Article: Child shoots another in head

[jes]

A seven-year-old boy was in a critical condition after being shot In the head by another child in De Deur, near Vereeniging, on Friday night, Gauteng paramedics said.

You can view the page at http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/content.php/2159-Child-shoots-another-in-head

[zeyad 001]

This is why we keep our safe out of reach from children.Children should not even know about a firearm in the house and it should not be kept where they can easily access it.

[copacetic]

One of the many reasons why I will never own a gun.

[Kosmik]

One of the many reasons why I will never own a gun.

I don't think it should be a reason. If proper gun safety is maintained then this would never happen.

[copacetic]

I don't think it should be a reason. If proper gun safety is maintained then this would never happen.

One reason amongst many.

Logically though: Chance of someone accidentally getting shot with a gun that does not exist = 0%; Chance of it happening with gun I own = more than 0%. Seems simple to me.

[ponder]

One of the many reasons why I will never own a gun.

+1

And how many people end up getting shot with their own guns. I'm not anti guns but it's something I will never own.

[HapticSimian]

One of the many reasons why I will never own a gun.

Meh, that's just such a knee-jerk in my view. I've read your next post, and in principle I agree but it's so easy to shout "no guns for me" in response. My personal view is, in many such instances, the parents of these kids would've ended up driving over their sprogs if they didn't shoot themselves first. It points to irresponsible parenting, either through ignorance or disinterest.

The problem is the gun-owner, not the gun.

[copacetic]

Meh, that's just such a knee-jerk in my view. I've read your next post, and in principle I agree but it's so easy to shout "no guns for me" in response. My personal view is, in many such instances, the parents of these kids would've ended up driving over their sprogs if they didn't shoot themselves first. It points to irresponsible parenting, either through ignorance or disinterest.

The problem is the gun-owner, not the gun.

You read my other post, so I'd just be repeating myself.

I guess I do have an issue in general with a device designed primarily to kill. At the end of the day that is what guns are designed to do - Poke holes in a living organism until it dies.

I've just never had the slightest inclination to own one, and can't imagine that changing.

[Garyvdh]

One of the many reasons why I will never own a gun.

Agreed. I made that decision long ago.

I know I may need a gun to defend myself one day, but the risks of having a different accident with the gun like the accident quoted above are too high and outweigh the chances of me having to use it to defend myself.
Besides, even when I go to use the gun to defend myself, the chances of having it used against me, or stolen from me and used against another innocent are also too high for me to take that risk.

It's a lose, lose situation as far as I am concerned.

[HapticSimian]

You read my other post, so I'd just be repeating myself.

I guess I do have an issue in general with a device designed primarily to kill. At the end of the day that is what guns are designed to do - Poke holes in a living organism until it dies.

I've just never had the slightest inclination to own one, and can't imagine that changing.

No worries. I used your post more as a springboard than to criticise your position on the matter. If you don't like the idea of having a firearm that's just dandy; all I'm saying is it's a short step from there to blaming guns instead of people. ;)

[copacetic]

Agreed. I made that decision long ago.

I know I may need a gun to defend myself one day, but the risks of having a different accident with the gun like the accident quoted above are too high and outweigh the chances of me having to use it to defend myself.
Besides, even when I go to use the gun to defend myself, the chances of having it used against me, or stolen from me and used against another innocent are also too high for me to take that risk.

It's a lose, lose situation as far as I am concerned.

Yep.


No worries. I used your post more as a springboard than to criticise your position on the matter. If you don't like the idea of having a firearm that's just dandy; all I'm saying is it's a short step from there to blaming guns instead of people. ;)

Perversely, I've always wanted to try target shooting. Go figure. :o

[Garyvdh]

Perversely, I've always wanted to try target shooting. Go figure. :o

I have a BB gun for that! :p

[OverKill69]

Guys... you forget one thing.

Who is responsible for your safety? And for the safety of your family?

Then ask the question... Would I own a gun?
Sure... if the poo hits the fan, you call the cops... because they have guns. Unfortunately, they're unreliable and poorly trained.

It is very naive to say: "Guns are bad", when you depend on others to carry guns to maintain the fragile illusion of order that we live in.
The fact that guns are specifically designed to kill things... well... awesome! As opposed to things that kill things by accident, like cars and hair driers.

You, as a human being, are a killer. If you eat the flesh of a dead animal you should have no qualms in dealing with the safety of you and your family on the front lines.


Easy to not believe in gun ownership when you pay R500 a month for "Armed Response" and think the cops will come around if you need em.
I've trained some security company personnel, and I wouldn't trust their driving let alone their use of a firearm.

[Garyvdh]

Guys... you forget one thing.

Who is responsible for your safety? And for the safety of your family?

That is exactly the reason why I will not own a gun. I am responsible for their safety.
Should I bring a live poisonous snake into my house to kill intruders?
It's not the snake that kills people, but the handler that didn't keep it properly.
The point is... these are dangerous objects.
And guns themselves are often sought out in the case of armed robberies.
I don't have a safe, I don't have a gun, I don't keep large amounts of cash, I don't have fancy vehicles, I don't live in a house that advertises that I am rich.
Those are all liabilities.
I have electric fencing, armed response, panic buttons, automatic lights, life and contents insurance, etc.
Those are not liabilities, those are security features.

[Nokkie]

*and this is also why you should not get children, because the world has enough people as it is.*

[ponder]

Guys... you forget one thing.

Who is responsible for your safety? And for the safety of your family?

Then ask the question... Would I own a gun?
Sure... if the poo hits the fan, you call the cops... because they have guns. Unfortunately, they're unreliable and poorly trained.

It is very naive to say: "Guns are bad", when you depend on others to carry guns to maintain the fragile illusion of order that we live in.
The fact that guns are specifically designed to kill things... well... awesome! As opposed to things that kill things by accident, like cars and hair driers.

You, as a human being, are a killer. If you eat the flesh of a dead animal you should have no qualms in dealing with the safety of you and your family on the front lines.


Easy to not believe in gun ownership when you pay R500 a month for "Armed Response" and think the cops will come around if you need em.
I've trained some security company personnel, and I wouldn't trust their driving let alone their use of a firearm.

No one here is saying you can't own a gun, they are just saying they prefer not to own one.

Your gun might be giving you a false sense of security. Will you be able to get it out of the safe in time, are you sure no one will use your gun against you or someone else? Are you sure you won't mistakenly kill an innocent person like that rugby player that shot his own daughter.

[OverKill69]

No one here is saying you can't own a gun, they are just saying they prefer not to own one.

Your gun might be giving you a false sense of security. Will you be able to get it out of the safe in time, are you sure no one will use your gun against you or someone else? Are you sure you won't mistakenly kill an innocent person like that rugby player that shot his own daughter.

"armed response" contracts are a false sense of security.

My firearm is a tool I use for MY SECURITY.

I train hard, I train long and I train other people.
I am under no illusions whatsoever.

Some people are content to pay a sum of money and think they're safe. I prefer to take the responsibility on myself.

I give you a scenario:

Your alarm goes off at 2:30am.
what do you do?
Does your "Armed response" rock up? Is it a false alarm? Do you get out of bed and walk straight to the alarm pad and reset the alarm?


Another scenario:

You're driving to your neighborhood security boom.
you stop as usual but you don't see a security guard... instead, 3 people approach your car from all sides.

Another scenario:

Your neighbor's domestic worker rings your intercom.
she's hysterical and all she can say is: they're still in the house with the baby.
Outside the neighbor's gate is car with a masked male occupant who has now seen YOU and the maid looking at him.

[ponder]

Ok, you like your gun and it will solve your problems, good for you. No one is saying you can't have one, it's your CHOICE.

[OverKill69]

and you like your security company and they will solve your problems, it's your CHOICE.

We're on the same page.

[ponder]

and you like your security company and they will solve your problems...

Nope, don't have one of those, don't have a alarm, don't have 12ft heigh electrified walls, don't have big dogs...

[OverKill69]

Nope, don't have one of those, don't have a alarm, don't have 12ft heigh electrified walls, don't have big dogs...

Fantastic!

You still live with your parents?

[marine1]

One of the many reasons why I will never own a gun.Yeah its the guns fault :rolleyes:
The issue here is education, firstly guns should not be accessible to anyone but the owner and second, kids must learn how to handle guns and ammunition, what happens if your kid goes to a friend where there is a gun in the house?

[marine1]

*and this is also why you should not get children, because the world has enough people as it is.*Now that I agree with :D

[Kosmik]

Guys guys, owning a gun is an extermely personal choice and there is nothing worse than someone who owns a gun and :

1) has concern about using it
2) is insecure with it and its consquences
3) may hesitate.

I want a gun that has a smart trigger, until I can get one, I probably won't own one as the chances of someone breaking in and stealing a weapon are very high in this country and we can't rely on the safety of safes because a lot of registered owners are targeted by the details they give in with their license details. The only time one should draw a gun is when one intends to use it, you cannot hesitate in that case as the chances are that someone will try and overpower you. If a person doesn't believe that they can do that, then they shouldn't own a gun.

