Jump to content


Gun Control/Concealment


29 replies to this topic

#1 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 18 October 2008 - 22:53

Quote

Gun control is a very controversial topic. I personally am completely against any handgun ownership outside law enforcement or the armed service, and completely against any firearm ownership without an extensively reviewed licence.

Positive points for gun ownership
with the accompanying Negative point.
  • Easy form of defence. Little physical strength required, allowing almost anyone who has hands to use them. Handy for people with less physical build.
  • The fact that it is an "easy" form of defence can discourage people from building up their muscles, and encourages laziness to an extent. Encouraging people to take up a martial art for self defence instead of buying a firearm would do wonders for public health and obesity.
  • Used for sport.
  • I have nothing against people who shoot for sport, however they will only be able to practice this sport at special military/police run gun ranges where all firearms used are stored either very securely on-site or externally in a place such as a police armoury, and at designated times the police would transfer these firearms to the sporting range for the duration of the event. After this they will be locked back up, with the ammunition stored in a seperate location.
  • "As with prohibition, it will lead to further underground gun trading".
  • To an extent, yes, however please remember that you cannot brew a gun in your basement, nor can you grow the metal in your backyard to make the gun with. With proper surveillance of licensed firearms and complete confiscation of all handguns the effect will be minimal.
  • "Banning guns will just lead to murders with other weapons".
  • True, however it is far easier to kill a person with a firearm than with a knife or a baseball bat. Not to mention that both a knife and a baseball bat have real uses outside of harming people, whereas guns purely exist to cause injury/kill.
  • What about farmers who need to protect their livestock/land against vermin?
  • This is one point where I accept that people will need a gun, however they need to go through a strict licensing process including complete mental evaluation. A farmer does not need a handgun to protect his land, therefore he will be fine with an unconcealable shotgun, which when taken to a location outside his property (all guns will be fitted with a GPS tracking system) will be confiscated and locked away for an undetermined amount of time, along with any other guns he owns.
These are just the backbone points, expect more discussion (I haven't written anything about the second amendment for a reason, I don't mind you bringing it up but this isn't aimed just at the States).

Discuss.

Edited by Dauth, 18 October 2008 - 22:54.


#2 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 19 October 2008 - 01:11

I can't really think of anything I disagree with in the above post. Concealable handguns serve no useful purpose in modern society. I can't think of a time I've heard them used in a 'valid' self-defence situation, and even when they are they cause suffering far out of proportion to whatever crime may have been attempted save murder. No matter how loudly the self defence argument may be trumpeted I cannot believe that public handguns save more people than they kill. As we continually see, free, barely-regulated access to them can result in shocking tragedy, and while I do not attempt to paint all gun owners by this same brush, the simple fact of the matter is that there will always be deranged individuals who will use this access for their own dark ends. There is really no justification for turning a gun on a person when there are so many better, non-lethal options for defence. I'm not keen on seeing them used on animals either by the way, and strongly reject the idea of shooting as a sport, but I can't pretend that's anywhere near as important and as above I can understand there may be valid uses for farmers etc.

Edited by CommanderJB, 19 October 2008 - 01:12.

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#3 Jok3r

    veritas vos liberabit

  • Project Team
  • 1909 posts
  • Projects: Hangar 13 Projects

Posted 19 October 2008 - 01:27

I'm going to have to disagree, but not on self defence grounds. Unfortunately, today we live in a world that glorifies guns- its sad, but its a fact. If we attempt to regulate guns to an extent your suggesting, we are truly not taking them from those who will use them badly, only those that only ever intended to use them responsibly.

*Will elaborate further later*
Swimmer
kinda, sorta alive.



#4 logical2u

    Professional

  • Member
  • 382 posts
  • Projects: A figment of my imagination

Posted 19 October 2008 - 01:44

There's a double-edged sword to gun control in any form.

The argument goes something along the lines of "regulation will increase piracy". Which has been the case with digital media, and, ostensibly, drugs.

However, this argument is largely futile. If someone wants a gun, they will get it no matter what, and chances are no regulation or law enforcement will stop them.

