Your feelings on guns.

[Jean-Luc]

Inferno's thread is showing the classic signs of turning into a shitfest and he doesn't deserve that so post your thoughts on guns here instead.

I'll give my point of view later but let's give Inferno some fucking respect.

[rossmum]

sheltering kids from them is literally the worst thing you could do, because should they see one, they'll probably end up shooting someone accidentally. teaching firearms safety does not create murderers by even the most drug-fuelled stretch of the imagination; any idiot could kill someone, but most people don't know how to safely handle a loaded firearm. bans simply keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing to stem the flow of illegal weapons to criminals, gangs, or anyone else willing to obtain them through any means necessary.

anyone who thinks that firearms are to blame for violent crime, that by banning them violent crime will be stopped, or that children should be sheltered from them with the only reference to them being that they're evil killing machines, has no idea what they're talking about and is actually putting people at risk by being so ignorant. virtually every anti-gun zealot will proudly state they have never touched a firearm and never will, which illustrates just how incredibly ignorant they are.

i think the most hardcore nra members are bad examples for shooters, but i consider the above even worse. people who shoot their mouths off about things they don't understand at all disgust me, especially when they have the gall to continue arguing with those who do know what the fuck they're on about.

[Cortexian]

sheltering kids from them is literally the worst thing you could do, because should they see one, they'll probably end up shooting someone accidentally. teaching firearms safety does not create murderers by even the most drug-fuelled stretch of the imagination; any idiot could kill someone, but most people don't know how to safely handle a loaded firearm. bans simply keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing to stem the flow of illegal weapons to criminals, gangs, or anyone else willing to obtain them through any means necessary.

anyone who thinks that firearms are to blame for violent crime, that by banning them violent crime will be stopped, or that children should be sheltered from them with the only reference to them being that they're evil killing machines, has no idea what they're talking about and is actually putting people at risk by being so ignorant. virtually every anti-gun zealot will proudly state they have never touched a firearm and never will, which illustrates just how incredibly ignorant they are.

i think the most hardcore nra members are bad examples for shooters, but i consider the above even worse. people who shoot their mouths off about things they don't understand at all disgust me, especially when they have the gall to continue arguing with those who do know what the fuck they're on about.
QFT.

[klange]

Well, that pretty much covers it.

[rossmum]

i should add that you should have to have a background check and a psych assessment plus maybe two weeks to a month of cooling off time when you apply, but anything beyond that is just ridiculous. that alone should weed most idiots/irrationally angry exes/potential nutters out.

[Horns]

If guns were to be banned the only people it would keep them from are the people who use them for legal purposes. If someone has the intention of using a gun illegally getting a gun illegally isn't going to make them feel bad.

And the thing about gun safety that people don't realize, when you learn gun safety you're not only learning how to handle and safely use a gun but you're also learning morals and values that in the end make a better person in all aspects of life.

[Cojafoji]

thank you for that succinct, and to the point post ross. i don't think it could have been put any better.

[Heathen]

banning guns has got to be the stupidest idea I have ever heard of.

Thats like making it against the law to buy books that teach you how to make drugs. If they were willing to break the law and make drugs (or in the case of guns, kill someone), they will be willing to break the law and get their hands on the books (guns).

[rossmum]

who here shoots regularly (including as part of your job), just curious

obviously i do, my little sister does too. and my dad. and mum used to, but she doesn't get the time any more. fuck, basically my entire family on both sides are crack shots.

[Timo]

i do not like guns they are bad


Banning guns would be stupid in America now, as they're pretty much everywhere already. In places like New Zealand you're pretty safe because firearms that aren't used for hunting are pretty damn hard to get. Most police here don't even carry tazers (even though they should) let alone a pistol.

[PopeAK49]

I think certain guns should be banned but not all of them, such as hunting rifles.

[Cojafoji]

I go shooting with friends about twice a month. We vary our selection from my plinkers (.22's), to our larger firearms (.30 and up). We also take up my recurves from time to time. the range that i'm a member of offers a free bow range :D

I've been handling some form of a rifle since I was 6 or 7 in tiger cubs (bb's ftw).

other random facts:
my brother is an NRA certified instructor, and runs a shooting range at a scout camp every summer.
I give firearm safety talks at large scout functions where my brother, and another person run bb ranges.

another random:a friend of mine, a scout even, committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a semi automatic ak-47 type hunting rifle. he walked into my school, a year after I graduated, shot a couple rounds into the wall, and then plastered himself into the ceiling. so that being said, let me make it perfectly clear, that i am in no way biased towards any opinion anyone has on firearm safety. if you in anyway shape or form, doubt the validity of my statement: click here (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=4844659)

some more randoms:


automatic weapons: should be ex military/military/law enforcement/ex law enforcement ONLY
hand guns: should be a six month waiting period. conceal and carry should auto application when purchasing a handgun as well.
rifle & shotguns:laws are fine the way they are.

[Horns]

who here shoots regularly (including as part of your job), just curious

obviously i do, my little sister does too. and my dad. and mum used to, but she doesn't get the time any more. fuck, basically my entire family on both sides are crack shots.

100 rounds shot weekly, and more around 500 weekly during competition season.

I'm the only one in my family that doesn't have a permit to carry. (Including my sister and my mom)

[Geo]

I think guns are an important part of my life, both for safe entertainment (provided you know what your doing), and as protection. Putting ban laws up on guns only stop law abiding citizens. Obviously, making a law that says, "Guns are dangerous, lets get rid of them", will not affect someone who would be using them illegally anyway. I know several people have voiced this already, but I thought I would give my two cents worth.

[Cortexian]

I shoot around 150-200 rounds weekly on a variety of firearms, mostly different pistols and restricted rilfes (look up the Canadian Prohibited/restricted/non-restricted stuff if you want). Will most likely be shooting more so when I get into the reserves.

[paladin]

Between my dad and I, we own about 20 rifles and pistols. I dont regularly shoot, but when I do, its about 200 rounds.

[Reaper Man]

After what ross said, there isn't that much else to add.

Well, besides this:
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/356/pewpewpewc.jpg

[CrAsHOvErRide]

It's senseless to talk about guns on a forum with 75% of its members being from America.

If you would have grown up here in Europe, almost none of you would ever say that guns are necessary.

With that said...guns are only meant for killing and have NO other purpose. Unlike knives they don't cut bread apparently. No one doubts that.
In how far they are dangerous and how ppl should be educated etc etc that's the other question. We can live here without guns and we don't need them. They don't protect and they serve no purpose for normal citizens.


It's just funny to observe some people that pretend shooting a gun (e.g. Freelancer) and have no shame on posting it on a forum. I don't know what to me it seems you Airsoft owners just try to compensate social problems by holding a gun and feeling more powerful. The thing is you could pimp your car and drive above speed limit which would achieve the same effect BUT you guys would criticize anyone doing so. See the antithesis? If not don't comment on this.

Rossmum seems the only one not being one of those Airsoft kiddie owners and does it out of other purposes (history, collecting etc.) and I don't have problems with that.


It's all about education and the environment you grow up.

E:FYI i have lived in America for 4 years, 2 years in South America and 12 years in Europe so I know what's up.

[Heathen]

My entire family shoots guns for sport and I find that statement ridiculous.

E: to clear the air I was only trying to point out that guns are used for more than just killing, no offense meant.

[CrAsHOvErRide]

My entire family shoots guns for sport and I find that statement ridiculous.
Being subjective is not really an argument. Though you may know now how we feel if you guys talk about guns.

[Heathen]

how you feel?

I'm not upset, I was saying that the statement was silly. That guns are only used for killing I mean. Its simply incorrect.

Edit: am I understanding you correctly if I think you just said that participating in airsoft matches and driving over the speed limit are the same and that you cant see why anyone wouldn't just do one over the other, or rather why we would criticize someone for doing one, but not the other?

I am not certain about Europe, though pretty sure, but driving over the speed limit is of course illegal in America. Is airsoft illegal in Europe? It isn't in America, and that is the reason I would criticize someone for it. Airsoft, if done correctly, is very safe. While driving over the speed limit, the people in the other cars aren't wearing protective gear, subjecting themselves to the danger, like the would be in an airsoft match.

That may have just been a bad choice of comparison, and I am not splitting hairs to further an argument or anything. While re-reading this I felt like I was arguing so I am saying this to avoid that feeling. I was only originally stating that guns aren't only for killing anymore.

To do away with the tension of my post, I will include the following:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w285/mintmint481/DANCEEE.gif
I just don't like being so serious.

[CrAsHOvErRide]

Airsofts are legal here. I was talking about the "thrill" when shooting a gun.

But I'm not talking about Airsofts but real guns that people have in their home to "defend" themselves. I just used that Airsoft comparison because everyone being fond of Airsofts probably is fond of the weapon law as well.

[neuro]

there's too much america in this thread.

[Limited]

Guns are not toys and therefore should definitely not be treated like them. Guns were invented for one reason, to kill. Simple.

I'm not anti-gun, if you live in a forest or some place, and need to shoot deer, rabbits or whatever to survive. The yes use a gun.

Seeing guns used as a sport annoys me, its placing the violent human killer in a friendly light. Which is should not be in.

The fact the majority of you or either your parents own a collection of guns and regularly go and shoot off rounds for completely ignorant reasons baffles me in the fact you are becoming decensortised against what guns actually are. You make it fun to play around with a gun and shoot off a few rounds. Did you actually go out, and shoot something, killed it and ate it? I very much doubt it, if you did then props to you for actually usually a gun for what it was designed for.

Its making guns fashionable and into a piece of fun thats dangerous because your losing the fact its only purpose is to kill which.

My home town is in the countryside. My neighbour regularly goes out festant shooting to kill and eat. Its a livelihood, people around here own grounds to big houses, and shooters regularly get called in to eradicate the numbers of certain birds. Theres a purpose behind this shooting. This is not shooting just for a laugh.

So yeah, I know its a thrill to shoot off a weapon, its exciting and creates a buzz, but you need to remember these are made to kill and are not toys.

In terms of removing the guns from America and apposing a ban on all guns, it will never happen because of the readily available to purpose illegally. Banning certain types of guns (automatics) I agree on, theres no need for an automatic gun. Its like the banning of drugs, it doesnt really work because people can easily get it.

I also dont believe the American people understand their actions are having consequences on people all over the world. You play with guns, make them look good and stuff. People back in UK want to be like that, gangs want to be like gangsters and start shooting people. Gun crime and murders here are becoming a huge problem. We dont have the "good" side of guns here much, we just have the horrible bad side of murders.

[t3h m00kz]

If guns were banned, people would still find out how to get them, or even make them in some cases. Same with prostitution and drugs, just because it's illegal doesn't mean people won't find a way around it and get their hands on it.

[=sw=warlord]

If guns were banned, people would still find out how to get them, or even make them in some cases. Same with prostitution and drugs, just because it's illegal doesn't mean people won't find a way around it and get their hands on it.
And that just shows how fucking stupid people are.
Teaching people on firearm safety, yes good idea shows you how to handle them in a safe environment but i am against the idea of civilians having firearms unless absolutely needed such as for instance you live in a natural envrionment that needs you to be armed, for instance forest life or outback where there are dangerous animals.
In urban areas however, i am completely against, if you want to defend yourself a pocket knife will suffice.[provided such things are allowed where you are, if not then just don't as the risks do not match the rewards]
However, a recent survey over here in the UK suggested that the chances of being stabbed increased if you carried a knife on you as it is just as easy to take your own personal defense and use it as a ofeensive weapon against you.

As limited mentioned, the gun was designed with one thing in mind and only one thing, To maim and kill, Never point a weapon at someone unles your killing to kill them and then pay for the consequences.
I honestly believe no one has the right to take another person's life, no matter what they did, Death is a easy way out and if you honestly want them to take remourse for their actions and feel the punishment then leave them in a cell for the rest of their lives in isolation.
It's a fuckton more effective.

I personaly think if you really feel you are in personal danger, move the area or learn combat training, there are plenty of places which can teach you various combat training not just martial arts, but actual combat training.
The gym i recently joined has about 5 to 7 different courses for different combat training classes ranging from martial arts all the way upto how to deal when someone approaches you with a offensive weapon.

A few years ago i would have loved to goto the USA for a holiday but knowing everyone has the right to bare firearms makes me feel less safe than in a place where they are banned, where it is harder to gain access to such things.
Sure anyone who is determined to gain access will get them but that is the same with everything.
The only real way to avoid that is to become a dictator based country where everything is searched once a week every week and if anyone is found to have said contra ban they get 8 whips to the back or publicly stoned, even then someone will find a way to beat the system.

That's how i feel about Guns, i personaly would never hold a gun, not even if i was forced to do so with a gun pointed at me.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Inb4 ross' "guns dont make murderer's"
No, they don't, fucked up teaching and upbringing doe's.
Peer pressure also help's fuck peoples minds up.
Guns don't=murderer but murderer+guns=high chance of murder.
If i want to be physicaly offensive to someone il use my fist's thank you, i would rather use my phsyical strenth to leave a impression than taking the easy way out and use a gun.

[Dwood]

ATTN: The main persons defending guns are not american.

[Cojafoji]

If guns were banned, people would still find out how to get them, or even make them in some cases. Same with prostitution and drugs, just because it's illegal doesn't mean people won't find a way around it and get their hands on it.
lol zip guns.

[rossmum]

It's senseless to talk about guns on a forum with 75% of its members being from America.
I'm Canadian and live in Australia.


If you would have grown up here in Europe, almost none of you would ever say that guns are necessary.
I grew up in the UK.


With that said...guns are only meant for killing and have NO other purpose. Unlike knives they don't cut bread apparently. No one doubts that.
Uh, I doubt that. You know why? Target shooting doesn't involve killing. Plinking doesn't involve killing. Hunting involves killing animals, yes, but then again I only support hunting when it's not a waste (i.e. for food as well as a trophy; hunting for a trophy alone doesn't slide with me). Guns are used to trigger controlled avalanches on unstable snowcaps, saving hundreds of skiers every year. Granted they weren't the one true original purpose of guns, but they are non-lethal, non-violent (except hunting) uses developed since and practiced often.


In how far they are dangerous and how ppl should be educated etc etc that's the other question. We can live here without guns and we don't need them. They don't protect and they serve no purpose for normal citizens.
I enjoy shooting, I help keep pests and foxes/wild dogs off of the family property, I enjoy the mechanical aspect of them (i.e. strip/reassemble to see how they work), and I have an interest in their history. That's four purposes right there, and despite being in the Reserves, I'm still a normal citizen six days a week.


It's just funny to observe some people that pretend shooting a gun (e.g. Freelancer) and have no shame on posting it on a forum. I don't know what to me it seems you Airsoft owners just try to compensate social problems by holding a gun and feeling more powerful.
Choosing Airsofters as an argument is about the worst thing you can do. While it's something I'd enjoy for a bit of fun, anyone who takes it that seriously is in my books a poser, the same way kids pretend to be in gangs or decide to paint their nails black and write shitty poems about how bad their life is. Using Airsofters as an example of shooters in general is pretty inaccurate.


The thing is you could pimp your car and drive above speed limit which would achieve the same effect BUT you guys would criticize anyone doing so. See the antithesis? If not don't comment on this.
And there are people who do that yet think every gun ever made should be destroyed. Posers do their thing in different ways. It's nothing new, they just latch onto something that makes them feel cool and try to become a part of it.


Rossmum seems the only one not being one of those Airsoft kiddie owners and does it out of other purposes (history, collecting etc.) and I don't have problems with that.
<3

The thing is though, I'm not the only one. Most gun owners are sensible, but as with all things the obnoxious ones are usually more vocal and therefore more noticeable than the sensible guys who keep their heads down. I won't argue with the fact that some people should absolutely never be trusted with firearms, but by the same token there are people who shouldn't be trusted with fast cars, or people who shouldn't be trusted with alcohol. Penalising everyone by banning guns outright is overkill, when you could simply improve the system which citizens obtain firearms through. In Australia our laws are ridiculous, but the process of getting an actual license is much better than in most parts of the US. Coupling a background check with a brief yet to the point psych analysis and a waiting period of a couple of weeks is usually enough to prevent irresponsible, violent, or just plain unstable people from getting a gun, yet it doesn't stop those of us who are right in the head from doing so.



It's all about education and the environment you grow up.
That's very true. My parents and most of my uncles used to hunt, both grandfathers and at least one great-grandfather were soldiers, and nearly the whole family enjoy shooting. When they saw I was getting interested, my parents didn't panic and ban me from even having toy guns, but gave me a proper education about violence, safety, and all that other good stuff. As a result, my very short temper usually also fizzles out very quickly and I wouldn't even consider shooting someone over a stupid argument like some people do. Again, a lot of it comes down to parenting... if more parents actually spent time with their kids, teaching them important lessons and showing they actually give a damn, there would be a lot less random shootings.


E:FYI i have lived in America for 4 years, 2 years in South America and 12 years in Europe so I know what's up.
Canada for 4, UK for 3 (nearly 4), Australia for 13. Thinking I might move back to Canada in a few years though :woop:

e/ Muki makes a very good point. Given decent-quality steel and the right equipment, I would have NO trouble making a simple automatic rifle. They're actually quite easy to make once you figure out the basics.

e/ Warlord, a murderer will still be a murderer whatever they get their hands on (usually knives). While knives may not be as dangerous as guns on the face of it, getting stabbed as many times as is usual with a determined nutter will kill you anyway. Also, why are you so hellbent on never even holding a gun? It's not going to automatically swing and point at the nearest person. It's not some evil thing waiting to take over your soul. Yes, it's dangerous, but with the right amount of respect and correct handling, that danger is under your control. You're in charge, not the gun. Target shooting is both harmless and pretty fun, and unless you fuck up colossally there's less chance of someone getting hurt or killed than there is in your average game of footy. It's your personal choice and I respect that - I'm not going to try and force you - but the way of progress is to consider things and maybe try them before making up your mind. I can't even count the number of times I've held a strong opinion on something, then been exposed to it, and completely changed my mind just like that.

[=sw=warlord]

Guns are used to trigger controlled avalanches on unstable snowcaps, saving hundreds of skiers every year. Granted they weren't the one true original purpose of guns, but they are non-lethal, non-violent (except hunting) uses developed since and practiced often.
Got some links to your source of that info?
I checked google for about 5 minutes and found nothing of the sort,the only thing i found even remotely close was using explosives to break pack ice to cause avalaunches.


e/ Warlord, a murderer will still be a murderer whatever they get their hands on (usually knives). While knives may not be as dangerous as guns on the face of it, getting stabbed as many times as is usual with a determined nutter will kill you anyway.
Stabbed with anything deep enough to draw blood enough times will kill you, That's not the point, guns are instant knives how ever are not.

Also, why are you so hellbent on never even holding a gun? It's not going to automatically swing and point at the nearest person. It's not some evil thing waiting to take over your soul. Yes, it's dangerous, but with the right amount of respect and correct handling, that danger is under your control. You're in charge, not the gun.
Because i have no interest in holding a gun at all, i went ranging a few years ago and saw exactly what happens when you fuck about, simular to what happened with infernos friend but when everyone was sober, Yes control and training avoids that but if its in reach someone will fuck about.
it's a personal moral value of mine not to get into the situation where i must hold a gun, i will not allow myself to be responsible for maiming or severely injuring someone.

Target shooting is both harmless and pretty fun, and unless you fuck up colossally there's less chance of someone getting hurt or killed than there is in your average game of footy.Fun untill someone fucks about badly enough to make you wish they werent invented.
It's your personal choice and I respect that - I'm not going to try and force you Glad to hear it.
but the way of progress is to consider things and maybe try them before making up your mind. I can't even count the number of times I've held a strong opinion on something, then been exposed to it, and completely changed my mind just like that.
I went paint ballins a few years back when i was at college which i enjoyed but something like a airgun or actual fire arm is something i personaly don't think civilians need in their possesion.
Think how many of these school shootings would not have happened if daddy wasn't a true american who loved his revolver and made it so easy to access.
Just think how many lives could have been saved if civilians didn't have access to firearms in a urban envrionment.
My point still stands, in a urban environment unless you have a zoo which keeps letting bears and lions out your not going to need a gun.
Keep your life as smooth as you can and you wont have an issue, i would rather have something i needed than something i don't need.

[sdavis117]

Yeah, I don't think guns can trigger avalanches. I might be wrong, but I heard that that was a myth that guns can trigger avalanches.

[Dwood]

Yeah, I don't think guns can trigger avalanches. I might be wrong, but I heard that that was a myth that guns can trigger avalanches.

