142 replies to this topic

[EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen]

So ya, I believe people shouldn't be allowed to keep semi-auto pistols, rifles are fine because people hunt, but nobody needs to go hunting with a glock 9mm. [deer] :chainer:

[Whitey]

You can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands.

Why do you care if I own a pistol. Personal Defense is something I desire. I mean really, what good is having a knife when the guy next to you has a Tec-9? Maybe if you are lucky, you can use it to pick that scab on your arm or pop that pimple before you drop dead.

The vast majority of guns used in crimes are illegal. So outlawing them won't have the greatest effect. Only the law-abiding citizens will be defenseless, and that is a bad thing.

And in addition, at least in the US, we have the right to bear arms. So fine, take away my right to armament. While you're at it, take all the goodness out of the press. Force us to watch murder after death after car accident. Oh, and might as well unite us all under Christianity and punish all crime with tortured death, no assigned attorneys either.

One step toward total government control begins the inertia to force another, and another, and yet another. It may not look like it but you just wait.

[BillyChaka]

I believe you need to surrender one right to better protect others.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

I support ownership of guns but it should be limited to hand guns and rifles. people should not be allowed to own SMG and MG like AK-47 or the M4 (i think its called the bush master) nor should they be allowed to own long range sniper rifles.

And to all those who support people having guns then dont throw the NRA bullshit of self defence. you know its a bullshit argument. give a more rational and less retarded sounding argument. Because if you go for this argument then you are supporting anarchism and its actually demeaning to your own society that it isn't safe on its own and needs people to be armed to protect themselves.

There is nothing wrong with owning a gun or having a gun culture. Switzerland has a bigger gun to per person ratio then America and you dont see those swiss going on a rampage. Same is the case with Canada. The problems in America are not caused by Guns but because of people. Gun crime is high not because of legal guns but illegal guns and you cant stop the flow of these illegal guns even if you get strict gun control and the main reason for it is because those illegal guns are linked with the drug trafficking. The same gangs and cartel that controls drug flow also control gun flow. so you will have illegal guns flooding the market no matter what you do.

Now the problem America is a facing is not because of guns but it a social break down of their system. School for poor kids are a joke, Family institutions are a wreak and due to this drug abuse and crime relating to theft are on the rise. if you want lower gun crime then concentrate on thse people and help them get a better life other wise the cycle will keep on continuing.

[Alias]

Prophet of the Pimps, on 29 Apr 2007, 16:04, said:

Switzerland and has a bigger gun to per person ratio then America and you dont see those swiss going on a rampage.

That is because any Swiss-born male over the age of 18 must have a firearm available at their household, as because of the compulsory militia.

[Cryptkeeper]

well i realy don't think sniper rifles shouldn't be sellable but there are points to make there indeed death merchants in usa that can easily get illegal weapons in and out due to the fact we have hard anof time controling drug trafficing much less gun trafficing.

but rifles shotguns and handguns should stay legal for sure

freedom comes with a price and it is heavy

Edited by cryptkeeper, 29 April 2007 - 06:44.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

then explain Canada?
In Switzerland every person owns one military issue rifle and if you take that one gun out and do a ratio with the rest left then its pretty much on par with America.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/1566715.stm
Read the article. it pretty much supports my argument that its the impoverished and ignored people are the cause of crime and not legal guns.

If you want lower gun crimes then taking away the gun wont solve it because that isn't the root cause of the problem. it is poverty and desperation that are the source of gun problem

And here is a direct comparison of America Vs Swiss Gun culture
http://www.freerepub...b7f78c351b6.htm

note the article is not made by some hill billy redneck but by the The Wall Street Journal Europe. So you know it just ain't blowing smoke up our asses.

[Athena]

Isn't this partially politics?

I'm for forbidding guns. I don't believe people need guns and I would not feel safe knowing any idiot could just shoot me because he/she is angry. I feel safe in my own country because people using guns here is a rarity and our crime rates are low.

Here we are not allowed to harm a burgler that breaks into your house. While I think you should be allowed to say tie them up for a moment until the cops arrive, I do not believe one should be allowed to shoot the person, to do permanent damage or to inflict great pain upon them.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

gun control is a social issue and not politics. heck if we go according to that thinking then we cant discuss anything at all.

[TehKiller]

Really people shouldnt hold the heavy stuff (like MGs and Sniper Rifles)...though over at my place is a bit funny since they allow us to have a AK for Personal Defense and for militia reasons (if we ever get attacked again)

[Athena]

So.. you can kill someone who tries to attack? Like who? And you would not go to jail for it? What if the person accidentally was not an attacker but a family member visiting you and you killed them? sounds a bit dangerous to me.

