Fallout Studios Forums

damn society... i really wish we could put more faith in the individual, as opposed to punishing the masses

Were it not for the fact that dozens of massacres, thousands of firearm-related homicides and many horrifyingly tragic accidents prove that faith in the individual when it comes to firearms is thoroughly misplaced, I'd almost agree.

thats what i am saying, i meant i wish we could trust people, but there are too many creeps and psychos out there

@ Rich:

1) Wait, the government is giving civilians personal guns? Where at, sign me up! My M16 isn't mine to use whenever I want...and there is no such thing as a gun free country. You see, there's this little thing called the black market, yeah, that criminals tend to use, and which law-abiding gunowners like myself would use were it impossible to obtain firearms legally...this concept has been around since Roman times, but apparently some people still just don't get it. "Cum Catapultae Proscriptae Erunt Tum Soli Proscripti Catapultas Habebunt. . ." And get this: it's already easier for someone to illegally obtain a firearm than it is for them to legally obtain one. So there really isn't all that much extra effort involved in obtaining an illegal firearm.

2) Actually, if you shoot someone in self-defense in reasonable fear for your life/property, you're in the clear. In addition to the inalienable right to bear arms, you also have the inalienable right to self-defense.

3) The interpretation of the Second Amendment is contested, and I disagree with your interpretation.

4) No, a society awash with guns is safer than one in which your only defense is your fists against the criminals' guns that they got on the black market anyway.

5) There's nothing wrong with carrying weapons. Nothing at all. A broken society is one where the government is socialist and interferes so deeply in its citizens' private lives that it restricts their personal freedoms. Two of my favorite quotes of all time are "That government is best which governs least" - Thomas Payne; and "They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

6)

Quote

FAJL, for already mentioned reasons. I hope you understand how impractical and unreasonable that is.

@ Rayburn: Not at all a bad idea, the only problem is that you can't really look at what someone might do in the future, you can only look at their past. I'm not sure about investigating every person in the household of someone that applies for a permit, one because that would be prohibitively expensive and two because I don't think that's constitutional (over here, anyway), but there is some effort at educating prospective gun-owners on basic weapon safety. I know some states require weapon safety classes for people who want to buy guns, and usually (read: every gun store I've been to) the staff gives out safety tips and such to people who buy guns. Such educational efforts are all that I think gun control should be.

@ JB: Again, not all of those are with legal firearms mate, and like the failed efforts of the Prohibition, firearms will never go away. Criminals will always have them either way. If someone wants a gun, they will always be able to get one, legally or otherwise. So we might as well keep it legal, so that at least it's easier to track down those who use legally obtained firearms for violent crimes.

Well knowing that I came from a wartorn country, arms were legal before the civil war in Lebanon in 1975. Since the Ta'if accord of 1990, guns were banned to the public (except hunting rifles and when some minister legalized it for his own purposes for 3 years), and ever since that ban, the murder rate dropped to 10% of the pre-war rate. Criminals preferred to ditch their weapons to avoid accidental murders when trying to rob homes. So I would argue that a relatively gun free country is safer. Note: I'm sure many of the mountainside folks still preserve the guns bought in the civil war but never contemplate using them.

A burglar in the US will carry a gun with him so he can defend himself if threatened with another gun. Likewise a homeowner gets a gun for the same reason. In Lebanon or any other country with a firearm ban, a burglar doesn't carry a gun because he expects a household to be without a gun, and if caught decides to wing it instead.

I'd beg to differ. If I were a burglar, I'd be strapped anyway. It's easier to manipulate someone with a gun in their face than just your fists. I'm pretty sure most burglars would agree. I'm sorry mate, but I really can't see the logic in your reasoning. Just because you might not expect someone to have a gun in their home doesn't mean you wouldn't bring one anyway. Also, in contrast to your argument, Kennesaw, Georgia, has a mandatory gun ownership law requiring that each household maintain at least one firearm, and has one of the lowest breaking & entering crime rates in the United States.

And I have to say, the idea that criminals would ditch firearms to avoid committing a crime is one of the most absurd things I've heard in a while.

I guess it's a mentality acquired after passing through a 15 year civil war.

Maybe so. I haven't been through fifteen years of civil war, but I would think that such an experience would just solidify my belief in my right to own and carry firearms, because then instead of simply being a novelty or hobby or something of that sort, having a gun would be viewed as crucial to survival. That's how it was for seven months in Iraq, and I came back from that feeling very, very naked and alone without my weapon.

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 5:48, said:

I can't imagine that sounding absurd to you. If you rob a man's house and steal a camera and the contents of his wallet and get caught, you get convicted of theft. Bring a pistol and use it and it's murder. Do you know of any robbers desperate enough to kill someone while burglarising them? Because at least over here, all burglars that have at least the wits God gave a piss stain, so to speak, will wing it instead of killing someone.

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 11:32, said:

Then please explain to me how the rate of firearm-related crime is vastly lower in countries with strict gun ownership laws (such as my own) than it is in most countries with loose ones.

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 11:32, said:

So you're saying that someone deserves to lose his life for trying to run off with your television? That's morally reprehensible.

