OPEN QUESTION to AMERICANS...

[Fisher]

Canadians still own guns....they just can't own uzies and other high powered automatic weapons capable of mass murdering dozens and dozens of innocents in a minute or two.

You are correct, but Canadian circus workers have been known to practically decapitate people on their buses in a minute or two and start gnawing on their remains. Perhaps I should have added Americans don't like other Americans to my comment too

 

[blackjack50]

Only when you average across the whole country’s land mass. The majority of people are in roughly comparably dense cities, save for the NYC class cities the US has. Actually the majority of the population is within a few hours drive of the US border.

Now there is some portion of the murder rate that is attributable to Canada being far more active about resolving some underlying social issues leading to murder, so no firearms are NOT the whole picture. But it delusional to not recognize that the limitation on handguns, and other people centric weapons, is an important part of it.

Actually it is far from delusional. Look to Chicago and DC after the handgun bans were lifted. They didn't get rapid rises in violence. They plummeted. The correlation is NOT that MORE GUNS=MORE Violence. It is as you suggested previously...there are underlying social issues that cause violence and murder.

It is irrelevant what kind of weaponry one has available. Violence with weaponry has been happening since the first hominids figured out how to bash things with rocks. PRE HUMAN. We have been a violent species. We have used swords, axes, knives, bows, and all kinds of things. Prisons have a total gun ban on the inmates, and yet they still kill each other right? Would you say that it is the society? Or the shanks?

 

[blackjack50]

Seriously yourself, did YOU take any class on Canadian geography? Southern Ontario has a higher population density than most parts of the United States, and Toronto's urban population would be ranked fourth or fifth if it were in the United States (depending on how you divide the extent of the urban boundaries). Toronto DOES have gun violence, and I admit that it is on the rise. But it is still far lower than any major American urban area anywhere close to being as large as Toronto.

Toronto being one of HOW many cities that have a population over 550,000? Do you even WANT to compare that to the United States? Let's also look at TOTAL population of Canada: 34,000,000 and roughly 2,000,000 residing in Toronto. Do you really think with numbers like that violent crime is going to be as widespread as a nation that has 304,000,000 and 3 times as many cities in the population range of 550,000,000 and above? Sorry slick. Your problems are easier to solve based on the single element that you have so few people overall, let alone cities.

ee my post above comparing the statistical data among developed nations. I would love to hear your response to that.

Again. I will reference that the United States has FAR more people than ANY Western European nation. Not to mention YOU reported the United Nations statistics correct? If that is what we are going to reference...you are aware of HOW they get their numbers? Reported by the nations. Some of which are known NOT to report crime committed by people 16 and under. That throws off the data when the United States certainly does (as has been shown many times). This is all childs play in the Gun Control section of the forum.

I must admit that you do raise one very good point: now that guns are already so widespread in the United States, removing them would be problematic. Although I don't think anyone can possibly look at the data I reference above and argue that access to guns makes America safer, I can see your argument that suddenly banning all guns overnight would undermine self-defense principles.

It is not "problematic" it is an impossibility. How many nations can say for 100% that their gun bans are total and complete and NO illegal firearms exist? How many of them are the single most well armed nation on the planet? Oh. None? You couldn't raise the police force enough to do such a thing (which brings me to another point in a moment).

I am not making the case that more guns= less violence. I am delinking violence and firearms. Firearms are a tool. The factor is human. European nations and Canada have it far easier with numbers of people. They don't have the high number of gangs like we do. They don't have 304,000,000 people like we do. I am looking at the data above and TELLING you that it has nothing to do with firearms because YOU refuse to look at the reality that in the United States there has never been ANY drop in crime rates with increased bans of firearms. There HAVE been numerous drops in violence with laxing of the excessive gun control of the Clinton Administration though. That should suffice to prove that gun control is NOT the answer to violence.

It would undermine self defense as well. I can point to countries abroad that have banned Pepper Spray and Tasers as well as firearms, because they could be used as "offensive" weapons. It is as if you cannot trust your entire populace with weapons for self defense. We see things differently here. We don't want to remove good people's right to defend themselves to the best of their ability because our government doesn't trust us.

