Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

• Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
• 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

• China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

• Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

• Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

• Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

• Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

• It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: . Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent . Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent . Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! . In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

• There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

Pidgey
 
Werbung:
Try perusing bunz' posts. He justified gun ownership from detering bear attacks to hunting for his family's daily sustenance.

Try being able to back up your statements. I'm still waiting for a link to the post you were talking about.

It is intended to kill by shooting a metal projectile at a muzzle velocity of over 300 m/s. A 100 gram bullet at this average speed would carry an energy of 9 kilojoules.

Can you think of a use for 9 kilojoules of energy delivered by a small metal projectile?

If people derive pleasure from it, then why not?

What I am asking is, in what situation is it designed to kill? Some guns are designed to kill from afar, some guns are designed to kill in close quarters, some guns are designed to be versatile. Some guns are designed to effect multiple targets in a single shot, some guns are designed to hit a single target precisely with a single shot.

How is one intended to kill with the Browning BT-99?

If only your gun is designed to discriminate betwen human beings, bears, and paper targets, then by all means, make that sports rifle argument.

If only your gun is designed to restrain, NOT KILL your assailant, then by all means, make the self-defense argument.

Such restrictions do not apply to the knife metaphor. A knife, any knife, does not discriminate between targets, and knives can be used for restraint and killing about as effectively.
 
This is for you Numinus.
Here is three good examples of people who were basically jumped by bears. There are literally several volumes of books concerning just these human-bear encounters.
Alaska bear tales, more Alaska bear tales, Even more Alaska bear tales.
But all of these stories appeared within the last 6 months. Keep in mind that most of the bears were hibernating the last 5 months.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/story/210860.html
JUNEAU -- A Juneau doctor asked to be released from the hospital, hours after being attacked by a grizzly while deer hunting.

Officials at Bartlett Regional Hospital say John Raster had surgery for a hand injury and was to be released Friday afternoon.

Raster was part of a group hunting deer about 28 miles south of Juneau.

He was taking photos when the bear came out of the woods and attacked him.

He had time to shoot once with his pistol before being attacked.


http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/story/389904.html
HUMAN CONTACT

As it is, the rare meetings of bears and people around the fringes of the city are fraught with risks for both. Anchorage nurse Sarah Wallner, 32, was the latest to be mauled by a bear when she was attacked while hiking near a salmon spawning area in upper Eagle River last October.

She was not seriously injured, but a brown bear killed well-known runners Marcie Trent and Larry Waldron in an attack in the McHugh Creek drainage on the city's southern edge in 1995. There have been a number of other violent encounters between bears and people since, a few ending in injuries to the humans, many ending in the death of bears.

Three or four grizzlies and more than a dozen black bears are shot here each summer by wildlife officials or citizens defending themselves.

Statistically, people are more of a threat to the bears than the bears are to people. And the animals seem to understand.

"They're very secretive,'' Farley said. "They're very good at hiding from us. They're very good at avoiding people.''

Though regular travelers on the same Hillside trails used by hikers, runners, mountain bikers and horseback riders, the bears will jump off and make themselves invisible if they smell or hear someone coming, Farley said. That is why biologists are always telling people one of the best ways to avoid problems with bears is to make noise when traveling in bear country. And most of the Hillside will soon be bear country.

http://www.adn.com/bearattacks/story/389012.html
Officials watch three bears suspected in Kenai attack

Published: April 28th, 2008 01:18 AM
Last Modified: April 28th, 2008 06:32 PM

KENAI -- State wildlife officials are monitoring three bears that might have been involved in the near- fatal mauling of a jogger in Kenai last week.

Biologists with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game say they're not entirely sure the bears in the April 22 attack of Marc Johnson are the same bears being tracked just outside Soldotna.

"Based on the description it's very likely, but we're not positive it is the same three bears," said Jeff Selinger, the agency's area management biologist in Soldotna. "There are several groups of bears out there, and if we have to put some down we want to be sure it's the same animals involved in the mauling."
 
Re: Numnuts

You are exceptionally slow today, aren't you?

As I said -- read the department of justice statistics on homicide in the us. Household guns account for a disproportionately large number of homicides than any other weapon.

Ignoring facts and logic won't do your argument any good.

