RE Reagan quote: that is what he used as reasoning for FOPA. He banned full autos. Quoting Reagan on gun control is like saying that there is already enough gun control in US.
RE Well regulated
Please read the 2nd amendment. Well regulated clearly refers to militia.
not word for word but certainly what your getting at . by opponent i mean the person robbing or attacking you . if they dont exist why carry a gun ?
many posts ago when talking about wanting a 50.cal you mentioned planning to add it your safe by 2025 if i remember correctly .
[quote=“snejdarek, post:976, topic:21032”]
gets even close to destroying my front door (the company that sells them actually tests them against police SWAT teams).
[/quote] what about your windows and back door ?
[quote=“snejdarek, post:976, topic:21032”]
But at the same time you need to understand you can’t translate warzone experience to civilian life.
[/quote] when you’re discussing the ability to carry a loaded weapon you must appreciate you’re giving people just as much power of life and death as i had when deployed therefore yes you can compare it to war
let me ask you a question then . when do you feel it would be appropriate to use deadly force ?
If you brandish your gun and the attacker doesn’t immediately stop or just turn around to run away, you know it is not a simple robbery - a fact that is recognized also by Czech courts in number of cases. If it is your wallet he is after, he won’t turn it into gun fight. In any case, even though you are the one armed, the attacker is the one deciding his own faith.
No. I can very much appreciate what you said about the aftermath of gun use, about the psychological effects. But what I am getting at is that it is insane to suggest that it is harder to deal with that rather than with serious injury or being killed.
Yes. Safe is also a legal requirement in my country. And yes, if I will have the money and still keep the interest in guns, that is what will be my gun No. 20. But that doesn’t mean all guns are locked at all times.
Third floor apartment. That is actually the first time it came to my mind someone might use a ladder. However windows are in direction of inner courtyard, so I am not sure if that would be possible for a common criminal. I will have to think on that a bit 
I refuse that comparison. You go to war to kill. You carry to avoid being killed or wounded.
When use of non-deadly force would be insufficient in its intensity (too low) or time (too slow) to stop the threat against your health or life.
elaborate , give me a real life situation and not an easy one like isis storming your house with an ak47 ,
Look, I destroyed every single point your Australian funny man made in the video you so desperately wanted me to watch. I made it to the point that you started posting some idiotic anti-gun memes without putting any real counter arguments.
So no, I won’t be giving 100 examples when shooting is justified in my eyes and when it is not. I can say though that vast majority of DGUs in my country are justified, be it brandishing or shooting to death.
I take other people to range with me quite often. People without license, without guns. I teach them gun safety and basics of gun use. I always offer them any help they might need in case they decide to get a carry license.
Do I think they will go around killing people? No. I know they are decent and intelligent people and I am sure they will know in their guts what is right, whether armed or not.
After fall of communism in 1990 basically nobody had carry license, I am not sure if they even existed. Between 1995 and now the number of carry licenses got to 200.000 for 10mil population (it was more than in Texas per population until 2009). Meanwhile the number of homicides fell from 277 in 1993 to 182 in 2003. Statistically, we have reached steeper decline of murder rate with the raising number of guns than Australia got by getting rid of the guns.
That is getting rid of legal guns. Because clearly, criminals do have access to firearms in Australia, as they do anywhere else.
Gun safes can be opened quickly. I also said that if you have a mentally insane person living under your roof you should have your guns locked in a safe. Adam lanzas dumb ass mother decided she was going to keep her guns in easy reach of her deranged son.
I don’t think you realize how much of a pain in the ass it is to get full autos in the United States. They are extremely regulated in the U.S.
And we’ve seen that heavy gun control in Europe doesn’t do shit to stop massacres. The two biggest massacres in the U.S were done with airplanes and fertilizer bombs not guns. I also find it interesting when the most gun massacres happen under the administrations that try to ban them. And most “massacres” in the U.S aren’t even massacres. 1-2 people get shot and its blasted all over the news as a massacre.
95% of the violent crimes stopped by fire arms in the United States are non lethal. So 95% of the time all it takes is brandishing a weapon to stop the crime.
If you had it the U.K way no one would be allowed to defend themselves. The fact that you wouldn’t fire on a home invader who poses a serious threat to your life and your family’s makes me question your mental health.
When the fuck did me or @snejdarek ever said we wanted to kill people? We simply said that we would like a fucking option to defend ourselves or our family’s life against an attacker.
So because someone gets shot in war this means civilians shouldn’t have guns? that makes total sense.
Sorry you come at me with the intent to hurt/kill me or my family i don’t care what your back story is. You’re pretty much saying we should never defend ourselves because why dont know why the person is commiting the crime. what a load of horse shit.
I think its appropriate to use deadly force if someone assaults me brakes into my home or trys to hurt my family.
1 Like
I also would like to add that the full auto ban did not stop the north Hollywood shoot out from happening. Or columbine. The north Hollywood shooters got their ak 47s and full body armor from the black market.
I still didn’t get any cohesive reaction to any of the rebuttals to the funny Australian guy. I wonder why is that.
never used the word " want " but other than that refer to what you said no more than 3 seconds before
which clearly states to me you are not in a mental position to own a gun , if you would consider someone merely breaking into your home as a reason enough to kill .
thats an assessment you should be making on a case to case situation , if the individual is carrying a weapon ? then fire away .
you cant see him armed but he is still in your home ? dont you dare fire until he gives you a reason .
you attitude is that of which annoys me of "you’re on my property so im going to fill you with holes "
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:984, topic:21032”]
So because someone gets shot in war this means civilians shouldn’t have guns? that makes total sense.
