Guns are evil because...

[Deadmanwalking_05]

They allow good folks to defend themselves from thugs that only want everything good folks have...

http://thecabin.net/news/local/2012-...s#.T6FTnatSSsa

Courtesy of KATV

CONWAY – A teenager is being called a hero by the family he protected from armed intruders early Monday morning.

Brady, 14, is a trained trap shooter who used his own shotgun to intimidate two black males who he says broke into his family's house just after midnight Monday morning.

"They both had silver revolvers pointed at me, and we just kind of pointed at each other for like three seconds and then I yelled, ‘Hey!'" said Brady, "And they and they took off running."

Nothing has been reported stolen from their house.

The full names of Brady's family are being concealed for safety purposes.

Less than 24 hours after the incident, Brady says he is slightly shaken up although he kept his cool during the tense few moments.

"It's pretty scary to be like looking death in the face and you realize how vulnerable you are all the time," he said.

His proud mother says while he is definitely young he's already shown more courage than most grown men.

"You always tell your kids don't touch guns, you know, they could hurt someone," said Angela," but if you actually teach your kids good gun safety to begin with, and they grow up around guns or grow up knowing how to use them they could save your life."

Brady has been training with guns since he was 5 and has been practicing with his own shotgun for two months.

"I'm proud of him," said Angela. "He's my hero."

She's already taking steps to make sure other unwelcome guests don't make it into the house. The locks have been changed and the security system has been upgraded.

"You name it we are doing it," she said. "So if they ever come back they're going to wish they hadn't of because we will catch them in the act."

Thanks to the quick thinking of her son, he did away with the first batch of what could be many criminals to come.

"He wants to be agent one of these days," Angela said, "so I guess he's starting young."

[Versus]

Guns are evil because they allow bad folks to commit horrible atrocity. They serve as an easy and convenient vehicle for the wholesale slaughter of communities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

The North Hollywood shootout was an armed confrontation between two heavily armed bank robbers and officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles on February 28, 1997. Both robbers were killed, eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and the police.

At approximately 9:30 am (UTC-8), Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu entered and robbed the North Hollywood Bank of America branch. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu were confronted by dozens of LAPD officers when they exited the bank and a shootout between the officers and robbers ensued. The two robbers attempted to flee the scene, Phillips on foot and Mătăsăreanu in their getaway vehicle, while continuing to engage the officers. The shootout continued onto a residential street adjacent to the bank until Phillips was mortally wounded, including by a self-inflicted gunshot wound; Mătăsăreanu was killed by officers three blocks away. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu are believed to have robbed two other banks using virtually identical methods by taking control of the entire bank and firing automatic weapons for control and entry past 'bullet-proof' security doors, and are possible suspects in two armored vehicle robberies.

Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their personal 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried fully automatic AK-47 and M16 rifles with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. They also wore military grade body armor of their own. Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' bullets were ineffective. SWAT eventually arrived with rifles powerful enough to penetrate the body armor. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilites in similar situations in the future.

Due to the large number of casualties, rounds fired, weapons used and overall length of the shootout, it is regarded as the longest and bloodiest event in US police history. This incident would later lead to California enforcing a highly restrictive law on firearms, including the controversial "10-round magazine-only" law for firearms bought in the state by residents.

[Cothurnatus]

Guns are evil because people those have them could be insane, emotionally unstable or just soaked or doped. All these "cool" guys types are always hard to reveal...

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Cothurnatus

Guns are evil because people those have them could be insane, emotionally unstable or just soaked or doped. All these "cool" guys types are always hard to reveal...

Yeah. Like these guys. I mean, c'mon. They just look crazy.

[MissCheyenne]

Ooooh, that one on the far right looks fucking INSANE.

[Versus]

It's always the little ones you have to be wary of.

[MissCheyenne]

I prefer to think of short people not as short but as CONCENTRATED FURY.

[Murder.Of.Crows]

Originally Posted by MissCheyenne

Ooooh, that one on the far right looks fucking SEXY.

Fixed it. LOL.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by MissCheyenne

I prefer to think of short people not as short but as CONCENTRATED SEX.

Fixed the second one!

[Valhalla]

Originally Posted by Cothurnatus

Guns are evil because people those have them could be insane, emotionally unstable or just soaked or doped. All these "cool" guys types are always hard to reveal...

I died. Then the sex edits resulted in continuous giggles. Just knew from the title that this would be a terrible, and wonderful thread.

Insert obvious comment about people, not guns, killing people.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Valhalla

Insert obvious comment about people, not guns, killing people.

But guns help, don't they?

