Trouble in Europe's anti-gun "paradise"

[ditchdj]

Well then why do cops "need" guns in school for??? You think nobody has ever wrestled a gun out of a cop's holster and used it on him???

[Red Panda]

I haven't read one thing by you that has anything to do with what I said. I not once said kids should be allowed access to guns. But adults in college? You not once talked about it.

You need to specify that it is college strudents then. When talking about students and school shootings it brings to mind high school shootings.

[Greenday]

You need to specify that it is college strudents then. When talking about students and school shootings it brings to mind high school shootings.

People under age 18 aren't allowed guns so it obviously couldn't be about high school.

[ditchdj]

So they included concentration camps from WW2 to bolster their figures?

I don't think I need to say any more.

Rapscallion

What's that supposed to mean???? They're not trying to degrade what happened. The point is that it shows how the government can turn on its own people, especially when they're unarmed and it's against the law to own a firearm. That's one reason why we have this 2nd Amendment. It helps balance the power between the government and the people. If the government gets out of control then the people can rise up with their arms and change it.

[Rapscallion]

What's that supposed to mean????

It means they've added in figures they wanted to add in from seventy years ago to bolster their case. It doesn't say much about the figures in current times, nor is it realistic to say that having guns means that you won't have concentration camps in the US. Actually, I know people try to forget about the 'internment' camps for the Japanese living there at the time, but let's face it, gun availability didn't help them avoid that.

It's blatant biasing of figures. It's bollocks of the greatest magnitude. That's what it means. Do I need to go further?

The UK had internment camps for Germans in the immediate onset of WW2, but as far as I'm aware the effects were the same as for Japanese in the US - guns or no guns didn't matter.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Thinking along those lines, why not just add in the needless deaths amongst the Persian army at Thermopylae as they didn't have guns to kill those oppressive Spartans and others lead by Leonidas?

It's got as much justification for it as counting in concentration camp deaths.

Rapscallion

[Red Panda]

People under age 18 aren't allowed guns so it obviously couldn't be about high school.

People under 18 can have guns.

[Greenday]

People under 18 can have guns.

They can purchase their own guns legally? Where can a minor do that? Not in any states that I'm aware of.

[Red Panda]

They can own guns

[Greenday]

They can own guns

Where? Not in NJ. Not in PA.

[Nyoibo]

As far as I know, their parents can own guns for them.

Kids can't own guns in Washington either (only know that because I lived there for a while, my dad owned my gun).

[ditchdj]

Thinking along those lines, why not just add in the needless deaths amongst the Persian army at Thermopylae as they didn't have guns to kill those oppressive Spartans and others lead by Leonidas?

It's got as much justification for it as counting in concentration camp deaths.

Rapscallion

All right, you have a personal problem with my sources. OK.....then answer this......

You and I are walking into a parking garage on the upper floors. We are approached by a person with a knife. There is blood on his hands. Five cars away a person lies covered in blood and is moaning. It is very clear that our lives are in jeopardy. I have a handgun and I am trained and licensed to carry it. Would you perfer that I not use it, hope for the best? Or would you perfer I knock you to the ground, draw down, hold him at gunpoint until help arrives and if need be place as many rounds in him to stop the threat thereby saving you and possibily the person already attacked?

In your country.........That isn't even an option.

[jackfaire]

All right, you have a personal problem with my sources. OK.....then answer this......

You and I are walking into a parking garage on the upper floors. We are approached by a person with a knife. There is blood on his hands. Five cars away a person lies covered in blood and is moaning. It is very clear that our lives are in jeopardy. I have a handgun and I am trained and licensed to carry it. Would you perfer that I not use it, hope for the best? Or would you perfer I knock you to the ground, draw down, hold him at gunpoint until help arrives and if need be place as many rounds in him to stop the threat thereby saving you and possibily the person already attacked?

In your country.........That isn't even an option.

1) Need to point out that unless you think the guy is about to throw the knife in this scenario there is no reason to knock down the person with you.

2) The fact that you think the only way to handle this situation is to have a gun available saddens me and makes me hope your not licensed to carry one.