To those who don't care to own a gun, it is your choice , to those who do, please maintain the proper respect, training and attitude to use it if neccesary although I would pray that you never have to.

[OverKill69]

Yeah its the guns fault :rolleyes:
The issue here is education, firstly guns should not be accessible to anyone but the owner and second, kids must learn how to handle guns and ammunition, what happens if your kid goes to a friend where there is a gun in the house?

Just like a swimming pool.

Except... you don't have people having arguments about owning swimming pools when a kid kills itself in one.

I might be making too much noise here... but I really can't stand the token liberal argument of "Guns are baaad, mmkay" argument that people automatically spout when something like this happens.

[copacetic]

Yeah its the guns fault :rolleyes:
The issue here is education, firstly guns should not be accessible to anyone but the owner and second, kids must learn how to handle guns and ammunition, what happens if your kid goes to a friend where there is a gun in the house?

No need to roll your eyes at me, just because I don't want to own a gun.

I did not say it was the guns fault, I simply said that where there is no gun there is no risk of getting shot by a non-existent gun. It's pretty simple.

Seriously, you are advocating that every kid should learn how to handle a gun on the off-chance that they go play at the house of someone who owns one? That's really fruity. :erm:

Perhaps it is just the circles I roll in, but I really know very, very few people with guns, and when I find out a person owns one I am generally a bit surprised.

I just don't like guns, I'm not telling the rest of you what to do though.

[copacetic]

Just like a swimming pool.

Except... you don't have people having arguments about owning swimming pools when a kid kills itself in one.

I might be making too much noise here... but I really can't stand the token liberal argument of "Guns are baaad, mmkay" argument that people automatically spout when something like this happens.

You really are a bit hypersensitive to this issue, as I don't think that's what has been said in this thread. A couple of people basically said 'we don't like guns, we feel they increase the risk of getting shot' and you went of on a bit of a frothing tangent.

[marine1]

My issue is with "gun free SA" types.
If you are one of them my issue is with you.
I have the right to defend myself as the gvt and police cannot or will not.
It just takes one of these incidents and you see all the liberal hippie types come out against gun ownership......all that does is strengthen the criminals side of things and there can be no resistance to crime.

[ponder]

Fantastic!

You still live with your parents?


Also know of people that leave their houses wide open during the day when they are not there, doors are not locked or anything.

Relevance to the scenario?

[ponder]

I might be making too much noise here... but I really can't stand the token liberal argument of "Guns are baaad, mmkay" argument that people automatically spout when something like this happens.

I don't think anybody is saying guns are bad, it's people that are bad and to blame. Are you not maybe reading a lot more than is being said?

In case you are wondering I'm actually for the right to own guns, leave the choice up to the people. I'm not anti gun at all but I just choose not to have one.

[BrandonH]

Having a gun in the house does not automatically create a dangerous situation. All you have to do is either carry it with you or lock in the safe and keep the key with you.

imo the benefits of having a gun far outweigh the risks.

[copacetic]

My issue is with "gun free SA" types.
If you are one of them my issue is with you.
I have the right to defend myself as the gvt and police cannot or will not.
It just takes one of these incidents and you see all the liberal hippie types come out against gun ownership......all that does is strengthen the criminals side of things and there can be no resistance to crime.

The only person so far in the thread even mentioning this is you.

With the amount of guns criminals have, and the limited effectiveness of our police force, it takes a special type of naiveté to suggest a gun free country, just like that.

[copacetic]

Having a gun in the house does not automatically create a dangerous situation. All you have to do is either carry it with you or lock in the safe and keep the key with you.

imo the benefits of having a gun far outweigh the risks.

Then by all means, own a gun. I see it the other way around, so I wouldn't want one.

What I would get though, is one of those shotguns that shoot a beanbag like a rocket. I'd love to disable an intruder with one of those.

[OverKill69]

You really are a bit hypersensitive to this issue, as I don't think that's what has been said in this thread. A couple of people basically said 'we don't like guns, we feel they increase the risk of getting shot' and you went of on a bit of a frothing tangent.

I know I am... because when you announce yourself as a legal gun owner who trains and shoots regularly... people assume you're a F*#king psychopath who is on the edge of going postal.
When you say: "I'm a firearm instructor", people think you're training murderers.

I have this argument at least twice a week with people who think that they pay somebody else to look after them and feel they're safe.
Then.. 99.99% of people think that guns are straight from the devil, yet depend on police and armed response personnel to arrive brandishing heavy weaponry should they need them.
It is their right apparently...

/end rant

I am hyper sensitive to this argument because I see an ungrateful public admonishing the very tool that they depend on to keep them safe at night.

It's like saying coal mining is bad for the environment... but not willing to give up your air conditioning.

[copacetic]

But no-one is arguing with you here, so just chillax. :p

[ponder]

I know I am... because when you announce yourself as a legal gun owner who trains and shoots regularly... people assume you're a F*#king psychopath who is on the edge of going postal.

From your posts here I could understand why people might think that. You and marine1 are the ones that went postal here :D

No one said you can't or should not own a gun. All they said is they choose not to own one. Is that really so hard to understand and worth getting worked up over?

Many of us support your right to own a gun even though we choose not to own one. You are getting angry with the wrong people here.




But no-one is arguing with you here, so just chillax. :p

Dunno what they are going on about.

[Cadavre777]

This whole idea that by not owning a gun you wont get shot is silly. You just wont get shot with gun belonging to you.

Response times for armed response units can vary anywhere between a couple minutes to hours (in Chubb and ADT's case). In the UK, the permissable time frame between an alarm activation being received till armed response being dispatched is 8 minutes. These services are to augment your security, not be the first and only line of protection.

I am with marine1 on the issue that children should be educated on the handling of firearms.This is not so that they can play with them at a friends house, etc. I am sure the point he was trying to make is that they should know the potential damage that can be caused by foolish curiosity.

If one exercises care and safety of a firearm through proper training, there is minimal risk in being harmed by your own weapon. Unfortunately the poor standard of training and its requirements in South Africa means that few people will be equipped with the skills to defend themselves.

[Pooky]

Guns are not cool.

[OverKill69]

But no-one is arguing with you here, so just chillax. :p

It's in the language... I'll quote lines posted by other so far.


"One of the many reasons why I will never own a gun."

"And how many people end up getting shot with their own guns. I'm not anti guns but it's something I will never own."

"I guess I do have an issue in general with a device designed primarily to kill. At the end of the day that is what guns are designed to do - Poke holes in a living organism until it dies."

"It's a lose, lose situation as far as I am concerned."

"That is exactly the reason why I will not own a gun. I am responsible for their safety.
Should I bring a live poisonous snake into my house to kill intruders?"

"Your gun might be giving you a false sense of security."


Those statements are made by people who sleep soundly at night as a direct result of there being people WITH GUNS who try and keep this place from turning into just another "African Democracy".

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

[ponder]

It's in the language... I'll quote lines posted by other so far.


"One of the many reasons why I will never own a gun."

"And how many people end up getting shot with their own guns. I'm not anti guns but it's something I will never own."

"I guess I do have an issue in general with a device designed primarily to kill. At the end of the day that is what guns are designed to do - Poke holes in a living organism until it dies."

"It's a lose, lose situation as far as I am concerned."

"That is exactly the reason why I will not own a gun. I am responsible for their safety.
Should I bring a live poisonous snake into my house to kill intruders?"

"Your gun might be giving you a false sense of security."


Those statements are made by people who sleep soundly at night as a direct result of there being people WITH GUNS who try and keep this place from turning into just another "African Democracy".

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

Please tell how how you get from I choose not to own a gun to guns must be banned or you must not own one as you are reading into these comments by the looks of things.

It sounds like you are upset with people for not owning guns?

The only person here that seems to have an issue is you the gun owner, the rest of don't have a problem with you owning a gun.

[copacetic]

Oh crumbs dude, just give it up already. :rolleyes:

[Greylor]

http://www.grahamcebulskie.com/images/their-house-is-not-armed.jpeg

[OverKill69]

Once again... You may exercise your choice.

But be under no illusion that 9 out of the 10 voices in my head say that I shouldn't drink anymore.

And if more people learned to RESPECT guns as opposed to FEAR and MISUNDERSTAND them... Then maybe Brittany Spears wouldn't have ventured into DUB STEP.

[copacetic]

Once again... You may exercise your choice.

But be under no illusion that 9 out of the 10 voices in my head say that I shouldn't drink anymore.

And if more people learned to RESPECT guns as opposed to FEAR and MISUNDERSTAND them... Then maybe Brittany Spears wouldn't have ventured into DUB STEP.

:confused:

You train people to use guns you say?

*tiptoes away quietly*

:erm:

[ponder]

This guy has lost the plot.

