Gun Control
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
EdwardRoss wrote...
For those wandering why he didn't die its because i had rock salt shells my friend and i use them on snakes at his ranchI bet that hurt like a bitch! It doesn't really kill anything but, its a hell of a warning shot.
0
lemiel wrote...
The Jesus wrote...
I think what we should do is melt down all the guns in the world and make a shitload of big ass fucking things to stimulate the world's economy.what big ass fucking things exactly?
0
The Jesus wrote...
Of all the people in the world. I should have guessed that. I am ashamed and I feel neglected.
0
I'm not going to say we should get rid of all the guns or make it illegal for people to own guns, because there are some safety reasons for having guns (what happened to EdwardRoss is a perfect example), but I do think big weapons should be banned. Seriously, there is no reason for a person to own a machine gun. Or a rocket launcher. Or any ridiculous shit like that.
It'd also be better to have some non-lethal bullets, like the rock salt shells EdwardRoss mentioned or rubber bullets. Just because someone tries to break into your home, that's no reason to kill the person. If you think that is reason enough, then I think you just want to kill people and need an excuse. (Unfortunately, I have met some people like that.)
It'd also be better to have some non-lethal bullets, like the rock salt shells EdwardRoss mentioned or rubber bullets. Just because someone tries to break into your home, that's no reason to kill the person. If you think that is reason enough, then I think you just want to kill people and need an excuse. (Unfortunately, I have met some people like that.)
0
I would like to see strict restrictions rather than all out bans. why not let someone own a rocket launcher? so long as they can pass tests and background checks and such. i'm pretty sure more people die from cars than guns per year, but i couldn't find stats on the guns part outside of biased pro-gun sites.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -Isoroku Yamamoto*
i do think the world view that americans all have guns has kept other countries from trying to invade. i also think it's part of why we get away with so much stupid shit around the world. if we ban too many guns, other countries might start getting ideas.
* [size=10]though frequently credited to him, there is no record he actually said it.[/h]
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -Isoroku Yamamoto*
i do think the world view that americans all have guns has kept other countries from trying to invade. i also think it's part of why we get away with so much stupid shit around the world. if we ban too many guns, other countries might start getting ideas.
* [size=10]though frequently credited to him, there is no record he actually said it.[/h]
0
I am pro-gun control. I believe guns should be *heavily* regulated. Fact is criminals have to struggle if it's harder to buy guns. And there's no reason ANYONE here should be keeping a functional ak47 in their house.
Some exceptions, but heavily controlled and regulated. If someone isn't planning to do anything wrong with guns, then they have nothing to hide.
Some exceptions, but heavily controlled and regulated. If someone isn't planning to do anything wrong with guns, then they have nothing to hide.
0
https://www.fakku.net/image-404/images/771604-E35U6YT.jpg
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -Isoroku Yamamoto*
i do think the world view that americans all have guns has kept other countries from trying to invade. i also think it's part of why we get away with so much stupid shit around the world. if we ban too many guns, other countries might start getting ideas.
Hyperbole on both sides of the quote.
I don't get the link between handguns and scary-looking rifles, and high-explosive launchers. It's like calling someone a gloryhole-patronizing cock-addict because they're gay. And look-up NHTSA and FBI stats. I concluded that the data showed more people die because of alcohol-related traffic incidents than were murdered with a firearm.
Though I don't think other countries have invaded because we have so many guns. We maintain the largest military in the world, rather unnecessarily at that. Also, anyone who might be hostile towards us and has the capacity to attack, has a vested interest in our continued success. Like China, for example.
https://www.fakku.net/image-404/images/771604-E35U6YT.jpg
I am pro-gun control. I believe guns should be *heavily* regulated. Fact is criminals have to struggle if it's harder to buy guns. And there's no reason ANYONE here should be keeping a functional ak47 in their house.
Some exceptions, but heavily controlled and regulated. If someone isn't planning to do anything wrong with guns, then they have nothing to hide.
lol, guilty ;)
In theory, a tactical rifle such as a semi-auto Kalashnikov is a very good home defense weapon. A rifle is easy to aim, even more so if it has a mounted optic such as a red-dot sight. It's easy to control (if semi-auto). The cartridges are very effective in stopping threats, such as an AK-47 firing the 8m3 bullet, or an AR-15 firing M193 or hunting ammunition. Even the magazine capacity is useful. In such a defensive scenario, unless one has lots of experience in such situations, the ability to change a magazine quickly (especially smaller ones which are harder to handle under stress) is greatly reduced. Thirty rounds will cover any situation a homeowner may face. Ten rounds may not.
And criminals cannot legally get guns. In America, to purchase a firearm one must go through a background check first. Few gun owners advocate the removal of the NICS system.
Mr.Shaggnificent wrote...
