Gun two f-AR

Vincent Vega wrote: »

So, obviously the best way for us to reduce both of these things would be to add more fuel to the fire?

I think people are simply too irrational to handle firearms responsibly and needn't have them for the most part.

I suppose an argument could be made for a person who had one for a specific reason eg: hunting

But someone with a firearm just lying around unused for the most part is in my mind less likely to think things through logically before they went reaching for it.

They are fortunate I suppose in living in places that determine that by entering someone else's house uninvited you can pretty much expect to have to take what the homeowner is prepared to dish out to protect themselves and their family.

Do you wish me to have sympathy for those who place themselves in that position?

Vincent Vega wrote: »

Certainly not, I just think more should be spent on preventative measures to crime, by government and citizen, as opposed to preparing {them} to fight to the death with potential criminals.

It just creates a more aggravated overall situation and feeds into a person's paranoia, on-guardness and apprehension of having to potentially kill someone should it come down to it. Do you think it helps people feel more secure?

Also, I was in no way suggesting that it would be only in times of self defence that a person may see shooting at someone(s) as the solution to a problem.

You have lost me... How does a private citizen spending money on a firearm prevent Govt spending on preventative measures?

Paranoia? Do you lock your doors? Does that make you paranoid?

We have laws to prevent people seeing shooting someone unjustly as a solution to a problem. You seem to think someone having a gun turns them into a rabid "shoot first ask questions later" redneck. Over half of US homes have guns.

Also - since when does standing uninvited in your living room make someone a 'potential' criminal?

MadsL wrote: »

Restricting access to guns is really working in Ireland isn't it?

I would say yes. Are you suggesting that deregulating guns in Ireland would solve, rather than cause, problems? Ireland and the USA are completely different countries in this regard, I can see why the States "needs" guns because there's so many of them about as it is, but Ireland's not like that at all.

MonaPizza wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what the statistics are for home robberies and how many people actually get injured or killed by burglars. I'm guessing it's fairly low. Don't most breakins occur when the home occupier is actually out?
But regardless of the low chances of a violent intruder killing you Americans are the most scared people on earth so having a cannon in the home to defend against a practically non-existent threat goes someway to ease their insecurities.

Go live in Detroit and report back...

I guess that the 250,000+ injuries a year are "practically nonexistant".

A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

I guess such statistics mean nothing to you.

Skylinehead wrote: »

I would say yes. Are you suggesting that deregulating guns in Ireland would solve, rather than cause, problems? Ireland and the USA are completely different countries in this regard, I can see why the States "needs" guns because there's so many of them about as it is, but Ireland's not like that at all.

Would allowing rural dwellers firearms for home defence protection encourage or discourage burglaries would you say?

MonaPizza wrote: »

How many times are you going to sneeringly mock someone over their perceived lack of knowledge and experience regarding guns? Does it make you feel superior? Do you think people are supposed to be impressed that you yourself own a few pop guns? Because it's getting tedious.

Not nearly as tedious as the same old ill-informed nonsense that always makes an appearance in gun threads, laced with a little casual racism, from people such as yourself determined to paint the US as some form of lesser intelligence.

Your silly caricatures are very tedious indeed.

Skylinehead wrote: »

It could possibly discourage them, but it would also create more problems.

What problems?

I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my question with an answer next time instead of a question.

I think my answer was clear, even in the form of a question.

Rural ownership would discourage rural burglaries.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Don't most farmers here already have a gun of some kind already ? for hunting or dealing with vermin.

Many do. They have to pretend it is not for defence.

MonaPizza wrote: »

Lighten the fcuk up with the sneers. I'm aware that ghettos like Detroit, Camden, Trenton etc are ravaged with crime. I am also aware that idiots who live in gated communities in Boca Raton or Palm Springs are also armed to the teeth yet the only threat of crime they'll ever face is the rich kid across the street peeling out in his corvette in front of their driveway.

Please take your anti-American stereotypes back to US Politics or CT, I'm quite aware of your views. There is no need to be calling Americans idiots to make yourself feel intellectually superior.

It does seem impractical to me. A regular AR-15 is good enough of a weapon to have. Why a Double Barreled one?

MadsL wrote: »

Not nearly as tedious as the same old ill-informed nonsense that always makes an appearance in gun threads, laced with a little casual racism, from people such as yourself determined to paint the US as some form of lesser intelligence.

Your silly caricatures are very tedious indeed.

It's not ill-informed nonsense. It's very valid to question whether arming an entire population causes more problems than allegedly solving the ones you claim it does. That, coupled with the same tired old cliches like "guns don't kill people. People kill people" crap and hypothetical, whatiffery about possible threats and scenarios is the refuge of the deluded.

And it's no secret that Americans are by and large not the brightest people on earth. They are certainly the most gullible, paranoid, easily controlled and easily led. Tell them that there's a threat of nerve gas and they fall over themselves buying bin bags and duct tape to seal up the damn windows. They never stop to think that if poison gas can't get into the house then neither can...hello....AIR!!
So stir them up with all this threats of needing to defend themselves and you can make a fortune selling them guns that they will never need and will most likely be used by one of their kids to accidently blow his little sister's head off.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Theres a certain culture in America, not all gun owners, built around overgrown he-man, gi-joe buffoons who never saw that Schwarzenegger films weren't actually meant to be reality.

These individuals forget that its a bullet that kills regardless what it comes out of and instead w4nk to making a firearm look as bad ass as possible, kind of like a 19 y.o lad with a micra which has glowing lights and spinning hubs.

They make up part of the pro-gun lobby and there is zero point in trying to convince them that adding a suppressor, night sight and bipod isn't necessary. Too many movies.

Its a fashionista thing for them.

What is the harm in it? Unless you feel people who buy AR-15 are the ones going out and shooting each other.

The truth is that the majority of gang on gang violence is simply carried out with cheap handguns. The GI wanna-be is not the problem. The drugs war is.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Then why the need for AR-15 for home defence then ?

I already explained that to you.