Really? If San Jose is that nice I might move there. How is the job situation there?cotss2012 said:
7 year old girl shot dead while selling some lemonade
- Thread starter idarkphoenixi
- Start date
Jesus H...
cotss2012 said:You all knew I'd post here. You all knew that when I did, I'd respond to everything in the whole thread, all at once. That day has come, and now you shall reap what you have sewn!
Okay, so a bunch of people mentioned...
...and it just so happens that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the whole damn USA, with the possible exceptions of DC and Frisco, which are also known for atrociously high crime rates.
I'm willing to bet that this is NOT a coincidence. Any takers?
Indeed. Things would have been different if that little girl had a gun and knew how to use it.Powereaver said:Another sad story from the US involving guns... when will they learn? probably never
[QUOTE=TizzytheTormentor]The police should really crack down on whatever is causing the violence there[/QUOTE]
It's called "The War on Drugs", and the police will never crack down on it because they're its enforcers.
[QUOTE=Instant K4rma]And to think I just got done watching Bowling for Columbine.
This is the kind of shit Michael was talking about the whole film. I gotta say, he really hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.[/QUOTE]
The only thing he ever hit on the head was a Big Mac.
[QUOTE=MahMahnator2992]We need to do something about all of this gang violence, it's just absolutely sickening and serves no purpose but to keep us withheld to a primitive, tribal level.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Step #1: end the War on drugs.
[QUOTE=MahMahnator2992]If that means taking our guns away, go for it.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's not what it means, so STFU.
[QUOTE=MahMahnator2992]How can we Americans have such an obsessive infatuation with guns that we can somehow justify countless deaths like this[/QUOTE]
I don't see anyone justifying anything.
[QUOTE=Jester Lord]Police are scared, out-numbered, under-funded, under-paid and just can't be everywhere.[/QUOTE]
Maybe in Chicago. Here in San Jose, the police are bored, power-tripping assholes who don't do their actual jobs.
[QUOTE=Clearing the Eye]Laws don't stop people from killing each other. You can make all the laws in the world and not a single thing will change. You need to change the culture and treat poverty if you want gun related killings to slow.[/QUOTE]
Ending the War on Drugs would also work.
[QUOTE=Patathatapon]The thing is, they probably couldn't AFFORD a better home[/QUOTE]
But they could afford a trip to Disneyland...
[QUOTE=zelda2fanboy]No one being killed at gun shows isn't true.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-14/justice/massachusetts.gun.show.verdict_1_christopher-bizilj-westfield-sportsman-s-club-gun-show?_s=PM:CRIME[/QUOTE]
"...boy who accidentally shot himself..."
Doesn't count.
[QUOTE=Patathatapon]I don't know how the U.S.'s system works but I know they do executions.[/QUOTE]
It depends on the state. In Texas, the electric chair is always warm; in California, we have to sweep the cobwebs off it every few years.
[QUOTE=SaneAmongInsane]And on a side note, what the fuck is wrong with that DA? Why go after the gun show organizer when it was clear if anyone should be on trial it should be the person that loaded that Uzi and left it unattended?
Also, who the fuck was watching that kid?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that too.
[QUOTE=Clearing the Eye]My dad owns a few rifles (he hunts maybe once a year, but mostly target shoots) and he treats them with the respect they deserve. For starters, no rifle [b]ever[/b] leaves the locked, bolted to the concrete safe unless it's in his own hands and he's using it or cleaning it. Guns are never kept loaded and are checked and double checked before and after any handling--still, they are always regarded as loaded, because mistakes happen. Ammunition is kept in a separate, locked safe, with a different key. He is the only person in the world that knows where the keys are--not even my mother knows.
Of course not all U.S. citizens are gun toting idiots and anyone claiming they are needs a lesson in vocal minorities, but I do believe far too many Americans possess a lax attitude towards firearms. They aren't toys and they [b]will[/b] kill someone. The number of times people have been killed because some dickhead let a loaded handgun on the table or something... Common-fucking-sense.[/QUOTE]
That reminds me of my buddy Jason, who kept a shotgun in his room. The thing is, though, he kept it "hidden in plain sight" instead of locking it up, so he could get to it much more quickly in the event of an emergency but there was still a pretty minimal chance of it falling into the wrong hands.
