Article: Child shoots another in head

[Nothxkbi]

[video=youtube;jfcsCdZXxKc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfcsCdZXxKc[/video]

 

[CyraxHB]

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]

[video=youtube;jfcsCdZXxKc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfcsCdZXxKc[/video]

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

 

[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.

 

[CyraxHB]

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 ( ) subject, but ****... enough with the angry sentence-by-sentence post dissections!

 

[CyraxHB]

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.

 

[CyraxHB]

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?

 

[CyraxHB]

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 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 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

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