Woman shot in the head after knocking on door and asking for help - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42793954]Did you know the acquisition of shotguns and rifles was deregulated by the Nazis?[/QUOTE] yea for certain people in society.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42793960]i dunno i'm pretty sure a lot of firearms were taken away from the people they were actually trying to oppress during the third reich firearm ownership was increased among citizens and jews, slavs, gypsies, etc weren't really considered citizens[/QUOTE] But you must admit that its a complete myth that the nazis banned private firearm ownership. Since the reverse actually happened.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793969]"Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[4] The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5] Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5] The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]" The act lowered restrictions and firearm ownership went up. They only banned jews, which were banned from everything.[/QUOTE] wow how surprising that the people [I]the third reich was trying to oppress[/I] were restricted from access to weaponry [I]as a tactic to keep them from fighting back[/I] which was the [I]entire point of his argument[/I]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793969]"Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[4] The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5] Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5] The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]" The act lowered restrictions and firearm ownership went up. They only banned jews, which were banned from everything.[/QUOTE] "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." gun restriction was part of a wider system of repression in nazi germany. it was used as a tool to help ensure cohesion under the state.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42793971]yea for certain people in society.[/QUOTE] Its not like the US currently doesn't do that anyway, see: the mentally ill, criminals etc. The Nazis were just super racist about it because they're fucking Nazis

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793988]But you must admit that its a complete myth that the nazis banned private firearm ownership. Since the reverse actually happened.[/QUOTE] yeah but i also didn't argue that because i'm not yawmwen they banned firearm ownership for the people they were trying to oppress, proving that firearm restriction was a method of restricting the rights of the people they were trying to oppress and keeping them from fighting back you must admit that

of course the nazi government didn't give a shit about repressing white german guys because those people posed the least threat. when you create restrictions you generally do them in a way that will not hurt the class that supports you but will limit the class that poses some sort of threat. that's what republicans do with voter id laws. it sounds good on paper but in practice it ends up restricting the vote of people least likely to vote republican and hardly affects traditionally republican demographics.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42793995]Its not like the US currently doesn't do that anyway, see: the mentally ill, criminals etc. The Nazis were just super racist about it because they're fucking Nazis[/QUOTE] yeah but that's more for their own safety and the safety of others rather than to oppress and dehumanize them

so apparently guns are the only thing that can be used to kill people now thanks, facepunch, for enlightening me

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793988]But you must admit that its a complete myth that the nazis banned private firearm ownership. Since the reverse actually happened.[/QUOTE] i never even said there was a gun ban my original post even said "restriction".

[QUOTE=Diet Kane;42794039]so apparently guns are the only thing that can be used to kill people now thanks, facepunch, for enlightening me[/QUOTE] tbh as pro-gun as i am that's really not what they're arguing and i really understand where they're coming from and how they got those ideas i just vehemently disagree

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793909][url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter[/url] [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] but less people use guns and there is less firearm crime [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] [img]http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i3cs6F7hTHkc.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html[/url][/QUOTE] Your statement was "all the losses in all the wars." US losses is not all the losses. I also don't have the time to verify the data from the CDC and FBI, and have already found some to indicate the numbers of US war deaths is reported higher than the Guardian reports, though admittedly still lower by about 10,000 than their number for firearms deaths. Questions also arise on if they take into account justifiable homicide in those numbers or not, and if justifiable homicide would be valid to be included. The CDC, though, found no evidence to support the idea that really any form of gun control in the US would be effective. [url]http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/firearms/firearmlaws.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42794058]tbh as pro-gun as i am that's really not what they're arguing and i really understand where they're coming from and how they got those ideas i just vehemently disagree[/QUOTE] i'm not even pro-gun. i am not much of a fan of gun culture in the united states, i just think there are other solutions that don't involve restricting people.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42793907]um yea from the shogun's sword hunts, great britain's gun ban, or the restrictions used in nazi germany, restricting the weaponry available to a populace has been a key part of authoritarian regimes.[/QUOTE] Could you specify which Great British gun ban you are talking about, because, as far as I am aware we've been a democracy since the 19th century.

