1. He just shot someone.
2. Smack.

You assume everyone in the US is a grovelling coward, and loading a single bullet into a bolt action rifle does take time.


Thank you.

1. what do you even mean by this

2. I was making a point that you would be scared because *SUDDENLY A GUY IS FIRING A GUN, PANIC* it's not like you can be sure that you'd react calmly enough to charge the guy down.

and being able to charge him down is a moot point, seeing how if he is using a bolt action rifle to go on a shooting spree, he's more likely to be sat in a tower or such-like than in the middle of a crowd.

Aren't Miku and them a bunch of androids anyway???

I'm sorry I did that badly it was a checklist. Some random just shot someone and is now vulnerable, so the obvious thing to do would be to take advantage of this.


Good point. I'm sure glad he doesn't have a semiauto sniper rifle with a 20 round mag, eh?



I always thought Miku was some sort of Audio software, isn't it?

Why would he load a single cartridge? Ideally you wouldn't take your eye of your target even if you were cycling the bolt, which takes next to no time at all.
If this was not what you meant you at least gave me the impression of someone with a single shot bolt action rifle who would have to reload after every shot

Anyway I am glad to see that as usual overnight I have created a monster
Let us all move to the gun topic so that we can celebrate the glorious weaponry that most of us are unfortunately restricted from using

I'm mainly hearing two pro-gun arguments here:
1. If your government or military gets out of check you can fight back.
2. You can use it for self defense if you get attacked or something.

I'm afraid I'm going to make some generalizations and lump pro-gun people into a group, sorry about that. Now, to address the arguments as I perceived them (and I hope I'm forgiven if I ramble a bit):
1) Would any of you actually be willing and able to take up arms to attack your own police, soldiers and civil leaders, with high likelihood of killing them? Do you think you'd be able to find a huge number of other people who would be so willing? More likely people would flee the country than start shooting at their military. Not to mention, the US has a ridiculously expensive military with absurdly sophisticated equipment which, among other things, includes things like protection from small arms fire and armoured vehicles. I really doubt a handgun would be much use against a UAV (not to mention larger and more destructive weapons) and if your government, police force and military were to become so horrifically corrupt that you had to attack them, I doubt they'd have any qualms with using excessive force of that sort.
So to me this seems like a poorly thought out idea that you attempt to justify because it's what you've been told you have access to guns for. I don't mean to insult but it's honestly quite ridiculous.

2. Major made an example wherein a killer uses a bolt action rifle with a relatively long reload time. For the most part those who were pro-gun said they would not try to tackle him or anything while he's reloading, which is fair; if someone got shot near me I would try to get away as quickly as possible. That said, are you saying that having a gun would make you attack him back after all? Even though he'd likely not have to reload after one shot and would have a pretty good chance of shooting and possibly you when you tried to shoot him? Aside from the ethical question of taking a life, which seems to me to have little bearing on your stated opinions, you'd be risking your life even more than when the killer had a bolt action rifle, since he wouldn't have a lengthy reload period after a single shot. So perhaps I'm wrong but I think the normal reaction would be to run or cower and try to hide in either case.

As for tasers, I don't pretend to be an expert on them but wouldn't it make more sense to design the weapons so that they were less lethal? Even if the voltage can't be lowered, I'm sure it would be possible for them to be made so their shock duration is shorter and less potentially lethal. That coupled with more and stricter training, as well as stricter punishments would make taser abuse at the hands of police a smaller concern. Plus there's simply no getting around the fact that tasers are less lethal than guns. And there are a fair few other 'non-lethal' weapons available for police use if tasers are not sufficient.

Oh and as for the US being more free than everyone else and special, could you support that with some freedom or right that people from the states have that's not found in most other first world countries, aside from the right to bear arms? I'm not attacking you, I'm curious as to why you think it's special and more free than other countries (I suppose this is really directed at TorrentHKU).

Owning a gun is pretty pointless apart from having a nice looking collection let's be honest here

I proposed that single round bolt action rifles be the only legal firearm in the US, and that was a scenario involving a phsyco using said rifle.

It sounds ridiculous, until to realize that "terrorists" are pretty much civilians with guns and a cause to fight. After what I've seen in the media as well as talking to someone who was recently in the army, they're no pushovers. Would I personally take up arms myself and fight? Probably not, but I imagine there are enough of people in this country who would be willing to make a significant threat.


Shh, they pretend to be human. And humans pretend to be many things.

By saying "The US got slaughtered", you imply they faced grievous losses without significant gain.
If your intent was to say that the US just lost a lot of lives, then I don't see why you even said anything. EVERYONE lost a lot of lives in WW2, it was WW2. The US on the other hand, while they lost a lot of lives, they also kicked a lot of asses. The US had losses, but they did NOT get slaughtered.

Going from this and this, The US mobilized 16 million soldiers, and lost ~400,000. That is literally 2.5% of their forces. That is hardly a slaughter, that's "acceptable losses".
Germany on the other hand loses about 1/4, and Russia about 1/3 of their soldiers. THAT is significant enough to be called a slaughter I suppose. I wouldn't personally, but I guess I've got strict standards.

I literally said what YOU said. That I think my Freedom is better than yours. And by saying all of that, you imply that NZ is free of the crazies and psychos who would use any weapon they can find to kill people, not just guns, while the US is absolutely infested with crazed killers. Which once AGAIN brings back my point, the gun is only as deadly as the user.