[/quote] no my point was if you kill someone that afterwards you decide it could of been done differently then it will haunt you for life . and the persons family . so you need to be 100% sure that person in actually a threat to you or your families life before engaging them ,
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:984, topic:21032”]
Sorry you come at me with the intent to hurt/kill me or my family i don’t care what your back story is.
[/quote] what do you define as clear intent ? if he is armed then i would back you up all the way to fire . but my point stands of the mental capability of civilians to know where to draw the line on a controlled engagement to bring an individual down without killing them
-when to back away and de-escalate the situation
-when to use deadly force
i will answer them when i return home from work
you must average a massacre every 1-2 months we have one every couple of years and are normally very low scale.
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:984, topic:21032”]
I also find it interesting when the most gun massacres happen under the administrations that try to ban them.
[/quote] ohh yes of course its all obama murdering his people nothing to do with the fact than and bob and tit can own a firearm without as much as a second look
There is no such things as a simple robbery. By definition, robbery involves use of physical force or immediate threat of such use. That is what distinguishes it from a theft, which is taking of other’s property without force or without threat of using a force. Any use of force involves inherent danger of debilitating injury or death. The bad guy chooses the time, the place, and he especially carefully chooses the victim - best if old, woman, and weak. The only thing the victim has going for him/her is making the stakes to high for the perpatrator to proceed further once he has iniciated his plan. The only way to equalize a potential victim with someone who gets to choose the time, place and victim and has a moment of surprise on his/her side is arming the victim.
I really don’t know what kind of robbers you have in UK. It almost seems that nice and polite people break into others’ houses just to take a telly and walk out without even looking in a mean way on its occupants.
You spin everything me or @SirWarriant writes here. You are the person who went out to kill people, as you yourself confessed.
Meanwhile you write that decent law abiding civilians should not be able to have access to guns to be able to defend themselves against people who want to do them harm.
In my opinion, there is something utterly wrong with you.
1 Like
you carry this with you when you leave your house and theres something wrong with me ?
i dont know who you have pissed off but just get them a cake or something and make up because how you can live with the constant fear of being attacked so much so you feel the need to carry some sort of weapon with you to feel safe tells me you have a mental issue of some degree or you live in somalia .
[quote=“snejdarek, post:990, topic:21032”]
You are the person who went out to kill people, as you yourself confessed.
[/quote] i went to fight a war i beleived in and yes kill the people that i felt threatened our free way of life , over time i realised that the war was simply pointless and we were achieving nothing but repairing the damage caused by us .
quite frankly i cant be arsed to keep arguing back and forth . you have your views i have mine and @SirWarriant has his . my views are simple . I dont believe an incompetent individual should have access to a firearm of any degree under the pre-text of self-defence .
i see nothing wrong with an individual enjoying guns for leisure and if he can prove he is competent in how to operate one safely . i see no issue with that person purchasing and keeping guns , and if need be using them to defend there self .
normally school drop outs about 15-20 . id say 90% are teenagers and the other 10% are Albanians/Romanians and gypsies
Yeah sure i would like to give them a chance to surrender but how could i know if they’re armed or not? Or high on something. I would rather not gamble my life and my family’s life. I could shoot to wound if i wanted to. you’re the one who keeps throwing the word kill around not me. If i deemed them a threat to my life or my family’s and they were breaking into my home then i would shoot them i don’t care what you think of me.
The word unarmed really amuses me. The fact that people think an unarmed man is not a threat is stupidity. One lucky punch and i could be knocked out and at their mercy. Anyone can be dangerous even if they’re unarmed.
95% of violent crimes stopped with guns are non lethal.
No we really don’t. The few years has seen Sandy hook and Aurora, two fort hood shootings, and a shooting at some navel academy. These all happened in areas with extremely tight gun control all guns were banned. a movie theatre shooting in Texas was stopped by a women who had a concealed weapon. funny how the media never mentions that. If only there were some people armed in the Aurora movie theatre then those people might still be alive today.
I never said that. No one died at sandy hook. I just find it ironic that the administration pushing the hardest for gun control has experienced the most shootings. Also why does all of Europe have a boner for Obama. you guys defend him like hes your own president.
2014 Alone (283 total mass shootings )
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014
not all result in death
since the UK banned handguns and tightened gun laws in 1997 after the school shooting of dunblane we have had ONE mass shooting which was by a gentlemen who had a shotgun legally however had cut it down into a sawn of shotgun if i remember correctly he killed 12 people so it was quite bad .
quote from source above
"Today, law enforcement officials say ballistic tests indicate that most gun crime in Britain can be traced back to fewer than 1,000 illegal weapons still in circulation."
the UK gun laws work for the UK and we have no call or desire to change them however UKIP the party i shall be voting for in may this year support the idea of unbanning handguns , but would still be very tight on getting hold of one
another key quote
"In 2011, England and Wales recorded 7,024 offenses involving firearms, down 37 percent from their peak in 2005. Given that British crime statistics also count fake guns as “firearms,” criminologists say the number of violent crimes involving real guns is likely significantly lower."
so in conclusion as ive said above ive grown bored of this debate .
the UK gun laws work for the UK and i have never felt unsafe anywhere in the UK or felt the need to carry a weapon .
That list literally just lists people who are shot. I dont consider those mass shootings. According to that list if two or more people are hit by gun fire its a “mass shooting”.
I would like to carry a weapon and my state is safer than London is and there is a lot of fire arm owners here.
Also the fact remains the crime is decreasing in the U.S year by year and more and more people are buying fire arms.
But since you want to end the argument i guess we can.