|
Post by Pharcellus on Dec 31, 2012 1:00:24 GMT
Try asking the people aboard the 9/11 jets that question, of how a few men armed with box-cutters managed to take over a whole jet liner so that they could use them as flying weapons. That's really a bad analogue for a number of reasons. First, very few to no people were killed from cuts from boxcutters. They died because they were lulled into a false sense of safety, thinking that it was just another typical hijacking; they get detoured to some random airport, sit on the tarmac for a few hours whilst the hijackers negotiate with the foreign government, and then they're back on a plane home. Yeah, it's scary, but they had no reason to think that the hijackers were going to suicide-crash the plane into a building. Let me say this, though: if you think that trick will EVER work again, you're more insane than the suicide pilots were. Again, I think that really is situational. The first thing anyone does facing someone with a big knife is to turn and run away. Knives are melee weapons; stay out of melee range, and you're probably quite safe. If you are trapped, the best you can hope for is to grapple with the attacker, along with several others, and disarm him. You also can quickly and easily get on equal footing as someone with a knife -- a chair works wonders as both a shield AND a weapon. There are also TONS of objects which make effective clubs in a pinch. So, if you can't run, you do have a lot better chance of surviving a knife-wielding attacker, even if said attacker is martially trained, compared to someone with a gun. But.. but.. what if? We can play this game for a long time and in many different ways. What if someone WAS packing, but was shot before he could pull his piece? What if he pulled it, fired, and missed? What if he pulled it, fired, and hit the guy, but he was wearing, oh, I dunno, BODY ARMOR? What if the gallant defender pulled his gun, fired, missed and hit a nearby innocent bystander, say, a CHILD? Let's extend that and say a gun battle ensues with bullets flying everywhere indiscriminately -- and MORE people die. I generally tend to hear this argument from people who are desperate to make ANY argument, and vastly oversimplify the situation down to where it is pointless to even debate it. This doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that, in many cases, that person packing heat IS there, but it fails to make any difference in the outcome whatsoever. Expecting the general population to always be both fully-armed and fully-trained as a solution to this kind of violence simply isn't a rational response. Making a serviceable pipe bomb is nowhere near as trivial as obtaining a cache of guns and ammo. Despite Hollywood making it seem like its as simple as baking a cake (which itself ain't all that easy), it actually is quite involved and depends on, well, a person's ability to take the time to actually learn HOW to MAKE something, and then successfully do it. Guns and ammo come pre-made, ready to use. You're kidding me, right? "slip a few more shells into the gun". Have you ever used a pump shotgun? You have to fish for a shell, hold the gun up, insert it properly, bring the gun down, pump it, and then fire. Now repeat the first parts again for each shell. If someone comes in wielding a shotgun and starts reloading, you can easily close a fairly significant distance before he can finish and fire. Also, many shotgun wounds are significantly more survivable than rifle/pistol bullet wounds, mainly because there is significantly less muzzle energy per cross-sectional area (except for slug, perhaps, but if you're looking to do mass murder with a carton of slug shells, you're more stupid than you are crazy). OK, now I know you're not being serious here.. or at least offering a serious counter-argument. You do know that a bayonet is the most useless thing you can put on the end of a gun without actual training to use it, right? It's not even remotely as easy to use as a spear. I would expect video game players to make these kinds of suggestions.. about as effective as a real-life anime sword with a 1-foot-wide blade.