We stayed out of it because we didn't want to get involved. For all the rest of the world knew, Germany was throwing a hissy fit and just wanted to take over Europe, the whole Holocaust thing came into the light afterwards for the most. And we wanted to be isolationist around that time because, and it's been a few years so feel free to correct me, a period of not very fun ♥♥♥♥ involving foreign nations had just passed, and we just wanted to curl up in a blanket and sit around the house for a bit.
Nukes were used to END the war, not to win it. We could have stormed into Japan on foot, and believe me the losses from that would almost CERTAINLY be greater than what were suffered from dropping the bombs. Hell, thousands of Japanese were going to die in either scenario, dropping the bombs was the one where Americans die less.


3. Because he has a gun. And as you've said, guns kill people.
4. What? What are you talking about, that's the truth. It would only happen if you outlawed guns, so that's the only scenario you can consider.
5. The army defends the country, not its people. That's the job of the police, you know, the ones that don't have guns anymore.
6. And how will they fare any better?
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues#Chronology A few excerpts:
This shows 2 things. 1, yes they would, and 2, they don't even NEED to stand there for that long. Although there was one case of 112 or so seconds of constant tazing, don't remember what article I saw that on.
8. Less than Lethal because it'd be lying to call them Non-lethal. A weapon is only as dangerous as the user, ONCE AGAIN. Someone with a taser and an itchy trigger finger is infinitely more dangerous than someone with a gun who would only shoot if it was ABSOLUTELY needed.

I kinda lost interest in this argument when 500000 dead became acceptable losses and you'd rather have the right to "bear arms" than keep inoccent children alive.
Good day.

Under some circumstances, yes bad boy, I would fight my police, military, and government, using lethal force. The rest of your points on #1 are basically just saying "It'd be hard, so give up now, before it's even happened"


As far as personal defense goes, yes, being armed would greatly increase the likelihood of me fighting back against someone threatening me with lethal force.
They might give up upon seeing that someone armed is fighting back. They might even not start anything in the first place if they know/suspect that.

Most of these spree shooters will put their hands on their head, or blow it off, before actually fighting with someone else armed.
This often doesn't happen for a while, though, because they like to target unarmed places, where the victims have to wait for cops. I can only imagine that they love seeing these stickers.

But along with looking at these rare cases of complete lunatics that intend to end their lives, you've got to look at the more everyday criminals. Most of them want low risk targets.

If a burglar drives by my Kansan farmhouse, he's probably going to assume I have a shotgun or something, and decide that trying to steal my TV wouldn't be worth it.
I do have a shotgun, but also a 308 semi auto carbine. Also my TV is a three hundred pound 36" CRT that hasn't had red for about a week. He'd be doing me a gigantic favor, actually, taking my TV, but that's beside the point.
If a burglar walks past a flat, and thinks that the plonker inside probably has a cricket bat or less, he might be more likely to entertain the idea of taking his telly.

If a mugger thinks that guy with the fat wallet might be CCWing, he might flake and change his mind, even if he's got his own gun.
If a mugger thinks the guy with the flat wallet might have a particularly well sharpened pencil, he might be more likely to ask for some charity while inspecting his steak knife.

If a robber, convenience store, blah blah

If a government, auschwitz, yadda yadda

And even people that don't have guns, but have the right to have them, can benefit from this. If not, why don't people like these signs?


Let's preemptively call those with any opposing viewpoints liars instead of arguing our points.
Oh, you started without me. I feel felt out.

You don't understand war much, do you?
And I never said that at all. I'm all for getting rid of excessive firearms, but not EVERYONE is. If you actually read my arguments instead of called me a horrible person, you'd see I said that there are people who would choose their guns over the lives of 12 children in Colorado, because A) they do not KNOW those children, and thus can't feel even a 1/10 of the emotion of people who did, and B) GUNS AREN'T DANGEROUS, THE SHOOTER IS. Get rid of guns, you'll just hear horror stories about a crazed knife-wielder going into a school and slashing children.

Not going to pretend to know the precise mechanics, but I do know the nervous system overloading that the taser causes incapacitation with is what causes the injuries and deaths. So, if you take that away, you make it much less effective.
Stricter training would HELP, but I think most of these deaths are either proper use and bad luck or bad cops who just like to shock people like ♥♥♥holes, so I'm not sure how MUCH it would help.
If a gun is never fired, it can't kill someone. Usually, having a gun pointed at you is enough to make you give up, and the police WON'T fire their guns unless they need to.
A taser on the other hand, can be thought of just as a method of incapacitation. Police don't view it as a dangerous weapon like a gun is, they view it as a method to make people stop resisting. And so, they can just fire away without really thinking "Hey wait, this can kill people, I shouldn't be using this recklessly".
The fact that the taser keeps getting jumped to as the goto replacement for guns in this thread alone means that you don't understand the dangers of it, and thus would use it against someone much much more quickly than you would a gun.


Well I guess this one sorta got away from me. Was mostly basing this on A) the US's history and B) the world recognition of the country. World recognition meaning, you can go to most countries with US money, and it'll probably be recognized, perhaps even accepted. The english language is the same way, though since England had it first I can't really say that was America's doing. Anyway, America is just a large piece of the global puzzle.
And our history has essentially been a lot of fighting people for the right to do things we want and fighting people when they try to tell us what to do.
Britain tries to rule us? War.
The South tries to secede? War.
Japan tries to blow up our Navy so we can't go to war? War.
Both doing what we want and carrying a big stick are ingrained into American society.

To add a good argument to the"guns don't kill, people do." Point: a while back a guy stabbed six infants to death. That's spree stabbing right there. In Holland.