Most of my friends that are licensed to carry also taken hand to hand combat and are aware that you only pull your gun as a last move not your first one.

In your scenario the guy is wielding a knife. It's highly doubtful a gun would be needed hell mace or a taser would be more appropriate or simple disarming him.

Yes I have taken a knife from someone that was intent on stabbing someone else and no one got hurt.

[Rapscallion]

All right, you have a personal problem with my sources.

Not a personal problem, unless it's my allergy to bullshit acting up again.

I see you've not been able to logically deny the point I made.

OK.....then answer this......

You and I are walking into a parking garage on the upper floors. We are approached by a person with a knife. There is blood on his hands. Five cars away a person lies covered in blood and is moaning. It is very clear that our lives are in jeopardy. I have a handgun and I am trained and licensed to carry it. Would you perfer that I not use it, hope for the best? Or would you perfer I knock you to the ground, draw down, hold him at gunpoint until help arrives and if need be place as many rounds in him to stop the threat thereby saving you and possibily the person already attacked?

In your country......That isn't even an option.

In your country, that's a scare tactic used to persuade people that guns are wonderful and should be used to eat your cereal with. Apparently it's going to happen every time you go shopping. Out of interest, has it ever happened to you?

In my country, this would be a very rare event indeed.

The difference between your country and mine is that ny culture has evolved away from the 'gun on every hip' mentality back when it was mostly melee weapons instead. Yours is a young country and looking to attack everything going, even yourselves. I can accept that you need guns over there for self defence, but it would be a burden over here considering the relatively minor crime rates compared to those in the US.

Crime still happens, but it's rare.

So, here's a hypothetical situation for you.

You live your life in peace, but because of lies and deceit you're forced to carry around a weapon capable of killing people at range. You have to keep and maintain this weapon, costing you money and time, and practice with it.

What did you ever do to deserve a ball and chain like that?

Freedom? From fear? I think not.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

1) Need to point out that unless you think the guy is about to throw the knife in this scenario there is no reason to knock down the person with you.

2) The fact that you think the only way to handle this situation is to have a gun available saddens me and makes me hope your not licensed to carry one.

Most of my friends that are licensed to carry also taken hand to hand combat and are aware that you only pull your gun as a last move not your first one.

In your scenario the guy is wielding a knife. It's highly doubtful a gun would be needed hell mace or a taser would be more appropriate or simple disarming him.

Yes I have taken a knife from someone that was intent on stabbing someone else and no one got hurt.

While mace, tazers and HTH training can work, they carry with them the threat of having a knife wielding opponent at close range. If you succeed, great, if you don't, you're fucked and the same goes for whether or not the mace or tazer stop them before they injure you if at all. With a handgun, on the other hand, you can deal with the threat from a distance which, while not necessary, is most definitely better. IF, on the other hand the threat is armed with a firearm, then most everything becomes useless and having a firearm of your own is slightly less useful (unless you have what would otherwise be a bad habit of drawing pre-emptively) although still much better than having nothing.

Also, ditch never said that gun was the only option, merely the option in question.

P.S. Drawing a firearm =/= killing someone

P.P.S. While you may be comfortable putting your or someone else's life in comparatively more danger by resorting to a lesser deterrent: that's your decision. I, however, am of the opinion that it's everyone's right to deal with a threat on their life in as effective a manner as possible and a duty to do so when it comes to someone else's life.

EDIT: @ Raps, that hypothetical makes, literally, no sense whatsoever. Where did 'forced' even get into it at all? We're talking about allowing people to make a choice to do something, as opposed to not being able to do anything (in some cases) or at least not in a particular way. Maybe, and I know this sounds crazy, the difference between American and British thinking on this matter is that when we see something going down we want and are willing to do something about it, and having the proper tools is just part of that. Also, all Brits were required to be immaculately well trained/proficient with the deadliest weapon in the world, no so long ago. The fact that basically all Brits were skilled longbowmen served the country and the people very well when they needed it. If we can agree as to a similar if more modern need stateside, wouldn't a similar preparedness serve both the individuals involved and the people at large a similar good?