AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Elementary School Shooting In Connecticut

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Airwolfe said:
Isabella_deL said:
I know you guys like your guns, but would you not give them up in the hope that this kind of stuff might be reduced?

No

And therein lies the problem. Americans don't want to give up their guns. I don't think I'll ever live to understand that.

I love my guitars. I love playing them. I love buying them. But if it was one day announced that hey, guitars are gonna be made illegal but the upshot of that is we aren't gonna have a bunch of school kids get shot to death every other month... I couldn't really argue with that, ya know? How selfish would I be to say "No. I like my guitars and I'm not gonna give them up. Ever".

Obviously, that's a facetious example and guitars aren't comparable to guns, but it's an example of someone refusing to give up something they like even though it would ultimately reduce the number of senseless deaths that occur every day. And I get the whole "well, everyone else has guns so I need a gun too to feel safe" argument. I get that. But what if guns were completely outlawed? Obviously, guns would still exist but far, far, far fewer people would have them and the need for guns as safety would be greatly reduced, right?

"No. I like my guns".

:?
 
Re: all the talk about this is not the time to discuss gun control/gun laws, etc.

It is very narrow minded to say that it is taboo to discuss gun control in the US. I cannot speak for everyone who stated this, but when people have said now is not the time to discuss gun control, IMO, they may mean that the day of the massacre is not the right time.

There is a common phrase around here: The body is not even cold yet

We in the US do need to have a rational, thoughtful debate on the gun issue. Let us mourn, grieve, and bury our dead...first. There seems to be a certain faction that relishes any opportunity to portray the US as a gun toting, bloodthirsty tribe of fanatics. I am just asking that you keep those thoughts to yourself for a day or two ;)
 
It is always frustrating when someone you dislike says something sensible. His twitter feed is so different than his network, I wonder if he ever regrets the things he has done to make his huge fortune.

9vW0w.jpg
 
n0_0n3 said:
We in the US do need to have a rational, thoughtful debate on the gun issue. Let us mourn, grieve, and bury our dead...first. There seems to be a certain faction that relishes any opportunity to portray the US as a gun toting, bloodthirsty tribe of fanatics. I am just asking that you keep those thoughts to yourself for a day or two

You say "our" dead. They are no more your dead than they are mine (unless you know them). If someone who I do not know dies in my country, I still know them no more than someone in australia knows them. I mourn these children as much as I'd mourn children dying in England. Now if I personally knew these children... Yes I would be fully mourning, I quite possibly would not be talking about guns, but I believe I would be glad that people were discussing how to end something like this happening again.

I think now is the time to talk of this. Like Bob said, it should have been discussed before. I really can't see how these poor children would be turning in their graves people trying to stop this happening in the future. Or why any of the mothers would be insulted that people around the world actually care.

It truly amazes me that people will actually fight for their right to own a gun, knowing that having that right is paid for by meaningless deaths, just because they like it.

As for the US being portrayed as bloodthirsty fanatics, well, as a nation/the laws, compared to others, you kind of are. There are other countries with legal guns that don't get this kind of stuff. Guilty until proven innocent, the death penalty, being able to shoot people who trespass, being given guns so readily/being told it's right to have a gun. Sometimes the gun attitude is like a cornered dog, having guns as protection, a cornered dog is dangerous because it's scared. Having guns as protection is dangerous. Other people don't portray America as bloodthirsty. America does. From an outside opinion it always seems like Americans/America is rising to attack whenever they feels defensive. This isn't something we make up because we don't like America, I like America, I'd love to go there, I love the films/tv and have plenty of friends from the US, but the impression I'm constantly fed, not from anyone other than Americans themselves is that compared to the UK it is a brutal country. Stuff like this happening and gun laws not being tightened/changed is one big reason.
 
Every time we wait to have a discussion about different or stronger gun laws, another shooting takes place. If we have to wait for a day that someone doesn't get killed by a gun to have a discussion about the current gun laws we are going to be waiting forever. Which I guess is the point behind the argument.
 