[copacetic]

This guy has lost the plot.

I'm seriously trying to understand just WTF [-]Britney[/-] Brittany Spears and dub step have to do with the price of eggs. Strange.

[Lycanthrope]

One of the many reasons why I will never own a gun.

Exactly. You can do your best, but there will always be a key to the safe and no amount of "absolute certainty" or "respect for your gun" would keep curiosity out of a kid who wants to know what's in that safe. It's just a matter of time.

I will never own a gun because that's still just one gun in the world too many.

I have seen so many people own guns who should never have been permitted to in the first place and the reality is that no-one should ever own a gun because if you want to own a gun, you shouldn't own a gun.

[BrandonH]

Exactly. You can do your best, but there will always be a key to the safe and no amount of "absolute certainty" or "respect for your gun" would keep curiosity out of a kid who wants to know what's in that safe. It's just a matter of time.

I will never own a gun because that's still just one gun in the world too many.

I have seen so many people own guns who should never have been permitted to in the first place and the reality is that no-one should ever own a gun because if you want to own a gun, you shouldn't own a gun.

The bit in bold is probably the most ridiculous thing I have every heard.

[Lycanthrope]

The bit in bold is probably the most ridiculous thing I have every heard.

Owning a gun means that you are prepared to shoot someone, probably kill them. The only people, I feel, who should ever have access to firearms are military and police.

Call it ridiculous if you want, I'm not the one prepared or willing to kill someone. To me, the only difference between that and a criminal is "justification."

[ponder]

The bit in bold is probably the most ridiculous thing I have every heard.

Yip, does not make much sense. Maybe he means it's like those guys that want to join the police because they get their kicks out of it for all the wrong reasons and usually get rejected at the psych evaluation. A similar thing can apply to certain people wrt owning guns. I know there are people out there that I would like to see not ever owning a gun as they would be a menace to society.

[ponder]

Owning a gun means that you are prepared to shoot someone, probably kill them. The only people, I feel, who should ever have access to firearms are military and police.

Call it ridiculous if you want, I'm not the one prepared or willing to kill someone. To me, the only difference between that and a criminal is "justification."

If it's to protect your own life and that of others I have no issue with it.

People have been killing each other since the dawn of time, started with their bare hands and progressed to sticks, stones, slings, spears, knives etc etc.

So if you ban guns people will kill each other with knives etc, are you then going to ban those as well until we are back to using our bare hands. You cannot blame the instrument, you have to look at the person holding that instrument.

A peaceful & weapon free world would be a very nice place but lets be realistic and accept that's not going to happen anytime soon.

[BrandonH]

Owning a gun means that you are prepared to shoot someone, probably kill them. The only people, I feel, who should ever have access to firearms are military and police.

Call it ridiculous if you want, I'm not the one prepared or willing to kill someone. To me, the only difference between that and a criminal is "justification."

People who have legal guns tend to use them for target practice and to provide piece of mind in terms of safety at home. They don't go wondering around shooting people.

And for those of you opposing guns, perhaps you will change your tune when you are hiding in your bedroom while murderers are breaking down your door. In those 10+ hours you'll be waiting for the police to arrive perhaps a gun would be useful.

[Lycanthrope]

If it's to protect your own life and that of others I have no issue with it.

How many guns "to protect your own life and that of others" get stolen because they were as helpful in a burglary as a piece of cheese and end up being used instead to harm others?

Perhaps I'm defeatist, but there doesn't seem to be much you can do if criminals get to you before you notice them and if you do notice them first and whip out your pistol, let's hope it doesn't turn into a bloodbath.

I'm sorry, I just can't support or condone gun ownership by the general public.

[Lycanthrope]

People who have legal guns tend to use them for target practice and to provide piece of mind in terms of safety at home. They don't go wondering around shooting people.

Target practice? I've seen one guy who does target practice in a residential area, but he was in the army. Wonder how long until a stray bullet offs someone. How many people in the world like that, who have gun licences, do you think there are? They seem to be the majority rather than the few.

Peace of mind can be found in any number of ways, if your peace of mind is a gun in your closet then what happens when you get held up in town, or hijacked in your car?

Gun-ownership is starting to sound like a placebo effect.


And for those of you opposing guns, perhaps you will change your tune when you are hiding in your bedroom while murderers are breaking down your door. In those 10+ hours you'll be waiting for the police to arrive perhaps a gun would be useful.
Yeah, you'd be in your room, trying to get your gun out of the safe while they've got a gun to your kid's head. What are you going to do then?

As I said, if they get to you first, before you notice them, then it's already too late.

[BrandonH]

Target practice? I've seen one guy who does target practice in a residential area, but he was in the army. Wonder how long until a stray bullet offs someone. How many people in the world like that, who have gun licences, do you think there are? They seem to be the majority rather than the few.

He was probably using a bb gun. The noise from a real gun would attract the cops in no time.


Peace of mind can be found in any number of ways, if your peace of mind is a gun in your closet then what happens when you get held up in town, or hijacked in your car?

Gun-ownership is starting to sound like a placebo effect.

Who said its in the closet. I keep mine on my body as much as possible.



Yeah, you'd be in your room, trying to get your gun out of the safe while they've got a gun to your kid's head. What are you going to do then?

As I said, if they get to you first, before you notice them, then it's already too late.

In that case you would be as screwed as if you didn't have a gun. But say for instance its just you and your wife in the house with murderers breaking down the door. 15 bullets through the door is going to do more to stop them than praying for the police to answer their phone.

[Lycanthrope]

He was probably using a bb gun. The noise from a real gun would attract the cops in no time.
No, it's real. It's some small-calibre, but don't know details.


Who said its in the closet. I keep mine on my body as much as possible.
Which makes it exceedingly useful to your loved ones and even more useful when you have a knife/gun to your back and someone whispering in your ear not to move a ****ing muscle :p


In that case you would be as screwed as if you didn't have a gun. But say for instance its just you and your wife in the house with murderers breaking down the door. 15 bullets through the door is going to do more to stop them than preying for the police to answer their phone.

Yup, and that's the point. The reality is, if criminals break into your home, chances are good you will be asleep and if they do it expecting you, there will be more of them than you and probably more guns. When they leave, whether you're alive or not, your gun will be added to theirs.

This gun-ownership thing seems to cater to people's fantasy, their "inner hero" if you will. Your 15-bullets-through-the-door example relies heavily on them not retaliating by doing the same while you reload. Your noble intent to protect your loved ones relies on you being there and on you somehow being aware that a crime is about to be afoot. Your chances rely on them not out-numbering or out-gunning you and, if they had no intention to kill you in the first place, when you fire at them, they will kill you and your loved ones.

Gun-ownership is terribly romantic, it seems, but significantly more dangerous (to everyone, if you consider idiots with gun licences, your gun being stolen, your kid shooting himself or another one day by accident) than not.

I'm sorry, but my stance remains: the general public shouldn't be permitted to own guns. One person owning a gun alone, infringes on my 'right' (if you will) to live in a gun-free society.

[OverKill69]

dub step ftw

You guys make me giggle.

[Lycanthrope]

dub step ftw

Ah, a .22 calibre intellect in a .357 Magnum world ;)

Do carry on.

[BrandonH]

No, it's real. It's some small-calibre, but don't know details.

Then report him as what he is doing is illegal.



Which makes it exceedingly useful to your loved ones and even more useful when you have a knife/gun to your back and someone whispering in your ear not to move a ****ing muscle :p

Much more useful than having nothing at all.




Yup, and that's the point. The reality is, if criminals break into your home, chances are good you will be asleep and if they do it expecting you, there will be more of them than you and probably more guns. When they leave, whether you're alive or not, your gun will be added to theirs.

This gun-ownership thing seems to cater to people's fantasy, their "inner hero" if you will. Your 15-bullets-through-the-door example relies heavily on them not retaliating by doing the same while you reload. Your noble intent to protect your loved ones relies on you being there and on you somehow being aware that a crime is about to be afoot. Your chances rely on them not out-numbering or out-gunning you and, if they had no intention to kill you in the first place, when you fire at them, they will kill you and your loved ones.

Gun-ownership is terribly romantic, it seems, but significantly more dangerous (to everyone, if you consider idiots with gun licences, your gun being stolen, your kid shooting himself or another one day by accident) than not.

I'm sorry, but my stance remains: the general public shouldn't be permitted to own guns. One person owning a gun alone, infringes on my 'right' (if you will) to live in a gun-free society.

My point is that criminals are going to do all this to you whether or not you're armed. At least if you have a gun you have some chance to defend yourself. If you are completely overpowered then you don't go for your gun. But its useful in the situation where it is feasible for you to use it to defend yourself.

We all know our criminals will torture you to death even if you are unarmed so I can't understand why you lot intentionally keep yourselves unarmed. This wish to lie down and die whenever a criminal walks into your house is disturbing to say the least.

