80 replies to this topic

[Jok3r]

What's your thoughts on it? My opinion will come later, but I want to hear the general opinion of the forum. Obviously, discussion of politics is allowed being that this is the PA, but let's look at this not only from a political, or a philosophical standpoint, but also from a realistic one. The questions I'm really trying to ask here are as follows.
1. Should civilians be allowed to own guns?
2. What regulation should be placed on what civilians can own?


I'll post my thoughts in a bit, but for the moment, post yours.

[Alias]

I'm sure most of those interested in posting here would know my views by now, but here we go, I'll summarise now and expand when there's more input.

Handguns should be completely banned. There is no use of them in today's society.
Rifles and shotguns should only be licensed to those who require them, i.e. farmers, not to some random in a suburb.
Shooting sports should only take place at licensed ranges where the weapons are held.

Guns exist purely to cause harm. It's like asking whether we want anthrax to be legal or not.

[Genrail]

Alias, on 6 Jul 2010, 21:11, said:

Guns exist purely to cause harm. It's like asking whether we want anthrax to be legal or not.

Ya lets ban drugs too! Oh.... we all ready did.... and look at how much of a fail that truned out to be....

[Alias]

Do drugs exist purely to kill? No. In semi-relation, I am pro-legalisation of soft drugs.

You can't grow guns in your backyard, you can grow weed.

Edited by Alias, 07 July 2010 - 03:28.

[Genrail]

Alias, on 6 Jul 2010, 22:25, said:

Do drugs exist purely to kill?

No they do not... but what about a water gun on top of a fire engine, i highly dout that thats for killing. For saving YES, kiling NO

Quote

Gun:
device that fires something: any tool or instrument that forces something out under pressure

[Alias]

You are making alphabet soup. It is pretty obvious that this is related to firearms only.

[Genrail]

Yes, But you purely implied "Guns ONLY kill" witch is not true...

@first post

1. Yes
2. if the goverment puts bans on guns, there will be people with guns to talk about it....

Edited by Genrail, 07 July 2010 - 06:13.

[Alias]

Genrail, on 7 Jul 2010, 16:11, said:

Yes, But you purely implied "Guns ONLY kill" witch is not true...

In the context of this thread, guns means firearms. Therefore firearms exist only to kill or cause harm. That is a fact.
To please your nitpicking I will henceforth refer to them as firearms.

Genrail, on 7 Jul 2010, 16:11, said:

1. Yes

Your compelling argument overwhelms me.

Genrail, on 7 Jul 2010, 16:11, said:

2. if the goverment puts bans on guns, there will be people with guns to talk about it....

In the US, maybe. It has succeeded throughout the rest of the world, and what do you know. Less people die. Who would of thought banning an item which exists purely to kill would save lives!

[Whitey]

Insert cliche about guns not killing people but people killing people.

A firearm is an instrument of violence. It is also an instrument of entertainment and survival.

Alias said:

Handguns should be completely banned. There is no use of them in today's society.

What about as a personal defense weapon? I have been many a place where I would feel much more secure with a pistol on my belt even though pistols cannot be legally carried in my area. Sure a pocket knife might serve as a defensive weapon, but not nearly as effectively.

Alias said:

Rifles and shotguns should only be licensed to those who require them, i.e. farmers, not to some random in a suburb.

Where do you draw the line for "requires"? Maybe a farmer can get away with a taser? Maybe a suburbanite needs a rifle to protect his home in case of burglary?

Alias said:

Shooting sports should only take place at licensed ranges where the weapons are held.

So businesses can legally own firearms whereas individuals cannot? And on another note, I am more comfortable owning my own property than borrowing or renting somebody else's. That way I can ensure that my firearm is in pristine condition for shooting at the range and that it won't just jam or break down on me, especially when used competitively.

What purposes do cigarettes serve in society?

[Alias]

Boidy, on 7 Jul 2010, 17:40, said:

Insert cliche about guns not killing people but people killing people.

Insert cliche about the executioner not killing people but the superior killing people. In a concentration camp who is responsible for the subjects deaths? Those who actually shot them or those who ordered the shootings? Is the jury responsible or is the executioner responsible?

