It's way easier to get a hold of drugs than it is to get a hold of guns. Those school kids you're talking about might carry some weed, but it's not like they're dealing in AK's
I am not talking about combat equipment, but a handgun is just as easy to obtain illegally as it is to obtain weed, and as soon as it will become illegal there would be even more money in it for the organized crime, which in turn will make the handgun even more available. I'm not talking about it from a sensitive point of view but rather from a logical one. Pepper spray and stun guns are ineffective from range or if there is more then one perpetrator, and would be useless. Of course they are much better alternative when effective and I do believe that a gun should be used only when there is no other way, never have an easy finger on the trigger, its not something to be used on a daily basis and hopefully not ever in your life, but if that moment does come, you better be ready for it. In the end its better to stand trial than rest in peace.
Wait, what? So you don't want gun control because that'd make handguns more available?
Pepperspray isn't useless when there are multiple perpetrators. If there are multiple criminals surrounding you, and you draw a gun, you're even more likely to get shot yourself. I still think pepperspray would be safer in such a situation. As long as you use non-lethal force they're unlikely to kill you. Once you draw a gun, they'll do whatever it takes to stop you from firing it.
You obviously never had any training. You never let others surround you, at times you must use the element of surprise. Also I'm sure you're not talking from experience but rather from your own personal theories if you believe that once the perpetrators see you have a gun they will do whatever it takes to stop you from firing. You shoot somebody in the chest, shots are heard and are likely to attract attention, and while one of the perpetrators is down the others would most likely try to save the one who is down and themselves. If you spray one of them with pepper spray, they will know that its not lethal and while you try to spray one the other will grab it from you, you only make them more angry. And yes, gun control will make handguns more available, but to the wrong crowd, while a stable law abiding citizen won't be able to acquire a gun, a pissed off teenager with raging hormones and a little money saved up would easily be able to get one.
You must be either very young or just never encountered such situation in your life, either way you are very inexperienced in this matter. I really wish your idealistic and somewhat naive ideas would work, it would make life much safer, but in this life sometimes you got nobody to rely on but yourself. There are countless examples where having a gun saved or would've saved people if they had a gun, so far I haven't heard of a single one about a person being killed because they used a gun in self defense.
"You obviously never had any training": I know some people get decent training, but don't tell me all gun-owners have had top-notch training. Since civilians aren't hardened war veterans, they're extremely likely to panic and do something stupid. You're assuming that all gun-owners are action heroes who are more capable of armed combat than criminals are.
"you must use the element of surprise": You can only use the element of surprise if you're the one attacking.
"I'm sure you're not talking from experience": I also have personal experiences with being robbed, don't assume I haven't. I've never used pepperspray or a tazer gun, but I still think they're better alternatives than a gun. Mace is made for defence. Guns are made for killing.
"a stable law abiding citizen won't be able to acquire a gun, a pissed of teenager would easily be able to get one": If a pissed off teenager has the necessary connections to get illegal firearms, then the law abiding citizens have them as well. Don't tell me teenagers have better connections than adults do.
"You must be either very young, inexperienced, naive,...": Why are you assuming all those things about me? I've been robbed in my life, and I've been in a couple of fights. But I refuse to let fear consume me. There are plenty of safer ways to get out of those situations.
"There are countless examples (...) a person being killed because they used a gun in self defense": that's very mixed. We have some scenario's in which guns 'save lives', we have scenario's in which they don't. But where do people get the ideas that guns are for defense? Defense is about STOPPING an attack. Mace is for defense. Kevlar vests or even rubber bullets are for defense. Tazers are for defense. A defensive weapon saves lives. If you had a gun-like weapon that solely incapacitates people, then we're talking about defense. If you buy a device solely designed to pump lead in people, then we're talking about offense.
By the way, can I ask you a question? What's your experience with this kind of situations?
