- NEW!
by Sarah M
on July 29th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Anonymous
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by Old School
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by Banana Breath plays the piano
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by jdamon
on July 29th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Reptar
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by T1000_Android
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by tfrenchy
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by gillaspy01
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by ila
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by Langenschwert
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Nightwatchdog
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by Zoomzoom
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by Zack
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by jesicamartin on August 23rd, 2010
by Anonymous
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by jaydee on August 23rd, 2010
by Vaporeongirl
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Nemesis
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by CourageWolf
on August 26th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by drew
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by canoeguide
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by RefreshPerspective
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by malevolentbutticklis
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Retired From The Internet
on August 27th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Rick L from WP on August 27th, 2010
by Possum on August 23rd, 2010
by purplecows on August 23rd, 2010
by Fancy-Ghoul
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by Doogie
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by thatsJustme
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by katycarver
on August 31st, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Justin_P
on August 29th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Brady
on August 28th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by MEGATALICNA47
on August 27th, 2010
voted:
No
by Christine
on August 26th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by ebp
on August 26th, 2010
voted:
No
by Happy_hangover
on August 25th, 2010
voted:
No
by Nemo_S
on August 25th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by hunterizz
on August 25th, 2010
voted:
No
by Christine
on August 25th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by drew
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by trailslayer
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by hello people
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by Jaheira2016
on August 24th, 2010
voted:
No
by aaa
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by Anonymous
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by HeeroYui752
on August 23rd, 2010
voted:
No
by Marlin_B on September 3rd, 2010
On what date in 1976 was Black History Month started?
by Answerbag Staff on May 13th, 2011
| 4 people like this
When was the first Black History Month celebrated?
by Answerbag Staff on May 13th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
When was Black History Month first celebrated?
by Answerbag Staff on May 11th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
How many chances have you had to redeem yourself?
by A 3 hours ago
| 1 person likes this
Do you ever feel claustrophobic when people who aren't family members spend a long time in your home?
by A 3 hours ago
| 4 people like this
You're reading Would Allowing Students to Carry Weapons Make College Campuses Safer?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
but you are
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on August 23rd, 2010
How so?
by Sarah M on August 23rd, 2010
because you feel the need to carry a gun
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on August 24th, 2010
How many times did you have to shoot up these nutcases?
And No, You`re not a victim because you feel the need to carry a gun, you`re a victim because you let fear control your actions.
by Reptar on August 24th, 2010
Admit it. The main reason you carry a gun is becouse you love the power. The woy it feels to have such power over human life. You are a sicko... :)
by T1000_Android on August 24th, 2010
@ Da Ben Dan. You sound as though carrying a gun is itself a bad thing. I was raised in rural Washington state and everyone shoots here from a young age. Guns are as much a part of life as cars and telephones. We shoot for recreation and relaxation. People here don't look at gun ownership as a negative thing. It amazes me how people treat guns so negatively when they are statistically safer than automobiles or even going to the doctor. The media has done a very good job at demonizing an inanimate object. Adults who are afraid of a simple tool that can save lives when used properly like any other tool. It is not a burden to carry a weapon and take responsibility for my own safety. It is a right and one I am thankful for. @ Repta, Fear is not controlling my actions. Personal responsibility by providing myself and others with protection is what motivates me.
@ T100 You're response is almost too pathetic to address. Get a clue.
Don't try to project your twisted idea of what gun ownership is about on me. You are clearly not mentally stable enough to own a firearm or act responsibly with one if that is your position on what gun ownership involves. In your case I'm glad you don't own one. You're obviously not capable of handling the responsibility.
by Sarah M on August 24th, 2010
Sarah guns hardly ever save lives, what they do is exchange them. Your life for the life of your attacker or your perceived attacker, they are a weapon created to destroy.
I respect your right or anyone's right to carry a firearm, but you're only a decision away from taking my life. Just as anyone else carrying a weapon is a decision away from taking yours. That's no way to live your life.
by trailslayer on August 24th, 2010
I guess I am against guns because I am a Canadian...and our gun crime rate is so low compared to the US.
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on August 24th, 2010
sarah
I agree with you.
by gillaspy01 on August 24th, 2010
@Sarah M:I am mentaly stable. Calling me mentaly unstable would be calling every psychologist mentaly unstable.