|
|
|
Post by Pharcellus on Dec 31, 2012 2:23:09 GMT
AA0 you need to do a little research on the lethality of knives. I suspect you will also find that a large percentage of killers will have the knife as their weapon of choice in spite of the media spectacles we are seeing recently. Why don't you provide it? If you're going to make a point in an argument, don't you think you should be the one backing it up, rather than expecting your opponent(s) to do your job for you? I suspect that what I will find is just the opposite -- that the larger percentage of "killers" will have guns as their weapon of choice, not in spite of the media spectacles (which I agree with you that they are "spectacles" in the most negative use of that term), but in support of them. Here's even a source for ya. On average, killers choose guns around two-thirds of the time, over ALL OTHER weapons and methods of violence combined. Come on, let's stop redefining terms here.. it's a FAIL argument technique. The gun is a weapon and remains a weapon regardless of how it is used, or who is using it. Yes, of COURSE it is the person that makes it MURDER, or MASS MURDER, but the weapon is STILL the instrument (aka tool) used in the performance of the act(s). Guns serve no other purpose in their intent and design except to be used as weapons. Weapons for hunting and defending your life/property/family perhaps, but still weapons nonetheless (and, no, "target practice only" does not make it any less a weapon). The argument that any person with the intention (and the psychology) to commit mass murder would still carry out the same act to the same degree (despite capability) is specious at best, and is not born out by the facts. How many mass murders can you name where guns WEREN'T the "weapon of choice"? Despite the prevalence of guns here in the US, they still aren't ubiquitous, so why don't we see more mass murders using other means? What about in other countries? Because, even with what barriers to obtaining firearms currently exist, they are still far easier to obtain/use than the alternatives. Wouldn't you think that would factor significantly into a person's consideration and capability to commit mass murder? I would think so. Do you think someone like Loughner, Lanza, etc is going to sit down and figure out how to make/deploy IEDs or poison gas (without offing himself first from fucking up whilst he made it) to blow up a theater or school? I would agree with you if I could go into Wal$Mart and pick up a Home Pipebomb Kit, or a six-pack of Sarin canisters, but we don't have that, so we don't see people using those methods, and likely wouldn't, at least not with the frequency we see mass shootings. Well, crime statistics don't agree with you on the preference issue, so there's no point in proceeding with that argument. That said, guns ARE as easy and nearly as cheap to get as knives; at least ones that are remotely useful as weapons. Your average folding pocket knives and basic hunting/skinning knives I don't consider remotely useful as hand-to-hand weapons, and getting ones which are actually "intended" as weapons are often fairly costly. Most serial killers aren't of the Riddick variety -- able to kill with a tin cup or a sardine can key. Unless they are stylistic in some insane way, they are likely going to choose effectiveness/ease of acquisition in their consideration. Thus, the attractiveness of choosing a gun over all other weapons becomes key. No one ever said it was an easy solution. Likewise, just because there is no easy solution should not give us pause for seeking *A* solution. Most people also have not been "screaming gun control"; however, the main reason that people have been stressing it is because, without fail, EVERY GODDAMNED TIME we have a mass shooting, we keep hearing "this is not the time to talk about the problem". I'm sure some of you have worked in industrial jobs before. When someone gets a severe on-the-job injury, do you hear ANYONE say "this is not the time to talk about on-the-job safety"? If you did, then I hope you quit and got as far away from that disaster as possible. WHY IN THE SAM HELL DO WE MAKE THAT SAME STUPID ASSERTION WITH RESPECT TO GUN VIOLENCE? So, guess what? People ignore this ridiculous plea for stupidity-cum-ignorance and talk about it because it is the SENSIBLE thing to do, and then it is said they are "screaming" about it. I don't simply want to look for something to blame, I want a solution. Part of finding a solution to any problem is identifying a real causative or contributory component of the problem to attempt to fix (aka "blame"). If your car breaks down and, after thorough analysis by a mechanic, it is determined that your coil pack shorted out, then you have identified the cause of the problem -- you can safely "blame" the failure of the vehicle to continue running on a specific identified causal factor. If it further determined that the coil pack failed because it was too close to the exhaust manifold and the extra heat caused it to fail, then the blame shifts to a design flaw in the lack of proper thermal insulation and the correct course of action is not simply to replace the faulty coil pack, but also to add some extra thermal insulation to prevent the new one from failing again. So, no, simply ascribing "blame" is pointless if there is no effort to offer an effective solution to the problem, but that is why we MUST first accept that it is a problem, then talk about it and seek the best solution. All that said, I want a fair solution that respects our rights and freedoms AT THE SAME TIME AS cutting this shit off at the hips (fuck the knees). I realize those two goals are likely mutually exclusive, at least to some degree, but we MUST talk about it and MUST change something. Otherwise, the alternative is that we will just have to accept the fact that this is going to be a regular occurrence ("price of society"), and that someone's child/sibling/parent is going to die and just say to them, more or less "sucks to be you, I guess" -- at least until it is YOUR child or loved one you are burying; an experience I suspect would change this silly outlook quite a bit in anyone's mind.
