Why do Americans love guns so much?

Page 6 of 21 [ 333 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 21 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kiprobalhato
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 29,119
Location: מתחת לעננים

11 Mar 2017, 10:02 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:

True. I get the impression that most of them have never been in a gun fight.

most of ANYBODY has never been in a gun fight....

_________________
הייתי צוללת עכשיו למים
הכי, הכי עמוקים
לא לשמוע כלום
לא לדעת כלום
וזה הכל אהובי, זה הכל.

RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia

11 Mar 2017, 10:14 pm

Kiprobalhato wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

True. I get the impression that most of them have never been in a gun fight.

most of ANYBODY has never been in a gun fight....

Then why have guns?

_________________
The days are long, but the years are short

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

12 Mar 2017, 12:09 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

It's better to also take turns practicing this drill with two other like-minded people using toy guns or blue guns. The actually shooting part, of course, will be done against cardboard targets as seen in this video.
Again, this would be for a scenario when little other option is available.

Yes there are several options for gun training. It won't nessessarly make you more skilled than your assailant because if I was an armed criminal I'd want to ensure I was well practiced.

Noting will necessarily do anything. If I get T-boned by a bus I'm gonna be squashed like a bug, so by your logic I should stop wearing my seat-belt and disable the airbags. After all, they won't necessarily save me from being injured or killed in an auto accident.
Most criminals aren’t that skilled. I've seen several security camera videos of armed robberies where they handled their guns like a ret*d. I wouldn’t dismiss all of them but on the other hand I’d stack the odd in my favor.

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Another one I've heard is that they expect to use their guns against assailants armed only with knives. It would be very convenient for the gun owner if criminals were armed only with knives but that's not realistic.

That's a new one on me. An assailant can be armed with any kind of weapon or improvised weapon.

Why would they want to use a knife when guns are available?

Where's most winos gonna get a gun? If they try to roll someone for their wallet the attempt will most likely be made with whatever they can find lying around or a shiv.

RetroGamer87 wrote:

If I was burgler, mugger, etc I wouldn't bring a knife when dealing with a population that has a high rate of gun owernship.

And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. That aside, a knife might be a better option in some cases like when you can single someone out alone and knife them. It's a lot quieter and therefore less attention getting. Attention is a bad thing when you’re killing someone.

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

You don’t target the tank but the tank commander when he’s exposed in the turret hatch while the tank is not buttoned up. This is ideally done at long distance from cover.

Don't tank commanders generally keep the hatch closed? If I was in a heavily armoured vehicle I wouldn't want to lose that advantage by sticking my head out the top.

Only when engaged or expecting to make contact and that’s the best time for the guerilla warrior to strike.

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Here’s a few ideas from Wikipedia
"Unconventional attack
Especially in urban guerrilla warfare, improvised methods, not requiring purpose-built equipment, has been known to immobilize or destroy tanks. In the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, for example, one of the simplest measures was to spread brown dinner plates on a street, plates that looked, from a distance, like a Soviet antitank mine. The tank driver turned away, into an ambush.
During the same fight, one tank was put out of service when a high-voltage electrical line was dropped onto it. Another tank was immobilized, again by predicting its probable route, when a depression in a sloping road was filled with liquid soap.
Tanks have been destroyed by luring them onto weakened bridges over water, or even over covered pits or faulty roadway.

Those are pretty good ideas. Is there also an article on antihelicopter warfare?

f**k, I don’t know. Go try and find an article on it if you want. You have to chose your battles with this kind of warfare. It's not about totally defeating an enemy but demoralizing them enough.
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Quote:
Daring Hungarians would jump onto a Soviet tank, put a Hungarian flag on its antenna, and then either shoot crewmen trying to remove it, or wait for other Soviets to turn heavy fire on what they believed to a tank captured by the rebels.

Clever but there must have been at least a few Hungarian tanks or the Soviets would never believe one of their own could be a Hungarian tank. A US tank commander fighting US civilians wouldn't believe one of their tanks belongs to the enemy because there are no civilian tanks.

Not if they captured and commandeered Russian tank which this implies. Even that would take at least a few experienced tankers that know how to run the thing.
RetroGamer87 wrote:
I wonder if the present day US civilian population is as unified as the Hungarians in the 1950s.

People will normally unify under a common cause if all parties agree on the cause.
RetroGamer87 wrote:

Quote:

Incendiary attack is classic if one can get close enough to throw a gasoline-filled bottle with a fuse, usually called a "Molotov cocktail" after the early WWII use. The bottle must break on an air intake to the crew compartment, in the engine compartment, or other location. Modern tanks are much less vulnerable to such attacks, given that they have fire-extinguishing systems and, as part of protection against chemical, biological and nuclear attack, air filtration systems."