I've actually been avoiding the constant news coverage of this situation. It was enough for me to know the basics and I will go back to it in a few more days when a lot of the details will be a lot more defined because being informed is important to me. It's all just so depressing though that if I was to immerse myself in 24/7 coverage of it, I would be about useless. Suffice to say I feel so absolutely terrible for the families of the victims ESPECIALLY the parents of the murdered kids. It's hard to lose any one you love but I cannot imagine the pain of losing your child to something so senseless.

I would have been in favor of a separate topic for the gun control talk but I suspect some of the most important discussions of the ages were fueled by events that brought the issue into focus. That said, I always have a bit of an inner conflict with things like this.

I understand why the constitution grants the right to bear arms. I myself think it would be a good idea to have a weapon of my own that I would practice with and be able to use if needed. I also am not mentally ill at the moment in any manner that I believe would put other people's lives at risk. That could change. It may be gradual or not. I feel for many responsible people, however, guns ownership would not pose any threat to the general population, and putting limits or conditions on freedoms and rights granted by the constitution could lead to quite a slippery slope.

At the same time I also know that while guns don't kill people, they make it much easier to kill people. They make it fast. They give you quite a bit of range. They make it significantly less personal than some type of blade. Most people have no practical need for many types of firearms. In the end it seems quite obvious that our ability to regulate firearms isn't where it needs to be. Gun control laws do need to be modified. What types of changes need to be made are beyond the scope of my knowledge on the subject at this point.
 
Doesn't Canada have higher gun ownership? Don't most western countries have gun laws and gun ownership?

How many of these countries have similar events. We have had a couple in living memory, one of which led to a large overhaul of our laws (Dunblane).

Yet the US, this seems a fairly frequent occurrence. So what is different between the US and other countries? Is it the law about buying weapons (despite higher ownership in other countries). Is it checks before you can buy?

Or is there something else? Why do Americans "Go postal"?
 
Isabella_deL said:
Bocefish said:
I'd own one too if they weren't so expensive, great self-defense weapon.

Great self defence?! Against what?! A bear?! Seriously, what on earth could you need a gun to defend yourself against?! Also, if you do choose to defend yourself/feel you're in a dangerous situation, firing that gun may defend yourself, but chances are it would kill/seriously injure someone else, your judgement could have been wrong. The only reason you'd need a gun for protection would be in the off chance that someone with a gun enters your home to try and attack you, in fact in the Uk it's illegal to shoot anyone even on your own property. If you give them enough warning I think then you can shoot them.
Seriously, what are you scared of? Another person with a gun?

Also guns aren't illegal in the Uk, you just need to have a license/prove you're using it for shooting. If you really wanted one, you could get one, most people choose not to.

In the UK you have to prove you're using a gun for shooting? What else would you use a gun for, sticking it up your ass? Frankly, I don't give a shit about UK gun laws because I don't live there and your laws don't mean anything to me. I wish everyone else that doesn't live in the US or have a clue about our gun laws would either educate themselves first or STFU about it.

Great self defence?! Against what?! A bear?! Seriously, what on earth could you need a gun to defend yourself against?! Also, if you do choose to defend yourself/feel you're in a dangerous situation, firing that gun may defend yourself, but chances are it would kill/seriously injure someone else

I have different firearms for bear, besides a .223 round would probably just piss a bear off unless you get a lucky shot through the eye. Anyway, the things on earth I like a gun to defend myself against are the millions of lowlife criminals that would rather rob and/or murder me or family members for our valuables than get a job and earn their own way in the world. A cop is too heavy to carry around, so I choose to carry a firearm and also have guns readily available in my home in case of break-ins. Chances are it would kill or seriously injure someone? That's the fucking point! I also like to carry guns around for self-defense in bear and big cat country for protection against wild things that could kill and eat me.
 
Thank you Isabella for informing me who I can or cannot mourn. I am also glad that you enlightened me on how things really are in my country. With out your help, I would never have known that guilty until proven innocent and all the rest were the laws here. Keep up the great work!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Airwolfe
Isabella_deL said:
AllisonWilder said:
It's a constitutional right to bear arms and gun supporters will stand on their soapboxes screaming it loud, "Pointless school tragedies be damned because I have the right to bear arms."

