Most gun-loving: Americans vs Thais

[lvr181]

The whole Americans & guns act, probably from stupid British people or ignorant (ex-criminal related) Australians. If it wasn't for the British greed to rule the world, America would be a completely different place. But no, England & it's history to conquer & destroy everything.

But given if no English, no Romans...America would be right where it's at now...just a matter of perspective.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Ignorance is bliss.

Therefore, you are blissful.

[Docno]

See above. I just wrote how our views of the importance of gun ownership differs. I'll twist it for you. He's worried about his personal security right now, and I'm worried about the security of my country if ever the need arises.

I'm willing to take some risks today to assure a free country for my grandchildren.

Would you sacrifice YOUR grandchildren to protect your freedom?

Huh? ?? I would sacrifice myself for my grandchildren's freedom.

What are you on?

America has the world's 3rd largest population. The teeny, teeny percentage of them killed by gun murder each year is far less than the number killed in car accidents, or from smoking or drinking.

Guns are sensationalized beyond reason.

<deleted -- someone else beat me to it>

Edited May 18, 2014 by Docno

[ClutchClark]

They have to carry guns to make it peaceful? I know the majority of neighbours in my suburban neighbourhood, which is peaceful, and no one carries guns!

Therefore peace can be obtainable without guns.

That's a good one. And you know that how, because of the American culture that as soon as one gets a CCP she knocks on all the doors on the street to tell everyone, starting at your home?

pulltheotherone2.jpg

Look. For all you know, and definitely for all I know, maybe you're right. It's very possible and credible. It's just not possible that you know about it, either way, that's all. When my son takes me out to dinner, *I* don't usually know if he is armed, and I bought him the darned gun! I do know that sometimes he is(n't) because sometimes he has remarked on it.

No one wants you to carry, or not carry. Almost no one cares at all. And I think your little homily at the end there is cute. Spend a bit of time, cut in down just a bit, get it on a T-shirt. Remember how well this worked?

peacewithoutguns.jpg

Wanda , what a coincidence, my great -grand daughter attends the same university. She says its so quiet there because all of students are busy praying to god that nobody ever displays a weapon since they are scared shitless to be caught in all the crossfire of inexperienced shooters ;-)

I'm sorry your grandkids turned out to be terrible parents, but maybe they could claim it was in her genes or something. She could maybe get some help from the other students and try to turn her life around to be useful. Blaming "all of the students" for her problem .... it's so Generation Y!

.

Wanda,

You sure are a nasty one going straight for the attack on family members. grandkids and great-grandkids even.

What a bitter pill you must have swallowed.

Perhaps you should attempt reading my post again because, poor lady, in your venomous attack you must have left some spittle on your screen.

[ClutchClark]

This is a crock because Mexico, South Africa and Russia are not included, Chile??? Where's Brazil? Just another anti- NRA propaganda stunt. Switzerland gives an M16 to every Swiss head of household in the interests of national security. 15 deaths out of 100,000 is 0.015% far less than the chance you have of slipping in the bathtub or whatever. Whatever the anti gun lobby says, please say it when you have a gun at your head or a knife at your throat.

If you can actually answer this question with honesty then please do tell how many times in your civilian life you have had a gun pointed at your head or a knife at your throat and please do tell us how you escaped the danger.

For myself, had a gun pointed at me once. While stopped at a red light the driver in front of me was smacking the female passenger . I exited my truck, knocked on his driver window since the door was locked. He reached over to his console and picked up a semi-auto and pointed it at me with a look of "your move". Well my move was to return to my truck and wait for the green. I would not have engaged this person in a firefight even if I had been carrying.

Funny but in all my near 80 years of life, mostly in the US, I have never required a firearm to fend off a pistol to my head or a knife to my throat.

Do you think maybe you watch too many movies?

Edited May 18, 2014 by ClutchClark

[Tywais]

A post and reply to it removed for copyright reasons that quoted a media source but no link attributing the source.

[Seastallion]

Australia, a military ally of the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific, will increase defense spending under Prime Minister Tony Abbott after it fell to a seven-decade low, the government announced in its budget today.

Abbott is seeking to build out the countrys military capacity at a time of Chinas rising assertiveness in the region.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-13/australia-pledges-to-lift-defense-spending-from-7-decade-low.html

Ohhh thanks for that. Priceless.

He’s committed to building new Collins-class submarines at facilities in South Australia state, buying 72 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and lifting defense spending from its lowest level since 1938 as a share of gross domestic product. I know man. You all are spending less on defense than you did in 1938? Remember what happened in 1941. You all got the guns out then eh?