I would like to see strict restrictions rather than all out bans. why not let someone own a rocket launcher? so long as they can pass tests and background checks and such. i'm pretty sure more people die from cars than guns per year, but i couldn't find stats on the guns part outside of biased pro-gun sites. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -Isoroku Yamamoto*
i do think the world view that americans all have guns has kept other countries from trying to invade. i also think it's part of why we get away with so much stupid shit around the world. if we ban too many guns, other countries might start getting ideas.
Hyperbole on both sides of the quote.
I don't get the link between handguns and scary-looking rifles, and high-explosive launchers. It's like calling someone a gloryhole-patronizing cock-addict because they're gay. And look-up NHTSA and FBI stats. I concluded that the data showed more people die because of alcohol-related traffic incidents than were murdered with a firearm.
Though I don't think other countries have invaded because we have so many guns. We maintain the largest military in the world, rather unnecessarily at that. Also, anyone who might be hostile towards us and has the capacity to attack, has a vested interest in our continued success. Like China, for example.
https://www.fakku.net/image-404/images/771604-E35U6YT.jpg
Lishy1 wrote...
I am pro-gun control. I believe guns should be *heavily* regulated. Fact is criminals have to struggle if it's harder to buy guns. And there's no reason ANYONE here should be keeping a functional ak47 in their house.
Some exceptions, but heavily controlled and regulated. If someone isn't planning to do anything wrong with guns, then they have nothing to hide.
lol, guilty ;)
In theory, a tactical rifle such as a semi-auto Kalashnikov is a very good home defense weapon. A rifle is easy to aim, even more so if it has a mounted optic such as a red-dot sight. It's easy to control (if semi-auto). The cartridges are very effective in stopping threats, such as an AK-47 firing the 8m3 bullet, or an AR-15 firing M193 or hunting ammunition. Even the magazine capacity is useful. In such a defensive scenario, unless one has lots of experience in such situations, the ability to change a magazine quickly (especially smaller ones which are harder to handle under stress) is greatly reduced. Thirty rounds will cover any situation a homeowner may face. Ten rounds may not.
And criminals cannot legally get guns. In America, to purchase a firearm one must go through a background check first. Few gun owners advocate the removal of the NICS system.
0
Lishy1 wrote...
I am pro-gun control. I believe guns should be *heavily* regulated. Fact is criminals have to struggle if it's harder to buy guns. And there's no reason ANYONE here should be keeping a functional ak47 in their house.You do realize the Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S law enforcement is not liable or required to protect American citizens. Since Law enforcement has not obligation or liability to protect me. I have to resort to protecting myself and my family.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales
Warren v. District of Columbia
Riss v. City of New York
Keane v. City of Chicago
Here is a list of similar court rulings in case you wish to verify.
Morgan v. District of Columbia, Calogrides v. City of Mobile, Morris v. Musser, Davidson v. City of Westminster, Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, Weutrich v. Delia, Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, Silver v. City of Minneapolis, and Bowers v. DeVito,
then they have nothing to hide.
If they are doing nothing wrong then why should something be taken away from them? We usually deprive people of something when they do something wrong not because they are doing nothing wrong.
0
I share the same views as my brother-in-law, and he wrote this on the subject:
Our constitution, bill of rights, amendments, and other charters are a sort of religion that we all must follow, and like other religions, there are those that will peck at it to change its tenets in effort to meet their own ideologies, since they, after all, know what's best for everyone else.....Fact is, the founding fathers were very well educated and experienced in their ambitions to create their new "bible" which would form the blueprint to civilized society that would be able to thwart the oppressions which they had experienced, as well as provide an equal balance which they, as historians and scholars, knew were forever embattled by tyranny, whether at the highest levels of government, or at the lowest most local enforcement levels. This group of rebels were an assembly like no other and one that cannot be duplicated in today’s climate. The foundations they laid were purposeful, they wished the general populous, the individual citizen, to be able to protect themselves in their own homes and communities, from not only dangerous animals and thugs, but from the corrupt and oppressive government. The foundation for a government intended to be "for the people" must demand a checks-and-balances system that places power in the hands of the people. Power for protection and for resistance. Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their tombs if they knew of the gun control efforts being made by those that would "rewrite" their "bible". By those that know better and those that know what best fits our modern society, so that they themselves can feel safe. I'm not a religions man, but I know the bible, and I understand that it contains many truths and teaches us history, that unless learned can lead down a dark path. Gun control advocates, with their rhetoric to fight crime and provide communal safety, are simply providing a smoke screen to their true agenda which is to build a new oppressive and controlling tyrannical form of government.
Banning firearms hurts only those who use them in a legal non-threatening manner.
Banning firearms hurts only those who use them in a legal non-threatening manner.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
If they are doing nothing wrong then why should something be taken away from them? We usually deprive people of something when they do something wrong not because they are doing nothing wrong.
If they are not doing anything wrong, then they won't get in trouble. Gun control and regulation doesn't mean confiscation of your average hunting guns. But it does mean no F2000 or other guns you see in Call of Duty.
I like Canada's laws on gun control. We have (had?) a long gun registry.