Without the order the soldier would not shoot. Without a gun, then it is likely the kill wouldn't be a kill. Without the jury, the criminal would live. It removes the end to the means.

Boidy, on 7 Jul 2010, 17:40, said:

Alias said:

Handguns should be completely banned. There is no use of them in today's society.

What about as a personal defense weapon? I have been many a place where I would feel much more secure with a pistol on my belt even though pistols cannot be legally carried in my area. Sure a pocket knife might serve as a defensive weapon, but not nearly as effectively.

Why would you need any concealed firearm at all? Tasers, Mace, Pepper spray, etc. There is a bunch of non-lethal alternatives. It may be possible to use a nuclear bomb to create a mine, but whether it is viable or not is completely different. You don't need to kill someone to protect yourself, just like you don't need to irradiate an area within a 50km radius just to create a mine.

Boidy, on 7 Jul 2010, 17:40, said:

Alias said:

Rifles and shotguns should only be licensed to those who require them, i.e. farmers, not to some random in a suburb.

Where do you draw the line for "requires"? Maybe a farmer can get away with a taser? Maybe a suburbanite needs a rifle to protect his home in case of burglary

If a farm is regularly under attack by wild animals, sure a rifle may be pretty useful. If a home is robbed you don't need to kill the guy to get your TV back. If a fox kills your sheep the only way to stop it attacking is to kill it.

Boidy, on 7 Jul 2010, 17:40, said:

Alias said:

Shooting sports should only take place at licensed ranges where the weapons are held.

So businesses can legally own firearms whereas individuals cannot? And on another note, I am more comfortable owning my own property than borrowing or renting somebody else's. That way I can ensure that my firearm is in pristine condition for shooting at the range and that it won't just jam or break down on me, especially when used competitively.

Not exactly what I meant, I should've worded it better. Police ran ranges. You are fine for owning your own firearm, as long as it is stored securely in the range and only maintained at the range. All firearms should be fitted with tracking devices in the case it is taken or stolen from the range.

Boidy, on 7 Jul 2010, 17:40, said:

What purposes do cigarettes serve in society?

None. But I personally wouldn't classify tobacco as a soft drug and therefore would see it either banned or heavily regulated.

Edited by Alias, 07 July 2010 - 08:00.

[Golan]

Don't see much basis for banning guns. Cars are deadlier, there are tons of legal weapons anyways and just about every country allows to freely sell and buy toxins and poisons. I'd be fine with gun owners requiring a psychological and legal profiling before and during gun ownership to ensure they can and intend to wield their weapons safely and are aware of the legal regulations.
Me personally, I don't see any use in carrying a gun, least of all for self-protection (ho ho ho, good joke), but if people feel they need it, why not?

On a totally unrelated sidenote, soldiers should be held responsible for every single action they do, no matter if someone told them to or not. It's too cheap an excuse to blame it on the Führer.

Edited by Golan, 07 July 2010 - 08:39.

[partyzanpaulzy]

Guns should be allowed with some limits, I have heard every 2nd American have a gun.
My classmate has gun licence and shotgun-reduced assault rifle "model 58" http://www.military....58/image007.png
so I have heard some things (well, my father's police detective, but he cannot carry gun home unless in duty and I haven't ask him about thing around gun licence).

If you have gun licence then you should be extra cautious in some countries like mine, because in that case many laws and regulations become suddenly more strict (like if you cause car accident),
other thing is that if you defend yourself "too much" then you can go to prison (advice of one prison officer: better kill the bastard so he can't tell BS at court).
You can't defend your property if you injure burglar (much?) in the process and overall the laws are screwed here (in some ways less, in some more, than British laws for example).

Forbidden are assault rifles, grenade launchers and other typical military weapons. I can't imagine huntsman without shotgun (or de facto sniper rifle used on deer hunt) and policemen without pistols or mp5s in case of strike forces or security...

Also I think if you are in good psychical state then you should be allowed to get gun licence, not only baton, paralyzer, pepper spray or other defensive weapons.
Problem is the laws sometimes look more like created on purpose to defend the criminals. Sometimes I think it's like when I was in elementary school: retaliate punching to those idiots who attacked you -> note for your parents, go telling the teacher -> no effect.