Seems there was a time when people from Australia talked about Americans with guns they talked about how nice it was that they could shoot straight not how they wanted them not to have guns.

Deceptive reporting. What it really means is GDP has risen at a greater rate than defence spending, but that does not imply less defence spending. Australia has had some pretty good booms and GDP has skyrocketed at times.

And excuse me for correcting another fact; Not meant to jibe, but it is a fact that Australians, in fact all the West except the US, do not talk about how nice it is that Americans can shoot straight. On the contrary, I have heard many times them bemoaning how many "own goals" Americans score on the battle field.

[neverdie]

American "exceptionalism" at its best:

Fortunately the one's doing the best job of eliminating themselves seem to be mainly in the "red states."

This is a crock because Mexico, South Africa and Russia are not included, Chile??? Where's Brazil? Just another anti- NRA propaganda stunt. Switzerland gives an M16 to every Swiss head of household in the interests of national security. 15 deaths out of 100,000 is 0.015% far less than the chance you have of slipping in the bathtub or whatever. Whatever the anti gun lobby says, please say it when you have a gun at your head or a knife at your throat.

Interesting........meanwhile the NRA and all the cowboys and gun slingers rush in here and tell me to mind my own business......there's no problems with gun laws in 'the states'.

It's like an alcoholic that just won't recognise that he's one.

[neverdie]

No guns please, we're British!

I thought that was,

"No sex please. we're British" ?????

[ryanmacl]

This is a crock because Mexico, South Africa and Russia are not included, Chile??? Where's Brazil? Just another anti- NRA propaganda stunt. Switzerland gives an M16 to every Swiss head of household in the interests of national security. 15 deaths out of 100,000 is 0.015% far less than the chance you have of slipping in the bathtub or whatever. Whatever the anti gun lobby says, please say it when you have a gun at your head or a knife at your throat.

If you can actually answer this question with honesty then please do tell how many times in your civilian life you have had a gun pointed at your head or a knife at your throat and please do tell us how you escaped the danger.

For myself, had a gun pointed at me once. While stopped at a red light the driver in front of me was smacking the female passenger . I exited my truck, knocked on his driver window since the door was locked. He reached over to his console and picked up a semi-auto and pointed it at me with a look of "your move". Well my move was to return to my truck and wait for the green. I would not have engaged this person in a firefight even if I had been carrying.

Funny but in all my near 80 years of life, mostly in the US, I have never required a firearm to fend off a pistol to my head or a knife to my throat.

Do you think maybe you watch too many movies?

Gun: twice, once I ran, another time talked the situation down.

Knife: several, only once at the throat however, and was cut a bit. Have a nice little scar from that one. Plenty of times have I seen them pulled.

That is from civilian life, I won't bother to go into my military career.

Honestly a gun wouldn't have helped me in my situations, but it probably would have in yours. Maybe the poor girl wouldn't have gotten smacked around anymore. Instead you tucked your tail in and walked away, leaving her alone with an armed assailant. Good job, you must be proud so of yourself. That was someone's daughter you allowed to get battered; what would you do if you walked up to the car and it was your own daughter? If more people carried guns, would the man have been so quick to reach into his console? You've basically proved that disarming citizens lets the bad people win.

Apparently, in your near 80 years of life in the US, you've been pretty sheltered. It is fortunate that you have had that opportunity to be sheltered, that isn't a bad thing. Just don't try to sit there and preach to those of us who wouldn't have just walked away, regardless of a gun to the face.

[Seastallion]

Nothing like centuries old Constitutions combined with 21st century technology.

The rationale behind the 2nd amendment was to deter foreign occupation. The Brit colonizers wanted to control the American colonists, so they ordered troops to be billeted in American homes and guns be taken away from the colonists.

Giving the people the right to keep and bear arms, as our Constitution does, is a deterrent to military occupation--foreign or domestic.

How many German soldiers would have died in the Warsaw Ghetto, if the Jews were armed? Oh, wait a minute, that just brought us up to the 20th century.

Let's see, can we possibly find an example in the 21st century where if the locals had weapons, the armed militants would not have had it so easy? Hmmm . . . Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, the Ukraine.

Please note, I said foreign or domestic military intervention.

Although I'm on the supposed anti-gun side (in actuality I'm for gun law reform), to be fair I concede you make a good point with the Warsaw Ghetto analogy.

I guess you would support all Gazan and West Bank Arabs being armed.

