RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm?

RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 1:40:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Are you suggesting that, rather than buying a gun, we each make our houses into fortresses, with walls, fences and barbed wire? More so, when we go outside our house, should we walk about in barbed wire cages on wheels, so as to ensure our safety? If everyone followed the example of not buying a gun... there wouldn't be any on the streets and such measures would not be necessary. True. If all parents never beat their children, there would be no abused children. If no one were an anti-Semite, Hitler would never have existed. If everyone following the example of decent men and didn't rape women, there would be no rapists. Have you considered changing your name to Pangloss? The other things are intangible and a product of society as a whole. Guns... not so much. And the problems you have us unique to the US, so it is possible (and successfully accomplished) for other first-world countries to act upon the problem and virtually eradicate it. The US can't even agree on restrictions and cannot enforce what laws it does have already... So there is no hope for you rednecks over there. It is a solvable problem that the US refuse to confront and fix.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 1:48:03 PM)
I don't care what it says... we don't have that rule here. And you are telling me that an assailant, from a standing start, can outrun and attack someone before they can pull a trigger??? I don't think Hussain Bolt could do that.... Seriously! Then you need to explain your superior knowledge to self defense experts because ?they disagree with you. It is called a rule , it is a guideline, a principal, your cops know about it they just didn't know they had to check it out with you. They may have another name for it. Have you, in your unmatched knowledge ever heard of the Tueller Drill? Another name for the same thing.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 2:00:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Not just your bad, it was a blatant and stupid lie. Nope. Our laws and standards are different. I was talking about your claim that I had drawn my weapon. And I acknowledged it. But of course you will keep harping on about it as if it were a blatant lie on my part.... it wasn't. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD What a moron, this is what the 20' rule says. If you could read you would know that a "rule" taught to police would have been established by people who never heard of me so it wouldn't be based on how fast, or slow I am. By the time you see it react and pull it is to late to stop them. I don't care what it says... we don't have that rule here. And you are telling me that an assailant, from a standing start, can outrun and attack someone before they can pull a trigger??? I don't think Hussain Bolt could do that.... Seriously! [:D] Go back to my post, it doesn't say before you can pull the trigger, it says before you can react, PULL, and fire. That means that following your standard of the have to inside of 4 ft before you can even touch your gun and then have to wait for them to rush you you are out of luck once they get inside 20', your bad again, that takes several times the amount of time that just pulling the trigger.

thompsonx -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 2:06:02 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD Since he knows I won't see the post unless someone responds to it he is displaying a shortage of spinal material. Common out fat boy are you afraid I will spank your ass purple yet again. You know you like it.[:D]

thompsonx -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 2:25:33 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD Idiot look up the 20' rule. It is taught world wide to the police. How many times has it been challanged in court and been found to be bullshit? Evidence is mounting that if you are tired or older 20' isn't enough of a distance. Considering what a piss poor shot you claim to be if they got any farther away you would need a scope and a bench rest to hit them. If the bad guy is inside 20' he can get to you before you can react and stop him. Hasnt that been shown to be nothing more than the wet dream of the punks that populate the police forces, waiting for an opportunity to "clense the gene pool" as you have so gently put your desires for geocide. Not just your bad, it was a blatant and stupid lie. It isn't a gun law, if I had your magical 2x4 and bashed his head in I wouldn't have been charged. Over here we understand that eliminating the self defense plea turns things over to the thugs. Actually what it does is require proof that it was self defense. Like the fellow who shot up the van for loud music claimed he was acting in self defense when the evidence showed he was not.See how that works? There is no better reason to do bodily harm that in defense of yourself or another person. Bullshit...the best reason to do bodily harm is because you have a serious hard on for that person/s

