Shooting at Virginia Tech

[duck_duck]

Originally Posted by wolf

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than ALL of my firearms (and knives and swords).

That is irrelevant. Whomever ted kennedy is, his car was not designed as a weapon nor is it something that can be banned because a great deal of ameicans depend on cars to work, go to the market etc.
Guns on the other hand are specifically designed to kill. It is not wise to allow a population that glorifies violence to have access to firearms.

[AgentApathy]

Originally Posted by duck_duck

Whomever ted kennedy is,

Let me get this right: you want to speak authoritatively on the US based on your short time here, but you don't know who Ted Kennedy is?

I think you can STFU now.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by AgentApathy

Let me get this right: you want to speak authoritatively on the US based on your short time here, but you don't know who Ted Kennedy is?

I think you can STFU now.

I don't think her failure to know the name of the washed up drunk who represents the fine citizens of Massachussets has any real bearing on her point. Not that I agree with her point but your point really isn't material to the debate not to mention kind of asinine.

[freshnesschronic]

Originally Posted by duck_duck

Guns on the other hand are specifically designed to kill. It is not wise to allow a population that glorifies violence to have access to firearms.

That is 100% wrong. Why would the market sell guns to kill? Who preacehs killing? What society holds killing close to their heart? Every culture kills, but no culture THRIVES off killing (except maybe the Yanomami?).

Handguns are NOT DESIGNED to kill. They and every other firearm have other uses, like say, protection. You can shoot someone in the knee and you do NOT have the motive to kill them.

No one can win this arguement. Duck duck is from a gun banning culture. Her beliefs are 10000x different than the average Americans'. As much stuff as we can tell her she will never believe guns are used for good. Let's stop arguing a futile cause, because we all know guns have very positive effects and that America is NOT a "rampant" society. Someone just stated the stats above.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

You can shoot someone in the knee and you do NOT have the motive to kill them.

That, unfortunately, will get to 10 to 20 most of the time. Wouding someone with a lethal weapon puts you in a very difficult and awkward legal situation. The prosecutor will simply use the boilerplate cross examination to make the point that if you really were in fear of your life then you could not possibly deliver a restrained response (making the point that you really weren't in fear of you life) and will prosecute you on that basis.

If you have a gun and someone is trying to kill you then dont' stop shooting until they are dead. Vital areas only.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

Handguns are NOT DESIGNED to kill. They and every other firearm have other uses, like say, protection. You can shoot someone in the knee and you do NOT have the motive to kill them.

.

Nice stretch, fresh. I almost had coffee shoot out my nose. Thanks for the laugh.

[freshnesschronic]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Nice stretch, fresh. I almost had coffee shoot out my nose. Thanks for the laugh.

What the hell is so funny? I'm sure the gun owners here did not buy them because they aim to kill anyone. They probably bought it for PROTECTION.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

What the hell is so funny? I'm sure the gun owners here did not buy them because they aim to kill anyone. They probably bought it for PROTECTION.

How are they going to "protect themselves"? Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?

And if you're not "protecting" yourself or a loved one, is it worth killing for?

[SadistSecret]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself"

No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by SadistSecret

No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.

But don't try it this way unless you want to do all the dying. Center of mass ONLY, front sight -- press trigger. Those are the fundamentals. Hitting someone in a limb is strictly a matter of chance, and verily I say unto you you don't want to gamble with your life doing that. Limb hits do not necessarily disable; what you must do is disrupt something immediately important, like the central nervous system. You cut his spine or blow out his brains, he's done, and that problem's over. But there are a couple of useful secondary target areas: the heart is in the center of mass and it's lethal about all the time (there have been a couple-three miracles, but they took place on the operating table and not the field of battle) though it may take some seconds for the perp to collapse rather than the instant switch-off of a brain hit; and also there is the pelvis. Bust that with a bullet and the perp's on the ground without hope of movement and in immediate danger of dying of shock. If you've double-tapped him there and hit him in the balls too, he's in even worse danger. To hit him in the pelvis you aim at his nuts. Aiming low generally works in close firearms combat anyway, particularly with pistols: most people get excited and take too much front sight, which points the pistol considerably higher than what the shooter thinks is his aim point. A nut-shot can end up being a central nervous system hit right between the eyebrows.

By now some readers will have gone all squeamish. While that is proof you have the full measure of human feeling, try this for a human feeling: "He's dead, I'm alive, and that's the way I wanted it."

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by SadistSecret

No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.

Sure he can. A truly committed criminal will keep trying to kill you until you kill him. Ultimately, this will happen.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

How are they going to "protect themselves"? Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?

What I've got is your number, Spexx: ninety-seven percent of all defensive gun uses end satisfactorily without a shot fired. Of the remaining three percent, less than half have a lethal outcome.

You never did know shit about self defense, Spexx, so your opinion shouldn't even count with yourself. The conclusion you've drawn is resolutely at variance with the reality.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?

And if you're not "protecting" yourself or a loved one, is it worth killing for?

1. False.
2. Yes. Because your first premise is incorrect.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

Handguns are NOT DESIGNED to kill. They and every other firearm have other uses, like say, protection. You can shoot someone in the knee and you do NOT have the motive to kill them.

Grenades aren't designed to kill, either. Carefully used, you could use the pressure wave to stun or remove several toes to incapacitate your attacker.