About Guns etc

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by magnet18, Jan 25, 2012.

  1. magnet18

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Dec 22, 2010
    would you like a rifle or a shotgun?
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2012
  2. Georacer


    Nov 25, 2009
    You guys crack me up!
  3. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    Welcome to America! A pistol and a shotgun please. And another couple for my friends here.

    In Texas I suspect we have more guns than there are people.
  4. SgtWookie


    Jul 17, 2007
    During WWII, the Japanese figured out that they could not successfully conduct land warfare in the USA, as nearly half of the US population was armed at the time. Since WWII, more and more people have settled in urban areas; shooting ranges have been encroached upon and many have been closed down over the years. Some states have very restrictive laws on firearms. Many are quite lenenient.

    Anyway, firearms laws are not about controlling firearms; they are about controlling people.
    TheFox and KJ6EAD like this.
  5. maxpower097

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2009
    But Sarge we have like the most lax gun laws in the country.
  6. Adjuster

    Well-Known Member

    Dec 26, 2010
    I don't share the view that guns are the answer to everything. In the end, we all have to face declining powers, illness and pain to a greater or lesser extent. Up to a point, being able to use a firearm may equalise the strength of a physically weaker individual against a fitter opponent, but that's as far as it goes. Even that advantage fails in the face of some conditions such as blindness, paralysis, or dementia.

    For instance, what use would a gun be in helping get out of bed (to threaten the nurse?), or to walk, eat, eliminate, or to... you-know-what! A gun could of course be employed as the ultimate form of pain relief, but depending on the weapon used, that might inflict rather a horrible mess on whoever had to deal with it. That seems a selfish thing to do.

    I think that in facing illness, inner strength is a lot more important than ironmongery. There is another thing that is helpful too, but sadly that cannot be discussed here.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2012
  7. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    Something I read on this site,

    When seconds count, police are but minutes away.

    Right to bear arms is not about personal pain relieve, people find other ways to do that every day.

    It is about personal responsibility, I am responsible for protecting me and my family instead of hoping someone else can do it for me.

    This is about as off topic as it can get though. :D And here I am, joining in.
    KJ6EAD and shortbus like this.
  8. Georacer


    Nov 25, 2009
    It's almost funny how natural that phrase comes out of you people State-side. On the other hand, it sounds quite unreasonable in my ears and I bet in every pair of ears living in the big urban centres in Europe.
  9. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    Perhaps, but putting your personal safety in the hands of other people is a good way to loose everything, including liberty.

    There was a time in the USA, about 150 years ago, there were no local law enforcement. If you needed the law they were several days away, and likely too busy with their own concerns to be of much help. It left it's mark.

    In many places this is still the case, though help is hours away. The USA is huge, we are not one tightly packed bunch.

    There are states, such as Massachusetts, where you are expected to flee your home if an intruder breaks in. At least I have been told this is the case, I could be wrong. This mode of thought is foreign to the middle and southern United States, and it is my impression the Castle Laws are a direct response to that way of thinking. Any state where I am expected to run from where I should feel most secure is not where I want to live.

    About the Massachusetts laws, the specific story I heard was a prosecutor tried to convict an apartment dweller for not jumping out of a 3rd floor window when a burglar entered his home. Instead he fought and killed the intruder. The judge threw the case out, but it should never have been brought up before a court. The right to self defense is as fundimental as it gets, but many police and DA feel it is their province only.

    Dagnabit, I'm still going off topic. I may split this thread. I can not help myself.
    KJ6EAD likes this.
  10. Audioguru

    New Member

    Dec 20, 2007
    Guns? Protection? Safety?
    America must be a jungle of wild animals.
  11. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    Yep, that's me and Wook alright!
  12. thatoneguy

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2009
    Not really if you look at them.

    The problem isn't firearms. The problem is criminals.

    The anti-gunner types love to quote how many people were killed by guns, but never state that the perpetrator was already banned from buying guns due to prior crimes (yes, even from a gun show). There needs to be harsher punishments for murder. Guns are banned in the UK, so the number of knife murders went up. Now the UK has to turn in all their pointed knives. They aren't addressing the root issue.

    Glad you are feeling better and things are looking up! I apologize for that tiny hijack there. Get well soon, we need you!
    KJ6EAD likes this.
  13. 1chance


    Nov 26, 2011
    I've got mountain lions in my back yard! Is that wild enough for you?:)
  14. Alberto

    Active Member

    Nov 7, 2008
    I live in big city in Europe, but I agree 100% with the above statement.

    KJ6EAD likes this.
  15. strantor

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 3, 2010
    oh did I miss my chance to jump into the gun debate?
    I have something to say. I've never met a brit who is pro-gun. I've speculated on that in the past and have a whole flurry of ideas why, but none that really explain it. The way I see it, criminals are going to find guns. There is such a thing as a black market, whether you wish it so or not, and they will get the guns regardless of legality. By criminalizing gun ownership, all you do is take the guns out of the hands of the honest law-abiding citizens and make them even bigger targets for criminals. You (Europeans, and georacer) may say that making guns illegal makes it harder for a petty criminal to get their hands on a gun and lessens the chance of the violent crime ever taking place, but in the absence of a apple-to-apples comparison, that's purely speculation. You can't compare your stats (without guns) to our stats (with guns); there are totally different demographics involved. The only apples-to-apples comparison I can think of is Australia's gun ban. They had guns and now they "don't"; same people, same demographics, 2 data points, so how are their numbers looking?
    So if a country has nothing to gain from disarming it's citizens, then it has nothing to lose by allowing them to arm themselves; What the nation stands to lose by disarming is that the nation can no longer defend itself on it's own soil without relying wholly on the military if **** hits the fan. As Wookie mentioned in post #4, that's why we weren't hit at home in WWII:
    I hope the sense of ascension over the barbarism of gun ownership is enough to comfort you with the giant target painted on your back... But of course it is, because I know you won't acknowledge that the target exists.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2012
    KJ6EAD likes this.
  16. debe

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 21, 2010
    Hi Strantor. Here in South Australia there is an on going problem with Bikie groups & there has been several shootouts. & yes the criminal element is well armed. I dont feel any safer being disarmed, Ithink it has more to do with controll of the masses.
    KJ6EAD and strantor like this.
  17. Georacer


    Nov 25, 2009
    I don't know the what ifs. As you said, there can't be a direct comparison.

    I just like to think that the absence of metal detectors in public schools has something to do with the general absence of guns.

    I 'll move the conversation to its own thread soon.
  18. Sparky49

    Active Member

    Jul 16, 2011
    There is clearly a big cultural difference when it comes to guns. :D

    It does seem that Europeans are generally against the unlicenced holding of guns, whilst generally Americans are all for it.

    Perhaps the only way to settle this is to accept that neither side is going to budge. It is too embedded in the ways we've been brought up and live.

    Agree to disagree on this one?:D

    There are no right answers!:)
  19. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    The biggest gun I've ever used in my life was a child's (14 year old's) .22 rifle, and that was years ago! :D I have never needed anything bigger. Here in Vermont, the most trouble I've had was with my neighbor's dogs coming into my yard and terrorizing my cats (actually lost a couple to neighborhood dogs a few years back). For them, paintballs do the trick. Anyway, in the past I've shot a pellet pistol, airsoft, paintball, .22, and a pellet rifle with homemade exploding pellets. Other than that I don't use guns. I have just never had the need. I am not saying I'm against them. Just that I haven't ever had an actual need for one. Perhaps as I get older and get less nimble, I might purchase a small handgun. Not really sure, though.

    Der Strom
  20. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    I didn't realize there was ever an argument! :p