I don't live in the usa so I won't get in the argument, I would just like to hear what are your answers (particularly the threadstarter) to this :
In my country (France) firearm detention is illegal (with very strict exceptions for hunters). Same goes for most european countries and the crime rate here is lower than in the usa. Do you believe it has nothing to do with gun control laws?
I don't live in the usa so I won't get in the argument, I would just like to hear what are your answers (particularly the threadstarter) to this :
In my country (France) firearm detention is illegal (with very strict exceptions for hunters). Same goes for most european countries and the crime rate here is lower than in the usa. Do you believe it has nothing to do with gun control laws?
not sure I understand the wording of your question.
firearm detention is illegal? so most guns are illegal?
and the crime rate is lower then usa.
do I believe it has nothing to do with gun control? I think it does have something to do with gun control laws. I'm no expert, but common sense tells me they are correlated.
the second amendment right is as outdated as catholic priests not being allowed to marry. we shouldnt have the right to bear arms. it should be a privilege to those who qualify.
Nice one.
Whilst I'm no American (I'm sure everyone knows that by now), to suggest owning a gun is 'constitutional' is garbage. Does one really need a gun to survive? And the 'protection' issue is bollocks too. Protect form what? Bears?
Banning guns wouldn't solve anything though. It would enrage 'sportsmen', cripple the US economy and destroy parts of their heritage like having the Bloods, the Crips and the NRA. Even if guns were outlawed, they would still exist and still be a prominent prop of the all-American home. It's a shitty situation. Yes, cars, hammers and alcohol are dangerous too, but when a country has the highest rate of gun crime/gun violence/school shootings/armed robberies in the world whilst priding itself on the fact that guns are necessary, it's a bit of a concern.
Wow. I'm as anti-gun control as anyone, but how'd you come up with this?
There's a reason the police and the military no longer carry boards with nails in them.
look at the facts. how many gunshots are non-lethal? somewhere i heard that there were 100,000 injured in the vietnam war. if guns are so lethal; why so many survivors?
the british 3 sided bayonet was banned from warfare because it was too deadly. doctors could not repair the wounds and the victim usually bled to death before medical attention.
a bullet hitting the heart is as deadly as a pencil hitting the same spot. the ket word is vital organ. a knife wound anywhere can be fatal but a bullet must hit a vital organ or artery to be fatal. that's the difference. compare the number of gunshot wounds compared to gunshot deaths.
police carry guns for stopping power. not because they're deadly. my best friend was injured in the vietnam war. shot several times he has 2 metal knees; one metal elbow; one metal shoulder; and a bullet lodged at the base of his skull. the psycological effects did much more damage than the bullets.
look at the facts. how many gunshots are non-lethal? somewhere i heard that there were 100,000 injured in the vietnam war. if guns are so lethal; why so many survivors?
the british 3 sided bayonet was banned from warfare because it was too deadly. doctors could not repair the wounds and the victim usually bled to death before medical attention.
a bullet hitting the heart is as deadly as a pencil hitting the same spot. the ket word is vital organ. a knife wound anywhere can be fatal but a bullet must hit a vital organ or artery to be fatal. that's the difference. compare the number of gunshot wounds compared to gunshot deaths.
police carry guns for stopping power. not because they're deadly. my best friend was injured in the vietnam war. shot several times he has 2 metal knees; one metal elbow; one metal shoulder; and a bullet lodged at the base of his skull. the psycological effects did much more damage than the bullets.
Show me proof that a gun is the least deadliest weapon, not stories.
Guns are made for killing, if they don't do that, they just fuck you up real bad.
I'd take someone attacking me with a knife over someone with a gun anyday.
Whilst I'm no American (I'm sure everyone knows that by now), to suggest owning a gun is 'constitutional' is garbage. Does one really need a gun to survive? And the 'protection' issue is bollocks too. Protect form what? Bears?