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 2:27:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Go back to my post, it doesn't say before you can pull the trigger, it says before you can react, PULL, and fire. That means that following your standard of the have to inside of 4 ft before you can even touch your gun and then have to wait for them to rush you you are out of luck once they get inside 20', your bad again, that takes several times the amount of time that just pulling the trigger. And see my post where I say we don't have that rule here!! Why?? Because our guys (and citizens) are taught how to deal with close-combat defense - without guns. It seems your guys have to rely on some rule about someone being 20ft away so they can draw weapons and fire. We don't have that problem here because citizens don't usually have guns and those that do don't bring them into public areas. It would seem that our gun owners are far more vigilant, sensible and law-abiding than even the most 'sensible' US citizens. Shootings, let alone deaths, are so rare here that we don't need such stupid 'rules'.

subrosaDom -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 2:28:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Are you suggesting that, rather than buying a gun, we each make our houses into fortresses, with walls, fences and barbed wire? More so, when we go outside our house, should we walk about in barbed wire cages on wheels, so as to ensure our safety? If everyone followed the example of not buying a gun... there wouldn't be any on the streets and such measures would not be necessary. True. If all parents never beat their children, there would be no abused children. If no one were an anti-Semite, Hitler would never have existed. If everyone following the example of decent men and didn't rape women, there would be no rapists. Have you considered changing your name to Pangloss? The other things are intangible and a product of society as a whole. Guns... not so much. And the problems you have us unique to the US, so it is possible (and successfully accomplished) for other first-world countries to act upon the problem and virtually eradicate it. The US can't even agree on restrictions and cannot enforce what laws it does have already... So there is no hope for you rednecks over there. It is a solvable problem that the US refuse to confront and fix. Abused children, Concentration Camps and rape victims are intangible?! If that is a "redneck" POV, I can't imagine what the alternative is.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 2:37:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Abused children, It happens in every country and every society. I don't know of any perfect Utopia where it doesn't happen. The gun problem is unique to the US - most other first-world countries have eradicated it. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Concentration Camps Do you know of any apart from those in history?? quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom and rape victims See #1. I don't know of a perfect Utopia. Do you?? quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom are intangible?! Yes... Because they are completely different from the gun problem which is uniquely American. Solvable, fixable, and already done by many countries. Americans refuse to acknowledge the problem so their government can't solve it.

thompsonx -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 2:43:42 PM)
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Are you suggesting that, rather than buying a gun, we each make our houses into fortresses, with walls, fences and barbed wire? You have a nominal ability to read the english language so you know exactly what I said and what I did not say. I was speaking of the efficacy of how a prison deals with security. I have not suggested that anyone should not own a gun. I have been a life member of the nra since before you were born. I am suggesting that if you have a door with a lock on it the door and the lock should be adequate to the task so also the wall that holds that door and windows. There are simple rules that can be applied to ones surroundings to prevent the amature thief(thief of opportunity). No one could stop an assault on your home or person by professionals without a squad of mud marines and even they would require a threat assessment of your situation. If you are not a high priortity target....rock star,politician, etc then carry the level of protection you feel necessary... If I am confronted with a situation that can be solved with my nike's or my knuckles I will choose the nike since I have used my knuckles before and the attendent trauma they suffered has given me perspective. My hands are delicate instruments that I use to pick my nose with and wipe my ass with. Women have, from time to time, commented on their dexterity and general usefulness (usually the result of a substance induced loss of reason). As I am exercising my niki option I would would find it more than a little amusing to turn and run backwards taunting him/them [:D] After they were down to puking up their assholes would I take out my artillery and explain that we were all going to jog down to the cop shop or their mom's house. No matter which one they choose we are going to their mom's house. She is going to beat their ass for letting some 70 year old grey boy run them down like little girls and I know they got sisters who might do some old phoque who could run down their oldman/brother. What do I get if I pop a cap in this punk???a lifetime of haters is something an old leach does not need. More so, when we go outside our house, should we walk about in barbed wire cages on wheels, so as to ensure our safety? Your profile says you live in vegas. If so then you know where n.las vegas is...I have a vendor/provider who does business there. I ride the bus from the south strip transfer station all the way. I have never had an issue. When I stay I vegas I stay on freemont street and walk up to the "freemont st experience" without a gun or body armor. Stop being such a pussy...no one is out to get you.

