[QUOTE=c0nk3r;29127441]you're dumb. CC'ers CAN do training. i didnt mean all of them do but some take Combat pistol classes or do simmunitions.
Im sure some people cant hit fuck shit with a handgun, but i doubt that that many people with CC's are completely deficient with their own gun.[/QUOTE]
The problem is them hitting things, not them not hitting things.
[QUOTE=c0nk3r;29127441]you're dumb.[/QUOTE]
excellent rebuttal. I've been defeated.
[QUOTE=c0nk3r;29127441]CC'ers CAN do training. i didnt mean all of them do but some take Combat pistol classes or do simmunitions.[/QUOTE]
please tell me what kind of training they can do. because shooting at paper targets isn't the same as active shooter training.
and no one is saying they're deficient with their own gun, but it's a completely different situation when you have someone shooting at others/shooting at you.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;29126613]The shooter had an arsenal of legally acquired weapons and was a gun nut.[/QUOTE]
He had 5 licences for legal guns. Other then that he also had a shotgun a m16 a crossbow, a knuckle buster a sniper and various knifes.
[QUOTE=JDK721;29128073]excellent rebuttal. I've been defeated.
please tell me what kind of training they can do. because shooting at paper targets isn't the same as active shooter training.
and no one is saying they're deficient with their own gun, but it's a completely different situation when you have someone shooting at others/shooting at you.[/QUOTE]
no im done you win lets ban all guns and end all world armys
[editline]12th April 2011[/editline]
oh and lets fight global warming or something
[QUOTE=NoDachi;29126613]The shooter had an arsenal of legally acquired weapons and was a gun nut.[/QUOTE]
I don't get it. I'm all for gun regulation but I don't see how heavily restricting gun ownership is a good idea because of one psychologically disturbed person.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;29135885]I don't get it. I'm all for gun regulation but I don't see how heavily restricting gun ownership is a good idea because of one psychologically disturbed person.[/QUOTE]
one... lol
[QUOTE=c0nk3r;29135132]no im done you win lets ban all guns and end all world armys[/QUOTE]
:cawg:
I've never been in favor of banning guns
I wouldn't have an issue with stricter reasonable gun control though
[editline]12th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;29135885]I don't get it. I'm all for gun regulation but I don't see how heavily restricting gun ownership is a good idea because of one psychologically disturbed person.[/QUOTE]
lol one?
there are mass shootings in america like every five months
[QUOTE=Baldr 2.0;29138272]They want to ban violent games now, because the shooter played violent games.
Should I kill myself before I go mad and start shooting people :byodood:.[/QUOTE]
nope
[QUOTE=JDK721;29120590]yeah man if this was in america the gunman would've been shot before he could even pull the trigger like in tucson
oh wait..
lol and training? all you have to do to get a permit is take a one day class and shoot at targets. shooting at paper targets is completely different than engaging an active shooter.[/QUOTE]
That's why trap is better training :smug:
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Baldr 2.0;29179715]
[img_thumb]http://static3.ad.nl/static/FOTO/pe/12/15/3/media_xl_351303.jpg?20110414180832[/img_thumb]
[h2]Type of weapons of Tristan known.[/h2][b]The perpetrator of the bloody shooting in Alphen aan den Rijn Tristan van der Vlis Saturday made ​​use of a semi-automatic Ekog single barrel Smith&Wesson, kaliber .22 Long Rifle and two handguns.[/b]
These arms were a .45 caliber Colt pistol and a Taurus revolver, .44 caliber. (Reuters)
[url]http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/3722/Schietpartij-Alphen-a-d-Rijn/article/detail/578706/2011/04/14/Type-wapens-van-Tristan-bekend.dhtml[/url][/QUOTE]
OMG A FULL AUTO ASSAULT 22!! They're designed to bounce around inside the target to cause maximum damage!
[QUOTE=JDK721;29120590]yeah man if this was in america the gunman would've been shot before he could even pull the trigger like in tucson
oh wait..
lol and training? all you have to do to get a permit is take a one day class and shoot at targets. shooting at paper targets is completely different than engaging an active shooter.[/QUOTE]
There have been plenty of instances where gun owners have stopped a crime from being committed.
I am also in favor of stricter background checks when buying guns, but I am not in favor of the 1986 or the assault weapons bans.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;29085121]Fun Fact: Deaths relating to pharmaceuticals dropped significantly when they passed restrictions on how many tablets are available in each packet. Why didn't more people just buy two packets?
[URL]http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1335503.stm[/URL]
How does that fit into your pseudo-logic?
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate[/URL]
Read this. Notice a correlation now?
Also notice how Switzerland has the 14th highest firearm death rate [B]in the world[/B]?
And how you're nearly [B]17 times[/B] more likely to die from a gunshot in Switzerland rather than England with it's 'failed gun laws'.
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
Where do you think dem criminals get the [B]super illegal firearms[/B] from? They don't build them out of old pipes with their bare hands in tool sheds.
The civilian arms industry :downs:. Go figure.[/QUOTE]
South Africa's gun restrictions are very strict too. Waiting periods can be as long as two years, and police are supposed to conduct a background check including inspecting your home, and you also have to pass a competency test, but it doesn't matter, people who want guns get them one way or another. (In 3 years the South African police reported more than 8000 of their own guns missing or stolen)
I remember seeing a thread here like a year ago.