Banning guns wouldn't solve anything though. It would enrage 'sportsmen', cripple the US economy and destroy parts of their heritage like having the Bloods, the Crips and the NRA. Even if guns were outlawed, they would still exist and still be a prominent prop of the all-American home. It's a shitty situation. Yes, cars, hammers and alcohol are dangerous too, but when a country has the highest rate of gun crime/gun violence/school shootings/armed robberies in the world whilst priding itself on the fact that guns are necessary, it's a bit of a concern.
to date; my gun has saved 7 lives by killing rattlesnakes. at night i carry a gun to the barn because of the high population of mountain lions. why are there still gun crimes in countries that have banned guns? why is alcohol legal when it kills many more people than guns? since police arrive at a crime scene for clean-up and not stop or deter the crime; why shouldn't a person be able to defend themselves? why should a law abiding citizen have to defend themself against an armed criminal with their bare hands? i could go on; but why? frankly; i'd fear a government that was afraid of my gun.
my best friend was injured in the vietnam war. shot several times he has 2 metal knees; one metal elbow; one metal shoulder; and a bullet lodged at the base of his skull. the psycological effects did much more damage than the bullets.
look at the facts. how many gunshots are non-lethal? somewhere i heard that there were 100,000 injured in the vietnam war. if guns are so lethal; why so many survivors?
Because guns aren't perfectly lethal. They remain a skill weapon. That, however, does not make guns "the least deadliest of all the known weapons".
the british 3 sided bayonet was banned from warfare because it was too deadly. doctors could not repair the wounds and the victim usually bled to death before medical attention.
If you can bayonet someone from 500 yards away, let me know.
a bullet hitting the heart is as deadly as a pencil hitting the same spot. the ket word is vital organ. a knife wound anywhere can be fatal but a bullet must hit a vital organ or artery to be fatal. that's the difference. compare the number of gunshot wounds compared to gunshot deaths.
police carry guns for stopping power. not because they're deadly. my best friend was injured in the vietnam war. shot several times he has 2 metal knees; one metal elbow; one metal shoulder; and a bullet lodged at the base of his skull. the psycological effects did much more damage than the bullets.
This is specious logic. You're fixating on the attributes of bullet wounds without examining the overall power of the gun itself. I can't hit your vital organs with a pencil from a long distance. Hell, being able to outrun me pretty much invalidates any close-combat weaponry as being more deadly than a gun.
As weapons go, guns aren't terribly gruesome, yes. A mace, correctly wielded, is a terribly lethal and gruesome weapon. But a mace held by one man cannot level an army of thousands. A gun, however, allows a small minority to completely destroy a vast majority. One need only to look at the clash of cultures armed with guns against those without to understand the lethal force of guns.
None of this matters in the context of gun control, IMO. A tool of death has no ethical consequence -- it is the death itself and the actions and choices of the murderer that matter. But claiming that guns are "the least deadliest of all the known weapons" is completely silly, and seems motivated by a logic that simply wants to somehow demonstrate that since guns are largely precision weapons they should be welcomed over others. In some contexts, particularly the execution of war, that logic can fly. But when simply debating the overall lethality of weaponry, it is a cop-out.
to date; my gun has saved 7 lives by killing rattlesnakes. at night i carry a gun to the barn because of the high population of mountain lions. why are there still gun crimes in countries that have banned guns? why is alcohol legal when it kills many more people than guns? since police arrive at a crime scene for clean-up and not stop or deter the crime; why shouldn't a person be able to defend themselves? why should a law abiding citizen have to defend themself against an armed criminal with their bare hands? i could go on; but why? frankly; i'd fear a government that was afraid of my gun.
Are you against stricter laws? Because in my opinion "law abiding citizen" doesn't mean anything. And by the way aren't you the one who faked your own death or something is that really law abiding?
farfromglorified, if you use your gun for protection, like you said, I'd suggest you carry it in your hand all the time because it won't do you much good in your backpack.
Show me proof that a gun is the least deadliest weapon, not stories.
Guns are made for killing, if they don't do that, they just fuck you up real bad.