If a shout can trigger an avalanche why wouldnt a gun be able to?

[Cortexian]

ATTN - CrashOverRide:
Yes I play airsoft, but airsoft is worlds away from real firearms and I don't use airsoft as some kind of substitute for real firearms. Around here airsoft is only played by people 18 and older, so posting shit like "kiddies and their airsoft guns" is very annoying. Airsoft is a friendly sport that incorporates some basic military tactics for authenticity, that's the entire appeal of the sport.

Secondly, I use rifles for hunting at least 30 days a year and those are the only firearms I actually own, hunting rifles/shotguns. The other firearms I use are rented from a local indoor range, and they consist of pistols and restricted rifles (such as M4's, AK-74's, and other "black" rifles). The reason I go to this range and practice at least once a week is because I plan on joining the Canadian Forces, and possibly the local Police department after a carer in the military. I want to have as much training and familiarity as I can get on a wide variety of different firearms before even joining the Canadian Forces so I can make use of whatever is available at the time.

Picture this if you will:
You're involved in an operation and come under fire from an aggressor, you and your squad engage. <Insert one of the many variables that involve you loosing your primary weapon here>. I see a weapon that I've had some basic familiarization with that's within reach, what's better?

A) Knowing how to work it and immediately put it to use defending your life and the lives of your team.

B) Seeing that particular weapon for the first time and having to figure out how to use all the major components such as safety, fire selection switch, bolt, etc...

That is the reason I fire off 150-200 rounds weekly on a variety of firearms. In addition to that, add on all my hunting time.

@sdavis: Guns can trigger avalanches.

[Aerowyn]

you guys need to stop making threads that provoke rossmum's assburgers.


ALSO: guns don't make guns bad; people with bad intentions make guns bad.

[SnaFuBAR]

i'm guessing some people here are forgetting that legal civilian ownership of firearms decreases violent crime perpetration :-3

http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10527

this is an argument we've had before, anti-gun argument can never be won in the face of facts.

[PopeAK49]

Throwing a rock from the top of a mountain and seeing an avalanche occur is fun...

[paladin]

you guys need to stop making threads that provoke rossmum's assburgers.


ALSO: guns don't make guns bad; people with bad intentions make guns bad.


Let me add:

Guns dont kill people, husbands that come home early do.

[ICEE]

My grandfather has 50+ guns. Never hurt a soul in his life.

[EX12693]

Hell, my dad has a few guns (legal and otherwise) but both he and I have been properly instructed on how to use them safely. I think guns are completely safe. When not in the hands of idiots.

[n00b1n8R]

I have never handled a gun (loaded or otherwise) in my life.
I would love to learn gun saftey as a "just in case" though I can't see them ever becoming a regular thing in my life. vOv

[ICEE]

I have never taken a gun safety class, though I wouldnt be opposed to it. I learned from my dad and grandfather. Shooting is made out to be a violent barbaric activity, but really when you visit a range the rules and regulations are fitting and strictly enforced (ex: muzzles pointed down range at all times regardless of whether or not the gun is loaded). It is a safe sport when done correctly.

[rossmum]

ok staying up until 2 to watch forrest gump again was worthwhile but now i'm just getting cranky because bitches be denying me a peaceful night's sleep, plus my sister's windows lappy is missing three keys which fucks w/ my typing


Got some links to your source of that info?
I checked google for about 5 minutes and found nothing of the sort,the only thing i found even remotely close was using explosives to break pack ice to cause avalaunches.
no, i don't. i do however have an extraordinary memory for things which interest me, and i distinctly recall seeing it done during the course of a documentary. obviously it was a small man-portable cannon, but that's still a firearm.


Stabbed with anything deep enough to draw blood enough times will kill you, That's not the point, guns are instant knives how ever are not.
define instant. even a shot to the head can fail to kill if the shot is poorly aimed or interfered with (obstacles, ricochets, etc.) and in some cases gunshot wounds can be almost harmless aside from the obvious pain and potential for infection.


Because i have no interest in holding a gun at all, i went ranging a few years ago and saw exactly what happens when you fuck about, simular to what happened with infernos friend but when everyone was sober, Yes control and training avoids that but if its in reach someone will fuck about.
we had no negligent discharges in our platoon of 45 over the three weeks we were using our steyrs. if firearms are stored safely, there will be no potential for accidents. if people are trained in safety and see a firearm lying around, they will know to unload it and not fuck about.


it's a personal moral value of mine not to get into the situation where i must hold a gun, i will not allow myself to be responsible for maiming or severely injuring someone.
holding one won't cause any injuries at all. unless you have uncontrollable muscle spasms the moment you touch one, i don't see how you'd be responsible for anything at all.


Fun untill someone fucks about badly enough to make you wish they werent invented. Glad to hear it.
people do dumb shit all the time. i don't go about wishing cars, toasters, gas heaters, planes or antifreeze weren't invented because of that.

i wish people weren't so dumb, because ultimately they and they alone are responsible for whatever happens.


I went paint ballins a few years back when i was at college which i enjoyed but something like a airgun or actual fire arm is something i personaly don't think civilians need in their possesion.
Think how many of these school shootings would not have happened if daddy wasn't a true american who loved his revolver and made it so easy to access.
think of how many school shootings would've happened anyway because no matter how much anti-gun lots pretend it doesn't exist, the black market doesn't really give a fuck for laws nor does it really give a fuck for clients' intentions. think about how many people wouldn't be able to enjoy target shooting or plinking. think about how many people wouldn't be able to hunt. think about how fucked off you would be if i said all games should be banned because a few morons claim they were compelled to kill because of gta in order to try get a lighter sentence. i don't see how you could argue against that and then turn around and tell me it's not my place to own a firearm whether i enjoy shooting or not.


Just think how many lives could have been saved if civilians didn't have access to firearms in a urban envrionment.
not many. imagine how fucked people would be if gunmen went to town and no bystanders were armed. we all know the police don't show up instantly no matter how hard they try to, and sometimes time is lives. if fort hood had happened somewhere where nobody was carrying, the death toll would have been nearing a hundred and you know it.


My point still stands, in a urban environment unless you have a zoo which keeps letting bears and lions out your not going to need a gun.
Keep your life as smooth as you can and you wont have an issue, i would rather have something i needed than something i don't need.
you don't need games. ban all games nobody needs them


Yeah, I don't think guns can trigger avalanches. I might be wrong, but I heard that that was a myth that guns can trigger avalanches.
it takes jack fuck all to cause an unstable enough mass of snow to collapse actually

[p0lar_bear]

Stabbed with anything deep enough to draw blood enough times will kill you, That's not the point, guns are instant knives how ever are not.I know ross already pointed this out, but the sheer lack of logic in this statement irks me.

A knife in your head will most likely kill you. Depending on how big the blade is and where it hits, it may be instant, it may take a few seconds. Maybe you'll live handicapped. Maybe you'll live without any major repercussions.

A bullet in your head will most likely kill you. Depending on the caliber and tip of the bullet and where it hits, it may be instant, it may take a few seconds. Maybe you'll live handicapped. Maybe you'll live without any major repercussions.

The key difference between a gun and knife is range. However, if someone knows what they're doing and wants to fucking kill you, they'll keep their weapon concealed until the last moment and attack you when you least expect it. The only people who brandish a weapon as a threat or before they actually intend to use it either want you to succumb to their intimidation (the former), or are morons acting on impulse (the latter).

Also...

Yes, I am American.
Yes, I support firearms and would like to have a carry permit myself.
Yes, I think guns are "badass" thanks to movies and video games.

Yes, I realize that guns are not toys.
Yes, I realize that a gun can kill people even if I don't intend to shoot.
Yes, I would only use it for target shooting and self-defense.
No, I would NEVER take someone's life if I can shoot to incapacitate.

[=sw=warlord]

I can see this argument is going no where, seems most of my points got missed entirely which is a shame but what can i expect from a forum thats 75% pro gun slinger.:v:
Snaf, if increase of guns in a area improves the crime rate then why the fuck is london filled with it?
I've seen several documentaries where a normal handgun was tested to cause avalaunches and none of the times it was tested would it work, the only thing i can see working is if you used a howitzer or extremely large caliber weapon.

[Dwood]

Warlord what points Of Yours Were Missed?

[Mass]

I used to think it would be better if nobody had guns, but the more research I did on the history of the drug war the more it dawned upon me that any form of prohibition is a policy that is doomed to partial if not complete failure on every level, and that this simply becomes worse the larger the scale of the law enforcement apparatus.
Prohibition is tantamount to surrendering the entirety of any market to criminals. It is simply not possible to physically stop people from sneaking guns around, and a regime of regulation acknowledges this and provides the next best thing: a wealth of information regarding where and when things were purchased and by who, and an opportunity to teach people basic personal safety.

Gun law reform in the United States would be most successful if it forced would-be owners through a background check, a psychological exam, a five minute hands-on safety display by the clerk at the firearms store, a seven to ten day waiting period, and a reasonably hefty tax on the weapon itself. The owner would also have to own a gun safe, and only the safety display would be necessary for later purchases, although perhaps taxes would increase exponentially on multiple weapons.

If these store-bought guns can be made significantly cheaper than smuggled alternatives, than it is likely more crimes will be made using these legally acquired guns, making tracing crime massively quicker and more efficient using the aforementioned database.

Trying to keep any and all guns off the street is like propping up a dike made out of marshmallows, just a waste of time.

[neuro]

these threads make me go /sigh and think badle about america.

people make such bullshit arguments, it's not even funny.

ross, i only happened to read this part of your quotewars post, but i'd like like to rebound on this particular piece.


not many. imagine how fucked people would be if gunmen went to town and no bystanders were armed. we all know the police don't show up instantly no matter how hard they try to, and sometimes time is lives. if fort hood had happened somewhere where nobody was carrying, the death toll would have been nearing a hundred and you know it.

how would there be people shooting up a town.. IF THERE WERE NO GUNS TO SHOOT WITH. honestly, the only place people shoot up towns/malls whatever is america and other places with loose gun-laws.

the only reason people want guns to defend themselve with, is because they're so stupid-easy to get and they actually have to worry about people having guns in the FIRST place.

[p0lar_bear]

IF THERE WERE NO GUNS TO SHOOT WITH.

That is a statistical impossibility. A ban on civilian-owned firearms would only affect law-abiding citizens. If a crazed psycho wants to go on a shooting spree, and they have the money, they'll go and get their weapons via illegal means. When other markets discriminate, the Black Market doesn't. I could bet you that despite California's ridiculous gun laws, there are still many people there, mostly criminals, that own banned weapons.

fake e:
Yeah I'm a huge fucking nerd for this analogy, but guns and gun bans are a lot like video game cheats. Sure, the rules state that if you join a VAC-enabled server and use a hack, your steam account will get permanently banned from all VAC-enabled servers. However, this wouldn't stop someone who's mad as hell about vidya games from downloading a spinbot and joining the server with it to get even just a moment of owning the fuck out of everyone in the server. They'll regret the shit out of it later, yes, but at that moment, they don't care.

[rossmum]

I can see this argument is going no where, seems most of my points got missed entirely which is a shame but what can i expect from a forum thats 75% pro gun slinger.:v:
Snaf, if increase of guns in a area improves the crime rate then why the fuck is london filled with it?
I've seen several documentaries where a normal handgun was tested to cause avalaunches and none of the times it was tested would it work, the only thing i can see working is if you used a howitzer or extremely large caliber weapon.
i especially like how you make us out to be gun-toting idiots who like to wave our guns around in public to show how cool we are. you are so far beyond merely ignorant that it literally pains me to read your 'arguments'. the only reason this argument is going nowhere is because brainwashed individuals with no idea how things work in the real world (such as yourself!) are so intensely anti-gun that your eyes seem to simply glaze over as you read every logical statement we make. either that or you're wearing the biggest fucking tin hat in the history of the universe, and are therefore immune to logic and reason.

also, london may not be full of gun crime, but i sure as hell remember all the stabbings. i also remember my parents locking the doors while we were in the car when we went through some of the dodgier areas. how many people would be willing to jack a car if there was the chance the occupants were armed? not many, and luckily for us, natural selection would take care of the rest.

also, a .50 bmg raufoss would start an avalanche no sweat. you don't need a howitzer, a .50 bmg rifle or failing that a mk.19 would do the job.


these threads make me go /sigh and think badle about america.

people make such bullshit arguments, it's not even funny.

ross, i only happened to read this part of your quotewars post, but i'd like like to rebound on this particular piece.


how would there be people shooting up a town.. IF THERE WERE NO GUNS TO SHOOT WITH. honestly, the only place people shoot up towns/malls whatever is america and other places with loose gun-laws.

the only reason people want guns to defend themselve with, is because they're so stupid-easy to get and they actually have to worry about people having guns in the FIRST place.
i know you people like to forget about this little inconvenient fact, but the black market operates regardless of laws. if guns were totally banned, do you really think criminals would bat an eyelid at smuggling them in, selling them on to the highest bidder, and continuing to do so regardless of the results? a determined enough psycho can get their hands on guns somehow or other; the only differences are that it may be a little more expensive, it may take a little while to find, and it won't require a licence. remember the prohibition the americans had in the early half of the 20th century? remember how crime families were making money hand over fist by smuggling alcohol in and selling it through the black market? what the fuck makes you think a prohibition on guns would work any better than that abysmal failure?

[ICEE]

how would there be people shooting up a town.. IF THERE WERE NO GUNS TO SHOOT WITH. .

Yeah, try reading more next time. It is NOT POSSIBLE for there to be "NO GUNS TO SHOOT WITH." Think of it as one giant cold war. Everyone has nukes, and that is the only thing stopping each side from using them. Now in your fantasy world of no one having guns, there would have to be strict government controlled searches at every border to stop guns from coming in and raids of every house to destroy the guns that already exist. Doesnt that sound awfully nazi?

[Heathen]

A ban on civilian-owned firearms would only affect law-abiding citizens.

this is really my entire argument.

[Cortexian]

For example, the restrictions on civilians owning anything other than hunting rifles in Canada are fairly good. There are three types of firearm designations here, Non-Restricted (civilian rifles, hunting rifles, etc), Restricted (some handguns, certain civilian versions of military "black" rifles like the Remington R-25), and Prohibited (some handguns, all full-automatic firearms, anything under the designated barrel lengths for Restricted, etc)...

Now, anyone over 18 can take a Canadian Firearms Safety course to get a license to purchase and own Non-Restricted rifles and once you have this you can take another course to get your Restricted license. That said, if you own a Restricted firearm (such as a restricted pistol) you can ONLY legally use it at a designated range. On top of that, when you want to go shooting you need to call the local Police department and notify them that you're transporting a Restricted firearm from your home to the range.

Civilians cannot get their hands on Prohibited firearms in Canada unless they do so illegally.

That all sounds safe and secure, yet most crimes committed in Canada with firearms are carried out with Prohibited and (generally stolen or obtained illegally) Restricted firearms. There hasn't actually been an offense with a Non-Restricted firearm in Canada for over 5 years of something like that, it does happen on occasion though.

TL;DR: Any kind of officially government sanctioned ban on firearms only takes away the privilege of firearms ownership from legitimate firearm owners. Criminals and other unsavory people will get their hands on firearms no matter what.

[Bhamid]

Got referred here by Dwood, read through the thread, decided to throw some stats in: the gun death rate in the US is 6.8/100 000, in the UK it is 0.4/100 000 (17 times higher if you can't be bothered ;)). The vast majority of deaths in the US are from accidents (couldn't find figures for those).

[rossmum]

Gah, you bump this after I got on my little soapbox in the other thread.

Well, I might as well post here, too:

You probably don't need me to tell you that those rates are two things: fucking low (as in, almost anything I can think of that we use every day causes more deaths), and fucking useless (because surprise surprise, a place with more guns and a shitload more people has more gun deaths). Do me a favour. Look up the other death rates. I think you'll find that anything the US has more of will cause more deaths. As I said in the other thread, trying to use 'less guns = less gun deaths' is the most blindingly obvious and yet exceedingly stupid argument for gun bans I think I've ever seen. Less cars = less road deaths. Less pools = less drowning deaths. Less electrical outlets in homes = less electrocutions. Less homes = less deaths in building collapses or house fires. See what I'm getting at? That line of thought could be extrapolated to basically every fucking thing on the planet capable of causing harm (which, might I add, is literally everything), yet it never is because unlike guns, cars, electricity, and homes aren't demonised constantly by the government and media alike in order to keep Joe Stupid shit-scared of them. The kinds of people who come out with the bullshit most anti-gun campaigns base their existence on are the same kinds of people who have never even touched a real gun in their life, let alone shot one. They don't understand that a gun is a basic piece of mechanical equipment. They don't understand that until it is loaded and cocked (which has to be done by a human, since a gun is an inanimate object with no ability to do anything for itself), it's no more dangerous than any other hunk of pointy-cornered metal of equivalent mass. They don't seem to understand that while ADs do happen, an AD still won't kill someone unless they're right in the bullet's path; and nine times out of ten, that comes down to irresponsible and unsafe handling by the person holding the gun.

Guns are literally incapable of killing people unless irresponsible handling has occurred somewhere along the line or the person holding them has murderous intent. Instead of wasting time, money, and effort trying to ban guns or restrict them based on some gun-o-phobe politician's arbitrary concepts of what looks scary and what doesn't (I'm not kidding, this is exactly how Canada's gun laws were formulated), we should invest that in seeing that the general public are educated on gun safety and only those with a stable mind and safe handling practices actually get licences (but can then get anything within reason - I see no reason more responsible shooters shouldn't be able to get fully-automatic rifles or even full-blown machine guns as long as they store them securely, have somewhere safe to shoot them, and have the brains not to fuck around with them). I can guarantee there'd be a lot less accidental gun deaths if the media spent half as much time teaching people how to safely unload and store guns as they currently do trying to portray them as evil totems of death (to the point where I know several people who become physically terrified if they're anywhere near one, even unloaded and pointed well away from them).

[sleepy1212]

arbitrary concepts of what looks scary and what doesn't (I'm not kidding, this is exactly how Canada's gun laws were formulated)

haha. same in the US...the term "assault rifle", even though it covers a specific set of weapons, is more often used to describe weapons that, like you said, look scary. There was even one senator - New England somewhere don't remember her name - who actively pursued to ban barrel shrouds. Why? probably because they're on all those scary guns in the violent movies. When asked what barrel shrouds, and several other accessories are for, she had no clue.

[rossmum]

Yeah I saw the interview they did with her. She thought a barrel shroud (for those who don't know, it's just a metal jacket to stop you burning yourself on a hot barrel) was a 'shoulder thing that goes up'.

Are these people even fucking serious? How the fuck can you propose to ban something when you have literally no idea what that thing is? How can you even consider passing legislation on something when a literal ten-year-old knows more about it than you?

[TeeKup]

I'm pretty much with rossmum on this one. Also Recoil-less rifles are used to trigger controlled avalanches. This technique was featured on Modern Marvels and Ice Road truckers on the History Channel not too long ago.

[Bhamid]

The reason why I'm for stricter controls on private guns ownership is because I feel that the negatives (accidental deaths, fewer killings) outweigh the positives (shooting ranges, shooting pheasants etc). The avalanche triggering surely would be done by professionals and so wouldn't go under 'private'. And the reason why I put killings in there is because many of them are spur-of-the-moment. If they had to take the time and effort to get a black market gun, most people would have calmed down enough to realize that what their doing isn't right.

[rossmum]

You only think the negatives outweigh the positives because you don't shoot. I don't drive, should we ban cars because they're dangerous if used improperly? Should we ban boats because people could drown if they fall off? Should we ban electronic devices because of the risk of electrocution? Fuck it, why not? The risk of accidental deaths or killings outweighs the benefits of any of those from the standpoint of someone who doesn't use them. Also, I'm pretty sure there are more applications than just 'going to the range' or 'shooting pheasants'.

