AMT: Firearms Education Class

124678

Comments

  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Commy wrote:
    why does the US have one of the highest crime rates in the world, with its very liberal gun laws?

    Take away the "urban element" and the vast majority of our country is witness to very little gun crime.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    dunkman wrote:
    my question is: how did these people in schools die, and were all the murder weapons legally acquired?






    actually i know the answer.

    Then you don't need an answer from me :)
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    SoonForgotten2 wrote:
    If it's not guns that kill people, but people who kill people, in societies where it has been proven that people are all too eager to kill people, should access to weaponry, such as guns, not be heavily restricted in order to protect the general populace?

    Guns protect the general populace. Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year.

    That pales in comparison to the 10,000 firearm homicides last year.

    FYI iatrogenic deaths for 1995 were 783,936! Doctors are far more dangerous than guns!
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Jeanie wrote:
    Ok, I have a question. :)

    Given that I live in Australia and can't buy any kind of automatic or semi automatic weapon or handgun what is a good gun that is light, easy to manouvre and doesn't make me want to drop it and run (ie shotgun) that would be appropriate in a rural setting?

    What do you want it for? Killing for food? Defense against attack?
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Any technical questions since the "you don't need guns" "yes I do" arguments are pointless?
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    69charger wrote:
    What do you want it for? Killing for food? Defense against attack?

    multipurpose, depending on the circumstances.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Jeanie wrote:
    multipurpose, depending on the circumstances.

    Then you'd probably want a shotgun. Shot for birds, snakes, home invasion. Slugs for larger game taken at a distance. Just practice and get used to the recoil.
  • Medicated-Genius
    Medicated-Genius Posts: 359
    69charger wrote:
    Every gun owner has a different set of reasons for owning one. I personally like guns because they are loud. All my hobbies involve loud things (that usually explode too). I also belive that all the other rights given to us by the constitution mean nothing without the means todefend those rights.


    Do you think the constitutional right to bear arms is relevant in 2008?

    You mentioned in another post as well, that guns were used 1.5 million times in self defense. It's interesting to me why that is......... what makes America such a violent society. In terms of the need to defend oneself. There are plenty of countries in the world that have fairly relaxed laws surrounding gun ownership, but they don't have the violent culture that the US seems to. As much as I am against gun ownership, personally I don't "get" them, they are a means to an end. It's true that people kill people, and while guns make that a whole lot easier....... the desire/need to kill someone in the first place already exists. I am curious to know why? Any thoughts?
  • patrickredeyes
    patrickredeyes Posts: 8,834
    69charger wrote:
    There seem to be a lot of anti-gun folk on this board (imagine that right!) that have biases based in part on misinformation or lack of understanding of the firearms they hate. I'd like to do my part to educate open minded people and hopefully dispell some of the hysteria surrounding firearms.

    If you have a question ask, if you are here to just say you hate guns feel free to do that too.

    Ask away... :D

    Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


    Owning a firearm there is nothing wrong with it IMO.
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    patrickredeyes wrote:
    Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


    Owning a firearm there is nothing wrong with it IMO.
    People are more likely to kill people if they have a gun than if they don't.

    Scenario:

    You're on your property, you're drunk or on crack, someone pisses you off. If you have a gun in your house are they more likely to end up dead as a result of your anger than if you didn't have a gun. I would say yes. It's quite easy to fight off an armed drunken man, just push him over. If he has a gun, it's harder.

    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is the dumbest of all pro-arms arguments.

    Let's all remember that guns are intended to kill. You're argument is somewhat similar to saying there's nothing wrong with every American owning a nuke, just because it doesn't mean they're going to use it. It still has one single purpose.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • patrickredeyes
    patrickredeyes Posts: 8,834
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    People are more likely to kill people if they have a gun than if they don't.

    Scenario:

    You're on your property, you're drunk or on crack, someone pisses you off. If you have a gun in your house are they more likely to end up dead as a result of your anger than if you didn't have a gun. I would say yes. It's quite easy to fight off an armed drunken man, just push him over. If he has a gun, it's harder.

    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is the dumbest of all pro-arms arguments.

    Let's all remember that guns are intended to kill. You're argument is somewhat similar to saying there's nothing wrong with every American owning a nuke, just because it doesn't mean they're going to use it. It still has one single purpose.

    Isn't it tea time for you yet? :D

    I come from a family that has always owned and used firearms. I learned at a very early age the rights and wrongs of using a gun.

    Countries that own lots of nukes don't worry me. It's the country that has one nuke that worries me the most.
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    patrickredeyes wrote:
    Isn't it tea time for you yet? :D
    What's that supposed to mean?

    And I'm not talking about a country owning nukes, I'm talking about civilians. If your right to bear arms extended to nuclear weapons would you still argue that they are OK because you'd been taught how to use them and it was constitutionally sound and nukes don't kill people, people kill people?
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Medicated-Genius wrote:
    Do you think the constitutional right to bear arms is relevant in 2008?

    Absolutely!
    You mentioned in another post as well, that guns were used 1.5 million times in self defense. It's interesting to me why that is......... what makes America such a violent society. In terms of the need to defend oneself. There are plenty of countries in the world that have fairly relaxed laws surrounding gun ownership, but they don't have the violent culture that the US seems to. As much as I am against gun ownership, personally I don't "get" them, they are a means to an end. It's true that people kill people, and while guns make that a whole lot easier....... the desire/need to kill someone in the first place already exists. I am curious to know why? Any thoughts?

