Do firearms make people dumber?

[tkotom]

Bottom line: It's our constitutional right to bear arms.

9/11 is a "one off event"? How do you think wars were waged before we had firearms? Jesus Christ man, some of the bloodiest times in recorded history were before firearms even existed.

People will kill people, that's just life. The medium will change as technology changes, but imposing more gun laws will only affect law abiding citizens. What makes yout hink a criminal that is willing to kill someone is going to think, "Well, since they added this nifty $2000 dollar tax to possessing a firearm and made it so I have to wait two years to obtain one, I think I'll just go be a peaceful loving guy now."

This is the stupidest fucking debate you could ever have. Gun regulations only affect law abiding citizens and the criminals that are murdering people wouldn't follow them anyway. How the fuck is that not sinking in?

Well i'm more concerned with the here and now, not past wars.

America is a different issue. The guns are already spread everywhere. If you removed every gun with a magic wand and then made it very difficult to own a weapon then I could see gun laws working in the States. The gun control clearly works in other countries where guns are hard to come by. This is just fact.

I made the same argument as you with knife laws in Victoria. You get an on the spot $1000 fine for carrying anything from a small swiss army knife to a flip knife here. So all law abiding citizens are afraid to carry knives out of fear of getting a fine but any thug who wants to rob you at knife point will carry a knife at any time and get away with it.

I understand what you're saying but my point was that guns make it easy to kill 20-30 people in one go. As witnessed this week. Hijacking planes is out of the question these days and it's not like every psycho can get his hands on one. Every psycho can get his hands on a gun in the US. Yes they can also get their hands on knives and shovels and spatulas but how many people are you gonna kill with a knife before you get jumped as opposed to a handgun...

 

[elmo_1968]

Even a individual who are well trained in using a firearm will still be at same odd of getting shot as the shooter themselves. What help is they may be a bit better at using the firearm, but that is easy to say until adrenaline hit them and their life are on line.

So in end it is still 50-50 chance for both side.

You are simply making numbers up.

If someone want to be able to use their firearm, they have to understand that firearm is just a tool and what make them effective is how they use it.

Has anyone said anything different?

For example why would you just stand and try to shoot the person who is doing same as you?
Why not try run and hide then catch the person from behind by surprise or something?

Who has suggested "stand and try to shoot" vs. that other grammatical gem? Are you arguing with someone, or the voices in your head?

That's call tactic. Tactic is what help.
When it come to most people they just have no idea what they'd do they just think they would pull gun out and shoot the shooter dead and thats it. Not exactly a very effective method.

BTW I think anti gun crowds are bunch of idiots because they act like as if guns are banned, it will stop everything when in fact a very determined person would simply turn to bomb, poison or other means. But I am just starting to leans toward them simply because it seems like most gun people are just a plain idiot who think shooting somebody is like playing a video game which doesn't make anything safer.

You are attributing positions to people, but you don't quote anyone. I call straw man.

 

[Thrawn33]

Good point there. I see what you mean now. The thing is that may make sense, but honestly I think if that was the case then what's to stop the shooter from switch to long range rifle then bomb?

Also if the armed citizen got in a firefight and end up get killed, it would render them useless as well which is very likely since they would be caught by surprise and be unprepared while the shooter is more than likely to be ready for it.
Plus most armed citizen would just run out and start shooting without thinking or trying to figure thing out carefully.

A. Can't plan for everything. They may have another gun, grenade, tacnuke suicide vest. But hell, better than cower in the corner and die, and you might just buy other people time.

B. remember what's good for the goose...yada yada. If joe citizen is apt to make mistakes and miss under fire, so is the bad guy. Remember their kills are coming from unarmed and in the most case cowering easy targets. This inflates their shot/hit ratio. As I said before, forcing them to react to being shot at will throw their plan off as they seek cover and waste more ammo and time before the law arrives, again saving lives. Or joe citizen may just catch them off guard and end the massacre right then and there. Either is preferable to allowing scumbag to waltz around unchecked killing at will.

 

[Noblet10]

Fire arms don't make people dumber, but dumb people definitely like things that go BOOM!

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

Give a crazy person enough time and he'll think up of a way to kill many people without a firearm. There's various chmical weapon recipes you can get from the deep web that are literally WMDs, and some you can even find on the normal web. Some of which can be easily made with common household items you can get in many places. I have no doubt these tactics would dwarf anything that a firearm is capable of doing.

