Another gunman shooting! We need stricter gun control laws!!!

"

We need stricter gun control laws!!!

Guys, guys. Stop.

The motherfucking perpetrator was a member of the United States military. A reservist, sure, but still — in the military. He's supposed to be one of the good guys. He's supposed to be a marksman, and should probably practice on occasion. What's next — gun control laws to keep guns away from the cops?

"

Raycheetah wrote:

As a CCW holder, I am legally bound with more responsibilities every time I leave my home than a person who does not have such a permit. I have to be aware at all times of where I travel, locations of schools, Federal buildings (including Post Offices), and law enforcement facilities (among MANY others), and must be sure to keep my weapon from public notice at all times (tougher to do in warm weather).

In the event (which I hope every day never comes to pass) that I find it necessary to use lethal force in defense of self or others, my life will forever change. Even assuming that the courts find that I adhered to the law, I will still have ended another human life, something with which I have to be prepared to deal for the rest of my own.

However- My choice to be a lawful and proficient carrier of a CW is based on my active decision that neither I nor my loved ones will ever have to submit to victimization at the hands of someone willing to injure or kill us. That is my RIGHT, and to hear all the yahoos declaring that my right to defend myself is subordinate to their opinions grates on me every time.

this sounds like you´re really carrying a big burden. man, fully aware of how your life might change in case you need to kill someone...
don´t you think you better serve your loved ones by not getting locked away from them? and by this i mean that ¨lethal force¨ is not the only way of protecting yourself. maybe im too unfamiliar with american law but i´d assume that you´d go down for manslaughter or what ever it is called, as you are acting above the law. if this were not the case then i´d find that
even more ludicrous than the existence of the federal reserve.
maybe it´s not too victimizing if you move to a safer neighbourhood? or perhaps you can mace your assaulters instead? this would take care of all of your mentioned objections.
stay safe my friend!

"

thenewapollo wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

As a CCW holder, I am legally bound with more responsibilities every time I leave my home than a person who does not have such a permit. I have to be aware at all times of where I travel, locations of schools, Federal buildings (including Post Offices), and law enforcement facilities (among MANY others), and must be sure to keep my weapon from public notice at all times (tougher to do in warm weather).

In the event (which I hope every day never comes to pass) that I find it necessary to use lethal force in defense of self or others, my life will forever change. Even assuming that the courts find that I adhered to the law, I will still have ended another human life, something with which I have to be prepared to deal for the rest of my own.

However- My choice to be a lawful and proficient carrier of a CW is based on my active decision that neither I nor my loved ones will ever have to submit to victimization at the hands of someone willing to injure or kill us. That is my RIGHT, and to hear all the yahoos declaring that my right to defend myself is subordinate to their opinions grates on me every time.

this sounds like you´re really carrying a big burden. man, fully aware of how your life might change in case you need to kill someone...
don´t you think you better serve your loved ones by not getting locked away from them? and by this i mean that ¨lethal force¨ is not the only way of protecting yourself. maybe im too unfamiliar with american law but i´d assume that you´d go down for manslaughter or what ever it is called, as you are acting above the law. if this were not the case then i´d find that
even more ludicrous than the existence of the federal reserve.
maybe it´s not too victimizing if you move to a safer neighbourhood? or perhaps you can mace your assaulters instead? this would take care of all of your mentioned objections.
stay safe my friend!

Thanks for your concern, and your interest in the circumstances under which a law-abiding gun-owner operates in the US.

I would best serve my loved ones by not ending up dead. To be very clear, the ONLY justification for using my weapon in defense of self or others is in the event that a very real and imminent threat to life or of grievous bodily harm arises. If no such threat arises, I am in no way lawfully justified to even draw my weapon. In fact, it is illegal for me to do so, except that I then discharge it to stop an attacker who poses those threats. Why? Because, if I could simply point my weapon at them as a threat and end the issue, that casts doubt on the imminent nature of the threat.

The old saying goes, "Better judged by twelve than carried by six." That is why a CCW applicant is required to undergo many hours of both classroom and on-range training and testing, as well as an FBI background check. BTW, even if acquitted of any charges which might arise, shooting another human being is still homicide, though the law finds it "justifiable." That is a consideration which will follow a self-defense shooter forever, everywhere. Yet, it's still preferable to being dead or maimed.

