Police: Autistic teen With AK-47 Opened Fire

Post Reply New Topic

"And the only purpose of a scalpel is to cut somebody open" -Jeff Cooper.

A gun is only a linear accelerator, nothing more, nothing less. Ban cars, booze, and doctors, it'd save a lot more lives.

A linear accelerator won't get you arrested for possession. A "linear accelerator" could be anything, depending on how you spin the semantics. This is altogether ridiculous.

Guns are weapons. Ask a police officer.

Jeff Cooper is correct about the scalpel, btw. It's a surgical instrument used to generate incisions. Who the hell is Jeff Cooper?

I'm probably wasting my time, but this sort of (deliberate?) complete missing of a point drives me crazy.

Firstly, by pointing out that a gun is simply a linear accelerator, I was making no comment on the laws of any particular country. I was simply reducing an object to it's engineering term, in this case a firearm. Not just "anything" can be called a linear accelerator, but a few common ones would be cars, bows, some air tools, etc. They propel, or accelerate, an object in a straight line. That's all they do. To what purpose is completely the choice of the operator.

Secondly, police officers enforce the law, they do not make the law. They don't even have to UNDERSTAND the law, they just have a book of rules and regulations that they make sure everyone follows. I can tell you from personal experience, they are not a good source of information on the law. A criminal lawyer is a better source, but even they are not infallible.

Thirdly, where do you draw the line between a weapon and a tool? Knives are a very useful tool, cooking and opening things would be quite difficult without them. They are also a very good weapon. As a person with martial arts experience, at close range I'll put my money on an Escrimador with a blade over a cop with a gun. So which is it, a weapon or a tool? Is it both, and what does that distinction matter anyway? I could save your life with a weapon, or I could kill you with a tool, who cares what it's called. I'm not the one hung up on semantics, it would seem.

Finally, my guns would not get me arrested for possession here. Thankfully, I live in a country where the average citizen in trusted to be responsible with firearms, a system that works, for the most part. I'm licensed to carry my pistols, and I do so wherever I go, so if something were to happen, I'd be prepared to handle it, a luxury not afforded to citizens of certain other countries.

Btw, Jeff Cooper was a military veteran that is generally considered the father of competitive practical pistol shooting. He helped to popularize the 1911 style pistol and the .45ACP cartridge it chambered, and is also remembered for a long lived column in Guns and Ammo magazine.

Why are all Americans so bent on their own destruction?

Why do you have that guns n ammo mentality?

Why? Because our lives suck SO BAD that suicide is the only way out. YOU try living in a country where the only way to survive is to make $20 million a year and see if you remain sane.

I don't think people have a right to own guns. Too many people own guns. I would support a statewide crack-down on gun ownership, and only allow those who have proven themselves responsible to be able to own a gun. There are people who truly do not deserve to have a gun.

Either way, I laughed at this passage from the article:

How am I supposed to interpret a comment like this? I fail to see the connection between gun ownership and self destructive tendencies, or a "guns and ammo" mindset. What exactly is a guns and ammo mindset, by the way? If you'd care to logically debate the merits of gun control with me, fine and dandy, but don't just throw out random snippets of disconnected thought. I mean, I'll happily knock about a punching bag all day, but come on, I like the occasional challenge.

I don't know where you are from, as it's not in your profile, but if you live in America, your first sentence is untrue. Yes, we do have a right to own guns. If you disagree, feel free to draft a repeal of the 2nd amendment, but good luck getting it passed. Till then, people like me are free to accumulate them to our hearts' content, and like the late mister Heston, good luck taking them from my living hands.

Ahh, now that that's out of the way, I agree, there are many people who really shouldn't own guns. The trouble is weeding them out without infringing upon the rights of the majority of people, who are perfectly responsible with their firearms. The NICS system in this country is one attempt at doing that, but as the VT massacre proved, it's not a perfect system. Also, criminals and crazies do not go around wearing signs identifying them as such. It's a tough balancing act, and it will never be perfect. Personally, I feel that the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the downside. So what if criminals have access to guns, I have access to guns too, and I practice a whole lot more than they do. Laws have never prevented anyone from getting anything if they want it enough, and guns would not be an exception. Under the current system, at least civilians have a fighting chance. If you're that scared of the things, go to a range, shoot some pistols. People tend to fear what they don't understand, guns included. I've turned many people here in Seattle, hardly a red state bastion, into avid shooters, some of them into gun owners. Give it a shot .

