142 replies to this topic

[Golan]

I support regulated gun-ownership for hunting and target practice as well for the record. You think beeing able to overthrow the government is something one should always be prepared for?

[Whitey]

Well, yeah actually.

[Overdose]

I agree. This is why I support gun ownership. We can never know when a government can go coockoo and turn on it's population.

[Whitey]

It is highly unlikely, sure, but it is highly unlikely that I'm going to drown in a lake while sailing. Don't mean I'm going to go out without any form of flotation device.

A gun is a means of protection. ALl means of protection can be used against someone in different ways, all forms of protection serve different purposes.

The life vest keeps one from drowning.
The gun keeps one from getting attacked by another.
The lightning rod portects agaisnt lightning.

[Overdose]

History has taught us many things and one of those is that a government can and might eventually turn on it's population. Bad people can have guns yes, but that doesn't mean we should ban arms because of a minority of the population.

Asking to ban the sale of firearms and other extreme methods of getting guns out of our reach is like saying that you can't drive or you need to go through a 5 year long process to get a driver's license because some people decide to either DIU or play a real life game of Carmageddon or Grand Theft Auto

Regardless of the fact it does not make sense taking away a man's right to defend himself is to deprive of a basic need since the days Mankind started to gather up courage and step outside their caves. Face bone chilling cold and allowed us to outlive truly supreme beats such as the Mammoth and Sabertooth.

The closest thing I own to a gun is a rapier sword (I took fencing lessons for many years and am quite a fan of blades) and a flare gun (came free with the boat) that may lead you to think I do not have a stance too involved in this subject in the least but that's quite wrong.

To take away a man's born given right to own a gun, a gift of human resourcefulness and brilliance is just wrong. Even if he doesn't have a gun, he should not be denied one once the right time comes along.

Edited by Overdose, 14 May 2007 - 06:04.

[LCPL Carrow]

Agreed very strongly with Overdose and Leatherneck. I'm buying an AR-15 as soon as I can afford it.


Assault rifles FTW, bitches. Just try and take it away from me.

[Athena]

You make it sound like you're going to harm someone .

[Whitey]

No, he makes it sound like he enjoys his firearms as I do.

You on the other hand, make it sound like you are just ASKING for someone to harm you.

[Golan]

Leatherneck, on 14 May 2007, 20:18, said:

You on the other hand, make it sound like you are just ASKING for someone to harm you.

How´s that? There are millions of people not living in greater danger because of refusing to own a gun.

[CodeCat]

You know Leatherneck, that was the exact same argument that colonists used to dominate and exploit Africa, America and Asia. 'They're not armed and prepared for us, so it's ok if we enslave/kill them. It's their fault for being inferior and not being prepared for us. Survival of the fittest.'

[Overdose]

Indeed. The fact if you have a gun or not, or which one's gun is bigger does not make anyone lesser than the other.

[Whitey]

But it makes them less prepared for armed combat.

[LCPL Carrow]

1) Blaat, I don't intend to go out and hurt random people. Just the ones who try to take my weapon away from me.

2) Golan, actually, your millions are living in greater danger because they cannot defend themselves from someone who is armed, even with just a knife. Ever hear the saying "Never bring a knife to a gunfight?"

3) CodeCat, I for one am not going to go enslave Africa just because I have a firearm, and I highly doubt Leatherneck will either.

4) Actually, Overdose, you can probably unholster a pistol faster than you can unsling a rifle, depending on where you're wearing the pistol. And in close quarters, smaller is definitely better. So having a bigger gun doesn't actually matter all that much, except for the psychological impact of having your 9mm countered by a .50cal handcannon, and at longer ranges. I can nail you easier at 700 yards with a rifle than with a pistol. I actually probably couldn't hit you at all with a pistol at 700 yards. But with a rifle it ain't shit. So size actually depends on range.

EDIT: Italics

Edited by LCPL Carrow, 15 May 2007 - 13:17.

[Athena]

LCPL Carrow, on 14 May 2007, 20:53, said:

Assault rifles FTW, bitches. Just try and take it away from me.

Blaat85, on 14 May 2007, 21:01, said:

You make it sound like you're going to harm someone .

Leatherneck, on 14 May 2007, 22:18, said:

No, he makes it sound like he enjoys his firearms as I do.

Leatherneck, on 15 May 2007, 04:12, said:

But it makes them less prepared for armed combat.

You are kinda contradicting yourself there. First you say he isn't going to harm anyone, then you state he is prepared for armed combat. You can't have armed combat without him harming anyone O_O.

LCPL Carrow, on 15 May 2007, 15:14, said:

1) Blaat, I don't intend to go out and hurt random people. Just the ones who try to take my weapon away from me.

So what if someone, without a gun, feels threatened by your weapon? How do they know you're not a criminal? How do they know you are not going to shoot them randomly? Would you not rather want others to feel safe? I guess you rather have the freedom of being armed rather than the freedom of other people feeling safe, comes across somewhat selfish if you ask me personally.

[LCPL Carrow]

What, you think I'd be walking down the street at sling arms? No. Owning a weapon is legal, brandishing it is not. Somehow, walking around with your weapon at sling arms is considered "brandishing" it, and I therefore can't do it.

[TehKiller]

LCPL Carrow, on 15 May 2007, 13:14, said:

3) CodeCat, I for one am not going to go enslave Africa just because I have a firearm, and I highly doubt Leatherneck will either.

I doubt u understood what he meant.....What he was trying to say is that it doesnt matter what kind of weapon it is because even the smallest thing can be dangerous

[Golan]

LCPL Carrow, on 15 May 2007, 13:14, said:

2) Golan, actually, your millions are living in greater danger because they cannot defend themselves from someone who is armed, even with just a knife. Ever hear the saying "Never bring a knife to a gunfight?"

