When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: FDF12389
Ok, I understand your point now. I confused you with another poster who is anti-gun, so with that perception in mind I misconstrued your posts. Sorry. That bogeyman comment really got me going, but you can probably see where that was easily confused as you didnt really specify.

As to your point, should CCW be allowed at walmart? If you answer yes then why wouldn't you agree to allow CCW on campus? Walmart sells a deliverable, so does the college. Anyone can walk into walmart without making a purchase, same with the college. You can walk into a Virginia library with a CCW, so why not a state college? It really makes no sense to ban CCWs from state Universities.

I do not love my gun, I love my freedom.

If walmart says you can carry in their stores, I don't see the problem. As long as they have the absolute freedom to say that you can't, there isn't a problem.

I also don't see why this would be a good comparison to colleges. Colleges aren't really 'owned', so a decision has to be made at some level. You could argue that it should be at the individual college level, but the administrators aren't 'owners' so such an argument can only be a utilitarian one.
 

Soybomb

Diamond Member
Jun 30, 2000
9,506
2
81
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: FDF12389
Ok, I understand your point now. I confused you with another poster who is anti-gun, so with that perception in mind I misconstrued your posts. Sorry. That bogeyman comment really got me going, but you can probably see where that was easily confused as you didnt really specify.

As to your point, should CCW be allowed at walmart? If you answer yes then why wouldn't you agree to allow CCW on campus? Walmart sells a deliverable, so does the college. Anyone can walk into walmart without making a purchase, same with the college. You can walk into a Virginia library with a CCW, so why not a state college? It really makes no sense to ban CCWs from state Universities.

I do not love my gun, I love my freedom.

If walmart says you can carry in their stores, I don't see the problem. As long as they have the absolute freedom to say that you can't, there isn't a problem.

I also don't see why this would be a good comparison to colleges. Colleges aren't really 'owned', so a decision has to be made at some level. You could argue that it should be at the individual college level, but the administrators aren't 'owners' so such an argument can only be a utilitarian one.
I think there's a difference between a publically funded college though and privately owned walmart. While I agree walmart should be able to say that customers can't carry or have to wear chicken suits to shop there, public funding changes things.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Soybomb
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: FDF12389
Ok, I understand your point now. I confused you with another poster who is anti-gun, so with that perception in mind I misconstrued your posts. Sorry. That bogeyman comment really got me going, but you can probably see where that was easily confused as you didnt really specify.

As to your point, should CCW be allowed at walmart? If you answer yes then why wouldn't you agree to allow CCW on campus? Walmart sells a deliverable, so does the college. Anyone can walk into walmart without making a purchase, same with the college. You can walk into a Virginia library with a CCW, so why not a state college? It really makes no sense to ban CCWs from state Universities.

I do not love my gun, I love my freedom.

If walmart says you can carry in their stores, I don't see the problem. As long as they have the absolute freedom to say that you can't, there isn't a problem.

I also don't see why this would be a good comparison to colleges. Colleges aren't really 'owned', so a decision has to be made at some level. You could argue that it should be at the individual college level, but the administrators aren't 'owners' so such an argument can only be a utilitarian one.
I think there's a difference between a publically funded college though and privately owned walmart. While I agree walmart should be able to say that customers can't carry or have to wear chicken suits to shop there, public funding changes things.
We've already been down this road. Public funding doesn't change anything except who makes the decision, and it doesn't even change that very much.

You're going to have to convince the powers that be based on statistics, or other argumentation, or - more likely - potential political good will.
 

Emission

Senior member
Mar 4, 2007
580
0
0
Gun control never had positives, nor will it ever.

The only solution is to do away with guns completley, search and destroy, get rid of blueprints, every last trace of a gun erased. Thats the only way you'll ever keep guns out of the wrong hands.
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
I think it's despicable that the NRA and other gun nuts are using this tragedy so quickly as a way to further their goals. The fact is, the guy bought these guns legally.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Looney
I think it's despicable that the NRA and other gun nuts are using this tragedy so quickly as a way to further their goals. The fact is, the guy bought these guns legally.

That's ok, because I think it's despicable that the Brady Bunch and other anti-gun nazis use tragedies like this to further their goals. It all evens out I suppose.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Looney
I think it's despicable that the NRA and other gun nuts are using this tragedy so quickly as a way to further their goals. The fact is, the guy bought these guns legally.

Well, since you apparently didn't read what Ted nuggent had to say in the link above your post, I'll quote it for you:

Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.

So I'll tell you what. As soon as you can prove to me that all the criminals, etc. have given up their guns, I will gladly check mine into a safe storage facility and only take them out for target practice or hunting.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
From another thread, thought I would post here to make sure other gun owners are on the right track:

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: George P Burdell
Originally posted by: Shivetya
the problem wasn't that the bad guy had a gun, the problem was that no one else did.

The problem with your argument

Even though that opinion appears on a partisan site, it is still worth a read.

The problem is you might miss... ?


It's literally astounding the logical leaps that people will go to in order to push their agenda. Your minds are like a tabloid newspaper -- you come to your conclusions first.


no. the problem clearly states that in a 100% armed society, you now have the problem of identifying the target. Everyone has a gun, so who is the criminal? what are the cops supposed to think when they arrive?