I personally love guns, and I wanna do competitive marksmanship one day. I just hate to see them used by criminals <_
0
Lishy1 wrote...
If they are not doing anything wrong, then they won't get in trouble.Weak logic. I could be a law abiding citizen who never broke the law, paid his taxes 6 months in advance, etc,etc and I could still be robbed as I get out of my car somewhere like a gas station. Those the girls in Warren v. District of Columbia did nothing wrong but, 3 men broke into their house and raped all 3 of them for 14+ hours. A gun would have helped them.
Gun control and regulation doesn't mean confiscation of your average hunting guns. But it does mean no F2000 or other guns you see in Call of Duty.
I'm polar opposite of you and I'm further to the "right" than even Macross on guns but, that's because I want to move to a militia system like Switzerland. Then everybody would be armed and trained in the usage of such a weapon. Despite having a higher gun per capita it has lower gun violence than the U.S.
The problem with such regulation is, it's never enough. There is always someone pushing for a ban. You might be fine with semi-auto rifles with a 10 round magazine. Somebody else thinks that isn't enough and wants the magazine cut down to 5 rounds. Then another person doesn't like Semi-Auto rifles and is only fine with bolt actions. Another person doesn't like guns at all and wants a full ban. Legislation that restricts something always boils down to the lowest point.
I personally love guns, and I wanna do competitive marksmanship one day. I just hate to see them used by criminals <_<
I hate seeing criminals use guns too. So instead of disarming the person who has not committed a crime, why don't we severely punish people who use a gun to commit a crime?
0
Lishy1 wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
If they are doing nothing wrong then why should something be taken away from them? We usually deprive people of something when they do something wrong not because they are doing nothing wrong.
If they are not doing anything wrong, then they won't get in trouble. Gun control and regulation doesn't mean confiscation of your average hunting guns. But it does mean no F2000 or other guns you see in Call of Duty.
I like Canada's laws on gun control. We have (had?) a long gun registry.
I personally love guns, and I wanna do competitive marksmanship one day. I just hate to see them used by criminals <_<
No one here is arguing against that point, we're in that boat with you. Why is Canada removing the long-gun registry, by the way? IIRC, it hasn't helped the police enough to justify the massive cost it incurs.
And why should no-one have access to the F2000? (semi auto at least).
Fpod wrote:
I hate seeing criminals use guns too. So instead of disarming the person who has not committed a crime, why don't we severely punish people who use a gun to commit a crime?
Because it's not as simple as that. Most gun crime stems from other socio-economic factors. Europe doesn't have such a low crime rate from gun laws.
0
Lishy1 wrote...
I am pro-gun control. I believe guns should be *heavily* regulated. Fact is criminals have to struggle if it's harder to buy guns. And there's no reason ANYONE here should be keeping a functional ak47 in their house.Some exceptions, but heavily controlled and regulated. If someone isn't planning to do anything wrong with guns, then they have nothing to hide.
they only struggle if they try to buy them legaly. it's really not that difficult to get a hold of a gun through 'other' channels, and the price is about the same.
0
sv51macross wrote...
Because it's not as simple as that. Most gun crime stems from other socio-economic factors. Europe doesn't have such a low crime rate from gun laws.Stealing my thunder macross, I was hoping to walk him step by step through our logic so he'd understand us better. Regardless, we're in agreement that socio-economic conditions are the main cause for gun violence. Even if we were to ban guns outright, the underlying causes of violence would still be there. Removing the gun wouldn't remove the violence.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Removing the gun wouldn't remove the violence. Although I want to point out that removing a gun from a situation would most likely lower the severity of it significantly. It's a lot easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them.
0
Chlor wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Removing the gun wouldn't remove the violence. Although I want to point out that removing a gun from a situation would most likely lower the severity of it significantly. It's a lot easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them.
No arguing that but, shouldn't we concentrate on removing the incentive to shoot someone rather than the means? If someone wants to kill another person and you remove the gun from the equation, they still want to kill that other person. They'll just find another means but, if you remove the incentive then the problem is solved.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
No arguing that but, shouldn't we concentrate on removing the incentive to shoot someone rather than the means? If someone wants to kill another person and you remove the gun from the equation, they still want to kill that other person. They'll just find another means but, if you remove the incentive then the problem is solved.Of course, that would be the end of it. Sadly it'll never be reality though, the world doesn't work that way.
To be honest, I believe the notion of owning a gun retarded to the core. I can understand the idea of owning one for self-defence now that shit have already spiraled out of hand and there are so many firearms in circulation anyway, but there should be no need to have a gun for self-defence.
I guess it's easy to say this in hindsight, but if there had been a ban on firearms a century ago we would have this discussion about kitchenware instead.
0
Guns should only be allowed in the hands of law enforcement and licensed hunters. Sure, some serial killers will probably get hunting licenses or become police officers just to cap someone's ass, but that's not the point, really.
The point is to keep untrained people from holding dangerous weapons.
The point is to keep untrained people from holding dangerous weapons.