At a secure gun-range, I just might. Where everything is supervised and locked up tight. The noise might bother me, though.
As guns go, there isn't much to not understand. I'm wary of guns, but not because I don't understand what they are.

I really don't think that the 2nd amendment gives a citizen the right to keep a weapon. It is still open to interpretation but the leg/jud don't even want to talk about it (I heard that it might become something for the SC to hear though).

If you happen to live in a bad neighborhood where weapons are freely accessed, you wouldn't have the mentality of "The more the better."

I never said I personally would not own a gun. I understand the benefit of it, but if the government did a better job at regulating who owns guns and how many, I wouldn't be arguing against guns.

2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To me, the operative phrase is "the right of the PEOPLE". This is very specific in stating that it is referring to an individual right, and not to some sort of group militia, as gun control advocates seem to think. I've actually heard some of the more educated of these people change tack recently, and advocate repeal of the 2nd amendment, rather than the traditional misinterpretation. I view that as a tacit admission that even they recognize the language as guaranteeing an individual right.

I have, and currently do, live in a "bad" neighborhood where guns are freely available. I got SPD gang unit rolling around my area because some Ethiopian wannabes have started causing trouble in the area. I lived in a crack house with an ex before too, that wasn't much fun at all. Do I still believe in the open availability of firearms? Hell yes! Prohibition and regulation has never once worked, and all it would do in the case of firearms would be to disarm the law abiding. Drugs have been illegal for decades, think I can't make 1 phone call and have any drugs I want delivered to my doorstep? Why would guns be any different?

Guns bring out an emotional response in people who want to do "something" about violence and crime, even if what they propose is senseless and counterproductive. Look at all the hand wringing over "assault weapons", an invented classification used in less than 1 percent of all crime. Or .50 caliber rifles, an expensive, 6 foot long 30 pound and difficult to use rifle, now illegal in the PRK why? How many gang bangers were tooling up with these things? They do look real scary at a press conference though, so out they went. Same with S&W's .500 Magnum, it's a foot long, 5 shot $1000 revolver that weighs 5lbs and costs $3 a shot, I'll bet the bangers are lined up to get one... Yet some cities made a big stink about this new and dangerous weapon. How do these people get taken seriously, when even a cursory look at the facts tears their arguments to shreds?

Finally, I feel that many people overlook some of the positive aspects of gun ownership. As of the present, they are one of the only true "equalizers" out there. Anyone can use a gun, regardless of size or strength. A gun allows a lone person to fend off a gang of thugs, or a woman to defend herself from a much stronger man. True, criminals can and do use guns, but laws will not change that. Cities with tough gun control (Chicago, DC, NYC, LA) still have plenty of gun violence, the citizens are the ones left out in the cold. I don't mind so much that the criminals can get guns, as long as I can too.

guns are proof of humanitys ignorance

Care to elaborate on that? Are we talking just guns here, or are we going to extend this sentiment to "weapons" in general? Are bows, spears, swords, knives, bombs, clubs, fists, etc also proof of humanity's ignorance? Get back to me when you get some actual argumentation.

Again with the stereotypes! And there are situations where guns can be useful... for instance, when you go home to your son who's home alone and find someone with their own gun in the process of ransacking the place. At the very least you want to incapacitate the intruder, and shooting someone is a good way to incapacitate them if it's done properly. I didn't say it was the best way, there are other alternatives, but unless you're a mage, a black belt, can dodge bullets, or otherwise get the best of an armed intruder without using weapons of your own, you're going to want that pistol.

And you needn't worry about someone misusing it if you keep it locked up. I think gun safes should be a mandatory requirement for having a gun license. I also think that if the gun owner left a gun sitting out that was stolen and used for a crime, then the gun owner should have a share of the blame for not properly securing their firearms.

More so the culture and attitudes that surround guns. Guns are almost pornographically displayed in Westerns culture. Hollywood has turned the gun into another tiltillation, soemthing to be drooled over and worshipped. That is the proof of humanity's ignorance, right there. From my cold dead hands indeed.

From the sword to the bullet.