That brings me to the police comment. Do you believe that police have a duty to protect you? Do you also believe that they have the ability? What do you do for self defense? Or is this simply a question you don't think about? Sure. That seems crazy, but you ARE aware that many people live in reponse time areas that are 7 minutes or higher. I personally live in a 10 minute zone. That doesn't bode well for me if my only tool is the police and my fists against an armed intruder.

My own approach, if someone appointed me Great Dictator, would be to have a transition period of 25-30 years in which new gun sales and production limits were much stricter, but existing gun ownership was still permitted. That would continue to allow the defensive deterrent principle you referred to to remain intact. The idea would be to gradually phase down the availability of new weapons, and to slowly cut back on the number of weapons in general circulation.

Well 1) No dictators here. There are too many people with guns.

2)A phasing out period would not phase out the people that commit crimes. Do you not understand gangs? They don't go out and buy guns legally. Sure many do, but they also recycle firearms. They have their guns now. Gangs will steal guns. They will buy them black market. They will get them from places that distribute them. You ban guns and you will simply raise the cost of illegal firearms, and make a market for illegal firearms. Wouldn't be all that tough. Instead of just getting rich on drugs, they would get rich on guns as well.

But it doesn't seem sensible to me to argue that we must keep on allowing gun ownership because we've allowed it historically and now we must protect ourselves from the bad guys who all have guns because we allowed it historically. When the evidence (as in my post above) is that in developed nations, gun-related deaths are overwhelmingly linked to the level of gun ownership,

It has nothing to do with "historically." Have you even looked at examples like Sandy and the looting that has gone on in areas where people have resorted to defending themselves with Bows and Bats? Come on man. It isn't some historic notion. It is the very modern notion that I have a right to protect myself and my family against a threat. The logic that I should outsource that protection to the police is faulty. They won't protect me. Right now more than EVER I understand the need for firearms. I have a concealed weapons license and a sprained ankle. I may be a trained martial artist, but I don't see myself fending off an attack with any real effeciency when I can barely put 1 foot on the ground. How about a small woman against a large man?

It is also not "overwhelmingly" linked. It is in fact quite DELINKED. Outside nations haven't solved their violence issues. Gun bans didn't do that. It is also quite obvious that gun bans and restrictions didn't DO anything here. Many places tried them.

YOUR FINAL comment makes sense. Figuring out a way to restrict guns to bad guys. That is a GREAT idea. That would be called enforcement of current legislation on the books in the United States (more than enough regulation) and ALSO solving the underlying violence issues (poverty and education). Taking guns away from people like me who have NEVER caused a problem doesn't help.

 

[blackjack50]

Canadians still own guns....they just can't own uzies and other high powered automatic weapons capable of mass murdering dozens and dozens of innocents in a minute or two.

Lol. Silly. Most Americans cannot own EITHER one of the weapons you just stated. It requires class 3 firearms stamps to own BOTH. That takes money and approval from head law enforcement officials and a background check.

Oh and Canadians still have illegal problems with both types of firearms you mentioned, but more importantly yall also have select small groups that can own Uzis unless there was some recent change in legislation.

Uzis among us

 

[Dwight]

Actually it is far from delusional. Look to Chicago and DC after the handgun bans were lifted. They didn't get rapid rises in violence. They plummeted. The correlation is NOT that MORE GUNS=MORE Violence. It is as you suggested previously…there are underlying social issues that cause violence and murder.

A couple things here. First, murder rates are falling across the nation, period. Have been for some years. Second, no small part of the problem with Chicago and DC is there are no real borders between them and the weapon sources. So logistically, sadly, they have been at the mercy of neighboring jurisdictions so a certain level of saturation and escalation had already occurred.

I have seen this argument before in different guises. Relaxed gun laws lead to lower murders! But when you start digging, it doesn’t really hold up. For example a very common one is the drop in the 90’s but if you then look at the murder/violent crime rates in Canada they followed a very similar curve. What was actually driving the crime rate down was, among other things, the huge benefit of removing lead additive from gasoline.

It is irrelevant what kind of weaponry one has available. Violence with weaponry has been happening since the first hominids figured out how to bash things with rocks. PRE HUMAN. We have been a violent species. We have used swords, axes, knives, bows, and all kinds of things. Prisons have a total gun ban on the inmates, and yet they still kill each other right? Would you say that it is the society? Or the shanks?

Making it much easier, particularly adding range, is entirely relevant.

