- #106
0TheSwerve0
- 195
- 0
So you're saying societies should be static?
No, not racist at all, simply stating that the news said he was Asian. Many Asian's in our colleges are on student Visa's. Some are Us citizens, true. If he was on a student visa, he could not legally buy a gun. That applies to anyone on a student visa. You don't realize that I am probably the most non-racist on PF, having fought many battles to get racism stopped here.Quaoar said:Wow, now there's a blatantly racist comment. There are plenty of Asian people in this country who are US citizens and attend college. You have no evidence that most Asians who attend college in the US are expatriates.
ShawnD said:Guns are not to make a safe situation. They are to make a safer situation. If I try to kill the intruder with a gun then yes there is a chance he will kill me first, but there is also a chance I will kill him first. If I don't have a gun, I have no chance at all. 1 in a million chance of winning is still better than 0 in a million. I won't even include deterrence since that cannot be measured (accurately).
Evo said:No, not racist at all, simply stating that the news said he was Asian. Many Asian's in our colleges are on student Visa's. Some are Us citizens, true. If he was on a student visa, he could not legally buy a gun. That applies to anyone on a student visa. You don't realize that I am probably the most non-racist on PF, having fought many battles to get racism stopped here.
scorpa said:I think cops should be able to have guns, but I'm not sure if you were implying that they should or shouldn't so I won't argue that point. I'm assuming you just mean the average person.
Evo said:No, not racist at all...You don't realize that I am probably the most non-racist on PF, having fought many battles to get racism stopped here.
Sorry i totally disagree with that statement.Type 7 said:Frankly, I think it was a cheap shot to suggest otherwise.
Now let's get this debate back on topic.
Proposed: Elmer Fudd would not have tried to kill Bugs Bunny if Bugs had a concealed weapons permit and routinely carried a Colt 45.
Discuss.
Type 7 said:Frankly, I think it was a cheap shot to suggest otherwise.
Now let's get this debate back on topic.
Proposed: Elmer Fudd would not have tried to kill Bugs Bunny if Bugs had a concealed weapons permit and routinely carried a Colt 45.
Discuss.
ukmicky said:Sorry i totally disagree with that statement.
A colt 45 is a short range weapon is it not ,whilst i believe i am correct in stating that my mate Elmer, Mr fudd to you carried a rifle which was accurate over long distance.
Please think and get your facts right next time before you post
scorpa said:Shawn I remember hearing about that slurpee thing on the news a few years back. Weren't some kids stealing it from the science lab or something like that?
Bystander said:Pair of 9 mms? Three people rush the loon, and one gets shot. They've got to be prepared to, "Ohmigod!" hit him, maybe break a couple bones. It's called education: the operator of a firearm has to aim at each target and pull the trigger, and tenths of seconds are required for each shot by a skilled user --- how long's it take to cover the five yards between me and him? Second? Couple shots? He hits one of three in a hurry at a moving target, he's NHL material.
cristo said:Well, at the moment a criminal breaking into a house in an attempt to steal from the owner will know that there is a chance that the owner carries a gun. If a ban is enforced, then the criminal breaking into an average person's house knows that there is a far lesser chance that the owner carries a gun-- in fact if he's breaking into a law abiding citizens's house, then there is a very very small chance that the owner will be carrying a gun. Now, since we're talking probabilities here, in which case do you suspect that there is more likelihood for the burglar to shoot you on sight, rather than simply threaten you with the weapon?
ShawnD said:I see what you are getting at, and it does make sense.
On the flip side, would you rather rob a home that is absolutely 100% assured to be gun-free, or would you try to rob the home of a well-armed citizen? The citizen is on the defense and you're trying to sneak around. When the burglar and home owner are equally armed, there is an inherent advantage of being on the defensive. If you take away the home owner's gun so now only the criminal has a gun, the balance of power shifts in favor of the criminal.