I won't discuss my military experience but in civilian life there were few encounters, including a couple of morons who broke into my home. Being robbed is hardly sufficient experience to understand the situation, all they wanted was your possession, you or your family were not in danger. Knowing some people doesn't cut it, you need to be experienced. I'm not talking about top-notch training but at least a basic training in handling a gun, if people lack this basic training than I'll have to agree that they shouldn't have a gun. Any weapon can be used for defense or attack, you can use mace to blind someone and then twist their neck if you want to. Guns are made to neutralize your enemy so they won't be able to harm you. Again from your statement about element of surprise I must say you have no experience at all. Its a matter of when you pull out the gun and how you use it. If you don't need special connections to buy drugs, why would you need special connections to buy a gun? Of course a law abiding citizen will be able to get it, but they won't because it would be against the law, its the unbalanced people that will get them easily without any background check.
You haven't really respond to the part about real life situations, you claim its mixed, in some cases guns save lives, in some they don't. But in the cases the guns don't save lives, guns aren't responsible for the loss either, they just weren't enough to save them in the current situation. I am not talking about a couple of rappers, one from east side and other from west side who decide to see who got a bigger gun, but a situation where you are attacked.
Its not a matter of letting fear consume you any more then locking the doors at night, just a safety percussion. Unnecessarily putting yourself in danger is foolishness rather then bravery.
How can you tell I wasn't in danger? If I reacted differently, things could've turned out worse. I've also been mugged, so I have experience to some degree.
About your break-in: why did those morons break into your home? To steal stuff, or just to kill you? (the latter seems unlikely, but maybe you've got unusual enemies)
Training: you've got way more combat experience than a normal civilian, thanks to the military. Maybe you can subdue random criminals, but I'm sure that the average Joe can't. Right now gun laws are too loose. Military personnel like you and police officers can have a gun, IMO. But the average Joe shouldn't be able to get one.
Any weapon can be used for defence or attack: depends on how you see it. Mace is made for people to protect themselves. The point of mace is: you spray it in their face, and you run away. Guns on the other hand are made for killing people. That's their sole purpose. You can only defend yourself using a gun by killing someone. I know you can shoot a limb, but in panicky situations people won't think what to aim for. If you want to 'neutralize' someone: there are some pretty advanced stun guns out there. The same goes for alarm systems. Why not buy those? You need a lot less training to use these non-lethal weapons, which is great for a normal civilian.
Element of surprise: Maybe you know how to use it in combat situations. But the average civilian doesn't. Don't forget that you've had a lot more training than other people. I have as much combat experience as the common man, if not more. So if you think I'm incapable of using guns properly, then the same should go for other people.
Special connections: People won't try to sell you illegal weaponry on the street. I don't know where you live, but in my area, drugs are way more widespread than guns. If you want to buy an illegal weapon, you need to be way more involved in the criminal underworld (but again, I don't know what it's like in your area).
I don't get your last argument about how unbalanced people get illegal guns easily. How does that have anything to do with gun laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what you mean, right?: If guns are legal, they'll resort to the criminal underworld, and if guns are illegal, they'll resort to it as well.
If guns are outlawed, then you'll need way better connections to get guns. Right now anyone could buy a couple of guns and deal in them. If guns were outlawed, then illegal guns get more expensive and less widespread, since there are less people around with the resources to become a dealer.
In real-life situations: it's mixed, and that's why it's worth to have this debate. Otherwise, it'd be way easier to be black or white on this topic. This is the last article I read about this subject: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
Also, check out this graph. during the period of 1993 to 2001, the Clinton Administration had a policy that forbade the ownership of assault weapons. We can debate whether or not it's connected, but there was an immense decrease in the US crime rate during that period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg
But hey, if you still think you're better off with a gun: go ahead. You're in the military, so if anyone's allowed to own a gun, it should be you. But I think guns should be banned from the general public. There's a chance that the guy in the gun store is a law-abiding citizen, but it's also possible that he's a gang member about to stir up trouble. That's why I want to restrict guns. As a safety precaution.
What's your opinion on gun control?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Oh yeah, also, about the drugs:
It's way easier to get a hold of drugs than it is to get a hold of guns. Those school kids you're talking about might carry some weed, but it's not like they're dealing in AK's
--
jitterbug66
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
nightmare28
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What's easier to carry in a pocket?