I get this whole "constitutional right" thing, but that was when you were trying to kick the English out and genuinely needed them for that, and also, the guns of that time were NOT the guns of this time. Maybe it should be legal to have the appropriate gun of that time.

It seems that quite a few of the people who are saying on this thread to make guns illegal are people from countries where guns aren't handed out easily. I live in a country where it's difficult to get guns. I've never heard anyone complaining about that, in fact the opposite, people seem pretty happy with the laws which surely means us not having guns really isn't such a terrible thing. We're surviving, and happy with it, why should you be different?

Besides just trying to win independence from the Crown, though, and the whole frontier and untamed wilds thing... There was another reason for the 2nd Amendment. To protect the population from a potentially oppressive US government. Because the firearms people could have back then were the same as the military, minus the cannons the military had, if the government were to become oppressive, the people would have the weapons to fight back if they wanted to. Now, though, since the military has things like tanks, jets, etc. It would be much harder to fight back against the government if it decided to become an oppressive regime, but there would still potentially be pockets of militias trying to fight back against it.

As to a lot of people in countries where guns are hard to get, or outright banned to the population... Look back at history. Dictators, throughout even modern 20th century times to now in areas where the population was not allowed to arm itself have free reign to decimate their own populations. Stalin killed 15 million of his own people, and they couldn't fight back. Pol Pot killed millions of his own people. Hitler killed millions of not only German citizens, but people all across Europe as his army was able to just march over the unarmed masses of Europe. Dictators in Africa kill millions every year, now; but since they hide it from the media, it is harder to notice until it is too late. The Ottoman Turks nearly wiped out the Armenian people. China and North Korea can waltz into areas of dissident in their countries and wipe out entire villages/towns if they want to... and again, because they control the media, no one would ever know until it was far too late.

If the populations were armed, would it completely stop this? Probably not. But it would be much harder to get to the sheer numbers that have died in such a short amount of time, without suffering losses of the regime's forces.

And the US isn't the only country that has an armed population. Canada has millions of registered gun owners. Switzerland has nearly the entire male population over the age of 18 armed, as does Israel. It's how the Swiss maintain their neutrality. Every male has to join the army at 18, do their service, and then is required to keep and maintain their weapons until they reach a certain age (60, I think?). At any time a military officer can knock on a Swiss home's door and ask to see the weapons and make sure they are in working order. So, besides the whole Alps thing making it hard to invade Switzerland, the fact that practically the entire population can fight back makes it a very hard target for invasion. Israel also requires all of its natural born citizens (male and female) to join the army and provide their time to it, as well as maintain their weapons for a certain amount of time.

So, the armed population part can actually make it harder to invade countries with them. The scenarios of the movie Red Dawn (and the remake) or the game Homefront, are actually hard to pull off. Besides the standing military of the US, the fact that people can and will fight back against invaders makes the scenarios very unlikely. Even if some country tried to just take over Los Angeles, they'd have a very hard time doing so because of not only the legal gun owners, but all the gangs (Bloods, Crips, etc.) and their illegal weapons woud also fight back.

Armed populations have some means to protect themselves, not only against invading foreign forces, but also their own governments. It also, unfortunately, at least for the US, means criminals also have an easier time killing their victims if they choose.
 
Zoomer said:
Doesn't Canada have higher gun ownership? Don't most western countries have gun laws and gun ownership?

How many of these countries have similar events. We have had a couple in living memory, one of which led to a large overhaul of our laws (Dunblane).

Yet the US, this seems a fairly frequent occurrence. So what is different between the US and other countries? Is it the law about buying weapons (despite higher ownership in other countries). Is it checks before you can buy?