- Target shooting, both for fun and for sport
- Hunting, for trophies (blergh) or food
- Culling of pests or in many cases, dangerous animals which pose a genuine threat to livestock and/or humans
- Collecting, because collecting deactivated rifles is about the same as collecting cars without any engine and half the interior gutted
- Self-defence in the few countries which actually see some positive side to citizens being able to preserve their lives if faced with imminent murder
- Going down into an empty paddock (with a proper backstop!) and just letting fly for shits and giggles

I do 1, 3, 4, and 6. 5 is illegal here (because apparently the lives of murderers are worth more than the lives of law-abiding citizens; I understand where things like concealed carry can become a problem or even a full-blown legal nightmare, but all the same, we can't even put up a fight of any kind these days). I also do 7, which is handle fully automatic weapons and explosive ordnance regularly within the confines of Army bases. I am fucking dangerous with or without a rifle, despite being relatively weak. By the logic of your average anti-gun campaigner, I should be running amok killing people left and right. In actuality, I can safely handle any given weapon and I have no intention of ever giving anyone a worse injury than a good smack upside the head unless I somehow find myself in a contact with an enemy force. My younger sister (as in, only just started high school) can handle a rifle in a safer manner than I've seen several military and law enforcement personnel do and she also gets that you don't just shoot people. We are both pretty much stable (if short-tempered) and not predisposed to violence. Most gun owners are the same. Some may be a little careless at times and some might hold fucking retarded opinions, but very few of them actually sit in their homes wanking off over the thought of someone breaking in so they can finally slay some bodies. These people are usually pretty easy to spot and if anyone in this world had a single ounce of common sense they'd be turned down for a licence for it. Unfortunately, gun control is based on the flat-out fucking retarded idea that gangs, organised crime syndicates, murderers with intent, and other such criminals actually give a damn whether a certain gun is illegal to own or not. People are so fucking obsessed with keeping the scary death totems in check that they completely leave their brains behind and let the few people I'm actually worried about slip through the cracks.

Also, do you honestly believe for a moment that less guns would mean less killing? I'm pretty sure nutters will get on just fine with knives, hammers, cars, combustible liquids, poisonous substances, tire irons, cricket bats, sinks, oh, and their own two hands, too. You can kill someone with anything. In most instances, you can kill someone pretty easily with anything and for a lot less expenditure than getting a gun and some ammo. Should we just ban inter-personal contact all together?

e/ Oh yeah and I think you'll find that most countries and several US states have a month-long cooling-off period before you can actually legally obtain a new firearm, some are even longer; so yes, actually. It would be quicker and easier to go through the black market.

e again/ Just to reinforce what I've said above, a few additional points. First up I'll revisit the point you made about negatives and positives, and I'll use a comparable example we can all identify with. A few nutjobs have played violent games, snapped, and killed a lot of people. For us, games have plenty of positives. For nearly every other person on Earth, they have absolutely none. If you were to ask your average non-gaming parent, they'd probably go on and on about bad grades, lack of social interaction, the risk of a headcase trying to re-enact their favourite GTA rampage in real life, wasted time, and fuck knows what else. I doubt they'd come out with a single positive. Should we ban games, especially violent ones?

The other point I'll make is that the overwhelming majority of currently-standing gun laws and bans in the world are two things: kneejerk reactions to ignorant public outcry, and also completely nonsensical. For a considerable time in Canada, bullpup rifles were banned. As far as I'm aware, several still are, along with various arbitrarily-chosen designs which are often less potent weapons than those considered entirely legal. The decisions were made, and I shit you not, by going through gun catalogues of the time and picking out anything that looked 'scary'. No attention at all was paid to what each of these was actually capable of doing. They were banned because someone, somewhere in the government, looked at them and felt intimidated. After the Port Arthur massacre, Australia's previously moderate laws regarding rifles were completely hosed because the perpetrator used a semiautomatic rifle (I think it was an SLR, but I can't remember offhand). The public, being fucking retarded, and the Government, being too obsessed with re-election to correct their retardedness, saw the appropriate reaction as a ban on semi-automatic centrefire rifles and the marginalisation of anyone who even hinted at an interest in shooting which lasted some time. The ban is still in place and unlikely to be overturned any time in the forseeable future. Prior to Port Arthur, Vietnam-surplus SLRs were available to anyone with a Class B licence. We were switching to the Steyr at the time and had a lot of SLRs to get rid of. However, it is now fucking impossible to get one legally unless a) it's been deactivated, or b) you can somehow prove that you need it (and specifically it) to carry out your occupation. Good luck with that.

The FN FAL is chambered in 7.62x51 NATO and typically loads a 20-round box magazine. It is capable of automatic fire. The L1A1 SLR, our license-built version, was not. Assuming the 20rd mags are used and someone is relatively competent at handling it, you could crank out maybe 40 aimed shots a minute. The FAL is long, heavy, and cumbersome, and recoils hard enough to be borderline uncontrollable when fired in automatic. The SLR can't fire in automatic, but it's still not exactly something you can spray bullets with. This rifle is highly illegal and pity fucking help you if you're caught with one.

The Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk.1, my rifle, is chambered in .303 and loads a 10-round box magazine. Unlike most rifles of its time, this magazine is detachable (it's a bitch to get on or off because the rifle was almost always loaded via stripper clips of 5 rounds each, but it's easily doable), like the SLR. It has the smoothest, fastest bolt action known to man; someone who's good with it can crank out a shot a second, and someone who's not can still put down a decent rate of fire. Assuming you load the rifle with stripper clips rather than spare magazines and that you're proficient at operating the bolt, you could probably put out 30-35 aimed shots a minute. It's long, it's relatively light for its size, and not exactly the most ergonomic thing ever. It recoils quite hard, but being bolt-action, that's not much of an issue. This rifle is obtained with no trouuble at all by anyone who holds a Class B and is fairly common. It's also fairly cheap. The No.1 Mk.III* SMLE is even cheaper - some as low as $70 - and found readily in any part of Australia.

Let's create a hypothetical situation. Nutter 1 has an SLR, and decides to burst into a building and hose everyone he finds. Nutter 2 is a bit less retarded, and figures he's going to find a good position and pick off as many people down in the street as he can with his Enfield. Nutter 3 is smarter still. He has any given rifle, pistol, shotgun, bow - whatever. He figures he'll ambush one or two people at a time somewhere nice and isolated, then fuck off in his car and repeat a few hundred miles away; the Washington Sniper on a larger geographical scale. Nutter 4 has a knife and not much of a plan.

Nutters 1, 2, and possibly 3 instantly face the challenge of not being busted right away. Both the SLR and No.4 are very fucking obvious and nigh impossible to conceal on your person. A sports bag might do the trick, but neither is easily broken down for transport, meaning it would have to be as long as the overall length of the rifle. People notice that kind of thing. Nutter 3 might be carrying something smaller and easier to conceal, or he might just shoot from his car. Nutter 4 could be carrying an entire cutlery set and nobody would be any the wiser.

Nutter 1 somehow gets into a crowded shopping centre with his SLR, and opens fire on a crowd. He blasts off 20 rounds in about as many seconds. Some kill, some wound, some miss entirely. He now has to reload. People will do one of three things: run, freeze, or take him on. It would take him at least three or so seconds to reload; three seconds is a lot more time than you'd think. By the time he's reloaded, a lot of people have found some at least partially solid cover, some are standing around like idiots, and a few are coming right for him. He blasts through another mag, he has to reload again. He can only do this so many times before he's stopped one way or another. Depending on how much ammo he brings, exactly how and where he opens fire, and a number of totally unpredictable variables, he might kill about 20-30 people and wound two or three times that. Maybe.

Nutter 2 also gets past the first hurdle and sets up overlooking, for the sake of argument, a packed city street. He opens fire. Let's assume he could put any WWI or II British soldier to shame and cranks out a 10-round mag in as many seconds. He hits most or all of those shots. Some kill, some don't. He now has to reload, which takes him slightly longer than Nutter 1 since he's using stripper clips. The street is packed and people would be panicking and running around like headless chickens; we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's still in a target-rich environment. He shoots another 10 rounds off and reloads again. End result? Probably about the same as with the SLR, possibly less depending on how soon the police respond.

Nutter 3 pulls over somewhere quiet, shoots the lone person in the immediate vicinity, and drives off as if nothing happens. He relocates, repeats, and relocates again. He does this ad nauseum until either he decides he's done or the police finally figure out what the fuck is going on and who the fuck is doing it. Depending on how long that takes and how many people he shoots at per day, it's entirely feasible he'll outdo both Nutter 1 and Nutter 2, even with something that isn't a semiautomatic rifle or the most rapid-firing of the milsurp bolt-actions. It could be a bow for all it matters - in fact, he'd probably kill more than both combined since bows don't exactly alert everyone within several hundred yards when they're fired.

Nutter 4 can wander around stabbing as many people as he pleases until either someone overpowers him or he's caught. His weapon makes no noise, is easily concealed, and doesn't have to be revealed until the moment he intends to use it. It doesn't require ammunition, reloading, or routine maintenance.

Nutter 5 comes out of nowhere and floors it down a sidewalk in his 4WD or his truck. Fuck knows how many people he's killed, but the six o'clock news won't be showing any massive protests calling for motor vehicles to be banned.

[Bhamid]

Your argument about banning cars and electrical devices doesn't work because guns (in general) are designed for the purpose of killing while they are not - soldiers are armed with guns, not electrical devices to try to hope that the enemy might be electrocuted.

On your reasons for guns, I said in my post etc, I cba thinking of other reasons at the moment in time.

My point about your lack of insanity is not that people with guns are mental, its that, for example, a guy's having a tough time - he's stressed from work etc etc and then he finally snaps. If he does have a gun then he can take it and start shooting, but if he didn't, then he would have to find someone to buy it from and then get it, which would take much more time and hopefully by which time he starts to see sense after calming down. If he permanently loses it and starts to make plans, then yes it won't make a difference. People who might be short-tempered (such as yourself) haven't 'lost it' or snapped and so won't go on a raged spree. And such people who do are not easy to spot: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10214661.stm (he owned a gun legally btw).

Gun death rate was 1.82 per 100,000 still lower than than the US. I'm not sure what your problem is with the Canadian Gun laws, other than being illogical, please explain.

I don't know about Australia, but carrying knives over a certain length (can't remember) is illegal in the UK under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

[Dwood]

Yeah banning machetes was required because that was what the criminals were doing back in the day when they took away the guns... What is the gvt going to do, ban all knives more than 3 inches long without a license? that's ridiculous.

[Bhamid]

What?

[ICEE]

Banning guns does not work. I have said it before and I will say it again, in chunked paragraphs for the lazy reader's ease!

In a perfect world: Yes, banning guns would work as intended, by cutting off the source to guns and stopping criminals from having any means of obtaining guns with which to commit their crimes. We do not live in a perfect world.

Criminals can obtain guns via black market regardless of the strictness of gun control. the guns they will acquire can easily surpass the restrictions placed on privately owned guns. (fully automatic, large magazines, etc)

Therefore, placing a ban on guns only really restricts the law abiding gun owner who uses his guns for legal activities (range shooting, hunting, skeet, etc) while failing to stop the criminals from obtaining them.




Heres what I think we should do: gun owners are required to take safety training and own a gun safe. Though I personally have never encountered a gun owner who does not know the ins and outs of his firearm and the proper ways to use it, I don't find this unreasonable. Besides, we've all seen the youtube videos of people being jackasses with their rifles.

[paladin]

Your argument about banning cars and electrical devices doesn't work because guns (in general) are designed for the purpose of killing while they are not - soldiers are armed with guns, not electrical devices to try to hope that the enemy might be electrocuted.


No, guns are designed for the purpose of protection.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. When Im being mugged, Id rather die from a gun shot, then to have my shit beat with a baseball bat. Gun laws only prevent honest people from owning a gun.

[Roostervier]

Bhamid. You are a farmer. You live at least 25 miles away from the nearest town or any place to buy food from. Gas costs too much to make daily, weekly, or even bi-monthly trips to town, especially when having to operate farm equipment. You make only enough crops to sell and only have a little left over for your family. Luckily, you own a gun and ammunition, as the government has not outlawed them. You can go hunt animals for sustenance and keep your family alive, at least until the next trip into town. Have you ever considered a scenario like this? And if you say you have, don't say there are very few people in that position. There are plenty more than you'd think and not only in America, but across the world.

You believe that they should be banned because you don't use them. That's fine if you don't use them, that's your choice. However, don't take the option away from others simply because you don't care and you feel irrationally unsafe because someone else might have one. For some it's for more than entertainment, for others, it is entertainment. Computers weren't intended for games to be played on them, yet that happens. Do you think violent games should be outlawed because they cause teenagers to imitate them and go around and stab people, beat them with baseball bats, or yes, even shoot them? If you play any games at all, you probably know that that is bullshit, and that it's completely asinine to think something like that. Well, the people in support of being able to own and use guns are kind of in the same position as the gamers in that scenario. We know that that doesn't happen because we actually play the games ourselves and we are educated about it, thus taking away the unknown and the fear that goes with it. There is no reason a safe form of entertainment and even a livelihood should be outlawed simply because some people are irrationally afraid of what they don't know.

[EX12693]

A ban (or restriction) on guns is like punishing the lawful for the sins of the lawless...

[paladin]

Remember, when life gives you seconds, the police are only minutes away.

Protect your home. Protect the right to bear arms.

[rossmum]

Your argument about banning cars and electrical devices doesn't work because guns (in general) are designed for the purpose of killing while they are not - soldiers are armed with guns, not electrical devices to try to hope that the enemy might be electrocuted.
So were knives, originally. Should we ban knives? Should we ban sharpened rocks? Should we ban any kind of blade at all? They were all originally designed as weapons.


On your reasons for guns, I said in my post etc, I cba thinking of other reasons at the moment in time.

My point about your lack of insanity is not that people with guns are mental, its that, for example, a guy's having a tough time - he's stressed from work etc etc and then he finally snaps. If he does have a gun then he can take it and start shooting, but if he didn't, then he would have to find someone to buy it from and then get it, which would take much more time and hopefully by which time he starts to see sense after calming down. If he permanently loses it and starts to make plans, then yes it won't make a difference. People who might be short-tempered (such as yourself) haven't 'lost it' or snapped and so won't go on a raged spree. And such people who do are not easy to spot: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10214661.stm (he owned a gun legally btw).
And for every lunatic who owns a gun legally, another ten do not. I don't see your point. If someone snaps and has a car, they could probably kill just as many people as someone who snaps and has a gun. I consider it downright insulting that people want to ban something many, many people take enjoyment from just because once or twice a year, some nutter decides to go on a killing spree with one. Again, you only supoort a ban because you have no interest in shooting. I can guarantee that if I supported a ban on something you enjoy and have done for some time, you'd be absolutely livid.


Gun death rate was 1.82 per 100,000 still lower than than the US. I'm not sure what your problem is with the Canadian Gun laws, other than being illogical, please explain.
The fact they are illogical is the exact problem, do you honestly need that explained to you? Not only do they restrict guns they shouldn't, but they do a horribly shitty job at that they're supposed to be doing (stopping law-abiding civilians from getting weapons which could maybe be construed as slightly more dangerous if in the wrong hands). Does that not strike you as stupid? Does nothing in your brain say "wow, that shouldn't be happening" when politicians push to ban guns with certain features, when they don't even know what those features are? Or in your mind, does it not matter as long as another EVIL GONNE is melted down?


I don't know about Australia, but carrying knives over a certain length (can't remember) is illegal in the UK under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Yeah, and that totally stops people. Do you even go outside? We have similar laws here (in fact I think we share the CJA 88) and people carry knives all the time in defiance of it.


Bhamid. You are a farmer. You live at least 25 miles away from the nearest town or any place to buy food from. Gas costs too much to make daily, weekly, or even bi-monthly trips to town, especially when having to operate farm equipment. You make only enough crops to sell and only have a little left over for your family. Luckily, you own a gun and ammunition, as the government has not outlawed them. You can go hunt animals for sustenance and keep your family alive, at least until the next trip into town. Have you ever considered a scenario like this? And if you say you have, don't say there are very few people in that position. There are plenty more than you'd think and not only in America, but across the world.
What about the farmer whose entire livelihood depends on his livestock? What the fuck is he supposed to do when a pack of wild dogs/wolves/foxes show up and start killing those livestock, as happens here regularly? Oh, he can't have a gun. Guns are evil death totems and kill people. I guess he'll just have to sit there and watch as his stock are all killed and he no longer has any income whatsoever.

This has happened several times to farmers who don't have a licence who I know personally, so don't even try and argue on that one - the reason I got into shooting when I did is because my parents own a farm and have the same problems.

[ICEE]

People don't really think about these kinds of repercussions, because most of use live in situations where we don't rely on guns for our survival. You guys make a good point, I never even thought about that.

[paladin]

I shot 3 foxes last summer in 1 day :eng101: damn rapscallion. Also, in some areas on MT there are standing shoot-to-kill orders on wolves.

Also, this shit is crazy (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45). Holt is douche and needs to go hunting with Mr. Cheney.

[p0lar_bear]

My point about your lack of insanity is not that people with guns are mental, its that, for example, a guy's having a tough time - he's stressed from work etc etc and then he finally snaps. If he does have a gun then he can take it and start shooting, but if he didn't, then he would have to find someone to buy it from and then get it, which would take much more time and hopefully by which time he starts to see sense after calming down. If he permanently loses it and starts to make plans, then yes it won't make a difference. People who might be short-tempered (such as yourself) haven't 'lost it' or snapped and so won't go on a raged spree. And such people who do are not easy to spot: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10214661.stm (he owned a gun legally btw)

Your argument about time cooling off a headcase while he waits for a gun doesn't work, because a headcase will more often then not break any and all rules to meet their ends. If they really want to kill some people and they're pissed enough, chances are if they don't have a gun, they'll resort to other means, as ross's hypotheticals point out. Guns were designed to be weapons, there is no doubt about it, but they're versatile to the point where they're used for other means than mass murder of other people. As pointed out, there's hunting, defending livestock, triggering controlled avalanches, etc.

The problem here is, because most politicians aren't educated enough, see guns as nothing but a tool of mass murder and destruction, and perpetuate that image so the general public thinks the same as them, people who want guns for innocent reasons aren't allowed to have them, yet anyone who needs a piece for unsavory things can still get them.

[rossmum]

As a side note the UK (much to my dismay as I liked it while we lived there) is about as anti-gun as it gets. Not only are the gun laws retarded to the point where people are actually willing to deactivate something as valuable as an all-matching No.4 Mk.1 (T) just to own one (devaluing it from 2,500 GBP+ to maybe half that at best - the value of the scope and mount), but it seems the general public have been brought up on the kinds of logic-defying, anti-gun rhetoric that in most other countries is at least partially balanced out. I'm not sure what'd scare me more, the thought of having to deac my No.4 to take it with me or the thought that I might get figuratively lynched if I actually got a licence for it there and kept it live :ugh:

Hopefully I'll fuck off either back to Alberta or maybe to Washington or Oregon since the former is really nice and the latter is apparently also really nice and gun-friendly as fuck

[paladin]

Washington has some shitty gun laws and some wack-job politicians. Id say move to Idaho.

[ICEE]

Not. California.

[paladin]

Thats a no-brainer

[rossmum]

According to TFR Oregon is like gun heaven and it's not all fucked up and redneck like some states (read: most of the south)

[sleepy1212]

it hasn't been said in a while: gun laws aren't about safety, safety is just the tactic.


this shit is crazy (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45)

I particularly like this part:

Last Action: Feb 9, 2009: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.


nobody posted this either!?

http://earthhopenetwork.net/gun_control_works.jpg

[Bhamid]

I don't know about wolves (they are extinct here) but there are things like barbed/electrified wire, and other stuff like fox deterrents which seemed to work fine with the farm I used to work at.

The lunatic in my scenario is a normal guy who is just frustrated and acts irrationally for a short period of time, he is not a Charles Manson, he just loses it. After he has calmed down, he is back to his normal self.

Knives have uses for which they are specifically designed for - and even ones which aren't designed for maiming are restricted. I'm not saying guns should be banned, I'm saying there should be tighter restrictions (perhaps ban the ones which are disigned to kill people).

I don't know about you, but I don't carry a knife and no-one I know carries a knife. Statistics show that if you carry a knife, you are more likely to be attacked yourself because you are seen as a threat because of the fact that you have a knife.

[rossmum]

I don't know about wolves (they are extinct here) but there are things like barbed/electrified wire, and other stuff like fox deterrents which seemed to work fine with the farm I used to work at.
They also cost an inordinate amount of money... oh, and they don't work. The small farm (little more than an alotment) which was attached to my high school was ringed by eight-foot chainlink topped with barbed wire. A pack of supposedly domesticated dogs got in and killed 11 sheep in about as many minutes. Being in the city, there was literally nothing they can do.


The lunatic in my scenario is a normal guy who is just frustrated and acts irrationally for a short period of time, he is not a Charles Manson, he just loses it. After he has calmed down, he is back to his normal self.
And you don't think this might happen while he owns a car? While he owns a knife? While he owns a cricket bat, a pair of scissors, a razor? A kid at my school got stabbed with a pair of scissors. I'm pretty fucking sure it doesn't take a gun to make someone dangerous when they snap.