[Seastallion]

I read many U.S.A. newspapers every day. Most murders are commited by people with names that are not of American or European origin.The same with the victims. The gangbangers are gun crazy. One night in Detriot makes a hard man humble.

Or how about the southside of Chicago. These are not Americans.

South Side Chicago; 93%, Detroit 83% African Americans.

African Americans are not Americans? Your pointy white hat and burning cross is glaringly obvious. Do you have swastika tattoos and a skinhead too? It's little wonder you are a gun supporter.

It seems like you know very little about what's happining in America. In the big city were I live part time almost all the murders are done by illlegal immigrates or recent immigrates. Hmong,Somali,Mexican gangbangers all in the drug trade. And yes as far as I'm concerned,they are not Americans. My family goes back 150 years. Also I have a full head of hair at 60 yrs. old and a Harley-Davidson tattoo.

Is South Side Chicago or Detroit the city you live in? If not, I stand by what I said about what you said.

[Sheryl]

Well I'm American and lived in Thailand >20 years.

Do not personally know a single American who owns, let alone "loves" guns NOR a single Thai.

In the US the gun thing is very, very regional.

In Thailand, I think a matter of type of person/class and and where they live/what they do. Guns are certainly not a feature of every day urban middle class life, nor a feature of everyday life out in the countryside where I live, though some people (a minority) have rifles for hunting.

[ClutchClark]

This is a crock because Mexico, South Africa and Russia are not included, Chile??? Where's Brazil? Just another anti- NRA propaganda stunt. Switzerland gives an M16 to every Swiss head of household in the interests of national security. 15 deaths out of 100,000 is 0.015% far less than the chance you have of slipping in the bathtub or whatever. Whatever the anti gun lobby says, please say it when you have a gun at your head or a knife at your throat.

If you can actually answer this question with honesty then please do tell how many times in your civilian life you have had a gun pointed at your head or a knife at your throat and please do tell us how you escaped the danger.

For myself, had a gun pointed at me once. While stopped at a red light the driver in front of me was smacking the female passenger . I exited my truck, knocked on his driver window since the door was locked. He reached over to his console and picked up a semi-auto and pointed it at me with a look of "your move". Well my move was to return to my truck and wait for the green. I would not have engaged this person in a firefight even if I had been carrying.

Funny but in all my near 80 years of life, mostly in the US, I have never required a firearm to fend off a pistol to my head or a knife to my throat.

Do you think maybe you watch too many movies?

Gun: twice, once I ran, another time talked the situation down.

Knife: several, only once at the throat however, and was cut a bit. Have a nice little scar from that one. Plenty of times have I seen them pulled.

That is from civilian life, I won't bother to go into my military career.

Honestly a gun wouldn't have helped me in my situations, but it probably would have in yours. Maybe the poor girl wouldn't have gotten smacked around anymore. Instead you tucked your tail in and walked away, leaving her alone with an armed assailant. Good job, you must be proud so of yourself. That was someone's daughter you allowed to get battered; what would you do if you walked up to the car and it was your own daughter? If more people carried guns, would the man have been so quick to reach into his console? You've basically proved that disarming citizens lets the bad people win.

Apparently, in your near 80 years of life in the US, you've been pretty sheltered. It is fortunate that you have had that opportunity to be sheltered, that isn't a bad thing. Just don't try to sit there and preach to those of us who wouldn't have just walked away, regardless of a gun to the face.

My question was for ATF but I really enjoyed your piping up.

Your post was really funny.

How do you find yourself in so many situations with people pulling guns and knives?

I suppose that question was rhetorical since it appears from your post that you lack certain communication and social skills. There is nothing in my above post that could be construed as preaching.

I volunteered the incident with the guy pulling the gun knowing I would ensnare one of you tough guys. Your response is exactly what I what anticipated and I am hopeful you will now describe to me how you would have approached the situation.

Also, please confirm that what you are saying is you would would have killed the man in the seat without knowing anything more about a situation than he was hitting the passenger.

This is a great example for the OP. Thanks.

Edited May 18, 2014 by ClutchClark

[ATF]

There is a lot of mis-information here about guns and the American Constitution. Firstly the vast majority of gun related deaths in the US are from .22 calibre ammunition. There are several types but it's basically what you use to shoot squirrels. It can be used in handguns or rifles, usually the .22 LR Rimfire Cartridge, which means it doesn't have a primer at the bottom of the cartridge. It is fired by the edge of the cartridge being compressed. It's only practical purpose in killing people is as a point blank range shot to the head. From a distance it will probably bounce off. Probably at least 10 body shots to kill you.