|
|
|
Post by Pharcellus on Dec 31, 2012 3:01:02 GMT
A Serial killer is defined as someone who kills 4+ people I believe. The traditional definition is 3 or more, but different organizations use different criteria; for example, the FBI defines it thus: "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone" Frithy can go into the gory details of how and why they are different on the psychological front, but the obvious difference is in the motives and how they relate to the M.O. each individual serial killer uses. Typically, the methods employed are chosen for effectiveness and in support of the particular pathology the killer is suffering from, which are almost always intended for one person at a time -- strangulation, drilling holes in people's heads and pouring acid inside, poisons, stabbings. That is how they are different than mass shootings. The choice of the murder weapon is meant for effectiveness against a single person at a time. Guns are effective against one person at a time, but garrotes, drills/acid and such are NOT effective against more than one person at a time, and not generally effective against random victims in random settings. Poison may be effective against more than one person at a time, but it requires significant efforts in formulation and delivery that few people are capable of performing. Stabbings, well, there is evidence that you can kill people in a close to ideal situation with a knife, but I think it is much more difficult to carry out effectively and can be countered much more effectively than someone packing a number of guns and ammo. Otherwise, the number of knife mass killings would be at or near parity with gun killings.
|
|
|
Post by Pharcellus on Dec 31, 2012 5:59:09 GMT
Making a serviceable pipe bomb is nowhere near as trivial as obtaining a cache of guns and ammo. Despite Hollywood making it seem like its as simple as baking a cake (which itself ain't all that easy), it actually is quite involved and depends on, well, a person's ability to take the time to actually learn HOW to MAKE something, and then successfully do it. Guns and ammo come pre-made, ready to use. This just made me think of an interesting solution to the problem. You can't buy guns or ammo complete and ready-to-use. You can only buy the components, and you must assemble/load them yourself. Now, this won't help in the case where you've done all that and then your kid or some criminal takes your assembled guns and ammo and goes on a bloody school rampage, so it isn't a 100% solution. However, I think it would stop or even just slow down a number of these mass killings, because then it would take effort and a level of competence that I think many people don't have and likely would not be willing to cultivate. In those situations, I think the addition of integrated trigger locks would help. Sure, your kid might get ahold of your guns, but he couldn't fire them without some serious technical ability to bypass the locks. That, and criminals wouldn't be able to immediately take advantage of your cache of weapons to turn them against you should you walk in on them in-the-act. Again, not a 100% solution, but there aren't going to be any such solutions. Each one is going to be effective for a small part of the problem. The trick is to find a balance between our rights, and the need for society to protect itself from the unlawful abrogation of those rights. Freedom comes at the price of responsibility. Responsible weapon ownership is that price.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 11:32:23 GMT
one big problem that nobody ever discusses is gun shows. Now, you can buy guns within a gun show and they have to run a background check and all of that, though they aren't as heavily policed as gun stores.
However, there are people that sell guns outside the show in the parking lots. Or worse, groups both inside and out that sell the pieces to guns that you can assemble yourself. Certain components require a background check if purchased individually (such as the components to make a gun automatic), but other parts if purchased individually require no check at all. So you could (if you knew how to assemble one) purchase a gun in pieces without any sort of check at all.