[vangend]

Similar thing happened in 1980 when I was in primary school. Unfortunately the kid did not survive. Even the other child will have to live with it the rest of his life. I used to own firearms until I made a comment about shooting a neighbors dog after it attacked a kid walking in the street. My 4 year old son heard me and took my safe keys and brought me my gun. Luckily it was not loaded, but I gave both my firearms away the next day. Maybe when my kids are older I will buy a gun again.

[OverKill69]

Ah, a .22 calibre intellect in a .357 Magnum world ;)

Do carry on.

You saying yours is bigger than mine?

[Lycanthrope]

Then report him as what he is doing is illegal.
Would love to, unfortunately he happens to be the significant other of a close friend so I'm forced to turn a blind eye. Each time I see the damn gun it's like nails on chalkboard and it upsets me but... meh.


Much more useful than having nothing at all.

I'd rather have nothing than a weapon which could be misused or taken from me and end up killing someone. That just adds to the problem.


My point is that criminals are going to do all this to you whether or not you're armed. At least if you have a gun you have some chance to defend yourself. If you are completely overpowered then you don't go for your gun. But its useful in the situation where it is feasible for you to use it to defend yourself.

We all know our criminals will torture you to death even if you are unarmed so I can't understand why you lot intentionally keep yourselves unarmed. This wish to lie down and die whenever a criminal walks into your house is disturbing to say the least.

Our points are the same then, but they differ in the way that if you take the gun out of the equation, it can't be taken from you, it can't be added to the long list of illegal firearms floating around, it can't be used to harm someone else or destroy a family (like yours).

If you are in a position where a gun would be a useful defence, then I feel a taser would suffice just as readily. Can you give me an example of a situation where you would be able to fire at a criminal without endangering your neighbours with a stray bullet, or, if they're in your home, that you would've been alerted to their presence before they've cornered you?

It's not a wish to lie down and die, it's a desire not to add to the problem.

Take self-defence classes, carry a taser on your person, learn to adequately protect your home and teach your loved ones to always be on guard, sure. A gun is a tool that can be taken from you and used to kill others because your reluctance to live without it and inability to fight off however many criminals went after you. We have a problem in our country with criminals who carry guns, guns they got from other people who couldn't hold on to them and even police.

Arming everyone doesn't solve the problem, it just means criminals will adapt to be significantly more dangerous (no-nonsense, doing it in groups and killing on sight if they get twitchy) when breaking into your home if they suspect you have a firearm.

I'd rather die a martyr than die anyway, giving a bunch of criminals a new toy.

[Lycanthrope]

You saying yours is bigger than mine?

I'm saying mine has more stopping power than, "Zomg lulzwtf dub step roflmao lololololol"

You're always welcome to actually contribute something other than dance moves to this discussion.

[BrandonH]

I'd rather have nothing than a weapon which could be misused or taken from me and end up killing someone. That just adds to the problem.

Tell that to the guy in the news the other day who had to watch his wife being raped in front of him. Perhaps if he had a gun next to his bed at night he may have been able to stop it.


Our points are the same then, but they differ in the way that if you take the gun out of the equation, it can't be taken from you, it can't be added to the long list of illegal firearms floating around, it can't be used to harm someone else or destroy a family (like yours).

Guns from the police and army supply criminals well enough. A few extra from civilians won't make any difference. And besides if criminals couldn't get guns from us they would just go shopping in one of the many war zones nearby.


If you are in a position where a gun would be a useful defence, then I feel a taser would suffice just as readily. Can you give me an example of a situation where you would be able to fire at a criminal without endangering your neighbours with a stray bullet, or, if they're in your home, that you would've been alerted to their presence before they've cornered you?

A taser would useless if there is more than one assailant. And yes, target practice makes it possible to shoot accurately thus removing the risk of shooting someone by accident.


It's not a wish to lie down and die, it's a desire not to add to the problem.

Take self-defence classes, carry a taser on your person, learn to adequately protect your home and teach your loved ones to always be on guard, sure. A gun is a tool that can be taken from you and used to kill others because your reluctance to live without it and inability to fight off however many criminals went after you. We have a problem in our country with criminals who carry guns, guns they got from other people who couldn't hold on to them and even police.

Arming everyone doesn't solve the problem, it just means criminals will adapt to be significantly more dangerous (no-nonsense, doing it in groups and killing on sight if they get twitchy) when breaking into your home if they suspect you have a firearm.

I'd rather die a martyr than die anyway, giving a bunch of criminals a new toy.

A car is also a tool that can be used to kill people. Will you be using the same logic and walking everywhere from now on?

[Lycanthrope]

Tell that to the guy in the news the other day who had to watch his wife being raped in front of him. Perhaps if he had a gun next to his bed at night he may have been able to stop it.
His wife is still alive then, I take? Perhaps if he had a gun she'd be raped, they'd both be murdered and that would've been the end of that family.

As traumatic as the experience no doubt was, they're both still alive to tell the tale and have the rest of their lives to cherish with their kids, grandkids and loved ones. Time is precious, they still have some.


Guns from the police and army supply criminals well enough. A few extra from civilians won't make any difference. And besides if criminals couldn't get guns from us they would just go shopping in one of the many war zones nearby.
I don't see how this makes anything better.


A taser would useless if there is more than one assailant. And yes, target practice makes it possible to shoot accurately thus removing the risk of shooting someone by accident.
I don't think the criminal intends to stand still while you take aim. Yes, a taser would be useless if there is more than one assailant, just as a gun would be useless if there's more than one assailant with a gun. You a quick draw? Willing to bet your life on being faster than them?


A car is also a tool that can be used to kill people. Will you be using the same logic and walking everywhere from now on?

A car? Really? I was expecting you to say "knife" since, well, I'd like to see a criminal bring a car into someone's house and threaten them with it, or winding down their windows while driving down a street shouting to a nearby pedestrian, "Your wallet, or I drive over you" :rolleyes:

I guess hyperbole is the rationale of the day when it comes to these sorts of discussions.

Regardless, no doubt you've noticed the number of people who shouldn't be permitted to drive, yet do because of bad regulations? Same thing applies to gun-owners.

Really should've said knife, since knives are readily available, easy to conceal and quite deadly.

[Garyvdh]

"armed response" contracts are a false sense of security.

My firearm is a tool I use for MY SECURITY.

I train hard, I train long and I train other people.
I am under no illusions whatsoever.

Some people are content to pay a sum of money and think they're safe. I prefer to take the responsibility on myself.

I give you a scenario:

Your alarm goes off at 2:30am.
what do you do?
Does your "Armed response" rock up? Is it a false alarm? Do you get out of bed and walk straight to the alarm pad and reset the alarm?


Another scenario:

You're driving to your neighborhood security boom.
you stop as usual but you don't see a security guard... instead, 3 people approach your car from all sides.

Another scenario:

Your neighbor's domestic worker rings your intercom.
she's hysterical and all she can say is: they're still in the house with the baby.
Outside the neighbor's gate is car with a masked male occupant who has now seen YOU and the maid looking at him.

Dude, your Username was well chosen..... Way overkill. I'm glad you are not my neighbour, I would fear for my family's safety.

[Garyvdh]

Just like a swimming pool.
Except... you don't have people having arguments about owning swimming pools when a kid kills itself in one.

Um, actually I remember it being discussed ad nauseam on Talk Radio 702 several times last year. I take it you don't listen to talk radio?

[Garyvdh]

I know I am... because when you announce yourself as a legal gun owner who trains and shoots regularly... people assume you're a F*#king psychopath who is on the edge of going postal.
When you say: "I'm a firearm instructor", people think you're training murderers.

I have this argument at least twice a week with people who think that they pay somebody else to look after them and feel they're safe.
Then.. 99.99% of people think that guns are straight from the devil, yet depend on police and armed response personnel to arrive brandishing heavy weaponry should they need them.
It is their right apparently...

/end rant

I am hyper sensitive to this argument because I see an ungrateful public admonishing the very tool that they depend on to keep them safe at night.

It's like saying coal mining is bad for the environment... but not willing to give up your air conditioning.

In your case, I would say the accusations are fairly well justified.

If you go from normal to this frothing angry in three posts on a message board, then how do you handle anger issues in real life.
This is very telling. People like you should not be allowed to own guns.

Let me ask you an honest straight forward question. Do you have anger issues? Road Rage? Impatience with your colleagues and family?
I can tell from your posts that these are very likely areas of danger in your life.

[OverKill69]

I'm saying mine has more stopping power than, "Zomg lulzwtf dub step roflmao lololololol"

You're always welcome to actually contribute something other than dance moves to this discussion.

You have so many "holes" in your argument that it wouldn't be worth it.

Your opinion is so uninformed, so naive and so "ZOMG Hippie" that "Lol dub step" is actually pertinent.

The only reason why you're in a position to EVEN HAVE AN OPINION on being a pacifist is because you feel that there are warriors out there with guns that have your back.