All the mis-information about automatic weapons is BS. They look good in movies but rate of fire means nothing without accuracy. 30 round mags? What's the point of emptying a 30 round mag in 1-2 seconds? A professional soldier seldom has use for a fully automatic weapon. So unless you can spend $500-$1000 at the range showing off your full auto there really isn't much point. Because anyone who can shoot properly can fire a semi-auto at close to full auto speeds and remain in full control.

I believe everyone should learn about guns because they are a part of life, like it or not. Shooting at the range can be a great hobby. Psychos who go on rampages would do the same thing with or without guns. Most gun owners respect their responsibility in owning a gun and use it as means of absolute last resort.

[ClutchClark]

There is a lot of mis-information here about guns and the American Constitution.

I started that with my original thread. I thought it would help to encourage dialogue with some obvious humor but the 2nd Amendment crowd are always itching for a fight instead of a chuckle ;-)

Firstly the vast majority of gun related deaths in the US are from .22 calibre ammunition. There are several types but it's basically what you use to shoot squirrels. It can be used in handguns or rifles, usually the .22 LR Rimfire Cartridge, which means it doesn't have a primer at the bottom of the cartridge. It is fired by the edge of the cartridge being compressed. It's only practical purpose in killing people is as a point blank range shot to the head. From a distance it will probably bounce off. Probably at least 10 body shots to kill you.

ATF, I believe the .22 is the most common caliber for "accidental" deaths but not for intentional shootings. The reason is likely that it was a very common caliber for many years.

As for it not being very "lethal", I find that an ironic statement when your next paragraph discusses the importance of accuracy. I spent a few decades in AK starting prior to statehood. The first firearm widely available was a .22 long rifle. The Remington was pretty expensive so typically you saw Stevens and Mosbergs. Regardless, there was some commercial interest in polar bear hides and the common practice was for 2-3 natives to hunt them as a group each armed with a .22. It is a lethal caliber--perhaps you are describing its usefulness which depends more on the situation.

I believe everyone should learn about guns because they are a part of life, like it or not. Psychos who go on rampages would do the same thing with or without guns. Most gun owners respect their responsibility in owning a gun and use it as means of absolute last resort.

I edited your final paragraph and I would agree that guns are a part of life, there are simply too many guns in the US for anyone to entertain any idea of removing them. I don't believe people should have to learn about them. I would also agree with your last sentence--the vast majority of gun owners are responsible but I think you may be mistaken when you say most gun owners would use them as an absolute last resort. That used to be true but there are an ever increasing number of "gun nuts" who did not grow up in a household with firearms and were not raised in a responsible gun culture like everyone used to be and I have heard many men brag in person and particularly on internet forums about how they look forward to the day they can "take someone out" or similar remarks--their words, not mine. I receive email forwards from a very large extended community of firearm enthusiasts and the theme of many emails glorifies the shooting incidents that could have been avoided had the shooter looked at the firearm as a last resort. The numerous "Stand your Ground" laws are an example of this. An individual no longer has a responsibility (duty) to retreat when the situation allows for it.

The one point I am complete disagreement with you is concerning "Psychos would go on rampages with or without guns". Well, I agree they would go on rampages without a gun; however the devastation that is caused by a knife-wielding attacker is substantially less than someone armed with hi-cap mags (Tucson) or multiple firarms like the Batman theatre shooter who had three firearms and resulted in 60 casualties or the Columbine Massacre:

"On April 20, Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun, (which he discharged a total of 25 times) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times.

Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold primarily fired the TEC-9 handgun, for a total of 55 times." (Wikipedia).

Or the Sandy Hook Elementary shooter who also had 3 firearms resulting in 26 deaths.

Not too mention the number of casualties as a result of drive-bys in urban centers like Chicago, Detroit, LA.

Etc Etc Etc

In all of these cases, a nutjob with a knife or hammer would have had a much better chance of being physically restrained than these shooters with firepower.

I am not suggesting that I have a solution. I am simply pointing out the shortcoming with your claim.

Edited May 18, 2014 by ClutchClark

[sgtsabai]

I'd rather have a gun, and the hammer, knife or gun wielding idiot can drop it or die if they attack, thank you very much. Yes, I understand well how quickly somebody with a knife can take you out. The first time I went up against this 'exercise' at NM Law Enforcement Academy I 'won'. Simple thought and reaction process, move out of the way and shoot. The bad guy is too committed and goes right by you, with a bullet in him/her. Admittedly not many people have actually had to use a gun in self defense, and I hope they never have to. I have and not just in the line of duty. Once you do perhaps you understand a bit more, perhaps. As the old saying goes, "been shot at and missed-shit on and hit". Don't misunderstand my revulsion at what has happened to the now paramilitary police in Amerika or the insanity in society. I know the cure for one, not the other. Personally I don't care what any body's opinion is, I like guns, could never own or shoot enough. I don't need a reason.

