Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I don't think that Cold Hard facts are feelings. EVERYBODY who refers to any bill of rights that they weren't around to see written are are resorting to semantics, since they have no idea what was actually meant, a general consensus doesn't make something fact (there was once a general consensus that the Earth was flat, and that the universe revolved around the Earth.). All I can say is that sometimes people choose to ignore the facts in order to support what they believe are their own interests. Archaic documents don't wash with me, I prefer to make my decisions based on what happens in the real world, in the current time. If facts don't sway you, and opinions don't sway you, your mind is made up. As a humanist I view the evidence and then decide what I believe. As a healthcare scientist I am trained to assess facts and I have done so, and made up my own mind. Anything else is superflous. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to, I just hope nobody ever uses a legally acquired firearm (or illegally) to harm anybody I know, or don't, regardless of what they did.

if you really need clarification on what to keep and bear arms means that Glenn is right. No amount of reason is going to get through to you. Do you really think they mean arms as in attached your body? Put your head back in the sand and remember one famous saying" it is better to be thought an idiot, than to open your mouth and prove it."

I have finally finished reading this whole thread. wow! There are a lot of opinions here. From what I can tell, though, there are still basically only two positions; pro gun ownership and anti gun ownership.
I must go on record, "at this time" as having a pro gun ownership stance.
As far as stats and figures in support of my position, I really don't have any. I simply grew up in an environment where gun ownership was a given and practically a requirement (read rural upbringing). They were a fact of life and were treated as any other tool. This environment also lead to a belief in self-sufficiency and personal responsibility (which seems to be something America as a whole has forgotten).
For those who would argue that we should allow our duly elected governments to protect us from harm, I would ask you to do a quick Google search for the Battle of Athens (Tennessee, 1945). With the anniversary of this incident coming up, I'm surprised some of our other pro gunners haven't referenced this already.
Still, this has been a good look at opposing philosophies and I want to thank the members for making this a fairly hospitable debate.

Enjoy!

Originally Posted by HamburgO

I know that video, still have a copy of it. It's called "Surviving Edged Weapons", is an astoundingly good production for the time, and makes for excellent training material. There are some excerpts up on YouTube. The "bad guy" in the part you mention is played by Guro Dan Inosanto, who is now 76, still alive, well and teaching.

I have seen it and lived it. Kind of like taking a knife to a gunfight. Pull it, use it. I have been convinced of this. If anyone pulls, consider it used and act fast. Use your weapon now. People who think folks lay down as a gun is pulled and threats made are seriously mistaken. Threats are threats and action is action. Survival! JMHO

Originally Posted by HamburgO

I know that video, still have a copy of it. It's called "Surviving Edged Weapons", is an astoundingly good production for the time, and makes for excellent training material. There are some excerpts up on YouTube. The "bad guy" in the part you mention is played by Guro Dan Inosanto, who is now 76, still alive, well and teaching.

My father was an LEO for 24yrs and spent the last12 of them as CLEO for his locality. He was also the firearms trainer/qualifier for many departments in the area.
I remember him showing me that video shortly after he had recieved it when I was younger. After that we were at the range 2 weekends a month and he had me running the clock and manning the motorized target holder until he could easily draw from retention and put two shots in center mass quickly. Then he started working on moving those shots from center mass to CNS.
He only drew his pistol once in those 24 years on duty. And it was to put a deer down after it had been struck by a car. He used the shotgun with some plastic bear scare rounds a few times as well.

Originally Posted by sharptonn

I have seen it and lived it. Kind of like taking a knife to a gunfight. Pull it, use it. I have been convinced of this. If anyone pulls, consider it used and act fast. Use your weapon now. People who think folks lay down as a gun is pulled and threats made are seriously mistaken. Threats are threats and action is action. Survival! JMHO

Been there and done that myself. IN HOUSTON as a matter of fact. My deal turned out HILARIOUS but the clown with the knife wasn't loaded all that tight. He folded up like a cheap suit when dawned on his addled brain that he'd brought a knife to a gun fight. He announced that his intent was to relieve me of my money and valuables. He ended up getting his only visible means of support removed.