Or is there something else? Why do Americans "Go postal"?
Pretty sure Canada has stricter gun laws than the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada
For instance
To purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm, a person must have a possession and acquisition licence (PAL) for restricted firearms.
Canada's federal laws severely restrict the ability of civilians to transport restricted or prohibited (grandfathered) firearms in public. Section 17 of the Firearms Act makes it an offence to possess prohibited or restricted firearms other than at a dwelling-house or authorized location, but there are two exceptions to this prohibition found in sections 19 and 20 of the act. Section 19 allows for persons to be issued an authorization to transport, or ATT, authorizing the transport of a firearm outside the home for certain purposes, such as for its transfer to a new owner, going to and from a range, a training course, repair shop or gun show, or when the owner wishes to change the address where the firearm is stored. Such firearms must be transported unloaded, equipped with a trigger lock and stored in secure, locked containers. In rarer cases, section 20 of the act allows individuals to receive an authorization to carry, or ATC, granting permission to carry loaded restricted firearms or (section 12(6)) prohibited handguns on their persons for certain reasons specified in the act. These reasons are as follows: if the person is a licensed trapper and carries the firearm while trapping, if the person is in a remote wilderness area and needs the firearm for protection against wildlife, if the person's work involves guarding or handling money or other items of substantial value, or if the person's life is in danger and police protection is inadequate to protect him or her. It should be noted that the authorities almost never issue an ATC for the last reason, that is to say, because a person's life is threatened and police protection is inadequate. The vast majority of ATC's issued are to employees of armoured car companies to allow carry of a company owned firearm only while working.

Magazine capacity:
Common AR-15 30 round magazines that have been pinned to 5 rounds.
Some magazines are prohibited regardless of the class of firearm to which the magazines are attached. As a general rule, under the Criminal Code of Canada, the maximum magazine capacity is:
5 cartridges for most magazines designed for rifles that shoot centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic fashion
3 rounds for shotguns, tubular magazines that hold more are legal, but MUST be plugged to limit capacity to 3 rounds while hunting.
10 cartridges for most handgun magazines
There is a very very long and specific list of which guns fall into the categories of prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted, but for the purpose of this discussion I'll just point out that it's illegal to fire any handgun or other restricted weapon (including semi-auto ar-15 rifles etc) anywhere other than a shooting range, ie not hunting, certainly not to walk around with. Prohibited weapons need an even more restrictive license, this includes handguns with barrels shorter than 4 .1 inches, to purchase or own and cannot even be transported outside the owner's house without a specially issued permit to transport them to a gun show, repair shop, firing range, and so forth (like you apply for the permit for one specific action, then the permit is expired).

Now, to me that sounds fairly significantly different than US gun laws.

As for the right to bear arms, just ignoring the fact that this was an ambiguous statement that may have implied citizens should be part of a militia - and despite supreme court ruling on the matter, the statement remains ambiguous, I've often seen used, and yet to see a good answer to one question.
Obviously, there should be some restriction on what sort of 'arms', arms means. Does it mean hydrogen bombs? How about chemical weapons? Oh right, those weren't invented then so they obviously didn't mean those. Well neither were jacketed ammunition types, handguns that took less time than 30 seconds for a very quick musketeer to reload, or rotary cannons that can shoot 9000+ rounds per minute. So therefore, while you have a right to bear arms, questioning where the line must be drawn is HARDLY an argument against constitutional law, much as the pro-gun lobby would like to pretend it is.

You know, as a male I understand this: guns are kinda cool, I get that, while I was in Vietnam on vacation I took the opportunity to fire an M60 and an ak-47 at a firing range and it was fun. I just don't get that they're worth the cost in innocent life, they're weapons of war and in extreme cases of law enforcement. They're just not something you need sitting around the home.

Growing up we had racks of guns above my bed at my grandma and grandpa's house. Two double barreled 12 guages, a 10 guage semi auto browning, a .303 rifle and a scoped aussie army rifle my uncle had brought back from the vietnam war. Grandpa never, EVER, let us anywhere near where he hid the ammunition, which was too high for children to reach anyway. My grandpa, dad, and his brothers used to hunt - that's why they had the guns. They lived in the country and it wasn't uncommon. Curious as boys are about such things I begged, and was allowed to shoot the guns, out in the bush at a tree, with my dad present. But for years before that I had drilled into me to NEVER, EVER EVER point a gun at another person EVEN IF IT'S UNLOADED (the point being even if you THINK it's unloaded). Stuff that kids should be taught if they ever are around guns.