|
|
|
Post by FrithRae on Jan 3, 2013 19:00:20 GMT
Before we get off track - we're not talking about Serial Killers. Mass Murderers; gun violence. Not Serial Killers. There are huge differences bewtween them, personalities and criminal profiles included. A Serial killer is defined as someone who kills 4+ people I believe. So explain to me how this is different and how it would be different if a gun was not the weapon used? The problem is the disturbed individual not the tool he chooses to carry out the deed. My point being that the gun is the trivial part and the individual is the important one. No, there is a definition difference, as well as personality/profile difference between Serial killers and mass murderers. Yes, the problem is the distrubed individuals - and psychologically and behaviorally - serial killers are DISTURBED DIFFERENTLY (different issues, different goals and motivations, different profile) than mass murderers. So you don't want to confuse the issue by categorzing them wrong (in the first place) so if you start throwing around any of these terms wrong - then you're diverting the conversation. Besides, the bigger picture here wasn't even addressing this - but more discussing about the society we find ourselvevs in, what' sat fault, in creating 1-more type of one type of disturbed person or 2-creating this as a more viable option for XYZ type of disturbed person. But in direct answer to your question: A Serial Killer is someone who kills individuals (usually, very rare for serial killers to take out mulitple-targets at once) serially. One at a time, one after another - 99.9% of the time in ways that are very similiar each time - their MO - their pattern. A Serial Killer is anyone who kills 2 or more people, SERIALLY (not at the same time), with an identifiable pattern. I mention pattern because there is also a term for the "Serial Killing Spree" - which is someone who goes out and starts killing people, in ones or twos at a time, but in a very small span of time - continues to kill. So they're going on a killing spree over the course of a few hours, or several days ONLY, before caught. They are also NOT considered "Serial Killers" nor are they considered "Mass Murderers". The differences in the defintion are important because of the differences in personality types and what causes/motivates them. A Mass Murderer is someone who kills a group of people - all at once. Usually just one group of people. Very few "Serial" Mass murderers (i.e. be someone who killed groups of people at once, but then does it more than once). They aren't "serial killing sprees" because again, its a large gorup of people all at once - and normally there's just the one because the murderer usually either kills themseles, or is killed by cops, before they move on to a "2nd large group". Three different types of criminal profile (just with those three, there are several more classifications on top of these heh). The personality charactieristics of someone who ritualisitcally goes out over a period of days/weeks/months/years to hunt down and pick a single target to murder (normally while leading a "normal" life during the rest of the time) - are MUCH MUCH different from someone who takes a gun, walks into a public place, and kills whomever and however-many just happen to be there. And just as an aside - very few serial killers use guns as their weapon of choice (at least to do the actual killing/maiming/torturing). They want it way more personal, more intimate than that with their victims. They may use a gun to get the person to "get in the car", but then switch to some other weapon to acheive their desired ends. Whereas your average mass murder - its the exact numbers and anonymity to their victims that helps to motivate/allow the playout of the violent fantasy. Because they aren't motivated by what motivates the serial killer; that isn't the makeup of their dysfunction. Its the namless masses of people they want revenge on, in some form or fashion - and the particulars, the intimate individual, is NOT what they want to know. And I point that out becaues its just one basic, minor, factor between the two that refleces A HUGE MINDSHIFT difference when talking about personality traits, dysfunction, and motvation/cause of the antisocial issues.