I took his knife since he didn't have any money.

Tom, that happened at the old Eagle Grocery warehouse and I'll be damned if I can remember where it is or if it is anymore. That was in the late 70's and I've been a few million miles and slept a time or three since then.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

So I have a question to ask all of you be you pro or anti gun.

You wake up tomorrow morning and every firearm in the U.S is gone (yes Obama was busy last night like an anti Santa Claus) so what will be the effect in this country? Will Mexico suddenly invade us? Will you hear about mass murders where some guy used a knife to kill 30 people? Will the Elk and Deer rejoice? Will the crime stats go up or down? Will the sale of Louisville Sluggers increase causing a massive employment increase that brings the country out of recession?

So what will happen?

It would be a happy day for all animals subject to hunting.

But seriously. I've been attacked with a knife once. Happened at the local pub but it was very easy to take a knife away from the drunken dude before he hurt himself. I'm not anti gun per se but i accept the fact the as long there's fire arms, as long the will be casualties too. Breivik couldn't have killed that many with bare hands or knife nor couldn't have Holmes either. Had they possessed more powerful things like hand grenades or so they could have killed even more.
My point is: more effective weapons, more dead people. Good guys, bad guys, innocent bystanders; it is not the question.
Question # 2 is that what makes some people choose to use a weapon when others do not? Why does it happen more often in some countries than others?

Knifes kill within the close range only but with the gun you can do it from the distance. Even in the times of old when knife fighting was more popular there was no intent to kill, at least here. Killing was a failure and a sign of a person who couldn't use knife properly.
I am a great sinner of getting off topic but my grandfather who knew something about knife fighting said after reading about knife killings: young people are so messed these days. They stab when they should cut.

(he also said many other weird things, specially when drunk. Once he said that we have come to strange times: young girls drink vodka and men eat vegetables. Then he deeply laughed).

" it is better to be thought an idiot, than to open your mouth and prove it." On this note we agree at least ... and you opened your mouth real wide, congratulations. I was demonstrating how people use semantics to their gain (it's called sarcasm). Does "right to bear arms" mean a nuclear missle, automatic rifle, grenades, fists? Like I said, if facts and figures won't sway you, and you have to resort to insults, you have already lost the point. You enjoy your guns, I will enjoy being able to defend myself.

THE ROLE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TODAY

A key argument against gun control is preservation of the Second Amendment, which explicitly propones the right to bear arms. However, the words of Dennis Henigan, the 2003 director of the Brady Campaign, resonate with me. In archives of a debate on the constitutional issues of gun ownership at Harvard Law School, he asserts that the Second Amendment "does not apply today because a militia no longer exists, eliminating the rationale for gun ownership."

This makes me wonder if an 18th-century construct can be completely relevant in this modern era. Don't get me wrong -- I believe the Constitution is the most fundamental establishment on which this nation was built and admire how it unites the U.S. with core principles. But I doubt Madison ever had to worry about mass murder at the movies. He also believed in broad interpretation of the Constitution, so we can't know for certain that he wouldn't concede to some sort of tightening of gun purchasing laws if he were alive today.

A valid point that goes in tandem with the Second Amendment argument is that if gun control were implemented, "bad people" would still acquire weapons and "good people" would be left defenseless. However, my question is where does the distinction lie? Holmes wasn't a registered criminal. Neither are most mentally disturbed killers who commit mass murder. Until we can come up with a way of knowing who is "good" and who isn't, I think that Rousseau's social contract applies -- we surrender some freedoms (the right for every citizen to bear arms) in exchange for protection of our natural rights (paramount of which is "life").

The notion that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," commonly contended by those strict believers in our Second Amendment rights, is essentially true. However, guns sure do facilitate the act, don't they?

There is one major reason guns are still legal in your country, because you have guns.