[QUOTE=DVS BSTrD]The only way to really cut down on gun violence and the subsequent deaths of innocent bystanders is to stop. manufacturing. automatic. weapons.[/QUOTE]
This is wrong for two reasons:
1) almost nobody in the USA is killed by automatic weapons. These bullets are from semi-autos or less.
2) The best way to cut down on violence is to eliminate the cause of the violence: namely, the war on drugs.
[QUOTE=KingsGambit]Sympathy for the girl and her bereaved family, none at all for the USA. They are happy and adamant to continue allowing guns to be privately owned, this is the inevitable result. Americans have no right to bemoan both the tragic loss of a child's life and their personal, inalienable right to own guns.
One is the consequence of the other so you make your bed and lie in it.[/QUOTE]
BULL. SHIT.
Chicago's gun laws are almost as bad as those of the UK. Guess what? Both places are now festering, crime-filled shitholes as a direct result of the strictness of these laws. We also see high violent crime rates in such bastions of left-wing anti-gun nuttery as California and Massachusetts. Meanwhile, states that are downright allergic to gun-control, like New Hampshire and Wyoming, have the lowest violent crime rates.
So maybe certain people need to STFU until they know what the fuck they're talking about.
[QUOTE=Akalabeth]The US homicide rate per 100,000 people is 2.5 times any other of the major western nations (the second being Canada apparently):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
at least for the year of 2009.[/QUOTE]
We also have more black people as a percentage of total population than any other Western country, followed by... oh yeah... Canada.
I'm not saying there's a link or anything, mind you.
[QUOTE=SpectacularWebHead]May as well give guns to a group of toddlers, as seemingly they're the ones who are going to be victims of stray fire anyway.[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with this, provided that they are also given the proper safety training.
[QUOTE=Res Plus]I will never understand why anyone would need to buy a gun.[/QUOTE]
We also don't need to buy cars, computers, refrigerators, George Foreman grills, or legos. What's your point?
[QUOTE=Res Plus]I'd rather work so that no one had any guns, pointy or blunt objects[/QUOTE]
So you'd ban literally [i]every single object that humans are capable of picking up[/i]?
That makes perfect sense. Yup.
[QUOTE=KingsGambit][QUOTE=Lumber Barber]but do you think crime will stop if guns aren't allowed to be legally owned?[/QUOTE]Stop? No. Be significantly reduced? A resounding yes.[/quote]
The facts indicate otherwise.
[QUOTE=KingsGambit][QUOTE=DRes82]What does the US have to do with this thread?[/QUOTE]The girl was in Chicago. Chicago is in the US. Ergo the girl was in the US.[/quote]
...which has jack-all to do with anything.
[QUOTE=KingsGambit][QUOTE=DRes82]Outlawing weapons here wouldn't make stuff like this cease to happen.[/QUOTE]It would reduce it by many magnitudes.[/quote]
There is no reason to believe that.
[QUOTE=KingsGambit][QUOTE=DRes82]It would only drive the market for said weapons underground. An expanded black market for firearms would only INCREASE violent crime.[/QUOTE]No it wouldn't. Law abiding citizens don't buy weapons on black markets when doing so is illegal.[/quote]
I doubt that the girl in question was killed by a law-abiding citizen.
[QUOTE=KingsGambit]less guns = less bullets killing 7 year old children, committing murder and armed robbery.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we'd vastly prefer that people be more imaginative with their murder weapons:
[img src="http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/cmaz_540.jpg"]
[img src="http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/skull_bones_hand_claw_540.jpg"]
And don't you DARE try to ban that shit, because it's fucking awesome.
[QUOTE=KingsGambit]Doesn't make your 300 year old Second Amendment any more sensible.[/QUOTE]
It's only 220 years old, thank you very much, and it's far more sensible than Europe's current strategy of "let's focus on guns and ignore every single other kind of crime".
[QUOTE=KingsGambit]Every single school, university and college shooting is on the heads of your government for [b]making them "gun-free" zones[/b].[/QUOTE]
Fixed.
