SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[JG4_Helofly]

@ outlaw For your, taking a life doesn't seem to be a big deal. If someone is in your house: fire at will. What do you make of all the people who died because of the use of a gun in a defensiv situation? I am talking about unarmed burglars, people standing near by etc.
You can't just kill anything that might want to attack you. I don't know the law in the US, but here your life must really be treatened in order to use deadly force.

For the pepper spray I learned that there is a small percentage of people who are not affected by it. That's true, but as I said, hitting a target in a high stress situation without training, will have no effect if you miss. I saw people shooting 10 rounds at a static target in training situations without any round in a vital spot. Remember the FBI statistic. And what if the attacker manages to take your gun from you and shoot you with it? Especially in close quarter (like a house) a gun is not the best option.

As for your question, I can only say this. I didn't advocate the interdiction of guns. But as I wrote earlier: using a gun for defense is not the way to go for many reasons I mentionned before. It will ony result in more death.

You must be a very scared man. Maybe you should think about the fact that you have a greater chance to die in a car accident then to get shot.

As you see we won't agree on this topic. So let just agree to disagree.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

@ outlaw For your, taking a life doesn't seem to be a big deal. If someone is in your house: fire at will. What do you make of all the people who died because of the use of a gun in a defensiv situation? I am talking about unarmed burglars, people standing near by etc.

Bystanders hit by legal defensive use of firearms is VERY low. MUCH lower than the number of people who would have been killed otherwise.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

You can't just kill anything that might want to attack you. I don't know the law in the US, but here your life must really be treatened in order to use deadly force.

True, you can't kill anyone that might want to attack you, but you can kill anyone who reasonably poses a threat. See my reply to Zorin.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

Especially in close quarter (like a house) a gun is not the best option.

Based on WHAT?

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

As for your question, I can only say this. I didn't advocate the interdiction of guns. But as I wrote earlier: using a gun for defense is not the way to go for many reasons I mentionned before. It will ony result in more death.

What a cop-out. Based on your non-answer I can only assume that you afraid to admit that you think it's better that myself, the child, and her mother were dead.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

You must be a very scared man. Maybe you should think about the fact that you have a greater chance to die in a car accident then to get shot.

I'm fully aware of crash related deaths. In fact, the fact that car crashes kill 4 TIMES as many people as guns do supports my argument that the anti-gun lobby is ridiculously uneducated. If they were not, they would be lobbying for stricter controls on who is issued a driver's license and more harsh penalties for moving violations. But they do not. So they are ignoring a MUCH MORE DEADLY THREAT to go after firearms.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

As you see we won't agree on this topic. So let just agree to disagree.

I don't agree to that!!

--Outlaw.

[von Pilsner]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

I'm fully aware of crash related deaths. In fact, the fact that car crashes kill 4 TIMES as many people as guns do supports my argument that the anti-gun lobby is ridiculously uneducated. If they were not, they would be lobbying for stricter controls on who is issued a driver's license and more harsh penalties for moving violations. But they do not. So they are ignoring a MUCH MORE DEADLY THREAT to go after firearms.

You have to take 2 tests to get a license to own a car, perhaps there should be a written and competency test for gun ownership (as well as a license).... actually not a bad idea, Outlaw!

would you object to:
1. reasonable waiting period on gun purchase
2. background check for all gun purchases
3. limiting sale of certain magazines (based on capacity)
4. so called assault weapon ban?

I ask because these are more likely to occur than an outright gun ban (which would be a bad idea) and would still allow a citizen to protect his family.

For the record I am only hesitant on 4 because I know some great people who enjoy their AR15 and AK47s (and crappy SKSs), I'm fine with the first 3.

p.s. - I don't wish you or your family to have any misfortunes and I'm glad you were there to protect them...

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

You have to take 2 tests to get a license to own a car, perhaps there should be a written and competency test for gun ownership (as well as a license).... actually not a bad idea, Outlaw!

Yes, BUT, those test are so woefully inadequate that they might as well not even do it. The only REAL reason for those tests is to generate funds for the ticketing authority. OK, I'm being a bit facetious but I think you understand my point that 99,9% of the drivers here in the US suck, even the ones that got 100% on the tests.

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

would you object to:
1. reasonable waiting period on gun purchase
2. background check for all gun purchases
3. limiting sale of certain magazines (based on capacity)
4. so called assault weapon ban?

1 - No, because I have read at least 6 accounts of people who purchased a firearm because they were afraid of a specific individual and used it THAT DAY to save their life.

2 - Yes, and it is implemented now in the United States.

3 - Yes, nothing more than 100 rounds works for me. Note that this should not apply to belted weapons because they are never used in crimes and a collector should not be subjected to prosecution during a display because he accidentally miscounted. I picked 100 rounds because I see this as a step process that will simply lead to more and more limits on capacity. BTW, thanks for using the correct term. I'm so sick of hearing the word, "clip"!

4 - No, because I don't want some maniac to decide to shoot me with a 7mm mag because he couldn't get a .223 or 7.62x39. Even though you reduce my chances of getting hit at all, IF I do get hit, I will not survive a 7mm mag round to the torso. Note that I fully admit that this reasoning is questionable, however, considering that in such a situation I will be charging the individual doing the shooting, I expect I will get hit.

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

p.s. - I don't wish you or your family to have any misfortunes and I'm glad you were there to protect them...

Thanks!! For the record, they were not my family though. In fact, I only vaguely knew them.

--Outlaw.