So when you start saying things like: "I also have a right to live in a gun free south africa" I have to laugh... coz the crims are laughing their asses off at that sort of neo-liberal BS.

I agree... you can choose to not own a gun.
But do not tell me that a gun free SA will make SA safer.

When Criminals are packing full-auto AK's and R4's... which the public are not allowed to own.

They get their guns via different means... a VERY small percentage come from "stolen from public". Those cases are logged with SAPS and the barrel, license and receiver numbers are all well documented... people are held criminally liable if their licensed firearm goes missing due to negligence. With mandatory jail time.

Hero Factor?

I am insulted, sir...

[OverKill69]

In your case, I would say the accusations are fairly well justified.

If you go from normal to this frothing angry in three posts on a message board, then how do you handle anger issues in real life.
This is very telling. People like you should not be allowed to own guns.

Let me ask you an honest straight forward question. Do you have anger issues? Road Rage? Impatience with your colleagues and family?
I can tell from your posts that these are very likely areas of danger in your life.

My therapist says I'm making progress...

But I also teach Sunday school so I wasn't sent to prison.

[OverKill69]

Um, actually I remember it being discussed ad nauseam on Talk Radio 702 several times last year. I take it you don't listen to talk radio?

LoL... that is actually really funny for reasons I cannot share with this forum.

But they were discussing pool net legislation... not the right to own pools.

[OverKill69]

Dude, your Username was well chosen..... Way overkill. I'm glad you are not my neighbour, I would fear for my family's safety.

It just so happens, I am the only reason why those neighbors have their baby and why that domestic isn't dead. And why there's 3 less robbers in the world.

[Lycanthrope]

You have so many "holes" in your argument that it wouldn't be worth it.

Your opinion is so uninformed, so naive and so "ZOMG Hippie" that "Lol dub step" is actually pertinent.

The only reason why you're in a position to EVEN HAVE AN OPINION on being a pacifist is because you feel that there are warriors out there with guns that have your back.


So when you start saying things like: "I also have a right to live in a gun free south africa" I have to laugh... coz the crims are laughing their asses off at that sort of neo-liberal BS.

I agree... you can choose to not own a gun.
But do not tell me that a gun free SA will make SA safer.

When Criminals are packing full-auto AK's and R4's... which the public are not allowed to own.

They get their guns via different means... a VERY small percentage come from "stolen from public". Those cases are logged with SAPS and the barrel, license and receiver numbers are all well documented... people are held criminally liable if their licensed firearm goes missing due to negligence. With mandatory jail time.

Hero Factor?

I am insulted, sir...

You are an insanely deluded individual with severe issues that need working out.


It just so happens, I am the only reason why those neighbors have their baby and why that domestic isn't dead. And why there's 3 less robbers in the world.

With a god-complex.

[Garyvdh]

My therapist says I'm making progress...

But I also teach Sunday school so I wasn't sent to prison.

Well, only you can honestly answer those questions. I'll just leave it at that.
Have a great evening! :)

[BrandonH]

His wife is still alive then, I take? Perhaps if he had a gun she'd be raped, they'd both be murdered and that would've been the end of that family.

Or he might have shot the assailants ending the threat right there.


As traumatic as the experience no doubt was, they're both still alive to tell the tale and have the rest of their lives to cherish with their kids, grandkids and loved ones. Time is precious, they still have some.

But there are thousands of people who are not so lucky and suffered terrible deaths because they had no way to defend themselves.


I don't see how this makes anything better.

Its not better but it shows that civilian gun ownership will make it no worse.


I don't think the criminal intends to stand still while you take aim. Yes, a taser would be useless if there is more than one assailant, just as a gun would be useless if there's more than one assailant with a gun. You a quick draw? Willing to bet your life on being faster than them?

I think its safe to say I am better at handling a gun than the average criminal. I doubt they have fired thousands of rounds at targets honing their skills.

And how would being unarmed be better?


A car? Really? I was expecting you to say "knife" since, well, I'd like to see a criminal bring a car into someone's house and threaten them with it, or winding down their windows while driving down a street shouting to a nearby pedestrian, "Your wallet, or I drive over you" :rolleyes:

I guess hyperbole is the rationale of the day when it comes to these sorts of discussions.

Regardless, no doubt you've noticed the number of people who shouldn't be permitted to drive, yet do because of bad regulations? Same thing applies to gun-owners.

Really should've said knife, since knives are readily available, easy to conceal and quite deadly.

Cars are way more dangerous than guns and many times more people are killed in car accidents than gun accidents, yet you have no problem with them.

[Lycanthrope]

Or he might have shot the assailants ending the threat right there.
Speculation, which is all either of us can really do.


But there are thousands of people who are not so lucky and suffered terrible deaths because they had no way to defend themselves.
There are thousands of people who died even though they, in your opinion, had the means to defend themselves.


Its not better but it shows that civilian gun ownership will make it no worse.
Instead we will just be reading more articles like this one? Criminals will find it much easier to access guns (after all, they'd be able to get licences of their own).


I think its safe to say I am better at handling a gun than the average criminal. I doubt they have fired thousands of rounds at targets honing their skills.
I can't say, I suppose it depends on the criminal.


And how would being unarmed be better?
So far, being armed in itself seems to just be a sort of confidence booster. In situations where it would matter, the usefulness of being armed seems to be pretty touch-and-go.


Cars are way more dangerous than guns and many times more people are killed in car accidents than gun accidents, yet you have no problem with them.

I have a problem with bad regulations which permit bad drivers. Fewer people are killed by cars than by guns :)

Alright, I'll concede that I see where you're coming from. Rather, let me ask you this: what regulations would you enact that would prevent people like Overkill69, my friend's significant other, people who take out their guns whenever they get depressed and the like from being licensed to carry firearms?

Would you agree that the licensing requirement for a firearm be more stringent than a driver's licence? Would you agree that not everyone should own or be responsible for a firearm? Do you agree that someone who wants a firearm is more dangerous than someone who acquires one out of feeling it is a necessary defence?

Do you agree that a gun accident is deadlier than a car accident? :)

[Pitbull]

Have any of you actually taken the life of another human being before?

I love all these cowboys thinking everything is rose coloured and peachy. Seriously, having a gun to be able to protect yourself is a human right. But to actually get to a point where you have a choice either to take a life or die is not as simple as you guys try and make it out to be. Guns gives people a false sense of security as they feel GOD LIKE when they have them on their side. But 90% of the time you will end up either ending up in jail or being killed in one of 2 ways:

1. For having a gun
2. Killed with you own gun

Overkill I know you are going to say you have killed someone already and I call BS anyway. Seriously, taking another human being's life is not that easy.

[Lycanthrope]

Have any of you actually taken the life of another human being before?

I love all these cowboys thinking everything is rose coloured and peachy. Seriously, having a gun to be able to protect yourself is a human right. But to actually get to a point where you have a choice either to take a life or die is not as simple as you guys try and make it out to be. Guns gives people a false sense of security as they feel GOD LIKE when they have them on their side. But 90% of the time you will end up either ending up in jail or being killed in one of 2 ways:

1. For having a gun
2. Killed with you own gun

Overkill I know you are going to say you have killed someone already and I call BS anyway. Seriously, taking another human being's life is not that easy.

Well-said :)

[ponder]

Overkill I know you are going to say you have killed someone already and I call BS anyway. Seriously, taking another human being's life is not that easy.

Reading his posts I'm a bit worried about this individual, all does not seem right.

[Pr⊕phet]

One of the many reasons why I will never own a gun.

i have 3 swords, 1 set of throwing knives, 1 set of ninja throwing pins, the stars as well, a staff, a tri staff, nuchakus, night sticks, short sticks, combat knive, sai's, few weapons i might have left out... still no deaths in my house. same goes with owning a gun, proper procedure == proper safety. then again if you can't follow those and are not willing to kill the other person with it; rather stay away from any sort of weapon.



Have any of you actually taken the life of another human being before?

I love all these cowboys thinking everything is rose coloured and peachy. Seriously, having a gun to be able to protect yourself is a human right. But to actually get to a point where you have a choice either to take a life or die is not as simple as you guys try and make it out to be. Guns gives people a false sense of security as they feel GOD LIKE when they have them on their side. But 90% of the time you will end up either ending up in jail or being killed in one of 2 ways:

1. For having a gun
2. Killed with you own gun

Overkill I know you are going to say you have killed someone already and I call BS anyway. Seriously, taking another human being's life is not that easy.

same with any other weapon, if you can't shoot, aren't trained; you will be killed with your own weapon or by another. chances are good that it will be by your own or you are going to supply someone with a weapon to go and kill someone else...

[Nothxkbi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfcsCdZXxKc

[BrandonH]

There are thousands of people who died even though they, in your opinion, had the means to defend themselves.

I doubt they had the means to defend themselves. Barely any of the articles mention the victim being armed. Just goes to show that being unarmed doesn't help at all.