Yeah i get it: you feel safe. But what if a person meaning you no harm but looked dangerous approached you and you would shoot him/her. What then? Obviously you are a person that thinks that violence is the only solution to a violent situation. You like to feel in control.
by T1000_Android on August 24th, 2010
android
calling you mentally unstable is not the same as calling "every" psychologist mentaly unstable. Im not calling you unstable. Im just saying what you said wasnt logical.
Violence is not the only solution, its a last resort. When faced with violence a person has the right to defend themselves violently.
About control, a person has the right to be in control of themself and shouldnt be made to feel guilty it, or for fighting to maintain that control.
It is about the presumption of innocence when a person carries a weapon to defend themselves.
by gillaspy01 on August 24th, 2010
Look, its very simple: allowing anyone to bear arms includes that the mentally unstable are able to bear arms. What if the asailent didnt have a wheapon but was still agressive. Would you shoot him/her then? Violence calls for more violence. Its a fact.
by T1000_Android on August 24th, 2010
Actually no one has a right to defend themselves violently, you have a right to defend yourself up until the point where threat and harm is no longer imminent. If someone stole your purse and ran off with it and you shot and killed them, you would be convicted of first degree murder.
by trailslayer on August 24th, 2010
violence is a last resort. In defense of your life you can take life if there is no other alternative. You arent really advocating that a person should lay down and allow their life to be snuffed out?
by gillaspy01 on August 24th, 2010
Ok lets say you individuals are responsable persons. Allowing you to have weapons is allowing everyone to have weapons. We cant risk a crazy dude having weapons so you can have one.
by T1000_Android on August 24th, 2010
"violence is a last resort. In defense of your life you can take life if there is no other alternative."
So where are these lives you claimed that guns save? All you are speaking about is death
by trailslayer on August 24th, 2010
Guns dont save lives they take them, that is their sole purpose and that is why no one should have one.
by tfrenchy on August 24th, 2010
trailslayer
my video has statistics in it. its in my answer to this question.
tfrenchy
you should watch the video i posted too. Criminal elements of society will never surrender their weapons and black market guns will always be available no matter what the laws are. Gun control laws disarm the people who wouldnt abuse having guns. While people who shouldnt have guns will not surrender theirs no matter what the laws are.
T1000
If everyone has guns then no one would be stupid enough to walk into a public place and start shooting because they would be gunned down almost instantly. An armed response from the people in that situation would save lives that would have been lost if the civilians had been unarmed and unable to stop the shooter. you should watch the video i linked too.
by gillaspy01 on August 24th, 2010
@ DA BEN DAN I don't see your point. Guns are easily obtainable in Canada, even assault weapons. I live near the Canadian border and all the Canadians I know own firearms.
So basically you are proving that gun ownership does not contribute to crime.
You may find this surprising. check this out. http://www.howtogetagun.ca/
Now look at the UK which has the most violent crime rate in the world as well as the strictest gun control laws.
From the article in the London Telegraph: " Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses in the UK since 1994.
The total number of violent offenses recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa. it means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
Austria is second, (also with restrictive gun laws) with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."
Gun ownership by private citizens in the US prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year,
The states in the US with the most lenient gun laws have the lowest crime rates.
I'd feel safer in Washington state with my handgun than I would in the UK unarmed.
Sorry but the statistics speak for themselves.
I took those statistics from a UK newspaper purposely so you wouldn't think the numbers are biased.
America with all it's guns is a much safer place than the UK where they are restricted.
The violent crime rate is 4 times higher in The UK with the strictest gun laws in the world.
@ T1000 Being a psychologist is no guarantee of sanity.. As a group they are generally more inclined to have mental disorders than the rest of us.
Here's one for you
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200909/why-shrinks-have-problems
and for trailslayer just punch in "The Armed Citizen" and you can find thousands of incidents if armed citizens protecting themselves against violent offenders with back up documentation.
I hope that covers everyone LOL!
Been at work all day and missed all this :)
by Sarah M on August 24th, 2010
@ Sarah M
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
United Kingdom Murders Per Capita: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
United States Murder Per Capita: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom Total Crime Per Capita 85.5517 per 1,000 people
United States Total Crime Per Capita 80.0645 per 1,000 people
The UK may have higher overall crime rates per capita but to be honest I'd much rather get in a punch up than get shot.
Alot of violent crime in the UK is becuase people go out and pissed every weekend and end up having drunken fights in the street and becuase theres a cctv camera on every street corner every fight gets reported and hopefully no one is too badly hurt.
