General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Define a "high powered" gun, because I'm willing to bet you don't know what one actually is...hint, an AR-15 is not high-powered.

Minus 5 from the number and it is.

One question though, is there a different kind of gun license required to own a overpowered weapon e.g a Barrett M82? Or specialist weapons like the P90 which can fire AP rounds?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Define a "high powered" gun, because I'm willing to bet you don't know what one actually is...hint, an AR-15 is not high-powered.

Something like this, I suppose:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/_U6tORrODJE

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

I chuckled at the disclaimer at the end. Yes, technically "each action is independent", so technically it's not essentially full auto, but a rifle dumping out that many bullets in a few seconds is clearly not for hunting deer.

Another fun one:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/O9m7Qfj-pTM

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Solace

Something like this, I suppose:

I chuckled at the disclaimer at the end. Yes, technically "each action is independent", so technically it's not essentially full auto, but a rifle dumping out that many bullets in a few seconds is clearly not for hunting deer.

Actually, it's still not a high-powered rifle, 'cause you're still talking about a .223 round.

also, on bump-fire:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire

I suppose it'd be fun for people who have too much ammo (money) to waste. For actual practical use where accuracy is even remotely a concern, it's a waste of time.

[PzIVf3]

MILLER: National ‘assault weapon’ ban coming Thursday

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by PzIVf3

MILLER: National ‘assault weapon’ ban coming Thursday

Obviously larger text makes you special

and this renewed cosmetic ban has about a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by PzIVf3

MILLER: National ‘assault weapon’ ban coming Thursday

Feinstein intends to expand on the ban that expired in 2004, by including handguns and shotguns, in addition to rifles. She would decrease from two to one the number of cosmetic features on a gun to have it be considered an “assault weapon.” This means that if a gun has just one item like a pistol grip or bayonet lug, then it is illegal. Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law the same ban in New York last week.
Furthermore, instead of grandfathering in current firearms, she would create a national gun registry for the government to track lawful gun owners. Magazines would again be limited to 10 rounds.

To summarize, she's still mostly a moron on this topic, but even more so. Ineffective crap law round 2 starts now. High probability of dying in committee because even centrists and moderate left will say, "wtf?"

So ... the shotgun that I have modified to use a folding stock and pistol grips so that my very small wife can handle it would be an assault weapon under her proposal and I'd have to register it. Genius ... not. What? She's trying to disarm people with disabilities, small people, etc?

Can we please get *someone* in the Senate who knows what they're doing involved?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

To summarize, she's still mostly a moron on this topic, but even more so. Ineffective crap law round 2 starts now. High probability of dying in committee because even centrists and moderate left will say, "wtf?"

So ... the shotgun that I have modified to use a folding stock and pistol grips so that my very small wife can handle it would be an assault weapon under her proposal and I'd have to register it. Genius ... not. What? She's trying to disarm people with disabilities, small people, etc?

Can we please get *someone* in the Senate who knows what they're doing involved?

Well after the "someone" sees who you are giving the weapon to, they would turn the "getting someone who knows what they're doing involved" back on you.

Seriously though, it never ceases to amaze me how the lawmakers nowadays, throughout the world, draft superficial laws without even taking into account the ability to enforce them properly.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Actually, it's still not a high-powered rifle, 'cause you're still talking about a .223 round.

also, on bump-fire:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire

I suppose it'd be fun for people who have too much ammo (money) to waste. For actual practical use where accuracy is even remotely a concern, it's a waste of time.

I understand that. The point is that the video demonstrates gratuitous use of a gun. A lot of people, even a few gun owners, are going to look at that and wonder what practical use does a mod like that really have? Sure, it'll definitely cause a lot of mayhem and eat your bullet budget. Probably fuck up the gun at some point too. But what do you use it for? Defense? I pity the poor person you point that at, or what's left of them. And given the inaccurate rate of fire, some of those bullets have a high chance of straying, so hello collateral damage. Same with hunting. There are better guns for bigger prey. This is like fishing with dynamite, and you're a hazard to other hunters.

So....what? Because it's fun? Some sporting event maybe? Preparing for some invasion? What use does this have?

If I were to plan a mass shooting, this is definitely what I'd want, with a few large capacity magazines for backup. It's not accurate, but if I wanted accuracy I'd go snipe people, like the DC killers. The whole idea of a mass shooting is to hit as many people as possible in an enclosed space. Fish in a barrel and all that. A few stray bullets is actually a good thing, morbidly enough.