[Versus]

Woo had an argument with his live-in girlfriend, Chun Mal-soon, on the afternoon of April 26, 1982, after she had woken him by swatting a fly on his chest. Enraged, he left the house and went to the police station, where he reported for duty at 4 pm, and began drinking heavily. At about 7:30 pm Woo returned home, punched and kicked his girlfriend and smashed the furniture, before making his way to the armory. As the other officers were at a meeting, he managed unnoticed to gather an arsenal, consisting of two M2 carbines, 180 rounds of ammunition, and seven hand grenades.

At approximately 9:30 pm Woo began shooting passers-by in a marketplace in the village of Torongni, where he also wounded Chun Mal-soon, who had gone to investigate, after hearing shots in the village. His next stop was at the post office in the nearby village of Kungryu, where he killed three phone operators and cut off the telephone lines to prevent others from calling emergency services. From that point on he proceeded from village to village, taking advantage of his position as a police officer to gain entry to the houses and shoot its inhabitants. That way Woo managed to kill 18 people in the village of Ungye, and 24 more in the village of Pyongchon. At one point, he ordered a 16-year-old boy to get him a soft drink from a grocery store. After getting what he had asked for, Woo shot the boy and his family.

Woo shot most of his victims, but in one case he killed an entire family with a grenade. Although police were alerted one hour after the beginning of the killing spree, he avoided capture and continued his rampage for a full eight hours. In the early hours of April 27, after rampaging through five villages in Uiryeong county, Woo took his final two grenades and strapped them to his body. He hid in the farmhouse belonging to 68-year-old Suh In-Su, holding him and his family captive, when police finally caught up with him. As police forces were closing in, he set the grenades' fuses, killing himself and three hostages. Mr. Suh himself survived gravely injured.

Altogether, with a toll of 57 dead and 35 injured, the rampage of Woo Bum-kon was the worst killing spree in modern times before the Norway attacks of July 22, 2011. Chun Mal-soon later said that her boyfriend "suffered from an inferiority complex and had been bothered by villagers' comments on their living together unmarried". Later on, the provincial chief of police was suspended, and four other officers were arrested for negligence of duty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-kon

They certainly do help.

[KissMeDeadly]

Originally Posted by Versus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-kon

They certainly do help.

So, normally I see the point of gun control, but, devil's advocate, here, if any of the families in the homes he broke into had a gun and somebody who knew how to use it, the rampage could have ended hours earlier, thus saving dozens of lives.

Hell, it could have been averted at the very start by late 80's Ice Cube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiX7GTelTPM

[Versus]

Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly

So, normally I see the point of gun control, but, devil's advocate, here, if any of the families in the homes he broke into had a gun and somebody who knew how to use it, the rampage could have ended hours earlier, thus saving dozens of lives.

Yes. Because more guns is obviously the great equalizer. Why didn't I think of that.

[KissMeDeadly]

Nothing can stop people from murdering. I hate it, but it seems to be our nature

The fact that guns exist is the problem. People are going to get a hold of them no matter what, for instance the guy in your story was a police officer. No way the government is going to give up *their* guns.

So the fact still remains that people will still have access to guns, just not through legal means. The kind of people who know where the black market weapons are are not generally good people.

So it seems that, because we are never going to get rid of people having guns, why not allow people to choose if they want a gun or not to protect themselves and others from violence.

Still though, like I said I normally see tighter gun laws as a good thing. There is no reason you need fully automatic weapons, flak jackets, etc. I don't even see why you would ever need more that one or two guns.

Personally I feel the way to resolve the whole thing is to allow people their right to guns, but limit the ammount they have. Say something like 1-2 guns per household, and only allow hunting rifles and shotguns, no pistols or military type weaponry.

[Versus]

People are just going to get them illegally, huh. You don't say.

[KissMeDeadly]

Do you have an argument against that? Or are you done?

[Versus]

I do, actually. But your "arguement" is a regurgitation of the same crap that you can find in any debate about gun laws. I feel that is indicative that you don't know what you're talking about. It's not my job to educate you, so how about you do a little research and think about it, then maybe you can get back to me. Kthx

[KissMeDeadly]

Originally Posted by Versus

I do, actually. But your "arguement" is a regurgitation of the same crap that you can find in any debate about gun laws. I feel that is indicative that you don't know what you're talking about. It's not my job to educate you, so how about you do a little research and think about it, then maybe you can get back to me. Kthx

So let me get this straight, I'm the one who needs to do research, and you're the one who can't argue a "regurgitation of the same crap that you can find in any debate about gun laws"? The reason it's 'regurgitated' is because it's common fucking sense.

[Versus]

More guns will make less gun related crime is common sense? You're fucking stupid, B.