I'd take someone attacking me with a knife over someone with a gun anyday.
check stats. i can give you a gun; me a knife and i can kill you before you ever hit me. give me a bow and arrow and you're dead before you ever see me. i've been shooting for 40 years and can out shoot about anyone. if i really wanted to kill someone; i wouldn't use a gun. the survival rate is much too high.
farfromglorified, if you use your gun for protection, like you said, I'd suggest you carry it in your hand all the time because it won't do you much good in your backpack.
That doesn't make much sense. Carrying a gun in my hand all the time would invite much more danger than it would solve.
check stats. i can give you a gun; me a knife and i can kill you before you ever hit me. give me a bow and arrow and you're dead before you ever see me. i've been shooting for 40 years and can out shoot about anyone. if i really wanted to kill someone; i wouldn't use a gun. the survival rate is much too high.
Unless you're some kind of very weak person, it's harder to kill someone with a knife.
What stats are you talking about?
Oh but do you think you should be allowed to have a gun since you're not a law abiding citizen, I mean that would kind of make you a criminal and it's because of criminals law abiding citizens buy guns right?
Carrying it in your backpack doesn't make much sense either.
Sure it does. It simply provides an option which I may use or disregard at my discretion. I make absolutely no claims that keeping an unloaded gun in my backpack is some kind of panacea for danger. The fact remains that I may never use it. However, the fact also remains that it may one day prove useful.
Because guns aren't perfectly lethal. They remain a skill weapon. That, however, does not make guns "the least deadliest of all the known weapons".
If you can bayonet someone from 500 yards away, let me know.
This is specious logic. You're fixating on the attributes of bullet wounds without examining the overall power of the gun itself. I can't hit your vital organs with a pencil from a long distance. Hell, being able to outrun me pretty much invalidates any close-combat weaponry as being more deadly than a gun.
As weapons go, guns aren't terribly gruesome, yes. A mace, correctly wielded, is a terribly lethal and gruesome weapon. But a mace held by one man cannot level an army of thousands. A gun, however, allows a small minority to completely destroy a vast majority. One need only to look at the clash of cultures armed with guns against those without to understand the lethal force of guns.
None of this matters in the context of gun control, IMO. A tool of death has no ethical consequence -- it is the death itself and the actions and choices of the murderer that matter. But claiming that guns are "the least deadliest of all the known weapons" is completely silly, and seems motivated by a logic that simply wants to somehow demonstrate that since guns are largely precision weapons they should be welcomed over others. In some contexts, particularly the execution of war, that logic can fly. But when simply debating the overall lethality of weaponry, it is a cop-out.
if you can hit someone at 500 yards with anything; let me know. it's an almost impossible shot unless you have specialized weaponry. few bullets have killing power after 300 yards.
next; when have you ever heard of someone being robbed from 500 yards away? a handgun is virtually worthless farther than 50 yards. i've seen deer shot with high power rifles scamper away. obviously; you have limited knowledge of firearms.
Sure it does. It simply provides an option which I may use or disregard at my discretion. I make absolutely no claims that keeping an unloaded gun in my backpack is some kind of panacea for danger. The fact remains that I may never use it. However, the fact also remains that it may one day prove useful.
do you have proper paper work if you were pulled over or searched by police?
if you can hit someone at 500 yards with anything; let me know. it's an almost impossible shot unless you have specialized weaponry. few bullets have killing power after 300 yards.
"The current record for longest range sniper kill is 2,430 meters (7,972 feet), accomplished by a Canadian sniper, Corporal Rob Furlong, of the third battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI), during the invasion of Afghanistan, using a .50 BMG (12.7 mm) McMillan bolt-action rifle. This meant that the round had a flight time of four seconds, and a drop of 78.4 meters (257 feet). The previous record was held by Carlos Hathcock, achieved during the Vietnam War, at a distance of 2,250 meters. Hathcock was also famous for his 93 confirmed kills during the Vietnam conflict."
next; when have you ever heard of someone being robbed from 500 yards away?
Yeah, it's called taxation, a system very much reliant on the persuasive power of guns.
a handgun is virtually worthless farther than 50 yards. i've seen deer shot with high power rifles scamper away. obviously; you have limited knowledge of firearms.
