The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, but first you have to separate the educable from the ineducable. Unfortunately, some of them you just can't do much with as we've seen in about a dozen plus gun control threads over the years. Then there are the face to face debates I've had that go back even further.
The one thing that I've seen work with the surest results is for one of them to all the sudden find themselves caught in a situation where they were vulnerable and facing imminent harm at the hands of society's wolves. I've known it to happen and it really turns the light on in their attic and makes their attitude about the whole thing do a 180.

Ok, ok.
My point was all bullets can kill you if you get shot by them.
So saying you would rather get shot by one, rather then the other is fairly moot.
A .22lr at 300 yards is still deadly and yet people seem to think it would hurt less to be shot by it.
So it just baffles me. It's like saying "I'd rather be stabbed by a blunt knife then a sharp knife"

I wonder how people who think "guns are only used for killing so should not be owned by civilians" feel about Bows.
Bows have no purpose other then killing, yet you don't seem to be lobbying to make them illegal.
In fact some people hunt big game with them still. So they can kill a human fairly easily.
Oh, how about CO2 rifles? They can kill you better then an old black powder musket "not that that's saying much" but they sell them to kids.


Point of interest, "long" guns were actually originally mostly developed for rich Englishmen to hunt fowl, as a sport.
That same reason was also responsible for the development of the "shotgun" which is somewhat the basis for the modern rifle and very much so for the shotgun.
So yes, guns have actually always been used for sport possibly more then for killing even in the past.

Of course take that with a grain of salt as I'm not particularly great with history.

Guns will eventually control themselves.

When and if *enough* anarchy ensues, people will be forced to move around to avoid danger and collect things. And you can only carry so many guns and so much ammunition at a time. And you can't travel far or heavy without controlling your own petroleum reserves. (Explosives and petroleum don't really mix...)

And you can only kill so many people before your ammunition runs out. And by then, you've already made yourself an attractive target.

Beyond that, lack of electrical power, running water, and other amenities will take care of most people without the help of meaningless weapons. Yeah, the people who were patting themselves on the back for stockpiling guns and ammo will have a +5% chance live a few more miserable years than some of their fellow humans. Congratulations! Well done!

I don't think it's necessary to have done something to think there should be some regulation or such - I don't drive, but I am anti 'gas guzzlers'; that is, I think cars should be designed for fuel efficiency. And that 'bull bars' should be banned on on-road vehicles (if such a car hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian comes off worse due to the point of impact being smaller).

But, *raises hand*

Anyway, I done started a poll regarding this, but you all hate me. Sniff.

AceOfSpades - I am fully at your's disposal about small businesses defence strategies. Let's find a way of improving them.
But you seem to respect one solution only - guns. Jeez I would love to have such a strong belief that you simply buy a gun and your security problem dissapears. I would personally buy a gun for all of my loved ones. How easy... and grave mistake :/


Ancalagon - Again, WMDs in country's hands is the same principle as guns in people's hands. And the same principle as kids with matches. It is the matter of pure irRESPONSIBILITY. Now, people are not responsible. If they were, we would not need speeding control or driving licenses, public control and penalties of any kind.
Do you agree that we need this tools? So why should guns be an exception?

PS - yeah, thanks for correction, I misspell quite often


Mike_Garrick - bows and other mechanical weapons, PCP&air weapons are also subject of regulation (EU). It is matter of projectile's kinetic energy. CO2 weapons too, but because of used physical principle their energy is almost always lower than lethal boundary. (12 ft·lbf = 16J for unlicensed airguns in UK, 7,5J in Germany)
So, "paper" shooting isn't limited at all. You can relax how often you want this way. And you can't kill anyone doing this. Clever, isn't it?