However, it seems to be that if we keep guns out of the hands of the general public, it makes everyone slightly safer. It means that those turning to crime due to a failed way of life will be slightly less dangerous - and that it keeps everyone on a level playing field. No fear of getting mugged by a down-on-his-luck businessman after the stocks fall a thousand points - no fear of a elderly person getting shot by a thief, or vice versa, during a home invasion. It means that some crimes will take longer to solve, yes, or will go unsolved, but it also means that less people will die. You could argue that it's a small number of lives saved, as there will always be the tools out there to kill someone with, and that professional criminals will always have the means to get guns, but the goal of any country should be to preserve the lives of its citizens.

And while Swimmer may have a point in that we need to level the playing field between citizens and criminals, but legalizing the ownership of handguns does not automatically ensure that A) they only get into the hands of the right people, B) that those people cannot be corrupted, or have their guns stolen, and C) that those who get the guns know how to properly use them. If these points are not ensured in a system of legalized gun ownership, then you end up with a system that is also more dangerous that it should be.

The only way to decrease danger to the average citizen is to tightly regulate gun ownership for any purpose. By removing the guns, you remove the chance of accidental discharge, the incentive for gun-theft, and ensure petty criminals lack access to them.

PS: I hope this isn't too off topic, but maybe we should regulate everything pointy?
Keep Going On Till Dawn
How Many Times Must Another Line Be Drawn
We Could Be Down And Gone
But We Hold On

#5 Dutchygamer

    Shyborg Commander

  • Member Test
  • 1899 posts
  • Projects: Frontline Chaos creator and leader, Invasion Confirmed co-leader

Posted 19 October 2008 - 10:14

Is this discussion about small handguns or all guns?
Posted Image

#6 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 19 October 2008 - 10:32

From Alias' opening post it would appear handguns only however I will not object to a small side discussion about larger weapons.

#7 Dutchygamer

    Shyborg Commander

  • Member Test
  • 1899 posts
  • Projects: Frontline Chaos creator and leader, Invasion Confirmed co-leader

Posted 19 October 2008 - 10:51

Thanks for clearing that up for me :P
At this topic: my opinion is that guns should be banned for normal civilians, etc, except for the ppl who should have them like the police and the army. Most of the points made in the first post are very true, even though I disagree that shooting a gun is a sport.
Also, against what can you defend better: a guy wielding a knife, or a guy wielding a gun. Excuse me for bringing this game-related quote to something serious, but it does explain something:

Heavy from'Meet the Heavy' said:

Some people think that they can outsmart me. Maybe. But I've still need to meet one who can outsmart bullets.

You can outsmart someone with a knife, but not a bullet fired from a gun...

Dutchy out
Posted Image

#8 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 19 October 2008 - 11:09

As much as I'd love to have a real firearm - just to reload it all day ;P - I agree with strict policies concerning firearms. "Self-defence" is an easy term to use but if someone wants to, say, sneak into your house to steal your TV or something, should you be able to shoot him if you happened upon him in the middle of the night? I don't think so. Free possession of firearms encourages too liberal a kind of use of them IMO.

OP said:

Used for sport.
I have nothing against people who shoot for sport, however they will only be able to practice this sport at special military/police run gun ranges where all firearms used are stored either very securely on-site or externally in a place such as a police armoury, and at designated times the police would transfer these firearms to the sporting range for the duration of the event. After this they will be locked back up, with the ammunition stored in a seperate location.
Mwah, that's slightly too much IMO. Shooting at (licensed but non-military) gun ranges and keeping weapons and ammo at home, in two safe lockers (checked every random now and then by someone) suffices IMO. It also happens to be the policy of the NL concerning licensed firearms :P.

None of that would stop anyone who is determined to get a gun, from being able to get one easily, though. The NL's policy on firearms is quite strict (even banning toy guns, dammit), I could get my hands on even a fully automatic AK through one of my uncle's colleagues at work in under a week if I wanted to.
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#9 Alias

    Member Title Goes Here

  • Member
  • 11705 posts

Posted 19 October 2008 - 11:39

View PostDauth, on 19 Oct 2008, 21:32, said:

From Alias' opening post it would appear handguns only however I will not object to a small side discussion about larger weapons.
It is about all firearms, however handguns are the one's I'd like to completely ban, other firearms are fine with a very strict license.

Posted Image

#10 Rich19

    I challenge thee!