Certainly one is not going to use a handgun to shoot something 100 yards away. But a pencil or bayonet is also worthless at 100 inches away.
I'm curious, if guns are the least deadly weapon around, why do you take them hunting?
Sure it does. It simply provides an option which I may use or disregard at my discretion. I make absolutely no claims that keeping an unloaded gun in my backpack is some kind of panacea for danger. The fact remains that I may never use it. However, the fact also remains that it may one day prove useful.
my state licensed me to carry a gun. i believe 23 states now offer conceiled weapon permits. the supreme court upholds a persons right to defend themselves. over and over again. i may never use my gun is self defence against a person; but i'd rather have a gun and not need it; then need a gun and not have one.
"The current record for longest range sniper kill is 2,430 meters (7,972 feet), accomplished by a Canadian sniper, Corporal Rob Furlong, of the third battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI), during the invasion of Afghanistan, using a .50 BMG (12.7 mm) McMillan bolt-action rifle. This meant that the round had a flight time of four seconds, and a drop of 78.4 meters (257 feet). The previous record was held by Carlos Hathcock, achieved during the Vietnam War, at a distance of 2,250 meters. Hathcock was also famous for his 93 confirmed kills during the Vietnam conflict."
Yeah, it's called taxation, a system very much reliant on the persuasive power of guns.
Certainly one is not going to use a handgun to shoot something 100 yards away. But a pencil or bayonet is also worthless at 100 inches away.
I'm curious, if guns are the least deadly weapon around, why do you take them hunting?
so you agree; a highly trained sniper with specialized weaponry can hit a target at 500 yrds and further. just like i said.
the hunters i know use arrows because it produces a quick kill; and it's silent. if you check hunter success rates; you will find very low success rates. ie: number of licenses vs number of kills.
not only do i carry the permit; the police can check their computer if i don't have it with me. seems to me these people should be more concerned with criminal control and not gun control.
so you agree; a highly trained sniper with specialized weaponry can hit a target at 500 yrds and further. just like i said.
Yes, I agree. Now, can a highly trained librarian hit someone with a pencil from 500 yards away?
the hunters i know use arrows because it produces a quick kill; and it's silent. if you check hunter success rates; you will find very low success rates. ie: number of licenses vs number of kills.
Certainly. But the same goes for hunters using a bow and arrow or a torch and a cliff. Fact remains that guns are the primary choice for a very good reason.
Carrying it in your backpack doesn't make much sense either.
the 7 yard rule is the general rule of thumb. you draw your weapon when the attacker comes within 7 yards. if it's in your backpack; you'd better draw sooner. drawing sooner could get you into legal trouble because it's hard to prove imminent danger from a farther distance. with all the new holsters and other means to carry a conceild weapon; i'd suggest something easier to access.
if you can hit someone at 500 yards with anything; let me know. it's an almost impossible shot unless you have specialized weaponry. few bullets have killing power after 300 yards.
Your average .308 is good well past 800 yards. In the hands of a trained marksman it's good over 1,000. Same goes for the .223
obviously; you have limited knowledge of firearms.
Your average .308 is good well past 800 yards. In the hands of a trained marksman it's good over 1,000. Same goes for the .223
:rolleyes:
there are several software programs where you can calculate kinetic energys; velocity; and bullet drop without leaving your computer. i suggest you invest in one.
once again i reiterate; it takes intense training for anyone to hit a target over 500 yrds. a trained marksman; ie: sniper has that training. but really; how many trained marksman are on the street comitting crimes? the police are highly trained with their weapons yet watch the reality police shows and see several officers shooting at a suspect from 5 feet away without hitting him. how do you explain that?
Comments
but many people got hurt.
you arent talking about the recent NYC shooting right? someone was killed. you rae very good at making up stories
are you insane? or you just like to hear yourself talk?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html
In my country (France) firearm detention is illegal (with very strict exceptions for hunters). Same goes for most european countries and the crime rate here is lower than in the usa. Do you believe it has nothing to do with gun control laws?
not sure I understand the wording of your question.
firearm detention is illegal? so most guns are illegal?
and the crime rate is lower then usa.
do I believe it has nothing to do with gun control? I think it does have something to do with gun control laws. I'm no expert, but common sense tells me they are correlated.
