[A CLOCKWORK TRADER]

The whole thing is pretty savage. Beating up a woman in front of her 3-year-old and the younger daughter upstairs sleeping. Could of been worse. They could of easily ended up raped and killed like the Petit family in CT:



The scumbags that raped and killed the wife and two daughters were given the death penalty last year.


Read more about that case here: When Horror Came to a Connecticut Family

Instead of being at the complete mercy of scumbags a simple handgun could have changed the circumstances for both of these families.

[Statsi]

Or a gun could guarantee that criminals also carry guns and will shoot to kill first rather than take the risk of being shot at. One horrific case should not change your view on guns. Are you saying there are no horrific attacks that happen to gun owners? Or that countries with absolute freedom to own a gun are safer?

http://www.clicktop10.com/2013/04/top-10...e-in-2013/

None have as many guns as the US. In this case the family living in a bomb shelter would also have prevented the crime. If you're still anti-living in a bomb shelter after this video then there's no hope for you...

[Don]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar...passengers

A CAA Forker crashed couple of months ago in Congo, killing 36. If you're still pro-planes after reading this article then there's no hope for you.

[A CLOCKWORK TRADER]

Emotional Europeans LOL typical. Well I guess I should of made things clear. It's pretty blatant and on the nose but I'll point it out: I'm obviously addressing the people in this country (USA). Why would you even need a gun in Iceland? Denmark? etc.? That link is worthless to this debate.

Note my sentence at the end, I'll highlight the important point: Instead of being at the complete mercy of scumbags a simple handgun could have changed the circumstances for both of these families. The keyword is could have.

[Don]

(06-26-2013 06:52 AM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

Emotional Europeans LOL typical. Well I guess I should of made things clear. It's pretty blatant and on the nose but I'll point it out: I'm obviously addressing the people in this country (USA). Why would you even need a gun in Iceland? Denmark? etc.? That link is worthless to this debate.

Note my sentence at the end, I'll highlight the important point: Instead of being at the complete mercy of scumbags a simple handgun could have changed the circumstances for both of these families. The keyword is could have.

I could use a gun in Romania

[Architekt]

You're right, I completely changed my views on not teaching women how to beat people up with baseball bats. Guns aren't the issue here (they're not relevant at all, in fact), the real issue is whatever lead those people to perform those acts - and I don't think they would have considered the fact that she wasn't wielding a gun in their criteria.

[Statsi]

(06-26-2013 06:52 AM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

Emotional Europeans LOL typical. Well I guess I should of made things clear. It's pretty blatant and on the nose but I'll point it out: I'm obviously addressing the people in this country (USA). Why would you even need a gun in Iceland? Denmark? etc.? That link is worthless to this debate.

Note my sentence at the end, I'll highlight the important point: Instead of being at the complete mercy of scumbags a simple handgun could have changed the circumstances for both of these families. The keyword is could have.

Emotionless Americans LOL typical. Well I guess I should of made things clear. It's pretty blatant and on the nose but I'll point it out: I'm obviously saying that having a gun is not the important factor in preventing criminal harm in any country(USA). There are plenty of horrific violent crimes in countries that have guns and countries that don't, I'm sure a victim in Iceland and Denmark would in hindsight have loved to have had a handgun on them at the time of the crime, just as those victims who suffer gun crime at the hand of criminal with legally purchased guns would love to have anti-gun laws in hindsight.

In every state where guns are allowed I could point to an instance where a crime has taken place using a legally purchased handgun and say: instead of being at the complete mercy of scumbags merely banning guns could have changed the circumstances for the victim. The key words are could have...

[Alpharius]

I guess there's no hope for me...

[Beyond Borders]

Look, I'm 100% pro-gun, but let's not fool ourselves.

There's no way in hell this woman would have gotten to a gun in time when the guy kicked in the locked door. What's she going to do - walk around the house locked and loaded 24/7? Teach the 3-year-old to shoot?

In the second case, the man of the house was sleeping in a chair in his living room. As is natural at 3 am. So again, the chance of him being able to quickdraw a gun out of some cabinet and blast these pieces of shit would have been pretty much impossible.

Now, you could make the argument that guys like this might be less apt to break in to begin with if more people had guns and were using them. And I'd agree (though it wouldn't stop it from happening completely). But other than that these situational stories don't really add to the pro-gun cause.

Again, I'm pro-gun too, but making arguments based on pure emotion alone only encourages the anti-gun crowd to do the same, and they're already pretty good at that themselves. Better to use logic, in my opinion.

[WanderingSoul]

BB hit it on the head. I am 100% pro gun, but you are not doing us any favors with this post.

Can someone post that abandon thread meme with the cats sliding across the kitchen floor please?

[Sebastian]

So are you saying those women tried to get a gun but were denied? LOL

Obviously they didn't have it since they thought they didn't need such things.

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

[A CLOCKWORK TRADER]

(06-26-2013 07:20 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

Look, I'm 100% pro-gun, but let's not fool ourselves.

There's no way in hell this woman would have gotten to a gun in time when the guy kicked in the locked door. What's she going to do - walk around the house locked and loaded 24/7? Teach the 3-year-old to shoot?

In the second case, the man of the house was sleeping in a chair in his living room. As is natural at 3 am. So again, the chance of him being able to quickdraw a gun out of some cabinet and blast these pieces of shit would have been pretty much impossible.

Now, you could make the argument that guys like this might be less apt to break in to begin with if more people had guns and were using them. And I'd agree (though it wouldn't stop it from happening completely). But other than that these situational stories don't really add to the pro-gun cause.

