Proof : Gun control does NOT work

Leitmotif said:
Some people are naturally more resistant to pepper spray. The active ingredient in most is capiscum, the same thing that makes curry hot, and the same sort of tolerance applies. It's also possible that this was simply a bad batch. Regardless, why trust your life to a can of seasoning?
Click to expand...

So true. If I was coming for him with the intent to harm him and all that was in my way was that cloud he would have had no chance. Luckily for him I'm a nice guy ;) and I found it mildly amusing after realising I wasn't in for the cr@p I thought I was.

Nope. Just give me a gun thank you.
 
Nod said:
A good example of negligence, or a failure of parents to listen to their kids when they are targeted by bullies, even an example of the effect bullying have on the mind of a person.

If the boy couldn't get a gun, he would have used a knife, hockey stick, hammer or any other weapon.
Click to expand...

I would not agree... if he could not get a gun, he would have taken other measures to avoid confrontation... Bullies dont fight 1-1 .. they are a group that pick on one person. Do you really think 1 wimp is gonna take on 2,3,4 bullies with a knife?

Gun yeilds ultimate power in the hands... kind of a GOD complex
How many more "Neglegent" gun owners are out there ? This is the PRIMARY reason I am against guns, and no gun cowboy can convince me that "this is an isolated case"
 
Hmm. Found only one taser model that claims to penetrate body armour - the M-18 advanced. It's maximum range is 15 feet - that's about 5 meters. You don't get a second try if the probes miss, but the gun can still be used as a contact taser as a last-ditch measure. It claims effectiveness with 2 inches of space between probes and target, and it even has sights.

Now, what's the price tag on this little wonder? $600. Yes, six hundred dollars. That's slightly more than a Glock. That's more than a Springfield XD, and more than a lot of other guns, too. It weighs just over half a kilogram, and measures 8 inches x 6 inches x 2.5 inches, far larger than my USP Compact. That makes it less concealable too, and much less convenient to carry. There's also no ability to quickly reload the weapon, as with a handgun. Also, its aiming operates in the same fashion as a handgun. Unless you're trained in the use of a handgun you've got an excellent chance of missing at 5m under pressure.

Now, here's the kicker: both tasers and pepper spray are illegal for citizens to own in several countries. The same organisations that want to ban guns - GCA, Amnesty International, ISS - also want to prevent ownership of these "dangerous weapons" by civilians. In short, they want the law-abiding to be defenseless.

Anyone still want to argue nonlethal?
 
RichardP said:
This is the PRIMARY reason I am against guns,
Click to expand...

This thread was started with a link to the UK, where school boys are pretty much doing the same thing to one another. And the UK has a total handgun ban.

Whether you are against guns or not, banning guns is not the solution.

and no gun cowboy can convince me that "this is an isolated case"
Click to expand...

Then there's no sense in "arguing" with you, is there?

But then again, Leitmotif made this point about three pages back.

Koos
 
Last edited:
RichardP said:
I would not agree... if he could not get a gun, he would have taken other measures to avoid confrontation... Bullies dont fight 1-1 .. they are a group that pick on one person. Do you really think 1 wimp is gonna take on 2,3,4 bullies with a knife?
Click to expand...

Bullies find 1-1 just as effective as *-1. Avoiding confrontation isn't always possible. Ask me, I was the small kid that used to go and sit on the school roof to read during breaks. No-one else bothered me up there.

This kid retaliated - it's not because of the gun. Other kids have made do with scissors, knives and whatever else was available. Not everyone can escape, and at some point a person will break.

RichardP said:
Gun yeilds ultimate power in the hands... kind of a GOD complex
Click to expand...

Irresponsible users. Again, not the gun's fault. A gun doesn't know it is powerful, and it does not terrorise on its own. Besides, a gun doesn't make one omnipotent... a session with a good martial arts class will prove that.

RichardP said:
How many more "Neglegent" gun owners are out there ? This is the PRIMARY reason I am against guns, and no gun cowboy can convince me that "this is an isolated case"
Click to expand...