[QUOTE=Rufia;42794092]Could you specify which Great British gun ban you are talking about, because, as far as I am aware we've been a democracy since the 19th century.[/QUOTE] "democracy" is not binary, it is a gradient. you are more democratic than you were in the 1700s but you still have a very authoritarian regime and that can be illustrated with things like the fact that you can be arrested for making naughty comments on facebook. you have internet restrictions and filters. you have a negative right to free speech. i mean i'm not going to call the uk a totalitarian state but it is certainly authoritarian to a great degree.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793909] *including suicides* [/QUOTE] and if you don't include suicides it wouldn't even come close to exceeding it for the next 150 years LOL it's always good when you include bullshit wording and statistics to make your graphs seem more in favor of your side. oh no I suddenly don't have access to a gun there's no possible way for me to commit suicide I'm suddenly no longer suicidal. nobody is denying that it's not easier to kill yourself with a gun. it's insanely easy, but removing the gun just makes them find another way to do so. you can buy 2 tanks of helium, surgical tubing, and a mask for cheaper than a gun and ensure your death 100% of the time.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793909] [IMG]http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i3cs6F7hTHkc.jpg[/IMG] [URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html[/URL][/QUOTE] Your statement was "reminding us of all the same tired logical fallacies about how they're inanimate objects and cars kill more people.". I said "but cars do kill more people". If things follow the projected path, you may one day be right, but as of today your statement is objectively false, as proven by the data you just provided. Of course what you're leaving out is that cars have had massive advancements in safety in just the past few years. People aren't surviving because there is less misuse or they are better at using their cars, they're surviving because cars are significantly better at protecting their occupants than they were 6-7 years ago. Things like side airbags, better crumple zones, and better side collision protection have all become industry standards. Long story short, cars are being made safer. Then there is the fact that suicide is on the rise (see [URL="http://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures"]American Foundation for Suicide Prevention[/URL], using CDC data), and you will also see that of the approximately 31,672 firearms fatalities there are in 2010, 19,392 of those were suicides (over 61% of firearms fatalities are suicides). So when you say 31,672 people were killed by guns, what you're actually saying is 19,392 people intentionally killed themselves with guns, and the other 12,280 people (39%) were either killed by someone else or died some other way. Taking traffic fatalities and comparing them against firearm accidental death and homicide figures, the numbers are not so impressive anymore. Of course you'll then say that a lot of those people may not have killed themselves (or they may have failed to) had they not had guns, and that study has already been posted by now I'm sure, but now we're in "what if" territory.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;42794164]and if you don't include suicides it wouldn't even come close to exceeding it for the next 150 years LOL it's always good when you include bullshit wording and statistics to make your graphs seem more in favor of your side. oh no I suddenly don't have access to a gun there's no possible way for me to commit suicide I'm suddenly no longer suicidal. nobody is denying that it's not easier to kill yourself with a gun. it's insanely easy, but removing the gun just makes them find another way to do so. you can buy 2 tanks of helium, surgical tubing, and a mask for cheaper than a gun and ensure your death 100% of the time.[/QUOTE] obviously you shouldn't own a gun because then i might kill myself with a gun.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42794151]"democracy" is not binary, it is a gradient. you are more democratic than you were in the 1700s but you still have a very authoritarian regime and that can be illustrated with things like the fact that you can be arrested for making naughty comments on facebook. you have internet restrictions and filters. you have a negative right to free speech. i mean i'm not going to call the uk a totalitarian state but it is certainly authoritarian to a great degree.[/QUOTE] I'd argue we're significantly more democratic than we are authoritarian. Certainly nothing comparable to Nazi Germany.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;42794164]and if you don't include suicides it wouldn't even come close to exceeding it for the next 150 years LOL it's always good when you include bullshit wording and statistics to make your graphs seem more in favor of your side. oh no I suddenly don't have access to a gun there's no possible way for me to commit suicide I'm suddenly no longer suicidal. nobody is denying that it's not easier to kill yourself with a gun. it's insanely easy, but removing the gun just makes them find another way to do so. you can buy 2 tanks of helium, surgical tubing, and a mask for cheaper than a gun and ensure your death 100% of the time.[/QUOTE] That's an awful lot of work for a suicide, like, planning amounts of work. Remember, a good number are not planned/premeditated in any way. They are spur of the moment "fuck it, end it all" things. Guns are one of the few things that will (usually) keep it a spur of the moment thing. But good work totally missing the point. And nice job trying to make that post an epic zinger dude! You're progressing well at awful posts!

[QUOTE=Rufia;42794254]I'd argue we're significantly more democratic than we are authoritarian. Certainly nothing comparable to Nazi Germany.[/QUOTE] in general your regime is not comparable. but shogunate japan isn't either. it is, however, acceptable to compare and contrast policies.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42794091]i'm not even pro-gun. i am not much of a fan of gun culture in the united states, i just think there are other solutions that don't involve restricting people.[/QUOTE] Solutions such as? I mean, you're against government in general, so no welfare schemes please, no help from agencies or anything like that to improve social issues.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42794296]Solutions such as? I mean, you're against government in general, so no welfare schemes please, no help from agencies or anything like that to improve social issues.[/QUOTE] well i think government agencies acting to help alleviate the issues of poverty in the context of a capitalist society is preferable to not having government agencies. but the core issue is alienation from society. people aren't involved in the community or its security so they become naturally distrustful of everyone in their community. this doesn't even get into the racial distrust perpetuated by our politics and culture. communities that are better organized are safer. when people rely on each other instead of isolating from each other then we don't assume a stranger knocking on our door should be shot.