It would be an insane idea to involve guns in these situations!!
by tfrenchy on August 24th, 2010
Sarah, the psychs have problems (dont we all?) but they know they have them and know what to expect. If lets say one of them were to feel the urge to smash up a car they would not do it becouse they know that is not sane. As with a youngster, he thinks he is cool if he does that.
by T1000_Android on August 24th, 2010
gillaspy01
You would be surprised how people react in stressfull situations. If "Dave" stood at a line in a bank and some guy "Fred" bashed the door in and started shooting everyone, Dave, being a normal person vould react in the following way: He would get very scared, pull out his gun, he is shaking, and fires lets say 3 shots. The 1st one goes through a window and keeps going, the 2nd one hits Fred and probably the person behind him and the 3rd one shoots a person outside the bank via the broken window. Now this happens in about a second or two. So in defending himself he killed 3 people, 2 of witch inocent and now he has to spend the rest of his life in jail where he would get sexualy molested becouse he is an accountant therefore not use to fighting. Now what whas so damn important in Daves life that 3 other lives had to be taken to save his?
by T1000_Android on August 24th, 2010
@ Trenchy our overall violent crime rate is lower in the US because we are armed as citizens. It's just common sense that you don't go looking for trouble when you don't know if a person is armed or not. Look at the crime statistics in states that have the most lenient gun control laws as opposed to New York, Chicago or Los Angeles and Washington DC which are very restrictive in the use of firearms for personal protection and you find excessively high violent crime rates as opposed to say Montana which averages 18 homicides a year for the whole state. This isn't Rocket Science. The statistics speak for themselves.
@ Gillaspy how many instances can you show me where "Dave" shot up a bunch of innocent bystanders in a self defense act. Again You are projecting your own insecurity and probable response to a hypothetical situation that others would handle differently. If you're not secure enough of your own behavior then you shouldn't buy one. Simple solution. Leave it to people confident to handle the responsibility.
I can show you countless examples of Armed citizens who HELPED police in an armed confrontation. I live in a semi rural area and police are a minimum of 20 minutes away. I'm gonna feel real secure when I dial 911 as an intruder is smashing my door down and is only seconds from entering my home.
If you don't trust your own judgment enough to handle a gun then don't buy one but don't tell me I don't have a right to defend myself. I'm not going to roll over and be raped or murdered to make you feel better. While your at it you might want to consider giving up your car. It's a much more difficult piece of machinery to operate and takes many more lives each year then guns do. If you can't handle a gun you probably shouldn't be driving either.
And @ T1000. I don't know what kind of youngsters you know but all the ones I know who own cars worked very hard for them and have never met one who crashed it "because he thinks it's cool" Get real.
by Sarah M on August 25th, 2010
@ sarah
i think your @gillaspy was intended for @t1000
@t1000
civilian shooters are less likely to hit the wrong target than police shooters.
by gillaspy01 on August 25th, 2010
You could be right, Sorry. Gillaspy
by Sarah M on August 25th, 2010
I CAN handle a gun and im not unsure of myself. I was in the military for crying out loud for a whole year. It is clear that you have never handeled a nerve racking situation. Belive me you would surprise yourself. I didnt say it was dificult handling a gun, i sayd it is dificult handling yourdelf.
Oh and how did cars get involved in this?
by T1000_Android on August 25th, 2010
"Look at the crime statistics in states that have the most lenient gun control laws as opposed to New York, Chicago or Los Angeles and Washington DC which are very restrictive in the use of firearms for personal protection and you find excessively high violent crime rates as opposed to say Montana which averages 18 homicides a year for the whole state. This isn't Rocket Science. The statistics speak for themselves."
Are you honestly comparing CRIME STATISTICS of Montanta a loosely populated state with a population of 974,989 to NEW YORK STATE with a densely packed population of 19,541,453? I might have to confused you with a Christian apologist trying to make such blatantly incompatible comparisons. And then to blame the crime rates on unarmed citizens just to pretend it supports your argument? Sarah M you have a long way to go until you can maintain a decent debate.