My point is this: even with all that, the only reason I or any of my immediate family are alive today is because our family and extended family are generally well-adjusted, loving people. It would have only taken one adult to go grab a handful of ammunition, a gun off the wall and end us all. I trust my family to be responsible, but I don't trust others to be responsible, so I'd rather there were no guns at all. :twocents-02cents:
 
UncleThursday said:
Switzerland has nearly the entire male population over the age of 18 armed, as does Israel. It's how the Swiss maintain their neutrality. Every male has to join the army at 18, do their service, and then is required to keep and maintain their weapons until they reach a certain age (60, I think?). At any time a military officer can knock on a Swiss home's door and ask to see the weapons and make sure they are in working order. So, besides the whole Alps thing making it hard to invade Switzerland, the fact that practically the entire population can fight back makes it a very hard target for invasion. Israel also requires all of its natural born citizens (male and female) to join the army and provide their time to it, as well as maintain their weapons for a certain amount of time.
I'm not sure in the case of Israel, but as far as the Swiss go they're far from a typical case. Every male applicable for militia service is issued with a fully automatic assault rifle (SG550 I think) but no longer issued with ammunition at home. The main difference I see is that being part of the national militia is a big part of Swiss culture - everyone is trained on how and why guns are to be used - there can be no argument that it's a very different social environment involving gun culture.
 
AllisonWilder said:
I wasn't saying that I don't think that now is the time to talk about gun control. I was just saying that I thought it deserved it's own thread.


I agree.

I start to lose interest in these 'news story' threads when they result in the same people arguing back and forth about gun control...there should be one big 'gun control' thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoTxBob
n0_0n3 said:
Thank you Isabella for informing me who I can or cannot mourn. I am also glad that you enlightened me on how things really are in my country. With out your help, I would never have known that guilty until proven innocent and all the rest were the laws here. Keep up the great work!

I don't think I said at any point that you couldn't mourn, just that you mourning strangers from the same nationality is no different from someone of a different nationality mourning them. Mourn them all you like in whatever way you like, but unless you knew them personally this effects you emotionally no less or more than it effects me, whether you came from the same country as them or not.
I was also merely pointing out those laws as an example of why Americans can seem unforgiving. You may have grown up knowing this law, but when I learned of it I was shocked. That amount of sarcasm really wasn't needed and was kind of petty. This is actually a pretty serious subject if you hadn't noticed, we can have a debate/discussion and obviously everyone feels differently, but try and be mature about it.

Btw, when I said we have guns for "shooting" I meant hunting animals/birds. We don't really have any other kind of shooting here. It's kind of closed minded not caring about laws in other countries. I care about the laws in the US even though I don't live there or plan on living there. Just like I care that these children were murdered. Something doesn't have to personally effect you to have some empathy/interest.
I was being semi sarcastic about the bears, as it seems that the reason for you having guns for defence is for shooting humans. "Bad humans" that come into your homes/try and hurt you, but fact is, anyone buying a gun for the purposes that they feel they'd actually shoot another human being if threatened, probably shouldn't have a gun. If you feel you could shoot/kill someone that easily, even in self defence, and feel relaxed about talking about it, then there's not that much to say in a moment of anger/upset/fear you might kill someone who did not need to be killed. You never know until it happens, chances are it won't happen to you, but there are enough Americans with that attitude that have guns that it does happen, all the time.
 
Jupiter551 said:
You know, as a male I understand this: guns are kinda cool, I get that, while I was in Vietnam on vacation I took the opportunity to fire an M60 and an ak-47 at a firing range and it was fun. I just don't get that they're worth the cost in innocent life, they're weapons of war and in extreme cases of law enforcement. They're just not something you need sitting around the home.

Nobody I know has an M60 lying around their home. This is exactly what I mean when people that don't know shit about guns or our laws should educate themselves first or STFU about it.

If you knew what it took to own an M60 legally, you wouldn't be saying anything of the sort.

When was the last time an M60 or automatic AK-47 was used in a mass shooting?
 
Isabella_deL said:
Bocefish said:
I'd own one too if they weren't so expensive, great self-defense weapon.

