Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

I work for a sheriff's department and can tell you: No, your locks do almost nothing to prevent burglary.
Most burglars plan for when your are away and plan for your house to be locked.
And for home invasions most actually knock first.

Yeah, in the UK we had a recent phenomena where burglars picked out which houses to rob by their locks. They just wait for the people to arrive home before rushing them and forcing them to unlock their own doors, with a consequential rise in violent burglaries.
Most amusingly I remember a while back when the police said my garage lock was useless and would not stop a burglar. They were told a lil secret that left them content with the state of my shit lock. Some muppets went around smashing everyone's locks one day, and of course they get through the shittiest lock - lifting up the garage door, to find a brick wall. What I would've paid to see their reaction.

Also, you are selectively forgetting a different attack that occurred in France recently despite AK variants being banned.

Brussels, Paris, heck people are smuggling guns to Syria. Also back to Yurop. The arrest in north-east Greece of three British men with a mammoth cache of arms and ammunition has heightened fears of Europe’s weakest link becoming a major route for the trafficking of weapons bound for Syria and Turkey.
On Sunday, counter-terrorism officials were investigating three men – all Iraqi Kurds with British passports – seized in two separate operations near the Greek-Turkish frontier. They were found in possession of 22 firearms and more than 200,000 rounds of ammunition.
Lmao why did my state give them our passports

Perhaps the weapon he had access to played a part in what he chose to attack. He chose to only attack a house with three people in it. The very fact that this is the European equivalent of the nightclub shooting with 49 dead says something by itself.

No, the European equivalent of the nightclub shooting are our nightclub shootings, where jihadis massacred defenceless people in the nightclubs with guns

Gun laws didn't prevent the Hebdo shooting. Sure. But how do we know what mass shootings in Europe would have happened if they had American style gun laws? Presumably, they'd have mass shootings as a similar rate to the U.S.A. if the hardware was available.

We have mass shootings in Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting#Europe
So there was the Paris shootings and the Hebdo shootings. How many mass shootings in Europe since the Brevik one? How many mass shootings in the USA since 2011? The very fact that we can still list Brevik's shooting as a current one in Europe says enough. Gun laws prevent all the mass shootings that would have happened in Europe at the rate they happen in America.

So other than our mass shootings, we don't have them
Also the whole bombing thing
Allahu akbar
Also lol, Swedish gangs have access to grenades, notably in that article they also bring attention to another European mass shooting. We don't give as much media attention to our mass shootings as the US media does, and the US media's coverage tends to make more mass shooters

The leader of one main gang is said to be a Serbian who came to Sweden as a refugee in the 1990s. Palmkvist says grenades can be bought in the black market for a little as 70 dollars each.
"Terror is not just about a lone gunman," author Palmkvist said, referring to attacks by a 22-year-old man on a synagogue and free speech event in Copenhagen - a short car ride across a bridge from Malmo - that killed two people in February. "Terror is also about a lot grenades being thrown."
Kebab and kebab remover living side by side in harmoney, I love it

[Sonlirain]

How about hunting, collecting, sports, hobby, reenactments, signaling... etc.
This argument is tired. Should we also ban: cars that go over 50 mph and pools? Both aren't really needed and kill more people than guns.

Cars are needed and serve other more valuable purposes than running people over.
I have never in my life heard of a mass pool drowning unless it took place in "The sims".

[Loud Whispers]

GAY STRIPPER SAID THE KILLER WENT TO HIS CLUB

Cliched closet killer theory one step closer to being confirmed

In one incident, Mr Callen said Mateen had pulled a knife on a friend after being angered by a religious joke. But Mr Callen also characterised Mateen as a "nice guy", adding: "Maybe he got radicalised and hated who he was?"

Ty Smith told the Orlando Sentinel: "Sometimes he would go over in the corner and sit and drink by himself, and other times he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent."

Another man, Kevin West, told the Washington Post he he had known Mateen through the dating app Jack'd and had recognised him as he walked into Pulse in the early hours of Sunday.

I always find it strange how killers usually are nice people, when they're not killing others

[Erkki]

Is there something wrong with "hobby" shooting? Other than a "hobby shooter" being a potential mass murderer in hysterical peoples' heads?