As you say, modern tanks would be much les vulnrerable to such attacks.

That’s from the Wikipedia article I quoted and linked, not my words.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

12 Mar 2017, 12:24 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Kiprobalhato wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

True. I get the impression that most of them have never been in a gun fight.

most of ANYBODY has never been in a gun fight....

Then why have guns?

You're either very thick or you're a +r011. I actually suspected the later early on in this thread but played along anyway.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia

12 Mar 2017, 2:00 am

Raptor wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Kiprobalhato wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

True. I get the impression that most of them have never been in a gun fight.

most of ANYBODY has never been in a gun fight....

Then why have guns?

You're either very thick or you're a +r011. I actually suspected the later early on in this thread but played along anyway.

I'm sorry if I asked a question that was too hard for you. How thoughtless of me.

_________________
The days are long, but the years are short

RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia

12 Mar 2017, 3:35 am

It's funny that when I point out the the flaws in feminism I'm seen as a conservative extremist. When I point out the flaws in guns I'm seen as a liberal extremist.

How can I be both? I must be neither. It's like I'm a mirror. When people look at me they see a mirror image of themselves; i.e. a liberal could look at a centrist and see a conservative and a conservative could look at a centrist and see a liberal. They're not seeing me at all, they're seeing there own mirror image. That says nothing about me and a whole lot about them.

In truth I don't want to join the liberal ideology or the conservative ideology. I don't want to join any idealogy. Idealogies are so closed minded.

If I could paraphrase Raptor's signiture, liberals and conservatives are both shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

_________________
The days are long, but the years are short

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

12 Mar 2017, 3:49 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:

How can I be both?

Considering that you opinions on both subjects are inconsistent, poorly phrased, and seemingly designed to antagonize, I'm pretty confident putting you in an entirely different category than a political partisan.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia

12 Mar 2017, 4:07 am

Dox47 wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

How can I be both?

So if I don't completely agree with all the facets of a predefined political idology I'm inconsistant. I guess independent thought is going out of style.

_________________
The days are long, but the years are short

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

12 Mar 2017, 11:22 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Kiprobalhato wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

True. I get the impression that most of them have never been in a gun fight.

most of ANYBODY has never been in a gun fight....

Then why have guns?

You're either very thick or you're a +r011. I actually suspected the later early on in this thread but played along anyway.

I'm sorry if I asked a question that was too hard for you. How thoughtless of me.

Several people here including myself have patiently taken you by the hand and walked you though this but it has become obvious that your only point is that you think guns are icky. I've lost count of all the threads we've had here over several years that have been all too similar.

Of all these gunz-r-bad threads we've had, not once has anyone like you (an anti-gunner) brought a valid argument to the table.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

12 Mar 2017, 11:26 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:

If I could paraphrase Raptor's signiture, liberals and conservatives are both shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

No, conservatives don't advertise being open minded like liberals do. When liberals claim to be open minded then don't practice it that's called hypocrisy.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

12 Mar 2017, 11:48 am

lidsmichelle wrote:

I don't like guns at all, and it boggles my mind that people think they need s**t like assault rifles lmao.

Funny you should mention need for "assault rifles". A lot of people didn't think they needed and "assault rifle" until the threat of legislation against them. The AR-15 has only in recent years become the most popular rifle /carbine in America.
The Colt AR-15 rifle has been available on the market to anyone since 1963. The AR-15 carbine version with a short barrel and telescoping buttstock (VERY popular now) has been openly available since 1966. What made them popular after decades of only appealing to survivalists and police departments has been anti-gun liberals and thier politicians.

Quote:

In general I don't think you need guns if you don't hunt,....

Always nice to read such a well informed opinion.
:roll:

I'd post what I think here but it would be against the terms of use rules.

Quote:

....and people who defend themselves with guns, even with training, are more likely to shoot their own foot than the assailant.

Another one of your well informed opinions, I see.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

12 Mar 2017, 4:18 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:

If I was burgler, mugger, etc I wouldn't bring a knife when dealing with a population that has a high rate of gun owernship.

And that would be wise----and, that's one of the reasons, some people own guns.

Edited to write a better response.

_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)

Last edited by Campin_Cat on 12 Mar 2017, 4:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

12 Mar 2017, 4:19 pm

RetroGamer87 and Campin_Cat wrote:

Campin_Cat wrote:

ArielsSong wrote:

Thing is, it's VERY unlikely that someone will threaten to shoot you or your family with a gun...