In gun defense, like Vexx pointed out before, just the fact that you have a gun is usually a deterrent. You might need to fire a few shots for the stubborn ones. A revolver, shotgun, or hunting rifle will do the trick. At what point does a gun turn from self defense and hunting into overkill? That's why I think a lot of people look at something like the AR-15 and associate it with bad things.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Can we please get *someone* in the Senate who knows what they're doing involved?

When people in this country value education and experience more than packaged products, we'll have a better government.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Solace

When people in this country value education and experience more than packaged products, we'll have a better government.

Why are you echoing the sentiments of the Russians? Communist traitor!

Russia says U.S. rights law "odious" but wants constructive ties

Lavrov called the Magnitsky Act "odious" and also criticized a U.S. judge's recent ruling in a dispute over a collection of Jewish writings held in Russia.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Solace

I understand that. The point is that the video demonstrates gratuitous use of a gun.

Can't say I particularly care for that kind of characterization. It's no more gratuitous than people who splurge on exotic sport cars or tuning their own, or those that spend 4, 5k+ on a computer rig with phased cooling for max oc benchmark, or line their cabinets and tables of figurines.

A lot of people, even a few gun owners, are going to look at that and wonder what practical use does a mod like that really have? Sure, it'll definitely cause a lot of mayhem and eat your bullet budget. Probably fuck up the gun at some point too. But what do you use it for?

A bump-fire rifle would be a poor man's (probably because he's wasting so much money on .223 rounds) way of seeing what it's like to shoot automatic weapons, particularly if they don't have access to shooting clubs that have actual automatic weapons.

So....what? Because it's fun? Some sporting event maybe? Preparing for some invasion? What use does this have?

Recreation, it's simply not very practical for anything else I can think of personally.

If I were to plan a mass shooting, this is definitely what I'd want, with a few large capacity magazines for backup.

Eh, wouldn't be my first, second, or third choice, actually it wouldn't be anywhere in my list

spray and pray is terrible enough, doing it with a bump rifle makes it even less effective.

At what point does a gun turn from self defense and hunting into overkill? That's why I think a lot of people look at something like the AR-15 and associate it with bad things.

Generally speaking, it's when people who don't understand anything about guns start to think they do, and the whole obsession with the AR15 platform is the perfect example.

It's not particularly powerful, nor is it somehow extra lethal. Where it excels in is its versatility - whether you're looking for casual plinking, home defense, or competition shooting, short, tall, big hands, small hands, long arms, short arms etc, there are tons of different configuration of parts out there that will let you put together one that'll fit you, and your needs.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Why are you echoing the sentiments of the Russians? Communist traitor!

Russia says U.S. rights law "odious" but wants constructive ties

Heh. Like Russia has any ground to talk about fairness in law. But yeah, I'll watch RT. I'm not afraid of outside viewpoints. If that makes me a commie, well comrade, drape me in red and get me some vodka. No, really. I love vodka. Why don't we have a "favorite alcohol beverage/recipe" thread yet?

Originally Posted by kyp275

Can't say I particularly care for that kind of characterization. It's no more gratuitous than people who splurge on exotic sport cars or tuning their own, or those that spend 4, 5k+ on a computer rig with phased cooling for max oc benchmark, or line their cabinets and tables of figurines.

Not what I meant. When you're selling people on the importance of the second amendment, this video doesn't help. People are sold on practical arguments. Think of it like the husband who really wants the sedan with the 400hp engine, but has to convince his wife that it seats five and has a full size trunk. Or the PC guy who spends so much on a rig because it'll get him better competitive scores, or the figuring guy who justifies the collection because one day, it'll be worth a lot of money. Obviously, the reason is really "because I like it, and it's fun". But those things aren't constitutional rights that cause heated debates. Guns are. So for guns, image matters. A lot. If it didn't, no one would scapegoat movies and games for their portrayal of them.

A bump-fire rifle would be a poor man's (probably because he's wasting so much money on .223 rounds) way of seeing what it's like to shoot automatic weapons, particularly if they don't have access to shooting clubs that have actual automatic weapons.

My understanding of bump-fire was that it was originally intended to help disabled people fire reliably. Obviously it has other uses too.

Recreation, it's simply not very practical for anything else I can think of personally.

Right. But this is where image matters. To the uninformed, it looks bad. This is like the NRA game that just came out. Yeah, it's for shooting practice, and it ain't CoD, but it's horrible PR to put it out after blaming video games for gun crime.