[phoenixdoglover]

So, have we answered the original question well enough for you non-Americans?

[ryanmacl]

This is a crock because Mexico, South Africa and Russia are not included, Chile??? Where's Brazil? Just another anti- NRA propaganda stunt. Switzerland gives an M16 to every Swiss head of household in the interests of national security. 15 deaths out of 100,000 is 0.015% far less than the chance you have of slipping in the bathtub or whatever. Whatever the anti gun lobby says, please say it when you have a gun at your head or a knife at your throat.

If you can actually answer this question with honesty then please do tell how many times in your civilian life you have had a gun pointed at your head or a knife at your throat and please do tell us how you escaped the danger.

For myself, had a gun pointed at me once. While stopped at a red light the driver in front of me was smacking the female passenger . I exited my truck, knocked on his driver window since the door was locked. He reached over to his console and picked up a semi-auto and pointed it at me with a look of "your move". Well my move was to return to my truck and wait for the green. I would not have engaged this person in a firefight even if I had been carrying.

Funny but in all my near 80 years of life, mostly in the US, I have never required a firearm to fend off a pistol to my head or a knife to my throat.

Do you think maybe you watch too many movies?

Gun: twice, once I ran, another time talked the situation down.

Knife: several, only once at the throat however, and was cut a bit. Have a nice little scar from that one. Plenty of times have I seen them pulled.

That is from civilian life, I won't bother to go into my military career.

Honestly a gun wouldn't have helped me in my situations, but it probably would have in yours. Maybe the poor girl wouldn't have gotten smacked around anymore. Instead you tucked your tail in and walked away, leaving her alone with an armed assailant. Good job, you must be proud so of yourself. That was someone's daughter you allowed to get battered; what would you do if you walked up to the car and it was your own daughter? If more people carried guns, would the man have been so quick to reach into his console? You've basically proved that disarming citizens lets the bad people win.

Apparently, in your near 80 years of life in the US, you've been pretty sheltered. It is fortunate that you have had that opportunity to be sheltered, that isn't a bad thing. Just don't try to sit there and preach to those of us who wouldn't have just walked away, regardless of a gun to the face.

My question was for ATF but I really enjoyed your piping up.

Your post was really funny.

How do you find yourself in so many situations with people pulling guns and knives?

I suppose that question was rhetorical since it appears from your post that you lack certain communication and social skills. There is nothing in my above post that could be construed as preaching.

I volunteered the incident with the guy pulling the gun knowing I would ensnare one of you tough guys. Your response is exactly what I what anticipated and I am hopeful you will now describe to me how you would have approached the situation.

Also, please confirm that what you are saying is you would would have killed the man in the seat without knowing anything more about a situation than he was hitting the passenger.

This is a great example for the OP. Thanks.

I'm glad you found it so humorous.

How did I find myself in so many situations? The folly of youth I suppose. I apologize for answering your rhetorical question, but I suppose that is my lack of communication and social skills kicking in.

Ensnared! You got me! You asked a question and I answered it. Very clever trap you set there. I suppose you are ensnaring me again, and I guess I'll fall right into it, answering again.

How would I approach the situation? Well, first, since I am not, nor ever have been, afraid of a gun any more than a knife, pipe, or any other weapon, I would have remained calm. I would have told the guy he isn't going to shoot me, since there is no way in hell he would. I would have said the following: "You can shoot me right now and go to jail, you can drive away and I call the police with your plate number and report you assaulted me with a firearm, or you can let the girl out of the car and everybody calms down. You don't want to do anything irrational, and nobody wants to make a decision here that is going to end their lives." I can't say that I would even have had a firearm on me, since (as I said before) the only firearm I've ever owned was a rifle (Remington 10/22) which never left my house. I haven't lived in the States since I got out of the military, so I haven't had a chance to own a pistol and obtain a CCP. If/when I move back to the States, I will go out and get a Concealed Carry Permit, which would make a situation like this much safer for me. Either way, I wouldn't have drawn it while I was trying to de-escalate a situation.