Great self defence?! Against what?! A bear?! Seriously, what on earth could you need a gun to defend yourself against?! Also, if you do choose to defend yourself/feel you're in a dangerous situation, firing that gun may defend yourself, but chances are it would kill/seriously injure someone else, your judgement could have been wrong. The only reason you'd need a gun for protection would be in the off chance that someone with a gun enters your home to try and attack you, in fact in the Uk it's illegal to shoot anyone even on your own property. If you give them enough warning I think then you can shoot them.
Seriously, what are you scared of? Another person with a gun?

Depending on where you live, yes, you want a gun to protect yourself against someone else. Someone who has no qualms about killing you to take your valuables because they simply want them.

If I worked overnight in a convenience store in a big city, I'd damn well want a gun under the counter. The amount of people who get killed by some robber over a few bucks in the cash register is horrible.

I have two guns in my house. A revolver and a Colt .45 semiautomatic pistol. Both easily accessible to me if someone breaks into my home, but not accessible to anyone who I know and let in my home. Break ins are rare in my neighborhood, but not unheard of. Unfortunately, in my state, I wouldn't be able to shoot an intruder, even if he assaulted me, unless he had a gun. We have a 'reasonable force' clause in home defense. So, if the intruder has a knife, I can only stab him. If he has a baseball bat, I can only beat him with something. It doesn't really mater that the intruder could and probably would maim or kill me, I can't shoot him without being arrested myself. And even if the intruder was proven to have a history of break ins and assaults on the people living in the homes, I would probably go to jail for longer than he would have if he was captured, simply because I defended my property and family. Even if I didn't kill him. He'd get robbery and assault charges, maybe assault with a deadly weapon if he has a knife, I'd get attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, or murder if I killed the intruder.

Seems fair, right?

And then I love how the families of criminals act when their criminal family member is killed in the act of committing a crime. They want the person defending themselves sent to jail and sue them for wrongful death and all sorts of bullshit. But it's perfectly fine if their criminal family member killed you... after all, their son/brother/husband/whatever didn't deserve to die. But if you die from them performing a criminal act on you, well, tough shit. That's OK, because it wasn't their family member. You probably deserved it anyway.

Reminds me of the time in Philly... Someone tried mugging a blind man in a public place. Witnesses confirm the blind man warned his attacker that he was at least a black belt in some form of martial arts (maybe double black belt). The blind man killed his attacker. Snapped his neck, I think. Oh, the outrage from the family of the mugger calling for the blind man to be charged with murder and go to jail for the rest of his life. Because 'my son didn't deserve to die!' I mean, he was only mugging a blind man, who he thought was going to be an easy target. That's OK, though, and the family wouldn't have given two flying fucks if the mugger kiled the blind man during the mugging. Obviously, the mugger was the epitome of good clean citizenship and was such a 'good boy.' :woops:

Thankfully the DA of Philly at the time did the right thing. No charges were filed against the victim of the mugging, even though he killed his attacker.
 
Bocefish said:
Jupiter551 said:
You know, as a male I understand this: guns are kinda cool, I get that, while I was in Vietnam on vacation I took the opportunity to fire an M60 and an ak-47 at a firing range and it was fun. I just don't get that they're worth the cost in innocent life, they're weapons of war and in extreme cases of law enforcement. They're just not something you need sitting around the home.

Nobody I know has an M60 lying around their home. This is exactly what I mean when people that don't know shit about guns or our laws should educate themselves first or STFU about it.

If you knew what it took to own an M60 legally, you wouldn't be saying anything of the sort.

When was the last time an M60 or automatic AK-47 was used in a mass shooting?

When was the last time a normal person could carry an M60 around, and keep it hidden from view until the time he wanted to shoot? Those things are fucking huge and weigh a lot.

Plus, yes, legally owning an M60 is very nearly impossible in many states.
 
UncleThursday said:
If I worked overnight in a convenience store in a big city, I'd damn well want a gun under the counter. The amount of people who get killed by some robber over a few bucks in the cash register is horrible.

If I worked in a convenience store in America, yes. I would too. Because practically anyone who wants a gun can legally buy one. Even the murderers.

I actually did work the overnight shift in a convenience store here in England for a couple of years. Guns aren't legal over here and are extremely rare. I never once felt like in order to be safe at my job, I needed a gun for protection.