[QUOTE=KingsGambit]You guys are still living in the Wild West.[/QUOTE]
Actually, we are. There are vast areas of the Midwest populated primarily by cowboys/ranchers, where the closest thing you'll find to a grocery store will be a rickety building wooden titled "general store" that's about the size of a gas station mini-mart. [b]THESE PEOPLE AND PLACES ACTUALLY EXIST[/b], and in fact, make up the entirety of Wyoming outside of Jackson Hole.
[QUOTE=DRes82]Yes, all 350 million of us are cowboys with six-shooters on our hips. Now, if you don't mind [I]pardner[/I], I'll be moseying off into the sunset now.[/QUOTE]
[img src="http://www.photo-dictionary.com/photofiles/list/932/1371cowboy.jpg"]
[QUOTE=Abandon4093]Not that I'm backing up Powereaver's point. But you can't really say that when you look at the amount of gun crime in countries with strict gun laws.
It probably would be too late to change anything now in the US, because it's already so ingrained in the culture. But to say that there would be the amount of guncrime that there is in the US if guns were just out and out illegal is fallacious. Simply because how low gun crime is in countries that have put zero tolerance on people owning them.[/QUOTE]
Again, we have someone spouting off about "gun crime" as if all other types of crimes don't matter.
[QUOTE=Blablahb]Break into any random house, chances are you'll find weapons there.[/QUOTE]
It's only a 40-50% chance, but if you do find weapons, they'll be pointed at you.
[QUOTE=Blablahb]Or rob one of thousands and thousands of gun stores.[/QUOTE]
Haha!
Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's about as smart as trying to rob a donut store.
[QUOTE=Blablahb]Most robbers around here for instance make do with replicas. Armed burglars are unheard of. The very few actual street gangs that exist are unarmed, or use tiny knives, think swiss army knives. Most street muggers are unarmed, some use small knives, and I can't remember a single instance of them stabbing someone.
It's also bred a culture where criminals will be extremely hesitant to use weapons, and especially firearms, because serious violence is so rare the police comes down on weapon users like a ton of bricks.[/QUOTE]
Okay. And what's the result of all of this? Your rapes, robberies, stabbings, and so on are the worst in Europe and still skyrocketing, whereas ours are declining.
[QUOTE=SecondPrize]This is what you get when you want the right to own a handgun so you can feel like your family is safe. Deadly weapons do not make for good pacifiers.[/QUOTE]
The facts indicate otherwise.
[QUOTE=Abandon4093]countries with strict gun laws have extremely low gun crime across board.
There is virtually no gun crime in the UK, sure there is still a large gang violence problem, but they usually use things like knives, bats, bars etc.
Of course there are organised criminals who obtain guns for certain things, and wannabe big timers who import them for drug crime like the Rettendon murders. But generally, shootings are unheard of over here.
At this stage in the game... yea, guns are too ingrained in the US' culture for a ban on guns to be either feasible or for such a thing to even have any sort of effect. But you can't argue with the fact that countries who just completely outlaw guns have virtually no gun crime whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
Wow, yet another European who doesn't care how many people die, get raped, get robbed, etc., so long as it's all done with weapons other than guns.
Like, what the fuck, Europe?
[QUOTE=Da Orky Man]Given the general American view of firearms, in order to change the culture, you'll need to start somewhat limiting the availability of guns.[/QUOTE]
Or promoting their use, depending on the direction in which you want the culture to change.[/spoiler]
[QUOTE=loc978]We'd need to change our industries first, shrink the military-industrial complex hugely... one of the reasons guns are so common here is simply because we make so many of 'em[/QUOTE]
That will accomplish a huge amount of jack shit, seeing as how military-grade weaponry is almost entirely illegal here. Go ahead, try to get a real Heckler & Koch G36 and not some semi-automatic piece of crap with a ten-round mag and a donut grip.