In many ways, a gun is a very safe weapon. It only fires in one direction, and has a limited amount of ammunition. Get close to someone with a knife, try to take it away from them, you will get cut. Get close to someone with a gun, it is pretty easy to disarm them if you know what you're doing. In your situation, stand slightly behind the B-pillar of the car so he can't get a clear shot at you, if he gets out knock it out of his hand. Call 911 on your phone before you even get out of your car, but in your case and at your age this incident may easily have happened before cell phones.

I'm guessing this wasn't the answer you were looking for. This is basic, basic stuff that, while I learned in the military, could easily be taught in school. Is there some reason volleyball and badminton are more important to teach to students than self-defense?

As far as your other statement goes, regarding the 2nd Amendment crowd always itching for a fight, I'd fight just as passionately if you tried to take away the rights in any of the other amendments. It just so happens more people attack the 2nd than the 3rd, nobody seems to think its acceptable to quarter troops in personal residences during peacetime, but its fine to say Americans no longer deserve the right to defend themselves.

Dissect my post again, as you seem to be so fond of doing. Pick out whichever parts seem to prove your point. The fact is, a armed, educated citizen in the vicinity of any of these massacres you are so afraid of could end it before it ran its course. On that subject, in a world where there are no guns, what would stop these individuals from making things like pipe bombs or simple chemical weapons? Those are indiscriminate weapons, capable of killing many people at once, while a gun can only fire one bullet at a time. No guns, the bombing at the Boston Marathon would still have happened.

I am not a vigilante, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners. We are responsible citizens who find preparedness to be important. Whether it be hunting, sport-shooting, self-defense, we are educated and know how to use a simple machine. We don't cower in fear from it. Spiders, yeah I might cower in fear from those from time to time.

[ATF]

Double post

CC I understand that you wanted to attract all the gun nuts out of the woodwork and I agree that a lot of people should never be let near a gun. One of the problems is there is no firearms proficiency testing or examination. People should be taught how guns work, how to strip them down and repair them if necessary, besides proper handling and marksmanship techniques. Unfortunately if you qualify for a license you get a gun.

Of course there are idiots that pray for the day when someone enters their property so they can take them out, but I would call the Police first before engaging an intruder. Trouble is if you shoot someone on your property their family knows where you live and then you could be the next target.

Psychos have access to bombs, poisons and a host of other weapons of mass destruction. They don't need guns.

I have always liked guns but never liked killing things for sport, except wild boar which is great eating. I don't shoot Bambi or Polar Bears. Only reasons I could imagine Eskimos use a .22 on Polar Bear is not to damage the hide and .22 cartridges and rifles are cheap and legal in most countries. Including Thailand.

There are responsible gun lovers out there.

Edited May 18, 2014 by ATF

[chuckd]

A couple of things...

All three incidents highlighted by CC happened in "gun free" zones. Nobody but the shooter had a gun until the police arrived and, I expect, the shooters well knew they would meet no resistance before they ever arrived at the scene.

If an Eskimo, or anybody else, is hunting polar bears with a .22, they better darn well know where the kill shot must be placed. If you don't get them with that first shot, I suggest you try and outrun them.

Our new found friend, CC, is cetainly taking the forum by storm. Only been a member less than 2 months and already creating chaos.

[Seastallion]

A couple of things...

All three incidents highlighted by CC happened in "gun free" zones. Nobody but the shooter had a gun until the police arrived and, I expect, the shooters well knew they would meet no resistance before they ever arrived at the scene.

If an Eskimo, or anybody else, is hunting polar bears with a .22, they better darn well know where the kill shot must be placed. If you don't get them with that first shot, I suggest you try and outrun them.

Our new found friend, CC, is cetainly taking the forum by storm. Only been a member less than 2 months and already creating chaos.

A couple of things...

You are repeating yourself about the "gun free" zones. We accepted that and some said as much. Senile dementia can be a bitch.

Granted it's daring to hunt polar bears with a .22. I bet they do darn well know where to place the kill shot. I myself have hunted wild boar many times with a .22 Winchester. What was your point? Hinting at doubt at the story but not daring to challenge it directly?

Does length of membership dictate how passionate one is allowed to be? Should all relative newbies stay quiet and defer to the old men?

Chaos? Planting seeds of mistrust I guess. When the battle wearies, change tactics. I see CC as politely carrying on healthy debate.

Sorry, that cetainly was not a couple. (Spelling mistake intentional)

Edited May 18, 2014 by Seastallion

[ATF]

Granted it's daring to hunt polar bears with a .22. I bet they do darn well know where to place the kill shot. I myself have hunted wild boar many times with a .22 Winchester.