Ask questions. Its really not that hard if 20 different people say the same thing and point to the same guy.

I think if I jumped into a situation like that I would be aiming at the guy saying "DIE YOU RICH SNOBS!!!" and not the 20 people saying "PUT THE GUN DOWN NOW!! SOMEONE WITH A PHONE CALL 911 NOW!!!"

But thats just me...

The Hollywood style standoffs and shootouts that the left believes in is total nonsense. There has NEVER been a case of it going down like that when civilians with guns subdue a assailant.

And you don't think the person who is sane of mind enough to legally draw a weapon for defensive purposes while remaining calm is aware of the position he is in holding a weapon at a crime scene? Communication and deliberate action. Thats all you need to understand to know why the make believe standoffs will not occur.

While police are normal people like you and I who don't have any more extra special rights than civilians do, they are the arbitrators that we trust and employ to be tasked with having final authority on the scene at the moment an incident is happening. They are not responsible for who is wrong or right, their job is to end the confrontation and take evidence and statements for the next step; the courts. Because of that, once they arrive on the scene, they are in charge, period. You do what they say and you clearly communicate your compliance in thought and action. Police don't just show up automatically shooting anybody who has a gun. Also if the suspect is already down, nobody just walks around holding a gun in their hand, all weapons are returned to where they were drawn from and everybody keeps their hands visible until asked to do otherwise by an officer. Common sense really... I know thats lacking these days.

Communication is important. I know if I have my gun drawn or have just shot somebody I am going to make sure that I and anyone in the immediate area is on the phone to 911 with the details that not only am I the good guy, but what I am wearing and where I am, before they get there. Your classmates or fellow shoppers will know whats going on, as robbers and murders don't usually shout "someone call the police and get an ambulance!" or "is anybody hurt?"

And when in doubt, don't pull the trigger. Simple as that. Everyone, including the police, are responsible for every negligent shot they fire from their own gun. If you aren't fit enough to exhibit situational awareness of your surroundings to know who started what when the door flew open, you aren't in a position to be shooting anybody.

Best thing to do is stay calm and carry yourself with authority. It is illegal to impersonate or directly claim that you are a police officer if asked directly, but you should still carry yourself like one and take charge like one and bark orders, until the real police arrive. That will help with two things: 1) ensures everyone knows who's side you are on and 2) keeps the rest of your classmates who have never seen a gun before calm, because the last thing they want to see is someone else pull out a gun and not know if its another possible killer.

You also forget the fact that, classmates tend to know who they can count on and who to be wary of. Is a fellow gun carrying classmate going to point at me when I draw my weapon, the person who helped them work out homework problems all semester, or the person barging through the door in the middle of class wearing a baseball cap and a tac vest with a gun in hand?

Also, learn the difference between aiming while firing, and holding your weapon at ready position and pointing downward. Nobody should EVER be able to see the muzzle end of your weapon, ether because A) if you were pointing it at them, you have just shot them and they can't see anymore, or B) because you aren't pointing it at them. The rule about not aiming until you have selected your target and are ready to fire holds even in a split second combat situation. You don't just hold your muzzle out at head level spinning around the room like an idiot. That way, anybody who happens to see you with a gun in your hand doesn't see you pointing it at someone, and therefore you aren't an immediate threat. If they are carrying as well, they are likely aware of the same.

We aren't talking about 30 people who have never seen a gun before who suddenly pull one out and start shooting. Most people who would be inclined to carry on campus if they were allowed are proficient in the rules and responsibilities implied, and if not, they need to get proficient, or leave their gun at home. Oops doesn't cut it.

Duh.

This Hollywood standoff crap you people propose is ludicrous.

The fact that movies typically show people running up and down enclosed 5' x 5' stairwells firing weapons without hearing protection yet having normal conversations with each other throughout the whole thing should tell you that Hollywood doesn't know the first thing about guns.

PS: fire your gun indoors at least once, without hearing protection, just so you know what it feels like so you're not startled when and if you have to use it. It's a whole 'nother ballgame.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: Emission
Gun control never had positives, nor will it ever.

The only solution is to do away with guns completley, search and destroy, get rid of blueprints, every last trace of a gun erased. Thats the only way you'll ever keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Not even that is true. Guns are so simple in their operating principals, anybody who can work metal can make one.

Barrel, trigger, sear/hammer, disconnecter, firing pin, a few springs, and something to hold it all together. A press, a drill, a mandrel, and a hammer is all you need to make a AK.

All it would take is someone with basic tooling skills to go nuts, hatch a plan, and now they are the only one in the world with a gun.
 

AAjax

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2001
3,798
0
0
Originally posted by: Looney
I think it's despicable that the NRA and other gun nuts are using this tragedy so quickly as a way to further their goals. The fact is, the guy bought these guns legally.

Appropriate nick there..

And wtf are you talking about????
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Looney
I think it's despicable that the NRA and other gun nuts are using this tragedy so quickly as a way to further their goals. The fact is, the guy bought these guns legally.