Eh, wouldn't be my first, second, or third choice, actually it wouldn't be anywhere in my list

spray and pray is terrible enough, doing it with a bump rifle makes it even less effective.

It's not my first choice. If I wanted to kill people in mass, there are better ways to do it. Like becoming President. The odds of that happening are about the same as the odds of me killing people. Dodged a bullet there, America! (pun possibly intended)

Generally speaking, it's when people who don't understand anything about guns start to think they do, and the whole obsession with the AR15 platform is the perfect example.

It's not particularly powerful, nor is it somehow extra lethal. Where it excels in is its versatility - whether you're looking for casual plinking, home defense, or competition shooting, short, tall, big hands, small hands, long arms, short arms etc, there are tons of different configuration of parts out there that will let you put together one that'll fit you, and your needs.

Right, absolutely. I'm not in favor of banning guns, you know that (I hope). But you can see the image problem. To find common ground and understanding, it's important to bridge these differences in education. Only then can real solutions be found.

By the way, I chuckled at your description of the AR15. My first thought was "It's like the personal computer of guns!". Sigh, I'm such a nerd. ><

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Solace

My understanding of bump-fire was that it was originally intended to help disabled people fire reliably. Obviously it has other uses too.

Hmm, the slide-fire stocks etc. can definitely help with that, especially if you're sitting in a wheel-chair. The original manual bump-fire though is anything but disabled-friendly

Right. But this is where image matters. To the uninformed, it looks bad. This is like the NRA game that just came out. Yeah, it's for shooting practice, and it ain't CoD, but it's horrible PR to put it out after blaming video games for gun crime.

Indeed, for what is supposedly an evil super-powerful lobbying entity, it's almost comical how bad the NRA are at managing PR.

To find common ground and understanding, it's important to bridge these differences in education. Only then can real solutions be found.

Yup. Though unfortunately, like most things there are little desire to understand, and even less desire to find common ground. Just another day on planet Earth I guess.

By the way, I chuckled at your description of the AR15. My first thought was "It's like the personal computer of guns!". Sigh, I'm such a nerd. ><

That comparison crossed my mind as well

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Vexx

To summarize, she's still mostly a moron on this topic, but even more so. Ineffective crap law round 2 starts now. High probability of dying in committee because even centrists and moderate left will say, "wtf?"

So ... the shotgun that I have modified to use a folding stock and pistol grips so that my very small wife can handle it would be an assault weapon under her proposal and I'd have to register it. Genius ... not. What? She's trying to disarm people with disabilities, small people, etc?

Can we please get *someone* in the Senate who knows what they're doing involved?

Feinstein makes me ashamed to live in my state. I still remember her supporting SOPA, so she's just one of those totalitarian tools that have power. Too bad I can't vote her out.

[Ithekro]

Tried to vote her out...still hasn't worked.

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by PzIVf3

MILLER: National ‘assault weapon’ ban coming Thursday

Scroll down to the second or third paragraph where it say the FBI says the Clinton gun ban was largely ineffective. Wonder if dear Diane ever turned in her other .38?

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Effective energy based stun weapons would be viable, but I don't think sonic and blinding are all that good presently (blinding either has to be very precise to the eyes or has the chance of blinding innocents around the intended target, depending on the style used. Sonics seem like they would be area effect type weapons that could hurt a lot of people along the frontal area of the weapon.) Sure sonics and blinding weapons might not kill them, but in the lawsuit crazy world we are in, I can imagine damages being filed, and if the damage caused by the weapons is permanent, some might have rather have been killed (never see again. Never hear again. Those kinds of things.)

Depending on just what one means by sonic and blinding weapons.

How about the Glare Mout? Most blinding weapons work much like a camera flash. Ever been flashed by a camera in the dark, and your eyes had bright spots on them for several seconds? That's pretty much what a blinding weapon does. Depending on type, you don't need to aim much. Just in the general direction. I'm working on getting one of these, but since they aren't allowed to sell directly to the public, I've been browsing online for online auctions and army surplus stores for one.

As for sonic weapons, you have to aim it less than you'd need to aim a gun. This company sells a number of sonic weapons, and I've been debating getting one of the blast wave pistols.

As for never seeing or hearing again? So? Someone who presents themselves as a threat, has removed all pretense of complaining about what I do to them. If I am allowed to legally shoot you, I can also beat the crap out of you, and both of those can leave lasting harm.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

It's not about boosting my ego... it's about not being killed. I live in a shitty neighborhood because I'm poor. I can't afford to live in a safe place where the police respond quickly to emergencies.