There are more uses too, some necessary but bordering on "hobby shooting". For example its legitimate to be part of a local reservist group and get ones own weapon for practicing, which while hobby has a serious, useful to the society side.

BTW, our varmint, the elk, weights 500 kg and theres closer to two million of them.  There are about 1500 elk car crashes a year and usually 1-2 fatalities, closer to 200 incapacitated. Yet the lost crops alone are economically worth more than all the cars and lost taxpayers(tax money). Elks kill and maim easily more people than the guns that are used in hunting them just to keep their population steady. Well over 100:1 ratio. If they weren't kept in control their population(and crashes, and eaten crops) would skyrocket as theres over 4 times more farms and young forest for them to eat compared to hundred years back. And then theres the four smaller deer species.

--------

Now, the Orlando shooter was armed with a .223 Rem AR-15 self loading(semi auto) rifle. Civilian uses for such a weapon in my very humble opinion are basically limited to home defense(imagined need or not), sports/IPSC and reservist/national guardsmen stuff. Maybe for hunting or defending against polar bears, but even for that job the Canadian Rangers just last year picked a SAKO .308 bolt action. One can hunt with semi auto rifle, but the high capacity is not needed: if the shooter misses, the animal will run or fly away. Its very rare to have time for more than 2 quick shots.

[Erkki]

self/home defense is literally threatening to kill (the attacker/burglar) or even actually killing another being be it a human burglar or encroaching bear (something you won't see unless you live in the boonies or on the american frontier 200 years ago).
Hunting/varminting IS again killing (killing of unwanted pests but still).
Sports and range shooting are preparing the user (for killing efficiently).

Not saying guns are pure evil but saying they serve other uses than being a killing instrument is incorrect.
I can use a hammer to bash your skull in or a nail into a board but there is no such duality with guns unless they are in the right hands.

This is true and I believe that with special, lethal capabilities comes special responsibility. I feel that my native languages word for gun understates them and have tried to always correct people calling my rifles with that word that they are indeed rifles, lethal weapons of war. Not just guns.

Mine are locked in a steel closet that is heavily screwed to the concrete wall, under some working clothing that hangs from above it. A burglar in my house would probably think nobody was home and hes after my property, not me. I don't feel it would be justified to take his life just because I feel scared.

[Sheb]

Nope, one I'm talking about was at a train station. 29 dead, 130 injured.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

Great exemple. Look how it took 10 people with knife to manage that dead toll. Now, imagine the bloodbath if those ten had guns. See?

Of course you can kill without a gun, but not nearly as efficiently. And of course you can organize illegal guns, but that requires more organisation, contacts and an organized group, meaning the police has more time to arrest you.

Now, you can argue that letting people have the guns they want is worth making life easier for terrorists. And I would not disagree. But it's kind of ridiculous to argue that letting anyone buy machines honed for efficient murder doesn't make it easier for people to kill other people.

[Erkki]

Great exemple. Look how it took 10 people with knife to manage that dead toll. Now, imagine the bloodbath if those ten had guns. See?

Of course you can kill without a gun, but not nearly as efficiently. And of course you can organize illegal guns, but that requires more organisation, contacts and an organized group, meaning the police has more time to arrest you.

Now, you can argue that letting people have the guns they want is worth making life easier for terrorists. And I would not disagree. But it's kind of ridiculous to argue that letting anyone buy machines honed for efficient murder doesn't make it easier for people to kill other people.

Paris and Brussels attacks were both committed with illegal firearms. Mostly former Warsaw Pact, but there were also some very sloppily deactivated guns that were cannibalized to assemble entire working ones. Who knows where they got their ammo, probably from the same source as the guns.

Further restrictions on legal semi auto rifle availability would have prevented neither.

To the best of my knowledge one can get 1 and 2 barrel single-shot shotguns with just an ID card in at least France, Spain, Italy and Czech Republic. Maybe Hungary too. Someone with 2 or 3 of those can kill dozens in a busy railway station, more with some practice in reloading, but it hasn't happened yet... I wonder why? Yes, illegal AK-47s are still easier to get because the borders LEAK. 