Which would you prefer, an arguement based in statistics or one in logic?

[KissMeDeadly]

You act like I'm calling for every citizen to be outfitted with machineguns and nuclear warheads. I'm not. I'm saying that people should have the right to own a gun if they want one. There are more purposes for guns than murdering people...you know this, right? Will you outlaw hunting?


I'd like an argument based on logic, please. Statistics can be...misleading.

[KissMeDeadly]

Versus's lack of response clearly indicates (s)he is at the local gun store buying all the guns.

All the guns

[Versus]

You may notice that I haven't posted in any thread at all since this one. But you're right; clearly that means that I am too ashamed to admit that I am wrong and have fled from this argument.

Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly

So, normally I see the point of gun control, but, devil's advocate, here, if any of the families in the homes he broke into had a gun and somebody who knew how to use it, the rampage could have ended hours earlier, thus saving dozens of lives.

You're right. If any of those people had guns as well, Woo could have been stopped sooner. This, however, is not indicative that because guns are available, people who otherwise wouldn't be inclined to arm themselves suddenly will. The United States has the most relaxed gun laws in the industrialized world and the highest gun ownership per capita, but still has some of the highest crime rates, particularly homicide, and guess what? One of the highest firearm related death rates. More guns does not ever equate to less gun crime.

Nothing can stop people from murdering. I hate it, but it seems to be our nature

Well, fucking obviously murder wasn't suddenly invented in tandem with gunpowder. That does not change that firearms make mass murder easier. The reason why gun laws are so invasive is because guns are so easy to use; Literally, they can serve as a vehicle to an end which would otherwise be extremely difficult to accomplish.

The fact that guns exist is the problem. People are going to get a hold of them no matter what, for instance the guy in your story was a police officer. No way the government is going to give up *their* guns.

So the fact still remains that people will still have access to guns, just not through legal means. The kind of people who know where the black market weapons are are not generally good people.

So it seems that, because we are never going to get rid of people having guns, why not allow people to choose if they want a gun or not to protect themselves and others from violence.

Again, firearms-related death is not suddenly going to stop everywhere, but it's fucking moronic to come to the conclusion that because gun ownership is illegal or severely restricted, that things will be the same as if it wasn't because some people will still be able to get them. You can look at any industrialized country with restrictive laws and will find that their gun-related crime per capita is significantly lower. Japan, for instance, has the strictest gun laws in the industrialized world and, consequently, has an average of less then 200 gun-related crimes a year, with a handgun-related homicide rate 200 times less then the United States.

You act like I'm calling for every citizen to be outfitted with machineguns and nuclear warheads. I'm not. I'm saying that people should have the right to own a gun if they want one. There are more purposes for guns than murdering people...you know this, right? Will you outlaw hunting?

Yes, I definitely equated gun ownership to nuclear warfare. I know what the fuck you're saying, and I'm telling you that your argument is based on assumptions from your imagination, not fucking reality. If you actually did research like I told you to, then maybe you would understand how the real world actually is. Your logic is fucking stupid, and regardless of what the fuck you feel, it doesn't change that strict gun laws reduce gun related crime rates. You will not find a single country has both relaxed gun control and low gun-related crime rates.

I want you to think about what "the United States is the largest exporter of firearms" means.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Think about it this way....

The Firearm is the ultimate symbol of the duality of man.

It can be used to cause harm and spread violence,It can also be used to prevent harm and allow for a peaceful existence (as well as provide for recreational marksmanship,and supply food for the stew pot)

It is what an individual person does with said firearm that determines the outcome.

Some on here (and in real life) would like nothing more than to get rid of firearms completely.

I as well as others would like the ability to own Full auto weapons without all the legal red tape (no different than someone else wanting to own a fast as hell sports car).

The two sides of this debate will continue to hammer away until the end of time,but I would at least like to leave the choice/right of ownership to the individual.

Sure there are dangers,there are dangers in just about everything in life,but to say that one person has no right to own what they please (as long as they do no real harm to others) is just short sighted and wrong in my book.

[Saturnine Entropic Wyrm]

The notion that prohibiting anything will work is silly. Humans were killng each other for millenia prior to the invention of firearms. If someone gets it in their head to do harm to another, it will either happen or it will not.
Do firearms make it easier? Certainly. They are the great equaliser. So do vehicles, really. Is it tragic that they are used irresponsibly? Absolutely. If we could erase their invention, I would be for it. Let hunters use bows and learn a deep respect for their prey. But it's idealistic to presume prohibiting guns will work. Humans are clever enough to invent firearms - and clever enough to find a way around any attempt to regulate their actions.