Whilst I'm no American (I'm sure everyone knows that by now), to suggest owning a gun is 'constitutional' is garbage. Does one really need a gun to survive? And the 'protection' issue is bollocks too. Protect form what? Bears?
Banning guns wouldn't solve anything though. It would enrage 'sportsmen', cripple the US economy and destroy parts of their heritage like having the Bloods, the Crips and the NRA. Even if guns were outlawed, they would still exist and still be a prominent prop of the all-American home. It's a shitty situation. Yes, cars, hammers and alcohol are dangerous too, but when a country has the highest rate of gun crime/gun violence/school shootings/armed robberies in the world whilst priding itself on the fact that guns are necessary, it's a bit of a concern.
look at the facts. how many gunshots are non-lethal? somewhere i heard that there were 100,000 injured in the vietnam war. if guns are so lethal; why so many survivors?
the british 3 sided bayonet was banned from warfare because it was too deadly. doctors could not repair the wounds and the victim usually bled to death before medical attention.
a bullet hitting the heart is as deadly as a pencil hitting the same spot. the ket word is vital organ. a knife wound anywhere can be fatal but a bullet must hit a vital organ or artery to be fatal. that's the difference. compare the number of gunshot wounds compared to gunshot deaths.
police carry guns for stopping power. not because they're deadly. my best friend was injured in the vietnam war. shot several times he has 2 metal knees; one metal elbow; one metal shoulder; and a bullet lodged at the base of his skull. the psycological effects did much more damage than the bullets.
Show me proof that a gun is the least deadliest weapon, not stories.
Guns are made for killing, if they don't do that, they just fuck you up real bad.
I'd take someone attacking me with a knife over someone with a gun anyday.
naděje umírá poslední
to date; my gun has saved 7 lives by killing rattlesnakes. at night i carry a gun to the barn because of the high population of mountain lions. why are there still gun crimes in countries that have banned guns? why is alcohol legal when it kills many more people than guns? since police arrive at a crime scene for clean-up and not stop or deter the crime; why shouldn't a person be able to defend themselves? why should a law abiding citizen have to defend themself against an armed criminal with their bare hands? i could go on; but why? frankly; i'd fear a government that was afraid of my gun.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html
and 50,000+ Americans died. well over 3.5 million people died from 1946-1975
now we are comparing bullets to pencils? any idea how hard it is to stab someone in the heart with a pencil. this is funny.
you cant get hit by a knife from 6 ft away. and a bullet doesnt have to hit a organ to kill you, you can bleed to death or be paralyzed.
quote of the year.
he was lucky
Because guns aren't perfectly lethal. They remain a skill weapon. That, however, does not make guns "the least deadliest of all the known weapons".
If you can bayonet someone from 500 yards away, let me know.
This is specious logic. You're fixating on the attributes of bullet wounds without examining the overall power of the gun itself. I can't hit your vital organs with a pencil from a long distance. Hell, being able to outrun me pretty much invalidates any close-combat weaponry as being more deadly than a gun.
As weapons go, guns aren't terribly gruesome, yes. A mace, correctly wielded, is a terribly lethal and gruesome weapon. But a mace held by one man cannot level an army of thousands. A gun, however, allows a small minority to completely destroy a vast majority. One need only to look at the clash of cultures armed with guns against those without to understand the lethal force of guns.
None of this matters in the context of gun control, IMO. A tool of death has no ethical consequence -- it is the death itself and the actions and choices of the murderer that matter. But claiming that guns are "the least deadliest of all the known weapons" is completely silly, and seems motivated by a logic that simply wants to somehow demonstrate that since guns are largely precision weapons they should be welcomed over others. In some contexts, particularly the execution of war, that logic can fly. But when simply debating the overall lethality of weaponry, it is a cop-out.