Imagine you have encounter with some recidivist deviant with a gun, would you:
a) cry for help (and get shot)
b) try to run away (and get shot)
c) try to shot him/her with tasser (and get shot because of delay)
d) if you if you are pretty good in some martial art, you can get in short distance from him/her and kick off his/her gun (I know one kick like that, but I have just white belt)
e) shot him before he can shot you (or you will get shot)
f) try to negotiate (ask Russians, how negotiations with terrorists work)

The last 2 points are probably most efficient, yet risky, but sometimes (s)he's gonna shot you in the end. I think that's whole reason for guns on defensive purpose. Another reason why people are getting guns is sport. In this case guns could be banned outside of shooting grounds with exclusions of armed forces, huntsmen, etc.

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 07 July 2010 - 08:47.

[Wizard]

For once I actually agree with Alias. I am all for personal freedoms, choice etc. But I don't agree with the ability to own firearms for self defense. If you like to shoot, then it could be left in a place where you can shoot it and cause no harm, ie a range. There are plenty of other means of non-lethal defense, tasers and the like.

[Golan]

partyzanpaulzy, on 7 Jul 2010, 8:46, said:

Imagine you have encounter with some recidivist deviant with a gun, would you:
a) cry for help (and get shot)
b) try to run away (and get shot)
c) try to shot him/her with tasser (and get shot because of delay)
d) if you if you are pretty good in some martial art, you can get in short distance from him/her and kick off his/her gun (I know one kick like that, but I have just white belt)
e) shot him before he can shot you (or you will get shot)
f) try to negotiate (ask Russians, how negotiations with terrorists work)

Unless you are living in a country with negligible police importance, a, b and f (the non-Russian version) are indeed the most effective solutions as it allows to defuse the situation without a violent confrontation, i.e. it leaves the attacker in a situation where its unfavorable for him to use his gun (as killing weighs a lot more than burglary). Shooting him, or for that matter attacking in any way unless you are close enough to disarm him, is very likely to get you shot as he's very likely in a favorable position for a kill if he's attacking you.
If your country doesn't have a notable police force (including cases where "police" could be seen as a synonym for "mafia") then naturally the whole idea of gun control is void.

Edited by Golan, 07 July 2010 - 09:01.

[GuardianTempest]

If guns are banned, the only people carrying guns are those WHO DON'T FOLLOW THE REGULATION.

It's like limiting your forces to only infantry and light vehicles while the enemy has SW's and heavy tanks.

[Wizard]

GuardianTempest, on 7 Jul 2010, 10:14, said:

If guns are banned, the only people carrying guns are those WHO DON'T FOLLOW THE REGULATION.

It's like limiting your forces to only infantry and light vehicles while the enemy has SW's and heavy tanks.

This isn't war. It's real life. You're essentially advocating MAD for civilians, people who aren't trained to handle firearms or know in what situations to use them.

[Golan]

Nations with stricter gun regulation will usually have criminals that are also less armed as guns then aren't needed to defend yourself from those pesky home owners and will only get you in trouble when the police catches you.

[GuardianTempest]

Well you got me there.

But there always will be jackasses carrying guns shooting at those who don't.
Damn cheaters.

[CJ]

It's pretty much simple in Tunisia : Weapons are forbidden, importing weapons into the country in the intent of selling them is punished by lifelong prison, and using them on somebody automatically gets you signed up for the death row. Only hunters have the right to get a rifle, and the authorizations are well controlled.

And I must say it's an excellent choice, criminals are already dangerous enough without needing to make guns available for everyone.

[Alias]

GuardianTempest, on 7 Jul 2010, 19:14, said:

If guns are banned, the only people carrying guns are those WHO DON'T FOLLOW THE REGULATION.

However if you ban firearms it greatly reduces the demand for the illegal market. Here in Australia we have pretty heavy regulations (more lax in rural areas) and there is very, very little demand for illegal firearms.

Pro-gun people make it out that criminal always want to kill you. 99% of the time they just want to nick your television. As others have said, the only reason a criminal would carry in this instance would be on the assumption that the homeowner is also in possession of a firearm.