 

[blackjack50]

A couple things here. First, murder rates are falling across the nation, period. Have been for some years. Second, no small part of the problem with Chicago and DC is there are no real borders between them and the weapon sources. So logistically, sadly, they have been at the mercy of neighboring jurisdictions so a certain level of saturation and escalation had already occurred.

1) Yes they are falling. The assault weapons ban sunset and nothing skyrocketed. Gun control has laxed up and it is falling. People are getting the right to carry firearms concealed across the nation as well. The murder rates are falling across the board.

2) Their "sautration" really doesn't matter. As the above you said the crime rates are falling and gun control is laxing. So logically speaking if the "saturation" from surrounding areas was the big impact point...then their crime rate should have risen with reduced gun control. Has it? Since the years of Heller has it? Sunsetting Assault Weapons ban? They are either linked or they aren't. Your points seem contradictory.

Now I would AGREE that gangs and criminals do not get their guns from some illegal gun trader all the time (like Taxi). So certainly surrounding areas might be an "issue," but the "issue" is the lack of enforcement of basic firearms regulations of which I personally agree with (concealed licensing, automatic weapons only with firearms stamps, suppressors with stamps, 18 years or older, and federal background checks). None of the basic stuff that you see pretty much nation wide is "out of control" or "excessive" requirements. Going beyond current standards is a little crazy (3 day waiting periods that have no impact etc).

I have seen this argument before in different guises. Relaxed gun laws lead to lower murders!

Not my argument at all. I have stated this SEVERAL times. I am saying exactly this: more guns does not equal more violence. You can quote that. I will not deviate from that specific argument at any point on this FORUM ever. Does that mean that I am saying: more guns equals less violence. Or as you say: "Relaxed gun laws lead to lower murders." No, I am not saying that in the slightest. I disagree with that as much as the reverse. They are not attached.

The person who seeks to commit a violent act will find a way. The question is WHAT motivates the person to commit a violent act. Desperation? Why is that person desperate? Money? Food? Is the person violent out of lack of other outlets? Education? Propensity for criminal behavior? Increase the access to after school programs for teenage and younger boys (gangs violence etc). Or is a person simply mentally ill/disturbed? Outlets and thearpy access + awareness might help. All of this is quite clearly the answer to the solution before banning the gun. Do you know why guns are the target? The same reason militaries were the target after WWI. People were afraid. Politicians need scapegoats and easy answers. They don't want to face the tough questions because then they can't have the answers. They can't look good if they aren't solving tough problems. They can look good if they are "solving" fake problems.

Gun control may look like a solution on the surface, but it is merely a scapegoat. I don't look at "gun control" like an evil liberal agenda, or the goverment trying to take control of me. I look at it from 2 perspectives: naive people beliving in something they are told will solve a violence issue; and an easy way to pass the blame of violence and criminal activity onto an issue that can simply have legislation passed on it but not solved. All these nations with "great gun control laws" didn't solve their violence issues with gun control. They still have problems. They did do good with urban centers though. The United States doesn't have a good solution for our inner cities. We keep ignoring real problems by looking at fake ones. We try to solve the fake problems with fake solutions. It just doesn't work.

Forgive the long winded response. This is obviously a passionate issue.

Making it much easier, particularly adding range, is entirely relevant.

Guns make killing easier. Ok? It doesn't change the equation. Desperate people kill with what they have available. I can see a case for it "desensitizing" people and making killing from a distance easier. But the problem is that the average shooting is from 3-6 feet with well under 7 rounds fired (in an overwhelming majority). 3-6 feet is knife range really. Tueller firearms drill being done for the factor that a BLADED weapon can be far more devastating for a person carrying a holstered firearm in distances 21 ft and less. It still isn't the tool in that scenario. It is still the person. Be it a knife, gun, bow, or spear...the ability to take on a target is still up to the person.

If I had a bow and was proficient...I could engage 9 targets a minute with lethal results...if I was sick enough. If I had a blade...I could be sneaky (I am actually trained in the use of knives). I have a rudamentary understanding of explosive materials. I could make bombs. None of that is inherently dangerous because I would not put them to use against innocent people (I prefer using explosive knowledge for poops and giggles during...well the 4th of July...and to assist in fire fighting). Knives I train so that I can defend against them. Bows...well that is simply knowledge from a history book about Native americans and their archery abilities (plus their knowledge of poison would probably be effective). If I was someone with a propesntiy of violence? That would be different issue.