A bag of weed or an AK?
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
A bag of weed. That's another reason why you'll find more drug dealers than weapon dealers.
--
Dragostea
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Almost all gun crime involves pistols, which are relatively easy to conceal.
I am not talking about combat equipment, but a handgun is just as easy to obtain illegally as it is to obtain weed, and as soon as it will become illegal there would be even more money in it for the organized crime, which in turn will make the handgun even more available. I'm not talking about it from a sensitive point of view but rather from a logical one. Pepper spray and stun guns are ineffective from range or if there is more then one perpetrator, and would be useless. Of course they are much better alternative when effective and I do believe that a gun should be used only when there is no other way, never have an easy finger on the trigger, its not something to be used on a daily basis and hopefully not ever in your life, but if that moment does come, you better be ready for it. In the end its better to stand trial than rest in peace.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Wait, what? So you don't want gun control because that'd make handguns more available?
Pepperspray isn't useless when there are multiple perpetrators. If there are multiple criminals surrounding you, and you draw a gun, you're even more likely to get shot yourself. I still think pepperspray would be safer in such a situation. As long as you use non-lethal force they're unlikely to kill you. Once you draw a gun, they'll do whatever it takes to stop you from firing it.
--
nightmare28
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You obviously never had any training. You never let others surround you, at times you must use the element of surprise. Also I'm sure you're not talking from experience but rather from your own personal theories if you believe that once the perpetrators see you have a gun they will do whatever it takes to stop you from firing. You shoot somebody in the chest, shots are heard and are likely to attract attention, and while one of the perpetrators is down the others would most likely try to save the one who is down and themselves. If you spray one of them with pepper spray, they will know that its not lethal and while you try to spray one the other will grab it from you, you only make them more angry. And yes, gun control will make handguns more available, but to the wrong crowd, while a stable law abiding citizen won't be able to acquire a gun, a pissed off teenager with raging hormones and a little money saved up would easily be able to get one.
You must be either very young or just never encountered such situation in your life, either way you are very inexperienced in this matter. I really wish your idealistic and somewhat naive ideas would work, it would make life much safer, but in this life sometimes you got nobody to rely on but yourself. There are countless examples where having a gun saved or would've saved people if they had a gun, so far I haven't heard of a single one about a person being killed because they used a gun in self defense.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Okay, I'm going to answer all of your statements.
"You obviously never had any training": I know some people get decent training, but don't tell me all gun-owners have had top-notch training. Since civilians aren't hardened war veterans, they're extremely likely to panic and do something stupid. You're assuming that all gun-owners are action heroes who are more capable of armed combat than criminals are.
"you must use the element of surprise": You can only use the element of surprise if you're the one attacking.
"I'm sure you're not talking from experience": I also have personal experiences with being robbed, don't assume I haven't. I've never used pepperspray or a tazer gun, but I still think they're better alternatives than a gun. Mace is made for defence. Guns are made for killing.
"a stable law abiding citizen won't be able to acquire a gun, a pissed of teenager would easily be able to get one": If a pissed off teenager has the necessary connections to get illegal firearms, then the law abiding citizens have them as well. Don't tell me teenagers have better connections than adults do.
"You must be either very young, inexperienced, naive,...": Why are you assuming all those things about me? I've been robbed in my life, and I've been in a couple of fights. But I refuse to let fear consume me. There are plenty of safer ways to get out of those situations.
"There are countless examples (...) a person being killed because they used a gun in self defense": that's very mixed. We have some scenario's in which guns 'save lives', we have scenario's in which they don't. But where do people get the ideas that guns are for defense? Defense is about STOPPING an attack. Mace is for defense. Kevlar vests or even rubber bullets are for defense. Tazers are for defense. A defensive weapon saves lives. If you had a gun-like weapon that solely incapacitates people, then we're talking about defense. If you buy a device solely designed to pump lead in people, then we're talking about offense.
By the way, can I ask you a question? What's your experience with this kind of situations?