[Alias]

Well, even if they are a family member and they attack you, they are still technically an "enemy".

[Athena]

I mean a family member coming for a visit silly . Basically someone who means no harm.

What right do you have to terminate the life of an "enemy"? That sounds even worse than death punishment by the government, which I am against.

Edited by Blaat85, 29 April 2007 - 10:16.

[TehKiller]

Only if hes armed then your allowed to shoot him.....its not like that someones gonna shoot his neighbor just cuz he came to visit xD

[Alias]

I'm not saying killing someone is justified, even if they attack first. I was just illustrating the point a family member can still be an enemy, as can anyone of any race, age or relation.

Sure murder is unjustified, on ALL counts. That is why I despise the death penalty, as you do.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

Blaat85, on 29 Apr 2007, 14:44, said:

So.. you can kill someone who tries to attack? Like who? And you would not go to jail for it? What if the person accidentally was not an attacker but a family member visiting you and you killed them? sounds a bit dangerous to me.

Statistically if you send a kid to a house that has gun and another one that as a swimming pool. the kid is more likely to die by drowning in the pool then being shot at.. just because a gun has spectacular new break worthiness doesn't mean its dangerous.

[Athena]

Kids are supposed to get a swimming diploma here.. it would not drown unless it does not have one. Also, a gun requires a person to fire it and actively wanting to hurt another being. A swimming pool is not made because you want to drown someone. The parents should keep an eye on their children and teach them to stay away from pools until they have a swimming diploma.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

yhea but per year more people die in swimming pools then get shot at by legal guns. Even though a pool was designed for a different purpose doesnt negate the fact that it kills more people then guns.

[Mathias]

If you take the spear out of someone's hands, they can still use those hands to punch you.

Guns aren't the problem, to simplify a bit. There are underlying problems and factors that contribute to these problems that need to be treated.

[Rayburn]

In my opinion, private possession of firearms is okay as long as two conditions are fulfilled:
1. The potential owner must be checked. His background must be known, the gun must be registered and he should have to do some sort of test if he can actually cope with the responsibility of owning a weapon
2. Nothing bigger than a hunting-/sportsrifle. For self-defence, pistols and smaller rifles are perfectly sufficient. Who the fuck needs an AK-47, a sniper-rifle or some huge .50 to protect his house from criminals?

[Whitey]

This "Nothing bigger than a sport rifle" is yet still total bullcrap.

Why CAN'T I own an AK-47? Is it any more lethal than a pistol? Mind you a pistol can be concealed.

In fact, when I get older, I want to fill my guncase with an AK-47, an SL-8, an M4A1 SOPMOD, perhaps an SVD and an M249. So maybe not THAT over the top but still, do you think I am going to go out and use them for the purpose of the elimination of human life?

Maybe I'd shoot up a beater car with them, get some target practice. Sharpen my rifle skills. Maybe they would just sit on display until I use them to threaten a burglar? What does it matter?

Like has been said before: It is not the gun, it's the person holding it.

[CodeCat]

Which is exactly why, if weapons are allowed, nukes should be fine too. After all, nobody in their right mind is going to actually shoot someone with a gun, so the same would apply to a nuke. Right?

[Whitey]

Oh for Christ's sake. Must we hear this argument again?

A nuke is not a firearmm. It also requires much more advanced methods of control so that it does not overheat and blow up in the middle of your living room.

Explosive weapons were not mentioned. They are thus not to be brought into this argument.

[Rayburn]

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 16:39, said:

So maybe not THAT over the top but still, do you think I am going to go out and use them for the purpose of the elimination of human life?

You wouldn't, sure, but as long as there are people who WOULD, these guns should be banned from private ownership entirely. I perfectly understand people who buy a gun for self-defence. Nothing more unbearable than having some stranger break into your house and endanger your family and you can do nothing. Still, a pistol or some simple shotgun does fine. You don't need some fancy 200 shot machine gun for that. As long as there are people who use their guns for anything OTHER than self-defence - and these people will never cease to exist - I don't like the idea of private persons bearing weapons equal to those of police-forces. They may be in good hands in 99 out of 100 cases but the one time they aren't, it may end in a massacre. A massacre that can be stopped way faster if the shooter doesn't have anything heavier than a pistol.

[Whitey]

Supposing Mr. AK could never leave your home assembled?