The second amendment has created a vicious cycle where people feel they need guns because everyone else has guns.
 
Isabella_deL said:
but fact is, anyone buying a gun for the purposes that they feel they'd actually shoot another human being if threatened, probably shouldn't have a gun.

That's the fact, eh? What are your qualifications for stating such a so-called fact like that? Tell that to a woman who buys a firearm after being raped or her single mom friends that are buying guns to protect themselves and their children. Guns are not evil, people that use them for ill intent are. There over 250 million responsible gun owners in the US.

If someone was trying to break into your home, intent on raping or killing you, good luck protecting yourself with harsh language and hoping the police get there in time.
 
Bocefish said:
Isabella_deL said:
but fact is, anyone buying a gun for the purposes that they feel they'd actually shoot another human being if threatened, probably shouldn't have a gun.

That's the fact, eh? What are your qualifications for stating such a so-called fact like that? Tell that to a woman who buys a firearm after being raped or her single mom friends that are buying guns to protect themselves and their children. Guns are not evil, people that use them for ill intent are. There over 250 million responsible gun owners in the US.

If someone was trying to break into your home, intent on raping or killing you, good luck protecting yourself with harsh language and hoping the police get there in time.

Over the last five years there have been more rapes in America (per 100,000 population) than there has in UK. That says to me that guns are an ineffective deterrent against rape.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics)
 
mynameisbob84 said:
Bocefish said:
Isabella_deL said:
but fact is, anyone buying a gun for the purposes that they feel they'd actually shoot another human being if threatened, probably shouldn't have a gun.

That's the fact, eh? What are your qualifications for stating such a so-called fact like that? Tell that to a woman who buys a firearm after being raped or her single mom friends that are buying guns to protect themselves and their children. Guns are not evil, people that use them for ill intent are. There over 250 million responsible gun owners in the US.

If someone was trying to break into your home, intent on raping or killing you, good luck protecting yourself with harsh language and hoping the police get there in time.

Over the last five years there have been more rapes in America (per 100,000 population) than there has in UK. That says to me that guns are an ineffective deterrent against rape.

)Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics)

That tells me there weren't enough armed women who know how to protect themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllisonWilder
Bocefish said:
mynameisbob84 said:
Bocefish said:
Isabella_deL said:
but fact is, anyone buying a gun for the purposes that they feel they'd actually shoot another human being if threatened, probably shouldn't have a gun.

That's the fact, eh? What are your qualifications for stating such a so-called fact like that? Tell that to a woman who buys a firearm after being raped or her single mom friends that are buying guns to protect themselves and their children. Guns are not evil, people that use them for ill intent are. There over 250 million responsible gun owners in the US.

If someone was trying to break into your home, intent on raping or killing you, good luck protecting yourself with harsh language and hoping the police get there in time.

Over the last five years there have been more rapes in America (per 100,000 population) than there has in UK. That says to me that guns are an ineffective deterrent against rape.

)Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics)

That tells me there weren't enough armed women who know how to protect themselves.

I know of three models on MFC that I would feel very sorry for anyone trying to break into their homes to rape them, or even just to rob their homes. SlimSecrets, KansasKelly and MissSexyVixen. All of these women are armed. MissSexyVixen was also in the military, so she at least is well aware of the basics of shooting and hitting her target. KansasKelly also has a daughter in her home, so she probably wouldn't think twice about shooting an intruder in her home. SlimSecrets has 4 kids at her home, so again, she wouldn't think twice about shooting an intruder in her home.

Other models are also armed, I know. I don't know all of the ones who are, but it's not entirely uncommon to find out a model has a gun in her home for protection, if she is from the US.
 
Isabella_deL said:
I was being semi sarcastic about the bears, as it seems that the reason for you having guns for defence is for shooting humans. "Bad humans" that come into your homes/try and hurt you, but fact is, anyone buying a gun for the purposes that they feel they'd actually shoot another human being if threatened, probably shouldn't have a gun.

But if their purpose for having the gun is to protect their family, I certainly wouldn't fault them for that. Sure, you can TRY to call 9-1-1 and wait around for x minutes for them to send someone over...hopefully the rapist/burglar hasn't already started raping/shooting by then.
 