Some British cops raided an apartment, it had like 100 guns, mostly full auto with armor piercing rounds.
Yup, because criminals totally can't get guns once you ban them.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29181106]I remember seeing a thread here like a year ago.
Some British cops raided an apartment, it had like 100 guns, mostly full auto with armor piercing rounds.
Yup, because criminals totally can't get guns once you ban them.[/QUOTE]
"guys, people are going to kill each other anyway, so let's legalize murder."
and hold up there, who said anything about banning guns?
[QUOTE=JDK721;29181505]"guys, people are going to kill each other anyway, so let's legalize murder."[/QUOTE]
If only we could outlaw crime, this would have never happened!
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29181106]I remember seeing a thread here like a year ago.
Some British cops raided an apartment, it had like 100 guns, mostly full auto with armor piercing rounds.
Yup, because criminals totally can't get guns once you ban them.[/QUOTE]
Britfags have the fewest fire arm related killings in the world. Britfags cops don't carry guns. Gun laws are very strict in Britfagland. Seems to me it does work.
[QUOTE=mobrockers alt;29185396]Britfags have the fewest fire arm related killings in the world. Britfags cops don't carry guns. Gun laws are very strict in Britfagland. Seems to me it does work.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation[/url]
[quote]The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)
Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.
The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.
Incidentally in 13th century Europe, several studies have estimated homicide rates in major cities to be around 60 per 100,000. (Even back then, the equivalent of coroners, kept records.)
There are many, many factors, some much more prominent than gun availability that influence homicide rates and crime in general.
...
Due to the many confounding factors that arise when attempting international comparisons, this approach would appear to hold little promise for determining the influence of gun levels (or handgun availability) on violence rates.[/quote]
[quote][b]Crime Factors According to the FBI[/b]
[LIST]
[*]Population density and degree of urbanization.
[*]Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
[*]Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
[*]Modes of transportation and highway system.
[*]Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
[*]Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
[*]Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
[*]Climate.
[*]Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
[*]Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
[*]Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
[*]Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
[*]Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.
[/LIST][/quote]
When you blame guns for the problems you're doing a great disservice to yourself and indeed humanity, it's quite a condescending view when you blame a material object for the murder rate and not the immensely complex sociological or psychological reasoning behind it.
It's a cop out.
[QUOTE=JDK721;29087639]I'm not in favor of banning guns completely, but I'd say the US does need more gun control.
and stop using that ridiculous argument "people will do it anyway." should murder be legalized too? after all, people still commit it even when it carries a death sentence in many US states.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure you've used that argument for legalising drugs.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29185583]When you blame guns for the problems you're doing a great disservice to yourself and indeed humanity, it's quite a condescending view when you blame a material object for the murder rate and not the immensely complex sociological or psychological reasoning behind it.[/QUOTE]
Winner winner chicken dinner! Blame the person doing the act, not the tool they are doing it with.
You never hear for the banning of kitchen and pocket knives (well I guess in England you do, what with their massive increase in knife crime the past few years), and you never hear for banning cars when somebody punches it through a parade of orphans and disabled vets.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;29196744]I'm pretty sure you've used that argument for legalising drugs.[/QUOTE]
please don't compare drugs to firearms. since when did people kill others with bongs?
I'd only be in favor of strengthening gun laws somewhat. I've never supported a ban.
You know, on a hunch i decided to look something up. My mayor likes to say open/concealed carry laws or gun rights laws hearken back to the wild west, so, here it is.
[quote]These are interesting times in the fight to protect and enhance our rights as gun owners. In Wisconsin, we stand on the eve of an historic court ruling regarding open carry. In Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arkansas, local activists have succeeded in making their voices heard regarding restoring open carry to these otherwise gun-friendly states. With all of this pro-gun activity, it should come as little surprise that the anti-gun forces are out in-force repeating their aged mantra … “This isn’t the wild west.”
And this rhetoric is not limited to anti-gunners. Recently, I was quoted in a USA Today article about the open carry initiatives around the country and in that article, Texas Senator Jeff Wentworth (R), a supposedly pro-gun legislator denounced open carry saying "I think that's harkening too far back to the Wild West."
With all this talk of “The Wild West”, I thought it might be informative to look at the reality of crime in the “wild west” cattle towns and compare them to the peaceful streets of such eastern, gun-control paradises as DC, New York, Baltimore and Newark.
In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, author W. Eugene Hollon, provides us with these astonishing facts:[LIST]
[*]In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. [b]This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.[/b]
[*]In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.
[/LIST]
Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:
[LIST]
[*]DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
[*]New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
[*]Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
[*]Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)
[/LIST]
It doesn’t take an advanced degree in statistics to see that a return to “wild west” levels of violent crime would be a huge improvement for the residents of these cities.
The truth of the matter is that the “wild west” wasn’t wild at all … not compared to a Saturday night in Newark. [/quote]
Here's one from the Department of Economics, Montana State University
[url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/39185824/The-Not-So-Wild-Wild-West[/url]
[quote]The West during this time often is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved. These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect.[/quote]
I knew enough about the west, i didn't know exact figures or that those figures were blown so out of proportion it just makes it sound ridiculous in comparison.
So all in all, good to know.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.