subrosaDom -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 2:44:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Abused children, It happens in every country and every society. I don't know of any perfect Utopia where it doesn't happen. The gun problem is unique to the US - most other first-world countries have eradicated it. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Concentration Camps Do you know of any apart from those in history?? quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom and rape victims See #1. I don't know of a perfect Utopia. Do you?? quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom are intangible?! Yes... Because they are completely different from the gun problem which is uniquely American. Solvable, fixable, and already done by many countries. Americans refuse to acknowledge the problem so their government can't solve it. The gun "problem" is not uniquely American. First of all, what matters are murder and violent crime rates, not the weapon. If crime rates soar, as they did after the Brits banned handguns, leaving citizens defenseless, how exactly is that civilized? If people are attacked with baseball bats instead of guns and have no guns with which to defend themselves and are not martial artists capable of wielding knives or bats like nunchuka, who wins? The thugs. As many have pointed out, violent crime in the US is down while gun ownership is up. There are many demographic reasons for crime in the US. NH, which is primarily middle-to-upper-middle class and which has no substantive ghettos to speak of, has an incredibly low violent crime rate (and high gun ownership, to boot). Anyone who followed the war crimes between the Hutus and the Tutsis knows that even genocide is possible without a lot of guns. Just machetes. Australia saw an increase in violent crime following its gun bans, too. This isn't rocket science. If you give thugs impunity to attack, what precisely to do you think they're going to do? Disarmament is impunity.

thompsonx -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 3:19:09 PM)
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Yes... Because they are completely different from the gun problem which is uniquely American. Solvable, fixable, and already done by many countries. Americans refuse to acknowledge the problem so their government can't solve it. How do you account for other nations being more heavily armed with a lower gun violence rate??? Is it possible that the gun violence is but a symptom and not a cause? What sorts of crimes have gun violence associated with them? Is it because someone murders someone because they have a personal hate going on or is the murder dependent on an economic motive?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 3:24:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom The gun "problem" is not uniquely American. First of all, what matters are murder and violent crime rates, not the weapon. Ok... lets go with that. USA: Violent deaths: 6.5. Ranked #92. UK: Violent deaths: 1.1. Ranked #160. Source: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/violence/by-country/ The US lose again.... by quite a margin. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom If crime rates soar, as they did after the Brits banned handguns, leaving citizens defenseless, No guns doesn't equate to 'defenseless' either. And guns aren't banned here either - just not allowed in public places. Many Brits do own guns of all sorts ranging from hand guns to rifles, shotguns and even some semi-automatics. What we don't have, is your gun problem. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom how exactly is that civilized? If people are attacked with baseball bats instead of guns and have no guns with which to defend themselves and are not martial artists capable of wielding knives or bats like nunchuka, who wins? The thugs. Actually, they don't much and certainly not on the scale of the US as my first response shows - a US citizen is very likely to die from a violent death (almost 6x) than in the UK. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom As many have pointed out, violent crime in the US is down while gun ownership is up. Citation please?? Because the figures show the US is 6x more violent than the UK per capita. Even if it is going down - it's disproportionately higher than the UK, any central European country, Canada, Australia.... It is even worse than the likes of Pakistan, Argentina, Peru, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen.... quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom There are many demographic reasons for crime in the US. NH, which is primarily middle-to-upper-middle class and which has no substantive ghettos to speak of, has an incredibly low violent crime rate (and high gun ownership, to boot). Anyone can pick a semi-decent district/area to show a favourable disposition. But that wouldn't be true as a general demographic for the whole country. Ergo: it is a false and misleading comparison and therefore invalid and not representative. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Australia saw an increase in violent crime following its gun bans, too. This isn't rocket science. If you give thugs impunity to attack, what precisely to do you think they're going to do? Disarmament is impunity. If they did rise a tad, it was very temporary. In the long run, it has been extremely favourable. Check the figures. They debunk your theories and opinions.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 3:29:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Yes... Because they are completely different from the gun problem which is uniquely American. Solvable, fixable, and already done by many countries. Americans refuse to acknowledge the problem so their government can't solve it. How do you account for other nations being more heavily armed with a lower gun violence rate??? Is it possible that the gun violence is but a symptom and not a cause? What sorts of crimes have gun violence associated with them? Is it because someone murders someone because they have a personal hate going on or is the murder dependent on an economic motive? It's a good question. I can only guess that it's because even in those countries: 1) the laws are more stringent, 2) they are enforced more rigorously, 3) don't let murders get away with their crime because of lax/stupid defense pleas, 4) generally don't allow guns in public places. I haven't looked - it's just a guess; but to me that would make sense (in general).