I can't carry a gun in CA, though, so I have to basically only go outside during the day. If I'm out somewhere late at night, I get pretty worried. Late at night I hear gunshots and glass breaking outside, nearby, on a fairly regular basis.

I'm flexible and open-minded. If someone can point me toward a method of self-defense that works better than a gun, I'll gladly take it. Personally I'd rather just have some way to be immune to bullets, then I wouldn't have to worry about being killed or being forced to kill someone else to avoid being killed myself. But such a thing doesn't exist.

I oppose the obvious gun control laws not because I think they're going to ban guns, but because I think they're stupid and they don't work. I don't think banning high-capacity magazines will do anything. I don't think banning folding stocks will do anything. I don't think banning bayonet lugs or flash suppressors will do anything. This will not stop violence--it will have virtually no effect.

I don't give two shits about the Second Amendment, personally. I really don't. I just would prefer to live my life without being killed, robbed or raped at gunpoint. If that means keeping a gun, so I can at least fight back if I'm attacked, then that's what I want to do.

Have you ever been attacked or robbed? Has your gun ever proven itself to be useful? Because odds are, syn, if I want to rob or attack you, there are a 100 different ways I could do it, in which your gun would prove useless, most of which have me come up behind you. And if I have a gun already pointed at you, there is exactly 0 chance you'll be able to draw your gun in time.

So let's start calling guns what they are: security blankets. Unfortunately, they are a blanket that threatens everyone around you, and makes their lives more dangerous. So you are trading their security for yours. In essence, a guns say, "I don't care about you, only myself."

If someone breaks into your place to rob it, 95% of the time, they will flee when confronted at all. Unless they are hopped on drugs or something, in which case, a gun will do little. A blinding weapon, however, would be much more effective. But absent that, in any other case, simply brandishing a weapon loaded with blanks would be just as effective, because 95% of thieves and assailants will flee when confronted with a harder target, as Vexx well knows.

And that's even if you realize you're being robbed. Our house was broken into when I was a kid. They tossed a log of firewood through a thick window. We were all asleep at the time, and no one woke up at that kind of noise.

As for weapons, I pointed you at plenty, but you might consider the sonic systems in my second link above.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I won't deny there is a certain percentage for whom the epithets are correct, just as there *are* gun-ban fans that think eliminating all legal guns will fix the problem and view anyone with a gun as crazy. Just as there are "gun nuts" (lets use Ted Nugent as the poster child), there are "anti-gun nuts" who do want to completely disarm the citizenry (which simply won't work -> see Prohibition, see War on Drugs. It is more likely to make the public even more unsafe.).

How can you judge something that hasn't happened yet? How can you be sure a gun ban won't work? Especially when confronted with evidence that many countries have alcohol, and yet have banned guns and as a result, suffer a MUCH lower rate of both homicides and deaths via guns?

Sure, there are nuts out there on both sides, but please don't try to fit the idea of a gun ban in that nutty idea. It's a bit disingenuous. At the very least, you can't know if it will work or not. And note that, even with gun bans in these countries, their are still people allowed to have guns. Mostly hunters, but that's probably the last real reason (other than sports), that one would need a gun.

We are all going to die sometime. And odds are, you aren't going to prevent it. I've already arrived at a point of peace with myself in that regard. If someone wants to attack me, there is precious little I could do to see it coming and prevent it. One thing I won't do, however, is let fear dictate my actions. I will simply live for today. Getting a gun would be an overreaction, in the same vein as the TSA is an overreaction, and in the same vein that invading Iraq was an overreaction. And I don't think anyone here would disagree with the latter two statements.

[Vexx]

1) Gun ban has been tried, multiple times and places in the US: didn't work. Who is being disingenuous? What's the crime rate data in Britain pre- and post- gun bans? How did that Prohibition go in the '30s?

2) You seem awfully confident that a gun doesn't work as self-protection for someone who has very little idea how they work, how to use them. If they're so ineffective, why does law enforcement use them? The military? Citizens for the last several hundred years?

3) In your post to syn, you basically demonstrate you know nothing about close combat with a gun. Not helping your situation or argument. The bad guys do not typically *practice* with their guns, they can and do miss at point blank range. Even if you're hit, you can still draw and fire. You don't just fall down still -- that's tv.