[Sonlirain]

Is there something wrong with "hobby" shooting? Other than a "hobby shooter" being a potential mass murderer in hysterical peoples' heads?

Never said guns are useless. Just they they shouldn't be readily available for EVERYONE and they indeed don't serve much purpose.

BTW, our varmint, the elk, weights 500 kg and theres closer to two million of them. 

So you mean your average civilian can go buy a hunting rifle or shotgun with slugs stating he wants to shoot some elk?
I SEE NO WAY THIS CAN GO WRONG WHAT-SO-EVER.

This is true and I believe that with special, lethal capabilities comes special responsibility. I feel that my native languages word for gun understates them and have tried to always correct people calling my rifles with that word that they are indeed rifles, lethal weapons of war. Not just guns.

Mine are locked in a steel closet that is heavily screwed to the concrete wall, under some working clothing that hangs from above it. A burglar in my house would probably think nobody was home and hes after my property, not me. I don't feel it would be justified to take his life just because I feel scared.

Right on. Last thing a burglar wants is to be wanted for murder and he'd most likely just flee if he realizes someone is awake anyway.
I'd still recommend having a tazer or gas gun if you are afraid of unwanted guests or live in/close a bad neighborhood but a lethal weapon is a bit overkill.

[Sheb]

Great exemple. Look how it took 10 people with knife to manage that dead toll. Now, imagine the bloodbath if those ten had guns. See?

Of course you can kill without a gun, but not nearly as efficiently. And of course you can organize illegal guns, but that requires more organisation, contacts and an organized group, meaning the police has more time to arrest you.

Now, you can argue that letting people have the guns they want is worth making life easier for terrorists. And I would not disagree. But it's kind of ridiculous to argue that letting anyone buy machines honed for efficient murder doesn't make it easier for people to kill other people.

Paris and Brussels attacks were both committed with illegal firearms. Mostly former Warsaw Pact, but there were also some very sloppily deactivated guns that were cannibalized to assemble entire working ones. Who knows where they got their ammo, probably from the same source as the guns.

Further restrictions on legal semi auto rifle availability would have prevented neither.

To the best of my knowledge one can get 1 and 2 barrel single-shot shotguns with just an ID card in at least France, Spain, Italy and Czech Republic. Maybe Hungary too. Someone with 2 or 3 of those can kill dozens in a busy railway station, more with some practice in reloading, but it hasn't happened yet... I wonder why? Yes, illegal AK-47s are still easier to get because the borders LEAK. 

Yeah, agree with you here, the restrictions we have on guns in Europe by and large are good enough I think (The Czech might be too lax for my case, but I'm influenced by my asshole of a uncle-in-law that always pack heat).

[Erkki]

Never said guns are useless. Just they they shouldn't be readily available for EVERYONE and they indeed don't serve much purpose.

I know you didn't, I just wanted to add some. Sorry if I came out rude. I don't want everyone to be able to walk to a shop and buy a gun either. Anything but.

What obviously didnt work out in this Orlando case was the background check. People had been worried about him, but none of that worry went anywhere. FBI had him on a list, yet nobody reacted when they surely noticed he went and grabbed himself a highly capable rifle. He should have never been able to buy the massacre weapon.

So you mean your average civilian can go buy a hunting rifle or shotgun with slugs stating he wants to shoot some elk?
I SEE NO WAY THIS CAN GO WRONG WHAT-SO-EVER.

    Nope, every gun needs a license, and theres rules for hunting. But basically yeah unless one has crime background or is deemed mentally unstable or other, one can get a rifle for hunting. Up to .50 cal bolt action or self loading, but it seems to depend upon the local police's judgment. Theres different hunting seasons for different animals, caliber and cartridge type rules, safety rules for elk and deer hunting, many animals have maximum quotas and so forth. One also needs to have hunting rights for the land: it must be owned, permitted by owner(or your hunting club must have the permit) or state land. Minimum 150 meters from nearest inhabited building, no shots across road, no shooting birds on the road, no using IR or NV sights and so forth.

