• Movie massacre proves need for armed citizens, says gun law expert
    151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;36958246]Bulletproof gear or not, if he'd shown up, started blasting off gats, and 3-4 people started shooting at him with [b]any[/b] kind of firearm, within about 5 seconds he'd either be in too much pain from the bullets hitting the vest, or have been hit in uncovered areas (arms, legs, face). You still break ribs and bruise whilst wearing bulletproof armour. Guns are so fucking useful it's unreal. What more of a deterrent to any potential foreign invader is there, than potentially one in two people coming out and blasting your face off with a shotgun? You can kiss any idea of war on American soil goodbye - whereas here in the UK, if someone decided to announce Jihad, for example, and go on a rampage with illegally obtained weapons, we'd be totally fucked. That said, it's too late to legalize guns fully in the UK like it is in the states, we'd be to irresponsible and too many people would get shot by angry drivers.[/QUOTE] Yeah a well-trained army in full gear is definitely going to be afraid of a bunch of untrained civilians with guns. Get a fucking clue. The average people with a gun is going to do far more harm than good, due to being [b]untrained[/b]. Which, btw, is what the guy in the OP said: A [b]trained[/b] person with a gun could've stopped him and what he doesn't get is that most people who get a gun don't get proper training, they just get the gun. And that's not counting the slew of other mistakes in there.
People could have been saved if someone was carrying a gun in that theater, but that still doesn't mean automatic firearms and rifles should be forbidden. In Belgium people are allowed to own a pistol, but nothing more than that (also hunting rifles if you're a hunt). And I can't imagine you'd ever need anything more than that Although I must admit I would love to shoot an automatic weapon someday :v:
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;36958259]Countries have a fucking military to deal with foreign invasions what the fuck[/QUOTE] So? If a group of 50 or so well organized people with illegally obtained guns took to a city centre, they could pretty much kill thousands of unarmed civilians without giving them a chance of defending themselves. It'd take the military hours to respond to such an uprising. In the states, I'd argue that the citizens would stand a much better chance of defending themselves and quelling the situation with less casualties.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;36958246]Bulletproof gear or not, if he'd shown up, started blasting off gats, and 3-4 people started shooting at him with [b]any[/b] kind of firearm, within about 5 seconds he'd either be in too much pain from the bullets hitting the vest, or have been hit in uncovered areas (arms, legs, face). You still break ribs and bruise whilst wearing bulletproof armour. Guns are so fucking useful it's unreal. What more of a deterrent to any potential foreign invader is there, than potentially one in two people coming out and blasting your face off with a shotgun? You can kiss any idea of war on American soil goodbye - whereas here in the UK, if someone decided to announce Jihad, for example, and go on a rampage with illegally obtained weapons, we'd be totally fucked. That said, it's too late to legalize guns fully in the UK like it is in the states, we'd be to irresponsible and too many people would get shot by angry drivers.[/QUOTE] Yes, how would the Police and the Army, armed with SMGs, assault rifles and more as well as being issued with kevlar armour ever hope to fight against people armed with stolen shotguns and dodgy reactivated WWII era handguns?
It would be the best to give firearms to people who really need them.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;36958334]So? If a group of 50 or so well organized people with illegally obtained guns took to a city centre, they could pretty much kill thousands of unarmed civilians without giving them a chance of defending themselves. It'd take the military hours to respond to such an uprising. In the states, I'd argue that the citizens would stand a much better chance of defending themselves and quelling the situation with less casualties.[/QUOTE] So on the off chance that a fucking paramilitary-grade jihadist group can not only organise but have the supplies inside the country to pull off the most intricate terrorist operation in the U.S. ever even in the face of the shitload of insane fucking agencies you have with almost extrajudicial powers for this kind of stuff, and they manage to take over a city square, do you seriously fucking think that a group of individuals who happen to own guns are going to all rally together and fucking assault a group of heavily armed militants? Even ignoring the fact that they would be slaughtered considering to do something that serious you'd need military-grade abilities, ten times better than what any armchair soldier with a hunting rifle could do, the bystander effect is a scientifically known thing. What a reasonable fucking thing to do would be to get every idiot with a gun out of there and bring in the national guard, people specifically trained to deal with homeland security and emergency issues.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;36958334]So? If a group of 50 or so well organized people with illegally obtained guns took to a city centre, they could pretty much kill thousands of unarmed civilians without giving them a chance of defending themselves. It'd take the military hours to respond to such an uprising. In the states, I'd argue that the citizens would stand a much better chance of defending themselves and quelling the situation with less casualties.[/QUOTE] Where's the police while they're taking the city centre? Why do you desperately [b]need[/b] to carry guns? Do you not trust the police or something? We've got extremely tight gun laws in the netherlands, and the fucker in a mall in Alphen 2 years ago was pretty much the only major shooting the past 10 years.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;36958334]So? If a group of 50 or so well organized people with illegally obtained guns took to a city centre, they could pretty much kill thousands of unarmed civilians without giving them a chance of defending themselves. It'd take the military hours to respond to such an uprising. In the states, I'd argue that the citizens would stand a much better chance of defending themselves and quelling the situation with less casualties.[/QUOTE] uh this has happened before in the UK, it was called the irish civil war it didn't take hours
tbh theres so many things wrong with what that guy said that my head is spinning
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36958320]A military? Gee did you forget about that?[/QUOTE] I think they've been watching too much Red Dawn.