thompsonx -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 3:45:18 PM)
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom The gun "problem" is not uniquely American. First of all, what matters are murder and violent crime rates, not the weapon. If crime rates soar, as they did after the Brits banned handguns, Cite please leaving citizens defenseless, how exactly is that civilized? [8\|] If people are attacked with baseball bats instead of guns and have no guns with which to defend themselves and are not martial artists capable of wielding knives or bats like nunchuka, who wins? The thugs. As many have pointed out, violent crime in the US is down while gun ownership is up. As was pointed out to you on the other thead,where you got your ass spanked purple on, they are not related. There are many demographic reasons for crime in the US. NH, which is primarily middle-to-upper-middle class and which has no substantive ghettos to speak of, has an incredibly low violent crime rate (and high gun ownership, to boot). So you are saying that rich people don't do home invasion and stop and robs like the po folks do[8\|] Anyone who followed the war crimes between the Hutus and the Tutsis knows that even genocide is possible without a lot of guns. Just machetes. Those of us who know more than what you saw in a movie know you are full of shit.

thompsonx -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 3:56:36 PM)
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 ORIGINAL: thompsonx How do you account for other nations being more heavily armed with a lower gun violence rate??? Is it possible that the gun violence is but a symptom and not a cause? What sorts of crimes have gun violence associated with them? Is it because someone murders someone because they have a personal hate going on or is the murder dependent on an economic motive? It's a good question. I can only guess that it's because even in those countries: 1) the laws are more stringent, Actually the u.s. has some of the most stringent laws re: guns of any place on earth. 2) they are enforced more rigorously, The u.s. enforces the laws it chooses against those whom it chooses. 3) don't let murders get away with their crime because of lax/stupid defense pleas, You will have to acquaint me with the crimes you are referencing. If you are speaking of dupont???he is the poster child for the power of money. 4) generally don't allow guns in public places. Pretty much the same here but it is more of a local option. The post office has a no guns policy as do all government buildings. Many retail establishments have a no guns policy and are willing to ride the wave of "the will of the people" to see if it brings them more customers or fewer. I haven't looked - it's just a guess; but to me that would make sense (in general). If you are interested in more than just raising your post count don't you think it would be prudent to do a little research?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 4:17:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 ORIGINAL: thompsonx How do you account for other nations being more heavily armed with a lower gun violence rate??? Is it possible that the gun violence is but a symptom and not a cause? What sorts of crimes have gun violence associated with them? Is it because someone murders someone because they have a personal hate going on or is the murder dependent on an economic motive? It's a good question. I can only guess that it's because even in those countries: 1) the laws are more stringent, Actually the u.s. has some of the most stringent laws re: guns of any place on earth. Really?? I honestly don't believe that. Given the figures, the US is far worse than many places I mentioned - including war zones. And it doesn't matter if you pick gun crimes, gun deaths, violent crimes, violent deaths - the US is much worse. So... if your assertion is correct, where is it going wrong in the US where it works elsewhere?? quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 2) they are enforced more rigorously, The u.s. enforces the laws it chooses against those whom it chooses. And I'm guessing that would be how local state laws are enforced as opposed to a generic set of laws that are cross-country like other places?? Sounds like a zip-code lottery rather than a decent set of national laws enforced uniformly. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 3) don't let murders get away with their crime because of lax/stupid defense pleas, You will have to acquaint me with the crimes you are referencing. If you are speaking of dupont???he is the poster child for the power of money. Criminals using lax defense pleas. More particularly of late, SYG defenses. In most other countries where the gun problem doesn't really exist, they don't have such ways of legally getting off the hook. You kill someone or seriously harm/injure them, you face prosecution for your actions. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 4) generally don't allow guns in public places. Pretty much the same here but it is more of a local option. The post office has a no guns policy as do all government buildings. Many retail establishments have a no guns policy and are willing to ride the wave of "the will of the people" to see if it brings them more customers or fewer. The I would say it is failing - miserably. So the laws and enforcement of them need to be tightened up. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I haven't looked - it's just a guess; but to me that would make sense (in general). If you are interested in more than just raising your post count don't you think it would be prudent to do a little research? I quoted figures in my previous post. No matter how you look at the problem, it is still quite uniquely American. Whatever you say about how good and stringent your laws are - they just aren't working very well compared to other countries. That implies that something is radically wrong somewhere. If guns weren't allowed at all in public places, there would be no need for specific "no gun" areas because everywhere outside of your own home or at a gun club or a properly organized/supervised event would not allow guns at all with the risk of a carrier being arrested, charged and weapon(s) confiscated.

