[Wutang]

I think you could give every family a gun in a place like Japan or Sweden or Finland and they'd probably still have less gun violence then in the US.

[Dulceácido]

Ugh... Yeah, I dunno. Just watched the video again and just... Wow. How horrible a spectacle to view for that woman's husband... I wouldn't sleep until I found that motherfucker.

Anyway... Still not sure it's a solid argument for having a gun. I am pro-gun, by the way, just to throw that out as a disclaimer/qualifier/whatever. I don't think "pro-gun" should even be a word or a point of reference to an individual. I grew up with guns and there was always one in the house. Every male carried a gun (and a lot of females). So even saying "pro-gun" is very weird to me. It would be the equivalent of "Pro-oxygen." Sounds absurd. It's just something that is always there and we need to live--why wouldn't it be there, right?

That having been said, there are clearly times when introducing a firearm to the situation would be detrimental. I think this is one of those cases. I'm sure the OP was advocating the right of self defense with a firearm and how it "could have" changed the outcome. Yeah. It WOULD HAVE changed the outcome, for sure. That woman would've been murdered. A child would've lost it's mom. A husband would've lost his wife. Tragic. Bruises heal. Black eyes get better. A bullet to the dome and it's light's out. Over. No reboot. Fucking done.

I'm all for guns, self-defense, being armed, constitutional rights, and all that shit--but I don't think this is a very good example of defending that. This poor woman would've been shot and killed.

[Aliblahba]

(06-26-2013 11:10 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:  

Did you see how pathetic this chick didn't even attempt to defend herself?

If there was a firearm involved, this chick would've brought a gun to the scene of her murder, instead of just getting an ass whooping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbDrdCm7AY


A female member of my family had a similar situation, but didn't have to fire a shot. The police praised her, and said if more people had firearms in their homes and were trained, home invasions wouldn't be as prevalent.

[Sherman]

In Mexico, guns are illegal, but that doesn't stop the criminals from having them, only the normal citizens. Also, I don't understand why people aren't afraid of knives. A knife is highly dangerous and can seriously mess you up for life. Gun means - protecting yourself at a safe distance from a knife.

[Dulceácido]

(06-26-2013 11:35 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 11:10 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:  

Did you see how pathetic this chick didn't even attempt to defend herself?

If there was a firearm involved, this chick would've brought a gun to the scene of her murder, instead of just getting an ass whooping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbDrdCm7AY


A female member of my family had a similar situation, but didn't have to fire a shot. The police praised her, and said if more people had firearms in their homes and were trained, home invasions wouldn't be as prevalent.

That video was awesome. Good on old girl.

Not sure if the chick in the original video would've had the nuts (I know, just sayin') to pull the trigger, though. I do know one thing--the fucking sociopath that was kicking the livin' shit out of her would've had no problem putting a bullet in her brain after he snatched the gun from her feeble, little, pathetic hands.

[Beyond Borders]

(06-26-2013 10:53 AM)CJ_W Wrote:  

I lived in Japan for five years. . .a country that has the strictest gun controls laws I've ever seen.

and it WORKS. (of course they heavily enforce it as well)

This stuff isn't always as transferable among cultures as you wish to think. Case in point, communities in America with the loosest gun control laws have the lowest crime rates in the nation, and in many cases, the lowest in the world.

You can bitch and moan about people using culture as a scapegoat all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true. As someone who has lived abroad before, I would think you'd understand that cultures ARE innately different.

Quote:

The only justification I can think of for less gun control laws would be if the gov tried to go all dictatorship on you.

THIS is the real reason for gun rights in America and the one I think the OP should have focused on, though I believe in the right to defend yourself on all fronts.

Judging by the American gov's actions over the past few decades, dictatorship is a very serious threat and would have happened already if it weren't for the sheer number of unofficial militia who still believe in independence and would die for it in a heartbeat (even though it's largely gone as originally intended).

It blows my mind how so many Europeans criticize American citizens for allowing the government to act as much of a dictatorship as they do yet also criticize us for holding on to the one thing that's kept them from getting more powerful.

Quote:

but if its at that point and you haven't left the country yet then that's your fault (haven't seen the signs and figured out how to hop on over to Canada. . .)

So half the country should hop over to country if they don't like the way things are going rather than hold on to the one thing that preserves their freedom (or what's left of it)? I'm sure Canada would LOVE that.