  • Member
  • 1478 posts
  • Projects: Duelling

Posted 19 October 2008 - 14:10

View PostSwimmer, on 19 Oct 2008, 2:27, said:

I'm going to have to disagree, but not on self defence grounds. Unfortunately, today we live in a world that glorifies guns- its sad, but its a fact. If we attempt to regulate guns to an extent your suggesting, we are truly not taking them from those who will use them badly, only those that only ever intended to use them responsibly.

*Will elaborate further later*
Swimmer


This is the main point I have heard for gun ownership on other forums - banning guns will only take them away from law abiding citizens.

I agree to an extent. Banning guns will indeed take them from law abiding citizens, whereas criminals will not wish to relinquish their firearms. This is why I believe that guns ought to be kept legal in places which they are already legal. The USA, for example, has far too many weapons in circulation for an outright ban to be effective. The criminals already use guns routinely, and very few people (even some of the usually law abiding ones) would wish to give up their weapons because of this. That's not to say that the current situation is a desirable one (I personally would not like to live in any country which totally legalises guns), but that any attempt to change the situation would almost certainly backfire. The safest option of course would be to have guns banned as in most of Europe, but disturbing the status quo would be too dangerous and difficult. This applies to most countries, if you ask me.

#11 Alias

    Member Title Goes Here

  • Member
  • 11705 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 01:51

Here's a little something to add to this:
[quote name='http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hl-VtQImXVuBfNXTpNMvOgFOxj2wD943CULO0']WESTFIELD, Mass. (AP) — With an instructor watching, an 8-year-old boy at a gun fair aimed an Uzi at a pumpkin and pulled the trigger as his dad reached for a camera.

It was his first time shooting a fully automatic machine gun, and the recoil of the weapon was too much for him. He lost control and fatally shot himself in the head.

Now gun safety experts — and some gun enthusiasts at the club where the shooting happened — are wondering why such a young child was allowed to fire a weapon used in war. Local, state and federal authorities are also investigating whether everyone involved had proper licenses or if anyone committed a criminal act.

"It's easy to lose control of a weapon like that ... they are used on a battleground for a very good reason," said Jerry Belair, a spokesman for Stop Handgun Violence, based in Newton, Mass. "It's to shoot as many times as you possibly can without having to reload at an enemy that's approaching. It's not a toy. It's not something to play with."

Police said Christopher Bizilj (Bah-SEAL) of Ashford, Conn., was pronounced dead at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., on Sunday afternoon, shortly after firing a 9mm micro Uzi submachine gun at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, co-sponsored by C.O.P. Firearms & Training.

"The weapon was loaded and ready to fire," Westfield police Lt. Hipolito Nunez said. "The 8-year-old victim had the Uzi and as he was firing the weapon, the front end of the weapon went up with the backfire and he ended up receiving a round in his head."

Nunez said the investigation is continuing.

Christopher, a third-grader, was attending the show with his father and sixth-grade brother, Colin. Christopher had fired handguns and rifles before, but Sunday was his first time firing an automatic weapon, said his father, Charles Bizilj.

Bizilj told the Boston Globe he was about 10 feet behind his son and reaching for his camera when the weapon fired. He said his family avoided the larger weapons, but he let his son try the Uzi because it's a small weapon with little recoil.

"This accident was truly a mystery to me," said Bizilj, director of emergency medicine at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford, Conn. "This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don't know why it happened."

Police are calling the shooting an accident but are investigating whether everyone connected with the incident had proper weapons permits. Massachusetts requires licenses to own firearms, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issues different licenses to possess machine guns.

The machine gun shoot drew hundreds of people from as far away as Maine and Virginia. An advertisement said it would include machine gun demonstrations and rentals and free handgun lessons.

"It's all legal & fun — No permits or licenses required!!!!" reads the ad, posted on the club's Web site.

"You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control — "FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL," the ad said.

The ad also said children under 16 would be admitted free, and both adults and children were offered free .22-caliber pistol and rifle shooting.

Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. It is legal in Massachusetts for children to fire a weapon if they have permission from a parent or legal guardian and they are supervised by a properly certified and licensed instructor, Nunez said. The name of the instructor who was with the boy at the time was not released.

