Jump to content



Photo

Veteran With Concealed Carry Permit Shoots Back At Chicago Gunman


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
64 replies to this topic

#46 BGM

BGM

    Wibble Wobble™

  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 03
  • Location: Farnborough, UK

Posted 07 July 2014 - 20:51

i'm just so glad i don't live in a land where joe public can carry a gun, i literally am thankful that i don't have to be scared to go outside of my home as one poster in this thread mentioned..

 

i just can't fathom what that would be like, it makes me quite sad :(




#47 Fergdog

Fergdog

    Neowinian

  • 58 posts
  • Joined: 19-November 13

Posted 07 July 2014 - 21:21

I'd guess the far far majority of American's don't live in areas where they are scared of getting shot just by going outside at night. I feel bad for those that do though in the big cities.



#48 Lamp0

Lamp0

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,827 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 08

Posted 07 July 2014 - 21:47

So what do we learn from this gun story? Seems to me not all that much, past the pro-gun / anti-gun point scoring.



#49 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,954 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 07 July 2014 - 23:56

What is so criminal about having large magazines? The great great majority who have large magazines do not commit crimes. Therefore, it is not criminal to have a large magazine. How many people are beat by police in the UK compared to the US (lets forget Rodney King).

There is no legitimate need to have large magazines, therefore they should be banned to protect the general public. In the UK for instance shotguns are allowed but are limited to three rounds (one in the chamber, two in reserve).

 

There ARE numerous policies. felons/criminals ignore them. So, if there was a policy or law that you couldn't have a drum magazine in the 1930's, this would have prevented or made it more difficult for Al Capone, John Dillinger ( replace with any mass murderers name from any era) from ordering the death of so many people? Loopholes? We don't need no stinkin loopholes..... 

Nobody disputes that criminals will find their way around laws. However, restricting the legal options makes that more difficult and has a direct impact on the availability of illegal firearms. In the UK, Japan and other countries with firearms restrictions there a very few shootings and weapons are hard to come by. If your point was accurate one would expect as many shootings in the UK as the US, as criminals would find a way around the laws - that isn't the case.

 

Correct. But theyarecomingforyou's argument was that you should get rid of larger magazines. That video just proves that if you took away that guy's large magazine he would just bring more smaller ones with him. Wouldn't slow him down much.

Most mass shooters aren't firearms experts able to reload at exceptional speed, nor are the circumstances usually right to do so. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is a sensible precaution that has minimal impact upon legitimate users and has the potential to save lives.



#50 SpeedyTheSnail

SpeedyTheSnail

    Resident Snail Herder

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 04
  • Location: Caprica

Posted 08 July 2014 - 00:04

Restricting magazine capacity only affects law abiding citizens, not the criminals. 



#51 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,954 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 08 July 2014 - 00:16

Restricting magazine capacity only affects law abiding citizens, not the criminals. 

That's simply not true. If legal sales had no impact on criminals then one would expect mass shootings in the UK and Japan, as criminals would simply ignore the law and acquire guns - that isn't the case. Restricting legal access has a direct impact on illegal access.



#52 Wyn6

Wyn6

    Neowinian

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 12
  • Location: Dallas
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Lumia 925

Posted 08 July 2014 - 00:23

Restricting magazine capacity only affects law abiding citizens, not the criminals. 

This argument, made all the time by gun advocates, is faulty at best. Where do you think all the high capacity mags, that are currently in criminals' hands, came from? Do you think the criminals have their own manufacturing plants hidden away somewhere? Do they produce these magazines and weapons in their garages and basements?

 

If manufacturers are selling restricted magazines (10 rounds or less) then it stands to reason that those are the magazines that will transfer from legal owner to someone who will eventually use them in the commission of a crime. This would also have be done in conjunction with the destruction of high capacity magazines from confiscated or exchanged weapons.

 

Over time, you will begin to see only the lower capacity magazines in circulation amongst the general populace. That's not to say a lot of damage can't be done with 10 rounds. But, maybe... just maybe, when that mass shooter stops to reload, somebody can do something.



#53 SpeedyTheSnail

SpeedyTheSnail

    Resident Snail Herder

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 04
  • Location: Caprica

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:11

Mexico is a great source, anyway the great majority of gun owners aren't homicidal maniacs. Why not make cars illegal? They cause more deaths each year than guns, and statistically I have a higher chance of being hit with a car than being shot.