Hell, America is even trying to make it impossible to leave in the first place!

Look, I'm totally favor of running for the hills when shit gets goofy - and in a large way I've done it already.

But to ask the normal citizen to leave their home and family and everything they know rather than preserve their god-given right to protect themselves is ludicrous. Would you ask the same of Italians, Germans, or Spaniards? Tell them they should run, all of them, instead of stay put and reclaim control?

I think not.

I'm an independent and I would probably excuse myself from the situation rather than get involved - I'm largely an outcast and reject society on about every level - but I'm not so blind to reality as to ask the general population to do the same.

Quote:

Also, even if everyone HAD guns, if the military,cia,nsa wanted to eliminate you, or a lot of people, your puny pistol or assault rifle is NOT going to do you any good.

This is such a tired argument that it pains me to reply.

1) If the American government declared actual war on their people, it would be all over the media across the world - no doubt about it. This is something they don't want. It's more about "discouraging" abuse of power, if you will - not WINNING a civil war. Neither side would want things to get that bad.

Now, as far as an individual goes, yes, you're right. They'd stand no chance. But if the people ever organize. Watch out.

2) Much of the police forces and military are far more anti-gov and at least pro-gun than you might think. Many would turn if asked to shoot down their own people.

3) Many civilians have plenty of military skills, both strategical and technical. They also have very many high-tech weapons. Believe it. Many have worked at every level of the military, and once out, if the become anti-gov, they pass their techniques along.

4) It's been shown again and again, from Vietnam to Afghanistan and beyond, that the American government's "omnipitent" power doesn't really play out against lesser-armed geurilla forces as well as they'd like to believe it should. No matter what their egos tell them. And this is especially true when their enemy is more passionate.

Throw in the fact that you're asking a civilian army to blast on their brothers, and you can guarantee morale would diminish.

The American public is often chastized for the passive response to politicis, but there is also a sleeping giant there - you can be sure of it.

Quote:

I don't get why us Americans are so gun crazy.

Clearly.

And just as clear is the fact that you've decided to label them "crazy" rather than consider their very logical arguments.

To be sure, anti-gun folks have some good arguments as well, but your post makes it clear that you haven't paid much attention the arguments on either side, making your accusation of "crazy" no more than a gut reaction.

A flinch, in other words. Look deeper. Whatever your opinion.

Quote:

I kinda think its because people just want to be "right" instead of looking at all the facts. Ive had people dismiss the effectiveness of Japans gun laws, saying it was because of the "culture" . . .yeah well if it was because of the culture, then they wouldn't need gun laws . . .like Canada.

You ignore facts as well. Canada and Japan are not the only anti-gun countries and communities on the planet. I could break out examples of my own but have done so on plenty of gun threads on this forum before, and anti-gun people, just like pro-gun people, would rather be right then listen to facts.

It's a human nature thing (typically reserved for those uneducated about the given discussion) that says nothing about either side of the issue.

Quote:

Japan needed them, so they implemented them, the U.S. needs them but people are afraid too, and we still have the highest gun violence rate of the G8 countries Canada didn't need to so the laws weren't implemented.

the thing is, WE NEED these laws, as we're killing each other, and innocent people.

You really think a sudden implementation of tighter gun controls would change things in the United States? This is fantasy. Anyone who understands the deeply-imbedded outlaw culture in America, the belief that the right to bear arms is a God-given right, and the sheer number of pieces available knows this would not be the case.

Suddenly implementing Japan-like gun control in this country would lead to the biggest black market on guns the world has ever seen - if it didn't spark a civil war first. And the crime problem in the country is so bad that tighter gun laws could never stop it. Look at the worst places in Mexico for an inkling of what America would become with tighter gun control

Quote:

I don't tolerate people who are anti-gun control. Main reason being, they'll see some tragedy like Sandy hook, and instead of having some sort of respect for the Victims and they'll families, they'll say something like: "oh that's just a ploy to get us to give up our guns" or they'll just rush to defend gun control, and diminish the seriousness of their needless deaths.

No. I'm sorry but your wrong.

When things like this happen, it's the anti-gun crowd who raises the issue first, as most gun rights activists instinctually realize it's a good time to close their mouths. But anti-gun folks, many of them only becoming a part of that crowd due to the tragedy, often attack gun rights leaders in their emotional state. Sometimes even showing up to stop them from organizing, even if the organizing was planned before the incident occurred.