Knives have uses for which they are specifically designed for - and even ones which aren't designed for maiming are restricted. I'm not saying guns should be banned, I'm saying there should be tighter restrictions (perhaps ban the ones which are disigned to kill people).
Guns have uses which they are specifically designed for. Target rifles, hunting rifles, target pistols, hunting shotguns, would you like me to go on? The only guns specifically designed to kill people are military weapons (and I mean full-blown, in-service military weapons, not sporter versions thereof) or pistols specifically designed for self defence. I have a better idea. How about instead of being idiots and restricting guns by some arbitrary classification (usually set by someone who doesn't actually know what they're talking about to boot), we make it harder to obtain them legally? How about we simply use a thorough background check, fingerprinting, a psych assessment, a thorough safety assessment (think a day or two where you're carrying deactivated weapons, to make sure you never get slack because you "know" your gun won't go off or you think nobody's watching, as well as safety assessments with live ones), and a sensible (i.e. no more than a month) waiting period? That makes a fucking lot more sense to me and it would mean less draconian laws both here and over there.


I don't know about you, but I don't carry a knife and no-one I know carries a knife. Statistics show that if you carry a knife, you are more likely to be attacked yourself because you are seen as a threat because of the fact that you have a knife.
I don't murder people and nobody I know has murdered people, does that mean nobody murders people? There are regularly stabbings on public transport and weekly (if not nightly) attacks with knives in major cities. As far as I'm aware certain blades aren't restricted in themselves but any blade not being carried for utility (as well as anything the police interpret as a weapon - including tire irons anywhere but in the boot of your car) is a weapon and will land you in trouble. Does that stop people? You've got to be fucking kidding if you think it does.

[paladin]

$100 for bared wire... or $.10 for a .22 shell? hmmmmmmmmm

[p0lar_bear]

$100 for bared wire... or $.10 for a .22 shell? hmmmmmmmmm

from a poacher's point of view:
$2 for a pair of diagonal cutters, or $450 for a kevlar vest? hmmm indeed.

[rossmum]

And, like I said, fences don't always work. I think you'll find the purpose of fencing a farm is generally to keep the livestock IN, not keep predators OUT. Just to build a simple five-strand, strained wire fence - without barbed wire, which is ridiculously pricey - to replace some of the old fencing around my parents' small farm, it cost a few thousand. To build interior fencing to divide up the land into paddocks and laneways, it cost another few thousand. This isn't a fancy hi-tech fence. It's a 5-strand strained wire fence with a 4.5" anchor post to every five steel star pickets. In fence terms, it's about as cheap as you'll get when covering a large area, and it's just enough to hold cattle. Since my parents have alpacas and not cattle, this is idea as they don't push fences. All the external fences (and some internal ones) also have chicken wire from the ground up to the fourth wire, which is about waist height.

This fence doesn't even stop a wombat, let alone a wild dog or fox. The wombats will either tunnel under it (think the Australian equivalent of a badger, they're very big and very good at digging) or just force a gap under the wire. Even one or two of the alpacas have their own ideas about which paddocks they should be allowed in and will push their way under the wire where the wombats have weakened it (since it's slightly higher than they can reliably jump). If you take all this into account, I'd say that not having three rifles and a shotgun on the farm would be a very bad idea. The Siberian husky we had in Canada would jump fences. When dad built one eight feet high, she'd dig under them. When he concreted four feet deep all around it, she found some other way out and we never saw her again. On at least two occasions where I've been staying on the farm, we've had to rescue a neighbour's little dog because the alpacas were trying to trample it. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that dogs can get in. One small Jack Russel might not be a problem, but even a small pack of loose cattledogs or even domestic dogs are. Foxes are too; we've lost about three of our ducks, one of which we'd had for a number of years, to foxes.

Being Australia, there are also venomous stakes. Lots of them. The area in which my parents live has one of the highest densities of them in the country - I think it works out to something like one snake for every few square metres or something. Nearly every time I've been down there, I've spotted a dead snake or two hanging from the tree and peppered with shot.

Please, continue in telling me how a farmer doesn't need a gun.

Actually, before you do so, how about you tell me why I shouldn't own a 66-year-old service rifle produced and used in the last World War? I don't know about you, but if I saw someone about to go and melt a Spitfire down or sell it for scrap I would absolutely do my nut; why should my Enfield face that fate when someone can preserve it instead? I'd like to be able to actually show people one, show them how it worked, demonstrate its firepower and accuracy for them. The best way to learn is through practical experience, not out of some dry, 800-page book. If we want kids to actually give a shit about these important events in history another half-century down the line, when there are no veterans left to tell them how it happened, then let's at least preserve the things they used, including their weapons. Seeing milsurp weapons turned in and melted down, deactivated, or even bought and then shoved into a safe without ever being fired or even cleaned breaks my heart because in that case we're not just losing a gun, we're losing history. Even some of the older sporting guns, or the early examples of the rifles armed forces worldwide use today - anything that stood at an important point in the development of guns should be cared for and preserved as much as any car, plane, book or painting. Just because the sport and leisure aspects of shooting came a little after people first discovered it, it doesn't make it something we should just blank over and exclude from the same kinds of celebration as we give art or cars or marvels of architecture and engineering.

[paladin]

fences keep live stock in, but I guarantee you they doesn't keep predators out...

[DarkHalo003]

Here's my 2 Cents:

Guns are okay for self defense. Guns are okay for population control of rampant animal populations. Guns are supposed to be used for war and protection. But where do guns go wrong? IS it the fact that they are easily obtainable for persons accompanied by an adult age? IS it the fact that one shot can kill or seriously injure a person? The reason why I'm bringing this up is because these are the questions people ask and point out daily. Guns are dangerous because the people who misuse them are dangerous. They're not just physically damaging, but also mentally traumatizing if used in the wrong way. I honestly don't think guns are bad because they're powerful, but it does bother me how many times I hear of gun-assisted suicide or drive-by shootings (I live near Atlanta, GA, where this stuff is common) and it's concerning how the victims or criminals are mostly our age. I never talk much about guns in this way, which is why I finally typed up something, but I think the simple access to projectiles and weaponry of the same caliber is a little unnerving. True, there are other weapons of destruction that cause havoc (bludgeons and knives for example), but when you hear of a serious crime and how the world changes from a single shot, it really questions if the gun was truly a brilliant idea for Humanity that can barely keep missiles at a primed state. This is all IRL, not involving video games.

[rossmum]

"Gun-assisted suicide"? It's just suicide using a gun. Saying it that way could wrongly give the impression the gun somehow had any choice in the issue and did it anyway.

Guns are about as capable of changing the world in a single shot as a concrete support beam is capable of changing the world with a single collapse. You could go on about assassinations, but there have been many cases where bombs or sabotage came into play or a freak accident was to blame. Seeing someone get shot is about as traumatising as seeing someone get stabbed (perhaps less) or get crushed under a truck. Arguing that guns are somehow any more of a menace to society than any other randomly-selected inanimate object is inherently pointless and also inherently rather stupid, because it's certain people who are a menace to society, not certain objects. Instead of placing restrictions on objects, we should be placing restrictions on people. If you're nuts or unstable or have a fairly serious criminal history, you can't have a gun. Problem solved (or at least, as solved as it will ever get).

[paladin]

Bloodshed and murder has been around for 1000's of years. Guns are what 500 years old? Egyptian Pharaoh's where assassinated. Greeks committed suicide. Romans murdered each other.

People just need to be educated on gun safety, even if you don't believe people should own them. You still need to know how to handle one safely if such occasion occurs.

[TeeKup]

Actually one of the earliest depictions of a gun/cannon/firearm was a sculpture in Sichuan, China around the 1100's. So roughly 900 years give or take. But regardless you have a point.

Humans are violent and can be downright barbaric. We have been for the majority of our existence.

[t3h m00kz]

My feelings on guns:

They're fun, but they kill people. :saddowns:

[rossmum]

people kill people

guns can't pull their own triggers

[TeeKup]

Unless they're mounted on a self-determining automated combat platform.

....a robot.

In all seriousness though, I pretty much agree with everything Ross has said.

[DarkHalo003]

My feelings on guns:

They're fun, but they kill people. :saddowns:
This, but I agree with Rossmum that people are far more dangerous than the weapon itself. I wasn't trying to sound like it was all of the guns fault, but it makes murder and other crimes at least 10x easier to commit than say if you had a knife or bludgeon, where you'd have to get extremely close to do anything.

[Dwood]

If I was determined enough, I could easily take out 30 people with a machete deliberately.

[DarkHalo003]

If I was determined enough, I could easily take out 30 people with a machete deliberately.
And I guarantee any person trying to reach such a goal would accomplish it 10x faster with a silenced Uzi (not being specific here with weapon properness). The thing is, someone who whips out a machete is seen before the slashing begins (if they're facing the perpetrator and aren't braindead). At that point, you could run or block (by grabbing the wrist or something), but with a gun you have a second to realize your dead, say a prayer while you're dying, and that's it. I mean, if you saw someone with a gun or machete, you'd obviously be able to think of SOMETHING to do if the guy ran at you with the machete. With the person having a gun, it's kind of a one sided battle (under the worst circumstances).

[rossmum]

That's assuming the person with the gun is actually a good shot and also pretty quick about it. It's also assuming they use something with a bit of punch. Your average mass shooter tends to use pistols, AR-15 variants (Washington sniper), or some other fairly cheap, fairly easy to obtain weapon. They generally wound a lot more people than they kill. If you had someone with godlike shooting skills and an M14 or something, you'd see the ratio even out a little, but you probably wouldn't see it go the other way. The simple reality of it is that most nutters with guns are either in a hurry, in a bad position to avoid being spotted, or simply don't know what they're doing; that adds up to a lot of near-misses and wounding hits. Shit, even what most people regard as fatal shots can be survived if medical assistance arrives soon enough - you'd be amazed at what the human body can take. I've seen some photos of guys (can't tell you who) investigating (possibly undercover, but maybe just in close proximity) in some fairly tense environment (can't tell you where, but probably not where you're thinking anyway) who'd been gone at hardcore with machetes, Stanley knives, zip guns, the lot. You might be carrying your intestines back to the hospital in your arms, but there's nothing to stop you from making a full recovery. In fact, as long as they haven't been too badly damaged and you keep them clean and avoid infection, you could have half your guts just chilling outside your body and nothing bad would come of it (at least, not right away - and no, I'm not suggesting you try this).

[PenGuin1362]

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. Criminals don't use legally purchased guns to commit murder. When law abiding citizens can't defend themselves, crimes will increase. See: California, when their restrictions on firearms tightened in the late 90's firearm related deaths per year increased by several hundred and continued to increase. Magazine restrictions, barrel restrictions, flash hider restrictions on "assault rifles", won't stop a criminal from using a PISTOL to kill someone. Ignoring them and yelling GUNS R BAD will not make them go away, safety an proper use education is key to reducing the risk of accidents. Guns will NEVER cease to exist, and as long as they're out there and in the hands of those who cause harm, don't take mine away or so help me god, you'll be next.

It goes without saying, you can have my gun, when you fucking pry it from my dead, lifeless fingers.

[rossmum]

Oh, by the way:

You can make a zip gun from shit you would have lying around and/or would have no trouble finding at a hardware store (http://vimeo.com/10857758). Even in the literally impossible event that you can completely eliminate proper guns from existence, it's not hard for someone to build their own, ranging from something like this to something more elaborate (in the case of those with ready access to machining equipment, possibly a commercial-quality gun). What now, call for a ban on basic construction supplies?

[Dwood]

I could make a gun out of some piping, 2x4, match heads, and a thing of metal.

[ICEE]

and the fact is, even if you couldn't make a gun, you could use a 2x4 as a pretty efficient weapon.

[Warsaw]

And the piping, and the thing of metal, and the tools you'll use to work all of those materials into a gun. In the end, it would be more cost effective and easier to beat your target to death with the 2x4 than to fashion a primitive musket out of those resources.

[Dwood]

And the piping, and the thing of metal, and the tools you'll use to work all of those materials into a gun. In the end, it would be more cost effective and easier to beat your target to death with the 2x4 than to fashion a primitive musket out of those resources.

When I want to make a better get away and have less evidence, I'll make a gun. edit: Then take it apart, burn the 2x4 in a firepit, put the piping back where it was supposed to go, and throw away the dead match heads.

[DarkHalo003]

and the fact is, even if you couldn't make a gun, you could use a 2x4 as a pretty efficient weapon.
Heh.

Also, I'm not talking about banning guns. I'm just questioning and making debate over the weapons themselves. This is a debate forum right? In all honesty, I'd be a bit scared if they WERE banned.

[Warsaw]

When I want to make a better get away and have less evidence, I'll make a gun. edit: Then take it apart, burn the 2x4 in a firepit, put the piping back where it was supposed to go, and throw away the dead match heads.

You could just as easy beat the guy with the 2x4 and then burn it. The gun will leave more evidence because you aren't really going to waste time trying to retrieve the projectile, are you? The piping will also have residue left over in the barrel, and the police can ask around about some guy who was buying ingredients to make gunpowder recently or someone who just up and bought already-made gunpowder.

[Dwood]

What about a guy that used match heads in his gun? That's not nearly traceable enough.

[Warsaw]

Did you just disregard the rest of what I said? You're still wasting effort on making the gun when a 2x4 is more easily disposed of and just as effective. Oh, and there's the projectile.

[sleepy1212]

neither of you are ninjas so put the 2x4 down.

besides, someone with a gun would probably shoot you, self defense bros...one of the reasons we need guns.

[Warsaw]

Well, that's already been stated. We're just arguing the folly of banning guns because they are weapons since just about anything is a weapon and in fact can be used as such more readily than building a gun.

[Dwood]

Did you just disregard the rest of what I said? You're still wasting effort on making the gun when a 2x4 is more easily disposed of and just as effective. Oh, and there's the projectile.

If it's a home-made weapon you could put anything in the thing as the projectile you want... And any retard would know that when loading a gun for crime, don't let your fingers get on anything in the environment or things that would get left at the scene.

[Warsaw]

Ugh...I give up. You are still completely missing the point.

[rossmum]

Hi let's move away from debating how best to hypothetically murder someone with a zip gun and back to gun control thanks

well, cya

[Dwood]

Hi let's move away from debating how best to hypothetically murder someone with a zip gun and back to gun control thanks

well, cya

The debate is done, as all points that could be argued have been, and if there were a winner in this thread, it would be the PRO gun RIGHTS people.

[rossmum]

I dunno about done; I can guarantee some misinformed sod will come in here at some point and start arguing, so I'll leave it open. People need to actually put some proper, objective thought into things before they decicde they're evil and should be banned, but too often they haven't actually worked out yet that the media: a) don't know shit about guns and b) have a vested interest in scaring the shit out of people whenever the issue arises.

I've got myself 100rds of .303 and I'm going to blow through some of it later. Our gun laws may blow, but shit, at least I can still enjoy that. In the meantime, I'd like to suggest everyone here who sees sense to get writing to your local government and engage them on the issue of gun legislation. Even in the more gun-friendly US states, you guys have some really dumb, arbitrary gun laws; it's not just us who need to change things.

[sleepy1212]

min $50,000 fine for having an automatic in PA, plus mandatory jail time. I think that should go down as in, completely gone. Luckily there are only a few other restrictions like magazine sizes, barrel lengths, etc... which are still all arbitrary. Which is why I joined the NRA. while I don't agree with all their politics outside of gun legislation I still think everyone in the States who wants to uphold their right to bear arms should join. it's only 25 bucks anyway.

[rossmum]

Funny you should bring that up; the exact same point was made in a TFR thread a few days ago. On the one hand, everyone in TFR is an avid shooter (or about to be), so supporting the strongest lobby for gun rights appeals to them. On the other, the NRA apparently has quite a reputation for batshit insane guys being in high places and they had Sarah Palin as a guest speaker at some event or other. It's a real shame that people can't seem to separate guns from the red/blue mentality, because ironically enough, I'd wager a good 90% of American TFR posters are lifetime Dems voters and get really annoyed that the people most vocal about gun rights are also the ones who violently oppose so many of the things we support. Shit, they ran a TFR political survey at some point in the recent past and the joke goes that we pull left of the Dalai Lama.

Currently fondling my No.4 as I post :snafubar: Friend of mine is modelling one and wants some better refs, so I'm going to take a metric shit-ton of photos and get some footage of cycling empties through it too. I'd actually shoot it, but it's pissing down outside and the weather shows no sign of clearing :smith:

[sleepy1212]

Why would they be lifetime democrats when no democrat can get elected - at least in the states - without being anti-gun? It's the same problem conservatives have. Can't get a pro-gun representative unless that person also kisses bible thumper ass.

The NRA supports the people they do because those people support the 2nd Amendment. And then there's Ted Nugent...ftw.

[rossmum]

Because on every other piece of policy, that's the way they vote. Shit, I do love guns but there are some things which I wouldn't tolerate just to have less restrictive laws. That said, things need to change, and they need to do it soon.

[PenGuin1362]

In NH I found out you don't need a license to own an automatic weapon, just have to pay like a $200 tax and fill out some form

[sleepy1212]

2nd Amendment in the SC, 6-28-10 (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-court-guns-20100629,0,7786166.story)

5-4? you gotta be shitting me.

Also
Kagan is an asshat (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGFkY2E5Zjg1OTFmYjMwODY1ODhlNDVkNTQ0OTdhOTI=)

[Dwood]

2nd Amendment in the SC, 6-28-10 (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-court-guns-20100629,0,7786166.story)

5-4? you gotta be shitting me.

Also
Kagan is an asshat (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGFkY2E5Zjg1OTFmYjMwODY1ODhlNDVkNTQ0OTdhOTI=)

Honestly now. 5-4? At this point the Supreme Court justices that decided against it are making up provisions that aren't there. The entire Bill of Rights should apply to everyone- States, Federal laws, everything! Makes me upset that our own Supreme Court would decide that way.

[rossmum]

Hey, a slim victory is still a victory.

[Dwood]

Hey, a slim victory is still a victory.

Only until we replace someone who voted for the victory.

[Cojafoji]

Simultaneously banning handguns in every state of the union would plunge the country into civil war.

Not even joking.

[Dwood]

Yeah it would.

[Spartan094]

Why would you ban guns, the only reason why America is here is because we fought with guns to have freedom and then there's people bashing about guns to make it illegal, the 2nd amendment protects us to own guns and this is complete bullshit. It doesn't stop the gangs and such, hurts the law-biding citizens mostly.

In Chicago awhile back they banned you from owning a gun which trampled all over your rights to own guns. But the Supreme Court voids it 2 days ago because of the 5-4.

Ugh and I agree with Cojafoji.

[Cojafoji]

The only reason why the United States of America is here is because of the early reliance on hunting and trapping as a way of life. That, coupled with the fact that an armed populace is a strong deterrent to tyranny imposed by a corrupt legislature.

Two things there. Not one. Two.

Also, guns do not kill people, people kill people. If you want to decrease gun related violence, or violence in general, you need to increase funding to education and after school activities to keep kids out of gangs. Chicago was merely treating a symptom, and not the cause. Combine the new funding for after school activity and education with the regulation and decriminalization of narcotics, and I think you'll find that violence, gun related or otherwise, will decrease sharply.

[rossmum]

There have been two shootings in Newcastle recently (as in, within a week of each other). The first was a neighbourhood dispute, some guy shot and killed two brothers. The second was a young guy in his car with some mates who got out to have a go at some tools who threw a crowbar at him. They interviewed some neighbours and of course, one of them is going to move to another area because "it's scary to think that people can have guns here". Welp, have fun wherever you go. Western Sydney is a gang-ridden shithole, the city itself is little better, and anywhere out in the country it's nearly a sure bet that every person within several miles will have guns. Way to understand the root cause of the problem, random ignorant woman.

[Dwood]

-RU_6t6Anro

Take a look at this video, on the interviews before Congress, prospective Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.

[TVTyrant]

yeah for sure he was just fucking nuts. I think that's a big problem now too is that we don't have a social program to help the insane/mentally troubled. I know in Oregon they just shut down our last "state hospital". My Aunt has Schizophrenia, and her siblings are the ones who have had to foot the bill for her meds and living. In the 80s we cut those plans, and alot of shit has gone down since then. The Dimebag Darrell shooting, John Lennon, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and now this.
Our other problem is out lack of gun control. No I'm not saying we shouldn't have guns. I love my 12 gauge, my .30-06, my semi auto rifles, and slobber over 9mms and 45s all the time. But we have got to do something about fucking crazies getting their hands on these things.