 

[Dwight]

1) Yes they are falling. The assault weapons ban sunset and nothing skyrocketed. Gun control has laxed up and it is falling. People are getting the right to carry firearms concealed across the nation as well. The murder rates are falling across the board.

As long as don’t confuse correlation with causation, because murder rates are falling in Canada too where (although modest) there has only been tightening of firearm ownership regs. See?

2) Their “sautration" really doesn't matter. As the above you said the crime rates are falling and gun control is laxing. So logically speaking if the “saturation” from surrounding areas was the big impact point…then their crime rate should have risen with reduced gun control.

No. You entirely miss the point of what I was getting at, the steepest part of the weapon availability vs murders response had likely already been reached because mobility [due to no real borders] meant that the local ban/gun free zone/etc had become ineffective. The damage has long ago been done, it would take Herculean efforts (and likely a Constitutional Amendment) to clean up. I just don’t see how that is going to happen, for better or worse it just isn’t the nature of this country.

Best that can be done at this point, I expect, is for each person to make choices to give their family has the best chance at safety, which for the vast majority of people includes to NOT owning firearms. People just die end up dead around them, all too often not the people that were imagined as the target when the weapon was procured. It has long been understood that any protection and/or preventative benefits for the people in the home are offset by the safety downside. Once upon a time firearms were a tool of trade, they still are for a small segment of the population. I grew up in such a setting, my parents and one of my siblings still live there. Which does create misunderstandings in the majority of people that haven’ t or no longer do. But it is a shrinking slice (and there are even better tools available now for some of those old uses, such as bear spray which is > firearms for protection from grizzlies..yes, I and my wife have worked in the woods in grizzly country).

Guns make killing easier. Ok? It doesn’t change the equation. Desperate people kill with what they have available.

Not as effectively, ergo not as readily or successfully as often. Otherwise we could save a few grand in equipment costs for each Marine we send into the field.

So yeah, it changes the equation hugely. The change has shaped history.

Your r33t skills notwithstanding.

3-6 feet is knife range really.

WHAT??? That is one hellva loooong knife. Or you are talking about old school sideshow knife throwing artists? LOL, you are just being downright silly…best to stop right here as you will clearly say just about anything

 

[Panopticon]

the invention of the gun friggin' changed the course of mankind and caused one half to suddenly easily plunder and murder the other half. Truly, a case of giving guns to one bunch of monkeys to use against another bunch with sticks.

 

[Sherman123]

the invention of the gun friggin' changed the course of mankind and caused one half to suddenly easily plunder and murder the other half. Truly, a case of giving guns to one bunch of monkeys to use against another bunch with sticks.

What situation did you have before though? I'm pretty sure rapine and wanton banditry, looting, mass killing, and war were highly present before the invention of firearms. All the introduction of the gun did was make it more prolific.

 

[Panopticon]

What situation did you have before though? I'm pretty sure rapine and wanton banditry, looting, mass killing, and war were highly present before the invention of firearms. All the introduction of the gun did was make it more prolific.

This always irritates me. What are you talking about? "What situation did you have before though?" Ive never ever ever ever ever ever ever said there was no or less violence before the gun. When you reply to my posts, please address what Ive actually said, rather than the voice you heard replacing what I said in your head. It saves me wasting time on repeating the blindingly obvious. Thanks.

 

[Sherman123]

This always irritates me. What are you talking about? "What situation did you have before though?" Ive never ever ever ever ever ever ever said there was no or less violence before the gun. When you reply to my posts, please address what Ive actually said, rather than the voice you heard replacing what I said in your head. It saves me wasting time on repeating the blindingly obvious. Thanks.

You said that "the invention of the gun friggin' changed the course of mankind and caused one half to suddenly easily plunder and murder the other half. Truly, a case of giving guns to one bunch of monkeys to use against another bunch with sticks." My question was how this was a change in human behavior or the trends in human society, as I think it actually did. Your reaction is to childishly lash, a frequent reaction of yours.

 

[Andalublue]

I'm surprised no one has posted this yet...



This kind of sums up what I think about the US, I would be crucified for saying it here, no doubt.