|
|
|
Post by sheral on Jan 4, 2013 0:46:37 GMT
... That's why British police don't carry guns, and why most criminals in the UK don't either. Because armed robbery carries a ridiculously high sentence compared to straight up robbery, or even robbery with violence. It's just not worth it. ... Two small items that might be of assistance, Cheryl: Most British patrol officers do not carry guns. However, the substantial number of Armed Police most certainly do, and most every patrol car (in London Metro, at least) has a fully automatic submachine gun stowed at ready. Since the handgun ban in the UK, murder by handgun rates have increased 89%. Other than that, carry on. Hope that helps. And how many mass murders involving handguns have there been? Oh, right. None. Gun murders in the UK may have gone up, but It's mostly criminal/drug activity. Innocent bystanders are occasionally but rarely involved. And 89% of a very low figure, is still a very low figure. Mass murders have not gone up. Or actually not taken place since the hand gun ban took effect. Nor is gun crime in the UK anywhere near what it is in the US (even when you take population differences into account). In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population in 2009: 0.22 www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdomFrom the same site, actual gun deaths in 2009: 138 (of which only 18 were homicides). Unfortunately, the US wasn't listed on that site so I couldn't run a comparison. The guns in London squad cars must be something new, if it's true. I wasn't aware of them, the general public isn't aware of them, either. None of the regular police forces use them, only SWAT type teams. And those guarding Royal events. The only time I ever saw a policeman with a gun was part of the crowd control at a Royal visit to Chesterfield (not exactly the gun capital of England). And I'll have to check (and apologies if I'm wrong) but pretty sure the knife attack in China left 20 injured, not dead. If he'd had a gun, however... (yeah, the only reports I can find say there were 23 wounded in China, not killed)
|
|
xaeris
Apprentice of Rant
Posts: 462
|
Post by xaeris on Jan 4, 2013 3:49:45 GMT
Making a serviceable pipe bomb is nowhere near as trivial as obtaining a cache of guns and ammo. Despite Hollywood making it seem like its as simple as baking a cake (which itself ain't all that easy), it actually is quite involved and depends on, well, a person's ability to take the time to actually learn HOW to MAKE something, and then successfully do it. Guns and ammo come pre-made, ready to use. There are recipes on the internet on how to make these things, and even to make a rudimentary bomb that will explode is not too terribly hard to do. You basically need these things: 1). Some sort of casing/container. 2). Explosive material. 3). Metal fragments. 4). A fuse or method to make it go boom. Let's see... an easy recipe for an explosive device that could do serious harm? Get a bunch of gunpowder, and a somewhat decent-sized canister (a 2 liter soda bottle would work), put a bunch of little metal shavings in it, fill the rest with gunpowder, drill a little hole in the cap and stick a fuse in it, use some sort of glue or something to hold it in place. What do you think that would do if it were detonated in a theatre or similar place with a bunch of people around? Gunpowder explodes violently, sending the metal shards everywhere, causing great harm (or death) to a lot of people nearby. And that's one of the simplest explosives of this type one can make, takes very little skill and materials to do. My family owns two pump shotguns, a 12ga and a 20ga. Once you get the hang of using them, it isn't that hard to slip a couple shells in and pump it shut within 3-4 seconds. It depends on how exactly you have the shells on your person (you obviously wouldn't have them stashed in deep pockets that are hard to get them out of), how you grab them with your fingers, etc. It'd take a little practice in how to pull the shells out quickly and stuff em into the magazine, but it could be done. And even if not, you still have 5 shots, which can do plenty of damage, and you could easily carry a backup pistol which has several shots more. You don't need an assault rifle. I went to Marine Corps bootcamp, and actually practiced with a bayonet on the end of an M16A1. You do much of the same movements as you would any sort of long instrument with a blade on the end of it. And if you really needed training, that's what Youtube and the Internet are for. And of course, it wouldn't be that hard to set up a sandbag or something for some practice before you went and did the deed. AND, the fact that the guy is standing there with a shotgun, loading shells into the magazine (which he can stop doing at any time, pump and shoot), with a large knife blade or two attached to the end of his gun would surely be intimidating to someone running towards the guy. You'd have to be crazy to run towards a guy who can either blow you away or shove a foot-long knife blade in your chest, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Pharcellus on Jan 4, 2013 8:28:43 GMT