No "cowboy" can convince you of anything, particularly when you cling to your useful stereotypes. I find this "cowboy" nonsense amusing from a person who can't even spell correctly. And yes, it is an isolated case. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible.
 
Leitmotif said:
B
Irresponsible users. Again, not the gun's fault. A gun doesn't know it is powerful, and it does not terrorise on its own. Besides, a gun doesn't make one omnipotent... a session with a good martial arts class will prove that.

No "cowboy" can convince you of anything, particularly when you cling to your useful stereotypes. I find this "cowboy" nonsense amusing from a person who can't even spell correctly. And yes, it is an isolated case. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible.
Click to expand...

LOL. You really are a joke - are you a standup comic? You tell yourself that enough times and you will eventually believe that drivel. (and attacking my spelling... way to go Big Man!. You must be well respected person for attacking peoples shortcomings all the time)

I hate guns with a passion... you love guns with a passion - Lets leave it at just THAT.
 
Last edited:
RichardP said:
LOL. You really are a joke - are you a standup comic? You tell yourself that enough times and you will eventually believe that drivel. (and attacking my spelling... way to go Big Man!. You must be well respected person for attacking peoples shortcomings all the time)
Click to expand...

Lord knows, I've had to restrain myself with you... but when you associate me with a stereotype and casually insult a fraternity that includes IT professionals, lawyers, doctors, magistrates and even accountants, I think it's germane to point out the flaws in the individual from whom such assertions originate.

You have no respect for others or their rights. This is evident in your style of discourse and in your views. Your assertion of a "god complex" is pure transference.

As for our opposed views... nowhere do I insinuate that you should not have the right to avoid firearms. You, on the other hand, would restrict my right to self-defense out of your own petty fear.
 
Leitmotif said:
You have no respect for others or their rights. This is evident in your style of discourse and in your views. Your assertion of a "god complex" is pure transference.
Click to expand...

RIGHTS!!!! You really have a cheek if you think its a Right!

You can only think about yourself! Where the hell is my right to walk down the street with the knowledge that some drunk asswipe is not gonna take pot-shots at me 'cos I walked past his house? Freedom of speech is not a right, so why should a freeking gun be your god-given right?

Your rights stop when it infringes on Someone elses Rights.
 
RichardP said:
RIGHTS!!!! You really have a cheek if you think its a Right!

You can only think about yourself! Where the hell is my right to walk down the street with the knowledge that some drunk asswipe is not gonna take pot-shots at me 'cos I walked past his house? Freedom of speech is not a right, so why should a freeking gun be your god-given right?

Your rights stop when it infringes on Someone elses Rights.
Click to expand...

Precisely. And my right to own a firearm infringes on the right of no-one. I do not, however, have the right to get drunk and shoot at someone passing by my house. "My right to swing my fist ends where your chin begins".

Freedom of speech is in fact a right, as is defense of self. The right to freedom of speech is recognised on the constitutions of both South Africa and the United Kingdom. Again, try and at least spend minimal effort to find out what you're talking about.

Also, I'm not only thinking of myself... I'm thinking of the hundreds of thousands of victims out there, and of my girlfriend, and of my friends. They are all safer because of firearms in the hands of quiet, unnoticeable people like me. They would all be safer if they carried their own personal defense with them. Would you deny them the right to know that they can't be simply overpowered and harmed irreparably by a couple of drunken students or desperate immigrants?

You, on the other hand, are thinking only of your own peace of mind. Others are aware enough to realise that walking down the street is just as dangerous when a criminal can do as he likes to you with impunity.
 
I don't think you in particular infringe anyones rights but as statistics show, alot of legal firearm owners have had their guns stolen/lost. In terms of gun ownership I think people should either have the level of dedication and/or passion you bestow or not have a gun at all. It would be alot safer for themselves and Joe Public.
 