Never be so stupid to go to a gunfight at all.
Firstoff, I can defend myself quite effectively against someone armed with a knife if he´s not trained in using it (aka he´s the standard mobster) even without a gun.
Second, in countries where guns are banned, people don´t tend to die more often in armed conflict than in countries where guns aren´t outlawed. Also, as soon as you´re armed with a gun, it´s much more likely that an attacker will use lethal force, as you pose a greater threat to him aswell.

[CodeCat]

Who would you more likely shoot, someone armed with a gun or someone with nothing?

Now, apply that to gun laws and you see the point. People without guns don't get shot simply cause there's no reason to shoot them. I'd never feel at ease if someone had a gun. Much less if EVERYONE had one.

[LCPL Carrow]

I wasn't talking about going to a gunfight, I was talking about the gunfight coming to you. What I was saying was that if you are in a situation where someone pulls a knife, and then you pull a gun, you win. Anyone less than a fanatical bushido warrior will not be banzai charging someone who has a gun with nothing but a knife.

Secondly, have you ever actually had a knife pulled on you? Do you really have any idea how intimidating it is to be unarmed in the face of someone with a weapon? And how are you going to know how much training or - hey, you forgot about this - just plain experience with a knife someone is going to have? Having a gun not only tips the playing field in your favor, but it is a huge relief and comfort to be able to unholster your weapon when they unsheath theirs.

CodeCat, you must've forgotten about all the gun related deaths that you and your little friends are always bitching about. Y'all are right, there's no need for those. But they still occur. Recheck your logic. Somebody must be getting shot in order for you to have anything to even be bitching about in the first place. Are you saying that the people that you are bitching about getting shot are in fact in need of being shot?

And I'm not saying that EVERYONE needs to have a gun. Just that everyone should be ALLOWED to have one, if they so choose.

And I personally am just fine if someone has a gun. I don't get uncomfortable when I walk into a gun shop, in fact I like it.

[Golan]

LCPL Carrow, on 15 May 2007, 17:31, said:

I wasn't talking about going to a gunfight, I was talking about the gunfight coming to you. What I was saying was that if you are in a situation where someone pulls a knife, and then you pull a gun, you win. Anyone less than a fanatical bushido warrior will not be banzai charging someone who has a gun with nothing but a knife.

If YOU are the one bringing the gun into a conflict while your opponent has none, then you are the one going to a gun fight.
Besides, I just didn´t want to loose the opportunity to counter another meaningless commonplace with... well, another meaningless commonplace.

LCPL Carrow, on 15 May 2007, 17:31, said:

Secondly, have you ever actually had a knife pulled on you? Do you really have any idea how intimidating it is to be unarmed in the face of someone with a weapon? And how are you going to know how much training or - hey, you forgot about this - just plain experience with a knife someone is going to have? Having a gun not only tips the playing field in your favor, but it is a huge relief and comfort to be able to unholster your weapon when they unsheath theirs.

Yes, it´s quite interessting. Not a pelasant feeling, but if one has to defend oneself, intimidation is secondary.
How am I going to know if he´s trained... well, I don´t. Aswell as you don´t know if the one your threatening with your gun has a friend allready taking aim just incase that you might be a threat to them, wears a bullet proof west, has allready given up his life, is a gang-member with friends that you don´t want to be your enemies and so on... life can be a bitch, especially if you are too.

[Whitey]

So your are standing, gun aimed at your opponent who has a knife. He has a friendly sniper with his sights trained on you.

So you lower your weapon.

You still have a gun aimed at you, and a knife as well.

What did that do for you? If their intentions are to harm you then your screwed either way.

Now Blaat, you misunderstood. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. You only need to bring out the rifle in times of need, and therefore, what is the issue?

I was taking the Chicago L (a train) to the airport, and you know what? Half the people around me had guns (maybe a fourth). Jammed in holsters or pockets or whatever, you name it. The unmistakeable L-shaped bulge, and a lot of the times, the grip was actually visible.

What if one of them opened fire? He would be gunned down by someone else. So with all those guns around me, I actually felt safe (ish), as opposed to if just one had a gun.

I would never use a gun to harm someone unless they tried to harm me (or someone in relation to me). Therefore, why shouldn't I be allowed a gun, if the bad guys will still posess them?

There are two options when it comes to gun control:

No gun control: Both civilians and criminals posess firearms.
Gun control: Only criminals posess firearms.

Me? I feel more content with the former, knowing that I have an equal opportunity (almost) against a criminal who assaults me with a firearm.

[Golan]

I´m not talking about a sniper. I´m simply talking about a second guy you haven´t noticed. They don´t need the intention to harm you in order to defend themselfs... erp, wehere did I hear that before?

Also, your generalisation of the situation when outlawing guns is futile. In a society where there are as many guns in circulation as e.g. the US´ you are naturally right. Guns don´t vanish when some smacktard wearing a suit smilingly announces that guns have now officially been banned.
However, when guns aren´t sold regularly, thus not produced en mass and with low-level security, criminals have a hard time aquiring some resulting in an much smaller number of criminals beeing adequately armed. Also, it makes the police (I know you give a damn about them) work much more efficiently.

[Whitey]

How do you not notice a second guy without him being at a range?

The guns already in circulation would get around and get into the hands of the criminals.

The majority of guns used in crimes in the US are illegal. So no, banning would not reduce criminals that much. But would increase them with all the gun-owners like myself. I woundl't give them up, I'd sell them illegal or not, for a great profit. Think prohibition of alchohol.

[CodeCat]

Well then it would seem that the most obvious solution is simply to stop producing weapons for those criminals to illegally acquire. They can't shoot you or threaten you if there's simply nothing to do so with.

[Whitey]

Well it's just a LITTLE late isn't it?