How do you defend your store from a guy with a gun who doesn't obey the law because he is a criminal when you are obeying the law and therefor don't have one?
Don't say "he wont be able to get one if you make them illegal"
Because drugs are illegal and even in this backwater town I can walk down the street and find the whole lot of them for sale.
Don't say call the cops, because well its hard to dial 911 when there's a gun pointed at you and the cops can't get there in the 2 seconds it takes him to kill you for calling the cops. Also, the cops will just accidentally shoot someone else anyway so there's really no point.


WMDs capable of killing an entire state then leave fallout for every sarounding state making 3 states unlivable for the next 1000 years are not the same as a gun, a car however is.
So yes I do agree with you, if someone takes a gun into a nogun zone they should get a ticket, if they shoot it outside of a shooting range unless in self defense, they should get a ticket, if they lose their right to carry a gun because they are criminals, they should get a ticket.
You are completely, 100% correct about that.

I completely agree with needing a license to shoot a gun, however since every country and state that has made registering guns mandatory has then confiscated those guns and made them illegal, I wont be one of the idiots signing my gun up."If I ever get one."

That is what one would call the system shooting itself in the foot.


Yah, replica swords are also subject to regulation, as are large knives.

Hmm, whats the newest item they want to stop you from using?
Can you still have tazers over there? I'm sure it wont be long until those are to dangerous to trust civilians with too.

I think there is a good analogy between guns for people and something for countries, but it's regular militaries, not WMDs. If you want an analogy to WMDs, flamethrowers would work. Flamethrowers are rather nasty weapons, designed specifically to be horrible, just like WMDs.

I don't think kids with matches is a very good analogy with guns. Adults with matches would be, though.


It was meant to be funny, not so much a spelling correction. That particular misspelling changed the meaning in a humorous way.

Where you are hit matters more than what type of bullet is used, since guns are overwhelmingly used for defensive purposes, expanding bullets are still a good thing and tend to be safer for bystanders- especially since private citizens are held to a standard of accountability that no cop seriously worries about anymore.

People have died from a .22lr gunshot wound up to 2 miles away, though at that distance it can't be deliberate. Even my boxes of .22 short have warnings on them that they can be fatal up to a mile and a half. On the other hand, there have been cases of friendly fire in the military where people survived multiple hits at relatively close range with a .50 cal machine gun.

^ This. This is precisely why I have hollow points in my carry gun (although I disagree that civilians are held to stricter standards than cops).

2 miles? wow, how can people call the .22lr worthless?
Is it just for the non lethal hit stopping power of the larger calibers, or do they just like the louder bang?



So you'd say the two cops in NY who killed 1 person and shot 9 others are going to spend the rest of their life or at least a large chunk of it in jail right?

It's not necessary, but I've noticed that many people who propose gun control measures typically have a very vague idea of how a gun actually works. There's an irrational fear many people have of guns; not that they'll be misused, or put in the hands of a criminal, but that the guns themselves are inherently dangerous items that are out to get them.

Case in point: I had a friend visit from Europe, and one of my friends who carries came over, and he had just gotten a new 1911. So, I asked to see it, and he unholstered, unloaded, and handed it to me. I took my look, handed it back, and he offered to hand it to her before he reholstered. She was clearly uncomfortable with the entire exchange.

I'm not trying to push people to accept guns into their lifestyle if they don't want to - but many people who don't have exposure to guns tend to think that there is no way to safely handle a firearm, and that it's always just one bump away from going off. This couldn't be further from the truth. I very frequently set my gun on my nightstand - still loaded - and go to sleep (I live alone, so I don't have to worry about anyone else accidentally doing something dumb). Unless I somehow wrap my hand around the grip and pull the trigger in my sleep, it's not going to discharge.

Probably not, but I don't necessarily think that a civilian would either (a civilian would also probably be better trained and wouldn't have shot in a position where people were behind the target, but that's beside the point). Discounting the fact that NYC doesn't let civilians carry, and any shooting is therefore unjustified - the situation was clearly one where deadly force was justified - the criminal had already fired a shot at the officer/person and missed, presumably if they hadn't shot he would have kept shooting at them.