.22LR is completely different from .22 WMR. WMR is almost twice as powerful and can be FMJ or HP. LR is just lead. Most States do not allow hunting big game with any Rimfire Cartridge because the animal is unlikely to be killed with one shot and will just bleed out or suffer for days if you can't track it. Hunting Polar Bear or large Wild Boar with .22 LR or WMR is not something I would recommend. Unless you have a .45 ACP on the hip.

[chuckd]

A couple of things...

All three incidents highlighted by CC happened in "gun free" zones. Nobody but the shooter had a gun until the police arrived and, I expect, the shooters well knew they would meet no resistance before they ever arrived at the scene.

If an Eskimo, or anybody else, is hunting polar bears with a .22, they better darn well know where the kill shot must be placed. If you don't get them with that first shot, I suggest you try and outrun them.

Our new found friend, CC, is cetainly taking the forum by storm. Only been a member less than 2 months and already creating chaos.

A couple of things...

You are repeating yourself about the "gun free" zones. We accepted that and some said as much. Senile dementia can be a bitch.

Granted it's daring to hunt polar bears with a .22. I bet they do darn well know where to place the kill shot. I myself have hunted wild boar many times with a .22 Winchester. What was your point? Hinting at doubt at the story but not daring to challenge it directly?

Does length of membership dictate how passionate one is allowed to be? Should all relative newbies stay quiet and defer to the old men?

Chaos? Planting seeds of mistrust I guess. When the battle wearies, change tactics. I see CC as politely carrying on healthy debate.

Sorry, that cetainly was not a couple. (Spelling mistake intentional)

Sometimes one needs to repeat oneself when posters keep going to the same old arguments over and over again. Dementia works in strange ways. You should try it.

I'm not a newbie so do you feel I should defer to an older man?

I dare to challenge anything that seems untruthful. Your claim about hunting wild boars for instance seems rather far fetched.

While I did find one instance where a man killed a polar bear with one shot from a .22, it isn't something I'd recommend using to hunt polar bears. More often than not, you're just going to piss them off when you shoot them with a .22

I cetainly (sic) appreciate your pointing out a typo as well. While you might not be the great white hunter, you are serving well as a member of the spelling police.

[sgtsabai]

A .22 whether LR or WMR is not something I would use for anything larger than squirrels, rabbits, etc. unless I didn't have anything else. I had a .22 conversion kit for my Mod. 1911A1 .45 It is a good assassin weapon. On the other hand, I knew of quite a few deer poached with .22, not too loud and with spotlight in their eyes the deer would freeze. I caught some of the poachers, but not enough, the poachers had been doing it most of their lives, were damn good at it. At least most of them ate what they killed.

[neverdie]

Yawn.......it's turned into a piiiisssssssing contest.

I've got an idea, let's get back to the topic.

Most gun loving:America vs Thais?

I'm going America, these boys really talk the talk and going by the stats, some of them can even walk the walk. No matter who wins, it can be a dangerous obsession, which is clearly demonstrated by the events of the day that seem to be so readily acceptable by some.

Sad, yet mildly amusing..... in a sick kind of way.

[ATF]

Yawn.......it's turned into a piiiisssssssing contest.

I've got an idea, let's get back to the topic.

Most gun loving:America vs Thais?

I'm going America, these boys really talk the talk and going by the stats, some of them can even walk the walk. No matter who wins, it can be a dangerous obsession, which is clearly demonstrated by the events of the day that seem to be so readily acceptable by some.

Sad, yet mildly amusing..... in a sick kind of way.

Disregarding population size I would say the Anti-Gun Lobby is a higher percentage in the US. Most Thais wish they could afford guns. Legal guns are limited to the wealthy in Thailand. Around 100k for a decent Semi- Auto 9mm handgun with 17+1 rounds. Another 2.5M Baht for a concealed carry permit. However a Bor 4 permit allows you to carry a gun in your car.

So in reply I would say it's about the same, however most Thais will never be able to afford one.

Great if TV started a Gun Forum!

[Docno]

American "exceptionalism" at its best:

Fortunately the one's doing the best job of eliminating themselves seem to be mainly in the "red states."

Hmmmm....there's something not right about that chart. There's no way you could convince me that Australia has a lower gun homicide rate than NZ.. Brisbane alone probably beats NZ!

The chart is showing rates of gun homicide per 100,000, not absolute numbers. Basically, telling you your likelihood of being shot to death in different places. 3 people being shot to death in a country with a population of 1 million would rank higher than 25 people shot to death in a country with a population of 10 million.