Politesub53 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 4:38:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom If crime rates soar, as they did after the Brits banned handguns, leaving citizens defenseless, how exactly is that civilized? Any links for this bollocks ?

smileforme50 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 5:25:22 PM)
[sm=2cents.gif] All I know is that in the city of Wilmington, Delaware not far from where I live, so far this year there have been 86 shootings. Not 86 stabbings, or clubbing, stranglings or poisonings. Not ONE of these has happened because the shooter was "defending" himself against the victim. This statistic has played a big part in Wilmington earning the dubious honor of the Department of Justice's Violence Reduction Network. The other cities that have been "awarded" this federal assistance are Chicago, Detroit, Oakland CA and Camden NJ. I really would be more supportive of the gun lobby if there were more incidents and examples of honest people actually defending themselves against criminals. But that's not the case. Most of the times when guns are used, it is in the commission of a crime, a shooting accident (sometimes involving a child), or some mentally ill person killing a committing a mass murder in a school or movie theater. In a completely unrelated thread in another forum, Resident Sadist and I got into a discussion about keeping a slave in a cage and I asked him how to deal with the obvious risks. His response was "Fire and a myriad of other things like sinkholes, airplanes falling out of the sky etc . . . those are the risk aware part of the caging. As someone pointed out, more likely to die in traffic than of fire in hurricane proof brick house with concrete roof. I feel the same way about crime home invasion. I'm more likely to die in a traffic accident than I am from someone breaking into my house while I'm home.