Leitmotif said:
Freedom of speech is in fact a right, as is defense of self. The right to freedom of speech is recognised on the constitutions of both South Africa and the United Kingdom. Again, try and at least spend minimal effort to find out what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Go read the constitution... Freedom of speech has limits. Same with all the other rights - they have "Limits". The Right to water (but there is no right to water pressure). I have the right to practice my religion... but no-where does it legaliase smoking hash in the name of my religion. (otherwise there will be ALOT of rastafarians around by now :D

READ it again.. then read it again just incase you didnt understand some words.
You have a Right to defend yourself...... NO-WHERE does it say "Defend yourself with a gun" or even a rusty nail. Since when is a gun the only form of defence. heaven help us - if guns disapeared tomorrow we are all doomed..... humans have lost the ability to do close-quaters combat without a gun.. <shock horror>
 
Fudzy said:
I don't think you in particular infringe anyones rights but as statistics show, alot of legal firearm owners have had their guns stolen/lost. In terms of gun ownership I think people should either have the level of dedication and/or passion you bestow or not have a gun at all. It would be alot safer for themselves and Joe Public.
Click to expand...

Hmm. A moderate stance on gun control. Much more realistic. However, rights are absolute... if I am allowed a firearm then you must be allowed a firearm as well, provided that you will not abuse this right. To this end, the Act specifies conditions which one must fulfil in order not to be disqualified. To this end, the requirement for competency already addresses your concern that people who have no dedication will acquire firearms.

With 3.5-4.5 million licensed firearms in SA, what counts as a lot of lost or stolen firearms? Unfortunately lately we've been seeing house invasions where people who keep their firearms in safes are forced to open up and hand them over - at gunpoint. Just serves to illustrate the point that there's not much sense in having your gun in a safe. Better always to have the firearm on you, or if you're sleeping, within reach. The only situation where this wouldn't hold true is in a household with children, but even then it's a better idea to gunproof them. Children should always be gunproofed, ie, taught not to take chances with firearms and what to do should a child find one. This is part of the responsibility of owning a firearm.

To elaborate on that point, I believe that firearm ownership is 1% right and 99% responsibility. Ownership does not entitle one to threaten with or discharge a firearm indiscriminately. It does not confer onto the firearm owner the power of judge and jury, divine or otherwise. It does not invalidate the law, nor does it allow the owner to prescribe their own. These things are for criminals. The firearm owner must instead be careful, alert and always aware of the consequences of his actions.

Restricting ownership to a few dedicated firearms owners won't help. My point is that defense of firearm ownership is not about me... it's about the average person in the street. The more guns out there defending him or her, the safer that person is. The more chance of someone pulling a gun in defense, the less confidence and motivation the criminal has. Guns in criminal hands become all but meaningless with enough guns in responsible hands. Firearms are less easy to acquire when people are pointing them at you.

Remember, criminals are after the soft option, the easy way out. Increase the risk for them, and suddenly crime loses it's attraction.
 
Fudzy said:
In regards to people who have guns for non-hobby, sport related reasons. What about the non-lethal alternatives? Tasers perhaps? The ones that shoot the little darts
Click to expand...
That's fine against a lone attacker. If you have multiple attackers you need to make sure they go down and stay down. If that means killing them then so be it. In the current environment once someone is inside my home I consider them fair game and I believe I should have the right to kill them without hesitation. It's different in a country like Britain where most burglars are not extremely violent and they are not likely to even consider killing the occupants of the house. I still think I should have the right to use violence to prevent them removing my property.

By the way I do not currently own a gun because I do not want the responsibility that goes with carrying one. I am however always wary of government interference and its tendency to go too far in removing our freedom. Governments have no interest in us having freedom so we have to make sure they don't take it away.
 
Last edited:
RichardP said:
Gun control really works! NOT!

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20070221081947625C579384



And how did this chaps family benifit from gun control? Whatever the excuse/justification is, go tell his DEAD children why gun controlled FAILED so miserably.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I see the point. What if he had gassed everyone in the family car or drove it off a bridge? The gun was merely a tool used by a twisted individual and I doubt any level or method of control in the world would have produced a different outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X