[Dwood]

Our other problem is out lack of gun control. No I'm not saying we shouldn't have guns. I love my 12 gauge, my .30-06, my semi auto rifles, and slobber over 9mms and 45s all the time. But we have got to do something about fucking crazies getting their hands on these things.

Let people carry guns in public. Crazies fixed.

[Warsaw]

^ Basically. Armed society is safe society, because the first person to pull a gun for the wrong reasons gets fifty guns pointed at him.

[TVTyrant]

We tried that. Ever watch Boyz in the Hood? In the early 90s everyone had guns in south central LA. Guess what? The place was fucking crazy. Normally I would agree. Where I live a ton of people pack and its not a big deal. But in the city? Forget about it. People are just too irrational for that shit.

[Bodzilla]

^ Basically. Armed society is safe society, because the first person to pull a gun for the wrong reasons gets fifty guns pointed at him.
untill got mine fuck you mentality sinks in.

[Warsaw]

Not seeing what that has to do with it. Most people are morally upright enough to pull a gun on a robber, rapist, kidnapper, etc. I mean, don't let everybody have automatics, that would be a terrible idea (we'd have chaos and anarchy), but I don't see what's wrong with allowing anybody to own a handgun.

TVTyrant: that's because in the city guns are extra restricted in the first place, so when somebody sees a real one they go "OH MY GAWD HE'S GOT A GUN!" Personally, if schools were required to teach a course on firearms (I mean, since it's our second right to own arms, why not?), you would solve a lot of the gun problems. Education is golden.

[annihilation]

What would having schools teach students about guns solve?

[Warsaw]

People will be more familiar with them and therefore won't panic when they see them. People will know how to use them properly, so you get less accidents. Teaching the legal code on firearms will also let people know how they are regulated and what happesn if you commit crimes involving firearms (or any weapon in general), dissuading people from wanting to do such a thing for fear of the consequences.

I'm actually surprised we don't have anything in schools teaching us about firearms, considering we go in depth on every other right and amendment ever made to the constitution. Coincidence? No.

[TVTyrant]

Schools don't have shit to do with it. It should be the parents responsibility just like its been for 300 years. From the colonial days it was the job of the father to teach kid about guns and how to shoot. Maybe in the inner city, but I still believe that that tradition is important.

[jcap]

Let people carry guns in public. Crazies fixed.
You could also end up with more "crazies" who may appear to be rational, but don't actually think rationally when they snap. I'm not just talking about medically diagnosed people here, but rather any random person who may throw a temper. If they aren't able to keep their cool, the last thing ANYONE needs in this scenario is a gun. If he has a gun he wouldn't have otherwise been carrying, now he is a bigger threat than without one. If he's pointing a gun around shouting but isn't pulling the trigger, someone might even prematurely pull the trigger, killing him.

Just because you give someone an education on gun control doesn't mean they are going to always remember and follow it. Hell, when someone's mad, they aren't even thinking 100% about their actions and consequences to begin with. Getting involved could cause more trouble.

Now let's say you have a scenario like the one in Arizona, where this maniac actually made it his goal to do this shooting. It was planned beforehand. He knew he would be putting his life at risk, but he did it anyway. If the maniac manages to get a few shots off, his goal is accomplished. If everyone in the audience was armed, it wouldn't have made a hill of beans difference. In fact, as everyone is pulling out their guns and looking around for the shooter, who's to say someone wouldn't have killed the wrong person?

It's hardly "fixed."

PS this isn't a gun control thread. I can split it if you request.

[Corndogman]

Schools don't have shit to do with it. It should be the parents responsibility just like its been for 300 years. From the colonial days it was the job of the father to teach kid about guns and how to shoot. Maybe in the inner city, but I still believe that that tradition is important.

While I agree with you, that's obviously not working now a days, parents aren't caring anymore. Schools are the next best unit to take responsibility.

Education is the key to solving everything, imo. Wish people would realize that.

[=sw=warlord]

^ Basically. Armed society is safe society, because the first person to pull a gun for the wrong reasons gets fifty guns pointed at him.
Yo.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/28/gun-lobby-children-us)

[TVTyrant]

Thats just people being not being fucking responsible for their shit. Honestly, the story about the kid was more the Dad's fault than the guns. When I was eight I had a .22 LR and there was no problem. It hung on my wall, I even had access to shells and shit. But to give a child with a learning disability a gun? WTF was that guy thinking? Bunch of damn un-responsible people are going to ruin a good thing for the rest of us, I'll tell you what. If theres one thing I truly believe in its that ALL un owners should have to take hunters safety courses. It is the only way to teach kids about guns in a responsible controlled manner by other gun owners. However the part about single parents made me sad too, since it shows whats going on in America today with families. Some parts of this country are just fucking sorry as shit.

Like I said about an armed society, just read up on gang land South Central LA in the 80s and early 90s. When everyone has a gun they're willing to use the place becomes crazy, not safer. Responsible gun ownership people!

[Warsaw]

Shit, I live 30 minutes from the NRA headquarters. I can take any class I want. It's awesome.

[Bodzilla]

you parents let you have a gun, hanging on your wall, and you had access to the shells and bullets for it?

at age 8?



What
the
fuck.

[TVTyrant]

Yeah it was just a .22 man. And it was pretty high. Way out of my reach, even with a chair. It wasn't like right there or nothing man.

Shells and mags were in the garage. They werent out of reach.

[Bodzilla]

lets be honest. if you really wanted it, you could of got it yeah?

[TVTyrant]

Yeah probably. But why would I have? It was just neat to have on my wall and all the other kiddies thought it was badass. It really wasn't that big of a deal man. My parents trusted me, and I did the right thing to earn their trust by not fucking with it. Had my parents not trusted me, they wouldn't have let me have it there. And the way it was restrained was pretty restrictive. It would have been difficult seeing as how the hanger were solidly looped not loose.

E:Anyway aren't we kind of off topic? Talking about guns in the trusted cyber space identity initiative thread and leaning towards my folks ability to properly parent is just a little bit off of the proper discussion path.

[Warsaw]

Bod, it's all about how the parents raise the child. If they are the typical parents who give in to their child's whims and doesn't set ground rules, shit will happen. If they are taught to respect the fact that guns are tools that are intended to wound or kill a target, everything will be peachy. If anything, the kid will be afraid of the gun until the very first time he fires it at the range or on a hunting trip.

[TVTyrant]

I'd fired the gun that Christmas when I got it. I remember getting yelled at pretty good because I accidentally was holding it wrong and the barrel was pointed at someone else. I respected the shit out of my Dad and out of the gun. I totally understood just how dangerous it was.

BTW we're still really off-topic.

[Warsaw]

Eh. Threads evolve. We're more discussing the ramifications of parental control and education. The topic of gun regulation just happens to be our springboard.

[Bodzilla]

Kids are emotional, and when it comes to guns and handling you should be cold, calculating and educated.

It's great to teach your kid how to use them. However Giving them one AND having access to it is down right absurd. These shootings where you guys label the parents as bad because they havnt taught their kid proper gun safety and the kid shoots someone or something.... Happens because of the exact situation tvtyrant was in.

It's a stupid, ignorant and goddam dangerous thing to have a child have access to that at a whim.

[TVTyrant]

In most situations yes. But my parents trusted me enough to let me have the firearm in my room, as long as it was in a way that I couldnt truly access it.
http://www.atlantictactical.com/mmCATALOG/Images/els-285-shotgun-mount.jpg

I dont have the rack with me because Im living in a college dorm, but this is the design it had with the trigger and stock sealed in a manner so I couldn't actually access it.

[Dwood]

What would having schools teach students about guns solve?

What does having schools teach students about sex solve?

Editx1:

I'd fired the gun that Christmas when I got it. I remember getting yelled at pretty good because I accidentally was holding it wrong and the barrel was pointed at someone else. I respected the out of my Dad and out of the gun. I totally understood just how dangerous it was.


In a society where people are allowed to own guns (how it should be) all kids and adults should know about firearm safety. In fact, I agree with Warsaw on this point, that kids should be taught how to handle a gun in school. We shouldn't ban them, and we shouldn't teach kids to fear them, either.

Editx2: I don't mean that kids should be carrying weapons in school, I don't trust them with weapons any more than you do, but they should know a bit about the different types of guns, how to recognize them, as well as what the safe aiming area for a weapon is.

Editx1:
They should respect the weapon. I mean in middle school (in Texas of all places) I wasn't allowed to draw guns, or any likeness of any weapon of any kind in Art class. If kids are taught not to draw or make anything that even looks like a weapon, what are they being taught? To FEAR a weapon. not RESPECT it.


Kids are emotional, and when it comes to guns and handling you should be cold, calculating and educated.

It's great to teach your kid how to use them. However Giving them one AND having access to it is down right absurd. These shootings where you guys label the parents as bad because they havnt taught their kid proper gun safety and the kid shoots someone or something.... Happens because of the exact situation tvtyrant was in.

It's a stupid, ignorant and goddam dangerous thing to have a child have access to that at a whim.

Then it must have be pretty absurd for you if I told you that my little brother has constant access to a .22 (he won at one of those banquet things) and if he wanted to, he could have fairly easy access to the shells ("Hey Dad I want to shoot my .22"). Did I mention he turned 8 last December? Oh, and the only problem we'd had with him was shooting the neighbor's chicken with a bb gun, which just made us laugh... after getting angry at him for doing it.

It's only stupid and ignorant to you, who's not been around guns that much. To him, as well as us, since I was little i've had the idea of respect towards weapons. To my brother who was born to my Dad and step-mom, it's no big deal to be around weapons... He doesn't just walk out and shoot when he wants to like a maniac- They've drilled it into his head how to handle a gun properly and what to do with it, as well as told him the necessity of having adult supervision when he wanted to use it.

Don't get me wrong, weapons aren't just lying around the house, we have about 2 safes for keeping the other ones locked up nice n' tight... It's just not _that_ big of a deal if you drill it into a child's head how to act with weapons.


Editx4:



Now let's say you have a scenario like the one in Arizona, where this maniac actually made it his goal to do this shooting. It was planned beforehand. He knew he would be putting his life at risk, but he did it anyway. If the maniac manages to get a few shots off, his goal is accomplished. If everyone in the audience was armed, it wouldn't have made a hill of beans difference. In fact, as everyone is pulling out their guns and looking around for the shooter, who's to say someone wouldn't have killed the wrong person?

It's hardly "fixed."


First off: you don't know if it would have made any difference. In fact, he probably knew no one would have a gun except the cops so he didn't even bother thinking twice about the issue.

And second, things like the Virginia Tech shooting, if even 1 out of every 50 people at the school had some effective means of defending themselves from the guy, would he have been able to go on shooting for so long? the only plausible answer to that is either "We don't know." or "It's statistics, so if he had passed two hundred people that day, 4 of them would have had a gun and been able to at least attempt at defending themselves" (i'll bet he passed at least that many if not more)

As to the question of someone hitting the wrong person- most people wouldn't carry weapons around, just a few people tbh- I reckon it was the same way, way back when it was common to see pistols and stuff in public- and those people, I believe, wouldn't be the stereotypical "trigger happy" idiots you see on tv.



PS this isn't a gun control thread. I can split it if you request.


Yes, a thread split will probably be a good idea even though the topic still relates.

[sleepy1212]

When I was 5 a friend and I shot holes in his dad's boat with his Derringer. It was in the man's dresser. We were trying to kill bees. Children should not have easy access to guns but they should be educated about them responsibly.

A few years later I learned to shoot a revolver, 12 ga, 410, and a .22 rifle at a range. I never had access to these guns at any other time and, with the exception of that Derringer, neither did any of my friends even though all of our dads owned them. We all went hunting with our dads and were never allowed to carry until we were old enough to legally carry. We had a lot of fun and we learned how to hunt and handle firearms.

Now I'm a member of the NRA, own a few hunting guns, and hunt every year. I also read a lot of hunting magazines and there are many articles about kids and passing on the tradition of shooting sports. According to the authors my experience is not uncommon and, in many cases, prescribed. I agree.

Also, one of the magazines I regularly read is an NRA publication called American Hunter which features a section in every issue called "Armed Citizen" (http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp) that retells how a gun owners defend themselves from criminals. There's usually around 10 of these stories on the page usually taken from police reports and newspapers. It's truly amazing what these people have defended themselves against including swords and jars of acid to a story in last month's issue about a guy who tried to steal a car from a gas pump that still had the family's 5 year old daughter strapped in her car seat. Point is, for every anecdote about someone killed by guns, there's many more about someone who would have been killed if not for guns.

[Ifafudafi]

The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace


GUNS GUNS GUNS GUN CONTROL OMG GUNS

:ehhh:

E: oh look jcap's merged it into the old gun thread

[Cortexian]

Allow any citizen that wants to carry to take an extremely military-level course on gun knowledge, safety, use, etc. And I mean a serious course like some Magpul Dynamics shit after basic weapon safety and handling is covered. Basically if you want to carry, you go through boot camp and all the actual weapons training military and LE get for handguns. If you fail, you don't get to carry. And they need to make it a legit fucking course so idiots don't just get passed along.

Then make them re-qualify with a written and practical shooting challenge bi-annually.

Where is the money going to come from to make a program like this? Charge the people that want to get their carry licenses a yearly fee as well as the range fees for the bi-annual tests. This way you actually need to work and practice to keep your carry permit.

[sleepy1212]

I like the idea of every gun-owner having been well trained but that sounds like a horrible idea. Wouldn't it discourage participation while encouraging illegal carrying? To me it sounds a little like military fetishism when a simple range test would suffice. Of course that ignores one of the core principles of gun rights which is to limit government involvement. A state-sponsored test would ultimately become a form of regulation and record keeping that, depending on which party is in charge, could easily turn into a gun control fiasco. There is a reason why some states are "open carry" and many others are "shall issue" states.

[Patrickssj6]

This is no solution anyway since the amendment in America states that you can own a gun and you cannot, and the majority of people don't want to, change the amendment.

[Dwood]

Lancer, that's really extreme....

[Patrickssj6]

Lancer, that's really extreme....
LOL that's nothing compared to what you have to do over here. Psychological tests etc.

[paladin]

Allow any citizen that wants to carry to take an extremely military-level course on gun knowledge, safety, use, etc. And I mean a serious course like some Magpul Dynamics shit after basic weapon safety and handling is covered. Basically if you want to carry, you go through boot camp and all the actual weapons training military and LE get for handguns. If you fail, you don't get to carry. And they need to make it a legit fucking course so idiots don't just get passed along.

Then make them re-qualify with a written and practical shooting challenge bi-annually.

Where is the money going to come from to make a program like this? Charge the people that want to get their carry licenses a yearly fee as well as the range fees for the bi-annual tests. This way you actually need to work and practice to keep your carry permit.

Fuck that. My background check and $60 was enough. And thats just to conceal. You shouldn't have to do shit to exercise your rights. Its like saying, you can speak, but only after you pass a literature, vocabulary, and grammar test.

there have been guns in my house since the day I was born and there will be until the day I die.

[sleepy1212]

You shouldn't have to do shit to exercise your rights. Its like saying, you can speak, but only after you pass a literature, vocabulary, and grammar test.

dumbass, free speech doesn't kill people...except in other threads.

[Pooky]

dumbass, free speech doesn't kill people...except in other threads.

My friend here would like to have a word with you.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6389/adolfhitler1933n.jpg

Speech can kill people much more effectively than guns can, when misused. And that's exactly the point. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[Patrickssj6]

What a totally stupid post you got there.

[Warsaw]

Allow any citizen that wants to carry to take an extremely military-level course on gun knowledge, safety, use, etc. And I mean a serious course like some Magpul Dynamics shit after basic weapon safety and handling is covered. Basically if you want to carry, you go through boot camp and all the actual weapons training military and LE get for handguns. If you fail, you don't get to carry. And they need to make it a legit fucking course so idiots don't just get passed along.

Then make them re-qualify with a written and practical shooting challenge bi-annually.

Where is the money going to come from to make a program like this? Charge the people that want to get their carry licenses a yearly fee as well as the range fees for the bi-annual tests. This way you actually need to work and practice to keep your carry permit.

The worst part about this post is that it isn't a trollpost. You don't NEED military-level training to safely handle a weapon. And you already do have to renew licenses. Basically, what sleepy1212 said.

Patrickssj6, that's because Post-Nazi Germany is pansy about everything now. They can't make up their minds about anything. Christ, you can't even play videogames with blood in them! Oh no, there is low-resolution, pixelated gore on my screen! Also, what do you mean solution? We don't need a solution. We need government to mostly GTFO and let economics be the power that determines who does and doesn't get guns. And Pooky is right. Guns don't kill people. The person pulling the trigger, likely because of something that was said, is the one that kills. A gun is a tool and completely inert without a mind and a body to use it.

[Patrickssj6]

The worst part about this post is that it isn't a trollpost. You don't NEED military-level training to safely handle a weapon. And you already do have to renew licenses. Basically, what sleepy1212 said.

Patrickssj6, that's because Post-Nazi Germany is pansy about everything now. They can't make up their minds about anything. Christ, you can't even play videogames with blood in them! Oh no, there is low-resolution, pixelated gore on my screen! Also, what do you mean solution? We don't need a solution. We need government to mostly GTFO and let economics be the power that determines who does and doesn't get guns. And Pooky is right. Guns don't kill people. The person pulling the trigger, likely because of something that was said, is the one that kills. A gun is a tool and completely inert without a mind and a body to use it.

Pansy? The only Pansy country about everything is America. Swear on television? Show nudity? We don't have problems with that except I think your country. No Blood / Gore? Are you referring to TF2 because all my games I bought in Germany have blood and gore in them (BioShock etc.). We are a lot more liberate than you are about things. CounterStrike Source and GTA4 are bestsellers over here.

I find it nice that you did not really finish your sentence. Yes a a toaster doesn't toast toast, the person who wants to toast a toast does. Doesn't remove the fact though that toasters are for toasting toast. Guns don't have any other purpose other than to kill or hurt a human being or an animal.

[TeeKup]

Seeing as how human being will tend to be irrational when pushed by desperation or outright mental instability weapons are a necessity; either the assaulting person is coming at you with a hatchet or another firearm. Fighting is and always will be part of our nature, when some lunatic looses it, the best case scenario is to have at least some rational people skilled enough with a firearm to defend themselves and everyone around them.

That's also where gun control comes in, I.E. the examples from the previous posts.

Pat you've shown and amazing amount of zealotry on this topic (including other political topics where anything American gets involved.) and to be honest I find it distasteful. America is NOT a shining example of a country, I realized and accepted this years ago, but I swear every time I read one of your posts, it's like you're wishing a bomb would be dropped on us or something. Seriously chill out.

[Patrickssj6]

Pat you've shown and amazing amount of zealotry on this topic (including other political topics where anything American gets involved.) and to be honest I find it distasteful. America is NOT a shining example of a country, I realized and accepted this years ago, but I swear every time I read one of your posts, it's like you're wishing a bomb would be dropped on us or something. Seriously chill out.

Why suddenly talking about being distasteful? Warsaw said my country was pansy, which is a bottomless argument so I replied nothing more. I cannot do anything about it if 99% of the forum members are American and Warsaw especially is a NRA supporter. If I would be a Nazi you wouldn't respect my point of view either.

[Warsaw]

I called it a pansy because it's your turn to get torn down. I already know and accept my nation's issues, but do you even realise that your country has its own problems, a repressed popular sense of pride being one of them? You completely misread me every time. I don't hate Germany. I hate the way it's taboo to love Germany because of one psychopathic fuck-up and that your government is so afraid of repeats that they disallow symbolism and firearms "just in case." It's a horrible position to take.

That said, I finished my sentence. Either you just fail at English or you want to put words into my mouth. Believe me, if I forgot something, there would be an edit. As for guns being only for wounding a living thing, well duh. But they also make great sport when shooting targets, same as a hammer (used for installing nails or steaks) is fun when playing Whack-a-Mole, a paint-ball marker (intended for marking trees for cutting) is fun for playing a radical form of tag, or a car (intended for transportation) is fun while racing. Your point is invalid.

As for the notion of the USA being conservative: it depends on where you are. We are roughly fifty times the size of Germany. In one Germany-sized area, we are just as liberal. In another, we can be conservative. Because we have both, our government has to cater to both. If we would serious the fuck up and say "to hell with State power" (like we should have when the idea became obsolete after the Civil War) and let parents be parents, all would be peachy. You have no argument here.

So yes, go back to longing for glory days long gone and stop trying to inject European ideas into a region where they just don't work. Actually, most of them don't even work in Europe, so you should just abolish them from your mind altogether. Guns are readily available here and if Americans have anything to say about it, it is going to stay that way.