 

I can reload a weapon very darn fast, and I also have no qualms about using anything as a weapon to defend myself nor my family.



#54 Veiva

Veiva

    Neowinian

  • 1,069 posts
  • Joined: 25-November 03

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:34

Mexico is a great source, anyway the great majority of gun owners aren't homicidal maniacs. Why not make cars illegal? They cause more deaths each year than guns, and statistically I have a higher chance of being hit with a car than being shot.

 

I can reload a weapon very darn fast, and I also have no qualms about using anything as a weapon to defend myself nor my family.

Cars are made for transportation first and foremost, their intent (ever) is not as a weapon or means of killing, etc, etc. Guns, however, serve one purpose, and that is to kill.

 

That's the difference that makes your argument invalid.



#55 OP KingCracker

KingCracker

    I am your huckleberry.

  • 4,307 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12
  • Location: Knoxville,TN

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:47

Cars are made for transportation first and foremost, their intent (ever) is not as a weapon or means of killing, etc, etc. Guns, however, serve one purpose, and that is to kill.

 

That's the difference that makes your argument invalid.



#56 T3X4S

T3X4S

    Neowinian

  • 1,365 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 13

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:50

This is another thread where I shamelessly post my target - just to let everyone know my stance on guns - and my hatred for paper.

target.JPG



#57 Rippleman

Rippleman

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,995 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 09

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:53

Restricting magazine capacity only affects law abiding citizens, not the criminals. 

 

won't that apply to any law created?



#58 Wyn6

Wyn6

    Neowinian

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 12
  • Location: Dallas
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Lumia 925

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:54

I like Mr. Noir, watched several of his videos. But, the video does nothing to invalidate what vieva has said. It's a poorly thought out argument. And, in about 20 years, cars will most likely take less lives than guns if how we treat guns remains the same.

 

Edit: I'm at least willing to acknowledge that gun violence in the United States is an epidemic. I'm also willing to make suggestions on how this epidemic can be stemmed as opposed to making the same status quo arguments over and over. Not exhaustive by any means, but all gun advocates have used at least one of the following:

 

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

 

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

 

"Let's ban cars, knives, toasters and swimming pools, because those all kill too."

 

"Laws will only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore the laws."

 

"I would rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it."

 

"This is all some liberal, socialist, pansy democratic plot to disarm the American people."

 

"This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for shooting. This is for fun." Wait...

 

And, when all the other arguments fail... Dammit! It's my 2nd Amendment right!"

 

Hey. I'm glad this guy was able to defend himself based on what we know. And, though I hope to never be put in this type of situation in the future, I'm prepared to defend me and mine as well.

 

But, the facts are most firearms are used to perpetrate a crime as opposed to thwarting one. More people have been killed by bad guys with guns as opposed to saved by good guys with guns. It's not even remotely close.

 

This has got to change. Let's at least make it more difficult for people to kill each other. I'll bet murder rates would drop dramatically if murderers were forced to use weapons other than guns.

 

Just think, how many gangbangers really want to drive through another gang's territory, get out of the car, walk up to a group of rival gang members and try and stab somebody or beat them with a bat? Back in the day you had scheduled rumbles. Now days, gangstas are lazy and guns make the "I don't even have to get out of the car (aka the drive-by)" killing a lot easier.



#59 OP KingCracker

KingCracker

    I am your huckleberry.

  • 4,307 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12
  • Location: Knoxville,TN

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:58

I like Mr. Noir, watched several of his videos. But, the video does nothing to invalidate what vieva has said. It's a poorly thought out argument. And, in about 20 years, cars will most likely take less lives than guns if how we treat guns remains the sam

Maybe not but they shouldn't be banned because they were designed to kill. 



#60 Wyn6

Wyn6

    Neowinian

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 12
  • Location: Dallas
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Lumia 925

Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:29

Maybe not but they shouldn't be banned because they were designed to kill. 

I agree. I, personally, am not for a ban. If I was, I wouldn't spend $500+ on a firearm. But, I am for an overhaul of regulations and restrictions from the manufacturer down.