Instead we will just be reading more articles like this one? Criminals will find it much easier to access guns (after all, they'd be able to get licences of their own).

How many articles like this do we read a year? Two or three maybe? I'm sure more kids drown in pools that die from accidents with guns.

Criminal would never get a gun license in this country. Do you know how difficult it is for anyone to get a gun licence?


So far, being armed in itself seems to just be a sort of confidence booster. In situations where it would matter, the usefulness of being armed seems to be pretty touch-and-go.

Even if that were true, at least the armed guy wouldn't be getting an ulcer from worrying about criminals all the time.


I have a problem with bad regulations which permit bad drivers. Fewer people are killed by cars than by guns :)

Not accidently by guns, which is what you seem to be concerned about.


Alright, I'll concede that I see where you're coming from. Rather, let me ask you this: what regulations would you enact that would prevent people like Overkill69, my friend's significant other, people who take out their guns whenever they get depressed and the like from being licensed to carry firearms?

Would you agree that the licensing requirement for a firearm be more stringent than a driver's licence? Would you agree that not everyone should own or be responsible for a firearm? Do you agree that someone who wants a firearm is more dangerous than someone who acquires one out of feeling it is a necessary defence?

Do you agree that a gun accident is deadlier than a car accident? :)

Current regulations require a gun licence applicant to first do both a theory and practical gun test at an approved institution. That certificate and a motivation is submitted to the police who decide if you are competent. If they think you are then you can apply for a gun licence which might get approved if your motivation is good enough.

This process makes sure you know how to use the gun and that you actually need the gun.

The only guard against a psycho getting a licence is that he has probably been a psycho all his life and will probably have some sort of record with the police which will disqualify him from getting a licence.

On the other hand getting a car licence is pretty much as easy as breathing. And no, car accidents are almost always more deadly than gun accidents. In gun accidents one person dies but in most car accidents many more. Whenever a taxi crashes often about 10 die.

[Lycanthrope]

I doubt they had the means to defend themselves. Barely any of the articles mention the victim being armed. Just goes to show that being unarmed doesn't help at all.

Reminds me of: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/SA-celeb-tells-of-good-robbers-20101209

Notice how they left with his revolver? :)


How many articles like this do we read a year? Two or three maybe? I'm sure more kids drown in pools that die from accidents with guns.

*shrug* Can't say that I keep a logbook but I would think that one is too many.


Criminal would never get a gun license in this country. Do you know how difficult it is for anyone to get a gun licence?
And yet people like the above-mentioned still manage to get them.



Even if that were true, at least the armed guy wouldn't be getting an ulcer from worrying about criminals all the time.

I'm unarmed, my ex was robbed at gunpoint 20m away from our apartment. I can't say I have an ulcer.


Not accidently by guns, which is what you seem to be concerned about.
Point was that guns kill more than cars and even in accidents, guns are deadlier than cars are. Just because numbers are in favour of vehicles (there are more vehicles and drivers than guns) doesn't change that guns remain deadlier by far.


Current regulations require a gun licence applicant to first do both a theory and practical gun test at an approved institution. That certificate and a motivation is submitted to the police who decide if you are competent. If they think you are then you can apply for a gun licence which might get approved if your motivation is good enough.

So no psychological evaluation?


This process makes sure you know how to use the gun and that you actually need the gun.
How do they establish that you need it? No-one "needs" a gun, yet you claim that if you don't have a gun you should be living in fear or murdered and robbed on a daily basis.


The only guard against a psycho getting a licence is that he has probably been a psycho all his life and will probably have some sort of record with the police which will disqualify him from getting a licence.
Nope.


On the other hand getting a car licence is pretty much as easy as breathing. And no, car accidents are almost always more deadly than gun accidents. In gun accidents one person dies but in most car accidents many more. Whenever a taxi crashes often about 10 die.

Disproportionate thumb-suck statistic. There are many car accidents, not all of them end in death. A fender-bender is also an accident and doesn't take lives. A gun goes off, chances are pretty good you're dead. I'd rather be in a car accident, personally, than shot.

[marine1]

Imagine how many more farmers would be dead today if they had no tools to defend their lives ;)
Point is, if someone enters my house to rob or kill me I would not think twice to send him back to where he came from, that being hell!!
The circus that is running the country cannot or will not protect us so I am happy that I have been given the right to do it myself

[Pitbull]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfcsCdZXxKc

I WAS LAUGHING SO HARD I ACTUALLY PEE'D MY PANTS A BIT :D

[Pitbull]

Imagine how many more farmers would be dead today if they had no tools to defend their lives ;)
Point is, if someone enters my house to rob or kill me I would not think twice to send him back to where he came from, that being hell!!
The circus that is running the country cannot or will not protect us so I am happy that I have been given the right to do it myself

Marine1, how many farmers have been killed with their own guns?

Don't get me wrong though. I'm 100% pro gun and believe everyone has the right to defend themselves. But having a gun and then feel that you are a super human being is beyond stupid. Let's say you are awaken at night with intruders in your house. I have a gate in the hallway between the rooms of the house and the rest of the house. If I was to find intruders in my house I'll be prtecting that barrier at all costs, what they do in the rest of the house doesn't bother me. However and this is sad to say, you on the other hand I see as someone going to go out to stop them instead of defending your family. There is a massive difference here.

Guns provide a false sense of security and what makes it worse is that people wielding them feel God like and end up either hurting innocent people or getting themselves killed. That is a fact.

[Lycanthrope]

Imagine how many more farmers would be dead today if they had no tools to defend their lives ;)
How many are dead regardless of the fact that they did have the tools.

I agree with Pitbull--it's a false sense of security.

[BrandonH]

Reminds me of: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/SA-celeb-tells-of-good-robbers-20101209

Notice how they left with his revolver? :)

Notice how they didn't kill him even though he had a gun.


*shrug* Can't say that I keep a logbook but I would think that one is too many.

As long as you see my point.



And yet people like the above-mentioned still manage to get them.

Like I said before there are many easy places to steal guns, such as war zones or our police/army. If they want guns they will find a way to get them.



I'm unarmed, my ex was robbed at gunpoint 20m away from our apartment. I can't say I have an ulcer.

In joburg houses look like fortresses. I think that indicates that people are worrying about criminals.


Point was that guns kill more than cars and even in accidents, guns are deadlier than cars are. Just because numbers are in favour of vehicles (there are more vehicles and drivers than guns) doesn't change that guns remain deadlier by far.

I don't agree with that.


So no psychological evaluation?

Do any countries do that?


How do they establish that you need it? No-one "needs" a gun, yet you claim that if you don't have a gun you should be living in fear or murdered and robbed on a daily basis.

For instance if you live on a farm 50km from the nearest police station then you need a gun for defence. Or if you want to hunt buck but can't quite manage to kill them with mind control then you need a gun? etc etc.


Disproportionate thumb-suck statistic. There are many car accidents, not all of them end in death. A fender-bender is also an accident and doesn't take lives. A gun goes off, chances are pretty good you're dead. I'd rather be in a car accident, personally, than shot.

OK then, you tell me. In an average car accident where there is death, how many on average die? And for an average gun accident where there is death, how many on average die? I think its obvious that with cars its higher.

[Garson007]

We all know our criminals will torture you to death even if you are unarmed so I can't understand why you lot intentionally keep yourselves unarmed. This wish to lie down and die whenever a criminal walks into your house is disturbing to say the least.
Uh because you have a worse chance of survival with resistance than without it. Kill one of them and you've written yourself a death sentence.

[Lycanthrope]

Notice how they didn't kill him even though he had a gun.
And if he pointed it at them? :)


Like I said before there are many easy places to steal guns, such as war zones or our police/army. If they want guns they will find a way to get them.
So give everyone a gun because guns are easily accessible if you want one badly enough?


In joburg houses look like fortresses. I think that indicates that people are worrying about criminals.
Yet the people who can't afford fortressed housing are hit the hardest and most frequently.


I don't agree with that.
You don't agree that there are more vehicles and drivers than guns and that guns are deadlier than cars are?


Do any countries do that?
I think we're on to the biggest problem with the general public being permitted firearms then, eh?


For instance if you live on a farm 50km from the nearest police station then you need a gun for defence. Or if you want to hunt buck but can't quite manage to kill them with mind control then you need a gun? etc etc.
If you're 50km from the nearest police station and have managed to piss enough people off to warrant pointing your gun at them, they'll be back and better prepared the next time.


OK then, you tell me. In an average car accident where there is death, how many on average die? And for an average gun accident where there is death, how many on average die? I think its obvious that with cars its higher.

I can't believe that because it doesn't make sense. More cars = obviously more accidents/deaths. Fewer guns = obviously fewer accidents and deaths. Give everyone a car, more negligent drivers. Give everyone a gun, more negligent deaths by firearms. It's logical.