 

[Panopticon]

You said that "the invention of the gun friggin' changed the course of mankind and caused one half to suddenly easily plunder and murder the other half. Truly, a case of giving guns to one bunch of monkeys to use against another bunch with sticks." My question was how this was a change in human behavior or the trends in human society, as I think it actually did. Your reaction is to childishly lash, a frequent reaction of yours.

This means an imbalance between armed and unarmed parties, thusly, a factual change in the course of history. The west couldnt have gone from attacking, murdering and robbing neighboring villages to entire continents with knives. it completely changed the concept of power. Why do I even have to waste time typing something so historically indisputable?

 

[Sherman123]

This means an imbalance between armed and unarmed parties, thusly, a factual change in the course of history. The west couldnt have gone from attacking, murdering and robbing neighboring villages to entire continents with knives. Why do I even have to waste time typing something so historically indisputable?

Comparing national conflict to human society is a rather different matter than your post seemed to be implying given the tenor of this threads conversation. Obviously scientific and technological advances of every stripe abetted the Western domination and conquest of much of the world. I was talking about on a societal level, how the gun affected the farmer and the flat dweller vs. how the sword or dagger did, my point in that context was about how I didn't think substantively there was a major difference.

If that's it then the issue (and my question) is settled, but again your inability to deal with anyone else in a mature manner is a bit ridiculous.

 

[Panopticon]

Comparing national conflict to human society is a rather different matter than your post seemed to be implying given the tenor of this threads conversation. Obviously scientific and technological advances of every stripe abetted the Western domination and conquest of much of the world. I was talking about on a societal level, how the gun affected the farmer and the flat dweller vs. how the sword or dagger did, my point in that context was about how I didn't think substantively there was a major difference.

If that's it then the issue (and my question) is settled, but again your inability to deal with anyone else in a mature manner is a bit ridiculous.

My post pertained exactly to the the posts preceding it. Still wasting my time.

 

[blackjack50]

As long as don’t confuse correlation with causation, because murder rates are falling in Canada too where (although modest) there has only been tightening of firearm ownership regs. See?

That is my point. They don't CAUSE anything. My point is also that they are NOT CORRELATED. One cannot state that more guns means more violence, just like one cannot state that more guns means less violence. As a gun owner and advocate of the 2nd Amendment, my burden is not to state that more guns = less violent. It is to state that more guns does not equal more violence. It is my right to keep and bear arms. The burden is on the other side to prove that more guns = more violence, and they cannot do that.

No. You entirely miss the point of what I was getting at, the steepest part of the weapon availability vs murders response had likely already been reached because mobility [due to no real borders] meant that the local ban/gun free zone/etc had become ineffective. The damage has long ago been done, it would take Herculean efforts (and likely a Constitutional Amendment) to clean up. I just don’t see how that is going to happen, for better or worse it just isn’t the nature of this country.

It is irrelevant. Gun free zones would never work in ANY area then because one can make the case that "everywhere is satureated." That basically states that everyone who was going to own a gun already owned them with the laxing of gun laws. But gun ownership has gone up. Owning of previously restricted firearms has obviously also gone up as well. The problem here is that the gun free zones NEVER worked. They were simply restrictions on the good guys. This is basically stating that the guns are already in the hands of the bad guys, so it doesn't matter what kind of restrictions you put in place. The only people to suffer from them will be good guys.

Best that can be done at this point, I expect, is for each person to make choices to give their family has the best chance at safety, which for the vast majority of people includes to NOT owning firearms. People just die end up dead around them, all too often not the people that were imagined as the target when the weapon was procured. It has long been understood that any protection and/or preventative benefits for the people in the home are offset by the safety downside. Once upon a time firearms were a tool of trade, they still are for a small segment of the population. I grew up in such a setting, my parents and one of my siblings still live there. Which does create misunderstandings in the majority of people that haven’ t or no longer do. But it is a shrinking slice (and there are even better tools available now for some of those old uses, such as bear spray which is > firearms for protection from grizzlies..yes, I and my wife have worked in the woods in grizzly country).

