Gun control debate thread

[Guest]

Nothing has been done to prevent crime, criminals will always get guns and will never register them.

And how do they get these guns? Do the gun manufacturers sell them to these criminal directly? No....these "criminals" are either licensed, or buying guns that were originally bought by people who were licensed. Guns don't just magically appear, someone has to make them, someone has to buy them.

But also of course, gun owners are often not criminals when they buy the guns (see previous post, 80% of guns used in crimes are bought for home protection)...it's only once they have used them.

And no matter how responsible your father might be, what would push him to the point where he uses the gun on a person? Do you know....does anyone know? It's impossible to judge of course, and therein lies part of the problem.

Now recently in Australia (where we have pretty reasonable guns laws IMO), a guy was busted with a shitload of weapons. High quality homemade/altered stuff. He was fined, and the guns taken away, with the judge saying that the man was "unlikely" to ever use them as a weapon. Yep...fair enough maybe, but you can't predict this sort of thing with 100% accuracy, and I would hate for someone I cared for to be killed by this guy in the 1 in a million chance that he snaps someday.

Anyway...

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just a little stat for you all. 80% of all guns used in crimes in the US were purchased for home protection. Bottom line = You cannot shoot someone if you don't have a gun. Simple really, I would have thought.

Anti-gun lobbies spend a lot of money to make the numbers look like this and vice-versa. Like I said before, guns are tools and if there weren't guns they would kill each other with something else. It's fundamentally a social problem, not a technological one.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just a little stat for you all. 80% of all guns used in crimes in the US were purchased for home protection. Bottom line = You cannot shoot someone if you don't have a gun. Simple really, I would have thought.

Anti-gun lobbies spend a lot of money to make the numbers look like this and vice-versa. Like I said before, guns are tools and if there weren't guns they would kill each other with something else. It's fundamentally a social problem, not a technological one.

I dont think we have anything which can kill a prson with such swiftness and lethality as a gun ...unless you count daggers and spears...

[Guest]

Quote[/b] ]Just a little stat for you all. 80% of all guns used in crimes in the US were purchased for home protection. Bottom line = You cannot shoot someone if you don't have a gun. Simple really, I would have thought.

Anti-gun lobbies spend a lot of money to make the numbers look like this and vice-versa. Like I said before, guns are tools and if there weren't guns they would kill each other with something else. It's fundamentally a social problem, not a technological one.

I dont think we have anything which can kill a prson with such swiftness and lethality as a gun ...unless you count daggers and spears...

Oh I don't know....gassing can be pretty efficient. But I think I'll be in trouble for pointing that out....

[EiZei 0]

Ill rather have somebody going on a killing rampage with a crossbow rather than a SAW.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Using guns as self-defence is a rubbish argument. If you want to defend yourself, take up a martial art such as Ju Jitsu or Krav Maga. You get taught how to deal with armed robbers safely. The important thing is - you get taught. Nobody teaches you how to use your gun to defend yourself. Or imagine this, someone walks up behind you and puts a gun into your neck. What are you going to do with your gun, which is miles and miles away in your trousers or wherever you keep your gun? By the time you have drawn it, half the clip is in your brain.

Trust me, leave guns to the police. If you feel unsafe, take up a martial art, it is healthy, gives you confidence and protects you a lot better than guns. Finally, the best fighting method is to walk away from the fights in the first place.

End of educational remarks

[Grizzlie 0]

Ex-RoNiN

Can u count my chances for use ANY "martial art" as 40 ys old men having sick knees against 20 ys old guy who spends all his time training his muscles and armed with baseball bat?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Ex-RoNiN

Can u count my chances for use ANY "martial art" as 40 ys old men having sick knees against 20 ys old guy who spends all his time training his muscles and armed with baseball bat?

Muscles and sick knees are irrelevant in martial arts. When it comes to real life fights, kicks are practically useless. One or two hits can usually take a person out, you just have to know where to aim your hits

Sure, it may be hard to learn it at this stage, but it is possible. Jackie Chan is over 50 but he could easily take care of 6 of such muscle packed, baseball bat swinging hoods. Technique is the decisive factor, not physical condition.

[Acecombat 0]

Very nice post their Ex-ronin

Reminds of those many movies i used to watch about martial arts ... as a kid

But i must say Martial arts and such similiar fighting techniques dont depend on age that much until unless youre very well bed ridden or something. As you said it depends on technique

[Grizzlie 0]

For how long is he training?

And yes, i cant kick, jump, run and hardly duck. So i can't even evade hit.

Does it mean i cant protect myself?

And word about technique - if i hit Lennox Lewis with my fist even with best technique i wouldn't hurt him, but vice versa...