You're simply making lots of assertions as if they were obvious fact, when actually you're just demonstrating how little you understand guns, combat, stress situations, etc. You're pointing syn to solutions that are not reliable. And there's a huge amount of "there's no point in trying" in that post that doesn't even make sense in a historical context of how people defend and have defended themselves against violence.

If they remove firearms from the general public, sure -- *I* know other ways to defend myself. I'm over 6' and 200 pounds. It's like the Agent Coulson joke, everything is a weapon if you know what to do with it. What you're doing is removing a defense option for the lesser folk, like my wife - who shoots and handles her firearms better than I do. She's 95 pounds, she could know all kinds of 'fu and it wouldn't help against someone my size. The firearm is a feminist equalization tool as she puts it.

================================================== ===========
side note: Interview with the CCW carrier who drew on the Oregon mall shooter (he chose not to fire because of movement behind the shooter, however the shooter saw him and a moment later, committed suicide)

http://www.kgw.com/home/Clackamas-ma...183593571.html

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Solace

Something like this, I suppose:

I chuckled at the disclaimer at the end. Yes, technically "each action is independent", so technically it's not essentially full auto, but a rifle dumping out that many bullets in a few seconds is clearly not for hunting deer.

No, that is not high powered.
The number of shots fired per second means nothing when speaking of high power.
Slide-Fire and Bump-Fire type weapons are no different than the old "finger-crank" gimicks of the 1990s. These modifications are neither safe (meaning from an actual safety of using the weapon), nor are they pragmatic.
It also shows the idiocy of the gun ban laws.
If something like a slide-fire or a bump-fire is legal, then why not just do the safe thing and make the M16 legal?
Since the M16 is built to fire in fully automatic mode while the AR-15 is not.
All this childish fear of firearms is ridiculous.

High power refers to the cartridge fired.
Like this:



The cartridge on the left is the .308/7.62 NATO Winchester, the most commonly used hunting rifle round that exists.
To its right is the .223 caliber/5.56 NATO cartridge (AR-15, and many other rifles use this), the reason that it is not a good choice for hunting deer is because it ISN'T powerful enough for that purpose unless you use very specialized ammunition at short ranges of less than 150 yards. It is however excellent for shooting Fox, Racoon, Coyote, and jack rabbits. And for Moose or any large game you'd need a 30 round magazine to take down the animal with a .223 caliber bullet because it's going to take quite a few shots to drop it (even hitting it in the head).
Next to the .223 is the Russian .221/5.45 x 39mm cartridge used in the AK-74. This round is useful for deer hunting because if fires a large, heavy round that is just barely able to take down deer effectively.
On the far right is the classic 7.62 x 39mm Russian AK-47 cartridge. That round is ballistically the same as the .30-30 lever action rifle round used in hunting deer and some varmits like Coyotes and Fox.
The weakest of the four is the .223, the strongest are the .308 NATO, and the 7.62 Russian.
High power refers to the stopping power of the round, not the number of cartridges the weapon holds nor the amount of rounds it can put down range.
The term for that is "firepower" and is different.

And when you are faced with this level of home invader in the United States, yes you need the same firepower as the police.

Now, stop with the "this isn't used in hunting, sport shooting" or other strawmen arguments, PLEASE.
Hunting has nothing to do with this issue, and only poisons the waters of the debate.

Originally Posted by PzIVf3

MILLER: National ‘assault weapon’ ban coming Thursday

Yes, she has been introducing this for years and I have already downloaded and read the bill.
If it were to actually pass the senate, it will not pass the house.

Originally Posted by Vexx

To summarize, she's still mostly a moron on this topic, but even more so. Ineffective crap law round 2 starts now. High probability of dying in committee because even centrists and moderate left will say, "wtf?"

Agree 100%.
Dianne is not someone who can objectively make decisions on this issue and really should recuse herself from it.
Alas, she lacks that level of integrity, as you said, she's a moron.
Under her proposals THIS rifle would be banned:

Spoiler for Mauser:

That weapon is a World War I, bolt action, trench gun with 25 round detachable magazine, sword bayonet, and optical scope.
It is circa 1918.

So ... the shotgun that I have modified to use a folding stock and pistol grips so that my very small wife can handle it would be an assault weapon under her proposal and I'd have to register it. Genius ... not. What? She's trying to disarm people with disabilities, small people, etc?

Can we please get *someone* in the Senate who knows what they're doing involved?

The only person I would even consider qualified to oversee any committee on this issue is Rand Paul.
He has the people's rights at heart and isn't running on emotion.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Minus 5 from the number and it is.