Regarding the use of mace, and other, non-lethal force: If someone is about to harm you or another person, you need to apply the most effective amount of force available. There are too many potential circumstances in which less than lethal force can fail to deter an attacker; in fact, even lethal force is sometimes insufficient. Hopped up on drugs, or simply coming too fast, some attackers don't even notice a bullet wound, until later. There is some debate in the firearms community over what caliber/round type/etc. provides the best stopping power... Much as in any community of "experts." I'm sure you can think of another, similar community.

At any rate, there is no such thing as "shoot to wound," as anyone who fires a weapon has to accept that the maximum possible effect, i.e., death/destruction of inanimate object, will result. Even a wound to a peripheral body part can result in death through blood loss or subsequent infection, but the fact is, under stress, it is simply not practical to attempt to target a particular body part.

As for where I live, I am quite fortunate that it is not terribly rife with violent crime. However, that does not make it free of violent crime, and too many are either enamored of a criminal lifestyle, glorified in the media, while others are desperate enough to resort to crime for a drug fix. Some are simply bored (as was the case in Oklahoma, in which an Australian jogger was tragically gunned down by three youths who picked him out apparently at random, "just to see someone die"). Outliers like that incident, or someone simply attempting to knock over a convenience store at the wrong time, and the situation getting out of control, can happen anywhere.

I hope I addressed your questions sufficiently. This is, quite literally, a matter of life and death, and I take it very seriously. That is why it bothers me when other folks make ill-informed comments about it.

If you have any other questions, ask away. =^[.]^=

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Nope. The fact is, the vast majority of legal gun owners in the US (the ones "gun control" laws are aimed at disarming) will NEVER use them in an illegal manner.

True, which is basically like saying 'well, it's only a tiny minority that's going to flip out and kill schoolkids, so that's okay.'

You're smarter than to resort to that sort of argument, Charan.

If someone is inclined to "flip out" and kill schoolkids, no gun control laws are going to stop them. As Alysma pointed out, above, tragic incidents are going to happen. Making schools "gun free" zones isn't going to keep out the nutters, but it will keep out anyone capable of intervening. At one US school, teachers and faculty are bypassing that restriction by officially becoming "armed security guards," as well, thus allowing them to carry while on campus. Now, which school is your nutter gonna go after: The one with armed teachers, or "gun free"?

Returning to what appears to be your argument (and, please correct me if I get it wrong), because, in a population of approaching half a billion, a very tiny proportion might take out their grievances/psychoses/diet of violent video games by attacking schoolkids with firearms, it is preferable to disarm the vast majority of law-abiding citizens? Or, do you proffer another solution? =0[.]o=

well, problem is with America, guns have been legal for long enough to have so many in circulation that if you start taking them away again, you are only taking them away from law abiding people and the criminals will keep theirs. I think thats a valid side to it, Im pretty anti gun but there is no denying that aspect to it.

It is true though what charan says, there was a guy here in the uk a while back went on a killing spree with some guns, legal guns he had a permit for. But I cant remember another mass shooting like that, because we dont have guns for the most. Yes we have gun crime, there are criminals with guns, but not like the USA. Sometimes I watch documentaries and read forums posts, news articles etc about stuff that happens in America and its like Im reading about Somalia or some other crazy 3rd world disaster zone, its beyond me how civilised western people can live with such weaponry hanging around constantly. But as I said, its different being a country thats never had guns and being a country that had 100,000,000s of guns in circulation and then tried to take them back again, you got to deal with the reality.


Apart from that 1 incident only other one comes to mind was some nut case who walked into a church, naked with a samurai sword, and started hacking people up. The naked bit says it all, this isnt a kid gone emo on heavy metal, artificial sweeteners and a state sponsored amphetamine addiction who has a particularly bad day and decided to shoot some people. This is a proper crazy person, someone who can actually deal with running into a church naked with a samurai sword, melee takes more nuts than most people can deal with in RL. I think he managed to chop a few people before he had his head caved in with an organ pipe and they all got carted off to A&E together. With a machine gun that would have been everyone dead followed by a shoot out with the police. That dude was as crazy as they come and a lack of access to guns stopped it being 100x worse.