[Patrickssj6]

I finished my sentence. Either you just fail at English or you want to put words into my mouth. Believe me, if I forgot something, there would be an edit. As for guns being only for wounding a living thing, well duh. But they also make great sport when shooting targets, same as a hammer (used for installing nails or steaks) is fun when playing Whack-a-Mole, a paint-ball marker (intended for marking trees for cutting) is fun for playing a radical form of tag, or a car (intended for transportation) is fun while racing. Your point is invalid.
My point being invalid? I think you just invalided your point even further.

Why do you want to remove nuclear weapons from other countries then?



I called it a pansy because it's your turn to get torn down. I already know and accept my nation's issues, but do you even realise that your country has its own problems, an repressed popular sense of pride being one of them?
Actually I am against the German government.

[TeeKup]

Why suddenly talking about being distasteful? Warsaw said my country was pansy, which is a bottomless argument so I replied nothing more. I cannot do anything about it if 99% of the forum members are American and Warsaw especially is a NRA supporter. If I would be a Nazi you wouldn't respect my point of view either.

I don't see the relevance of a NRA supporter and a Nazi but alright. Last time I checked NRA supporters didn't commit acts of genocide on the Jewish people.

EDIT:
Why do you want to remove nuclear weapons then? Yes they kill a lot of people but one could have it out of fun or just of the feeling of power.

That is a HORRIBLE example. Nuclear weapons (today anyway) are supposed to be deterrent of conflict because of how fucking terrifying and devastating they are. Anyone that detonates them out of "fun" should be arrested and locked into solitary confinement for the rest of their existence. The push to removed/destroy Nuclear weapons could be considered a want to release political tension and work towards a better sense of peace/working together with other nations; instead of walking into a delegation and everyone knowing you have 25K+ warheads, therein pressuring other delegates to side with or agree with you out of fear. Global unity and prosperity this does not make.

[Warsaw]

My point being invalid? I think you just invalided your point even further.

Why do you want to remove nuclear weapons then? Yes they kill a lot of people but one could have it out of fun or just of the feeling of power.

Your inability to comprehend a simple concept is shocking. The point was that there are many tools that are appropriated for sport. I didn't say that all tools should be appropriated for sport. That said, a firearm is also great in its intended role as an implement of home defense and as a deterrent against government tyranny.

As for Nazis, you could be a Nazi and I'd listen to your point of view. I don't really care what a person's background is unless they are trying to make me purchase something. If a person is pitching an argument, I will consider the case logically and as thoroughly as I can. If something a Nazi is saying makes sense, then it does. If I have a counterpoint that he had not considered, I will then make it known. If it comes to pass that he is ultimately right, then we come to an agreement. Simple.

[Patrickssj6]

I don't see the relevance of a NRA supporter and a Nazi but alright. Last time I checked NRA supporters didn't commit acts of genocide on the Jewish people.
No where did I say that I was comparing them to one another just wanted to make it blunt obvious that you hate so much on the Nazis and I do on the NRA. Let alone the fact that the neo Hitler party has very similar political programs.


Your inability to comprehend a simple concept is shocking. The point was that there are many tools that are appropriated for sport. I didn't say that all tools should be appropriated for sport. That said, a firearm is also great in its intended role as an implement of home defense and as a deterrent against government tyranny.

I understand you perfectly fine but you are arguing on the verge of nothingness just like Christians. I can tell you about what happens after death because it is not debatable just like we can talk about the purpose of a gun being a tool for defense.

The question here is, when has a tool a greater purpose? And to me guns don't have a greater purpose. I, and probably many of you, were never in need of a gun to defend against government tyranny.

[=sw=warlord]

We don't need a solution. We need government to mostly GTFO and let economics be the power that determines who does and doesn't get guns. And Pooky is right. Guns don't kill people. The person pulling the trigger, likely because of something that was said, is the one that kills. A gun is a tool and completely inert without a mind and a body to use it.
Are you suggesting that letting psychopathic homicidal lunatics to bear guns because it's their right is the correct way to go about things?
Let's nail this on the head.
The right to bear arms, this right assumes that you are mentally competent and psychologically sane in your stowing and usage of said fire arm.
But at the same time you are suggesting that there should be no blockage what so ever to those who would otherwise be considered for a lack of a better term, Insane.
I agree with Freelancer, basic health and safety training as well as psychological background checks should be performed when handing passes for the ownership of a firearm which could be used to inflict injury or fatality.
We have lessons and tests for learning to drive, why should the same be different for guns just because it's a right?:ugh:

[Warsaw]

You missed the word "mostly." The only bits that should remain in there are the bits saying that felons and the clinically insane should not be allowed access to firearms, as well as anything related to that. To that end, the background checks have to remain in-place as well. What makes this hard is that we have States that want to do things their way. If it were all Federally mandated, then it would be easy. By the same token, it would be just as easy for them to take it all away. It's a double-edged sword.



I understand you perfectly fine but you are arguing on the verge of nothingness just like Christians. I can tell you about what happens after death because it is not debatable just like we can talk about the purpose of a gun being a tool for defense.

The question here is, when has a tool a greater purpose? And to me guns don't have a greater purpose. I, and probably many of you, were never in need of a gun to defend against government tyranny.

1. So you are saying racing a car or playing Whack-a-Mole is a greater purpose than transporting your person or driving nails, respectively? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the only one arguing in circles here is you. Stop. Analyze and compare your sentences to mine, please, for the love of humanity.

2. You don't have to defend against government tyranny, yet. It's not a matter of "if", but "when." All governments turn to shit over time, it's the laws of thermodynamics. It could be two years, it could be a thousand years, you don't know. Eventually someone (or some people) screws up somewhere and you have revolution and civil war on your hands. Being a European, you should already know that better than me with your greater length of history.

[TeeKup]

No where did I say that I was comparing them to one another just wanted to make it blunt obvious that you hate so much on the Nazis and I do on the NRA. Let alone the fact that the neo Hitler party has very similar political programs.

You were trying to prove a point about a singular person who greatly disagrees with a certain political faction, I.E. you and the NRA. I already understood that from your recent posting. So when you made me the singular person who greatly disagrees with the Nazi's, you're just exaggerating the situation beyond what I'd consider rational. People disagreed with the Nazis' because they were genocidal lunatics, people disagree with the NRA because they believe they give too much liberty with fire arms. Those are 2 entirely different fucking arguments.

If it's safety you're so concerned with, how about you talk with an actual NRA supporter in person, asking him/her what is it they do about gun safety. My uncle is an avid NRA member and he wouldn't let me touch a gun until I was 18. Even then he was considerably strict when he was teaching me. Americans and the NRA don't simply swing guns around like they're toys. A gun is a weapon and a tool with the capacity to do serious bodily harm, as such proper safety must be taken...which they do (at least all the people I've met do).

[Patrickssj6]

I'll rephrase my question again for you Warsaw:

Do you think that you will ever be in need of a gun to defend your home / defend against government tyranny?

Do you think every person should have the right to own a gun (except for your stated exceptions) just because it is law?4

@Teekup
I don't care about gun safety. More safety the better but you have to understand that I am complety against every citizen to have a right to own a firearm.

And this will be my last post in this topic. Because obviously we could debate on God as well with the same outcome.

[Warsaw]

@TeeKup: You bet your ass. I've never met an irresponsible NRA member. I myself am not a member (no income to pay the dues), but I still treat my firearms with proper respect.

At Patrick:

1. I don't know. That's exactly the point. I don't trust my government to do the right thing 100% of the time, and neither should you.

2. I already answered that in response to =sw=warlord's post. Go read it.

I'm not arguing at all like a zealot. You just aren't presenting any valid counterpoints. If you want to ragequit the debate just because you have failed to compile a compelling argument, that's your prerogative. You clearly are not even considering the merits of anything anyone else says. Yes, lunatics should not be allowed access, but should ALL of us be denied just because of a minority? Hell no. That is like a teacher punishing her entire class for one person talking.

[=sw=warlord]

You missed the word "mostly." The only bits that should remain in there are the bits saying that felons and the clinically insane should not be allowed access to firearms, as well as anything related to that. To that end, the background checks have to remain in-place as well. What makes this hard is that we have States that want to do things their way. If it were all Federally mandated, then it would be easy. By the same token, it would be just as easy for them to take it all away. It's a double-edged sword.
But if the laws regarding background checks were Federally mandated then the states would then but complain about having their sovereignty compromised.
That's also a double edged sword, this is where compromises on certain thing's are required.
Either mandate it that all states follow under federal law when concerning firearms or update the constitution to follow the needs of today and not dwell in the past.
When the constitution was created, there was nothing in terms of data communication as there is today, if the government were to try to enact tyranny the entire planet would know of it within 24 hours.

[TeeKup]

1. It doesn't matter if there is a need or not. The idea behind this argument is the same as the idea for a condom: It's better to have one and not need it, then need and not have one.

2. "Everyone owning a gun" is relevant to those who can/could pass a rigorous standardized firearms test that prove they are mentally capable of owning a firearm...like the previous posters have been saying. I'm also in agreement that a convicted felon should never be able to own a fire arm, no matter how much "progress" they've done in reintegrating into society.

[Patrickssj6]

^ You bet your ass. I've never met an irresponsible NRA member. I myself am not a member (no income to pay the dues), but I still treat my firearms with proper respect.

This sum up my picture perfectly :downs:

Good luck defending your threats I am out of this thread.

[Warsaw]

No, it doesn't. You, sir, have no integrity.


But if the laws regarding background checks were Federally mandated then the states would then but complain about having their sovereignty compromised.
That's also a double edged sword, this is where compromises on certain thing's are required.
Either mandate it that all states follow under federal law when concerning firearms or update the constitution to follow the needs of today and not dwell in the past.
When the constitution was created, there was nothing in terms of data communication as there is today, if the government were to try to enact tyranny the entire planet would know of it within 24 hours.

I know and I agree. That's where everything gets tangled. I feel that the idea of State sovereignty is obsolete and irrelevant, it's mostly just power plays now. Back when the Constitution was drafted, it made sense because those original colonies were independent. We have added 37 more states since then. The idea that the USA is made up of 50 largely autonomous, tiny nations is ridiculous. As for the tyranny bit, well, that depends. The new "Net Neutrality" laws in the US state that all "legal content" must be allowed to pass. What reading between the lines says that the government is allowed to block anything that is illegal. What's illegal? We don't know. As it were, that would be a very dynamic list of things. We could potentially end up with a Great Firewall similar to China in a worst-case scenario.

[TeeKup]

Cobby: I personally believe that the constitution needs to be amended and updated
Cobby: but no, logic be damned because traditions must stand no matter what
TeeKup: I do agree with that
TeeKup: not the traditions thing, updating and reorganizing
TeeKup: Laws made over 200 years ago do not represent laws today
TeeKup: because of changes in society, politics etc
Cobby: exactly
TeeKup: That's common fucking sense
Cobby: the main argument i have heard so far for keeping guns in citizens hands is government tyranny
Cobby: i can guarantee you that if the US of A government were to pull the blankets over everyone, the entire planet would know immediately
TeeKup: It isn't really tyranny
TeeKup: most people in office understand A LOT of people are stupid
TeeKup: so they want to control firearms for that purpose, they just don't want to organize proper eduaction and testing for the rational intelligent people
Cobby: the inteligent people are making the demented ones look smart because it's the inteligent ones throwing toys out the pram
TeeKup: That's true
TeeKup: overemphasizing the need for everyone to have guns because their pride has been "hurt"
TeeKup: The only firearms I own are Airsoft
Cobby: I don't know about you but when I physically see a gun in person, i feel physically sick because i realise the history behind its evolution
TeeKup: still I treat them as such, they're still not toys.
TeeKup: A weapon intended to kill a human being was it's origin to replace melee weaponry
TeeKup: it wasn't until afterwards did it also begin to be used for hunting
TeeKup: and sport
Cobby: precisely
TeeKup: Still
Cobby: and I've had quite a number of family deaths from natural causes so I understand quite clearly what effecta family or friends fatalty has on those around the victem
Cobby: victim(
TeeKup: A gun may have it's singular lethal purpose, but I can't let myself be bothered by what it is/was/will be. That's when i leave it up faith I guess in the indivduals competence.
Cobby: i can only imagine what it might be like to see someone perfectly fine one day only to bury them the next day
TeeKup: Further on from that will go onto opinions and personalitys imbedded into humans
TeeKup: and thats the impass
TeeKup: I've had to do that...
TeeKup: not a day
TeeKup: but a week
Cobby: that's the thing, i have little to no faith in humans as a species
TeeKup: Friend of mine died in a car accident in another state
TeeKup: I think you saw my thread about it months ago
Cobby: yeah i did
TeeKup: That's the impass, personal opinion deeply affected by other issues around the individual
Cobby: I had to help bury my grandmother after watching her for 18 months die from cancer, i saw her beliefs in her religion get stripped away from her like fibres of a rope
TeeKup: I don't hold against anyone for those opinions
Cobby: i can only imagine what it must have been like to bury somone after their such quick demise
TeeKup: you formed those out of your own experiences, something of which I have no right judging or trying to convince you otherwise
TeeKup: And like you said, that's where we try to form compromises
Cobby: yeah, I just personally dislike guns the most because of what they are, where they came from and their main purpose
Cobby: i feel that no one, no one at all should have the right to access a tool that can snuff a human life in such a quick and cruel way
TeeKup: Understandable I guess.


This is Warlord and I. I do this to try and exemplify the rationality and understanding we had, as well as the understanding of the idea of compromises on these hot issues.

[Dwood]

If you feel physically sick when you look at a gun or weapon you should realize that it's people that kill people. Not the guns.

If you look at a knife or sword, or anything military-like you should feel sick because of how many people in earth's history used them to kill each other.

You guys have mentioned many times the Constitution needs to be rewritten... But what about it exactly, needs to be changed? I've read through a lot of it, and it makes sense to me what's there...

What about the constitution needs to be rewritten? (Especially with respect to weapons)

[paladin]

This thread can be summed up with this picture:

http://image.odinseye.org/images/2ywd91c.gif

Also, you can take my guns, after you....

http://image.odinseye.org/images/sght.jpg

[=sw=warlord]

If you feel physically sick when you look at a gun or weapon you should realize that it's people that kill people. Not the guns.
I'm well aware of this, to think I'm not would be naivety on your part.
The problem is the Human race has been trying to destroy it self for as long as it has existed, laws do not that change that, legislations do not change that.
The history behind the gun has more blood on it than any other weapon in history and that includes the banned so called weapons of mass destruction.
To make matters worse, they're extremely easy to obtain.

If you look at a knife or sword, or anything military-like you should feel sick because of how many people in earth's history used them to kill each other.
A knife or sword can easily be countered, if someone were to run at you with a sword they would be out of breath by the time they reached you, a knife can easily be countered by obtaining the attackers wrist, twisting to a 45* angle and placing at the attackers back, you cannot counter a bullet flying at you from any distance which is moving at the speed of sound.
You claim more people holstering weapons would reduce the danger, this is somewhat akin to miners injecting water into a tectonic plate in the hope that more lubricant would reduce the number of extreme quakes by creating a number of smaller quakes.

You guys have mentioned many times the Constitution needs to be rewritten... But what about it exactly, needs to be changed? I've read through a lot of it, and it makes sense to me what's there...

The constitution was created during a time of strife and troubles, it was created when the states were truly their own nationality, the idea of a entire collection of nationalities bound by one constitution and yet capable of choose which clauses they use is archaic, unworkable and simply stupid.
Either give up sovereignty entirely as a state or quit playing possum and start acting like a actual collection of nations with your own laws entirely independent of each other.

The right to bear arms was during a time when the fear of government tyranny was a plausible issue and due to the then technology, information about changes in politics was slow so everyone was armed in case something did happen.
Today we have the Internet, GPRS, WAP, mobile telephones, PDA's which can link to wireless access points and various international SMS text services.
The idea that a government such as the USA's could over night lock down the entire nation and have no one notice is ludicrous.
what's more, if such a situation were to happen the entire planet would know within hours and would soon take some form of action.
China's censorship is no where near the same as what some believe it to be, it wasn't developed over night and the congress would not be able to enforce such a censorship in a short period of time due to the fact that China's lock down has been ongoing and built up since before the Digital age even began.

What about the constitution needs to be rewritten? (Especially with respect to weapons)
The common conception of right to bear arms is that arms directly correlate to Gun's, the term "Weapon" is as broad as it is old, Ironically Guns are in the minority in terms of just how many kinds of weapons there are, you have stabbing, slashing, explosive, crushing, dismembering, electrical, chemical, radiological and biological types.
The second amendment needs updating to not only reflect the current and plausible future social climate, I wonder who would be so coming as to claim that they should be allowed to stow and carry biological or radiological weapons purely because "it's their right" to bear arms?
As for paladin, It's not even worth my time trying to take you into some sense.

[Roostervier]

Warlord, you have made possibly the worst argument I have ever seen. Not everyone with a sword or knife has to come running at you from a distance nor do they have to attack you from the front. Guns take a good degree of marksmanship to hit anything passed 100 feet. Hand a gun to someone who has never fired one; they probably couldn't hit someone from 300m if they tried. Also, most military guns (talking about assault rifles and snipers) only have an effective range of 300m to 2 km, most on the lesser side of 300m to 700m, and those who are firing these weapons are highly trained individuals shooting to kill. Think about guns civilians can buy now--they are much less accurate and much less powerful. So much for bullets flying at you from any distance. God, what an ignorant statement. Besides, have you ever even been in a situation where someone was coming at you with a sword or a knife? Get attacked by someone with a knife or a sword without being armed and then tell me how easy it is to counter without any sort of formal training. The average person wouldn't know what to do or lockup out of fear and then get stabbed to death.

[TVTyrant]

Actually the majority of modern civilian rifles are vastly more powerful than general issue military firearms because of their intent to take game at a great distance. The standard 7.62 NATO cartridge (which has similar ballistics to a russian 7.62) will kick out a 150 grain bullet at about 2800 FPS. A .300 Winchester Magnum (a very popular firearm among hunters on the west side of the Mississippi) will launch the same bullet out at about 3300 FPS. Now the reason the military doesn't use this round as a general issue implement is because it kicks little small bodies too much (damn people who weigh less than 250, ruining it for the rest of us...). As far as 300m to 2km goes, the 2km thing is kind of subjective. An extremely well trained member of the military could certainly use a .50 BMG or .408 Cheytac chambered rifle and hit targets to that range. But 2km has never ben achieved as there are far too many actors. The science of ballistics is a very important one, and knowing what your talking about is really important to gun ownership.

Warlord, as far as your argument goes it is very solid. My main fault with it is this: if you were to put heavy restrictions on gun ownership, what happens to those guns that do not meet your description that are already out there? I say that in the event of a widespread ban on handguns/high cap rifles/ all semi-autos the black market will become too big for the government to handle. I already know OF (as in I do not know them personally nor would I EVER associate with these kind of people. Honestly they are bastards who shame good gun owners) who run Norinco products across the border from Canada so US buyers in Washington and Michigan can access Chinese products. Were we to ban firearms that are already widespread throughout the United States, a market for these kinds of firearms would develop. There are already lots of illegal firearms spread across urban areas in the US, ghettos being one of the biggest areas where they are in existence. I do not think banning semi-automatic firearms would help this country. My key point is the help part. How would these laws help the country? By causing NRA embers to go bat shit nuts and start riding around in trucks with their high cap rifles? It would just bring more insanity because of all the fear mongering that the far right and the media do already.

As far as reconstructing the constitution, I know that you are one of the people on this forum who is afraid of the government taking over our lives. If they decided to do that and take away all of the remaining states rights, would you trust them? I agree with your sentiments, but that is my big question. Were that the administrations plan (no matter who the president was), would you trust them?

Fake E: Let's have some respect for each other in this thread people. We don't need crazy shit fests.

[Dwood]

I'm well aware of this, to think I'm not would be naivety on your part.
The problem is the Human race has been trying to destroy it self for as long as it has existed, laws do not that change that, legislations do not change that.
The history behind the gun has more blood on it than any other weapon in history and that includes the banned so called weapons of mass destruction.
To make matters worse, they're extremely easy to obtain.

Okay? At this point, your argument fits in with my argument just as well. We have been killing each other for so long then I have reason to be armed with anything at all. It doesn't matter the tool, killings will still happen.


A knife or sword can easily be countered, if someone were to run at you with a sword they would be out of breath by the time they reached you, a knife can easily be countered by obtaining the attackers wrist, twisting to a 45* angle and placing at the attackers back, you cannot counter a bullet flying at you from any distance which is moving at the speed of sound.