This is true and I believe that with special, lethal capabilities comes special responsibility. I feel that my native languages word for gun understates them and have tried to always correct people calling my rifles with that word that they are indeed rifles, lethal weapons of war. Not just guns.

Mine are locked in a steel closet that is heavily screwed to the concrete wall, under some working clothing that hangs from above it. A burglar in my house would probably think nobody was home and hes after my property, not me. I don't feel it would be justified to take his life just because I feel scared.

Right on. Last thing a burglar wants is to be wanted for murder and he'd most likely just flee if he realizes someone is awake anyway.
I'd still recommend having a tazer or gas gun if you are afraid of unwanted guests or live in/close a bad neighborhood but a lethal weapon is a bit overkill.

Tazer is a no-no here but I've thought of getting gas, just in case. With some luck the target cant do anything for minutes and theres likely no permanent damage done to the burglar/invader. I have axes and hammers and such tools too but I fear that indoors, the risk of those ending up being used against myself would is too high. I'd rather flee myself.

The only home defense / run to the woods scenario I can think of for my rifles that will even semi realistically happen in my lifetime is the invasion of "polite green men", but even in that case I'd likely be provided with a proper rifle and gear in time.

[Shadowlord]

Now, the Orlando shooter was armed with a .223 Rem AR-15 self loading(semi auto) rifle.

This makes no difference to your argument, but:

According to a federal law enforcement official, the rifle Mateen used to murder and maim more than 100 people was a Sig Sauer MCX. Mateen legally purchased the weapon, similar to an AR-15, on June 4 in Port St. Lucie, Florida, near where he lived. (He legally purchased a Glock 17 handgun the following day, which he also carried during the attack.)

P.S. I find it curious that there appear to be two people here repeatedly copy-pastaing what appear to be the same graphs of the same data, while claiming that they mean completely opposite things.

P.P.S. Also, someone repeated the NRA line that we must not restrict guns because you need them to defend yourself against mass shooters. I'd be more inclined to believe that if these things were all being stopped by randos with guns instead of by the cops/SWAT.

[Loud Whispers]

How do we know how many mass shootings were stopped by randos with guns, if they were stopped before they became mass shootings?

[Shadowlord]

Because the NRA would be all over that shit making sure it made the news. ("Mass shooting averted by good guy with a gun!")

[MasterFancyPants]

Nope, one I'm talking about was at a train station. 29 dead, 130 injured.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

Great exemple. Look how it took 10 people with knife to manage that dead toll. Now, imagine the bloodbath if those ten had guns. See?

Of course you can kill without a gun, but not nearly as efficiently. And of course you can organize illegal guns, but that requires more organisation, contacts and an organized group, meaning the police has more time to arrest you.

Now, you can argue that letting people have the guns they want is worth making life easier for terrorists. And I would not disagree. But it's kind of ridiculous to argue that letting anyone buy machines honed for efficient murder doesn't make it easier for people to kill other people.

Have you ever shot a gun? Ever killed something with one? They aren't magic, don't make you a god. The vast majority of gun wounds don't kill. You have to hit something important and that is very hard to do.
The Orlando shooter probably followed Breivik's example and "finished" people.

There is a reason that the 21 foot rule exists and ever hunter carries a knife to finish off game.

The FBI found that more officers were killed with guns, but knife attacks were 3x more lethal.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2013-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted (This isn't the exact study so you'll have to dig in a bit)

And I love how you ignore all stats. The US has lax gun ownership and a (relatively) high homicide rate, ok. UK has strict gun ownership and has a bit lower homicide rate, ok. The Swiss have lax gun ownership and have a much lower homicide rate than both. My corner of south west Missouri (region with the highest guns per capita in the world) has 1/14 the homicide rate of gun-free Chicago and 1/2 of London.

Look at the graphs. Gun ownership and homicide rate are not related.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/eEGky.jpg

[MasterFancyPants]

Because the NRA would be all over that shit making sure it made the news. ("Mass shooting averted by good guy with a gun!")

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

It happens. How is the NRA supposed to make sure it gets on the news? Most media has anti-gun leanings and the NRA can't force them to do anything.