Again, I'm pro-gun too, but making arguments based on pure emotion alone only encourages the anti-gun crowd to do the same, and they're already pretty good at that themselves. Better to use logic, in my opinion.

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.

[Menace]

This video makes the case for being pro-dog. I think these guys might reconsider their actions if a 110 lb angry German Shepherd is jumping at their throat and tearing their hands apart.

[A CLOCKWORK TRADER]

(06-26-2013 07:08 AM)Statsi Wrote:  

Emotionless Americans LOL typical. Well I guess I should of made things clear. It's pretty blatant and on the nose but I'll point it out: I'm obviously saying that having a gun is not the important factor in preventing criminal harm in any country(USA). There are plenty of horrific violent crimes in countries that have guns and countries that don't, I'm sure a victim in Iceland and Denmark would in hindsight have loved to have had a handgun on them at the time of the crime, just as those victims who suffer gun crime at the hand of criminal with legally purchased guns would love to have anti-gun laws in hindsight.

In every state where guns are allowed I could point to an instance where a crime has taken place using a legally purchased handgun and say: instead of being at the complete mercy of scumbags merely banning guns could have changed the circumstances for the victim. The key words are could have...

Cute

Where do I start?

Quote:

I'm obviously saying that having a gun is not the important factor in preventing criminal harm in any country(USA).

That's a pretty broad statement isn't it? Criminal harm could be credit card fraud, a hit and run, a guy who just glassed you at the bar, a smack your girlfriend gave you. I'm talking about protecting one's home/family in America. I would say having a gun is quite an important factor in that.

Quote:

There are plenty of horrific violent crimes in countries that have guns and countries that don't, I'm sure a victim in Iceland and Denmark would in hindsight have loved to have had a handgun on them at the time of the crime, just as those victims who suffer gun crime at the hand of criminal with legally purchased guns would love to have anti-gun laws in hindsight.

How is that even a comparison. It is laughable. We have a much higher crime rate and a different culture. It makes sense here. Not over there. You could could scan the newspaper archives for an entire decade in Iceland, Denmark, Tuvalu, etc., and not find a single case of a deadly home invasion.

With the exception of Australia, every single country on that list you posted has a population of under 10 million and mostly homogenous. Some of them have just a couple of tens/hundreds of thousands. It's a ridiculous comparison. This (USA) is one of the diverse, individualistic countries on the planet with a gun culture and two other countries with gun cultures as it's neighbor. Again, not even a whiff of comparison.

[A CLOCKWORK TRADER]

(06-26-2013 07:49 AM)Menace Wrote:  

This video makes the case for being pro-dog. I think these guys might reconsider their actions if a 110 lb angry German Shepherd is jumping at their throat and tearing their hands apart.

My friend has a Caucasian Shepherd that pretty much tore up the bottom half of an intruder's face. Those kind of dogs don't like anyone but their owner.

[VincentVinturi]

(06-26-2013 06:43 AM)Statsi Wrote:  

Or a gun could guarantee that criminals also carry guns and will shoot to kill first rather than take the risk of being shot at.

Criminals will always have access to guns. They're criminals!

It's the citizens who are minding their own business who need guns. If you want to break into a home and there's a 95% chance the homeowner has a gun, you're going to think twice before doing it.

But if guns are banned or difficult for the average citizen to obtain, you're an easy target.

It's the same with bullies in school. If a bully fucks with you and fight back and beat the shit out of him, he will never fuck with you again without thinking twice about it.

[Sherman]

The place where I live in is protected by iron gates topped off by barbed wire. There are double doors on the house and the outside doors are made of reinforced iron which can't be kicked in. There are also four Chihuahuas wondering the grounds which have super sensitive ears. Nobody can get within a half a block of the place without us knowing about it.

[WanderingSoul]

Why do you have four Chihuahuas at your house?

[Sherman]

(06-26-2013 09:12 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

Why do you have four Chihuahuas at your house?

They belong to the owner of the house. They are watch Chihuahuas.

[Cr33pin]

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.

[Aliblahba]

If anti-gun people are so confident, why don't they put "gun free zone" signs in their yard?

[CJ_W]

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)

Nothing can ever convince me of being Anti gun control.

Hell it's so safe there, that people get shocked when there is a STABBING!

About a year or so ago, a guy went rampaging through Akihabara stabbing people (think he stabbed 3 before he was taken down) that made national headlines. If that guy had a gun instead, he probably would have killed HUNDREDS of people (Akihabara is an EXTREEMELY crowded place)

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

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. . .)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I find those people sickening.

[Aliblahba]

Arguing with anti-gun people is useless. They fall into the category of people that knows what's best for everyone. Trying to change their mind is doing our country a disservice, and is downright oppressive. Just let them do their thing and take care of us.

Anti-gun=Liberal
Feminist=Liberal
Homosexual=Liberal
Womens Rights=Liberal
Pro Illegal Immigration=Liberal

Liberal=Democrats=Fanatics=Socialism

[Dulceácido]

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.

[Quintus Flaminius]

(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)

Nothing can ever convince me of being Anti gun control.

Hell it's so safe there, that people get shocked when there is a STABBING!

About a year or so ago, a guy went rampaging through Akihabara stabbing people (think he stabbed 3 before he was taken down) that made national headlines. If that guy had a gun instead, he probably would have killed HUNDREDS of people (Akihabara is an EXTREEMELY crowded place)

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

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. . .)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I find those people sickening.

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.