Guns don't kill people, nah.

[Maverick]

Having responded to more assault situations than I care to remember, I disagree with those who think it's not hard to hurt, main or kill with anything other than a firearm. On the face of it it sounds plausible that a person or persons could defend from a bat or knife but it simply doesn't work that way in the real world.  You are welcome to believe what you want but I went to far too many of these to have any confidence in that position.

My training as a defensive tactice instructor also proved that a knife attacker has a better than even chance of killing a gun wielding person if the distance between the two of them is 21 feet or less.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Fishu
The more guns, the easier it is to take/get one and shoot someone.
Shooting is also much easier way to harm someone than a baseball bat or a knife and it is much harder to stop someone with a gun than with a bat/knife.
Guns do also have a much better range.

Needs less effort and less thinking with a gun.


Was it the shooter or guns causing the harm, theres no denying with the fact that more guns causes more shooting of people, just because being easier to obtain and easier to use for killing than a knife...  no need to go up & personal or get tackled by someone.

It takes even less effort to drive drunk and kill someone with your 2000 pound missile, yet alcohol is not banned. More people die from alcohol than guns.

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
http://www.komo-am.com/stories/32903.htm

dead ist dead,
but nothing changed here Rip, with guns its much easer,if someone attacks me with a knife, i still have a good chance to protect myself just with my hands.
(sure it depends on your fitness and combat expirience).
But you cant do anything if someone shot at you from distance,
even close distance.


DREDIOCK killing with rocks from distance ??? you joking right?
what comparison to guns is that.
the first rock should do it, if not better run. lol

[Ripsnort]

The question  begs, why didn't this knife assailent just get a gun? Its easier, ya know.

[DJ111]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
As Archie Bunker once said "Would it make you any happier if they was thrown out of windows?"

You can also kill at a distance with rocks

As another comedian once said

"If guns are responsible for killing people then my pencil is responsible for my spelling mistakes"

"If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil"
Larry the Cable Guy

[capt. apathy]

the victims had been tossing a football when a car drove recklessly in a parking lot packed with football fans. He said the men pulled the blond-haired driver from his car and beat him, pushing his head into the dirt.

gun issue aside.  does it bother anybody else that lately the term 'victim' and the guy that took the most damage seem to mean the same thing.


******************************
DANGER RANT WARNING!!!
******************************

it used to be that to be a victim you had to be afflicted with a situation that was not of your own making.

the guy over-reacted (major understatement), but the 'victims' initiated the confrontation.  2 guys (you wouldn't think a marine would require help to rough up a drunk football fan) drag a man from his car, beat him, and then somehow they become the victim.

it's a very similar mentality to what I've seen in school 'discipline' and our legal system.  say 2 kids get in a fight in school, when I was a kid (at least in grade school, I started noticing the changing attitudes midway through HS), regardless of who won (as long as you didn't beat the guy to the point of hospitalization after he went down), the guy who started the fight was punished, or if it was more or less mutual they both were.  
  now, the winner is punished.  my son had a couple fights where the teachers clearly saw the other kid hit my son first, on one occasion the kid came up and just started swinging with no warning or apparent reason, on another it was escalated from an argument, the other kid started the argument and took the first swing.  in both of these cases he made a bit of a mess of the other kids- nothing serious, split lips, bloody noses, eyes swollen shut, mostly a lot of blood and not much real damage.
  I go to the school and the teachers lay out what had happened.  I'm thinking, "OK, the other kid hit him, he defended himself.  why am I here exactly?"
  nope, my son gets a couple days of suspension. the other kids get no suspension, no school punishment of any kind.
 
I see this in the legal system as well.  things like the now-infamous women with her cup of McD's coffee.  the whole issue wasn't about who's fault was it that she carried a cop of hot coffee with her crotch while driving, it was all about how hurt she was.  
  I'm completely in support of people getting appropriate damages for things that happened to them from another's negligence.  put to be able to get money from someone because being stupid din't work out for you today just doesn't sit well with me.