Several immense problems with this statement- people with half a brain cell will not run at you with a sword- most people with the intent to kill way back when didn't. This is what the idea of "cloak and daggers" comes from.



You claim more people holstering weapons would reduce the danger, this is somewhat akin to miners injecting water into a tectonic plate in the hope that more lubricant would reduce the number of extreme quakes by creating a number of smaller quakes.


No, it's not. Not at all. Why? Because not everyone who holds a gun is a maniac. If you get that one point through your head, and I think you will be better off than ever.



The constitution was created during a time of strife and troubles, it was created when the states were truly their own nationality, the idea of a entire collection of nationalities bound by one constitution and yet capable of choose which clauses they use is archaic, unworkable and simply stupid.


Which was good.

...what? Do you even understand how the constitution came about?

1. Go read the Declaration of Independence. 2. Go read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine. (it's short so don't worry) 3. Go read (at least the "famous" ones) the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. 4. Go read the Constitution.




The right to bear arms was during a time when the fear of government tyranny was a plausible issue and due to the then technology, information about changes in politics was slow so everyone was armed in case something did happen.

Today we have the Internet, GPRS, WAP, mobile telephones, PDA's which can link to wireless access points and various international SMS text services.

The idea that a government such as the USA's could over night lock down the entire nation and have no one notice is ludicrous.


No. Just. No. The problem isn't with them locking the nation down "overnight" it's defending ones-self from any enemy that arises, even if it is the government. Doesn't mean an "over night" lock down my friend. It also doesn't even have to be the government. It can be idiots wielding swords trying to attack you/me/us we are defending ourselves from.

Read the Declaration of Independence and the papers called "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine.



what's more, if such a situation were to happen the entire planet would know within hours and would soon take some form of action.
China's censorship is no where near the same as what some believe it to be, it wasn't developed over night and the congress would not be able to enforce such a censorship in a short period of time due to the fact that China's lock down has been ongoing and built up since before the Digital age even began.


...Okay?



The common conception of right to bear arms is that arms directly correlate to Gun's, the term "Weapon" is as broad as it is old, Ironically Guns are in the minority in terms of just how many kinds of weapons there are, you have stabbing, slashing, explosive, crushing, dismembering, electrical, chemical, radiological and biological types.

The second amendment needs updating to not only reflect the current and plausible future social climate, I wonder who would be so coming as to claim that they should be allowed to stow and carry biological or radiological weapons purely because "it's their right" to bear arms?


...... Are you trying to say that it should be re-written to exclude all modern weapons whatsoever?

Sure people can own those weapons but guess what? They're expensive. And the only people in this world with the means to get them are the government//military. Oh, and the side case of groups like Hamas and Al-Qaeda. Heck, even the Anarchists haven't gotten their hands on them to unleash into the world.

[sleepy1212]

The second amendment needs updating to not only reflect the current and plausible future social climate, I wonder who would be so coming as to claim that they should be allowed to stow and carry biological or radiological weapons purely because "it's their right" to bear arms?

If it's wrong for the military to have them then it's wrong for the militia to have them. Otherwise we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to possess weapons in common use by the military for defense against said military.


The right to bear arms was during a time when the fear of government tyranny was a plausible issue and due to the then technology, information about changes in politics was slow so everyone was armed in case something did happen......if such a situation were to happen the entire planet would know within hours and would soon take some form of action.

"was plausible" as in "past tense" as in, since the invention of mass communication no nation has ever been under tyranny? And what's this "action" the entire planet is gonna take when you've obliterated states rights and handed all the power over to our corporate sponsors in the white house? A UN Sanction maybe? A sit-in? Or maybe, since nobody would have any guns in this fantasy, we'd just have mass riots and beatings and cities on fire burning to the ground while the national guard gases everyone just like all the "forms of action" that get taken in Europe when a government decides shit on everyone.

Or maybe, you arm all your citizens. Then, just the thought of the people getting riled up will keep politicians in line and no one will have to get shot or gassed or beat or burned.

[rossmum]

wow do they brainwash you british kids or something?

i miss the uk but seeing what it's becoming makes me glad i left it. any country that conditions its citizens into being irrational can fuck off.

anyway not gonna bother posting itt again because i can't be bothered wasting my time arguing with irrational people laters~

[Rentafence]

What is the point of this thread

No one is going to drop their beliefs and say the other side is right

[Cortexian]

My post on page 16 was aimed towards what Canada should do if they were to change our laws and allow civilians to carry.

Sorry but I wouldn't trust anyone in the USA with a carry license unless I knew them personally and knew they were proficient with it. Plus, your rights and amendments that allow you to bear arms have been in place for so long that it would be impossible to setup any kind of system to decrease the number of idiots with carry permits at this point. If something was implemented like I said today it would probably take at least 20 years for it to start effecting the majority of carry permit holders.

Basically, if Canada were to implement a carry system, I'd prefer it if anyone who applied basically had to enter into military service for at LEAST basic training. Yes, I basically want my country to have 14 weeks of mandatory military service for people that wish to carry.

[TVTyrant]

I don't know of any idiots with carry permits though. All the shit about guns in the US is usually illegal concealed carry.

[sleepy1212]

all the shit about guns in the US is about illegal firearms in the first place.
all the regulations, however, are aimed at law abiding citizens.

[Warsaw]

Freelancer, you don't generally need a permit to carry in the US. You usually need a permit to conceal what you are carrying. I can guarantee you that anyone who goes through the trouble of getting a concealed carry permit is just as, if not more, proficient with their weapon than your average soldier. Hell, the people ballsy enough to open carry in a society confused about firearms are also in the same camp. Take a chill-pill and lay off of the gung-ho military elitism there for a second. We civvies pack more firepower in our average handgun, let alone rifles and shotguns. We know what we're doing. It's the gun owner's ignorant buddy Joe getting ideas that you should be worried about.

[=sw=warlord]

wow do they brainwash you british kids or something?

i miss the uk but seeing what it's becoming makes me glad i left it. any country that conditions its citizens into being irrational can fuck off.

anyway not gonna bother posting itt again because i can't be bothered wasting my time arguing with irrational people laters~
So wanting to have some form of control over how easily the nutcases get their hands on lethal weapons is irrational?
Would you like a link to the recent Raoul Moat case up north who shot several police officers and civilians?
Get it through your skull that Firearms.Are.Not.Toys.

[Warsaw]

No they aren't. If you draw it on someone, you damn well better mean to kill with it or you should have your rights revoked. That said, this was in the UK? Were there any passers-by who had a gun on them who could have stopped that man's rampage earlier? No? Case. And. Point. The criminals will always find a way to obtain firearms just like hackers always find a way around device security.

[=sw=warlord]

No they aren't. If you draw it on someone, you damn well better mean to kill with it or you should have your rights revoked. That said, this was in the UK? Were there any passers-by who had a gun on them who could have stopped that man's rampage earlier? No? Case. And. Point. The criminals will always find a way to obtain firearms just like hackers always find a way around device security.
There were armed police as well as the SAS, the event ended in a suicide.
Way to not bother looking up what actually happened and just stereotype every gun related event.
The way this nations current culture is going I wouldn't trust a single person with a fire arm, the place is filled with fools who take their boredom out on each other in the form of fighting, alcohol and what ever else people manage to figure to do.

[Warsaw]

I'm talking about before the police were even in the picture. I know UK police are not generally armed, so there had to be quite some delay before the guns came out. I'm not stereotyping, I'm looking objectively. The problem is that YOU are stereotyping your own country and believe that ALL of your fellow countrymen are ignorant fucks incapable of handling a gun and that none would have any desire to do so. You sir are not the only age group in your country. There are much older people who remember when owning a gun in the UK was nothing out of the ordinary and know how to use one themselves. The USA has plenty of those same "fools" and most have the common sense to not bring a gun to a brawl. Have some god-damned faith.

[rossmum]

So wanting to have some form of control over how easily the nutcases get their hands on lethal weapons is irrational?
Would you like a link to the recent Raoul Moat case up north who shot several police officers and civilians?
Get it through your skull that Firearms.Are.Not.Toys.
okay i will answer just this post. after that i am done with this thread since i know you will never ever be fucking told.

you insult my fucking intelligence with your last sentence. i have never had a negligent discharge, never pointed a weapon at anyone or anything i didn't intend to shoot, and triple-check to clear a weapon before i even consider bringing it into an indoor environment or somewhere else it could cause serious damage to people or property. liking weapons does not mean someone thinks they are toys you complete fucking ignoramus.

second of all, anyone who actually knows the first thing about me knows i have long advocated the tightening of who can get a license - fuck i already explained this at least once in this thread, but apparently it's you with the thick skull so i'll do it again - including a psych assessment, a waiting period before first purchase, a thorough (at least a day long) and stringent safety assessment, and requirement for proper, secure storage. i am against banning or restricting by type because it is fucking stupid.

banning guns outright will not stop criminals getting them, it will not stop nutcases killing people, and it will alienate even further an entire group of people who enjoy shooting as a sport or hobby. if you believe otherwise you are, quite frankly, a delusional moron who would probably also believe the moon conspiracy theories if the commerical media told them it was true. additionally, if you believe for a second that guns are an instant and easy way of killing someone while knives, motor vehicles, easily home-made explosives, and thousands of other everyday things are not, you are an idiot. it's harder to kill a human being than you think and i could kill someone with a knife much easier than you could with a gun by simple virtue of military training. guns are never 'instant' and seldom even 'rapid'.

why don't you open your fucking eyes and start using some rationality and common logic instead of swallowing irrational, emotion-fuelled bullshit whole.

[Patrickssj6]

Don't argument warlord, Warsaw thinks guns make people omnipotent (which is the first reason they want to have one).

Then they think they can save the world with it, stop government tyranny, protect their families and stop rampages.

[Warsaw]

Hey man, the Nazis landed on the moon and that's a fact. They came back in '47 and we chased them all the way up. Sovietskis followed us in. What you don't know is that we had a war going across the solar system. Who do you think took that shot of Armstrong stepping off the ladder on the moon? :downs:

Also, guns were used to win that war.

Edit: You again Patrickssj6? What do you know about anything at all? Seriously? You have not demonstrated an inkling of intelligent thought on the entire topic in BOTH threads. Get out. Go back to living in your perfect little bubble world where everyone is a feeble, incapable moron that NEEDS government intervention to do everything for him. How's the will of the Bundesrepublik taste to you? Don't insult my intelligence by taking my words out of context.

[rossmum]

as a (this time for real) final parting shot (oh no a gun reference oh god ross is going to kill everyone!!!!), you guys might gain some fucking perspective if you weren't so fundamental in your beliefs that you wouldn't even pick up an unloaded weapon. but of course, it's too easy to just sit in your comfy house and pass judgement of things you have absolutely no knowledge (let alone experience) of, i mean look how many civvies like to tell me all about my job; same logic applies.

bye

[Patrickssj6]

Tell me about it

[Warsaw]

Tell me about it

:downs:

[=sw=warlord]

I'm talking about before the police were even in the picture. I know UK police are not generally armed, so there had to be quite some delay before the guns came out. I'm not stereotyping, I'm looking objectively. The problem is that YOU are stereotyping your own country and believe that ALL of your fellow countrymen are ignorant fucks incapable of handling a gun and that none would have any desire to do so. You sir are not the only age group in your country. There are much older people who remember when owning a gun in the UK was nothing out of the ordinary and know how to use one themselves. The USA has plenty of those same "fools" and most have the common sense to not bring a gun to a brawl. Have some god-damned faith.
I tried having faith once and it turned out to be misguided.
I know a fair few people who have air rifles, my own father has stated several times he want's one and has a collection of swords instead.
The problem is that the easier to make guns available to everyone the easier the nutjobs who deserve to be in mental institutions to gain access.
There was a time where school children were taught all about fire arms, those days have long since passed and for good reason.
Raoul moat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt)as far as I am aware, had legal access to fire arms, sometimes there are certain thing's that simply do not belong on the streets, a few years back there was a killing every single week for about 2 months in london, the weapon of choice? Guns, source of firearms? youth clubs which had been making efforts to teach said kids the uses and effectiveness of firearms.
Forgive my lack of comprehension on why anyone would want More weapons on the streets than there are already.
I just cannot fathom why anyone would believe more weapons being made available would help the situation.
Each time there's been a shooting of some sort, the discovery of the firearm and the discharge have literally been seconds away from each other.
For instance when Raoul shot the guy in the car, it was over in mere seconds.



you insult my fucking intelligence with your last sentence. i have never had a negligent discharge, never pointed a weapon at anyone or anything i didn't intend to shoot, and triple-check to clear a weapon before i even consider bringing it into an indoor environment or somewhere else it could cause serious damage to people or property. liking weapons does not mean someone thinks they are toys you complete fucking ignoramus.

Yes, I insult your intelligence because there are several people here who seem to have it in their minds that weapons which have absolutely no place on the streets in a civilized society, there is no way you can defend claiming that these weapons have any place in the streets in which ever way possible.
I agree liking a weapon doe's not directly correlate to ignorance of a tools usage and design, but at the same time do not even imply that such a tool has any place other than A: to harm or fatally injure life, B: to destroy inanimate objects or C: as a mantle piece in a collection.

second of all, anyone who actually knows the first thing about me knows i have long advocated the tightening of who can get a license - fuck i already explained this at least once in this thread, but apparently it's you with the thick skull so i'll do it again - including a psych assessment, a waiting period before first purchase, a thorough (at least a day long) and stringent safety assessment, and requirement for proper, secure storage. i am against banning or restricting by type because it is fucking stupid.

And yet you claim that people over here are Brainwashed into thinking that Weapons = pure evil.
You're ignorance is only rivalled by your short sightedness.
There have been several people who complained about the idea of restricting ownership and usage of these tools, In my opinion, a days worth of training will not suffice enough to give someone a good understanding.
Make no mistake these weapons are just as dangerous as vehicles and for people to use those you need severe training and examination in order to obtain a permit, why should firearms be so different?

banning guns outright will not stop criminals getting them, it will not stop nutcases killing people, and it will alienate even further an entire group of people who enjoy shooting as a sport or hobby. if you believe otherwise you are, quite frankly, a delusional moron who would probably also believe the moon conspiracy theories if the commerical media told them it was true. additionally, if you believe for a second that guns are an instant and easy way of killing someone while knives, motor vehicles, easily home-made explosives, and thousands of other everyday things are not, you are an idiot. it's harder to kill a human being than you think and i could kill someone with a knife much easier than you could with a gun by simple virtue of military training. guns are never 'instant' and seldom even 'rapid'.

Hah, looks like you completely and utterly disregarded everything I said, let me explain once more.
More guns on the streets will not in any way possible make the streets any safer, the statics state that you are more likely to be involved in a knife related incident if you are concealing a knife on you.
The weapon can be taken from you then used against you.
Now add firearms to that mix, if said person who may have all the requirements is on the street with their firearm and someone who did not ends up in a fight with them and obtains said firearm from person A, now what? you have the training person disarmed and untrained person in procession of a weapon of potentially lethal force.
There is a reason police travel in pairs, personal safety and they're in no way unarmed.

why don't you open your fucking eyes and start using some rationality and common logic instead of swallowing irrational, emotion-fuelled bullshit whole.
Take your own advice and actually wise up.

Response in bold.
I'm too tired for this ignorant bullshit with people thinking that more dangerous situations on the street will somehow miraculously make said streets more safer.
Let me know when a goose lays a gold egg or pigs fly.

I'l clean up this post tomorrow once I've had some sleep.

[Warsaw]

Swine flu. Still waiting on the golden eggs, though.

Also, you also have to remember that anyone carrying is probably willing to use it. They won't get in a fight, they'll shoot first and explain later. A knife carry is a bit different because usually one doesn't correlate having a knife with stabbing someone and knives are also generally concealed in a pocket. Knife comes out during the fight, a gun comes out before it even starts. In an ideal world, you are absolutely correct. There is no place for guns on the streets. In an ideal world, however, there is no place for weapons of any sort. But criminals do have guns on the streets and the cops (and in your case, the SWAT division) can't be everywhere 24/7 in case something breaks out. There is literally no way you could prevent criminals from getting their hands on them, so why not allow civilians the right to own and carry, too? At the very least, it makes one think twice more before deciding to assault someone. On the same note, it would help dissuade folk from getting themselves into trouble while carrying because they'll consider escalation.

[Patrickssj6]

You have no right to decide whether a person should die. How do you know the man pulling the gun on someone is going to kill him and not just threaten for money (which is about 99% of the time the case). What are you going to do? Pull the gun on him and shoot? Assaults are so rare and often only because the other person tries to defend himself.

Think twice? Yeah because someone assaulting someone is going to care if he dies or just lives his rest of his life behind bars.

You talk like we are in a barbarous society where every minute around every corner there could be a psychopath shooting somebody. I don't know where you live but we are perfectly fine without guns and guess what, I don't know ANYONE who is in need of one. I don't know a single fucking individual besides the obvious guntards on this forums who would even think about having one.

In ALL the rampages in Germany the shooters had access to guns because their father had one or they were in some kind of shooting club. Tremendous coincidence don't you think?

All in all your arguments are still weak because you cannot give me one single example where YOU in your life used a gun against government tyranny, stop a rampage, not even defend yourself.

You and your whimpy companions are just weak as shit and are scared of your big black neighbor. You just live in fear that's all and need a gun to compensate it. Fucking weaklings.

I hope one day you kill someone who was pulling a gun on someone who's magazine didn't even contain a single round. Then you know how bullshitty your whole stance is.

[Warsaw]

What are you, 14? You missed the ENTIRE point. The point is to NOT kill someone. The point is DETERRENCE. If someone tries to assault me, I'm not going to shoot him in a split second unless he's already bearing down. If he is trying to assault someone else, I am going to warn him first. You only shoot if push comes to absolute shove. Yes, he will think twice. Most people assaulting someone else are doing it out of desperation. They don't want to die any more than you do. As for what gives me the right to decide to take a life: self defense. Think about it this way: what gives him the right to take my life? This is a situation where you just can't take the moral high ground and decide not to sink to his level: it's you or him. I'd rather live than have my attacker kill me, throw me in a dumpster, and make off with my belongings.

How many firefights do you read about in Germany, hm? Around here, the media only pays attention to the "shockers" like the "massacre" in Arizona or Virginia Tech. Those also happen to be the only ones where the criminals used legally-obtained weapons. The media happens to have an extreme left agenda. Coincidence? I think not. Go to Los Angeles. Firefights happen there every day. The weapons used in those firefights are illegal. How do I know? Because California (and particularly LA) is extremely strict with what type of gun you can own. 30-round automatic SMGs do not fall into the non-prohibited category. Do you see these mentioned in the paper or on the news? Hell no.

Me afraid of my black neighbour? What are you smoking? One, I don't have black neighbours. Two, I have no problems with other ethnicities; most are nicer than the white people I talk to, but people are people as far as I am concerned. Three, African Americans and Hispanics buy firearms, too. You have absolutely NO point here. The way you talk you sound like you are accusing me of being a closet racist. Besides, what do you know about living with non-whites? Nothing, because you live in Germany. Oh look at me, I can stereotype, too! :downs: For the record, Russians count as white (as do the Spanish), so don't try that card.

And wishing that on anybody is absolutely disgusting. Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you? Maybe you are the one who needs a psychological evaluation. Apart from that, if someone is threatening with a weapon, loaded or not, than they are to be taken seriously. Why? Because you don't know if it's loaded or not. Better safe than sorry. They are hoping you think their gun us loaded, and they are therefore leveraging your fear of death to their advantage. I'm not going to wish any situation on you, but think about it: if someone is pointing a gun at someone else and you have no idea if it is loaded or not, what is going through your head? Just walk by and let the mugging/possible murder continue? Again I reiterate: what the hell is wrong with you?