You also cannot compare Guns to Cars, Cars are not designed to cause bodily harm or death however guns are. You're constantly comparing apples to oranges, Yes cars cause more fatalities than guns. Now lets look into why that is, the most recent statistics cite 241 million cars in the US in 2005. Compare that to the 52 million gun owners and you begin to realize again you're comparing something almost five times more abundant to guns in order to make them seem more deadly.
by trailslayer on August 25th, 2010
Thank you for that enlighting answer trailslayer.
by T1000_Android on August 25th, 2010
Translayer the population density is not the factor, Nice try. It's the Per Capita homicide rate which is Important. Montana has a firearms ownership rate of an estimates 21 firearms per household, Not everyone owns 21 firearms but if they were evenly distributed that would be the number. They also have some of the most lenient gun laws in the nation and the lowest PER CAPITA homicide rate.
What dies population density have to do with anything? If population density is a contributing factor to homicide rates as you seem to imply then there is an issue other than firearms ownership at work here.
When you start on an incorrect premise you can make the rest of your argument sound logical. You state guns are designed to create great bodily harm or death. Guns are in fact designed for SELF PROTECTION. No one designs a gun and says, "This is our rapists model and this is our bank robbers model and this is out gang banger model. They are designed for self protection so the premise of your argument is flawed which also means the rest of your answer that is based on a false premise is flawed.
My whole comparison to cars was based on the fact that a firearm is a simple tool that can be used for good or bad and that a car was also a tool that was actually more difficult to operate safely yet they can and are used for good and bad as well. More people are killed by them than firearms but there is no public outcry to ban them. That was my sole argument.
I don't know where you are getting your statistics, Wikipedia maybe but there are an estimated 80,000,000. gun owners in the US and there is at least one gun in 50% of American households.
241 million cars yes but the ATF estimates there are 260 million firearms in the US and guns are still statistically safer to own than automobiles Guns are more abundant than automobiles in this country..And at T1000, I have used my handgun in a self defense situation. Thank God I didn't have to fire it but yes I was surprised at how clear thinking I am under stress.
I thank God every day that people like you aren't a majority in this country.
The thought that my life is not important enough to you to allow me to protect it is truly frightening.
by Sarah M on August 26th, 2010
Population density is an enormous factor, per capita means nothing as far as crime is concerned when the populations are TWENTY TIMES different than one another. Would you fight with someone you've never encountered? Absolutely not, and welcome to Montana but actual altercations happen when people come into contact with each other which happens from time to time with the 20 million new yorkers and two million constant flow of tourists.
Obviously guns are not made with rapist and burglar models, you're committing the appeal to ridicule fallacy. Guns are made with the intent to kill mammals, all humans have the same body parts and the same necessity of them, thusly all guns are designed the same. To say a gun is made for self defense is a ludicrous justification by someone who clearly has no statistics. Guns kill far more people than they "protect" and even the act of protecting yourself with a firearm injures or kills the attacker. Guns cause bodily damage, as they were designed to.
I specifically used GUN OWNERS and CAR OWNERS because many gun owners have huge arsenals of guns which skew the statistics. One gun owner can only operate one gun at a time, making the 260 million claim of guns pointless.
I protect my life and the life of those I care about in other ways than recklessly waving around a firearm. In your own mind you're some sort of vigilante tough guy who refuses to become a statistic. In mine and the minds of others you're the very statistic that requires people like you to want to own a gun.
by trailslayer on August 26th, 2010
You really should read what you are writing. You just stated that population density is the factor in gun violence and not the guns themselves. Sorry but Per capita is the ONLY non biased percentage rate available. I have NEVER waved a gun recklessly around and how dare you compare me to some vigilante, You don't know me. I have passed the state handgun training course and applied for and received a LEGAL concealed weapon permit. The state obviously feels I am responsible enough to carry a concealed weapon. You have an irrational fear of an inanimate object. People like you are ruled by emotion and not intellect, You "feel" like guns are dangerous and no one should have them regardless of the facts that show they are used by private citizens over two and a half million times a year to prevent violent crime. I showed you were to look up the facts but I'm sure you can't burden yourself with factual evidence when it contradicts your irrational fear.
Your lack of knowledge regarding firearms is painfully evident. There are target weapons, attack weapons and yes MANY are designed for defense.
Once again you are starting out on a false premise by implying there is something inherently wrong with using deadly force as a means of self defense. I and the majority of Americans and the US Supreme Court disagree. When you start on a flawed or wrong premise it is easy to make your arguments "sound" right. The fact is there is nothing wrong legally or morally with using deadly force to protect yourself. Just ask the cops who also carry weapons. If the weapon is what is evil and causes crime then it would turn these good cops into evil men simply bu virtue of having one in his possession.
