Gun control
amazin 10 May 2009
after reading the paintball and laser thread, i just wanted all your opinions on REAL firearm control
personally, i believe that people should be allowed to own firearms for protection and sport, and that trying to control them just keeps them out of law abiding citizen's hands, but criminals, gangs, and terrorists can still easily get their hands on them. you can tell because even with the restrictions nowadays, they still manage to get their hands on banned weapons (for example assault rifles)
the only thing it might have an effect on is domestic violence, but i doubt it, becuase the creeps will always find a way, guns or not
Edited by umm not dachamp, 10 May 2009 - 17:40.
personally, i believe that people should be allowed to own firearms for protection and sport, and that trying to control them just keeps them out of law abiding citizen's hands, but criminals, gangs, and terrorists can still easily get their hands on them. you can tell because even with the restrictions nowadays, they still manage to get their hands on banned weapons (for example assault rifles)
the only thing it might have an effect on is domestic violence, but i doubt it, becuase the creeps will always find a way, guns or not
Edited by umm not dachamp, 10 May 2009 - 17:40.
AZZKIKR 11 May 2009
*points to virginia tech*
well, how many cases of vigilante justice have we heard of? where a civilian does a gunfight against criminals?
Yet we hear more cases of people using guns to kill their own family, rob, kill police, kill people. my stance is obvious
well, how many cases of vigilante justice have we heard of? where a civilian does a gunfight against criminals?
Yet we hear more cases of people using guns to kill their own family, rob, kill police, kill people. my stance is obvious
amazin 11 May 2009
i dont think vigilante justice is common at all, but some people feel more comfortable with a gun in their home
and like i said, gun control or not, criminals and gangs can get their hands on them
and like i said, gun control or not, criminals and gangs can get their hands on them
NergiZed 11 May 2009
AZZKIKR, on 10 May 2009, 20:21, said:
*points to virginia tech*
well, how many cases of vigilante justice have we heard of? where a civilian does a gunfight against criminals?
Yet we hear more cases of people using guns to kill their own family, rob, kill police, kill people. my stance is obvious
well, how many cases of vigilante justice have we heard of? where a civilian does a gunfight against criminals?
Yet we hear more cases of people using guns to kill their own family, rob, kill police, kill people. my stance is obvious
Pretty much that.
Also, instead of feeling secure by having a gun, I'd rather be secure by having a kick-ass police force and few guns.
Just look at Europe, I don't see many people getting shot in European cities. In Philadelphia, the closest city from where I live, a person gets shot almost every day. Maybe that's not a whole lot of people when compared to the entire city, but that sure is a whole hell of a lot of people when compared to some of the big Western European cites, as well as some Big East Asian cities.
BeefJeRKy 11 May 2009
I take this quote directly from my father who lived through the Lebanese civil war:
Basically, if weapons are made illegal in all forms (including hunting which I consider a rather useless and inhumane sport), it would make no difference to me. How will carrying a gun make you safer? It singles you out as a threat to an aggressor. In fact, many times, an attacker will try to avoid a murder charge by not killing the target.
As to people acquiring guns through other means? Wage an aggressive campaign against arms dealers and mobsters if possible.
Quote
At 19 years of age, I bought my first gun and kept it in my car. Proud of myself, I went to boast to my father about it. He looked at me and asked me why I thought a gun would be useful. I responded, that if some hoodlums stopped me over I could threaten them with the gun. He retorted and called me a fool. He asked what I think would happen if I pulled out a gun in those hoodlums' faces? I realized that by carrying a weapon, I would give such people a reason to actually shoot me. After that, I went and sold the gun and resigned myself from ever buying a firearm.
Basically, if weapons are made illegal in all forms (including hunting which I consider a rather useless and inhumane sport), it would make no difference to me. How will carrying a gun make you safer? It singles you out as a threat to an aggressor. In fact, many times, an attacker will try to avoid a murder charge by not killing the target.
As to people acquiring guns through other means? Wage an aggressive campaign against arms dealers and mobsters if possible.
CommanderJB 11 May 2009
These are the questions that I pose the NRA and all its affiliates: is it really that hard to connect the fact that America has ten times the rate of gun murders than Australia and the highest rate of murders per capita out of all major 'free' Western democracies with respective gun laws? What does your gun protect you from - is it right to kill someone who burgles your house? Does a gun offer you anything that a competent police force cannot? Is the fact that illegal arms will occasionally persist after the introduction of gun control laws a reason not to do anything about the thousands of preventable murders, including all the various dozens of massacres that your country and others have suffered over the years? Does a state with all its citizens armed automatically result in order and safety for those citizens?