And if that don't work, bring more gun.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;36958396]Where's the police while they're taking the city centre? Why do you desperately [b]need[/b] to carry guns? Do you not trust the police or something? We've got extremely tight gun laws in the netherlands, and the fucker in a mall in Alphen 2 years ago was pretty much the only major shooting the past 10 years.[/QUOTE] Police in the UK don't carry guns. They only do in airports, and they're 5-bullet magazined G36C's which require manual cocking every shot.
Lets just take a moment to imagine what it would be like if more people carried guns. In a crowded area, one person pulls a gun and shoots someone else. Someone sees and shoots that person. Other people see and then start shooting at the people shooting. Chaos.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;36958482]Police in the UK don't carry guns. They only do in airports, and they're 5-bullet magazined G36C's which require manual cocking every shot.[/QUOTE] Most police forces have Firearms Officers who are also traffic police, so they can respond to armed threats extremely quickly.
[QUOTE=zzaacckk;36958498]Lets just take a moment to imagine what it would be like if more people carried guns. In a crowded area, one person pulls a gun and shoots someone else. Someone sees and shoots that person. Other people see and then start shooting at the people shooting. Chaos.[/QUOTE] I see your point. [QUOTE=thisispain;36958402]uh this has happened before in the UK, it was called the irish civil war it didn't take hours[/QUOTE] I said respond to, not resolve.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;36958482]Police in the UK don't carry guns. [/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_unit[/url]
[QUOTE=thisispain;36958521][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_unit[/url][/QUOTE] True, but they don't exist in every metropolitan area/ city/ town. They don't have as much of a presence as US police officers.
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;36957807]The Australians don't carry guns in fear of other people, they carry them in fear of the animals[/QUOTE] I heard flame throwers were more effective in Australia. Anyways, being a conceal carry gun owner is all about avoidance, deterrence, and deescalation. The gun is only there to give you a force option. If you don't have right mindset about using force, than don't conceal carry at all. That gun in your underwear won't damn help you if you don't know how to apply force. Conceal carry is a responsibility.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;36958528]I said respond to, not resolve.[/QUOTE] i know what you wrote thx the UK is not only a small place, but the military is actually allowed to operate within UK grounds so a response to a terror threat like that is quick your weird fantasy relates to the irish civil war because people had plenty of guns going around during that time, but it didn't stop anyone from killing each other. in fact the opposite faction would probably respond with another terrorist attack.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36958558]i know what you wrote thx the UK is not only a small place, but the military is actually allowed to operate within UK grounds so a response to a terror threat like that is quick your weird fantasy relates to the irish civil war because people had plenty of guns going around during that time, but it didn't stop anyone from killing each other. in fact the opposite faction would probably respond with another terrorist attack.[/QUOTE] Fantasy? Yeah I guess my immediate assumption that people are well trained and accurate with guns and interpret a crisis well enough to respond as a group effort was a long shot from what would actually happen. So I guess that invalidates my argument.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;36958595]Yeah I guess my immediate assumption that people are well trained and accurate with guns and interpret a crisis well enough to respond as a group effort was a long shot from what would actually happen[/QUOTE] yeah that is a fantasy, even in the US where people have lots of guns and train that wouldn't happen. the police in both the UK and the US will respond quicker because that's their job and they are prepared for it. citizens with guns aren't going to sit in one place waiting for terrorist assaults all day. it's not even plausible
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;36957732]Well there's no denying the fact that if there had been someone in the theater with a concealed weapon lives [i]might[/i] have been saved. I'm not sure if that means we need 'more' guns though.[/QUOTE] there's also no denying that if someone brought HE grenades to the theatre someone MIGHT have been saved
This is as bad of an idea as saying every country should have nuclear weapons in order to prevent nuclear war.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;36958595]Fantasy? Yeah I guess my immediate assumption that people are well trained and accurate with guns and interpret a crisis well enough to respond as a group effort was a long shot from what would actually happen. So I guess that invalidates my argument.[/QUOTE] That would result in people trying to be heroes and getting themselves killed. Leave saving the day to the authorities.
[QUOTE=David29;36958662]This is as bad of an idea as saying every country should have nuclear weapons in order to prevent nuclear war.[/QUOTE] Except countries having nukes has made war less prevalent.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36958823]Except countries having nukes has made war less prevalent.[/QUOTE] You know what also was a "fool proof" anti-war deterrent? The super-alliance system of WW1. It's the exact same concept behind a nuclear deterrent, but when the tension came to a head all it did was make the war even more horrifying in scale.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;36958870]You know what also was a "fool proof" anti-war deterrent? The super-alliance system of WW1. It's the exact same concept behind a nuclear deterrent, but when the tension came to a head all it did was make the war even more horrifying in scale.[/QUOTE] Except the super alliance didn't entail MAD, so it's not the same concept.
Some weirdo stormed in a cinema and starting shooting everyone. You can arm your citizens with as much weaponry as you want, this will still have slim chances to happen and there will still be casualties. This is an unexpected tragedy that could not have been avoided if people had guns or if guns were forbidden or whatever else. It's just moronic to try and prove that people need more or less guns just because a crazy fuck showed up and killed a lot of people.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;36958259]Countries have a fucking military to deal with foreign invasions what the fuck[/QUOTE] What if the military is the enemy? In certain countries that has been happening a lot. I'm just saying that guns shouldn't be banned or anything, and the fact that someone is trying to use this tragedy to further their political agenda is absolutely disgraceful.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36958823]Except countries having nukes has made war less prevalent.[/quote] Aside from being irrelevant to my point, how do you intend to prove that?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.