have their homes broken into weekly and people try to mug them daily, and the only your guns stop society as we know it from collapsing under the weight of lawless "illegals" and "gangsters". Is this true?

Also, how many people have you killed?

Both of these are serious questions and I would appreciate serious answers.