 

[Real_Magi]

The gun control clearly works in other countries where guns are hard to come by. This is just fact.

Nope, not even close. You hear things like "since the gun ban we have lower gun crimes!!" but they never actually touch on the over all affect it has on crime. Australia's crime actually rose an incredible amount after the gun ban and their overall gun crime rate didn't really change all that much. In fact, gangsters are now robbing jewelry stores with ninja swords. Sounds like fun eh? http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

I made the same argument as you with knife laws in Victoria. You get an on the spot $1000 fine for carrying anything from a small swiss army knife to a flip knife here. So all law abiding citizens are afraid to carry knives out of fear of getting a fine but any thug who wants to rob you at knife point will carry a knife at any time and get away with it.

I understand what you're saying but my point was that guns make it easy to kill 20-30 people in one go. As witnessed this week. Hijacking planes is out of the question these days and it's not like every psycho can get his hands on one. Every psycho can get his hands on a gun in the US. Yes they can also get their hands on knives and shovels and spatulas but how many people are you gonna kill with a knife before you get jumped as opposed to a handgun...

Far easier to kill someone with a big truck than a gun. Or even alot of people in one event.

Every psycho can get his hands on a gun in the US? Maybe illegally, but you do actually have to go through a back ground check to be able to legally purchase a firearm in the US. Once again, that's my entire point, the criminals are already obtaining the guns illegally, so why the fuck would that change with new laws?

well like I said, banning guns in the US wouldn't fix anything right now

No, it would make things far worse. Honestly it would probably just spark a civil war.

 

[tkotom]

Nope, not even close. You hear things like "since the gun ban we have lower gun crimes!!" but they never actually touch ont he over all affect it has on crime. Australia's crime actually rose an incredible amount after the gun ban. In fact, gangsters are now robbing jewelry stores with ninja swords. Sound like fun eh?http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847



Far easier to kill someone with a big truck than a gun. Or even alot of people in one event.

Every psycho can get his hands on a gun in the US? Maybe illegally, but you do actually have to go through a back ground check to be able to legally purchase a firearm in the US. Once again, that's my entire point, the criminals are already obtaining the guns illegally, so why the fuck would that change with new laws?

well like I said, banning guns in the US wouldn't fix anything right now

and pertaining to Australia, we have a lot of other issues down here with gangsters and bikies and all that

you will never hear of someone shooting up a shop or even discharging a weapon in a metro area, most of the time it will be gang related... those douchers are ruining the country

 

[White Mongoose]

Elmo, no I'm not making number up. It is simple. Put two person who have no tactical training or anything like that in a house and tell them to try and kill each other. Why would one person have better odds of coming out of it alive than others?

Also every time I talk to someone who say they'd shoot the person, they act like as if they will have time to reach for the firearm and pull it out and land a shot in first try while someone is trying to shoot at them. That kind of thinking is silly.

 

[Noblet10]

Give a crazy person enough time and he'll think up of a way to kill many people without a firearm. There's various chmical weapon recipes you can get from the deep web that are literally WMDs, and some you can even find on the normal web. Some of which can be easily made with common household items you can get in many places. I have no doubt these tactics would dwarf anything that a firearm is capable of doing.

As true as this is, guns are a much easier way for most people. Some people that would kill someone just aren't smart enough to look up formulas to make a bomb or other WMD, but they are more than capable of shooting a gun.

 

[Real_Magi]

Also every time I talk to someone who say they'd shoot the person, they act like as if they will have time to reach for the firearm and pull it out and land a shot in first try while someone is trying to shoot at them. That kind of thinking is silly.

Wait, so with training you don't actually have to reach for your gun? You can just telepathically command it to shoot or something?

As true as this is, guns are a much easier way for most people. Some people that would kill someone just aren't smart enough to look up formulas to make a bomb or other WMD, but they are more than capable of shooting a gun.

How about driving a car?

And honestly if someone is going to go through the effort to illegally obtain a firearm then they've already put in more effort than it would take to make a bomb in their house. Hell, even doing it legally is more of a pain in the ass than looking up a recipe online and putting it together on yoru living room floor.