Are you against stricter laws? Because in my opinion "law abiding citizen" doesn't mean anything. And by the way aren't you the one who faked your own death or something is that really law abiding?
naděje umírá poslední
naděje umírá poslední
check stats. i can give you a gun; me a knife and i can kill you before you ever hit me. give me a bow and arrow and you're dead before you ever see me. i've been shooting for 40 years and can out shoot about anyone. if i really wanted to kill someone; i wouldn't use a gun. the survival rate is much too high.
That doesn't make much sense. Carrying a gun in my hand all the time would invite much more danger than it would solve.
Unless you're some kind of very weak person, it's harder to kill someone with a knife.
What stats are you talking about?
Oh but do you think you should be allowed to have a gun since you're not a law abiding citizen, I mean that would kind of make you a criminal and it's because of criminals law abiding citizens buy guns right?
naděje umírá poslední
Carrying it in your backpack doesn't make much sense either.
naděje umírá poslední
dont encourage him
Sure it does. It simply provides an option which I may use or disregard at my discretion. I make absolutely no claims that keeping an unloaded gun in my backpack is some kind of panacea for danger. The fact remains that I may never use it. However, the fact also remains that it may one day prove useful.
if you can hit someone at 500 yards with anything; let me know. it's an almost impossible shot unless you have specialized weaponry. few bullets have killing power after 300 yards.
next; when have you ever heard of someone being robbed from 500 yards away? a handgun is virtually worthless farther than 50 yards. i've seen deer shot with high power rifles scamper away. obviously; you have limited knowledge of firearms.
do you have proper paper work if you were pulled over or searched by police?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper
"The current record for longest range sniper kill is 2,430 meters (7,972 feet), accomplished by a Canadian sniper, Corporal Rob Furlong, of the third battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI), during the invasion of Afghanistan, using a .50 BMG (12.7 mm) McMillan bolt-action rifle. This meant that the round had a flight time of four seconds, and a drop of 78.4 meters (257 feet). The previous record was held by Carlos Hathcock, achieved during the Vietnam War, at a distance of 2,250 meters. Hathcock was also famous for his 93 confirmed kills during the Vietnam conflict."
Yeah, it's called taxation, a system very much reliant on the persuasive power of guns.
Certainly one is not going to use a handgun to shoot something 100 yards away. But a pencil or bayonet is also worthless at 100 inches away.
I'm curious, if guns are the least deadly weapon around, why do you take them hunting?
my state licensed me to carry a gun. i believe 23 states now offer conceiled weapon permits. the supreme court upholds a persons right to defend themselves. over and over again. i may never use my gun is self defence against a person; but i'd rather have a gun and not need it; then need a gun and not have one.
Certainly, yes.
so you agree; a highly trained sniper with specialized weaponry can hit a target at 500 yrds and further. just like i said.
the hunters i know use arrows because it produces a quick kill; and it's silent. if you check hunter success rates; you will find very low success rates. ie: number of licenses vs number of kills.
not only do i carry the permit; the police can check their computer if i don't have it with me. seems to me these people should be more concerned with criminal control and not gun control.
Yes, I agree. Now, can a highly trained librarian hit someone with a pencil from 500 yards away?
Certainly. But the same goes for hunters using a bow and arrow or a torch and a cliff. Fact remains that guns are the primary choice for a very good reason.
the 7 yard rule is the general rule of thumb. you draw your weapon when the attacker comes within 7 yards. if it's in your backpack; you'd better draw sooner. drawing sooner could get you into legal trouble because it's hard to prove imminent danger from a farther distance. with all the new holsters and other means to carry a conceild weapon; i'd suggest something easier to access.
Your average .308 is good well past 800 yards. In the hands of a trained marksman it's good over 1,000. Same goes for the .223
:rolleyes:
there are several software programs where you can calculate kinetic energys; velocity; and bullet drop without leaving your computer. i suggest you invest in one.
once again i reiterate; it takes intense training for anyone to hit a target over 500 yrds. a trained marksman; ie: sniper has that training. but really; how many trained marksman are on the street comitting crimes? the police are highly trained with their weapons yet watch the reality police shows and see several officers shooting at a suspect from 5 feet away without hitting him. how do you explain that?