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 11:32, said:

Quite obviously it will take some time for the black market gun trade to subside after the removal of easy access to firearms occurs, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 11:32, said:

My 'essential liberty' is completely independent of my right to own a weapon, and I do not consider a rate of firearm-related homicides ten times lower than that of the United States 'a little temporary safety'. Moreover, if the government started to over-govern me then my owning a handgun would do sod all to stop that. Despotic regimes do lovely things like massacring the inhabitants of an entire street where their soldiers have been killed by citizens protecting their 'essential liberties' with handguns.

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 11:32, said:

Yet the vast majority were.

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 11:32, said:

They have 'gone away' where I live, which means it's certainly possible. And tracking people down for homicides is not going to be made easier by checking gun ownership records when said records turn up several thousand possible suspects.
Edited by CommanderJB, 01 June 2009 - 10:44.

Prepare for a wall of text...

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 2:32, said:

Maybe in the US. The black market over here is used for organised crime perhaps, but the kind of criminal ordinary civilians come into contact with do not have them. And yes, obtaining a firearm in a gun free country is fairly hard - they're expensive, and the dealers are fairly closely watched by police (so you're likely to be coming to their attention before you've even used the gun).

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 2:32, said:

Fair enough. But someone still gets shot, and there's a good chance it'll be you.

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 2:32, said:

I realised. But there are plenty of people in your own country that disagree with yours.

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 2:32, said:

The. Criminals. Never. Bother. With. Guns.

In a society without guns, the criminal expects you to be unarmed. So he threatens you with muscle, or perhaps a potato peeler. This fact is not up for debate, I have first hand experience of it. Muggers, burglers, none of them use guns. I had never even seen a gun until a few years ago (the armed man in question happened to be a policeman at an airport). I suppose an organised drug smuggling ring might have a use for guns, but how often is it that the average law abiding citizen comes into contact with one of those?

In a society with guns, the criminal expects you to have a gun (it could be fatal for them not to do this). And therefore someone is likely to get shot - the criminal will be paranoid that you or a passer by is equally armed.

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 2:32, said:

...And that's a bad thing?

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 2:32, said:

Fair enough, I take that idea back. But I still don't like the idea of giving people lethal weapons because it's "fun". Would you give ordinary people access to nukes for the enjoyment factor?

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 4:48, said:

No, it's true. A mugger might get a quick investigation, perhaps a witness statement, but little further action if they run off. An armed mugger, by contrast, would get the full VIP treatment - armed response units, helicopters, numerous cars, etc etc etc. In US terms, it would be like choosing between going against a single doughnut-eating average cop, or a SWAT team.

Then of course there is cost. US black markets need to offer lower prices than the legal alternatives. European black markets can charge whatever they want, as there's no competition. Think of supply as well - the supply is far lower, so the cost is higher.

The extra effort simply is not worth it. So average criminals don't bother, and everyone is less likely to be shot as a result.

LCPL Carrow, on 1 Jun 2009, 5:06, said:

Precisely how is a society in which you feel unsafe without a gun a "safe" one?
Edited by Rich19, 01 June 2009 - 11:19.

Quote Commander JB
"My 'essential liberty' is completely independent of my right to own a weapon, and I do not consider a rate of firearm-related homicides ten times lower than that of the United States 'a little temporary safety'. Moreover, if the government started to over-govern me then my owning a handgun would do sod all to stop that. Despotic regimes do lovely things like massacring the inhabitants of an entire street where their soldiers have been killed by citizens protecting their 'essential liberties' with handguns."

JB That statement sounded terribly hopeless. Like your giving up. Oh god the government is taking away all my freedoms. I can't do anything about it. I am just going to sit here while soldiers shoot me in the back on my way to work. I really hope that an oppressive government never happens, and I hope even more that it if it does I don't have to rely on someone who has given up hope. There's nothing I hate more than someone who just gives up.

ultimentra, on 4 Jun 2009, 16:55, said:

Then my apologies but you obviously completely failed to understand it. I am stating the obvious; that if a despotic government wished to exert its control over me then going after its lackeys with a concealable pistol would only place myself, neighbours and family in danger, and make virtually no impact on their control of anything. No matter what Red Dawn and its Wolverines may have you believe, this is an unassailable fact. I take the view that prevention is far better than a cure in such a hypothetical situation.
Edited by CommanderJB, 04 June 2009 - 07:32.

ultimentra, on 4 Jun 2009, 7:55, said:

The problem is that it's a very poor defense against dictatorships, because they generally come to power with the support of the people anyway. And since this sort of political party often tries to subdue opponents with violence, giving everyone guns might actually assist them rather than stop them. Being aware of Godwin's Law I hate to make this point, but if you look at the Nazi party's rise to power, none of it would have been stopped by an armed populace. Neither would it have been possible to overthrow with an armed group of citizens at any stage, either.
Edited by Rich19, 04 June 2009 - 13:43.

i dont think guns are going to be an effective measure against an oppressive government... but that is one of the reasons stated in the constitution, and while it was written at a time when guns were more necessary, i still believe that people should have a right to own guns

Very true TPAM. BTW, sorry to all those who made counterpoints to my last post for not replying to your posts, but I spent a good deal of time writing and thinking out my responses, and then I let my roommate use my internet for a minute and he closed Firefox despite having been told not to, and I haven't felt like trying to redo it all.