The so-called "experts", in turn, capitalize on the sudden fervor and harness these tragedies, which constitute less than 1% of gun deaths in America (not to mention they always happen in GUN-FREE ZONES and have even happened without guns being involved), to attack the overall issue.

The gun activists then, believing passionately that taking away our guns is the greatest threat to our freedom, naturally assert their belief in response, as anyone would do when being attacked.

Then the anti-gun crowd points the finger and calls them insensitive, blaming them and leveraging pity for the fallen children to make their point. And say silly stuff like they're diminishing the all-too-real deaths of the children.

It goes down the same way each and every time.

I think you know this yourself even - consider that you said "they rush to DEFEND" gun control. Not to assert it. That's the action of someone who is being attacked in the wake of a tragedy, not someone who is using a largely irrelevant tragedy to assert their stance, as anti-gun activists do.

Quote:

I find those people sickening.

I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

Not to make it personal, but again, you may want to look into arguments that go against your own before throwing your emotions at them.

(06-26-2013 11:11 AM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  

Japan still has a pretty strong nuclear family, very few bastard thuglets= less crime.
Last time I checked, Switzerland had NO gun control, and is just as safe as Japan, if not more.

I've talked to some Swiss and the situation is not as cut and dry as many people think. I think to say Switzerland has no gun control misses the mark by a long shot.

[Yano]

That's some Harry Potter shit.

Fuck guns. Should have gone for the wand.

[Aliblahba]

Here's the 911 call:

Responsible gun owners need to train themselves, but women are more than capable of handling a firearm. Any guy that disagrees is white-knighting, or too insecure to let women have a gun. My case in point:

[A CLOCKWORK TRADER]

Aliblahba, check this one out:

Oklahoma mom calling 911 asks if shooting an intruder is allowed

She lives in a rural area in Oklahoma so police took 21 minutes to get there. One could only imagine what would happen to her and her baby if she didn't have a gun. She was only 18 years old at the time.

"I walked over and got the 12-gauge......."

[Dulceácido]

(06-26-2013 11:56 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 11:10 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:  

Did you see how pathetic this chick didn't even attempt to defend herself?

If there was a firearm involved, this chick would've brought a gun to the scene of her murder, instead of just getting an ass whooping.

How? How would she have gotten a gun? I agree with gun rights, but this dream world of stay-at-home mom's with instant gunslinger talents is irrational and unrealistic.

I think you just said what I just said.

You've misunderstood me. I was saying that her passive way of taking an ass-kicking was not conducive to her bringing a gun to the fight. And that the criminal would, most likely, take it from her and use it as his murder weapon.

Pretty sure we're on the same page. If not, then I've misunderstood you.

[MidniteSpecial]

Ok so your gun is in your safe in the basement and this dude comes in. It's not gonna help at all. Tactical led light should be kept on the waist band at all times.

[Beyond Borders]

(06-26-2013 12:14 PM)Dulceácido Wrote:  

I think you just said what I just said.

You've misunderstood me. I was saying that her passive way of taking an ass-kicking was not conducive to her bringing a gun to the fight. And that the criminal would, most likely, take it from her and use it as his murder weapon.

Pretty sure we're on the same page. If not, then I've misunderstood you.

You're right. I definitely misread your post.

[Dulceácido]

(06-26-2013 12:01 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

Here's the 911 call:

"Shot 5 times in the face and neck area."

Fuck yeah. Good recoil management for a chick dumping the chamber on some shitbag. 5 out of 6. Solid marksmanship in a panic. Bien hecho...

[Aliblahba]

(06-26-2013 10:11 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  

I agree with Menace, a Big dog is the best secutiry system. It will let you know when someone is trying to break in and if they do it will give you enuff time to go for a gun, call 911, or try an escape out the back door... and if your intruder is unarmed more then likey it will kill or wound them very badly.

Plus if the intruder hears the dog barking before he starts to break in he will prally think twice an look for another home.

Dog's did this woman a lot of good:

(06-26-2013 07:36 AM)Sebastian Wrote:  

So are you saying every house should carry a gun like having air bags in your car? ROFL

Yes, video below.

(06-26-2013 11:11 AM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  

Last time I checked, Switzerland had NO gun control, and is just as safe as Japan, if not more.