And why most martial-based sports and boxing r divided into weight categories? Do u know ANY light master-of-all-weights ?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Bed Ridden?  Even that doesn't matter; I've seen 'Crip-Fu' (actual name of film) where a guy with no legs and a guy with no arms went around kicking the shit out of 'normal' well muscled guys.

I agree with everything Denoir has said so far (I also own firearms, in 'gun free' Britain)

Quote[/b] ]MSMS_KDXer

That is exactly what I was talking about when I said it was sad.  You have convinced yourself that the values of Christianity are harmful to your society, and as such have discarded many of them.  Those values did not cause anyone to kill.  Poor interpretations combined with seperate motives led people to kill.  Sure, some were misled into killing in the name of those values, but people have been misled into any number of activities for any number of reasons.

The progress you speak of may have benefits to your society, but Christian morality is not preventing social development or benefits.  It just guides it.  And unfortunately, that guiding force has been disregarded by many, because it no longer fit their way of seeing the world.  The same Christian values that guided us before are still valid.  Maybe they don't seem to work in a world governed by Realpolitik, but those who practice them can lead a much more filling life

Please learn about your own country.

The US was not founded on Christian morality.  Most of the founding fathers were Deists (not christians) and founded the nation on the SEPERATION of Church(es) and State.

I think there are a few people who would disagree that Christian values don't cause people to kill:

Anyone born in the Dark Ages with

extra toes

extra nipples

who someone else didn't like and called a 'witch'

Anyone who wasn't a christian throughout most of history (CE)

Jews, gypsies, atheists and disabled in Nazi Germany*

etc.

*Although Hitler was only debatably a christian, he certainly claimed to be one

Now please keep your religious arguments out of this thread.

[Grizzlie 0]

Hey!

Stop talking about movies and martial-art masters!

We r talking about ordinary "men-in-a-street"!

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

You are mistaken about technique. A punch in the nads or on the throat will flatten anyone, irregardless of how big their biceps and triceps are.

Boxing is not a martial art. Some martial arts have weight categories because there are physical limits on some martial arts. Other martial arts don't.

Examples of martial arts that do not require the user to have a certain strength or certain size or weight are Ju Jitsu or Krav Maga. They are almost completely devoid of useless good-looking kicks (such as in Taek Won Do) and concentrate on usefull stuff, such as repelling armed attackers, multiple attackers, etc. A lot of bouncers will agree that Ju Jitsu and Krav Maga are very useful in street fights.

Do I know martial arts? I have done extensive research into them and am starting my Krav Maga lessons on the 15th

[Grizzlie 0]

U r partially right.

U have to be REALLY good in them. If u make ANY mistake, or your opponent is stronger than u thought, u r DEAD.

All of them have weaknesses:

1. thay all r full-contact

2. even if u win with one opponent, second can think he can win, and with a little of luck...

3. your opponent can train them too

With gun i can play on distance, and when one is hit, other would really think before he starts deal with me.

[EiZei 0]

U r partially right.

U have to be REALLY good in them. If u make ANY mistake, or your opponent is stronger than u thought, u r DEAD.

All of them have weaknesses:

1. thay all r full-contact

2. even if u win with one opponent, second can think he can win, and with a little of luck...

3. your opponent can train them too

With gun i can play on distance, and when one is hit, other would really think before he starts deal with me.

And if you shoot AT an armed intruder with your gun and you miss what do you think will happen?

EDIT: Fixed a critical mistake.

[ozanzac 0]

U r partially right.

U have to be REALLY good in them. If u make ANY mistake, or your opponent is stronger than u thought, u r DEAD.

All of them have weaknesses:

1. thay all r full-contact

2. even if u win with one opponent, second can think he can win, and with a little of luck...

3. your opponent can train them too

With gun i can play on distance, and when one is hit, other would really think before he starts deal with me.

And if you shoot an armed intruder with your gun and you miss what do you think will happen?

How can you shoot someone but miss?

[Grizzlie 0]

We were talking about situation: u versus guys with baseball bats and if martial-art can be replacement for gun for ordinary ppl.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

We were talking about situation: u versus guys with baseball bats and if martial-art can be replacement for gun for ordinary ppl.

Look, my opinion is this. Without practise, you won't get anywhere, both with guns and with martial arts.

Once you've had practise (I would say 1 yr's worth) you should be able to stand up for yourself, depending on the style. Some styles may take ages to learn, others may cover the basics within 2 months. Then there are styles that would not help you at all in such situations, such as boxing or Thai Chi (which I dont even consider to be a martial art).

Its all relative.

[Grizzlie 0]

This time i can aggree with you.