  I wonder what message they think they are sending with these kinds of attitudes.
  losers are to be pitied and protected, even if they are the cause of the situation?
  or, it's OK to start problems, just don't win when it gets out of hand? (completely backward from the "don't start any trouble, but make sure the guy who did won't look forward to trying again", that I was taught.

[lazs2]

Hmm... booze and beatings and reckless driving and a sports event and...  if it weren't for the handgun...

you are talking handguns only right?  

mav is right.. the deaths and maimings I have seen up close were all fists or clubs or knives.   I have seen someone fire alll six shots from a revolver and miss everyone.

If the original assaulters had simply run from the handgun then they wojld not have been hit most likely.

now... if handguns were illegal but hunting rifles or especially shotguns were still legal...  there would have been no chance for survival for either victim.

And yes... I wish these guys would have never did what they did... any of em... but it is no more avoidable  than drunk driving.   it is illegal to shoot people for no reason... it is illegal to drive drunk and it is illegal to be drunk in public and it is illegal to assauult people but..

these things still happen once in a while.   Sometimes folks break the law.

so I ask... would anyone here feel better if the victims/asaulters had been run over by the drunk or if he had beaten them dead or crippled with a pipe or...  shot them with a shotgun or ought 6?

lazs

[NUKE]

Originally posted by lazs2
so I ask... would anyone here feel better if the victims/asaulters had been run over by the drunk or if he had beaten them dead or crippled with a pipe or...  shot them with a shotgun or ought 6?

lazs

exactly my point Laz, though you made it much better than I did as usual.

[Chortle]

Isn’t that the same as asking Do you still beat your wife?

My argument here isn’t that bad things don’t happen without guns just that in this case, guns made a bad situation even worse and people died. I don’t accept that you could  swap out the handgun in this situation and replace it with a car, knife, baseball bat or whatever and still get the same result. Chucking rocks at a Marine, or trying to push a Marine out of a window somehow dont seem as perilous for the Marine as firing a handgun at him, whatever the range.

So yeah, guns do kill people.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Chortle

So yeah, guns do kill people.

By themselves?  Ours is an arguement of social behavior.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
By themselves?  Ours is an arguement of social behavior.

Rip, you dummy....don't you know that inanimate obects kill people and that peope have nothing to do with it?

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Maverick
Having responded to more assault situations than I care to remember, I disagree with those who think it's not hard to hurt, main or kill with anything other than a firearm. On the face of it it sounds plausible that a person or persons could defend from a bat or knife but it simply doesn't work that way in the real world.  You are welcome to believe what you want but I went to far too many of these to have any confidence in that position.

My training as a defensive tactice instructor also proved that a knife attacker has a better than even chance of killing a gun wielding person if the distance between the two of them is 21 feet or less.

Firearm is a much better choice for hit & run type murders than a knife, let alone a baseball bat.
Especially if your target is armed.

I haven't either heard of many store keepers who would've put down an armed robber with a knife.

A gun also gives the person a higher self confidence.

Besides, if knives are better, why do people need guns for self defense?
Might as well rid the guns then.

Originally posted by NUKE
It takes even less effort to drive drunk and kill someone with your 2000 pound missile, yet alcohol is not banned. More people die from alcohol than guns.

Okey.. lets give them RPG's, mines and grenades.
You never know when someones going to assault someones home with a 2000 pound truck.
Also might be better to stop the assaulters cold on the front yard, than getting into a close combat...  lay the mines & prepare the nades.

[Martlet]

That fact is you can't outlaw everything that can be used for murder.  Cars.  Knives.  Planes.  Bricks.  Rocks.  Bats.  Golf Clubs.

Go after the criminals.  You won't get my guns.

[Curval]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
As Archie Bunker once said "Would it make you any happier if they was thrown out of windows?"

So, the gun nuts aspire to attain the wisdom of Archie Bunker.

lol..that kind of figures.

[vorticon]

guns dont kill people, they just make it a helluva lot easier for people to kill people...