[spoiler=snip][QUOTE=Lunar Templar]the real way to cut gun crime, or crime in general rather, is to attack the source of the problem, which isn't the weapon it self, but the PEOPLE using them. what we really need is better education across the board, to actually do something about the poverty stricken community's where a lot of these issues come from, and get them out of poverty.[/QUOTE]
Education won't do a damn thing. We can't have a population composed entirely of astronauts and lawyers, because [i]someone[/i] has to clean the bathroom at McDonald's. What we really need to do is (1) wipe out black markets by legalizing drugs, gambling, and other victimless vices, and (2) enact economic policies that promote real growth and a stable currency rather than inflation and an endless succession of bubbles and bursts that eventually wipe out the middle class.
[QUOTE=ElPatron]Semi-automatics are automatics. They were the first kind of automatic to see use in the military. Never read old spy books? They always refer to handguns as either revolvers or automatics, I rarely saw "pistol" used.[/QUOTE]
Well, if the [i]authors of old spy novels[/i] said so, then I guess we should believe them rather than the professionals in the firearms industry and the military.
[QUOTE=Madgamer13]the law in the UK does not allow for self-defense[/QUOTE]
DUDE
No wonder the UK is so fucked up... criminals [i]know[/i] that their victims won't fight back with lethal force!
[QUOTE=Faraja]The problem with gang bangers, is that they have to look cool for their homies. That means, holding your weapon in a way to make you look like a real OG. Two common ways for filth to hold their weapons are at a 90 degree angle, or a 180 degree angle. Basically, they hold it like they're holding the handle bars of a bike, or they needed to check something on their elbow. Holding a gun like that, means that you lose a lot control, and thus accuracy.
Combine that with the generally sudden nature of these shoot outs, and people trying to run and gun, and its easy to see why several rounds get no where near the intended target.[/QUOTE]
Hilariously, you could do this in Unreal Tournament, and the drawback was that... you'd lose accuracy!
[QUOTE=Res Plus]Well yes, obviously, but it definately isn't beyond the realms of possiblity to make guns, which are much, much easier to kill people with than sporks, considerably harder to come by that they are in America.[/QUOTE]
But why would we want to do such a thing?
[QUOTE=Res Plus]It is a shame America's consitution, which in so many ways is beneficial, has frozen it's gun laws and attitudes to guns in a pre-colonial state. In pre-colonial times guns were essential, now they simply aren't.[/QUOTE]
Pre-colonial? You mean back when the Injuns had sole claim to the land?
[QUOTE=Seneschal]I'd also like to dispel some preconceptions as someone from "Yugoslavia" (which, for your information, ceased to exist 20 years ago). I've never seen a firearm that wasn't in a policeman's holster, let alone an unholstered one; I have no idea where to get them, there are no gun stores that I know of, the registration/license process is arduous, and hunting/sports shooting requires additional checks and precautions.[/QUOTE]
Wow, you must have an EXTREMELY low violent crime rate!
Oh, wait...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Serbia
[QUOTE=royohz]I did, however, not catch a real answer for why US citizens kill each other with guns at such morbidly and frightening higher rate than any other country in the world[/QUOTE]
Gang warfare. Crips, Bloods, Zetas, and the Gulf cartel fighting for turf and control of various black markets, including black markets in [i](drum roll)[/i]... illegal firearms.
[QUOTE=haukotus]it would also reduce the amount of people stupid enough to....[/QUOTE]
No. You can't reduce the number of stupid people in existence by making it harder for them to get guns. that doesn't make any sense.
[QUOTE=haukotus]In Finland, civilians aren't allowed to carry guns in public. Or for that matter, anything that even resembles a gun.[/QUOTE]
So... no Super Soakers?
Man, Finland sucks :\
[QUOTE=haukotus]That way all the disputes can be solved by word, or fists[/QUOTE]
Or guns that are acquired and concealed illegally.
Or by these:
[img src="http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/cmaz_540.jpg"]
[img src="http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/skull_bones_hand_claw_540.jpg"]
[QUOTE=Blablahb]But, but, but, people without firearms shoot eachother with bare hands at exactly the same rates[/QUOTE]
No, people without firearms move on to stabbing or clubbing each other with melee weapons, and they do so at much higher rates.