So we should restrict firearms based on people's stupidity? There is currently a thread in the gun control room about negligent discharge. I have personally never even witnessed a negligent discharge because I am a JERK about firearms safety. I will be rude if I have too in order to make sure that someone is NOT being stupid. I would also call out ignorance of firearms as an important factor (and quite often a higher factor) in firearms accidents. There are 2 immediatly available ways to help reduce accidents with firearms: 1)easier access to MORE firearms safety training courses 2) cheaper training courses. On top of that I would add higher access to MAINTAINED and SUPERVISED ranges where people can enjoy shooting legally. I personally shoot in my backyard, but that isn't something everyone can do.

End story it is the user, not the gun causing the risk to go up. I have carried a firearm 90% of the time I am in public since the day I recieved my license to do so. I have never once endangered the life of ANYONE including "bad guys." I agree with the notion that someone who does not feel safe with a gun shouldn't buy it. They are most likely to cause an accident. If someone WISHES to feel more safe with a gun, the first step is knowledge. I was taught from a young age how to be safe, and so I have an edge that others may not. Guns don't scare me.

Not as effectively, ergo not as readily or successfully as often. Otherwise we could save a few grand in equipment costs for each Marine we send into the field.

So yeah, it changes the equation hugely. The change has shaped history.

Your r33t skills notwithstanding.

The difference is not the weapon. It is the user. Marines are among the most highly trained shooters in the world, and probably the BEST "basic infantry" force in existence. Compare their stats with law enforcement though. Law enforcement is horrendous in terms of shooting ability. Or compare them with Somali pirates. The ability to pull a trigger is easy. Hitting what you aim at is different.

Besides that is battlefield equations. That is far different than the quite often 1 on 1 violence equation that we see in reality. The ONLY thing a gun does is add range. It doesn't increase propensity of violence. Effectiveness does not make a gun more dangerous. What makes a gun dangerous is who is behind it.

WHAT??? That is one hellva loooong knife. Or you are talking about old school sideshow knife throwing artists? LOL, you are just being downright silly…best to stop right here as you will clearly say just about anything

No. I certainly am not. Take a knife fighting class. You may not be able to actually slice or stab someone at 6 feet, but you can move you can gain that ground QUICKLY to do so. Have you ever done martial arts? Long to short range, and changing distances? It is a classic boxing and kickboxing tactic that is ALSO present in knife fighting. Here is a video, and you will notice how some people will move from out of range to into range RAPIDLY.



On top of this video I would reccomend looking up Tueller drill scenarios. They state that someone can cover 21 feet or less before a person can draw their gun. Now that seems crazy at first, but try drawing a weapon from a standard holster and getting a well places shot off (let alone 2). Now do it concealed. Moral here is that to underestimate the knife is to end up stabbed and sliced. I am more scared of knives than guns tbh.

 

[blackjack50]

the invention of the gun friggin' changed the course of mankind and caused one half to suddenly easily plunder and murder the other half. Truly, a case of giving guns to one bunch of monkeys to use against another bunch with sticks.

Obviously it changed the world. But why has overall violence rates gone down despite RAPID increases in firearms tech?

 

[Dwight]

The difference is not the weapon. It is the user.

So why are they equipped with M-16s rather than butter knives? :roll: Why would it matter if there were no firearms for civilian “self-defense” and militia purposes? If butter knives get the job done just as well, lets amend the Constitution to instead have it enshrine the right to bear tableware instead of firearms!

LOL

Absolute. Nonsense.

P.S. Regarding the video, your “distance judging” skill needs some work.

 

[Dwight]

Obviously it changed the world. But why has overall violence rates gone down despite RAPID increases in firearms tech?

1) As before, because it is not the only factor. So you have to analyze to a finer point to pull the influence out of the other trends and noise.
2) You posit “RAPID” increases in firearm tech that don’t really stand up to reality.

 

[Dwight]

BTW…

So we should restrict firearms based on people's stupidity? There is currently a thread in the gun control room about negligent discharge. I have personally never even witnessed a negligent discharge because I am a JERK about firearms safety.

**** happens. Even to people that are JERKS about firearm safety. It really does. I shot my brother, and I was and am downright anal about it. Why did it happen? Like so many accidents, multiple little things converged in unexpected timing.

I was carrying the weapon cross-craddle, with the safety on. He was walking 2 steps behind me to the side. He saw the blackbird same time I did. He raised his arm out in front of him to point at the blackbird. I disabled the safety, stepped in grassed-over gopher hole, and stumbled and knocked the trigger at the exact moment as his arm swung past the muzzle. Caught him right between the tendons, fortunately missing both the major veins and nerves running through there and being that it was only a .22 cal air rifle (I was early teens at the time, had access to gunpowder firearms but that was cheap practice) he got off with surgery + few stitches.