There are recipes on the internet on how to make these things, and even to make a rudimentary bomb that will explode is not too terribly hard to do. You basically need these things: 1). Some sort of casing/container. 2). Explosive material. 3). Metal fragments. 4). A fuse or method to make it go boom. Let's see... an easy recipe for an explosive device that could do serious harm? Get a bunch of gunpowder, and a somewhat decent-sized canister (a 2 liter soda bottle would work), put a bunch of little metal shavings in it, fill the rest with gunpowder, drill a little hole in the cap and stick a fuse in it, use some sort of glue or something to hold it in place. What do you think that would do if it were detonated in a theatre or similar place with a bunch of people around? You'll give a bunch of people non-life-threatening second and possibly third-degree burns, some minor lacerations, and probably deafen most people within 20 feet of it. You *MIGHT* actually kill one or two people with it, if it landed in their laps. The problem is that what you just describe is a pretty pathetic way to make a "gunpowder" bomb. A plastic two-liter bottle? REALLY?? It is clear you don't know the first thing about bomb-making, but that's really beside the point. First, most of the so-called bomb-making "instructions" on the internet are crap. Yeah, you can make something that goes "bang!", makes a pretty fireball and probably a copious amount of smoke, but something that is actually a SERVICEABLE bomb capable of killing someone? Please.... Second, and more importantly, is obtaining the necessary materials. Why don't you talk about how to source high-quality gunpowder? Yes, you can make black powder, but to make black powder of a sufficient grade to make into a bomb takes a bit of skill and knowledge of mixture ratios and processes that your average youtube video on the subject doesn't do much justice to. Third, contrast the effort/result with that of guns and explain why we don't have near as many people throwing pipe bombs into crowds. With the right formulation of powder, in the right bomb geometry and material, you CAN kill somebody, maybe even a bunch of people. Eric Rudolph. who made the 1996 Olympic bomb here in Atlanta tried pretty hard to commit mass murder on a number of occasions, using nitroglycerine dynamite, steel plates, nails, etc. He managed to kill only TWO people in FOUR bombings. It wasn't for lack of knowledge, access to materials, or repeated successful detonation experience, either. I've made various kinds of chemical / pyrotechnic explosives in my younger days, so I can speak with a bit of experience as to the difficulties and minimal skill requirements involved in making something that actually could severely injure or hurt someone. It is FAR from as easy as you're making it out to be. A M16 isn't a shotgun, and a hunting knife duct-taped to the end of the barrel isn't remotely the same as a military-grade bayonet. If you're getting your so-called "training" from the Internet or *chuckle* YouTube, I'm not going to be too worried over it. If my choices are being shot in the back trying to run away, or rushing him whilst he reloads a fuckin' pump SHOTGUN with a bowie knife DUCT-TAPED to the end of the barrel, I know EXACTLY what I am going to do, and it won't take more than a split-second to make that decision. The only issue is overcoming the initial shock/fear reaction long enough to make it. Someone reloading a SHOTGUN is going to give me plenty of time to make that recovery, too. If the shooter is busy screwing with a two-handed weapon, he's also not likely to be switching weapons without dropping the one he's holding, and if he is, that takes time, too. ------------------------------- At the end of the day, you still have to explain why there aren't more mass bombings and shotgun massacres, as compared to pistol and assault rifle shooting sprees. Something you've utterly failed to do thus far, your appeal to the Intarwebs Anarchist Training Academy notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by AA0 on Jan 4, 2013 15:29:35 GMT
I haven't visited in a bit so I didn't get through pharcellus's novel yet.. but so far. 9/11 - Weren't these people told they had a bomb on the plan? Fighting back might have been the wrong choice from their perspective, I get why they didn't in this case.
These people that crack aren't weapons experts, they don't know how to make a pipe bomb, they crack, they find an easy to use automated weapon that can hurt people and they use it. If they had to sit down, research how to make the bomb ,get the materials, make it and use it.. would it be impulsive? No, that's a different crime, a different personality. That is a killer.
Everything I have read on serial killers indicates what Frith has said, their mind set is completely different than someone that cracks and goes on a killing spree. The serial killer is controlled, planned, methodical, they will have a signatures (always) along with their own reasoning and justifications, often seeking revenge or attention or both. I have seen nothing that indicates that most of these people with assault weapons are any of that, so it a confusion of issues.
The goal needs to be a reduction in the ability for people that mentally snap to injure others. You can't stop them from snapping all the time, you can try but it will happen sometimes. There is no good reason for these weapons to be open and readily available to anyone's impulses, it just isn't the case in other parts of the world. These events, even with control, will happen once in a while, they are tragedies, they do exist... Americans make them into news with regularity.