"We do not know at this time the full facts of this incident," Nunez said Monday.[/quote]
I'd like to know why anyone at all, other than the armed forces, would need an automatic weapon. I find the obsession some people have with firearms to be sickening... incidents like this would be completely avoided if children learnt that a gun is not a good thing.

Posted Image

#12 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 30 October 2008 - 02:16

That's just utterly horrifying. I cannot see why these fairs even allow children. What are you trying to tell them - that they should covet and cherish objects whose one and only single purpose is to kill and/or horribly maim?

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#13 Eddy01741

    E-Studios Uber Computer Geek

  • Member
  • 2223 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 01:32

Okay, that's just a tad over the top... I kinda expected a state as uptight as Mass would have better restrictions on gun control. I mean, the fact that an 8 year old is firing an automatic weapon is a bit over the top.
Posted Image

#14 Jok3r

    veritas vos liberabit

  • Project Team
  • 1909 posts
  • Projects: Hangar 13 Projects

Posted 05 November 2008 - 01:40

Actually, JB, there is some justification to kids learning about weapons- if you know what it is, your less likely to fuck with it. The Uzi incident... well... I have nothing to say aside from what the hell. Alias- I do agree with you on automatic weapons- there is very little civilian need for them. They are, for the record, illegal for private ownership here in the US (aside from a number that are grandfathered).
kinda, sorta alive.



#15 Alias

    Member Title Goes Here

  • Member
  • 11705 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 01:47

View PostSwimmer, on 5 Nov 2008, 12:40, said:

Actually, JB, there is some justification to kids learning about weapons- if you know what it is, your less likely to fuck with it. The Uzi incident... well... I have nothing to say aside from what the hell. Alias- I do agree with you on automatic weapons- there is very little civilian need for them. They are, for the record, illegal for private ownership here in the US (aside from a number that are grandfathered).
I'm not, and I'm sure JB is not against education on firearms. Our point is what they should be learning is that a gun is a very dangerous object that exists only to kill. They do not need to fire a weapon to be educated on what it is, just as you don't need to have been alive in the 1400's to learn about Columbus.

Edited by Alias, 05 November 2008 - 01:48.


Posted Image

#16 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 05 November 2008 - 01:59

Absolutely. And, Swimmer, surely you cannot deny that the prevalent attitude at gun fairs is not one of treating guns as dangerous objects which should be regarded with the utmost caution thanks to their function of taking lives. This may be going a little far but in some cases it seems more one of worship than anything else.

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#17 Dr. Strangelove

    Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else

  • Member Test
  • 2197 posts
  • Projects: Where parallels meet.

Posted 05 November 2008 - 17:47

View PostDauth, on 18 Oct 2008, 23:53, said:

[*]"As with prohibition, it will lead to further underground gun trading".
[*]To an extent, yes, however please remember that you cannot brew a gun in your basement, nor can you grow the metal in your backyard to make the gun with. With proper surveillance of licensed firearms and complete confiscation of all handguns the effect will be minimal.


Actually, ever heard of Zip Guns? They can be made with the most common household trash.

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 05 November 2008 - 17:47.

Posted Image
Posted Image19681107

#18 Rich19

    I challenge thee!

  • Member
  • 1478 posts
  • Projects: Duelling

Posted 05 November 2008 - 23:47

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 5 Nov 2008, 17:47, said:

View PostDauth, on 18 Oct 2008, 23:53, said:

[*]"As with prohibition, it will lead to further underground gun trading".
[*]To an extent, yes, however please remember that you cannot brew a gun in your basement, nor can you grow the metal in your backyard to make the gun with. With proper surveillance of licensed firearms and complete confiscation of all handguns the effect will be minimal.


Actually, ever heard of Zip Guns? They can be made with the most common household trash.


They require ammunition, which needs to be made fairly carefully. I doubt you could make bullets for your gun from rubbish. I admit that bullets are probably easier to obtain than firearms themselves, but in a gun-regulated country they're still going to be fairly scarce.

Besides, if guns are banned then your law-abiding targets for your gun crime are hardly going to be heavily armed. Making a home-made gun is a lot of hassle to go through when you only really need to intimidate the unarmed people - a knife would be a much better choice. In a pro-gun state, you'll have to assume and prepare for your targets having loaded weapons at their disposal, which has the potential to be a much deadlier situation for all parties involved...