Since your comments are turning insulting I am done with this.
If you can't carry on a conversation without insulting my integrity I have nothing further to say to you.
Live comfortably in your bliss and when you have a problem remember to dial 911, When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away! LOL Good luck!
by Sarah M on August 26th, 2010
How do you get off calling me ruled by fear? I live in new york city kid, you're the one hell bent on having lethal force available at all times "to be ready" to protect yourself. I'm a grown man and I will protect myself any others as I have before, with reason and intelligence not reckless brute force. If you really believe comparing the per capita gun crime rate of a sparsely populated state like Montana vs the densely populated state of New York I really don't know what to tell you.
I am not getting paid to educate you, so you can leave here as ignorant as you came. Continually you assume I am trying to take your beloved gun out of your hands, and it's quite the opposite. See unlike you I am not ruled by fear and I live my life FREELY without a hand on the trigger and a gun in my purse. You can keep your gun and use it at your own "well trained" discretion. What I am telling you is that guns are created to destroy, they are created to launch a projectile with lethal velocity accurately toward a target. Even in self defense the gun is a violent murderous means to an end, at best if I owned a gun it would be in my own home safely locked away for the same "worst case scenerio" you cower in fear from on a daily basis.
I'm all for people defending themselves, but clearly you're living on the edge of constant fear and I highly question your ability to remain lucid in the sense of danger. I can see you firing wildly at anything that moves claiming self defense when your would be attacker had a baseball bat at 100 yards. Some imminent threat, the US supreme court would still put you in jail for murder. Shooting someone should be the absolute last course of action. You seem to rely on your gun to act tough, I see through that at your weakness and insecurity.
by trailslayer on August 26th, 2010
FYI Sarah M: you can NOT get assault rifles in Canada. There are classed as Prohibited, which means a "Prohibited" endorsement on your RPAL. Except that they don't issue "Prohibited" status anymore so anyone who DOES possess such a license under the old regime (FAC) is grandfathered.
What you saw at your friend's house were SEMI auto look-alikes, not assault weapons. Just because it looks like an AK or an M-16 doesn't mean that it is. Unless you already possess a "Prohibited" license, no you can't buy an assault rifle in Canada.
As an ironic sidebar, this little gem is legal in Canada but banned in the US. Under Canadian law, it's no different from any other shotgun
https://www.dlaskarms.com/images/P1030050-1.JPG
Mine's on the way...but NOT on campus. Ever.
by Gooey_Stewey on August 29th, 2010
I guess trailslayer missed my post where I used my handgun in a self defense situation without firing a shot and remained quite lucid.
The police were completely sympathetic to that situation and said I acted responsibly. Their opinion means a lot more than yours I'm afraid.
To think that I live in fear is laughable. I'm 107 pounds and forgive me all to hell for wanting a little equalizer. I guess being a big strong man you wouldn't understand that, Typical. :)
@ Gooey My father shoots DCM matches (He's ex military) and being so close to Vancouver we get Canadian shooters at the matches. They have semi auto M-14's and US M1 rifles which are indeed semi auto but are classified as assault rifles by the BATF in the United States.
They have em. That's all I can tell you. I've been to the shoots with my Dad and have seen them.
by Sarah M on August 30th, 2010
Yeah, I do understand it. You're afraid of people bigger and stronger than yourself so you rely on a gun to feel more powerful than they are. Unfortunately for you, your purse can be locked in the car, knocked out of your reach and your gun can be taken away. That's where actual strength and actual self defense comes in handy, my fiancee is smaller than you and does not have this constant fear of "big strong attackers" that require her to need a gun. Instead she took a self defense course and exercises regularly with me.
The police where, Texas? Try waving your concealed weapon around in an actual city and see how sympathetic the police are. Even if you shoot your intended target the projectile will likely end up buried in someones wall, in someones car, maybe even in someone else. I don't know how you can say guns save lives, what you mean to say is that guns can save YOUR life. They save your life by taking away that of another, or by wounding them.
I have been cooperatively placed in handcuffs and put in the back of a female police officers cruiser. She was TERRIFIED of me, and I was complacent as anyone could have possibly been. Her gun was drawn, she was screaming, she even pressed lock on her car four times before walking away before returning to unlock and remove the shotgun securely mounted in the front seat of the car between me and the unbreakable glass. Yes, women are exactly the people who should be wielding weapons. Completely crippled by fear of even the most cooperative individual, the only thing intimidating about me was my size which should have gone away once I allowed her to cuff me and seat me in her car.
by trailslayer on August 30th, 2010
QUOTE:
Guns are easily obtainable in Canada, even assault weapons. I live near the Canadian border and all the Canadians I know own firearms.