[QUOTE=TwiZtah]Serious question, why does USA have so many homicides?[/QUOTE]
Gang warfare involving Bloods, Crips, Zetas, and the Gulf Cartel (translation: blacks and Mexicans).
The Asian community is amazingly well-behaved, however.
[QUOTE=Treblaine]In the UK when this sort of thing happens (usually a stabbing) there is an amnesty to hand in lethal weapons anonymously without legal consequence just to get them off the streets. Apparently in the UK people walk in with fully loaded full-auto AK47 assault rifles to turn them in.
Are there gun amnesties in cities like Chicago? How effective are they? If not, why not?[/QUOTE]
So, wait a minute... in the UK, I can kill someone, and then [i]the government will provide me with a place to dispose of the evidence anonymously[/i]?
WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
[QUOTE=Treblaine]Well the way gun amnesty works is playing to a gambler's paranoia that most criminals follow.
The implicit threat is that when the gun amnesty is over the police then raid all the local crims and anyone caught illegally owning a gun gets and extra bad sentence from how that poor little girl just died and how they didn't even take advantage of the gun amnesty.
Now the trick here is the police can't catch every gun, but the crims don't know where is going to get raided. So a load of them dump their guns before the dragnet comes by. So overall more guns are off the streets.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, see, that kind of thing doesn't fly in the USA because our police aren't the goddamn Nazi Schutzstaffel. We actually have things in this country called "due process" and "probable cause" and "warrants".
[QUOTE=Treblaine]Of course they'll get warrants first. It's not hard to get warrants after a kid just got shot, just shake down some low level hoodlum and get them to agree to an insinuation there might be a gun in the house of a convicted criminal. Test his hand for gun residue. Any tenuous link to get probable cause[/QUOTE]
That also doesn't work here. Our police can't go around abducting and interrogating random people just to get fabricated evidence so they can get a warrant. Seriously, how fucked up is the UK?
[QUOTE=Faraja]Alternatively, some gangs will allow female members to get sexed in.[/QUOTE]
Seriously? If I join a gang, I can sex the female gang members?
HOT DAMN IA GO OUT AND JOIN A GANG RIGHT NOW! And by "now", I mean "as soon as my WoW subscription expires". In a month.
[QUOTE=Blablahb][QUOTE=Faraja]What it is an equalizer, maybe not in practice, but in theory. It can help people feel more secure, knowing that they can better respond to threats like "gimme yo money, *****".[/QUOTE]Yeah, because getting shot dead by a robber after trying to kill him over some small change really works out better than laughing at him since he's an unarmed as you are, and walking away with all your money and no injuries.[/quote]
Yeah, one fictional scenario is better than another, but let's compare real-world scenarios instead. Shooting a mugger and walking away with all your money and no injuries is vastly preferable to having your head bashed in my a crowbar by a guy who will get away with it because the government is providing him with a means to anonymously dispose of the weapon.
[QUOTE=Madgamer13]The fear I speak of is having to resort to firearms to equal the field, at least if they have a knife I can run away[/QUOTE]
And they can run after you.
[QUOTE=Treblaine]Everyone carrying firearms everywhere for self-defence does not sit well with me, as what if two people who are legally armed have a minor altercation like a fender bender and both notice each other are armed. They'd both think at the same time "He's got a gun on him, better go for MY gun" then "Oh my god, he's going for a gun, better shoot him to save my life".[/QUOTE]
But that doesn't happen in real life. Would you like to know what does happen? Two people get into a minor altercation, each notices the other is armed, and both think "Hmmm, maybe I should be more polite to this jackass than he deserves, just in case he's the kind of nut who would start a shootout over something so minor".
Contrast that to the Internet, where we can't actually hurt each other, and thus we talk all sorts of shit that we'd never say in real life, armed or otherwise.[/spoiler][/quote] Right. Because most crime is perpetrated with high-end battle rifles, not POS 9mm handguns [img]http://fuckgrapefruit.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/sarcmark-tiny1-e1263734055127.gif
My point was it's a bad idea that would take generations to change anything at all... and said changes would not be for the better.
ironically gang violence is largely prevalent in places with strict gun control laws such as northern and western US.