Originally Posted by honedright

Thomas Jefferson wrote something in the Declaration of Independence about how historically people are long suffering and mostly reluctant to change their governments until something(s) occurs that is/are completely intollerable. The founders of this country were, after all, law breakers guilty of treason.

Yes I am certain, and proud to say that if this country ever attempted to remove our best means for individual self-defense, alot, and hopefully all of us, would follow in our founding fathers footsteps.

[B]BTW, what happened here? Queensland has a thriving blackmarket for handguns and is awash with over 40,000 weapons | The Courier-Mail

and here:

]Black market supplying illegal guns, according to Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare | thetelegraph.com.au

In all fairness, the title should have read...Awash in legal and fully registered handgums used by law abiding citizens...However, we do have a black market in this state (and country) and I sure wish I had the money to spend and whereabouts of the sellers stalls, 'cause I'd be there with bells on! Oh I should also mention that at least 35 of the blackmarket handguns were from a police station. Criminals stole the whole damn safe and broke into it at another location. The safe was found emptied.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

" it is better to be thought an idiot, than to open your mouth and prove it." On this note we agree at least ... and you opened your mouth real wide, congratulations. I was demonstrating how people use semantics to their gain (it's called sarcasm). Does "right to bear arms" mean a nuclear missle, automatic rifle, grenades, fists? Like I said, if facts and figures won't sway you, and you have to resort to insults, you have already lost the point. You enjoy your guns, I will enjoy being able to defend myself.

You've demonstrated you're own ignorance and immaturity very well with most of what you have said over these many pages. I really must say that I do enjoy reading your posts, because I have never laughed so hard in all my life. Your lack of life experience is just shining through in all your statements, and I see a lot of what I was like at that very same age in you...Needless to say, I'm ashamed to admit it. Thankfully though, at your age I had already had many years of experience in the proper use of firearms. So at least I wasn't dumb in that department like yourself.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

There is one major reason guns are still legal in your country, because you have guns.

What can I say...AMEN BROTHER! And I'm not even American. Or christian for that matter.


Mick

Originally Posted by Sailor

It would be a happy day for all animals subject to hunting.

But seriously. I've been attacked with a knife once. Happened at the local pub but it was very easy to take a knife away from the drunken dude before he hurt himself. I'm not anti gun per se but i accept the fact the as long there's fire arms, as long the will be casualties too. Breivik couldn't have killed that many with bare hands or knife nor couldn't have Holmes either. Had they possessed more powerful things like hand grenades or so they could have killed even more.
My point is: more effective weapons, more dead people. Good guys, bad guys, innocent bystanders; it is not the question.
Question # 2 is that what makes some people choose to use a weapon when others do not? Why does it happen more often in some countries than others?

Knifes kill within the close range only but with the gun you can do it from the distance. Even in the times of old when knife fighting was more popular there was no intent to kill, at least here. Killing was a failure and a sign of a person who couldn't use knife properly.
I am a great sinner of getting off topic but my grandfather who knew something about knife fighting said after reading about knife killings: young people are so messed these days. They stab when they should cut.

(he also said many other weird things, specially when drunk. Once he said that we have come to strange times: young girls drink vodka and men eat vegetables. Then he deeply laughed).

Your Grandpa was a funny guy, and he's right - stabbing is much more likely to kill than cutting. Good thing you were able to disarm that drunk. I've been carrying a knife much longer than a gun. I consider my knife a deadly weapon, and would never draw it on another person unless justified and prepared to use deadly force. In 20 years, that has only happened twice. Luckily for everyone, the attackers in those incidents broke off and escaped once they caught a clue that I was ready to kill them.

Check out these facts on knife killings in China: School attacks in China (2010

Probably one of the few countries where it is close to impossible for a civilian to obtain a firearm. Still, 21 dead in these attacks, most of them small children, and 90 injured.

In your own country 2007 and 2008, school shootings in Jokela and Kauhajoki left 19 dead and many others injured. Both committed by psychos using only .22 cal pistols!

With the psychos who set out to do this kind of thing, I think the weapon is always secondary to their intent to kill. They will find a way, and will always do the most damage that they can.