Hey look, a European with some common sense. A rare breed indeed. His daughter is hot too. 8/10 WB.

[Exactaking]

I think you need to have multiple levels of security

1. Live in areas with few NAMs/low gini co-efficient. Call me a bigot, but the lowest crime states have the lowest minority populations as well as the lowest gini co-efficients (no poverty or racial tension to bring out violence)
2. Live in either a condo or a gated community (although statistics say the burglary/robbery rates in gated commmunities are same as non-gated)

3. Alarm System-police will take a while to arrive, but at least warns you of instruder

4. Dog-Get a tough dog, feed him scraps, call him "Rotgut"

5. Firearms. Cock shotgun, may scare off threats. Handguns too, although too high risk of ricoshet.

The demographics of America are becoming poorer and more violent, so the smartest decision would be to move to a country that doesn't import the third world, doesnt invade the third world, has low crime and gun rights. Canada or Switzerland are my choices. By the 2030s or 2040s, America could be like Brazil, Mexico and South Africa's worst qualities with fatter and even bitchier women.

[Dulceácido]

(06-26-2013 01:00 PM)Exactaking Wrote:  

I think you need to have multiple levels of security

1. Live in areas with few NAMs/low gini co-efficient. Call me a bigot, but the lowest crime states have the lowest minority populations as well as the lowest gini co-efficients (no poverty or racial tension to bring out violence)
2. Live in either a condo or a gated community (although statistics say the burglary/robbery rates in gated commmunities are same as non-gated)

3. Alarm System-police will take a while to arrive, but at least warns you of instruder

4. Dog-Get a tough dog, feed him scraps, call him "Rotgut"

5. Firearms. Cock shotgun, may scare off threats. Handguns too, although too high risk of ricoshet.

The demographics of America are becoming poorer and more violent, so the smartest decision would be to move to a country that doesn't import the third world, doesnt invade the third world, has low crime and gun rights. Canada or Switzerland are my choices. By the 2030s or 2040s, America could be like Brazil, Mexico and South Africa's worst qualities with fatter and even bitchier women.

No risk of ricochet when your "bullet-trap" is a home invader. Boom. Fucking dead. End of story. This "ricochet" is a question of poor marksmanship, which ain't gonna happen on my watch.

And, don't get a dog and feed it scraps. Dawgs are the most loyal, most dependent things you will ever control... Better than a woman. Better than anything you can bring to the discussion right now. Seriously?

Let's take care of our dawgs, gents. And if you don't say "dawgs," you're not from where I am from. Cuz, it's a dawg.

[Sherman]

I noticed that in all these videos the criminals kicked the door in. Why doesn't anyone in America think of reinforced doors? The locks and doors in America are so flimsy that a girl scout could kick the thing down. A gun won't do you any good if you are taken by surprise by a criminal who took 2 seconds to kick your door in. It's strange that someone would go through all the trouble to get a gun and train with it but not reinforce their doors.

[Duke Castile]

BB just pwned it

[Beyond Borders]

(06-26-2013 07:48 AM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

Again, could have made a difference even if she was armed and had training for it. You could have a dozen guns in the house and it won't make a difference if you choke and don't pull the trigger. We don't even get the see the full video. There could of been a difference if the law abiding citizen in the two cases above had guns and knew how to use it.

One more time, I'm on board with you on the issue, Bro. 100%

But you have to inject yourself into the situation. You're a soft-ass middle-class woman minding your own business, playing with a three-year-old in your living room and some prick twice your size (who is not only ten times stronger but has been in fifty times as many fights, no exaggeration if you know the streets) suddenly kicks the door open - possibly taking three blows to crack the lock but doubtful, and even that isn't much of slow-down - and comes at you...

That shit happens far faster than you think!

Do you really think the woman ever would have had a chance to go grab a gun and pull it out?

Hell, for all we know, there may have been a gun in the place - don't think the news story ever covered it and for good reason. There could have been a whole arsenal int he place and it wouldn't have mattered because in her situation it was irrelevant (would have been cool if there was one sitting there down the stairs where he threw her though lol).

I mean, if her husband was a REAL clever guy they would have stashes in places like the living room that she MIGHT be able to reach while getting the beat-down, but people with this type of situational thinking are few and far between. Even as someone who grew up around gun-lovers - and most of them full-time outlaws - it was somewhat rare to come across people besides myself that made sure their pistol was always within reach wherever they were...and I was paranoid.