Maybe I'm the one that is nuts, but to me, I'd prefer a time where its possible for a trained person to cause a lot of damage with a knife over someone nobody with an assault weapon. I can tell you the likelihood of the knife scenario is a lot lower.
|
|
|
Post by AA0 on Jan 4, 2013 16:04:07 GMT
Our gun controls here are pretty easy to follow.
All firearms are registered Guns must be stored unloaded. Either in a locked room or in a gun safe, the ammo should be stored separately.
Don't give the kids the keys to the room or safe.
All weapons that have a primary purpose which isn't hunting are restricted and requires a special permit. They are obtainable if you really want them, but they don't make it easy, as it should be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2013 16:51:44 GMT
Our gun controls here are pretty easy to follow. All firearms are registered Guns must be stored unloaded. Either in a locked room or in a gun safe, the ammo should be stored separately. Don't give the kids the keys to the room or safe. All weapons that have a primary purpose which isn't hunting are restricted and requires a special permit. They are obtainable if you really want them, but they don't make it easy, as it should be. Sounds fair to me. I wouldn't mind having to go through stringent controls. In addition, I wouldn't mind if I had to re-register on a regular basis (say every 2 - 3 years) like you do with your car.
|
|
|
Post by FrithRae on Jan 6, 2013 5:17:27 GMT
I only have a problem with the idea of the guns being locked AND unloaded.
I don't have a problem with either seperately.
But I mean seriously - if someone breaks into my house at 2 am and I'm fiddling with a gunsafe and THEN ALSO having to go ELSEWHERE get ammo AND load the gun. It...kinda makes the whole thing a joke.
Gun safe required fine. GUns locked loaded fine. Guns out int he open being NOT loaded. Fine.
But guns locked in One location, ammo in another - your average robbery takes like 2 minutes or less. If I'm home alone and someone busts in and walks the 30 feet to my bedroom to attack/rape/whatever me - the gun in the safe does me no good.
But by fuck the pistol I keep fully loaded in my sidedrawer by my bed sure does.
|
|
|
Post by AA0 on Jan 7, 2013 16:49:19 GMT
A hand gun is restricted and has a mandatory locking system installed, they would take even longer than a rifle to get ready.
The US seems to have this massive gun paranoia going on, like you feel you need to be armed or people are going to come and kill you. I don't know whats up with that. I think Michael Moore did the documentary Bowling for Columbine when that happened (It might have been another one of his films though.) In it he walked up to a house in Windsor and opened the door. He proved that we don't lock our doors during the day, while that might have been shocking to Americans, it was more shocking to me that Americans are so paranoid that they feel this has to happen to be safe. I don't lock my doors when I'm home and awake, why would I? Geez, if people in Windsor of all places don't lock their doors, then who should? It is one of the worst places in Canada.
|
|
|
Post by lycaunoss on Jan 7, 2013 20:22:14 GMT
I only have a problem with the idea of the guns being locked AND unloaded. I don't have a problem with either seperately. But I mean seriously - if someone breaks into my house at 2 am and I'm fiddling with a gunsafe and THEN ALSO having to go ELSEWHERE get ammo AND load the gun. It...kinda makes the whole thing a joke. Gun safe required fine. GUns locked loaded fine. Guns out int he open being NOT loaded. Fine. But guns locked in One location, ammo in another - your average robbery takes like 2 minutes or less. If I'm home alone and someone busts in and walks the 30 feet to my bedroom to attack/rape/whatever me - the gun in the safe does me no good. But by fuck the pistol I keep fully loaded in my sidedrawer by my bed sure does. One thing to consider here as well Frith is that in Canada if someone broke into your house and you shoot them and kill them you are very likely going to jail for manslaughter. The law up here is pretty restrictive about the violence you are allowed to mete out on your potential assailant. If you shoot someone they better have a weapon. I'm not sure I agree with that since I cannot think of a reason for someone to be in my house uninvited who wasn't going to be doing something bad to me but that's the law up here.
|
|