I would argue that the answer to all of those is a very emphatic 'no'. Deregulating the carriage of firearms results in them being freely available not only to criminals (and there are vastly fewer criminals with guns in countries with strict gun control laws, no matter what the NRA may try and scare you into thinking) but to those who are mentally imbalanced, unable to handle them properly, unable to secure them properly, and unable to understand the power they hold in them properly or use them responsibly. Never underestimate the power of human emotion to drive normally sane, rational people into a state where the abuse of a firearm that they can get simply by opening a cupboard seems like a solution to all their problems with the world. Never mind the whole issue of whether carrying guns makes you safer or not (and I would refer you to the fantastic example given by Scope for an answer to that), deregulated gun ownership is and has proven time and time again a recipe for disaster where innocent victims and innocent families suffer horrifically for problems that were never theirs and more often than not never even true.
I would argue that the answer to all of those is a very emphatic 'no'. Deregulating the carriage of firearms results in them being freely available not only to criminals (and there are vastly fewer criminals with guns in countries with strict gun control laws, no matter what the NRA may try and scare you into thinking) but to those who are mentally imbalanced, unable to handle them properly, unable to secure them properly, and unable to understand the power they hold in them properly or use them responsibly. Never underestimate the power of human emotion to drive normally sane, rational people into a state where the abuse of a firearm that they can get simply by opening a cupboard seems like a solution to all their problems with the world. Never mind the whole issue of whether carrying guns makes you safer or not (and I would refer you to the fantastic example given by Scope for an answer to that), deregulated gun ownership is and has proven time and time again a recipe for disaster where innocent victims and innocent families suffer horrifically for problems that were never theirs and more often than not never even true.
Rayburn 11 May 2009
The problem is the whole lobbyism that goes with this dreary debate. As soon as you're trying to get some reasonable restrictions in, all the industry lobbyists, hobby shooters, gun collectors etc go "Boooooo, don't take away our guns! We need our guns because it's some bollocks tradition for some reason and because we need our skilled shooters for the olympics and because we need our guns if we're getting attacked by those goddamned commies, blah de blah de blah." And since these lobbyists are so numerous and powerful, the politicians rather sacrifice a pawn, i.e. paintball and videogames because their lobbies are smaller, less-organised and apparently too oblivious to do something about it.
Edited by Rayburn, 11 May 2009 - 05:58.
Edited by Rayburn, 11 May 2009 - 05:58.
Chyros 11 May 2009
Scope, on 11 May 2009, 5:03, said:
I take this quote directly from my father who lived through the Lebanese civil war:
Basically, if weapons are made illegal in all forms (including hunting which I consider a rather useless and inhumane sport), it would make no difference to me. How will carrying a gun make you safer? It singles you out as a threat to an aggressor. In fact, many times, an attacker will try to avoid a murder charge by not killing the target.
As to people acquiring guns through other means? Wage an aggressive campaign against arms dealers and mobsters if possible.
Quote
At 19 years of age, I bought my first gun and kept it in my car. Proud of myself, I went to boast to my father about it. He looked at me and asked me why I thought a gun would be useful. I responded, that if some hoodlums stopped me over I could threaten them with the gun. He retorted and called me a fool. He asked what I think would happen if I pulled out a gun in those hoodlums' faces? I realized that by carrying a weapon, I would give such people a reason to actually shoot me. After that, I went and sold the gun and resigned myself from ever buying a firearm.
Basically, if weapons are made illegal in all forms (including hunting which I consider a rather useless and inhumane sport), it would make no difference to me. How will carrying a gun make you safer? It singles you out as a threat to an aggressor. In fact, many times, an attacker will try to avoid a murder charge by not killing the target.
As to people acquiring guns through other means? Wage an aggressive campaign against arms dealers and mobsters if possible.
AZZKIKR 11 May 2009
to stop crime, u don't need guns. just a highly effective police force and strict rules. Guns shud never be legalised.
The US has the highest civilian death rate caused by shootings iirc.
*shows map of canada* a neighbouring nation with an unheard of killing spree. *points tosome asian county* hmm, same
Edited by AZZKIKR, 11 May 2009 - 10:15.
The US has the highest civilian death rate caused by shootings iirc.
*shows map of canada* a neighbouring nation with an unheard of killing spree. *points tosome asian county* hmm, same
Edited by AZZKIKR, 11 May 2009 - 10:15.
CodeCat 11 May 2009
A gun is designed to wound or kill. That is its only purpose. Any use of a gun hence stems from the fear of being wounded or killed. If you need to breed fear to protect yourself, then you're screwed up on a much deeper level than the problem of guns alone. And if this applies to a WHOLE COUNTRY, then I think sending a few million gun owners into therapy might be the only viable solution.
amazin 11 May 2009
there are also people i know who have guns for the sport of skeet or target shooting, plus people have them for hunting
do they all need to go to therapy?
do they all need to go to therapy?