****. Just. Happens.

In the end the best firearm safety is no firearm. The data shows it out.

 

[Panopticon]

accidents dont happen in conservalalaland. Youre either stupid and lazy, in which case you make your own bad luck, or smart and morally untouchable, from a religious perspective of morality (often horribly immoral), in which case you make your own good luck. There are no shades of grey. There are adult people walking around in the world, usually self-identified as conservatives, who actually - for real - think like this. I know, I know...

 

[blackjack50]

So why are they equipped with M-16s rather than butter knives? :roll: Why would it matter if there were no firearms for civilian “self-defense” and militia purposes? If butter knives get the job done just as well, lets amend the Constitution to instead have it enshrine the right to bear tableware instead of firearms!

LOL

Absolute. Nonsense.

Your motive is clear. You want to blame the effectiveness of the weapon for the violence that is caused. That is a joke of an excuse. The person BEHIND the weapon is what causes the violence. Do you disagree with that? Are you REALLY willing to argue that point down? I sure hope not. If you recognize that, then you should be more than capable of reaching the conclusion that the effecitiveness of a weapon is NOT determined by the weapon itself, but by who is using that specific weapon. Someone better trained with that weapon WILL be more effective.

P.S. Regarding the video, your “distance judging” skill needs some work

Have you EVER stepped foot onto a martial arts mat? Have you ever done tactical knife fighting drills? Ever sparred? The ranges that these guys get out to is 6 feet with their torsos. I am not saying that a knife can be used to hit someone at 6 feet with 1 swing. That isn't how knife fighting works. You step INTO a strike and then you step back out. Are you telling me that 6 feet is much too far to close distance with a step? Because quite frankly you are showing me that you don't get hand to hand combat then.

You are trying to reduce the "effective range" of a weapon by ignoring how it is properly used. I have watched shooters shoot .38 Special Snub Nosed revolvers at targets 230 yards away AND HIT the targets. That is over 4 times the "max effective range" on the box of ammo. Again it all comes down to the user making it dangerous.

I don't claim to be some "l33t knife fighter" btw. I HATE knives. I am scared to death of them. That is why I train with them and to defend against them. Part of that training is getting hands on time as an attacker or in knife spars. It is my hobby. I love combat sports because they get me into better shape than any other team sport would, and they have a practical application.

) You posit “RAPID” increases in firearm tech that don’t really stand up to reality.

You don't know guns do you? Do you know the history of them? Firearms were relatively unchanged in firing method for a few hundred years. Then in 100 years (roughly 1800) the technology hit a rapid expansion with percussion caps and still single shot rifles, to the last 50 (1850s-1900s) years of lever action, pump action, gattling guns, bolt actions, revolvers, and even semi automatic handguns. Then you get machine guns in World War I. Then you move on to world war 2 where you start to see "assault rifles" and sub machine guns and light machine guns that fire full sized rifle rounds (the first real Squad level machine guns), then you move on to vietnam and you are seeing AK47s and M16s. But you also see the gattling design reworked into aircraft weaponry.

The past 50 years has not been slow for firearms. You can't argue that. Not to mention firearms have evolved faster than any other weapon on the face of the planet. You see handguns that can contain 20 rounds right now, some that are fully automatic, and in general the "killing power" has rapidly increased. The 1 factor that hasn't changed has been the person behind the weapon. That hasn't changed since the dawn of man kind.

 

[Dwight]

Your motive is clear. You want to blame the effectiveness of the weapon for the violence that is caused.

:roll:

Can you give the canned talking points a rest and read. Talk to me, not the strawman you have constructed in your head, not what you imagine I am going to say, not the people you have talked to in the past? Your posts are robotic, running through the same old tired script, walking the same old paths, seeing the same old ghosts because you expect them there. *sigh*

Just answer the question: Why would it matter if there were no firearms for civilian “self-defense” and militia purposes?

The past 50 years has not been slow for firearms. You can’t argue that.