As to whoever asked why the US has lots of crime despite everybody owning guns, that's only half-true. While many Americans own guns, most states do not have concealed carry laws, which means a good 99% of citizens walking around are not carrying guns at that time. If you point at some random person on the subway, you can bet your life on the fact that he does not have a gun on him, assuming you are in a state that does not allow concealed weapons. If you're in a place like Texas, it might be the other way around (Texas allows concealed weapons).
Cristo, I believe that more guns are fired by the criminals that break into homes when the homeowner is unarmed. Either they don't want to leave a witness, or they're just plain cruel.cristo said:Well, at the moment a criminal breaking into a house in an attempt to steal from the owner will know that there is a chance that the owner carries a gun. If a ban is enforced, then the criminal breaking into an average person's house knows that there is a far lesser chance that the owner carries a gun-- in fact if he's breaking into a law abiding citizens's house, then there is a very very small chance that the owner will be carrying a gun. Now, since we're talking probabilities here, in which case do you suspect that there is more likelihood for the burglar to shoot you on sight, rather than simply threaten you with the weapon?
Astronuc said:Elmer Fudd carried a shotgun.
Astronuc said:Yosemite Sam carried two pistols - ostensibly Colt 45's.
cristo said:I don't believe that the average policeman should carry a gun, no. However, I believe that the US police force cannot turn back and be disarmed, as that would do more harm than good.
Evo said:Cristo, I believe that more guns are fired by the criminals that break into homes when the homeowner is unarmed. Either they don't want to leave a witness, or they're just plain cruel.
I'll have to try to find statistics, but just from watching the news, in the great majority of murders, the victim did not have a gun.
Ki Man said:which would leave him totally helpless if he is in a dangerous situation...
edward said:What we need to get rid of are the high capacity clips. You can buy a 30 round clip for just about any semi automatic hand gun made for under thirty bucks.
As far as rushing the guy, hand guns are notoriously inaccurate in a rapid fire situation because of the recoil of the weapon. A fixed target is even difficult to hit during rapid fire. Most people don't realize this.
scorpa said:It must be just a Canadian thing but here it is as far as I know illegal to have a 30 round clip. I am probably wrong on this but I think you technically only supposed to have a clip that holds 3 rounds.
Kurdt said:The police in the UK do not carry guns. There are specially trained units that deal with firearms. The incident you are referring to was between one of these teams and a man they mistook for a suicide bomber, through some shaky intelligence.
The regular police however will never have a firearm and it is just the few highly trained officers that use firearms for specific situations.
ShawnD said:The laws in Canada are a lot more strict than the US. It's basically never legal to carry a concealed weapon in Canada. Hand guns are almost always illegal. Automatic weapons are always illegal. To be able to buy any kind of gun or ammunition, you need to take a government exam about guns and gun safety. I don't personally like the whole thing but I can see why it was put in place; there's really nothing more dangerous than a moron with a gun. The key word is moron, not gun.
Type 7 said:Ah, okay, thanks. I was under the impression that the police were just the regular ones who happened to be on duty at the scene.
Bad intelligence, huh? Well we Yanks know a thing or two about that.
Ki Man said:Anyone remember the North Hollywood Bank Shoot-out?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bijFwHuvl-0"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout"
It took the officers quite a while to take them down because their handnguns (and the shotguns that some carried around in their trunks) were ineffective against the robbers, and some officers had to rush to a local gunstore and borrow their automatics. a downed oficer near the bank could not be reached until a group of officers commandeered an armored money-transfering truck and used that to reach the downed officer and take him out of the kill-zone.
officers without guns is like an army without soldiers
Ki Man said:Anyone remember the North Hollywood Bank Shoot-out?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bijFwHuvl-0"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout"
It took the officers quite a while to take them down because their handnguns (and the shotguns that some carried around in their trunks) were ineffective against the robbers, and some officers had to rush to a local gunstore and borrow their automatics. a downed oficer near the bank could not be reached until a group of officers commandeered an armored money-transfering truck and used that to reach the downed officer and take him out of the kill-zone.
Actually the police weapons were not effective because the robbers were wearing full body armor. The police went to a sporting goods store to get a high powered rifle and armor piercing bullets.