If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Do you know that is the way it goes if you are in the United States Army. There is a rule that you cannot strike until struck three times first....because you are trained to kill....
There is some sense in it.
But I prefer not to listen. If I see a gun pointed at me, I will not wait for the trigger to be pulled for me to take action.
My guard is always up. I will not start a fight, but if I must get into one, I will.
That is the chance you take with preemptive measures. Your only hope is that people will actually use the brain God gave them and think to strike only when struck at.
I say let the drunks have their fights, but if a shot gets taken at me, make no mistake I WILL respond.
My life may depend on it.
Diesel! No fear, brother, no fear!
As the president of Brothers In Arms U.S.A., the nation's third-largest gun-rights organization, I've heard all the arguments made by the anti-gun propagandists. And of the many misguided aspects of their anti-gun rhetoric, the most off-base is this bizarre notion that guns are inherently deadly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is, guns are only deadly when used for their intended purpose.
Time and time again, the enemies of groups like Brothers In Arms U.S.A. confuse the innocuous phenomenon of guns with the handful of irresponsible people who engage in the deadly practice of gun use. Well, there is a difference, and it's high time the namby-pamby liberals recognize this fact.
Take the letter I got from a California woman whose 15-year-old son was "killed by a gun" while walking to his after-school job. Now, come on. No one is naïve enough to think that an innocent boy died just because a gun was designed, manufactured, and sold. Even before I looked into this woman's story, I knew there had to be more that she wasn't telling me. Sure enough, newspaper clippings and police records revealed that another youth aimed his gun at this boy and pulled the trigger. This action, gun experts will tell you, caused a precision-machined steel hammer to strike the primer of a 9mm cartridge, igniting the smokeless powder within, propelling a 138-grain bullet down the pistol's barrel and into the woman's son. The gun never even came within 10 feet of the kid. The only thing the gun was guilty of was functioning properly.
Advertisement
My point? No child dies just because there is such a thing as guns. They die because one of these guns is used.
In all my years of fighting for the cause of gun rights, not once have I ever come across a case of a gun killing a person. In every instance, the real killer has been the bullets that come out of the guns. So if you're going to insist on pointing fingers, point them at the bullet makers.
Okay, admittedly, there is the occasional pistol-whipping victim who never regains consciousness. But that's a freakish, statistically insignificant aberration that merely proves my point: Only when guns are used as intended are they significantly dangerous to anyone.
But try telling this to all the crybabies suing the gun companies because not everybody in their family is alive. What exactly are you suing them for—making a reliable product? That's a laugh. Somebody should be suing those shoddy import jobs: You'd be lucky to kill a baby with one of them.
No, a gun is not deadly when it sits locked up in a collector's cabinet. Guns don't beam bad thoughts into people's heads that make them fall over dead. There is only one way guns kill, and that's if some misguided weirdo follows the rules of proper gun use and actually aims and fires the gun in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines.
I feel so strongly about this. As a gun activist and advocate, I feel it is my duty to speak out against this ridiculous fantasy of guns running around on tiny little legs, indiscriminately selecting pedestrians for death.
For all the work Brothers In Arms U.S.A. has done to educate people, there remain all these misconceptions about guns being deadly. Well, so is an atom bomb... if you drop it on a city! But you've still got these hippies whining that the solution is to have no atom bombs whatsoever. Great, just punish everybody because a handful of kooks can't keep their fingers off the button.
It's an old saying, but it's still true: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." At least, if they've got a gun, they do.
Respected? By whom?
If you take a "journal" dedicated to satire, and use it as your news source, you have real issues, and they should be dealt with somewhere in private... :rolleyes:
Soooo, according to the Onion, then...we should just lock up everyone in their homes and keep any sharp or blunt object from their hands cause it may be used to hurt another human being.
For God's sakes then, get off the sidewalks, you might get run over by a car.
I agree totally, and if the boy who just think rape and assault against what they view as a non person (thats you ladies) KNEW ahead of time that the target of their agression may just be armed and ready to use it, I think it would solve the whole problem nicely.
Lots of americans carry guns, it has nothing to do with politeness. People who carry guns legally dont go around shooting anyone. Most shootings are crimes, committed by criminals. If criminals knew the victums of their potential crimes were armed and........see above. :rolleyes:
But its even more likley the rapist will be carrying a gun, then what, your back to square one with the exception people getting killed is more likely.