Your post just laid it out! :lamo With timeline you listed off, outside of the ‘tech’ of a modest increase in magazine size, there really isn’t any meaningful recent stuff [that civilians have ready access to]. We walk around with basically 100 year-old tech with a little materials tweaks on some of them that has little difference in function. That is why the 1911, for example, is still such a viable platform. Double action revolvers, that’s 150 years old. These still stand up to the relatively recent designs like Glocks because if your goal is to put down a person the basics just haven’t really changed.

 

[Ahlevah]

People, all people should refer to their homeland, their motherland as the greatest place on earth. To do otherwise is disloyal. Even people who have had to leave their homeland in refugee situations believe their homeland to be the best. Remember Edelweiss sung by the Von Trapp family as they left Austria in the Sound of Music, a true story, BTW.

You forgot to mention the sequel. After the von Trapps sang Edelweiss and fled Austria, they moved to Vermont, where they bought an inn and sang their way across America. Eventually, Maria and her stepdaughters became U.S. citizens. There's no mention of the small subset of Austrians who partook in active resistance against the Nazi regime while most of their countrymen either demonstrated ambivalence or goosestepped their way across Europe, at least until Patton came along and drop-kicked their asses over the Alps from France to Czechoslovakia. American exceptionalism. It's real.

 

[blackjack50]

:roll:



Just answer the question: Why would it matter if there were no firearms for civilian “self-defense” and militia purposes?

The PEOPLE...as in the law abiding citizens of the United States of America...would no longer be able to defend themselves. It has ALREADY been stated and a precedent made that the police have NO duty to protect you. If you are held are murdered or beaten almost to death and nobody is caught, the only person that suffers is you. The police don't have a duty to defend you. America was founded on an individualistic spirit, and that has remained to this day. Why would you want to take that away?

I have a right to defend myself in this country. How many countries truly have that right? Canada with all their draconian gun laws? Their restrictions on tasers and pepper spray? What kind of precedent does that set? Basically it says that the government doesn't trust its people. Why else would they restrict firearms and even pepper spray and tasers? What does it mean for people who ACTUALLY need help? What are THEY supposed to do when the big bad wolf is actually knocking on their door? Do you want THEM to call the police? What happens if that is what they do?

1) Remember that the average response time is what? 11 Minutes? Maybe 5 minutes if you are lucky? 5 minutes of WHAT? Someone to kick down your door (remember they don't have to be cautious YOU don't have a gun and all THEY need is a blade or maybe they ignored the gun ban and actually have a gun). What can happen in 5 minutes? Certainly a lot. Also remember you better actually be able to CALL the police. Better hope they didn't cut the phone line. It doesn't take a genius. If you have a cell phone better hope you get signal or you didn't leave it outside your bedroom. In that 5 minutes they can steal something, maybe a set of keys and come back later too. Maybe just keys to your car? Some light cash? Who knows right? You have AT BEST 5 minutes. You want to bet your life on 5 minutes?

2) Ok so you have an Alarm system? You better hope you turned it on. You also better hope that they don't cut the wires on that (or you didn't get the cheap system). Alarms can be bypassed.

3) You would fight back. Good luck. What happens if you are older? What if they are trained fighers? Maybe just know how to brawl? What if you have NEVER faced down a knife before? A gun? A bat? A crowbar? Let alone all the things that can go wrong in a fist fight. Heck what if you sprained your ankle like I did? Good luck fighting back with a crutch. sure maybe you know how to fight dirty? I do too. So do a lot of people. The best bet you had...a gun...is out the window because you followed the law.

Seriously. It would matter because you are taking away someone's right to defend themselves. Nevermind the whole "disaster" scenario like Sandy where people loot each other and it IS about he who is best armed winning and surviving in decimated areas. Never mind the "Chinese Invasion" theory that wouldn't happen. Let's just look at average police response times. Our government cannot provide enough police to get rid of every gun on the street, and they certainly can't provide enough police to protect the law abiding citizens who do give up their guns.

We shouldn't give them up because then we are just giving up 1 more right to a corrupt government that won't give it back if we need it. I refuse to cower in fear of firearms because some naive idiot or lying politician told me that guns are bad. I know what my capabilities are with my gun. I know very well how little the police will actually do to assist me. Police are clean up crews. Clearly you don't. If you wish to stay in the dark and be naive...that is fine. Don't try to make the rest of us suffer for that though.