In my hometown of Buffalo, NY in northern US, if i see a group of young black people im crossing the street and avoiding them. Down south in the middle of alabama where im often sent for work, i am the only non-black person in town and I have never felt safer.
Like it has been said in every gun related thread, there is not a single shred of evidence that banning guns will help in any way, shape, or form. Banning guns is just not a possibility for a plethora of reasons even IF it was the right thing to do (which is a grey area AT BEST)
In my hometown of Buffalo, NY in northern US, if i see a group of young black people im crossing the street and avoiding them. Down south in the middle of alabama where im often sent for work, i am the only non-black person in town and I have never felt safer.
Like it has been said in every gun related thread, there is not a single shred of evidence that banning guns will help in any way, shape, or form. Banning guns is just not a possibility for a plethora of reasons even IF it was the right thing to do (which is a grey area AT BEST)
Wow you're totally not an opinionated fool. But let's not talk about you for now. I have actually since changed my mind about US gun control and no longer believe that removing guns from the citizenry is the right thing to do. I'm fully in favour of arming the entire populace. Not only should every american have the right to bear arms, they should further have the obligation to bear arms.cotss2012 said:
The state should make access to guns as easy as possible to every US citizen, going so far as to subsidise their purchase price, removing background checks and other things to stand between the citizen and their guns. The more citizens armed with lethal weapons, the better. This way, there will be so many fatal shootings that it can serve as population control AND save Iran and other US haters having to work out ways to harm US citizens, as they'll be killing themselves. It is also a way to watch Darwin's "survival of the fittest" in action.
Yes, you are right, gun amnesties sacrifice the "murder weapon as evidence" in order to encourage illegal weapons to be taken off the street wholesale. It's not hard to get rid or guns, throw em in a river, or just stick one in a trash can and watch it get buried in a land fill.cotss2012 said:
The point is with gun amnesties it encourages them to dump their guns in a way that the guns can be kept track of what guns criminals - in general - are using and what have been taken off the streets. This is good as stolen weapons can be recovered intact to their rightful and legal owners.
The murder weapon like a gun is not important in a trial considering how matching bullets to guns at best is only circumstantial evidence, as you couldn't prove they had the gun at the time, or if the gun had secretly been sold before or after a murder. All the prosecution lawyer really need is to tell the jury is that gun amnesties WERE in use in the area, and that is why the weapon in question cannot be found in the suspects property, or by ANY MEANS he would get rid or the murder weapon if ONLY because he was not legally allowed to own an unregistered gun
You cannot even match ballistic residue (casings, bullets) to a particular firearm with accuracy that any decent defence lawyer couldn't cast reasonable doubt on, and I'm pretty sure is inadmissible considering how from one shot to the next there is huge variation in patterning. Guns don't carve such unique patterns on bullets, each type has a relatively distinct calibre as well as distinguishing direction and angle of rifling, but that narrows it down from 500-million guns to about one-of-5 million guns.
Say in this shooting the OP was about, if 9mm casings were found on the scene and bullets embedded in objects with a rifling pattern consistent with a S&W type 9mm pistol either the Model 39 M59 or similar... even if you found a S&W M39 in a known criminal's car they couldn't match the casing and bullets they found to any particular M39 pistol they found as there are so many in circulation. It's not like every bullet imprints the serial-number of the gun on the bullet, it just narrows it down to a model type where millions were made of each. It wouldn't prove anything in itself, it's like saying a Ford Pontiac was known to have committed a hit and run and the suspect owns a ford pontiac, but the police don't know the licence plate or even the colour of the car involved. It's just circumstantial evidence.
Murder cases hang on pieces of evidence like fingerprints found on shell casings, trace DNA evidence from victims blood/brain-tissue on suspect's clothes, and by deduction of calculating time of movements, CCTV footage and good old corroborating cross-examined eyewitness testimony. All these things DIRECTLY relate to the suspect, while ballistics do not.