REALLY?? Tell that to the 300 victims of gun homicide in Baltimore, ALONE, in 2015----and, considering we only have just over a half-million people.....

Let's see, 500,000 over 300 is 1,667. So the odds of surviving the year are 1 to 1,667 in favour of survival.

Yes, but the point was, IMO she shouldn't be making matter-of-fact statements about which she knows nothing----she doesn't live in Baltimore / the U.S.

Campin_Cat wrote:

ArielsSong wrote:

...if you stop giving everyone guns!

Someone's "giving" (-away) guns, in America? Where's the line?

I think she meant being able to buy them.

Yes----again, one shouldn't be making matter-of-fact statements, and when one's statements are taken literally or are misconstrued, or whatever, and one hasn't taken any more care than she did, to make it clear what she meant, then, IMO, one needs to take responsibility for THEIR role in, when they were misunderstood.

Campin_Cat wrote:

ArielsSong wrote:

I am fortunate to live in the UK where I don't need to worry about this because other people don't own guns either.

Oh, my----you really should know your country, better:

http://www.bbc.com/news/10220974

I wouldn't infer a trend from this one incident. One is not a statistically significent sample size.

I wasn't making my statement on that ONE incident----I was making it in response to the information I had put in the quote box (which you left-out, when you quoted me, here).

Does the pro-gun side or the anti-gun side have any national statistics on gun homicide in America vs countries such as the UK, Australia, Japan, etc?

Yes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

I'm sure we can both agree that if you get into a gun fight against an armed assailant your survival is not guaranteed.

Sure----but then, if I'm ALSO armed, neither is his----but, IMO, by being armed, I've upped my chances.

Campin_Cat wrote:

It's a 50/50 chance----but, I'd rather the opportunity to go-down, fightin'. Criminals are often not very bright----so, there's a chance the idiot will actually answer a phone call during the commission of a crime, and then it's:[/b][/color]

I get that you'd rather take the 50/50 chance rather than just get shot but I prefer my one hundred fold reduced probability that I'll ever meet an armed criminal over your 50/50 of beating him.

Yeah, but "reduced probability" isn't 100 percent, is it (not that anything is, really)----and, because I have trained-in guns (as a civilian and military), and have been-around / owned guns, virtually my entire life (owning my first gun, when I was 12), I like my chances, better.

Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

12 Mar 2017, 4:26 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Im sure not all gun owners are like this but the way some of the gun lovers on Facebook talk gleefully about how they'll shoot anyone who pulls a gun on them, it's almost as though they expect their assailent to politely stand still as they shoot them.

League_Girl wrote:

Also the right to own a gun is in our US constitution.

Yes it is because in 1791 a well regulated militia was nessessary to the security of a free state. Nowadays the state uses a military, not a militia.

Does civilian gun ownership protect the security of the state in 2017?

Well, now..... First-of-all, the military was formed, in 1789. Secondly, the military is controlled by the GOVERNMENT----when they give an order, you follow it----and, that's why I'd rather be part of a militia of the PEOPLE (if it came to that), because it would be what WE decide (not somebody sitting in a cushy chair making decisions regarding what he, alone, felt was for the people, when really he could have a hidden agenda, for the government, ALONE).

Yes, IMO, civilian gun ownership DOES protect the security of the state.

RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia

12 Mar 2017, 5:05 pm

Raptor wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Kiprobalhato wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

True. I get the impression that most of them have never been in a gun fight.

most of ANYBODY has never been in a gun fight....

Then why have guns?

You're either very thick or you're a +r011. I actually suspected the later early on in this thread but played along anyway.

I'm sorry if I asked a question that was too hard for you. How thoughtless of me.

I see. So your points are valid becuase you say they're valid :roll:

Next you're going to say your right because you're right :lol:

_________________
The days are long, but the years are short

RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia

12 Mar 2017, 5:11 pm

Raptor wrote:

Most criminals aren’t that skilled. I've seen several security camera videos of armed robberies where they handled their guns like a ret*d. I wouldn’t dismiss all of them but on the other hand I’d stack the odd in my favor.

I know they have videos of dumb criminals on the internet and even TV but they're not going to share videos of normal criminals because that wouldn't be entertaining.

Raptor wrote:

RetroGamer87 wrote:

If I could paraphrase Raptor's signiture, liberals and conservatives are both shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

No, conservatives don't advertise being open minded like liberals do.

I never said conservatives advertise being open minded.

_________________
The days are long, but the years are short

Page 6 of 21 [ 333 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 21 Next

Jump to:

Why do Americans love guns so much? Post Reply New Topic

Why do Americans love guns so much?