[Seastallion]

A couple of things...

All three incidents highlighted by CC happened in "gun free" zones. Nobody but the shooter had a gun until the police arrived and, I expect, the shooters well knew they would meet no resistance before they ever arrived at the scene.

If an Eskimo, or anybody else, is hunting polar bears with a .22, they better darn well know where the kill shot must be placed. If you don't get them with that first shot, I suggest you try and outrun them.

Our new found friend, CC, is cetainly taking the forum by storm. Only been a member less than 2 months and already creating chaos.

A couple of things...

You are repeating yourself about the "gun free" zones. We accepted that and some said as much. Senile dementia can be a bitch.

Granted it's daring to hunt polar bears with a .22. I bet they do darn well know where to place the kill shot. I myself have hunted wild boar many times with a .22 Winchester. What was your point? Hinting at doubt at the story but not daring to challenge it directly?

Does length of membership dictate how passionate one is allowed to be? Should all relative newbies stay quiet and defer to the old men?

Chaos? Planting seeds of mistrust I guess. When the battle wearies, change tactics. I see CC as politely carrying on healthy debate.

Sorry, that cetainly was not a couple. (Spelling mistake intentional)

Sometimes one needs to repeat oneself when posters keep going to the same old arguments over and over again. Dementia works in strange ways. You should try it.

I'm not a newbie so do you feel I should defer to an older man?

I dare to challenge anything that seems untruthful. Your claim about hunting wild boars for instance seems rather far fetched.

While I did find one instance where a man killed a polar bear with one shot from a .22, it isn't something I'd recommend using to hunt polar bears. More often than not, you're just going to piss them off when you shoot them with a .22

I cetainly (sic) appreciate your pointing out a typo as well. While you might not be the great white hunter, you are serving well as a member of the spelling police.

Maybe I will "try" dementia in 30+ years when I reach your age....although, I should inform you that it's not something to simply try; One becomes afflicted, or not.

It's obvious you're not a newbie, so you have no need to defer to an older man. Your comment about CC implied newbies should. Your question lacks logic.

(As an aside, is there a man here older than you? Perhaps a few, but not many is my guess.Not relevant though.)

Are you challenging my claim? You (once again) imply a challenge, but do not step over the line. I see you have now researched Eskimos hunting with a .22 and have changed your attitude in that regard. You didn't dare to challenge it, merely cast doubt, and only when I pointed out your reticence did you google and then quietly relent on the Polar bear thing.

Great white hunter??? Hunting pigs is hardly that, why do you try to spin things? Why do you try to make things out for what they are not? Is it your own inadequacies brought about in recent decades by old age? Why not be more positive and live vicariously through others, instead of trying to belittle their successes? Valid questions, both.

Pulling you up on your typo (yes I agree it was a simple typo) was a way of pointing out that you, chucky, are not perfect, so give a little yourself. I am certainly not a spelling nazi!

[Docno]

Haven't seen anyone here question this word, 'freedom', that is thrown about so easily in this debate. I'm currently in a country--Singapore--that most Americans would consider far from free, and I wouldn't argue with them on that point at a conceptual level. However, this is also a place where a woman can walk down a city street at three in the morning without fear and where I can walk through any neighbourhood without worrying about whether I've got the 'right skin colour' to be there. The American women I've met here say that they actually feel freer here than back in the US because of this. No-one denies that freedom is important, but is it important in the abstract or in how one actually experiences it? [Note: I'm not advocating the 'Singapore system', just highlighting that 'conceptual/constitutional freedom' and 'psychological/experienced freedom' don't always line up].

[ATF]

Haven't seen anyone here question this word, 'freedom', that is thrown about so easily in this debate. I'm currently in a country--Singapore--that most Americans would consider far from free, and I wouldn't argue with them on that point at a conceptual level. However, this is also a place where a woman can walk down a city street at three in the morning without fear and where I can walk through any neighbourhood without worrying about whether I've got the 'right skin colour' to be there. The American women I've met here say that they actually feel freer here than back in the US because of this. No-one denies that freedom is important, but is it important in the abstract or in how one actually experiences it? [Note: I'm not advocating the 'Singapore system', just highlighting that 'conceptual/constitutional freedom' and 'psychological/experienced freedom' don't always line up].

Singapore and Hong Kong are very safe places because they are islands. Rob a bank? Where are you going to run to. Singapore does have draconian punishments for quite minor offenses. Not sure about Singapore but Hong Kong has plenty of gun clubs. Not much problem owning a gun there.