#19 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 23:54

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 5 Nov 2008, 19:47, said:

View PostDauth, on 18 Oct 2008, 23:53, said:

[*]"As with prohibition, it will lead to further underground gun trading".
[*]To an extent, yes, however please remember that you cannot brew a gun in your basement, nor can you grow the metal in your backyard to make the gun with. With proper surveillance of licensed firearms and complete confiscation of all handguns the effect will be minimal.


Actually, ever heard of Zip Guns? They can be made with the most common household trash.
True, but the hassle of constructing a firearm this way (especially one that works and/or doesn't blow up right in your face the moment you use it) is substantially bigger than just acquiring one through a well-connected person.
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#20 Cryptkeeper

    secret experment 142-2

  • Member
  • 4199 posts
  • Projects: shockwave,rise of the reds

Posted 06 November 2008 - 18:48

gun use require a certain amount of maturity and safety to be somethign for the force of good. while it is true guns main goal is to hurt or kill. They can serve other purposes like intimidation and can offer non-violent solutions to personal defense yes i said non violent becuase it doesn't take much for a person to see a gun in your hand and know what its capable of.

so I support the use of all weapons except those committed to to the killing of mass numbers or destruction of property example machine gun bombs assualt rifles and shotguns semi-autos are fine but nothing with faster rate of fire then that.

but of course licenses are needed maybe even tests to be administrated before allowed usage or purchasing of said gun.

Edited by Cryptkeeper, 06 November 2008 - 19:23.


#21 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 22:16

View PostCryptkeeper, on 6 Nov 2008, 20:48, said:

gun use require a certain amount of maturity and safety to be somethign for the force of good.
But when are they a force for good? I really don't see many cases where it would be, tbh. The most obvious one is of course where an enemy also has a weapon and is on the point if killing you. But if an enemy is only threatening with his weapon? How can you know he's going to kill you? Or if he's breaking into your house, but unarmed? Even if you might not me able to physically overpower him? The line isn't easy to draw. But the only circumstance I can really think of in which I would sanction the use of a weapon on someone is where it inevitably means your life if you don't shoot. And even then; shoot to kill?

Probably partly because I'm a fervent opponent of the death penalty do I oppose the legal possession of firearms of everybody but the law, the military and those with a special license. It's just not ethical to give firearms to others, IMO.

Also, merely having a firearm to threaten with it is no argument IMO. If you're not going to use it, it's just empty threats. And that's even more dangerous.

Edited by Chyros, 06 November 2008 - 22:17.

TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#22 Eddy01741

    E-Studios Uber Computer Geek

  • Member
  • 2223 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 23:37

View PostSwimmer, on 4 Nov 2008, 20:40, said:

Actually, JB, there is some justification to kids learning about weapons- if you know what it is, your less likely to fuck with it. The Uzi incident... well... I have nothing to say aside from what the hell. Alias- I do agree with you on automatic weapons- there is very little civilian need for them. They are, for the record, illegal for private ownership here in the US (aside from a number that are grandfathered).

Okay, so therefore, we should have children have sex with each other to learn about it and not do it unless they are ready for it? I mean, that's kinda bad logic right there. THey should know what guns are, what they do, and why they shouldn't be toyed with.

Edited by Eddy01741, 06 November 2008 - 23:39.

Posted Image

#23 Cryptkeeper

    secret experment 142-2

  • Member
  • 4199 posts
  • Projects: shockwave,rise of the reds

Posted 07 November 2008 - 00:38

View PostChyros, on 6 Nov 2008, 16:16, said:

View PostCryptkeeper, on 6 Nov 2008, 20:48, said:

gun use require a certain amount of maturity and safety to be somethign for the force of good.
But when are they a force for good? I really don't see many cases where it would be, tbh. The most obvious one is of course where an enemy also has a weapon and is on the point if killing you. But if an enemy is only threatening with his weapon? How can you know he's going to kill you? Or if he's breaking into your house, but unarmed? Even if you might not me able to physically overpower him? The line isn't easy to draw. But the only circumstance I can really think of in which I would sanction the use of a weapon on someone is where it inevitably means your life if you don't shoot. And even then; shoot to kill?