Strange... I always thought it was more complicated to pull a trigger on a firearm versus cutting an onion with a knife. Sure, the motor skills needed to cut with a knife are slightly higher than pulling the trigger of a hand gun, but when we talk about these more recent mass killings we are reflecting on situations that don't involve the hand gun as the main target in question.

It seems like what you are claiming to be "anti-gun control rhetoric" really isn't, and your "pro-gun control" claims are at times truly rhetorical. Sometimes it seems to be based off of your feelings and personal experiences. This is anecdotal I think.

"

Are you seriously telling me that the US would have as many mass killings if every single perpetrator had to use a knife instead of multiple guns?

The simple answer would be yes, but allow me to elaborate for a moment. There was a young man that actually stabbed fourteen people in broad daylight before getting caught. The discrepancy here is that a person who suffers from psychosis will not be stopped by a law prohibiting guns. This is also an isolated case. I could in fact point you in the direction of other situations where incidents like this happened. I'm not saying that your statement doesn't exude some kind of nobility. It's actually nice to see people with a great deal of empathy for victims of tragic crimes. I admire you for that. Unfortunately, your statement presumes hat because you don't think it's possible to kill a moderately high number of people with a knife it's illogical to think that the severity of psychotic crimes such as the Washington Naval yard would be lesser if there were stricter gun control laws. This would be false based on the evidence that is currently available.

"

The argument of 'illegal guns in the hands of criminals means we need legal guns in the hands of the law-abiding citizens' is just an abstracted mutually assured destruction. It's also blurring the line between 'criminal' and 'law-abiding citizen' when the latter becomes the former so easily due in no small way to the ease with which one can pull that trigger. I'm a firm believer in owning your actions before the fact, which you clearly do. You know if you pull that trigger, shit is going to go south in a lot of ways. You've thought about it and still believe there are circumstances in which that is the preferable choice. I respect that. A lot.

I just don't think everyone who has the legal right to carry/conceal in the US thinks that way. For them, the consequences come after, and often they're too great to face, which is why you also have so many murder/suicides. But if you remove the gun from the equation and make it a knife, or a baseball bat, or whatever else, for a start, the chance of the first blow being fatal is significantly lower. You have to keep at it. And that takes a whole different level of resolve than simply pulling a trigger once.

Here is where I have the biggest problem with pro-gun control. I highlighted the main point as reference to what I am about to say. The logic here is that if we take guns away the chance of fatal crimes inspired by a state of psychosis will be reduced. We are gambling with peoples lives now? Since when should a person be subject to compromise on the chance that it could reduce fatalities? This seems very slippery slope to me and unfounded. When you talk about gun control you need to understand that the constitutional rights of our people aren't like the old tenants of religion. They aren't just old doctrines that over time make no sense to society. The Constitution was written to last for as long as there was a will to pursue those grand themes of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

well im not sure if you meant to imply that it is failure bound, since democracy in russia is a joke. political opponents get poisoned, locked away and who knows what else.
i do believe that taking guns out of circulation is a start. i find it really scary to hear our american friend say that its best to aim for the kill. how many nut cases our out there for him?
i guess i´ve been fortunate enough to only have lived in safe places where it would be more prudent to take baby aspirin on a daily basis than to carry a firearm. (assault is less common than heart disease)

indeed the mass assault cases are impossible to imagine without firearms. in the highschool i work, a kid trying to carve up the rest of the class would get jumped by teachers and the braver students. the killcount would be a lot less for sure.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

Strange... I always thought it was more complicated to pull a trigger on a firearm versus cutting an onion with a knife.

mate, were not talking about training monkeys, were talking about human beings who can tie shoelaces. You cant stab someone 30 feet away, when guns are involved a higher chance of fatality is involved. If you have to get point blank to do damage, you have to be in range of taking damage, improvised melee weapons are everywhere.

There are arguments for keeping the current gun laws, but I dont think you made any of them.

Hasn't anyone thought of the compromise of requiring a psych analysis before being allowed to buy a gun?