So the lesson here is to ban guns so the good people who felt bad about shooting someone will turn in their guns, while the assholes taking a 17 year old girl hostage will just keep them and cause havoc on society. If america didn't have guns so ingrained in it's history then i would say yes band guns and make this great place safer. Guess what its not that way so we have to make the best of what we have. Love me or hate me this is how i feel, more people have guns than we think and considering how many weapons are in this country we have very little gun violence.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
2 Men Use Girl as Human Shield, Father Guns Them Down
- Thread starter CrankyJay
- Start date
- Status
Zoe
Member
It's how it works in real life in America. There are people today who aren't supposed to have guns but do. You can't retroactively sweep up all those guns off the streets.
jakonovski
Member
Random Painted HIghway
Member
Please do tell your plan for getting rid of 300m guns and preventing 3d printing of new guns. These things don't disintegrate after a few years.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Agreed. So many people in this thread think that guns will magically appear in criminal hands no matter what. They are totally obvious to where the guns really come from and either don't know or refuse to admit that there are obvious steps to reducing that problem.
jakonovski
Member
Oh come on, stop making excuses. I'm no expert in organizing gun control programs, but the US is not exactly a crisis zone. It's just that there. is. no. political. will.
Or as Chris Rock said, you make ammunition a $1000 a pop. If you got shot with ammo prices being that high, someone seriously wanted you dead.
Minister of the Dog
Member
Besides, even if he DID think that they might let them live, that would still have been a gamble that could have cost them all their lives...
...Is that a gamble worth taking?
The father gambled in the other direction; which could have failed due to countless other variables as well...
Pick your poison; but remember what Henri Ducard tells Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins:
At least everything turned out "okay" for the fathers family; his "will to act" is what led to his survival.
Yes but your average criminal wouldn't spend the time manually making ammunition.
And are we really worried about gun accident at the hand of criminals if we're not really concerned with their lives to begin with?
Anyways this is just one hypothesis and no way to test it unfortunately.
DoktorEvil
Banned
Been saving this one for a rainy day:
It's only in humor. I'm not saying women shoot better or less.
please don't ban me :/
Did you just invoke Batman? Seriously?
Ignoring the absurdity of referencing a fictional superhero:
Batman doesn't kill, and Batman doesn't use guns. Ever
Ignoring the usual "this anecdotal case proves X" arguments, I do wonder what would have happened if the parents had killed their daughter. Presumably armed gunmen coming into your home would mean you had reasonable force to act in almost all circumstances, but would firing at criminals while they were holding your daughter be some sort of reckless endangerment?
I wonder who in the world would give amateurs like that a gun. Reminds me of that 8 year old boy who shot himself with an uzi at a gunshowBeen saving this one for a rainy day:
It's only in humor. I'm not saying women shoot better or less.
please don't ban me :/
I know that Batman doesn't kill. Did I say he does? Did I say that the father was right? I said that the father had the will to act. I find it courageous but also extremely risky! It could have backfired in the loss of his daughters, wife's, his, or a combination of all three of their lives.
CornBurrito
Member
How are these responsible owners? Because the mothers stray bullet luckily didn't hit the daughter?
Aiming at someone who has a hostage seems irresponsible.
DoktorEvil
Banned
Sounds like dad spent a crap ton of time at the range and it paid off.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
The "Drug War" started 40 years ago and has seen untold billions (Perhaps over a trillion) poured into it. Drugs are no less easy to acquire now than the day it started. The same was true of alcohol during Prohibition.
What makes you think firearms would be any different given that most Americans believe in at least some form of firearm ownership (Even if they think it should be more limited)?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
At least someone figured it out
Vermillion
Banned
I know it's been said already... but this is almost exactly how Taken ended.
(Oh, and gun crime in the US is on a downwards trend, IIRC.
Also, I've lived in the US my entire life, and I've never seen an actual gun... outside of the police and display cases for rifles in Wal-Mart, that is.)
(Oh, and gun crime in the US is on a downwards trend, IIRC.
Also, I've lived in the US my entire life, and I've never seen an actual gun... outside of the police and display cases for rifles in Wal-Mart, that is.)
CornBurrito
Member
The mother missed though.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_29109617-bc56-534f-82e6-d36ccba40c38.html
That is some major precision! The guy knew what he was doing. He shot around his daughter, right?
One of the basic rights in the US constitution is the right to bear arms for defense. This situation most certainly counts as such, and so reckless endangerment would be out of the cards as far as the courts are concerned. The family was already in clear and present danger because the men had a gun to the daughter's head.
Zoe
Member
That's the second guy who was behind the one holding the daughter.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
John Kowalski
Banned
Are you fapping with the other?