--
nightmare28
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I won't discuss my military experience but in civilian life there were few encounters, including a couple of morons who broke into my home. Being robbed is hardly sufficient experience to understand the situation, all they wanted was your possession, you or your family were not in danger. Knowing some people doesn't cut it, you need to be experienced. I'm not talking about top-notch training but at least a basic training in handling a gun, if people lack this basic training than I'll have to agree that they shouldn't have a gun. Any weapon can be used for defense or attack, you can use mace to blind someone and then twist their neck if you want to. Guns are made to neutralize your enemy so they won't be able to harm you. Again from your statement about element of surprise I must say you have no experience at all. Its a matter of when you pull out the gun and how you use it. If you don't need special connections to buy drugs, why would you need special connections to buy a gun? Of course a law abiding citizen will be able to get it, but they won't because it would be against the law, its the unbalanced people that will get them easily without any background check.
You haven't really respond to the part about real life situations, you claim its mixed, in some cases guns save lives, in some they don't. But in the cases the guns don't save lives, guns aren't responsible for the loss either, they just weren't enough to save them in the current situation. I am not talking about a couple of rappers, one from east side and other from west side who decide to see who got a bigger gun, but a situation where you are attacked.
Its not a matter of letting fear consume you any more then locking the doors at night, just a safety percussion. Unnecessarily putting yourself in danger is foolishness rather then bravery.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Woops, sorry for the long post. didn't check the length before I clicked to submit.
How can you tell I wasn't in danger? If I reacted differently, things could've turned out worse. I've also been mugged, so I have experience to some degree.
About your break-in: why did those morons break into your home? To steal stuff, or just to kill you? (the latter seems unlikely, but maybe you've got unusual enemies)
Training: you've got way more combat experience than a normal civilian, thanks to the military. Maybe you can subdue random criminals, but I'm sure that the average Joe can't. Right now gun laws are too loose. Military personnel like you and police officers can have a gun, IMO. But the average Joe shouldn't be able to get one.
Any weapon can be used for defence or attack: depends on how you see it. Mace is made for people to protect themselves. The point of mace is: you spray it in their face, and you run away. Guns on the other hand are made for killing people. That's their sole purpose. You can only defend yourself using a gun by killing someone. I know you can shoot a limb, but in panicky situations people won't think what to aim for. If you want to 'neutralize' someone: there are some pretty advanced stun guns out there. The same goes for alarm systems. Why not buy those? You need a lot less training to use these non-lethal weapons, which is great for a normal civilian.
Element of surprise: Maybe you know how to use it in combat situations. But the average civilian doesn't. Don't forget that you've had a lot more training than other people. I have as much combat experience as the common man, if not more. So if you think I'm incapable of using guns properly, then the same should go for other people.
Special connections: People won't try to sell you illegal weaponry on the street. I don't know where you live, but in my area, drugs are way more widespread than guns. If you want to buy an illegal weapon, you need to be way more involved in the criminal underworld (but again, I don't know what it's like in your area).
I don't get your last argument about how unbalanced people get illegal guns easily. How does that have anything to do with gun laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what you mean, right?: If guns are legal, they'll resort to the criminal underworld, and if guns are illegal, they'll resort to it as well.
If guns are outlawed, then you'll need way better connections to get guns. Right now anyone could buy a couple of guns and deal in them. If guns were outlawed, then illegal guns get more expensive and less widespread, since there are less people around with the resources to become a dealer.
In real-life situations: it's mixed, and that's why it's worth to have this debate. Otherwise, it'd be way easier to be black or white on this topic. This is the last article I read about this subject: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
Also, check out this graph. during the period of 1993 to 2001, the Clinton Administration had a policy that forbade the ownership of assault weapons. We can debate whether or not it's connected, but there was an immense decrease in the US crime rate during that period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg
But hey, if you still think you're better off with a gun: go ahead. You're in the military, so if anyone's allowed to own a gun, it should be you. But I think guns should be banned from the general public. There's a chance that the guy in the gun store is a law-abiding citizen, but it's also possible that he's a gang member about to stir up trouble. That's why I want to restrict guns. As a safety precaution.