|
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Do we need guns? | |||
| Yes, they are beneficial despite any damage that may happen from inapproperiate use. |
   
|
41 | 54.67% |
| No, the damage they can cause in the wrong hands outweighs any benefits |
  
|
28 | 37.33% |
| No don't/No opinion |
  
|
6 | 8.00% |
| Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#171
10-06-2005, 07:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Bartdanr good find but, do you have one for the USA ? A world view is only relevant in as far as one can compare/constrast the cultures involved. I like the source due to its neutrality on the issue but I was wondering if there is a similar table only for the USA? Or only for country (a) country (b) country (c) ect.
Quote:
Somewhere in every bank today one person, probably more walked in with a similar mentaliy. That person may or may not have had a concealed handgun. But he, and I say he because it is seems to be a male macho fantasy more than a woman's fantasy, probaby has had a mental senerio much like this one where some "bad guy" walks into a store or bank and the gun owner acting as hero draws on him and saves the day. If this really happened in a tx bank and everyone drew guns lots of people would likely be dead. Shot by untrained gun owners in a delicate situation. If you get the time read about the firearm training that law enforcement recieves. Quite enlighting. To the agencies in major metros gun training is more than learning how to clean their sidearm and fire it. It also includes training in what is called intermediate weapons as an alternative, including an asp, pepper spray, stun gun and/or miscellaneous instruments including a kubaton, plastic nunchuks, pr 24 ect ect. They go through senerio training involving both watching movies where they have to chose when to draw their sidearm and not draw it and hand-to-hand training in a safe envirorment using empty side arms. The point of telling you all of this is two-fold. First, many of the handgun owners of america have the "super hero" fantasy playing in their head. They have a gun in their jacket or shirt concealed legally, wondering if they "have what it takes" to use it in a street fight. Most statistically speaking will never use it, but the question becomes how many of these rambo-wanna-bes will? And is that an acceptable trade-off for gun control. Acceptable in terms of accidentall and wrongful deaths compared to civil liberties on gun control and self-defense. I will be quick to admit it isn't an easy issue to resolve or at all black and white. But I throw this out because knowing the question is a big part of figuring life out. Second, what I have learned from seeing the law enforcement approach on this is two things. One, when analyzed at a deeper level quite a bit can be gained and learned from understanding firearm operating safety. Second, the public's training in the use of a firearm which in the case of handguns is mainly carried for the same reason officers carry it, self-defense, is poor in comparision. So the question here is how is the gap produced in both of the groups that carry and what is the ramifications of that gap? Last edited by robtex; 10-06-2005 at 07:55 PM. 
|
|
#172
10-06-2005, 11:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am CLEET certified. I also have a concealed carry license. I decided not to become a police officer, in spite of having gone through the academy. The academy had a week long firearms course, the civilian concealed carry course was one day long.
There is a big difference in the training. But then, how much formal training did Jim Bowie, Davey Crocket or Thomas Jefferson have? B.
|
|
#173
10-06-2005, 11:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#174
10-07-2005, 10:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Have no clue what you are getting at here? B.
|
|
#175
10-07-2005, 10:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Did davey crocket have a sub-machine gun? Or would his musket have put him at a disadvantage next to a modern weapon? The "big difference", as you put it in your reference, is technology. I take no exception to your post, save when you throw in a "our founding fathers" line that is pretty much a b.s. exercise. I applaud your effort to train yourself in the safe use of firearms, but this comment (if i've understood it correctly) really strikes me as opportunistic. Perhaps, if you would indulge me (and correct me, if i've mistaken the point), you could more fully explain it.
|
|
#176
10-07-2005, 11:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This makes the comparision harder to equate and also substanicates the need for gun control. When you advocte putting automatic assult rifles and auto-fed handguns, many which can hold extended clips with 30 rounds of ammo you are literally turning a normal average joe or jane (mostly likely a joe) into a walking rambo-wanna-be killing machine. Imagine the emtional impact this can have on some . With the two hundred million plus citizens eligable for these hand held killing machines how many are going to operate it detrmentally that would have been harmless had they not had these instruments? Tell you a story. Back in my college days a few times a year for about 4 years in martial arts class there is some days set aside for knife defense stick defense and gun defense. Each being on different days. As a running experiment as a group we would give a new guy a wooden knife on "knife days" a wooden stick on "stick days" and a plastic rubber dart gun on "gun days" Handing an untrained guy a fake knife or pvc stick and telling him to "go to town" turned out to be an interesting learning experience. We discovered time and time again that stopping them, disarming them, twarthing them in anyway was generally a cake-walk. There were a few exceptions I am sure but overall without having any understanding of footwork, hand-eye coordination as it relays to knives and sticks or a notion of "continuous attack" they were the biggest theat or even close to it. Now they may have fared better while attacking a laymen but we wanted to see how our disarming and subdueing skills would fair against us as opposed to other lay people. Most would lung or swing the knife once while standing in one place or stepping (lifting foot off the ground) stop and start again. Same with the stick. It made the defense completly non challenging but was a great learning tool in we came to understand skill sets were needed for operation of these instruments. Ie an average joe with one was a far cry from someone with footwork skills hand eye coordination as applicable to each instrument and a notion of putting attacking angles together to form a conintous attack. Now on gun day we gave them a plastic gun with rubber darts. We would start with the barrell touching us and than slowly moving away. Anything more than 10 feet away was a tough defense. Now understand we couldn't factor in the "fear factor" cause it was a toy gun which would have made it even harder. Any person could be relativly successful with the toy gun a high percentage of the time without footwork hand eye coordination or continous attack cause all they had to do was point and pull. The question becomes, given this current technology and its ablity to turn even the biggest wimps into warriors what is an acceptable margin for those who normally would not be mentally or physically capable of homocide but not have the opportunity to be lethal and of that margin how many will act on it? We know the numbers will be small in terms of percentages but using the law of large numbers, as we are in a society of over 200k realize this is going to have a large # amount, even though the % is small, of homicides because of a firearms ease of operation. What you and the other anti-gun control advocates are in essence saying, is that this # when quanitfied is worth the risk and loss when compared to ones civil liberties on ownership and operation of automatic assult rifles and handguns.
|
|
#177
10-08-2005, 09:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Robtex, thanks for your post.
Quote:
Peace
|
|
#178
10-08-2005, 09:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi All,
Some have posted here about the "Rambo mentality" and how this is an argument for gun control. I'd like to see some statistical data on how frequent "rambos" end up killing innocent people. Is this a common occurance? Or is it statistically insignificant? (Of course, to a victim, "statistically insignificant" is little solace. However, if there are very few deaths or incidents attributable to this in relation to the millions of legal non-Rambo gun owners, then it is probably a red herring.) Again, neutral data sources are always preferred. Peace
|
|
#179
10-08-2005, 09:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I know I am in the minority, and I most certainly don't wish to upset anyone; don't any of you feel that the use of guns merely encourages everyone 'to get on into the act' ? (even if it is for self defense ?). Do you think this is O.K ?
__________________
My life is an open book; if you don't like the read, put me back on the shelf ....................
|
|
#180
10-08-2005, 09:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
