Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Those people were very angry at someone ... They were rioting against the same people ... so, following on from there, why wouldn't they shoot them?

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

Why though? If you all were rioting against the same people, why would anyone have any reason to get shot?

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

Why though? If you all were rioting against the same people, why would anyone have any reason to get shot?

My self being dumb. apologies

Originally Posted by Theseus

...People should have the right to protect themselves...

It would be interesting to know how often this happens; how many lives are saved due to a possible victim having a gun and being in such a position to use it to either injure of kill an attacker or 'warm' them off. It's be interesting to know those figures, and then compare that to the number of people killed by 'man men' with guns. It'd be interesting to know if people getting harmed or killed by attackers RISES when gun ownership is not allowed generally.

What I mean is, here in Australia for all intents and purposes one can't buy a gun. It's not like the streets are bedlam with criminals controlling the populace via guns; in fact it appears to me that very crimes involve guns, unless it's gang member against gang member. Other weapons ARE used and people DO die, but not tens or hundreds.

Having said all that, South Australia seems to have a LOT of weird murders...

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

Those people were very angry at someone ... They were rioting against the same people ... so, following on from there, why wouldn't they shoot them?

No reason. Uncontrolable temper is the issue. If someone wanted someone dead, there so many other ways to kill them. People kill people, not guns.

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

Unless the people around you have no gun knowledge whatsoever,(which usually isn't the case if the gun is legal) accidental fires aren't all that common.

Oh come on, Parker, are you serious? Unauthorised Discharges were common in the army, with highly trained soldiers, and it's not like Australian soldiers don't know what they're doing. Just a quick Google showed me this:

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000

Twenty Three thousand in 2000 not common?

I understand what you are saying, and I agree people kill people, but guns certainly make it a heck of a lot easier. Take an ordinary house in the UK. If there was an intruder, and he was interrupted, most likely event is that somebody gets stabbed. More often than not that would not be fatal. Place the same event in a country where gun ownership is legal, and often encouraged, would the scenario be the same? Somebody would die, and it may not be the intruder.

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

No reason. Uncontrolable temper is the issue. If someone wanted someone dead, there so many other ways to kill them. People kill people, not guns.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Oh come on, Parker, are you serious? Unauthorised Discharges were common in the army, with highly trained soldiers, and it's not like Australian soldiers don't know what they're doing. Just a quick Google showed me this:

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000

Twenty Three thousand in 2000 not common?

Sorry about that. All Im saying is that guns aren't the problem. Its the people

Let's face facts, bombs are difficult to make, require prior knowledge or training and take a heck of a lot of effort. I watched a documentary with the famous Michael Moore, a firearm was offered along with a bank account. Much easier. With all due respect, I don't believe this guy would have killed more than one person had he had no access to a firearm.

Originally Posted by jaswarb

Your statement flies in the face of reality. Suicide bombers are killing dozens everyday all over the world and even in places where private ownership of guns and explosives remains illegal.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I don't believe this guy would have killed more than one person had he had no access to a firearm.

I believe he would have killed more people if he didn't have access to a firearm.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

How many people do you reckon he would have been able to kill with a hammer? How many people there do you think were CCW ? Were they all engaging in a 'shoot out' with this madman old West style, protecting themselves from 'the Indians'?

I think gun protection for self defence is a little over stated. I know if someone came to my house with a knife, and I had no knife, I'd give them my wallet. I guess if they had a knife and I had a handgun I could pull it on them and get away with keeping my wallet and my family safe. But given the level of gun ownership in some countries, I bet the chance of the offender going to the house WITH a gun is pretty high. If I had a knife and they had a knife I guess I'd STILL hand over my wallet, unless my family were threatened.

I just think guns, auto of otherwise, enable more hurt than many other weapons...

He obviously wouldn't have gotten as far with a hammer but look at the atrocities in Rwanda that took nothing more than mob mentality, hate and machete.
A tool is a tool.

I'm a pacifist who believes the lives of my children are worth more than the life of someone who breaks in to my home. A bit hypocritical? Yes. But I'm ok with it.

Especially in light of the murders in Connecticut where a family cooperated but the daughters were raped in front of the father and the wife was shot before the house was set on fire. The father managed to escape the fire.
Or the gas station clerks in, I believe, New Jersey who cooperated with armed robbers who proceeded to murder them both after they opened the register.