UncleThursday said:
I know of three models on MFC that I would feel very sorry for anyone trying to break into their homes to rape them, or even just to rob their homes. SlimSecrets, KansasKelly and MissSexyVixen.


I think KerriKing has a gun too. I remember, a while back, seeing her room topic about needing x tokens so she could buy a gun. And she was getting annoyed with the number of guys who kept asking her "What kind of gun are you getting?" LOL.
 
Jupiter551 said:
You know, as a male I understand this: guns are kinda cool, I get that, while I was in Vietnam on vacation I took the opportunity to fire an M60 and an ak-47 at a firing range and it was fun. I just don't get that they're worth the cost in innocent life, they're weapons of war and in extreme cases of law enforcement. They're just not something you need sitting around the home.

The fully automatic AK-47 and M-60 guns are also illegal to own in most states in the US. I believe Nevada allows for fully automatic weapons, maybe a few others, but most states ban the personal ownership of fully automatic weapons.

Jupiter551 said:
Growing up we had racks of guns above my bed at my grandma and grandpa's house. Two double barreled 12 guages, a 10 guage semi auto browning, a .303 rifle and a scoped aussie army rifle my uncle had brought back from the vietnam war. Grandpa never, EVER, let us anywhere near where he hid the ammunition, which was too high for children to reach anyway. My grandpa, dad, and his brothers used to hunt - that's why they had the guns. They lived in the country and it wasn't uncommon. Curious as boys are about such things I begged, and was allowed to shoot the guns, out in the bush at a tree, with my dad present. But for years before that I had drilled into me to NEVER, EVER EVER point a gun at another person EVEN IF IT'S UNLOADED (the point being even if you THINK it's unloaded). Stuff that kids should be taught if they ever are around guns.

My point is this: even with all that, the only reason I or any of my immediate family are alive today is because our family and extended family are generally well-adjusted, loving people. It would have only taken one adult to go grab a handful of ammunition, a gun off the wall and end us all. I trust my family to be responsible, but I don't trust others to be responsible, so I'd rather there were no guns at all. :twocents-02cents:

Growing up in a military household, where both parents were in the military, I also grew up with guns around me. Like you, I was taught gun safety at a very young age. They're not toys; don't point them at anyone; they can seriously hurt or kill you or someone else. I got to watch as my father cleaned his M-16 when he was required to have it, but never help or touch. The gun case was this huge metal lockbox (almost 6 feet long), with locks at both ends and in the middle, so myself or my 2 brothers could simply not get in it.

I went to firing ranges as a kid, and learned the basics of shooting. I even got to fire an M-16 at the range, once, when I was 12 or 13. I fired off one shot and was done. I wasn't braced entirely properly, and nearly dislocated my shoulder. The bruise from the recoil shoving the stock into my shoulder was there for over a week. But, I think my dad let me fire it to show me just how powerful it was and that it wasn't this cool thing I expected. He also only had the one round in the chamber. I never asked to fire that thing, ever again. And after seeing the bruise on me, my younger brothers didn't want to fire it, either.

But, I have always kept responsible gun ownership in my head. Always.

Responsible gun ownership is fine in my book. It's the irresponsible people with guns that I don't like. Or all the gangsta wannabes who think it's cool to have a piece on them. Hell, I'm even afraid of many cops with their guns, because they aren't as rigorously trained in their use as they should be in many parts of the country. Especially in smaller towns.

But, I don't want to see them removed for protection of home and life. I would rather the education about gun safety, use, and responsibility was more ingrained into people's heads. Also, I think there should be tougher laws against those who use guns in a crime, even with no injury or death, and to the people that supply them. An example being if you knowingly go and buy a hand gun for someone who wouldn't pass the background check, and that gun gets used in a crime, you're just as guilty as the person using the gun and get the same sentence. Or that gun owners need to regularly check on their weapons, to ensure they still are where they left them; and make it mandatory to report lost or stolen guns or face the same penalties if those guns are used in a crime.

That's the better alternative use of gun control laws, over the mindless 'ban them all!!!' that gets spouted off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
Status
Not open for further replies.