Probably partly because I'm a fervent opponent of the death penalty do I oppose the legal possession of firearms of everybody but the law, the military and those with a special license. It's just not ethical to give firearms to others, IMO.

Also, merely having a firearm to threaten with it is no argument IMO. If you're not going to use it, it's just empty threats. And that's even more dangerous.

so are what your saying is if the gun scared away a assailant who would have hurt or stole from you or some one who was getting mugged that it wouldn't be a force of good yes its situation but cops can't be everywhere and you take away the right for people to carry firearms won't stop people from getting them and easily concealing them not to mention do you want police to spend time trying to search for guns that would not necessarily be used for stuff like stealing etc when they could be doing more important things like protecting people and there property or even handling civil crime which for the most part is not with firearms fists or knifes generally stuff you find around the house .

don't get me wrong I'm not saying guns can't be easily used for wrong they are but its power people must take responsibility for not something the government should take responsibility of they are here to defend and protect us and preserve are way of life not control are lives at least that's how i see it.

Edited by Cryptkeeper, 07 November 2008 - 00:40.


#24 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 07 November 2008 - 01:57

View PostCryptkeeper, on 7 Nov 2008, 2:38, said:

View PostChyros, on 6 Nov 2008, 16:16, said:

View PostCryptkeeper, on 6 Nov 2008, 20:48, said:

gun use require a certain amount of maturity and safety to be somethign for the force of good.
But when are they a force for good? I really don't see many cases where it would be, tbh. The most obvious one is of course where an enemy also has a weapon and is on the point if killing you. But if an enemy is only threatening with his weapon? How can you know he's going to kill you? Or if he's breaking into your house, but unarmed? Even if you might not me able to physically overpower him? The line isn't easy to draw. But the only circumstance I can really think of in which I would sanction the use of a weapon on someone is where it inevitably means your life if you don't shoot. And even then; shoot to kill?

Probably partly because I'm a fervent opponent of the death penalty do I oppose the legal possession of firearms of everybody but the law, the military and those with a special license. It's just not ethical to give firearms to others, IMO.

Also, merely having a firearm to threaten with it is no argument IMO. If you're not going to use it, it's just empty threats. And that's even more dangerous.

so are what your saying is if the gun scared away a assailant who would have hurt or stole from you or some one who was getting mugged that it wouldn't be a force of good
I'm saying that if you are not prepared to make good on your threats to the assailant, the weapon might well do more harm than good. And if you are prepared to make good on your threat, you should probably not be allowed to carry it (IMO).

View PostCryptkeeper, on 7 Nov 2008, 2:38, said:

yes its situation but cops can't be everywhere and you take away the right for people to carry firearms won't stop people from getting them and easily concealing them not to mention do you want police to spend time trying to search for guns that would not necessarily be used for stuff like stealing etc when they could be doing more important things like protecting people and there property or even handling civil crime which for the most part is not with firearms fists or knifes generally stuff you find around the house .
Forbidding something doesn't mean that all police force should be concentrated on combating it, there by neglecting their other duties. Murder is forbidden, but do you see policemen searching houses 24/7 for traces or signs of murder?
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#25 Cryptkeeper

    secret experment 142-2

  • Member
  • 4199 posts
  • Projects: shockwave,rise of the reds

Posted 07 November 2008 - 02:24

1. please give me a example as to how not making good on threats would do more harm if the assailant runs what does it matter the goal of stopping or preventing the crime is obtained without death? thus the gun could be loaded or not in the mind of the assailant it was and you could have very well carried it out and honestly what do alarms etc do the same thing strike fear into the assailant as to prevent crime through intimidation. I understand your opinion that the gun is powerful tool and killing is wrong in fact if i had it my way there would be no guns no violence at all but that's not going to happen as long as humans have some thing to fight over.

2. ah but i didn't say they would have to do that 24/7 but it would become apart of there long list of duties which would hamper there ability to get the stuff i think is more important such as protecting people from crimes being committed on them and there families instead of crimes being committed just becuase someone possesses something illegal

like drugs if they were completely legal drug lord and other organized drug rings would loose power and may actually reduce drug abuse all tho that has yet to be seen but one things for sure organized crime thrives on bans becuase with out them being a crime they wouldn't be crime lords |8

Edited by Cryptkeeper, 07 November 2008 - 05:35.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users