Now don't get me wrong, assholes like this are a reminder to me why I do like a pistol at my side when possible - just the fact that this part of human nature exists. And that would be double so if I had a family to protect. But if you want to pack a gun you should be a realist. And the real story is that rare situations like this occur whether you're armed or not. And being armed will not always stop it.

As a man, though, I just want the choice to defend myself when I can, and I don't think that's asking too much. When you keep emotions out of it anyways.

Now, I know it probably seems like I'm arguing against both sides of the case here. And that's probably kind of annoying too. But I really feel strongly about my right to bear arms, and I feel like those who want to argue for it should avoid falling back on fearmongering - doing so won't convince anyone. And the facts are clear enough alone.

I don't mind playing devil's advocate a bit if that's what it takes to get people embracing stronger arguments.

Oh, and a bad-ass dog is a great line of defense. Even armed to the teeth, I'd feel better with a damn chihuahua in the house to give me fair warning.

[Derpface200]

(06-26-2013 11:11 AM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  

Japan still has a pretty strong nuclear family, very few bastard thuglets= less crime.
Last time I checked, Switzerland had NO gun control, and is just as safe as Japan, if not more.

Gun ownership is actually somewhat mandatory in Switzerland due to universal conscription into the military reserves.

However, the Swiss military keeps all the ammunition on lock down in its armories and bunkers. So for home defense the average Swiss citizen has an expensive paper weight. Also, there are mandatory government health screenings during the military conscription process so no crazy people get guns in Switzerland.

[playa_with_a_passport]

I could be wrong but I wonder if there's more to this story. A lot of things just don't add up. The suspect of this crime was arrested by the FBI this weekend and he lived in Harlem. I expected him to be from Newark since is much closer. They also said he had a rap sheet a mile long and he was 42 years old. Milburn, NJ is kinda out of the way to go do a random robbery/home invasion and choose a random house.

And there's is the beating. When I fist saw the video on the news, I had the TV on mute and I just assumed it was some dude beating the shit out of his wife. It looks like he was there only to beat her down and not rob her. He wanted to tune her up pretty good but not kill her. Also, he didn't sexual assault her. He certainly had the time.

I wonder what hubby does for a living? Or more importantly, who does he owe money to?

Of course this doesn't excuse what this savage did. Families should always be off limits. Most home invasions I have heard in NYC were not random. It always involved drugs or bodeguas( deli)owners with shady side businesses. I grew up with guys were "about that life." Robbing a drug dealer is a win/win. They always carry lots of cash and they don't call the cops afterwards.

Like I wrote before in a debate about gun control , if you aren't involved in illegal activity or hang out with people who do, the chances a big burly black guy will "Kick in the door wavin the 44" is slim to none.

[malc]

Guys you have misconceptions about canada and swiss gun laws.

In Canada, you can get a PAL license after a fairly easy weekend course. You can buy ammo (with a PAL license) in Walmart! You can't have a hand gun at your house, but you can have all sorts of fun rifles and shotguns. Police are more strict about gun ownership and so on, but you can still have guns and use them. It's less restrictive than California in some ways! Look at this cool list of guns Canadians can buy and own: http://imgur.com/a/KKZql#0

The swiss have gun control too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi...witzerland

Canada is also very ethnically diverse, more than america. Just look at Toronto.

[Sebastian]

Maybe I am trying to change the subject.........

So several countries have nuclear weapons. When a country with no nuclear weapons, wants to get one like those countries, which country is going to bully them? the country that doesn't have nuclear weapons? LOL you know the answer?

Their argument is simple. we care about the world peace. you don't need to have nuclear weapons. BTW, we can have it since we are safe. lol

I am sick of those arguments talking about 'I need to protect myself'
how about they automatically issue a gun to every person who turns 18 and doesn't have any violent related record?
so it's a fair game?

Anyways, we all know gun laws won't change. it's like talking about how women should behave.....

[WanderingSoul]

I remember when I was about 11 years old I saw Rosie O'Donell saying how she felt only police should have guns. Even at 11 years old I knew she was a dipshit.

[Architekt]

(07-01-2013 06:17 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

I remember when I was about 11 years old I saw Rosie O'Donell saying how she felt only police should have guns. Even at 11 years old I knew she was a dipshit.

How about we ban police from having guns, give them to everyone else, and see how they feel.