 

[Gaijin36]

Excellent post, totally make perfect sense. I'm surprise the coach who chased guy off his property doesn't got shot. Where I live, there are some large properties. I would NEVER go on it simply because I don't know if the person have "shoot first ask question later" mentality or not. So if I was to steal, I'd bring firearms and shot as soon as someone come out of the house just to be sure I don't get shot.

But as for in suburban... I just don't get it. I try and try to think of how gun could save someone life but I always end up scratch my head. Only thing I can think of is if someone have a family and they cannot leave house because they have to protect the family or they live on second floor. But even if they did try to protect their family... What's to give them a better chance than the intruder who have element of surprise on their side and are more prepared than the home owner?

Well they definitley have a better chance than if they didn't have a gun. If they are familiar with the handling of the weapon that makes there chances even better. Most people will run if they are in someones house and hear shots being fired in there direction, the noise gets the police called and they could be killed so either they are caught or killed,bad for them either way.

I have 4 children, there is no way we are able to run from the house. People can quote statistics all they want but if only one homeowner (me) deters an intruder and prevents harm or worse coming to my family then statistic don't really matter.

 

[White Mongoose]

A. Can't plan for everything. They may have another gun, grenade, tacnuke suicide vest. But hell, better than cower in the corner and die, and you might just buy other people time.

B. remember what's good for the goose...yada yada. If joe citizen is apt to make mistakes and miss under fire, so is the bad guy. Remember their kills are coming from unarmed and in the most case cowering easy targets. This inflates their shot/hit ratio. As I said before, forcing them to react to being shot at will throw their plan off as they seek cover and waste more ammo and time before the law arrives, again saving lives. Or joe citizen may just catch them off guard and end the massacre right then and there. Either is preferable to allowing scumbag to waltz around unchecked killing at will.

Yeah thats right, can't plan for everything. It is just that people act like as if they have a firearm every problems in the world could be fix if they use it. That kind of mentality isn't going to help at all.

Yes put two average untrained person together and they both have 50-50 chance of killing other with a firearm. That's why I say it is just a stalemate. To change that odd, something have to tilts the advantage to one side.
However you're right about being forced to react would throw them off their plan. I can see where you're coming from now.

However still not all that great answer to the situation that we have on our hand. It do help but in the end it is just more like a flip a coin than anything else.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

As true as this is, guns are a much easier way for most people. Some people that would kill someone just aren't smart enough to look up formulas to make a bomb or other WMD, but they are more than capable of shooting a gun.

I watched the hick on the moonshining show make a stick of dynamite with house hols items.

You can google how to make explosives.

Hell people can just throw a molotov cocktail into a house at night.

 

[White Mongoose]

Wait, so with training you don't actually have to reach for your gun? You can just telepathically command it to shoot or something?

By training, I mean actually know how to increase their odd of surviving and win the gun fight. Someone like cops or military. They wouldn't just stand and try to fire. They would try to find cover and take advantage of the situation and use it to help them. Most people don't have that kind of training or knowledge.

 

[Real_Magi]

By training, I mean actually know how to increase their odd of surviving and win the gun fight. Someone like cops or military. They wouldn't just stand and try to fire. They would try to find cover and take advantage of the situation and use it to help them. Most people don't have that kind of training or knowledge.

None of this same rehashed point that you keep spewing has absolutely anything at all to do with the conversation at hand...

It's not like the guys doing these mass shootings are fuckign ex special forces or something...

 

[White Mongoose]

Well they definitley have a better chance than if they didn't have a gun. If they are familiar with the handling of the weapon that makes there chances even better. Most people will run if they are in someones house and hear shots being fired in there direction, the noise gets the police called and they could be killed so either they are caught or killed,bad for them either way.

I have 4 children, there is no way we are able to run from the house. People can quote statistics all they want but if only one homeowner (me) deters an intruder and prevents harm or worse coming to my family then statistic don't really matter.

Yeah in your case, I can see why you would want a firearm. But in my case... I'm a single guy. So no way I'd want to sit in my house and try to gun fight with someone who is also armed. I'd rather to just get the hell out of the house and run for it and call cop.
Hell even if I have a girl, I'd just have her get out first then go with her. I don't even have kid nor want one. So no need to worry about that.
Cowardly way... But what's the point in winning a gunfight in your own house? To me dying because I choose to try fight instead of run and live isn't worth the gambling for me.