My point is that if a gun goes off accidentally and hits someone, chances are good that someone is dead. Or a seven-year-old in critical condition in hospital.

You know how I feel about drivers (many of them don't deserve to have licences and their licences should be revoked), my feelings are very much the same on guns (general public shouldn't have access to firearms).

Really, saying, "I deserve to have a firearm to protect me from criminals with firearms" is just so... hypocritical.... argh...

I just can't agree with a society of gun-wielding Neanderthals who don't seem to get how they're contributing to the problem at large or how having a gun for "defence" paints a huge red target on your head saying, "Kill him before he kills us."

As I said, I can't condone or support a society where the general populous is permitted to carry firearms.

And "hunting" is probably the stupidest and most barbaric excuse for gun-ownership in the world. It's the 21st century, you get your meat at the local store or, if you farm, from your backyard but that's not good enough, you enjoy killing too much. If THAT'S the kind of person who is permitted a firearm then wow, that says a lot about the society we live in.

I'm sorry, there's no valid reason for the average member of the public to own a firearm and if you are found with one, you should be imprisoned for 20-years because then you are a criminal with criminal intent.

[Fudzy]

Imagine how many more farmers would be dead today if they had no tools to defend their lives ;)
Point is, if someone enters my house to rob or kill me I would not think twice to send him back to where he came from, that being hell!!
The circus that is running the country cannot or will not protect us so I am happy that I have been given the right to do it myself

Don't you think that people are more likely to be robbed if they have guns? I mean you really have to have it on you at all times if you decide to buy one. Recently had friends and colleagues who were robbed, both times they were looking for guns.

[HapticSimian]

Damn, guys... whooooooooooooosaaaah.

We live in a society with dangerous elements. Given the circumstances, people who are capable of handling a firearm responsibly are 100% within their rights to own one. It doesn't follow that you, who does not want a gun, should feel any pressure to arm yourself or that you have anything to fear from the majority of responsible gun owners.

I know it's a loaded ( :D ) subject, but ****... enough with the angry sentence-by-sentence post dissections! :p

[BrandonH]

Uh because you have a worse chance of survival with resistance than without it. Kill one of them and you've written yourself a death sentence.

In this don't country don't do anything and they will kill you.

[Lycanthrope]

In this don't country don't do anything and they will kill you.

I don't believe this. I had a friend who, with his girlfriend, was hijacked by (if I remember correctly) two men who were armed. If they resisted, they would've been dead. My ex was held-up at gunpoint, if he resisted, he would be dead. Look at Die Nutsman, if he resisted, he and his wife would be dead.

My dear beloved brother had a guy break into his house three weeks in a row, he fired shots at the dude each time, each time the cops came out. Gun didn't seem to bother the guy much, don't you think? Him and his family moved to a new place.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy that sort of gun-toting propaganda when the evidence points starkly in the opposite direction.

[BrandonH]

And if he pointed it at them? :)

Then he better have pulled the trigger.


So give everyone a gun because guns are easily accessible if you want one badly enough?

If someone wants a gun legally, then they shouldnt be stopped.


You don't agree that there are more vehicles and drivers than guns and that guns are deadlier than cars are?

I don't agree that gun accidents cause more per capita deaths than car accidents.



I think we're on to the biggest problem with the general public being permitted firearms then, eh?

So once you've disarm the law abiding people how are you going to make sure criminals are also disarmed?


If you're 50km from the nearest police station and have managed to piss enough people off to warrant pointing your gun at them, they'll be back and better prepared the next time.

At least you'll be alive the next time they come.


I can't believe that because it doesn't make sense. More cars = obviously more accidents/deaths. Fewer guns = obviously fewer accidents and deaths. Give everyone a car, more negligent drivers. Give everyone a gun, more negligent deaths by firearms. It's logical.

If there is one gun accident usually only one person dies. When there is a deadly car accident most of the time more than one person dies. Therefore per capita more people die in car accidents than gun accidents.


My point is that if a gun goes off accidentally and hits someone, chances are good that someone is dead. Or a seven-year-old in critical condition in hospital.

You know how I feel about drivers (many of them don't deserve to have licences and their licences should be revoked), my feelings are very much the same on guns (general public shouldn't have access to firearms).

Really, saying, "I deserve to have a firearm to protect me from criminals with firearms" is just so... hypocritical.... argh...

I just can't agree with a society of gun-wielding Neanderthals who don't seem to get how they're contributing to the problem at large or how having a gun for "defence" paints a huge red target on your head saying, "Kill him before he kills us."

As I said, I can't condone or support a society where the general populous is permitted to carry firearms.

And "hunting" is probably the stupidest and most barbaric excuse for gun-ownership in the world. It's the 21st century, you get your meat at the local store or, if you farm, from your backyard but that's not good enough, you enjoy killing too much. If THAT'S the kind of person who is permitted a firearm then wow, that says a lot about the society we live in.

I'm sorry, there's no valid reason for the average member of the public to own a firearm and if you are found with one, you should be imprisoned for 20-years because then you are a criminal with criminal intent.

Ok from this rant clearly you are a hippy who thinks guns are evil.

And btw, how do you think that meat gets to the supermarket. You do realise someone has to kill the animal dont you?

[BrandonH]

I don't believe this. I had a friend who, with his girlfriend, was hijacked by (if I remember correctly) two men who were armed. If they resisted, they would've been dead. My ex was held-up at gunpoint, if he resisted, he would be dead. Look at Die Nutsman, if he resisted, he and his wife would be dead.

My dear beloved brother had a guy break into his house three weeks in a row, he fired shots at the dude each time, each time the cops came out. Gun didn't seem to bother the guy much, don't you think? Him and his family moved to a new place.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy that sort of gun-toting propaganda when the evidence points starkly in the opposite direction.

Having a gun doesn't mean you run around shooting everything. If you are attacked then you decide if its feasible to use your gun, and if its not then don't use it. At least you have the option of defending yourself if you have gun.

[Lycanthrope]

Then he better have pulled the trigger.
In which case he'd maybe hit one before the other shot him? Brave thinking that. Let's hope you're as willing to bet your life (and your family's lives) on that 2:1 chance.


If someone wants a gun legally, then they shouldnt be stopped.
Not even if he's a criminal, psychotic, depressed, bipolar or suffers from some other disorder? Gotcha.


I don't agree that gun accidents cause more per capita deaths than car accidents.

*shrug* Okay then.


So once you've disarm the law abiding people how are you going to make sure criminals are also disarmed?
That's up to the cops, not me. Tell me, once you've armed the law-abiding people, how are you going to make sure you survive when a gun-wielding gang breaks into your home with the intent of slaughtering your family before you kill them?

Sensationalism works both ways.


At least you'll be alive the next time they come.

lol...


If there is one gun accident usually only one person dies. When there is a deadly car accident most of the time more than one person dies. Therefore per capita more people die in car accidents than gun accidents.

*shrug* Okay then.


Ok from this rant clearly you are a hippy who thinks guns are evil.

lol... Rebuke anything I said, please.

Regardless, no, I'm not a hippy, but thanks for the ad hominem and no, I don't think guns are evil. I think people are evil.


And btw, how do you think that meat gets to the supermarket. You do realise someone has to kill the animal dont you?

Tiny difference between someone who slaughters an animal because he has to, and someone who goes on a camping trip and shoots living creatures because it's just so darned fun.

Anyway, I'm a vegetarian, so the killing animals for survival thing doesn't hold much sway with me either.

[Lycanthrope]

Having a gun doesn't mean you run around shooting everything. If you are attacked then you decide if its feasible to use your gun, and if its not then don't use it. At least you have the option of defending yourself if you have gun.

If you have the option to defend yourself, you have the option to make a run for it, call for help, use a taser, use some form of self-defence if you're feeling heroic, smash his head in with a pot, whatever.

"Feasible to use a gun" just translates into, "I want to kill someone for threatening me."

I don't believe that's a decision an emotionally volatile person should make or that the average person should be turned into a "justified" murderer.

[Pitbull]

If you have the option to defend yourself, you have the option to make a run for it, call for help, use a taser, use some form of self-defence if you're feeling heroic, smash his head in with a pot, whatever.

"Feasible to use a gun" just translates into, "I want to kill someone for threatening me."

I don't believe that's a decision an emotionally volatile person should make or that the average person should be turned into a "justified" murderer.

Pls don't get me wrong. I'm 100% pro-gun ownership.

However, people have this picture in their head that if you shoot the crook he falls down and die :o Even a hit directly to the heart will not make the guy fall down into an instant death. People have this glorified picture in their head that if they shoot him, bam, he is dead and you saved the day...