One question though, is there a different kind of gun license required to own a overpowered weapon e.g a Barrett M82? Or specialist weapons like the P90 which can fire AP rounds?

OH I"M BEEN PUNCKED!! LOL!
Yes an AR-10 is a high powered version of the AR-15.
For those not in the know, this is the AR-10, and it fires .308 Winchester/7.62 x 51mm NATO.

[ArchmageXin]

NRA once supported Gun Control!

1. “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” said NRA President Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praising state gun control laws in Congress. He testified before the 1938 federal gun control law passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

2. “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States,” NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth told Congress, shortly after Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy with an Italian military surplus rifle Oswald bought from a mail-order ad in the NRA’sAmerican Rifleman magazine.

3. “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” said California Gov. Ronald Reagan in May 1967, after two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill. Reagan said guns were “a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”

Read the rest here.


http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/7_un...e_nras_become/

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Vexx

1) Gun ban has been tried, multiple times and places in the US: didn't work. Who is being disingenuous? What's the crime rate data in Britain pre- and post- gun bans?

That's state by state, which doesn't work. I'm talking country-wide. California is upset because people are buying banned guns at gun shows in arizona and utah, and simply walking them across the border.

And there will always be crime... the goal here is less deaths via gun. Afterall, a child accidentily shooting themselves via gun isn't a crime. And the last statistic I sawwas 400-500 children dead each year due to accidental gun discharges. That's 400-500 children each year who would be alive if there were no guns.

2) You seem awfully confident that a gun doesn't work as self-protection for someone who has very little idea how they work, how to use them. If they're so ineffective, why does law enforcement use them? The military? Citizens for the last several hundred years?

Vexx, you're smarter than this. You know very well what I was saying. If I come up behind you and put a gun against your back, there isn't shit-all you can do about it. Police/military carry them because they will be called to situations that allow them to pull their gun in advance. But despite their guns, they get killed, too. Hell, people are shooting and killing our troops in Afghanistan. If I use your reasoning, then I can conclude guns don't protect people. So let's not be dishonest, alright? If you are taken by surprise, which is the base assailant's plan, your gun is useless. Being aware of your surroundings and looking around, is much better protection than any gun.

3) In your post to syn, you basically demonstrate you know nothing about close combat
with a gun. Not helping your situation or argument. The bad guys do not typically *practice* with their guns, they can and do miss at point blank range. Even if you're hit, you can still draw and fire. You don't just fall down still -- that's tv.

If I went off TV, I'd assume bad guys can't hit anything. So who is going off TV? Sure, he could misd while the barrel of his gun is against your backside, but are you going to bet your life on that? Carry little cash, and you don't lose much by handing over your wallet or purse. A bit annoying, but you live.

Seriously, what is with these paranoid fantasies, that there are a lot of people out there who are going to engage you in a firefight? This isn't an RPG game. Can't you see how afraid it's made you? I can't understand being so afraid, that I needed to carry any form of self-protection... and I don't exactly live in a good part of town, either.

You're simply making lots of assertions as if they were obvious fact, when actually you're just demonstrating how little you understand guns, combat, stress situations, etc. You're pointing syn to solutions that are not reliable. And there's a huge amount of "there's no point in trying" in that post that doesn't even make sense in a historical context of how people defend and have defended themselves against violence.

I wasn't aware you were living in Somalia... or maybe the viewpoint that you need a gun, has turned where you live into Somalia. And if you think I don't know you or what you've been through, then you might consider admitting you don't know me, either. I have fired guns. I have been in high stress situations. And I put a fuckinggun against my head and pulled the trigger. The only reason I'm still here, is the act of pulling the trigger with a limpy wrist, pulled the barrel far enough over that the bullet skimmed myforehead. Ears rang for quiteawhile, and it took even longer to get the gun powder smell out.

Maybe you know something about guns, but you don't know a damn about suicidal people, and how easy your gun makes it. But I do know that if I wanted you dead, there is nothing your gun could do about it.

If they remove firearms from the general public, sure -- *I* know other ways to defends myself. I'm over 6' and 200 pounds. It's like the Agent Coulson joke, everything is a weapon if you know what to do with it. What you're doing is removing a defense option for the lesser folk, like my wife - who shoots and handles her firearms better than I do. She's 95 pounds, she could know all kinds of 'fu and it wouldn't help against someone my size. The firearm is a feminist equalization.

And you completely dismiss any other way people can protect themselves. It's a gun or nothing.