Multiple clean shots on a human moving target? Yup.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
The guys daughter was there. It is painfully obvious that him and his wife just started shooting, and luckily did not hit the girl. Please point to any sort of training classes where they teach you to shoot towards a hostage. I also pointed out how there were bullet holes on the door and window behind the intruders... clean shots... and unless you have the medical reports, I don't think you can comment on whether the shots that actually hit the guys were all clean or not.
Minister of the Dog
Member
Alcohol and drugs can be respectively distilled and synthesized easily compared to manufacturing guns.
Mammoth Jones
Member
My statement was under the premise that guns were legal but ammo availability/prices and cleaning tools were limited by price.
Hence my comment about people that legal own guns trying to reload.
jakonovski
Member
What makes you think drugs are similar to guns?
Like has been said, drugs are easier to make, just about anyone can do it in a small scale. Also, guns are not addicting unlike drugs. That's kind of huge and makes the situation not comparable. As evidenced by every single place that has treated drug addiction as a disease, and consequently alleviated the drug problem. You can't treat guns as a disease.
Of course, I might be wrong about gun control but so might you. What is certain is you'll never know if you aren't willing to try. Too many people promote the myth that nothing can be done about guns, and sadly the "can" often means "should", as IMO the real deal, the elephant in the room, is that a lot of people think high gun crime is acceptable as long as you get to have easy gun ownership.
Because there's already so many guns and it's so easy to smuggle stuff into America, I'm betting they could get one if guns became illegal in America.
Most smuggling of guns involve buying guns in the US and smuggling them else where. If guns were banned in the US the global gun smuggling business would likely collapse.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
There are parts of the world where firearms are manufactured by hand. Cartels would gladly sophisticate the process if there was demand for it.
Barring that, there's also the fact that there are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation today. Some platforms, such as the AK-47, had been produced by the tens of millions and will last for generations to come with minimal upkeep. A ban will not prevent them from reaching the hands of people who intend to use them maliciously.
I never stated drugs were similar to guns: I asserted that our government is incapable of effectively enforcing a ban. The addictive property of the product is inconsequential as well as it completely misses the point. A person bent on committing criminal acts will not allow something as simple as a law stop them from acquiring a firearm (This is backed by the fact that most firearms used in crime are illegally obtained).
You're right that I'm not willing to try. I'm not willing to even entertain the notion so long as our police remain aggressive towards the populace, late to respond (If they respond at all), and completely unaccountable for crimes committed under color of authority.
Black markets always adapt to fill demand that isn't being filled by the legitimate economy. This has been true since the advent of regulatory oversight of economic activity.
Can you define "illegally obtained"? Does that include straw purchases?
Alternatively, do you have a source for this claim?
Mammoth Jones
Member
I completely agree.
I really think it's a naive view that banning guns is somehow going to make the hundreds of millions of guns and the billions of rounds of ammo in the US alone magically vanish in a puff of (gun)smoke.
Especially when ANY type of ban is going to HAVE to be a voluntary surrender of firearms. Unless we're talking about violating some privacy laws to really dig deep and find out who may or may not have a gun in their home.
Minister of the Dog
Member
Which parts? How many? How much could they increase production for how much demand? I've been searching for some kind of source but all I've seen is quite the contrary, the cartels arming themselves with guns they purchase from the U.S.:
Example 1, Example 2
And they can be destroyed. Similar to what Australia did, as the source in my previous post says (a post which, by the way, has not been addressed by any of the "impossibility to take the guns from the people" supporters), some steps that might help head in the right direction would be:
- A schedule and a monetary recompense for giving one's weapons, after which, strict laws that punish people who are found with banned weapons.
- Strict gun ownership laws. Which weapons should people be allowed to own, and the need for people to provide a reason before being able to acquire a gun. Have practical and theoretical tests that need to be passed before allowing someone to buy a gun. Weapons to be used and displayed only within that reported reason (e.g. taking a hunting rifle from home to the hunting area and from the hunting area home).
- Ban certain type of weapons. What business does any regular person have owning an AK-47? A high-calibre sniper rifle? Semi-automatic weapons? Silencers?
What's exactly the use the average Joe can give to a weapon like this?
Why would anyone need an arsenal like this?
I'm definitely not an expert on law making or gun control, but similar measures seem to really work in Australia in helping them control gun ownership and death-by-gun rates, or are working in other countries to prevent a rise in gun-related crime.
A person bent on comitting criminal acts will not allow something as simple as not getting a gun stop them from comitting a crime. Again:
This is true. However, laws can shape a society too. Will the demand be the same after 5, 10, 20 years? I don't think anyone believes this could be achieved just in time for the next presidential election.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
Actually, there is/was a section of American Rifleman (the NRA magazine) that basically had stories like these. It read like Penthouse Forum letters.
This is starting to make me think this story is at least partially made up.
Statue of Limitation
Member
And turn on dead eye too, to be sure
- Status