Gun Control thread (merged many)

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Which is the greater threat to society?

Drunks with Guns

[u crank]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Drunks with Guns

Drunks with guns driving cars.

[Catfish]

I am a bit undecided, when it comes to guns and g. control.

Freedom and all, ok.
I have used guns, but i do not need it. I can admire a good piece of craftmanship, be it a Coventry climax engine or a historic rifle. I do not like modern gun stuff though.

But in Europe, in a city.. what for. I f i lived in Canada, in a blockhouse, 300 miles away from the next village, i'd of course need it. But i would also need the skill to skin, pluck, and preserve food.


Having it for a balance towards some dictatorial government, and the armed forces? I guess not.
But then german military would probably not be able to get one helicopter in the air, when it was needed

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Catfish

But in Europe, in a city.. what for.

That all depends on whether you feel safe or not. Since new year's eve a lot of people don't feel safe anymore and don't trust the police to be able to handle the job so they arm themselves. Pepper spray and blank guns that can fire pepper or CS gas are sold out almost everywhere and sometimes sold for horrendous prices on auction sites. There has also been a rush on blank gun permits in a lot of cities.

(for all non Germans you actually need a concealed carry permit to carry a blank gun in Germany...)

I have been carrying a blank gun with pepper and CS for years just as a precaution (I once had to witness my mother being attacked by a dog and since then I feel a bit naked without any type of defensive weapon). I've never needed it so far but to me it's like the seat belt in a car. You only have to need it once to make it worth to put on every time you drive.


It's probably the same with real guns. If you don't feel safe in your environment and don't trust the police to be quick / strong enough to help you in an emergency you probably want to take your safety into your own hands.

[Betonov]

Problem with a gun is that it's good for a single mugger.
But when they come after you in a pack, you shoot one, the rest jump you an dnow you have surrounding you a pack with a gun looking to avenge their fallen comrade.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Problem with a gun is that it's good for a single mugger.
But when they come after you in a pack, you shoot one, the rest jump you an dnow you have surrounding you a pack with a gun looking to avenge their fallen comrade.

Very unlikely IMHO as no one wants to be the second guy to buy it (if we're talking about real guns). Most guns can shoot more than once.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Very unlikely IMHO as no one wants to be the second guy to buy it (if we're talking about real guns). Most guns can shoot more than once.

And most guns only hit what you aim at, ergo the people not behind you.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Betonov

And most guns only hit what you aim at, ergo the people not behind you.

Maybe people on the Balkans are braver than the average thug here but over here people usually start running when they hear a shot...

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Maybe people on the Balkans are braver than the average thug here but over here people usually start running when they hear a shot...

They have tactic.
You're surrounded before you even know what's going on.
Pull a gun ad two of them land on your back while you still have three in front.

[Oberon]

The average automatic pistol has quite a high rate of fire, you could probably fire three or four shots before anyone from behind got you, it wouldn't be that accurate but if you were close range then accuracy becomes less of an issue.
Of course, the favourite gang-banger weapon in the states is Israeli and that's the Uzi, and that thing will put out a stupid number of bullets in quick succession with a fairly small recoil.
Of course, that won't do much against the people behind you.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I wonder, why do people always bring a completely different problem into the debate?
This is the gun control thread. Not the alcohol abuse thread.
While I get your point, I don't think it is sensible to go along with it.

Debate the topic, don't create straw-men like that, or "cars" (the usual excuse).
(And no, I am still not anti-gun.)

I don't think Platapus or anyone else was intentionally trying to introduce another problem like alcohol into the debate. I think the point was to draw a comparison between how many people are lost in auto accidents relative to shooting victims and that vehicles are not banned while gun manufacturers are facing legal actions..

It comes down to accountability. There will always be those who blame people , companies and organizations for something they had nothing to do with and then try to extract money and payments from them. That's tantamount to legalized extortion.

Great thread. Lots of good insightful posts.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

I don't think Platapus or anyone else was intentionally trying to introduce another problem like alcohol into the debate. I think the point was to draw a comparison between how many people are lost in auto accidents relative to shooting victims and that vehicles are not banned while gun manufacturers are facing legal actions..

It comes down to accountability. There will always be those who blame people , companies and organizations for something they had nothing to do with and then try to extract money and payments from them. That's tantamount to legalized extortion.

Great thread. Lots of good insightful posts.

Me and August and others went over the car comparison a few pages ago, the thing to remember about cars though is that there have been increasing efforts over the years to make cars safer and to reduce alcohol related issues, through ad campaigns, taxes and in the cases of cars, design and material choices, as well as legislation.
Alcohol and cars were not designed to kill, a gun on the other hand....

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

I don't think Platapus or anyone else was intentionally trying to introduce another problem like alcohol into the debate. I think the point was to draw a comparison between how many people are lost in auto accidents relative to shooting victims and that vehicles are not banned while gun manufacturers are facing legal actions..

Err... so he dragged another topic/possible problem into this, although there is zero connection?

That was my point.

"Hey, we have a gun problem!"
"BUT CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!"
"Uhm, OK then, let's ignore both problems then...?"

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Me and August and others went over the car comparison a few pages ago, the thing to remember about cars though is that there have been increasing efforts over the years to make cars safer and to reduce alcohol related issues, through ad campaigns, taxes and in the cases of cars, design and material choices, as well as legislation.
Alcohol and cars were not designed to kill, a gun on the other hand....

Good point, however, cars may not be designed to kill but they do in large numbers. I missed your earlier post as well.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Err... so he dragged another topic/possible problem into this, although there is zero connection?

That was my point.

"Hey, we have a gun problem!"
"BUT CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!"
"Uhm, OK then, let's ignore both problems then...?"

Thread derailment
That's the same way the migration debate goes, isn't it?
/Thread derailment