This is very far from the truth and I blame the movies. Even if a person was to shoot another person, that person will in turn shoot you again long before he dies. People don't seem to get that. I had an argument with my dad about this the other day. 2 guys in a movie has guns raised at each other, dad says: "the person that shoots first will win. Why do they put their guns down in a stand off?" I mean seriously? Dad I love you to bits but you can be pretty stupid sometimes :D Person A shoots person B, person B doesn't just fall over dead... He will shoot A and they will be shooting each other killing both of them :rolleyes:

General rules when deciding to protect yourself with a gun:

. Is there a back stop for the bullet you are shooting?
. Do you have a direct line of sight to your target?
. Can you hit your target and move out of his L.O.S?
. Can you shoot him and at the same time prevent the situasion from escalating and putting yourself and your family in danger?

The example used earlier regarding the barrier I have in our hallway is a perfect example:

If they are armed and trying to break down the barrier then they are no longer just robbing my place, they are trying to reach the people inside the bedrooms. Leaning out from my room I will be able to have a direct L.O.S at the agressor/s and will be able to shoot any number of them for as long as it requires to stop the attack. The kids will be in my bedroom already so none of them will be hit. Also I can duck back into my room if they retaliate since the room's door is angled to the security gate, they will have to shoot through the wall first if they think of hitting anyone of us.

This is an eaxmple of how I would use my weapon. That being said, if I was to leave the gate unlocked at night and they where to make it into my room and attack us, I will end up being killed with my own gun. They will torture the gun out of you and wipe out your family with your own gun. It's a double sided coin guys. Remember that, this isn't the movies.

[Lycanthrope]

Pls don't get me wrong. I'm 100% pro-gun ownership.

Yes, yes, I know :p

[Fudzy]

You mean jumping in slow motion, guns akimbo doesn't work?

I'm all for defending yourself and killing intruders but I see the problem with guns is that more often than not they are misused by both their owners and criminals targeting those owners.

[BrandonH]

In which case he'd maybe hit one before the other shot him? Brave thinking that. Let's hope you're as willing to bet your life (and your family's lives) on that 2:1 chance.

Thats why I keep saying you only use the gun if its feasible.



Not even if he's a criminal, psychotic, depressed, bipolar or suffers from some other disorder? Gotcha.

No thats your opinion. I've stated the laws earlier which will keep guns in the right hands.


That's up to the cops, not me. Tell me, once you've armed the law-abiding people, how are you going to make sure you survive when a gun-wielding gang breaks into your home with the intent of slaughtering your family before you kill them?


No police in the world are capable of keeping guns away from criminals therefore it helps if people can protect themselves.


lol... Rebuke anything I said, please.

Regardless, no, I'm not a hippy, but thanks for the ad hominem and no, I don't think guns are evil. I think people are evil.

You're saying no one should be allowed to have a gun because you say so. Thats bull$hit. 99.9% of people who own legal guns in this country will never even point it at another person so are well within their rights to own them.


Tiny difference between someone who slaughters an animal because he has to, and someone who goes on a camping trip and shoots living creatures because it's just so darned fun.

Anyway, I'm a vegetarian, so the killing animals for survival thing doesn't hold much sway with me either.

lol, a hippy and vegetarian. Thats explains it all.

[BrandonH]

If you have the option to defend yourself, you have the option to make a run for it, call for help, use a taser, use some form of self-defence if you're feeling heroic, smash his head in with a pot, whatever.

"Feasible to use a gun" just translates into, "I want to kill someone for threatening me."

I don't believe that's a decision an emotionally volatile person should make or that the average person should be turned into a "justified" murderer.

If you wake up with a gun in your face then obviously its not feasible to go for your gun.

But if you wake up to the sound of them breaking down your security gate then it is feasible to get your gun and either shoot them or find somewhere to hide and only shoot them if they find you.

Its common sense which you are refusing to understand.

[Lycanthrope]

You mean jumping in slow motion, guns akimbo doesn't work?

I'm all for defending yourself and killing intruders but I see the problem with guns is that more often than not they are misused by both their owners and criminals targeting those owners.

This is how I feel. Look, I know I'm giving off epic "hippy vibes" here, but I just don't feel the gun-ownership solves the problem. It causes more problems than it seems to solve.

Oh well, I think I've probably depleted my wealth of emotive rationale here for one evening.

This article just struck a chord: the kid didn't die because of a criminal, he died because of good intentions (a gun to protect our family) gone wrong. I don't hold the father responsible either, because a kid who wants it badly enough will find a way. Whether your safe key is on your car keys, whether you hid the key somewhere you'd never expect anyone to find it, kids are terribly observant.

It's one death that could've been avoided if average Joe over there wasn't permitted a gun. It's sad and needless. How can you blame the father for negligence when you said he could have a firearm, when your requirements for handing him his licence were met? Problem is symptomatic of our society, I feel.

Oh well... Night, everyone and thanks for the chat :D

[ponder]

This is very far from the truth and I blame the movies. Even if a person was to shoot another person, that person will in turn shoot you again long before he dies. People don't seem to get that. I had an argument with my dad about this the other day. 2 guys in a movie has guns raised at each other, dad says: "the person that shoots first will win. Why do they put their guns down in a stand off?" I mean seriously? Dad I love you to bits but you can be pretty stupid sometimes :D Person A shoots person B, person B doesn't just fall over dead... He will shoot A and they will be shooting each other killing both of them :rolleyes:

Not always,
http://files.sharenator.com/boom_headshot_BOOM_HEADSHOT-s539x522-54814-580.jpg

Headshot you are kaput but you better not miss, the other person would not even hear the shot.

[ponder]

Once again... You may exercise your choice.

But be under no illusion that 9 out of the 10 voices in my head say that I shouldn't drink anymore.

And if more people learned to RESPECT guns as opposed to FEAR and MISUNDERSTAND them... Then maybe Brittany Spears wouldn't have ventured into DUB STEP.

http://files.sharenator.com/BoomHeadshot1_BOOM_HEADSHOT-s520x650-54810-580.png

[Lycanthrope]

Thats why I keep saying you only use the gun if its feasible.
And if it isn't feasible, it's one more illegal gun.

Haven't we been here before?


No thats your opinion. I've stated the laws earlier which will keep guns in the right hands.

Then explain why the people I've mentioned before, to name a few, have guns.


No police in the world are capable of keeping guns away from criminals therefore it helps if people can protect themselves.

Which evidently they can't do with or without guns.


You're saying no one should be allowed to have a gun because you say so. Thats bull$hit. 99.9% of people who own legal guns in this country will never even point it at another person so are well within their rights to own them.

So 99.9% of people who own legal guns don't need the guns? Brilliant gem of logic right there.


lol, a hippy and vegetarian. Thats explains it all.

I'm surprised the discussion between us has lasted this long if all you're capable of doing is personal attacks. Childish and permitted to have a gun. Funny world, eh? :)


If you wake up with a gun in your face then obviously its not feasible to go for your gun.

But if you wake up to the sound of them breaking down your security gate then it is feasible to get your gun and either shoot them or find somewhere to hide and only shoot them if they find you.

Its common sense which you are refusing to understand.

Common sense, like your 99.9% of legal gun owners will never point a gun at another person statistic which entirely refutes the necessity for firearms? Common sense ain't so common, eh?

Again, if they're breaking down your doors to get to you, I sincerely doubt you have enough bullets.

[Pitbull]

Not always,
http://files.sharenator.com/boom_headshot_BOOM_HEADSHOT-s539x522-54814-580.jpg

Headshot you are kaput but you better not miss, the other person would not even hear the shot.

True, but this is also not always the case. There are cases where soldiers at war where shot in the head and didn't even know it, they only realised it once the fighting was over and some still have bullets stuck in their heads :eek:. I'll find a link quick

Here's a few:
http://www.google.co.za/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1596&bih=706&q=Man+survives+bullet+to+the+brain&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&fp=97f3084427c3032c

According to some study, only about 90% of head shots are fatal. If you want to make sure someone doesn't survive shoot his heart to shyt. He will still live for a few minutes but there is no way they can save his life :o

[BrandonH]

And if it isn't feasible, it's one more illegal gun.

Haven't we been here before?

Thats a risk worth taking. Many more lives would be put at risk if criminals knew no one could defend themselves.


Then explain why the people I've mentioned before, to name a few, have guns.

Because they met the requirements of the law when they applied for the licence. Do you really expect the police to see into the future to determine if someone will do something bad.


Which evidently they can't do with or without guns.

Correct. But how would disarming yourself help the situation.


So 99.9% of people who own legal guns don't need the guns? Brilliant gem of logic right there.

When did I say that. Using the gun for hunting or at the shooting range is a legitimate reason to have a gun.



I'm surprised the discussion between us has lasted this long if all you're capable of doing is personal attacks. Childish and permitted to have a gun. Funny world, eh? :)

Since when is vegetarian hippy an attack?


Common sense, like your 99.9% of legal gun owners will never point a gun at another person statistic which entirely refutes the necessity for firearms? Common sense ain't so common, eh?

Again, if they're breaking down your doors to get to you, I sincerely doubt you have enough bullets.

One bullet each and they won't be so keen to fight.