I know how easy it is for the police to get probable cause for searching in US legal system: very easy. I know how willing and actual US police are in massive shakedowns, they need very little to arrest and interrogate young and dumb hoodulums where it is easy to get them to implicate others for further warrants. Police don't "abduct" people, they "arrest" people. I'm not saying fabricating evidence, don't you have ANY CLUE how police procedurals get suspects to implicate their confederates? Part of parole condition means to have wherever you are be residing searched at any time without a warrant.
Come on, the US Police don't have to be Nazis to run a simple shakedown.
As to everyone carrying side-arms everywhere, my main problem is where the law does not specifically prescribe the "Hmmm, maybe I should be more polite to this jackass than he deserves" which is precisely in contravention of the "stand your ground" laws where you have no duty in altercations to disengage and try to defuse the situation.
Anyone who is carrying a lethal weapon that can readily be drawn (i.e. a gun in a holster, not a gun in a gun case) MUST be bound by extra conditions in recognition of how them being armed. That they have a duty to retreat even when an unarmed person might not, because the moment they go for their weapon, they take an inherently threatening stance as perceived
I watched on the BBC from a gun owner who says he wished a fellow concealed carry citizen had been in that movie theatre where a crazy guy murdered 12 or more people in a spree shooting so that he might have been able to do something to stop the madman, even if only wound him or slow him down. The BBC reporter accepted that a man set on murder would charge in regardless of gun laws but did challenged him that even a person with good intentions carrying a concealed gun in a public might be irresponsible for how it might escalate minor altercations.
The advocate made clear that those carrying concealed held to a higher standard of responsibility, to avoid altercations and whenever using a weapon to use it to avoid further harm.
The problem is when the law does not back this up, when it recognises their great power without responsibility.
My point is not politeness, my point is you cannot have rules of engagement that allow two legal and good minded people to draw and shoot on each other. There must be a clause demanding plausible disengagement, so unless the other guy is literally in the act of gunning down people in a theatre you have to give a chance to the other guy to back out and lower your weapons and talk this out.
As to politeness, let's get real. If politeness was all it took, then you could talk your way out of being mugged at gun point. No, if someone is trying to kill you or inflict serious harm then you need to defend yourself and a gun is a very good way. The kind of nut who would start shooting.
If impoliteness causes an armed citizen to draw their weapon and use it against another human being when it isn't self defence, then said citizen is a psychopath. If the people you work with tease or mock someone, only a fucking psychopath would draw a weapon and shoot them for that.
I should be able to go up to an armed citizen and insult his mother and go full Westbro Baptist Church Trolling on him without having to worry about him shooting me as him doing that IS NOT SELF DEFENCE! It is NOT PROPORTIONAL to even threaten to shoot someone who is merely impolite or verbally harassing. Someone who entertains committing such a crime - and that is a crime - should never be allowed to carry a weapon.
Armed citizens are for defending from violent criminality. They are NOT, absolutely NOT, to bully people into being silent under implicit threat of murder. And you're part of the problem even entertaining the notion.
No. You can't reduce the number of stupid people in existence by making it harder for them to get guns. that doesn't make any sense.haukotus said:
You cut my sentence a little short there, I said that "reduce the amount of people stupid enough to start a shoot-out in public." That meaning, without guns people can't start shoot-outs, right?
So... no Super Soakers?haukotus said:
Man, Finland sucks :\
As for the Super Soakers... Haven't had any on me when visiting a shopping centre or such... But I'd imagine people would at least glance at you weird, an adult carrying a super soaker to a shopping centre
. But if you insist, I'm pretty sure you could carry one on you. If you behave yourself. We're not fascists after all. Or guns that are acquired and concealed illegally.haukotus said:
There's always that, but people need to go through much more to get a gun illegally so I assume the overall amount of illegal guns is reduced?
Or by these:
Great idea! At least with those, there wouldn't be so much collateral damage!
![](http://[img src="http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/skull_bones_hand_claw_540.jpg"])
I was just being pedantic. A semi-automatic is an automatic. If you say automatic, you imply that the gun will repeat it's action by shooting it.cotss2012 said:
A pistol is automatic. A revolver mechanism requires the human element to be able to repeat it's action. There are exceptions such as the Mateba revolver, but whatevers.