Gun crime is so much less of an issue in Australia in the last 15 or so years that guns have been illegal. I never really understand the 'people kill people with guns' argument... Murders normally come from people (most likely with a mental issue) who snap,and they look for something to use in their rage. Would you rather they have a baseball bat / kitchen knife or a [I]12 gauge shotgun.[/I]

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42791436]What's his intention? If it's burglary, just avoid fucking about too much with him, if you know you can't get the drop on him and subdue him, let him take shit and get it replaced on your insurance. Stuff isn't worth a life, and he'll likely get caught giving you a chance at getting shit back. If it's a purposefully violent encounter, he has a knife. Keep your distance, find other long reach objects and try and subdue him. Try and get him somewhere he's harmless (locked in a room perhaps?). For both situations, call the local police force ASAP and let them deal with it as best they can. If they don't turn up for 30 minutes, stop living in the third world. During that time, try anything to keep them from harming you (or let them then sue the shit out of them I guess). I'm not seeing a need for a gun here. Wait, hold on, he's a criminal, clearly not human any more, fuck it just kill him![/QUOTE] ...Do you realize what you're suggesting? You're saying people should try to "find other long reach objects and try and subdue him". You mean that instead of protecting myself with a gun, I should try and throw vases at him so he doesn't stab me? That's absurd. He has a weapon, you ain't got shit. Whose to say he won't try to subdue you too? [quote]Try and get him somewhere he's harmless (locked in a room perhaps?).[/quote] Because obviously when someone is breaking into your house you have the time and the resolution to suddenly be a master strategist. Do you also really believe that a robber with a knife won't stab you just to silence you? Even though some robberies ARE turned into murders? Do you believe that he will stab once in a non-lethal place and run? That's a whole lot of wishful thinking, I'd rather not take the risk. Also, how am I supposed to know what his intentions are? The idiot is robbing my house, not having dinner with me. You know what works? "Drop the knife or I shoot". This is what happens in most break-ins where the house owner has a gun. If he doesn't drop the knife, he clearly doesn't value his own life, is aggressive and poses a serious threat to me. He knows I have a gun, I haven't shot yet, he has a chance. Or should he not be responsible for his actions, but I should be considered the devil for pointing at him with a gun? If everyone followed your "if he is just there to steal your shit you let him steal your shit" logic, that'd make break-ins extremely popular since it's so easy to get away with, since all you have to worry about is that the owner might be aware of your presence and might take the time to call the cops which have to be dispatched and take time to get there. [quote]If they don't turn up for 30 minutes, stop living in the third world.[/quote] Fucking really? You actually said this? Wow. You might as well say "If you live in a place where you might get robbed, don't buy a gun! Buy a new house in a nice gated community!" [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] I am seeing a whole lot of need for a gun in the "guy with a knife breaks into your house" situation, either to draw him out or stopping him from stabbing you if he decides he'll try and stab me before I shoot him. But oh, never mind, you think I shouldn't shoot him because his knife isn't as lethal as my gun, so it wouldn't be fair for me to just take his life like that.

[QUOTE=MR2;42794505] But oh, never mind, you think I shouldn't shoot him because his knife isn't as lethal as my gun, so it wouldn't be fair for me to just take his life like that.[/QUOTE] THIS! Few years ago a woman dropped her kid off at soccer practice was held at knife point, stabbed 28 times and had her throat slit in front of her kid and he stole the car. He had 5 other counts of carjacking and 1 count attempted murder and 2 counts of rape. He only gets 20 years in prison for this. I would of preferred if she had a loaded .38 and fired all 6 shots into this guys chest and killed him right there she would still be alive, but oh can't do that because "he can be reformed he made a mistake. It doesn't matter he slaughtered her in front of the kid we can help him!"

you guys tell these stories as if the reason people don't have guns is because they can't get them but it's so easy to get one, people don't have them because they don't want them

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42794637]you guys tell these stories as if the reason people don't have guns is because they can't get them but it's so easy to get one, people don't have them because they don't want them[/QUOTE] no they are relatively expensive actually.

I don't care if people die. I don't care that people kill other people with guns. As long as it doesn't affect me or my family, I don't care. Until it does affect me, I won't care. If someone is a criminal, and they are in my house and I consider them a threat to me or my family, they will die. I shoot with my guns to train for killing things. It's a fact of life. You can't go through life being completely naive, thinking that nothing like this can happen you you. Guns in America can't go away. For better or worse, it's part of our culture and there's nothing that can or should be done at this point. And guess what, the reason I need to do this is because police are unreliable. They aren't preventative, they're there to put you in a body bag after you/your family has been murdered because you don't have adequate defense against an intruder with a weapon that intends to kill you. People will always kill people. Cops won't be there to protect you. You need to protect yourself. It's human nature. Whether we have a gun, knife, club or any other improvised weapon we will always find a way to end each other. It's a fact of reality.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42794659]no they are relatively expensive actually.[/QUOTE] It's not out of the price range for middle class Americans if they really wanted one. Besides I'm gonna assume his argument was "people don't have guns because of restrictions" not "people don't have guns because they're expensive"