Actually, it is no more likely. Criminals can get weapons (maybe you can explain to me how the IRA gets their weapons?) regardless of the law. And your comment just indicates how little you understand the dynamics of being armed. Probably because you never have been.
No matter what in any violent crime, the possibility of someone getting killed is likely.
I'd rather have better odds to handle the situation and be it him instead of me.
Synpathisers in the USA usually.
sometimes you can come up with a cracker though...
even if I did spell it wrongly, I meant SYMPATHISERS before anyone gets pedantic about it.
what you are proposing isss that the USA is to blame for the IRA having weapons>>>>>
Thats SO ridiculous. Its FUNNY.:rolleyes:
Not entirely, and not the US Govt. However, have you ever heard of NORAID?
You obviously don't know Diesel.
There are a lot of people in the USA with Irish roots. There are a lot of people in the USA with links to Sinn Fein and the republicans.
There have been numerous proven links between the IRA and wealthy supporters in the USA.
The dynamics of been armed mean you have the potential to kill someone, that my freind is enough to convince me its not a good idea
It nice to walk the streets here and feel confident nobody is going to point a gun at you for whatever reason, I'm happy to sacrifice a slightly increased crime rate for that peace of mind.
Absolute bullshit.
Just a thought.
Sorry, but how can that be bullshit? Isn't the possibility of getting killed somehow, always there? I would say especially in violent crimes.
Possible and likely are two different things, its not likely you will die through violent crime, possible yes. I have no statistics to back up my argument, but I'd say its likely the percentage of people who die through violent crime and hence are murdered is small. I would say with guns about the incident the chance is improved.
In England in 1999 there were 11,000, compared to 16,000 in 1994.
The number of people murdered in 1999 was just 649. Currently you have a 1 in 12 million chance of being murdered with ANY weapon in this country. There are no specific statistics for guns however you can expect this to be much lower as gun ownership is lower than in previous years.
Source-office for national statistics.
RPGs? Plastique? AKs?
None of those come from the USA.
You can all crow about US support for the IRA, but it is not US support that arms the IRA.
False confidence. It's called living in a dream world. You are as likely to have a weapon pointed at you in England as in America (it is highly unlikely in both places).
Allowing guns can only having negative effects on that situation, well it matters not, you have your way, we have ours
Delusional must be an oh-so-peaceful place... :rolleyes:
Kinda like that nice, warm, wrapped-in-a-blanket sensation that I am told comes with heroin... Right?
How long did it take you to think of that? Anyone has the potential to kill, but it depends on what your motives are.
I could go out and stab someone right now cause I wanted to.
That is different than stabbing someone in defense of my own life.
They don't necessarily need a gun to hurt you. Just as it is not likely that they will pull a gun on you, but possible yes.
What about the police, if you've got a gun under a circumstance, there is a chance they'll take you out in the name of self defence.
This idea you have thats its perfectly acceptable to start blowing peoples head off at the smallest sign of trouble is ridiculous, I've no idea how you go about your lives in the USA
The bottom line is guns kill people and for that alone they should not be freely welcome in society, they serve no puropse other than to kill, the first group of people to arm themselevs would be criminals, the people intent on hurting people, it gives police another worry everytime they answer an emergency call, recentley a farmer here shot a youth dead in self defence, reagrdless if he was right or wrong to do so, had he not been armed he wouldn't be doing a long stretch behind bars.
You've never been mugged, have you? Or raped? How about assaulted with a baseball bat?
I have friends from England who have had all of those done to them, in England. It's a bit more than a few bruises.
Oh, by the way, a firearm is an inanimate object. Like a hammer. Completely incapable of doing any harm by itself.
Oh, that farmer? You're right, if he had not been armed, he wouldn't be doing a long stretch behind bars. Instead he might be doing a permanent stretch six feet under.
What are we arguing about exactly? Do we have some people who advocate the use of weapons in your own home for defence, people who think we should keep them on our person, OR a total blanket ban?
I'd probably be more inclined to go with the permission to keep a firearm that can't be concealed, a rifle or small shotgun maybe in the home. I won't advocate the use of concealed firearms on the streets though.