Maybe on my point of view has influence fact, that as teenager i was training judo (knees...) whis is not martial-art sensu-stricto, but sport based on ju-jitsu.

I was fighting few times with ju-jitsu fighters (friendly fights) and noticed that with strong oponent u basically has only one chance to hit to stop him. Rest is the way to find out how to make this one hit. And well trained, strong opponent is more resistant than ordinary men, so it CAN be that your hit could be too weak.

And if u use lethal hit - like on neck or other vital point, for sure there will be lawman who would say it was illegal and jurnalist who would start to yelling to ban martial-arts.

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]Muscles and sick knees are irrelevant in martial arts. When it comes to real life fights, kicks are practically useless. One or two hits can usually take a person out, you just have to know where to aim your hits

Groin, nose, soloplex

[ralphwiggum 6]

i'd have to say martial arts is a good option but as always, like my argument in firearms, is not the option. there are several limitations to it, and citing Jackie chan is a nonsense since he trained extensively for minimum of 3 decades.

i learned some martial arts and although it is useful, some situations it's not the answer.

as ex-ronin said, it's practice, practice. guns are an option, not the option either. so eliminating gun altogether from a pool of options is not a good solution either.

[canukausiuka 1]

Quote[/b] ]MSMS_KDXer

That is exactly what I was talking about when I said it was sad.  You have convinced yourself that the values of Christianity are harmful to your society, and as such have discarded many of them.  Those values did not cause anyone to kill.  Poor interpretations combined with seperate motives led people to kill.  Sure, some were misled into killing in the name of those values, but people have been misled into any number of activities for any number of reasons.

The progress you speak of may have benefits to your society, but Christian morality is not preventing social development or benefits.  It just guides it.  And unfortunately, that guiding force has been disregarded by many, because it no longer fit their way of seeing the world.  The same Christian values that guided us before are still valid.  Maybe they don't seem to work in a world governed by Realpolitik, but those who practice them can lead a much more filling life

Please learn about your own country.

The US was not founded on Christian morality.  Most of the founding fathers were Deists (not christians) and founded the nation on the SEPERATION of Church(es) and State.

I think there are a few people who would disagree that Christian values don't cause people to kill:

Anyone born in the Dark Ages with

extra toes

extra nipples

who someone else didn't like and called a 'witch'

Anyone who wasn't a christian throughout most of history (CE)

Jews, gypsies, atheists and disabled in Nazi Germany*

etc.

*Although Hitler was only debatably a christian, he certainly claimed to be one

Now please keep your religious arguments out of this thread.

I'll be brief, but most of the founding fathers were Christian. They went to church and they believed in God. Yes, they founded a nation bounded on seperation of church and state, but not the exclusion of church from life. They hoped to avoid the government establishing a church, not individuals from practicing religion, including government officials. And the values, as I stated, did not cause the atrocities you mentioned. They were all based on poor interpretation of those values (point in case: the middle ages... you wont find any christians today that would do stuff like that) or intentionally misled by other motives (point in case: witches, and the holocaust).

I will stop there, if you wish to continue this discussion, please PM me.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I'm glad you are stopping there because it is complete garbage.

You think the pope and the church of the middle ages weren't christian?  I bet they'd think YOU aren't christian.  

If you wish to argue these facts, please consult

a) A history book

b) The founding documents of America

c) a google search

and NOT

d) what your lying preacher told you.

The American founding fathers were mainly Deists (which is NOT the same as Christian) with the occasional atheist and pantheist.

These atrocties were caused by these people's interpretations of their religion. They would disagree with your interpretation as you disagree with theirs. Neither of you are right.

Not all Atrocities and persecution are caused by religion. Some, however, ARE. I cannot imagine a real reason to do what the inquisition did without religion. Perhaps Toadlife would like to suggest one?

[toadlife 3]

Quit equating Religion with the faults of man. Saying religion caused all of these past atrocites is no different saying guns cause violence. People allways forget the one common ingredient in all of mans' misdeeds - man.

What you are essentially doing is focusing on the side effects of the overall problem instead of trying to find and remedy the actual cause.

Even though I think he is wrong on some issues, I think Denoir is right on when he mentions that our primary focus needs to be on the underlying social issues. Guns or no guns, people's social problems will continue if you ignore them.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]Boxing is not a martial art.

I disagree.

Martial Art = Art of combat

The teach boxing to Rangers and SF here in the U.S. (among other styles)

Learning how not to get hit, what it is like to be hit hard, and how to use your entire body when throwing a punch can be quite useful in combat.

I also consider Grappeling and even shooting martial arts.

If Kendo is the art of the sword wouldn't shooting well also be so? Watching some crack troops clear a building is like poetry in motion.