A prosecutor *could* make a case of assault with a deadly weapon for each innocent bystander that was shot in either case (civilian/police) - but there have been cases where the prosecution has declined to charge people based on similar facts. Even a charge of manslaughter would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove to a jury. However, there is a very clear case of civil negligence in both cases, and there would very likely be lawsuits filed in both instances. The NYPD will likely face a very large payout to all those people who were shot.

There are 2 major problems with the .22lr for self-defense purposes (at least as far as I see it). a) it has very little penetration power, so shot placement is critical (and fine motor skills deteriorate dramatically under stress). b) .22 rounds jam a lot more than larger caliber rounds. Reliability is far more important to me in a self-defense application than anything else.

From the articles I read the man never got a shot off, or properly aimed the gun.
I understand that cops should get some understanding if they have to kill while on duty, but something like what happened there, seems like just total disregard for bystanders.
From confronting him where they did to firing so many shots the situation was just improperly handled and they could have gotten so many people killed.
But I don't see how any citizen who accidentally shot 9 people would get out of that one without some serious jail time.
If for no other reason then the blood hungry public demanded it.


Unfortunately I don't have much experience with actually shooting and youtube videos never show the misfires.
So I don't know how bad the reliability issue is.
Though in a life or death situation I suppose there doesn't need to be a high failure rate to make it less attractive.

Honestly I don't think I would have any need for a larger caliber then a .22 as I would be using it more for target shooting then self defense.
Crime isn't a real problem in smaller towns like the one I live in.
Though if I were to move to a city where it was a problem I might think about a shotgun or larger caliber handgun.

So everyone else has to give you the benefit of the doubt while it's perfectly okay for you to make baseless assumptions about someone else's views. That's totally not hypocritical and arrogant.

I never said guns are the only solution. I've stressed time and time again that guns are the last resort since situational awareness and conflict avoidance work wonders to know when to pull a gun out as well as avoid having to pull one out in the first place.

I've also bought up the cost issues involved in the security measures you mentioned as well as some of the impracticalities. How many convenience stores and gas stations do you know have smoke machines? Why the f**k would anyone even have metal detectors in convenience stores and gas stations? You do know that they sell metal items/appliances and that keys, lighters, and a bunch of other possible things in a customer's pocket can set it off right? Not every small business can afford a bulletproof counter nor is it possible to install with every type of counter set up but if you can get one then I'm all for it. And oh yeah, you called insurance a security measure .

Not to mention the issue of MULTIPLE ATTACKERS. It's YOU that has a tunnel vision with guns. You want to avoid guns at all costs no matter how necessary it is. You apparently can't get it through your thick skull that SECURITY MEASURES AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE WITH ALSO HAVING A FIREARM AS ONE.

And I'd like you to show me where I said you should buy a gun for all your loved ones. Believe it or not, I don't think just about everyone should own a gun. Matter of fact, I think anyone who wants one should think long and hard about the legal and psychological ramifications that go with using deadly force on another human being and I wouldn't want any irresponsible idiots causing negligent discharges. Without situation awareness, guns are ineffective since you wouldn't know what type of warning signs to look out, the time and place where your guard should be up, and what places to avoid in the first place. Without conflict avoidance you will obviously cause more trouble than you need to.

I'm at the point where I have zero respect for you. I didn't have a lot to begin with anyways, but I had enough to at least consider your arguments carefully. I can now safely dismiss anything you say from now on since they invariably consist of nothing more than unwarranted arrogance, straw man arguments, ad hominems, appeals to motives, unproven assertions, guilt tripping, and putting words into other people's mouths. Never have any hostile intentions? What a f*****g joke. No matter how many times I try to tell you to simmer down on the condescending tone, hostility is all you ever bring to the table.

In short, you are full of yourself and you expect people to treat you better than you treat others. If you conduct yourself as obnoxiously in real life as you do in these threads, then no wonder you're so afraid of guns.