And what, exactly, are these goals you speak of? Just curious.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
How often have private citizens foiled major crimes with CCW weapons, anyway? Are there any mass murders that were committed in a non-CCW-free zone?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: Emission
Gun control never had positives, nor will it ever.

The only solution is to do away with guns completley, search and destroy, get rid of blueprints, every last trace of a gun erased. Thats the only way you'll ever keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Not even that is true. Guns are so simple in their operating principals, anybody who can work metal can make one.

Barrel, trigger, sear/hammer, disconnecter, firing pin, a few springs, and something to hold it all together. A press, a drill, a mandrel, and a hammer is all you need to make a AK.

All it would take is someone with basic tooling skills to go nuts, hatch a plan, and now they are the only one in the world with a gun.

You can buy books that tell you how to make guns and powder. I guess we better start banning books too. :disgust::roll:
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: Emission
Gun control never had positives, nor will it ever.

The only solution is to do away with guns completley, search and destroy, get rid of blueprints, every last trace of a gun erased. Thats the only way you'll ever keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Not even that is true. Guns are so simple in their operating principals, anybody who can work metal can make one.

Barrel, trigger, sear/hammer, disconnecter, firing pin, a few springs, and something to hold it all together. A press, a drill, a mandrel, and a hammer is all you need to make a AK.

All it would take is someone with basic tooling skills to go nuts, hatch a plan, and now they are the only one in the world with a gun.

And, once again, we have proof that nothing ever happens in real life that hasn't already happened on the Simpsons. :D
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: Emission
Gun control never had positives, nor will it ever.

The only solution is to do away with guns completley, search and destroy, get rid of blueprints, every last trace of a gun erased. Thats the only way you'll ever keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Not even that is true. Guns are so simple in their operating principals, anybody who can work metal can make one.

Barrel, trigger, sear/hammer, disconnecter, firing pin, a few springs, and something to hold it all together. A press, a drill, a mandrel, and a hammer is all you need to make a AK.

All it would take is someone with basic tooling skills to go nuts, hatch a plan, and now they are the only one in the world with a gun.

How many killings with handmade guns occur per year in the U.K.?
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
The Economist really disappointed me this week. I usually agree with just about everything they say, but they went off on an anti-gun tirade and at one point even said guns "are designed to kill people." Tell that to the ducks I shoot, jackass. They completely ignored the recreational aspect which is the reason the red states hate gun control.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Farang
The Economist really disappointed me this week. I usually agree with just about everything they say, but they went off on an anti-gun tirade and at one point even said guns "are designed to kill people." Tell that to the ducks I shoot, jackass. They completely ignored the recreational aspect which is the reason the red states hate gun control.

Some guns are designed to kill people. You don't go duck hunting with a Glock 19. I agree that a blanket statement is pretty dumb.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Farang
The Economist really disappointed me this week. I usually agree with just about everything they say, but they went off on an anti-gun tirade and at one point even said guns "are designed to kill people." Tell that to the ducks I shoot, jackass. They completely ignored the recreational aspect which is the reason the red states hate gun control.

Some guns are designed to kill people. You don't go duck hunting with a Glock 19. I agree that a blanket statement is pretty dumb.

Yeah, it's a poorly made statement, but so is yours. Recreation is not the reason that anyone opposes gun control, especially handgun control.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: Emission
Gun control never had positives, nor will it ever.

The only solution is to do away with guns completley, search and destroy, get rid of blueprints, every last trace of a gun erased. Thats the only way you'll ever keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Not even that is true. Guns are so simple in their operating principals, anybody who can work metal can make one.

Barrel, trigger, sear/hammer, disconnecter, firing pin, a few springs, and something to hold it all together. A press, a drill, a mandrel, and a hammer is all you need to make a AK.

All it would take is someone with basic tooling skills to go nuts, hatch a plan, and now they are the only one in the world with a gun.

How many killings with handmade guns occur per year in the U.K.?

Why Britain needs more guns

"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Farang
The Economist really disappointed me this week. I usually agree with just about everything they say, but they went off on an anti-gun tirade and at one point even said guns "are designed to kill people." Tell that to the ducks I shoot, jackass. They completely ignored the recreational aspect which is the reason the red states hate gun control.

Some guns are designed to kill people. You don't go duck hunting with a Glock 19. I agree that a blanket statement is pretty dumb.

Yeah, it's a poorly made statement, but so is yours. Recreation is not the reason that anyone opposes gun control, especially handgun control.

Well the cycle continues.. your blanket statement sucks too :p "Recreation is not the reason that anyone opposes gun control." I'm living proof that you're wrong!

You would have to read the article in the Economist to see that it completely ignores recreation when addressing gun control. That particular quote I used just kind of summed up their poor argument.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,955
10,298
136
Thanks 1EZduzit, but I?m sure it won?t change minds. In the face of criminals breaking the law, they?ll just move to claim it isn?t so.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
How often have private citizens foiled major crimes with CCW weapons, anyway? Are there any mass murders that were committed in a non-CCW-free zone?

Depending on your criteria firearms are used effectively between a couple hundred thousand and 2.5 million times every year. So yes, guns are used to stop crime many times more than they are used to commit crimes.