Wizard 11 May 2009
Just to argue in principle, yes. They want to kill something. They don't need to kill a wild animal for food so it's only purpose is to harm a living creature. Some might say that is a reason to go into therapy.
Rich19 11 May 2009
Scope, on 11 May 2009, 4:03, said:
I take this quote directly from my father who lived through the Lebanese civil war:
Basically, if weapons are made illegal in all forms (including hunting which I consider a rather useless and inhumane sport), it would make no difference to me. How will carrying a gun make you safer? It singles you out as a threat to an aggressor. In fact, many times, an attacker will try to avoid a murder charge by not killing the target.
As to people acquiring guns through other means? Wage an aggressive campaign against arms dealers and mobsters if possible.
Quote
At 19 years of age, I bought my first gun and kept it in my car. Proud of myself, I went to boast to my father about it. He looked at me and asked me why I thought a gun would be useful. I responded, that if some hoodlums stopped me over I could threaten them with the gun. He retorted and called me a fool. He asked what I think would happen if I pulled out a gun in those hoodlums' faces? I realized that by carrying a weapon, I would give such people a reason to actually shoot me. After that, I went and sold the gun and resigned myself from ever buying a firearm.
Basically, if weapons are made illegal in all forms (including hunting which I consider a rather useless and inhumane sport), it would make no difference to me. How will carrying a gun make you safer? It singles you out as a threat to an aggressor. In fact, many times, an attacker will try to avoid a murder charge by not killing the target.
As to people acquiring guns through other means? Wage an aggressive campaign against arms dealers and mobsters if possible.
You've said exactly what I wanted to say, in a better way than I could have said it.
Having guns for target practice is fine - you ought to need a license, be tested, and be an experienced user before you are allowed to actually buy one/take one home from the range though.
Rich19 11 May 2009
amazin 12 May 2009
i think that handguns should be legal, but maybe by state, because if you are out hiking in alaska or somewhere, wildlife such as bears are a very real threat, but you would not want to lug around a rifle
assault weapons are completely unnecesary for commercial use and it is a good thing that they are illegal
assault weapons are completely unnecesary for commercial use and it is a good thing that they are illegal
CommanderJB 12 May 2009
If you're in a position where you think you might encounter a bear, why would you not bring a rifle? It's not like you encounter them in suburban Anchorage.
Chyros 12 May 2009
Reaper94 12 May 2009
NergiZed, on 11 May 2009, 3:27, said:
AZZKIKR, on 10 May 2009, 20:21, said:
*points to virginia tech*
well, how many cases of vigilante justice have we heard of? where a civilian does a gunfight against criminals?
Yet we hear more cases of people using guns to kill their own family, rob, kill police, kill people. my stance is obvious
well, how many cases of vigilante justice have we heard of? where a civilian does a gunfight against criminals?
Yet we hear more cases of people using guns to kill their own family, rob, kill police, kill people. my stance is obvious
Pretty much that.
Also, instead of feeling secure by having a gun, I'd rather be secure by having a kick-ass police force and few guns.
Just look at Europe, I don't see many people getting shot in European cities. In Philadelphia, the closest city from where I live, a person gets shot almost every day. Maybe that's not a whole lot of people when compared to the entire city, but that sure is a whole hell of a lot of people when compared to some of the big Western European cites, as well as some Big East Asian cities.
What about London?
Wizard 12 May 2009
London is hardly on par with the levels of gun crime of some major North American cities. Yes we have a "problem" with guns, but think of it as a cough or sneeze vs cancer.
CommanderJB 12 May 2009
Chyros, on 12 May 2009, 17:10, said:
Quote
* Defense of Life and Property
* No Alaska law prohibits the taking of a bear in defense of a persons life or property
* “Property” means a dwelling,permanent or temporary. An aircraft, boat, automobile or other conveyance. A domesticated animal or other property of substantial value necessary for livelihood or survival.
* No Alaska law prohibits the taking of a bear in defense of a persons life or property
* “Property” means a dwelling,permanent or temporary. An aircraft, boat, automobile or other conveyance. A domesticated animal or other property of substantial value necessary for livelihood or survival.
amazin 12 May 2009
well i know people who have encountered bears, moose (which can be very dangerous), and other thing on hikes and such... now really would you want to have to carry a rifle?
CommanderJB 12 May 2009
I think that making an incredibly small minority of people toss a rifle over their back for the duration of a hike is very, very greatly preferable to allowing someone to wander into a shopping centre, pull out a handgun from their coat that they will never need and start shooting innocent people with any time they choose with no way of stopping them before the act is committed and it's all over.
ultimentra 12 May 2009
Everyone is saying if the police was better, then we wouldn't need guns. Well thats just the thing, the police here, and everywhere completely suck. In order to make the crime rate go down in a country, you either make the standard of living better or you have big brother watch their every move. Taking guns away from the citizens does not take guns away from criminals.