    If your asking what makes America a violent society, again I think you have to factor in the 'urban' factor. Violent crime overall occurs at a rate 5.4 times greater per 100,000 in urban centers (pop. 250,000+) than in rural areas.

    Black on Black crime is a huge statistic driving the higher urban crime rates. In 1998, an average 15-year-old white male faced a 1-in-345 chance of being murdered before his 45th birthday. For black males, the chances were 1 in 45. And for black males in Washington, D.C.—which still has one of the highest murder rates of any city in America—it's 1 in 12.

    According to Bureau of Justice statistics, between 1976 and 2005, blacks, while 13 percent of the population, committed over 52 percent of the nation's homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer.

    Blacks are not only the major victims of homicide; blacks suffer high rates of all categories of serious violent crime, and another black is most often the perpetrator.

    http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5012 <--Wrtten by Walter Williams who happens to be black.

    So go ahead and call me racist but these are the facts. I guess the facts are racist.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    People are more likely to kill people if they have a gun than if they don't.

    Scenario:

    You're on your property, you're drunk or on crack, someone pisses you off. If you have a gun in your house are they more likely to end up dead as a result of your anger than if you didn't have a gun. I would say yes. It's quite easy to fight off an armed drunken man, just push him over. If he has a gun, it's harder.

    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is the dumbest of all pro-arms arguments.

    Let's all remember that guns are intended to kill. You're argument is somewhat similar to saying there's nothing wrong with every American owning a nuke, just because it doesn't mean they're going to use it. It still has one single purpose.

    Blaming guns for violence in America is like blaming forks and spoons for the the obesity epidemic: It's stupid.

    Here's an experiment...

    Lay a loaded gun on a table in a ready to fire condition and observe if it kills anyone.
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    69charger wrote:
    Blaming guns for violence in America is like blaming forks and spoons for the the obesity epidemic: It's stupid.

    Here's an experiment...

    Lay a loaded gun on a table in a ready to fire condition and observe if it kills anyone.
    So let me get this right, your argument is "Americans are violent already, they like to kill people, it's not the gun's fault, give them a gun"?

    You wouldn't poke a hungry lion, you'd put it in a cage for god's sake. The fact that a gun can't kill someone without being fired has nothing to do with it. I'm not saying guns are evil objects of their own volition, I'm saying people + guns is a foolish and unnecessary combination and the defence of it highlights the inherent barbarism of certain people.

    I live in a South London, where 27 teenagers have been murdered this year. I am a white male in an overwhelmingly black majority area. Do I feel the need to walk around strapped for "protection" or keep a gun in my bedroom because it faces onto a gritty South London highrise apartment block? No. I'm well aware that I'm more likely to be killed that way. If guns were legalised here, I would feel the same way.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    And I'm not talking about a country owning nukes, I'm talking about civilians. If your right to bear arms extended to nuclear weapons would you still argue that they are OK because you'd been taught how to use them and it was constitutionally sound and nukes don't kill people, people kill people?

    "Tanks, rockets, and nuclear weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects only arms which one may "keep" and "bear." "The term (p.13)'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense... The term 'arms' would not have included cannons nor other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens." State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980).[9] Semiautomatic firearms have been held as constitutionally guaranteed "arms" under state provisions which were derived from the Second Amendment.[10]"

    http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_saf-hal.html

    This sentement was recenty upheld in the DC vs. Heller ruling.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    I live in a South London, where 27 teenagers have been murdered this year. I am a white male in an overwhelmingly black majority area. Do I feel the need to walk around strapped for "protection" or keep a gun in my bedroom because it faces onto a gritty South London highrise apartment block? No. I'm well aware that I'm more likely to be killed that way. If guns were legalised here, I would feel the same way.

    Consider yourself a future victim. Legalizing guns would allow you a level playingfield. So, God forbid, as you lay on the cold ground with the life flowing from the stabwound on your neck, staring up into a clear night, I bet you'll think about how nice it would have been to at least had the means to defend yourself.

    I guess that's the fundamental difference between folks like you and I. I refuse to be a victim.
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    69charger wrote:
    "Tanks, rockets, and nuclear weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects only arms which one may "keep" and "bear." "The term (p.13)'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense... The term 'arms' would not have included cannons nor other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens." State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980).[9] Semiautomatic firearms have been held as constitutionally guaranteed "arms" under state provisions which were derived from the Second Amendment.[10]"

    http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_saf-hal.html

    This sentement was recenty upheld in the DC vs. Heller ruling.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
    What's your point?
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    69charger wrote:
    Consider yourself a future victim. Legalizing guns would allow you a level playingfield. So, God forbid, as you lay on the cold ground with the life flowing from the stabwound on your neck, staring up into a clear night, I bet you'll think about how nice it would have been to at least had the means to defend yourself.

    I guess that's the fundamental difference between folks like you and I. I refuse to be a victim.
    And yet statistically you're far more likely to be murdered than me. Funny that.

    I truly hope the day never comes when people like you are able to walk around with a gun on your person, just in case someone attacks you.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Again ladies and gents this line of argument is moot as we have the right to keep and bear arms and it isn't going away.

    My point is to educate and expose people to the facts about firearms, to make then less scary. Do you know the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic? Do you judge firearms based on appearance? Do you know the four rules of safe firearm handling? Do you know where to get training in your community?

    These are constructive questions and could actually help someone.

    So far Jeanie was the only one with a practical question.

Categories