/QUOTE
Sarah, I think you may have missed my points:
1) "Assault rifle" is an entirely subjective term and means absolutely nothing in strictly empirical terms and is generally used to elicit an image of a more 'severe' or extreme firearm. That is why I specifically posted the Dlask link - very severe, very extreme, yet not an 'assault weapon' in Canada but prohibited in the US - an entirely subjective call.
2) The fact that 'most of the Canadians you know' come from a perspective where you support the 2nd Amendment and your dad is a sport shooter suggest that many of the Canadians you know are also sport shooters or supporters of private gun ownership. Would that be fair to say ?
As the most vocal proponent of gun ownership so far in this particular debate, I'd think you want to AVOID using the same terms the same way that the 'antis' do.
By any practical standard, an assault weapon has the capability of (fully) automatic fire and a high-capacity magazine (say, 20+ rounds ?). Things like ease of field-stripping and battle sights could also be factored in.
Logically then, the examples you mentioned (M1, M14) are NOT 'assault rifles' even if they CAN be considered 'battle rifles'.
The Mauser 98K and the US M24 (both sniper rifles) are well-distinguished battle rifles, but I don't think the BATF would call them 'assault rifles', would they ?
Or maybe they would: you live in a country where you can go to jail for passing a joint. In Finland, you can hunt with a silencer - in Canada (and the US I assume) they're illegal (not 'Prohibited' class, actually illegal).
by Gooey_Stewey on September 1st, 2010
@ trailslayer:
Your opposition to firearms appears to come from what you perceive as an ego issue. Imagine for a sec that it ISN'T a matter of personal inadequacy or abject fear.
The question has to be: is there an increase in safety if a particular segment of the population is allowed to carry concealed firearms ?
While I agree that IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES it can be an aid to public safety, ultimately more guns means more 'gunplay' (I hate that phrase but it fits).
Having served as a CF/UN peacekeeper in Cyprus with an UNLOADED weapon, you quickly learn that your weapon is there to provide a last-resort backup, just in case - it's mainly for show.
Usually, the incidents that would otherwise lead to 'hostile exchange' can be diffused much more diplomatically.
The individual who possesses these skills is the ONLY individual that I would trust to carry a concealed firearm in public. Personally, I don't know if Sarah is one of those people and it doesn't really matter in an online debate.
As long as it's used as a backup, that's fine...but... to Sarah I ask this question:
When you drew your firearm, was the situation severe enough that you would be willing to trade the rest of your natural life in prison for the security it gave you ?
Do not show your ace unless you are about to pull the trigger.
My current job allows me to carry a concealed handgun if I wish, but I generally don't unless I know that I'm going to need it. I've used pepper spray for the bluff, but never a sidearm.
I absolutely, positively, 100% believe that allowing twenty-somethings to carry on campus is a BAD idea. No way, no how.
by Gooey_Stewey on September 1st, 2010
I'm with you Gooey Stewey, I am not even against taking guns away from people or restricting them in any way. I believe citizens should have firearms in their home, I am not really for or against them having them in public but I feel that it is a poor decision. I was just refuting Sarah's claims about guns and the terms she was using.
by trailslayer on September 1st, 2010
This whole comment is debunked within two sentences. "You don't see them wandering into...places where they know everyone is armed."
If that can be proven false, the whole argument falls apart, right? That's what they taught me in debate club. If the precept can be demonstrated false, the argument is moot.
Two words: Fort Hood
by Aaron_D on September 10th, 2010
The only person I ever saw attack a police station was the Terminator. And he kicked some human ass!
by Piano playin unicorn with a hat ™ on November 18th, 2010
@ Aaron_D I totally agree, Jimmy carter disarmed all soldiers on base back in the 70's. The only ones armed on our bases are the military police at the gates and being that the terrorist who did the shooting was an officer he was waved through the gate where he had unlimited access to hundreds of unarmed US soldiers.
by Sarah M on November 18th, 2010
Perhaps you should spend more money trying fix the vast economic disparity in the US instead of spending massive amounts on guns then you might not need actually need the guns.
by tfrenchy on November 29th, 2010