[TVTyrant]

Warlord, I know yourself and I (at least I think anyways) have had some fair and respectful arguments in the past so I'm going to put it this way. Most of us don't live in Britain. Where I live there are only tiny hick owns and one city. There are no "streets" for guns to be on. I live in the western United States. Think mountains, forests, farms, and the like. Its timber country. Owning a gun here makes almost no difference in the danger. I trust every single person I meet entirely. I know that thats somewhat foolish, but I like to give the majority of people the benefit of th doubt. In an urban society like London, New York, or LA, I agree that an armed society is a dangerous society. But in a nation where 10% of the population is with 150 miles of each other, and then the other 90% is sprawled across nearly 4 MILLION square miles, there's a huge area for deviation from that trend. I know Australia is even more spread out. Your going to tell me that even when there is a vast countryside, where it is proven that less crime occurs because of less forced interaction, your going to ban firearms? I agree that for Britain handguns, semi-auto rifles, and shotguns with a barrel shorter than 24" are not something that should be around, just like they shouldn't be in America's most dangerous cities (Detroit, New Orleans). But why not in the country? When I shoot, its in a quarry, there are always other people around, and it is 100 miles away from any real city. I'm not going to shoot anyone. None of the people I've met who shoot there are going to shoot anyone. I just don't understand why it would be necessary to take that right away from people who follow the law to the LETTER. I have my hunter's safety card. I took the courses on firearms safety as a kid. I know just how dangerous a gun can be (ever see the scrambled insides of a 600 pound elk?). No, they are not toys, they are tools. But as Rossmum said man, they can be a lot of fun when used properly, and the fact you've stated that yo don't have any experience with them and never want to be around one is an eye-brow raiser to me.

If your interested in the reason for my different viewpoints on city vs. country life, watch Boyz N the Hood. Damn good movie, and makes a great point about firearms in the city. Simply an awesome movie.

E: To Pats, I totally agree about your point on assault being caused by people resisting a robbery, but what are you going to do? Saying a man has no right to defend himself is opening the world to a huge danger where only the "bad guys" (i.e. desperate people doing desperate things) have a real chance in our society. I've said it in the shooters thread, I'm a big man. The only time I've ever been "robbed" was when a homeless guy asked me and a friend of mine who is just as big as I am for wallets. He took another look at us and ran off. If hed had a knife, we probably would have just kicked the shit out of him, since we both have training in fighting (we met in wrestling and have done a lot of training in grappling/basic mma). But for the average citizen thats probably not true. If a man comes up on you with aknife and says he wants you wallet, and you just a normal person working for a living, what do you do? Surrender the money that YOU worked for?

[rossmum]

My desire to avoid getting tangled up in yet more arguments with literal fanatics has been overpowered by my desire to not let morons post horrifically ignorant and poorly-constructed arguments based on logical fallacies. Welp.


I tried having faith once and it turned out to be misguided.
I'm tempted to just goonsay literally everything you have posted but this sentence alone is amazing. Do you also consider faith in humanity misguided because people still kill each other? Do you consider faith in the opposite sex misguided because one dude you know got dumped or something? Would it really hurt you to give things more than one chance, especially when it's something you plainly have no personal experience with?


I know a fair few people who have air rifles, my own father has stated several times he want's one and has a collection of swords instead.
The problem is that the easier to make guns available to everyone the easier the nutjobs who deserve to be in mental institutions to gain access.
Wow, it's almost as if I haven't posted about five times how I think the requirements to actually get guns legally should be tightened! Holy living fuck.


There was a time where school children were taught all about fire arms, those days have long since passed and for good reason.
Yes it is so much better they are all blindly ignorant like you. I mean, not only will they go on to be pretentious holier-than-thou fucksticks who will spend their whole lives marginalising people who enjoy a perfectly legitimate hobby (while simultaneously crying like fucking babies every time the media call out games as dangerous and making big impassioned arguments about how gamers aren't inherently violent people and shouldn't be marginalised), but in the event they do find a loaded weapon sitting around, they're probably going to do something exceptionally stupid and someone will be seriously injured or killed.

Are you also one of those idiots who freaks out at the sight of an empty casing or even (gasp) a live round? One of the idiots who associates guns with some kind of evil death totem that will load bullets into a magazine and then the magazine into itself and then start shooting all over the place entirely by itself and with no human input? The way you talk about them it sure sounds like it.


Raoul moat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt)as far as I am aware, had legal access to fire arms
And so do a few million other people who don't go on shooting sprees. I wonder how many people have deliberately killed people with motor vehicles and had legal access to those?


sometimes there are certain thing's that simply do not belong on the streets
Hahahaha this is so precious, it's like you actually think that people routinely wander down to the shop for a loaf of bread and some milk with a fucking FN MAG over their shoulder or something. I think you'll find the "guns on the streets" are all illegally-obtained and mostly carried by gang members or other criminals who will not be stopped at all by gun control, because - prepare yourself for a shock - the black market operates outside of the rule of law and no amount of banning will stop them from selling guns. If you can't make that basic connection, you are a danger to yourself and society for being so incredibly, irrationally stupid.


a few years back there was a killing every single week for about 2 months in london, the weapon of choice? Guns, source of firearms? youth clubs which had been making efforts to teach said kids the uses and effectiveness of firearms.
Forgive my lack of comprehension on why anyone would want More weapons on the streets than there are already.
Yes because it's not like there are stabbings literally every day in London already.

Obviously whatever means they used to give these kids licenses were stupid (or flat out illegal), that or you're making this up as you go along. The latter seems just as likely since that is your preferred means of argument.

Of course, option 3 is that the scaremongering, rabidly anti-gun British media blew some story out of all proportion and just sort of made shit up because it sells. Don't tell me, you read this in The Sun?


I just cannot fathom why anyone would believe more weapons being made available would help the situation.
And I can't fathom how anyone over the age of... oh, let's go with five, could possibly think that banning guns is going to make a single dent on the murder rate.

After the Port Arthur massacre, gun laws here were tightened to the point of stupidity and a lot of guns (including valuable historic pieces which we have now lost forever thanks to stupid kneejerk legislation intended to appease ignoramuses like you) were melted down.

Our homicide rate has gone up considerably.


Each time there's been a shooting of some sort, the discovery of the firearm and the discharge have literally been seconds away from each other.
Oh, you've personally been present have you? You've witnessed it with your own two eyes?

If you actually believe the media word-for-word, you are so delusional you ought to be institutionalised. You don't think they dramatise the piss out of everything? How the fuck would they be able to authoritatively state, that in every single fucking shooting over the last X years, that has been the case?


For instance when Raoul shot the guy in the car, it was over in mere seconds.
You say this like there isn't a thousand other ways to kill someone (even in a car) in mere seconds. How adorable.


Yes, I insult your intelligence because there are several people here who seem to have it in their minds that weapons which have absolutely no place on the streets in a civilized society,
I'm pretty sure this has been covered, and that you are dumber than the average ten-year-old for still actually making this argument.


there is no way you can defend claiming that these weapons have any place in the streets in which ever way possible.EVERY WEAPON ENDS UP IN THE STREETS. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE THE SUN TOLD ME, AND BECAUSE I WATCH TV SHOWS AND THIS PROVES I KNOW MORE ABOUT WHERE LEGAL WEAPONS CAN BE FOUND THAN PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY OWN THEM. DESPITE VOWING NEVER TO EVEN TOUCH A GUN IN MY LIFE, I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM AND CAN AUTHORITATIVELY STATE THIS (WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY INSULTING ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME) WITHOUT EVER NEEDING TO BACK UP MY CLAIMS.

I can't believe I'm reading this shit. It's absolutely unreal.

I agree liking a weapon doe's not directly correlate to ignorance of a tools usage and design, but at the same time do not even imply that such a tool has any place other than A: to harm or fatally injure life, B: to destroy inanimate objects or C: as a mantle piece in a collection.
Yes because games where you violently kill people and movies where people are tortured horribly are fine but anyone that enjoys shooting at a piece of paper to see how close together the little holes they make will get from a distance are absolutely unhinged. We need to sweep these crazies from the streets before they use their legally-obtained, easily traceable weapons to kill all of the babies in the world.

People die of football injuries. Footballs destroy personal property routinely. Football paraphenalia is used in collections. We must ban football. And stupid fucking arguments by internet "experts" which are comprised of so many logical fallacies that my fucking brain is melting just trying to take in this ridiculous shit.


And yet you claim that people over here are Brainwashed into thinking that Weapons = pure evil.
Yeah, you're sure doing a good job of proving that impression correct, aren't you?


You're ignorance is only rivalled by your short sightedness.
This is the best thing you have ever said holy shit :ugh:


There have been several people who complained about the idea of restricting ownership and usage of these tools, In my opinion, a days worth of training will not suffice enough to give someone a good understanding.
Why? It took me mere hours to figure out how to operate not one but two (2) military weapons systems far beyond the realms of anything any civilian could ever hope to touch let alone own in terms of complexity and potential for disastrous accidents.


Make no mistake these weapons are just as dangerous as vehicles and for people to use those you need severe training and examination in order to obtain a permit, why should firearms be so different?
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST HOW MANY TIMES, DO I NEED TO BIND A MACRO TO REPOST MY OPINIONS ON WHY WE NEED TO IMPROVE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GETTING A LICENSE OR SOMETHING


Hah, looks like you completely and utterly disregarded everything I said, let me explain once more.
The irony of this is astounding since you continue to utterly ignore things that have been restated on basically every one of this thread's 21 pages


More guns on the streets will not in any way possible make the streets any safer, the statics state that you are more likely to be involved in a knife related incident if you are concealing a knife on you.
GUNS ON THE FUCKIN STREETS MAN

LET ME TELL YOU. I DO NOT LEAVE THE HOUSE WITHOUT MY LEE-ENFIELD HIDDEN DOWN MY TROUSER LEG. THE MUZZLE KINDA POKES OUT THE BOTTOM AND I HAVE TO LIMP REALLY HEAVILY SINCE IT'S LONGER THAN MY LEGS ARE BY A COUPLE OF INCHES BUT MAN I WOULD NOT GO ONTO THEM FUCKIN STREETS WITHOUT MY RIFLE.

You're probably the dumbest person I've ever gotten into a protracted argument with, and that's a real hard title to take. Congratulations.


The weapon can be taken from you then used against you.
Hahahaha holy fuck what, do the SAS freely roam the streets where you live or something? Do you have any idea how hard it actually is to try and disarm someone with a screwdriver, knife, or 2x4, let alone a gun of any sort? No, of course you don't, you're just goonsaying based on whatever rubbish you watch on TV, the ridiculous shit the media will print to scare people (since fear sells even better than sex does), and what your bluds down on the local Legoland housing estate say?

Far be it from me to call you out, but what exactly qualifies you to speak about the difficulty or ease of disarming? Have you ever tried disarming someone? No? Then shut the fuck up.


Now add firearms to that mix, if said person who may have all the requirements is on the street with their firearm and someone who did not ends up in a fight with them and obtains said firearm from person A, now what? you have the training person disarmed and untrained person in procession of a weapon of potentially lethal force.
I'd love to know what kind of bizzarro world you live in, since I'm pretty sure this doesn't happen a whole lot. If someone wants a gun that badly they're going to go to the black market. I have only heard of two instances of someone having a gun stolen from them out of my many, many shooting contacts and both of them were stolen from vehicles on the one unlucky occasion said vehicles had weapons in (on a trip to the range).


There is a reason police travel in pairs, personal safety and they're in no way unarmed.
What? UK police carry guns now?

It's a lot easier (though still pretty fucking hard) to take an ASP from someone than a gun.


Take your own advice and actually wise up.Care to tell me what you mean by 'wise up'? Should I start having an irrational fear of a completely inert, harmless mechanical object which is only capable of harming someone when a human is involved in the equation? Should I immediately start ostracising an entire fucking hobby and its practitioners based on some half-cocked theory born of too many bad TV dramas and a diet of tabloid bullshit? Should I accuse people who actually have years of personal experience ignorant while shooting my own mouth off about things I don't understand?



I'm too tired for this ignorant bullshit with people thinking that more dangerous situations on the street will somehow miraculously make said streets more safer.
Hey someone go make me a 1000x1000px emot-goonsay.gif please as that is the only way I can respond to this post because it is genuinely that dumb



Let me know when a goose lays a gold egg or pigs fly.

I'l clean up this post tomorrow once I've had some sleep.
Hahaha, yeah. Like you could possibly clean up that ratfuck of stupid, uninformed beliefs and outright retardery. Good luck.

Your ignorance repulses me. I genuinely feel sick to know there are people as arrogant and ignorant as you in the world. The best part is how you European anti-gun crew (as opposed to most Europeans, who are perfectly nice people) will turn around and rip on Americans for being arrogant twats who doggedly cling to stupid beliefs when you are the same as them, if not worse.

Don't bother posting again until you can back your claims, thanks. In fact, I'd prefer if you don't post at all, since reading your drivel is doing a number on my blood pressure.


You have no right to decide whether a person should die. How do you know the man pulling the gun on someone is going to kill him and not just threaten for money (which is about 99% of the time the case). What are you going to do? Pull the gun on him and shoot? Assaults are so rare and often only because the other person tries to defend himself.
There is so much wrong with this it's not even funny.

First of all, who says there's going to be any shooting? More often than not the mere appearance of another weapon is enough to make the person back down, and if it's not, put it down to natural selection. In a country like the US where concealed carry is legal, I don't see how it's a terrible thing if a criminal stupid enough to menace someone with a weapon in spite of that fact gets themselves shot for it.

Second of all, assaults are often only because the person defends themselves?

Are you on crack? If someone comes over and starts beating the piss out of me, what the fuck should I do? Just sit there and take it? If someone draws a knife on me and seems nutty enough to use it, am I supposed to just let them do whatever the fuck they want?

Frankly, if someone wants to threaten my life for any reason (much less pocket change or something else like that), I really do not care if my defence ends in them dead. I'd rather it didn't, but I'd also rather me be alive and them dead than the reverse. Of course, all this is hypothetical, since most of the time nobody does end up dead.


Think twice? Yeah because someone assaulting someone is going to care if he dies or just lives his rest of his life behind bars.

You talk like we are in a barbarous society where every minute around every corner there could be a psychopath shooting somebody. I don't know where you live but we are perfectly fine without guns and guess what, I don't know ANYONE who is in need of one. I don't know a single fucking individual besides the obvious guntards on this forums who would even think about having one.
I'm so glad we're just fucking 'guntards' to you. I'd love to see something you enjoy get banned, then come here and make the same kind of ignorant fucking assumptions you do while you piss and moan about it. I enjoy shooting, therefore I need a gun. If this genuinely makes me some kind of inferior, subhuman being in your eyes, you need to see a psychologist.

I'm also glad to know you live somewhere safe. Not all of us can afford to use money as toilet paper and some of us live in areas that are downright fucking dangerous. Just because your little world is perfectly safe, it doesn't mean the one outside that electronically-locked steel gate is as well.


In ALL the rampages in Germany the shooters had access to guns because their father had one or they were in some kind of shooting club. Tremendous coincidence don't you think?
Not at all. In all the stabbings in Australia the killers had access to knives because they prefer to eat using utensils to their fingers.

It's not the gun's fault, or the shooting community's fault, that said fathers were irresponsible fucks who couldn't safely store their weapons. It's also not our fault that every now and then some nutter will grab the nearest dangerous object and go use it on people. I'm pretty sure this happens a lot with knives and motor vehicles amongst other things, but I have never once heard people call for any restrictions on cars.


All in all your arguments are still weak because you cannot give me one single example where YOU in your life used a gun against government tyranny, stop a rampage, not even defend yourself.
Ironic you're calling our arguments weak, and also hilarious that you seem to think that the only reason any of us own weapons is for those three. I own a rifle for the sake of owning a piece of history and I intend to expand that collection. I also enjoy shooting holes in paper and blowing up water bottles and watching them jump six feet in the air. Were I to move to the US, I would carry just in case, but I'm pretty sure you'll find that any stable, sensible person will not draw (much less fire) a weapon except when their life (or someone else's) is in immediate danger. I'd rather be prepared for the slim but possible chance of that happening than wishing I had been as I get killed by someone I could feasibly have stopped.


You and your whimpy companions are just weak as shit and are scared of your big black neighbor. You just live in fear that's all and need a gun to compensate it. Fucking weaklings.
Yes, everyone who owns a gun is a racist and wants to shoot black people. I suppose I've got a secret gold hoard somewhere and I like to screw people out of their life savings too because I'm a Jew, you worthless fuck.


I hope one day you kill someone who was pulling a gun on someone who's magazine didn't even contain a single round. Then you know how bullshitty your whole stance is.
You hope one of us kills another human being?

I think that says everything that needs to be said.

This genuinely is my last post here and most likely on this fucking atrocity of a forum as well. If you idiots honestly think you have any kind of argument going, let alone one that can better this, I don't need to associate myself with such repulsively ignorant morons.

You two are just as bad as the kinds of people you're stereotyping gun owners as. In fact, I'd wager you're worse.

[Patrickssj6]

For someone calling us irrational you spend a lot of time it seems.

Not gonna bother to read it though. If you happen to come by the real world and get out of your military basement, call me again you weakling :downs:

[SiriusTexra]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_05I8s4DNDz0/RtL_XmL8leI/AAAAAAAAAeM/vum-0PKXWXA/s400/gun_control_works2.jpg

Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.

After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Assaults are up 8.6 percent

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly


Fun facts about australia:

Top 3 in the world, rape per capita:

# 1 South Africa (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sf-south-africa/cri-crime): 1.19538 per 1,000 people
# 2 Seychelles (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/se-seychelles/cri-crime): 0.788294 per 1,000 people
# 3 Australia (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/as-australia/cri-crime): 0.777999 per 1,000 people

Murders (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders) 302
[32nd of 49] Murders with firearms (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms) 59
[21st of 36]
Robberies (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob-crime-robberies) 23,314
[17th of 47]
Car thefts (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the-crime-car-thefts) 139,094
[8th of 46]
Assault victims (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims) 2.4%
[4th of 20]

Everyone has guns, or none have guns.

It's like fists and swords. Back in the mid fuedal ages, would every fuck who had a sword ran around and lopped off heads?

No? Why is that? Because EVERYONE FUCKING HAD THEM AND KNEW HOW TO USE THEM.


Above stats may seem "low" in the areas considering placement in the world, but your forgetting, our population density is one of the lowest, and those numbers are SEVERELY worse than what they were before gun control.



Cya.

[SiriusTexra]

For someone calling us irrational you spend a lot of time it seems.

Not gonna bother to read it though. If you happen to come by the real world and get out of your military basement, call me again you weakling :downs:

How does time correlate with irrationality?

Also, not bothering to read, means your whole-halfheartedly admitting defeat. I find it ironic the best post of the thread is ignored funnily enough, at precisely the right moment.

"Oh now I'm done with it, not reading anymore haha"

Like a little girl who lost an arguement, and his now kicking your legs out in your last act of rebuttal.

How convenient. To just outright deny/ignore/accept/believe whatever, whenever it suits you!

Can I live in your world, it sounds magical.

[Bodzilla]

You have a choice,
between fear and love.

The eyes of fear want you to buy guns and put bigger locks on your doors close yourself off....
but the eyes of love instead see us all as one.

It's just a ride.

[sleepy1212]

I hope one day you kill someone who was pulling a gun on someone who's magazine didn't even contain a single round. Then you know how bullshitty your whole stance is.

In America that's called "typical liberal logic". also read as:


I hope one day a nutjob goes on a shooting spree so we can push our antigun agenda while the media has everyone riled upNY Times: Mayor Bloomberg is a Fuckstick (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bloomberg-arizona-guns-20110201,0,1849962.story)


In another video, an undercover investigator is seen buying a Glock pistol and a 33-round, high-capacity magazine similar to the one used in the Tucson rampage that killed six people and injured 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. That sale was legal, Bloomberg said, but "it really shouldn't be."

"We have this fine Glock pistol similar to the one used in the Tuscon rampage that killed six people and injured 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Buy it now and I'll throw in a 33-round, high-capacity-shooting-spree clip."

Despite the appearance that the dealer broke the law well, he didn't. Dealers at gun shows aren't required to do background checks. It's like selling your hunting rifle to a friend or through a want-ad.


The eyes of fear want you to buy guns and put bigger locks on your doors close yourself off....
but the eyes of love instead see us all as one.

Good fences make good neighbors.

[TVTyrant]

You have a choice,
between fear and love.

I can't tell if thi i original or not but it's cool. Really good line Bod and really sums this thread up. Of course there are always those of us who have both :P

[Timo]

Can't we all just get along :C

One more post with insults in it and this thread gets locked.

[jcap]

Locking the thread until I get out of class so I can look through it.

Will delete this post when lock is lifted.

[Timo]

Or that.

[jcap]

Ok, honestly I don't really see any reason for this thread to continue going on. Both sides have stated their opinions on gun control, and neither side will be be happy unless the all opponents to their opinion concede.

Since this thread has basically gotten to the point where it's the same few members bickering, I don't want to reopen this thread because the insults will pick up again after another few pages, and infractions would be handed out. If you feel that you have such a need to continue discussing this, take it to Steam or AIM or something, so I don't need to clean up after you guys.