Another dodge, another idiotic statement. The statistics may very well indicate that, "Household guns account for a disproportionately large number of homicides than any other weapon.", but that does not support your contention.

Where in the statistics does it say: "All guns are made to kill human beings?"

Defend your statement: "All guns are made to kill another human being."

"Duh, YEE HAW, Hummmm?"

Do you see where we are going with this folks? He makes blanket statements that he cannot prove (platitudes), refers to some statistics that are not directly related to the subject as if to prove his point. Again his lack of the knowledge in what be a basic logic exercise in Logic 101 show that this is not an adult, just some kid with too much time on his hands.
 
Try perusing bunz' posts. He justified gun ownership from detering bear attacks to hunting for his family's daily sustenance.
It is much easier to peruse my posts than the absolute dribble you have been posting. But I dont need bear attacks to justify my owning guns. I own plenty of guns that wouldnt help against a bear. The constitution provides justification for the far majority of Americans to own guns, without any reason.
I asked a question, months ago now, simply who shouldnt own guns. You said nobody except law enforcement and police. You have been shown time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again why you are incorrect.
 
Re: Numnuts

I can't imagine a kid presenting him/herself as a field engineer. I just think he/she's a communist who wants to be one of the Politburo with a dacha somewhere nice while the rest of us rot (those who weren't rounded up and put into the re-education camps, that is).

I went to the cited site, perused the data and was encouraged! When you consider that the total numbers of homicides are very nearly the same today as back in '76 and yet gun ownership has increased as well as the population, it's a miracle. The city in the U.S. with the highest murder rate per capita is... Washington, D.C. That's what gun control gets you. The only folks safe there are the ones with Secret Service agents in attendance.

Well, after going through all those statistics, it's pretty easy to see that what we need are more guns, more gun education and less restrictive laws regarding self defense. Thanks, Numin, (you silly cherry-picker, you!) for the eye-opening study!

Pidgey
 
Knowledgeable gun people will get a laugh out of this brilliant statement from nummy.

"...It is intended to kill by shooting a metal projectile at a muzzle velocity of over 300 m/s. A 100 gram bullet at this average speed would carry an energy of 9 kilojoules."

A muzzle velocity of 300 m/s (900 fps.) and a 100 gram bullet (15.43 grains per gram = 1,543 grain bullet). Hummmm? What gun shoots such a bullet?
That is one hell of a bullet.
 
This is a touchy subject. I like to say... The nice thing about being a moderate is you get the previledge of having everyone mad at you. :)

First I read the 2nd as a guns to the militia statement. There's a "what exactly did they really mean" comma issue here that becomes an argueing point... but that doesn't mean I'm against gun ownership. It merely means I interperate the necessity a little differently.


The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

Both versions are commonly used in official government publications. The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and hangs in the National Archives.

There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia," or after the phrase "to keep and bear arms." Different versions of the Amendment appear in various U.S. government documents.

Even with my interprtation I think someone not convicted of a felony or a violent, stalking or threatening misdomeanor and without a record of mental illness should be able to purchase a firearm. Notice though I didn't say ANY firearm.

I also see background checks and regulation as a strong requirement. To mandate licenses with renewals and titles for our cars and not have anything but cash on the barrelhead with a quick background check on newly sold weapons and no tracking or ownership change requirements after that original sale is in my opinion not prudent enough.

As well I think it is resonable that sporting weapons and personal protection weapons can be separated from military style large magazine type weapons for sale to the general public. I believe there should be a higher standard and more scrutinty put on those purchasing these military style weapons that basically just have the full auto switch removed. Possibly something similar to what we now have set up for someone to purchase fully automatic weapons... a Federal Firearms License.

I also think municipalities should be able to regulate where these weapons can be carried. Owning doesn't automatically mean take with you anywhere.


So you know... I say this as someone who owns a Beretta 380, Dan Wesson 357 pistol pack, Mossberg 12 gauge 6 shot pump and a M1 Carbine with both a standard 10 & military issue 30 round banana clip.
 
Knowledgeable gun people will get a laugh out of this brilliant statement from nummy.