One thing that I really hate about US legislation is that you somehow have a right to murder somebody just because you took a single step on their grass. More often than not this is done by gun-toting right wingers, who seem to think killing people is always the solution.

Edited by Alias, 07 July 2010 - 09:33.

[Wizard]

I am not sure that the banning of guns really does reduce the need for illegal ones. If there are no legal means to purchase a firearm then criminals will still need illegal ones. I am not convinced that the demand changes in that way. But I agree with your point that criminals, for the most part, aren't intent on killing innocent people. There are some that are mentally imbalanced and will want to harm people, but guns or no guns they will do that anyway. I suspect that a large number of career criminals will not want to kill someone as it would dramatically increase their sentence if ever caught.

[Alias]

Wizard, on 7 Jul 2010, 19:45, said:

I am not sure that the banning of guns really does reduce the need for illegal ones. If there are no legal means to purchase a firearm then criminals will still need illegal ones. I am not convinced that the demand changes in that way. But I agree with your point that criminals, for the most part, aren't intent on killing innocent people.

So you do not agree that less criminals would want guns if they expect less resistance?

If they aren't expecting to be attacked with a firearn there's no need for them to come packing a firearm. Seems pretty logical to me, and fits in with the "they don't want to kill you" mantra, which is pretty true.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 7 Jul 2010, 11:03, said:

Wizard, on 7 Jul 2010, 19:45, said:

I am not sure that the banning of guns really does reduce the need for illegal ones. If there are no legal means to purchase a firearm then criminals will still need illegal ones. I am not convinced that the demand changes in that way. But I agree with your point that criminals, for the most part, aren't intent on killing innocent people.

So you do not agree that less criminals would want guns if they expect less resistance?

If they aren't expecting to be attacked with a firearn there's no need for them to come packing a firearm. Seems pretty logical to me, and fits in with the "they don't want to kill you" mantra, which is pretty true.

I think they'll still want guns. If you think of someone like the mafia or career criminals then they will always have or attempt to have guns. I do concede that the guys that rob your house are less likely to want or need firearms however.

[BeefJeRKy]

Wizard, on 7 Jul 2010, 13:10, said:

Alias, on 7 Jul 2010, 11:03, said:

Wizard, on 7 Jul 2010, 19:45, said:

I am not sure that the banning of guns really does reduce the need for illegal ones. If there are no legal means to purchase a firearm then criminals will still need illegal ones. I am not convinced that the demand changes in that way. But I agree with your point that criminals, for the most part, aren't intent on killing innocent people.

So you do not agree that less criminals would want guns if they expect less resistance?

If they aren't expecting to be attacked with a firearn there's no need for them to come packing a firearm. Seems pretty logical to me, and fits in with the "they don't want to kill you" mantra, which is pretty true.

I think they'll still want guns. If you think of someone like the mafia or career criminals then they will always have or attempt to have guns. I do concede that the guys that rob your house are less likely to want or need firearms however.

Those people will want guns to attack other people with illegal guns.

I've mentioned often that I live in a country where gun control really means that anyone who doesn't have a connection won't have a firearm. We don't have any at home, but many people still have them as remnants from the Civil war 35 years ago. And domestic firearm violence is fairly low (apart from when tensions flare as in 2008). But really in a country like Lebanon or Iraq or anywhere else with instability, the same arguments can't be said for more developed countries.

[Major Fuckup]

Alias, on 7 Jul 2010, 17:28, said:

However if you ban firearms it greatly reduces the demand for the illegal market. Here in Australia we have pretty heavy regulations (more lax in rural areas) and there is very, very little demand for illegal firearms.

The only 2 ways in Australia you can obtain a fire arm's license and keep a fire arm in the house is either your a rural property owner or your in a gun club. Both come with very strict regulations before a gun can even entre your home.
From what i have been told about club member ship is that you have to rent a gun and be regular user of said club range before your considered to get the license and fire arm. What i have been trying to do to get my license is going through mates to see if one of them has a property big and isolated enough with pest animals on it, they are the big 2 requirements to get a license that way.

And yes there is a fire arm in my house with a stack of ammo if you where wondering.