thompsonx -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 6:04:21 PM)
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 ORIGINAL: thompsonx How do you account for other nations being more heavily armed with a lower gun violence rate??? Is it possible that the gun violence is but a symptom and not a cause? What sorts of crimes have gun violence associated with them? Is it because someone murders someone because they have a personal hate going on or is the murder dependent on an economic motive? It's a good question. I can only guess that it's because even in those countries: 1) the laws are more stringent, Actually the u.s. has some of the most stringent laws re: guns of any place on earth. [/quote] Really?? I honestly don't believe that. What you believe is hardly relevant. Let your fingers go stroking through google land and disabuse yourself of your ignorance while looking up the brady law. It is federal and applies to all states. Given the figures, the US is far worse than many places I mentioned - including war zones. And it doesn't matter if you pick gun crimes, gun deaths, violent crimes, violent deaths - the US is much worse. Which I have pointed out and you have agreed that other countries with more guns have less crime thus the simple pressence of guns is demonstrated to be not the cause. So... if your assertion is correct, where is it going wrong in the US where it works elsewhere?? As pointed out there are coutries that have more guns and less gun crime. 2) they are enforced more rigorously, The u.s. enforces the laws it chooses against those whom it chooses. And I'm guessing that would be how local state laws are enforced as opposed to a generic set of laws that are cross-country like other places?? If you wish to discuss something it would be useful if you knew what you were talking about and not be guessing. Murder is against the law in all of our states. The punishment differs by state. Sounds like a zip-code lottery rather than a decent set of national laws enforced uniformly. Since you have admitted your ignorance of our laws perhaps before you criticize them you might find out what they are first. 3) don't let murders get away with their crime because of lax/stupid defense pleas, You will have to acquaint me with the crimes you are referencing. If you are speaking of dupont???he is the poster child for the power of money. Criminals using lax defense pleas. More particularly of late, SYG defenses. In most other countries where the gun problem doesn't really exist, they don't have such ways of legally getting off the hook. You kill someone or seriously harm/injure them, you face prosecution for your actions. If you are going to bitch about lax enforcement in the u.s. it rates as a minimum that you list which cases you have found fault with. Besides zimmy what else have you got? 4) generally don't allow guns in public places. Pretty much the same here but it is more of a local option. The post office has a no guns policy as do all government buildings. Many retail establishments have a no guns policy and are willing to ride the wave of "the will of the people" to see if it brings them more customers or fewer. The I would say it is failing - miserably. Lets try it one more time...if there are countries where gun ownership is greater than in the u.s. and they have a lower gun crime rate that is prima facia evidence that simple gun ownership is not the issue. So the laws and enforcement of them need to be tightened up. Once more of your ignorant unsubstantiated opinions show that you cannot or will not read. There are sufficient laws ,which you have admitted that you are ignorant of,to deal with the illegal use of guns. You have yet to cite a case where the legal system failed to convict a criminal of gun violence. You admit but refuse to discuss other causes for gun violence. I haven't looked - it's just a guess; but to me that would make sense (in general). If you are interested in more than just raising your post count don't you think it would be prudent to do a little research? I quoted figures in my previous post. Where have you posted figures that indicate that economic reasons predicated murder and not the pressence of firearms? No matter how you look at the problem, it is still quite uniquely American. Amerika is not the only country with a poor and disenfranchised class but it is one where that class has easy access to guns. Whatever you say about how good and stringent your laws are - they just aren't working very well compared to other countries. That implies that something is radically wrong somewhere. It is pretty clear that you have your ideas of why the gun crime rate is so high in amerika but fail to answer the questions of logic posed to you...why do countries with higher rates of gun ownership have lower gun crime rates?

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 9:30:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Go back to my post, it doesn't say before you can pull the trigger, it says before you can react, PULL, and fire. That means that following your standard of the have to inside of 4 ft before you can even touch your gun and then have to wait for them to rush you you are out of luck once they get inside 20', your bad again, that takes several times the amount of time that just pulling the trigger. And see my post where I say we don't have that rule here!! Why?? Because our guys (and citizens) are taught how to deal with close-combat defense - without guns. It seems your guys have to rely on some rule about someone being 20ft away so they can draw weapons and fire. We don't have that problem here because citizens don't usually have guns and those that do don't bring them into public areas. It would seem that our gun owners are far more vigilant, sensible and law-abiding than even the most 'sensible' US citizens. Shootings, let alone deaths, are so rare here that we don't need such stupid 'rules'. And your very ridicule of the rule shows that you know that it is talking about a man with a knife (or club) so once again you are being disingenuous. You can't even keep track of what you said two pages ago, why should anyone listen to you.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625