"...It is intended to kill by shooting a metal projectile at a muzzle velocity of over 300 m/s. A 100 gram bullet at this average speed would carry an energy of 9 kilojoules."

A muzzle velocity of 300 m/s (900 fps.) and a 100 gram bullet (15.43 grains per gram = 1,543 grain bullet). Hummmm? What gun shoots such a bullet?
That is one hell of a bullet.
Numin was only off by an order of magnitude so he/she MUST be a field engineer... at least the math was right for a 100 gram:eek: bullet.

Of course, maybe Numin was talking about an elephant gun--we need to go back to the conversation at the time and see what was talking about.

Pidgey
 
Well, even with bears (and biggun's at that; that was the discussion at the point of the comment) you don't usually go with an elephant gun. Calibers like a .45-70 or .30-06 are generally used (the smaller caliber being preferred) and they only carry about a quarter to a third of that energy (9 kj).

Given the velocity cited, I'd tend to think more that Numin was talking about a ~100 grain bullet like a .380 ACP, although the energy's down there in the quarter kilojoule range.

Pidgey
 
Well, even with bears (and biggun's at that; that was the discussion at the point of the comment) you don't usually go with an elephant gun. Calibers like a .45-70 or .30-06 are generally used (the smaller caliber being preferred) and they only carry about a quarter to a third of that energy (9 kj).

Given the velocity cited, I'd tend to think more that Numin was talking about a ~100 grain bullet like a .380 ACP, although the energy's down there in the quarter kilojoule range.

Pidgey
A .458 Win. Magnum shoots a 500grain bullet, a 50 Browning Machine Gun (Ma Duce) shoots a 700 grain (I believe), bullet.
I know of no shoulder arm that shoots a 1543 grain bullet at 900 fps. He had to have made this one up, but it sounds real impressive does it not? Like something someone who is pretending to be an engineer would say just to sound knowledgeable.
Just a bunch of meaningless numbers, not relative to the issue.
 
Did you actually understand what you read?

I have already told you about NON-CULPABLE SELF-DEFENSE -- which is precisely what wiki was saying is the basis of a LEGAL SELF-DEFENSE.

You are not allowed to shoot your assailant dead if he is merely threatening you with his bare hands or a knife.

I most certainly am within my rights to shoot him if he has and is attacking with a knife (or a pipe, or a hammer, or a baseball bat, or a hachet). Depending on the circumstances (say, someone mugging my 88-year-old grandmother), an unarmed attacker certainly can justify shooting.

You are not allowed to shoot your assailant dead in the back (which suggests that your assailant was already deterred when you killed him)

Never said otherwise.

Your are not allowed to pump your assailant full of bullet holes (self-defense is about deterrence, not killing)

I am within my rights to keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. If that takes the entire magazine (it did for my uncle...IIRC, the attacker went down on the eleventh shot), then it does.

You are not allowed to shoot your assailant when it is perfectly reasonable to simply retreat.

If I am in my house, I most certainly am. Google "castle doctrine" for details.
 
Knowledgeable gun people will get a laugh out of this brilliant statement from nummy.

"...It is intended to kill by shooting a metal projectile at a muzzle velocity of over 300 m/s. A 100 gram bullet at this average speed would carry an energy of 9 kilojoules."

A muzzle velocity of 300 m/s (900 fps.) and a 100 gram bullet (15.43 grains per gram = 1,543 grain bullet). Hummmm? What gun shoots such a bullet?
That is one hell of a bullet.

I dunno...my uncle's Holland & Holland might. :) No idea of the muzzle velocity, but it's supersonic with his usual powder load. Not sure of the bullet weight offhand, but it's pretty big. Of course, it was designed to drop a charging cape buffalo with one shot. (It's a big-game rifle.)
 
Werbung:
I am within my rights to keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. If that takes the entire magazine (it did for my uncle...IIRC, the attacker went down on the eleventh shot), then it does.
Gotta' throw this one in here:

Are you a Liberal, a Conservative or a Southerner?

Here is a little test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

....................................................................

Liberal's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 911? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

...................................................................

Conservative's Answer:

BANG!

....................................................................

Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click................
(sounds of reloading.) BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the
Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"

Son: "Can I shoot the next one?"

Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!"

Pidgey
 
Back
Top