 

[White Mongoose]

None of this same rehashed point that you keep spewing has absolutely anything at all to do with the conversation at hand...

It's not like the guys doing these mass shootings are fuckign ex special forces or something...

Ok, what will give average Mr. Joe a advantage over bad guy? Remember bad guy have surprise on his side so average Mr. Joe would be caught off guard and may even stall for a second or two while the bad guy could already have his gun trained on Mr. Joe.
Even if the bad guy missed and Mr. Joe got a gun out, why would Mr. Joe have better odd of being the survivor out of two?

In the end... This is just a stalemate that rely on purely luck.

 

[Real_Magi]

Yeah in your case, I can see why you would want a firearm. But in my case... I'm a single guy. So no way I'd want to sit in my house and try to gun fight with someone who is also armed. I'd rather to just get the hell out of the house and run for it and call cop.
Hell even if I have a girl, I'd just have her get out first then go with her. I don't even have kid nor want one. So no need to worry about that.
Cowardly way... But what's the point in winning a gunfight in your own house? To me dying because I choose to try fight instead of run and live isn't worth the gambling for me.

Jesus Christ man... now, I know this is going to be hard, but try to imagine how it would actually be if you're in a life or death situation. I'm not talking about ninjas and cowboys invading your house while aliens fire ray guns through your windows.

Someone breaks into your house and is sneaking around, you pull out your gun and sit in your bed scared to death, they open the door slowly, you shoot them and kill them.

People with machine guns don't just pour into your house by the dozens firing rounds like some fucking Call of Duty game. It takes one shot to let an intrudor know you have a firearm and if they didn't know you had it before that, you just hit them with that first shot or came very close to hitting them. After that first shot he's running away.

Ok, what will give average Mr. Joe a advantage over bad guy? Remember bad guy have surprise on his side so average Mr. Joe would be caught off guard and may even stall for a second or two while the bad guy could already have his gun trained on Mr. Joe.
Even if the bad guy missed and Mr. Joe got a gun out, why would Mr. Joe have better odd of being the survivor out of two?

In the end... This is just a stalemate that rely on purely luck.

Average Joe? Why wouldn't we put teachers through training if they were going to use firearms? Not only that but the first round fired is the only one that surprises anyone. After that the multiple teachers at the school with firearms are fully aware of what is happening and the shooter is at a severe disadvantage as far as numbers go.

Your argument is seriously horrible. Even if it had any validity is really has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONVERSATION ON GUN CONTROL. Why the fuck do you keep repeating it?

 

[Noblet10]

Wait, so with training you don't actually have to reach for your gun? You can just telepathically command it to shoot or something?



How about driving a car?

And honestly if someone is going to go through the effort to illegally obtain a firearm then they've already put in more effort than it would take to make a bomb in their house. Hell, even doing it legally is more of a pain in the ass than looking up a recipe online and putting it together on yoru living room floor.

You obviously don't realize how easy it is for people to obtain fire arms. Also, many of the ones used in shootings are legally purchased or were purchased legally by a friend of family member like in the recent case.

Yes, getting a gun and shooting one is far easier to making a WMD yourself. I do agree driving a car is easier, but it's effectiveness as a weapon isn't quite as good.

Did you really say in a previous posts that banning guns would cause a Civil War? Fuck man, I don't even think Americans are that attached to their guns. I'm not for banning guns, but controlling them is a necessity.

 

[White Mongoose]

Jesus Christ man... now, I know this is going to be hard, but try to imagine how it would actually be if you're in a life or death situation. I'm not talking about ninjas and cowboys invading your house while aliens fire ray guns through your windows.

Someone breaks into your house and is sneaking around, you pull out your gun and sit in your bed scared to death, they open the door slowly, you shoot them and kill them.

People with machine guns don't just pour into your house by the dozens firing rounds like some fucking Call of Duty game. It takes one shot to let an intrudor know you have a firearm and if they didn't know you had it before that, you just hit them with that first shot or came very close to hitting them. After that first shot he's running away.

It is easy to say that someone may open door and you can shot them. But what if you miss and they didn't run? So in the end do you want to be in that situation or would you rather to be out of the house instead of being in a small room that give you less mobility and hope your next shot hit the intruder?

I can understand if the person have family and want to protect the family. But in a single person or couple case... Why put yourself in the position where you have to fight if you can escape?