Word to the wise, don't go with .40 SW, it's a nice round but everything it does well, the .45 does better. Also, don't go with a glock. Stupid plastic pieces of shit are too finicky.MasterOfWorlds said:
Poll: Guns and you!
- Thread starter CaptainKoala
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem with banning guns is that you don't stop criminals from acquiring firearms. In America, states and cities with strict gun control laws have much higher rates of violent crime, because the criminals obtain firearms illegally, and use them with impunity because they know law-abiding citizens are forbidden from carrying equivalent weapons.
I heard a story from a friend who used to go to Georgia Tech in Atlanta. There was an incident on campus where a student was held up at gunpoint on campus (where it's forbidden to carry weapons of any kind, of course). The student didn't resist, gave up everything of value he had on his person, and the thugs shot him anyway. Fortunately, he was in good health and held on until the paramedics got to him, but I imagine that situation would have been very different if that student had been carrying a .45 Glock.
Gun control laws are inherently counterproductive, because criminals (people who intend to do harm to others) don't care if they break the law by owning and carrying illegal weapons (or owning/carrying weapons illegally, for that matter), and law-abiding citizens (people who don't intend to do harm to others) won't use firearms to hurt others unless they are themselves threatened.
Naturally, there are exceptions to this. Every so often, a gun owner is going to decide he wants to shoot his cheating spouse. Or stab them with a kitchen knife. Or strangle them. Whatever. You don't make policy decisions based upon exceptions, because at Georgia Tech, two to three muggings or shootings on campus is a SLOW week.
You know what city has the highest per-capita crime rate in the U.S.? Washington DC. You know what city has the strictest gun-control laws in the U.S.?
Washington DC. Crazy, I know.
Finally, the thing about the dog getting shot was pretty damn sad, but it's a case of police officers using poor judgment, not a case for gun control. The cop could also have wrestled the dog to the ground and snapped its furry neck. Or beaten it to death with his nightstick. Either way, sad, but the fact that one guy made a decision to kill a dog is no reason to outlaw firearms.
It is a reason to bust down and/or fine and/or fire a reckless cop.
What are you going to do, make cops give up their weapons? That kind of defeats the purpose of even having police to begin with.
Bottom line, gun control laws are an assertion that we can't hold people accountable for their actions, so the government has to protect everyone from themselves as much as possible. Not only is it a false premise, it just doesn't work in practice.
I heard a story from a friend who used to go to Georgia Tech in Atlanta. There was an incident on campus where a student was held up at gunpoint on campus (where it's forbidden to carry weapons of any kind, of course). The student didn't resist, gave up everything of value he had on his person, and the thugs shot him anyway. Fortunately, he was in good health and held on until the paramedics got to him, but I imagine that situation would have been very different if that student had been carrying a .45 Glock.
Gun control laws are inherently counterproductive, because criminals (people who intend to do harm to others) don't care if they break the law by owning and carrying illegal weapons (or owning/carrying weapons illegally, for that matter), and law-abiding citizens (people who don't intend to do harm to others) won't use firearms to hurt others unless they are themselves threatened.
Naturally, there are exceptions to this. Every so often, a gun owner is going to decide he wants to shoot his cheating spouse. Or stab them with a kitchen knife. Or strangle them. Whatever. You don't make policy decisions based upon exceptions, because at Georgia Tech, two to three muggings or shootings on campus is a SLOW week.
You know what city has the highest per-capita crime rate in the U.S.? Washington DC. You know what city has the strictest gun-control laws in the U.S.?
Washington DC. Crazy, I know.
Which brings me to my next point. Just because you're allowed to possess and carry weapons doesn't mean you can use them however you want (and yes, Heik, I know you were kidding). Just because you allow possession of firearms (or artillery cannons, for that matter), doesn't mean you're making murder legal.The Heik said:
Finally, the thing about the dog getting shot was pretty damn sad, but it's a case of police officers using poor judgment, not a case for gun control. The cop could also have wrestled the dog to the ground and snapped its furry neck. Or beaten it to death with his nightstick. Either way, sad, but the fact that one guy made a decision to kill a dog is no reason to outlaw firearms.
It is a reason to bust down and/or fine and/or fire a reckless cop.
What are you going to do, make cops give up their weapons? That kind of defeats the purpose of even having police to begin with.
Bottom line, gun control laws are an assertion that we can't hold people accountable for their actions, so the government has to protect everyone from themselves as much as possible. Not only is it a false premise, it just doesn't work in practice.
First of all, I don't care much for the American "self defense" policy, or rather the whole idea of non military/federal persons carrying or owning guns or any other weapons for that matter. However I do on the other hand accept people owning specific types of weapons for specific task, as per example, a hunter owning a crossbow or a hunting rifle/shotgun used as means of hunting animals. Or a professional athletic bowman or shooter owning a training specific weapon, used only for competitions and practise. All other kinds of weapons should be prohibited, except knifes, axes and the like which are used at home to cut firewood and the likes. But otherwise, weapons are a no-go, because giving everyone in the community a weapons does not make it safer, but rather the opposite.
sorry for the long thread, got a bit carried away. Troll away, those who want to do that
sorry for the long thread, got a bit carried away. Troll away, those who want to do that
First of all, I don't care much for the American "self defense" policy, or rather the whole idea of non military/federal persons carrying or owning guns or any other weapons for that matter. However I do on the other hand accept people owning specific types of weapons for specific task, as per example, a hunter owning a crossbow or a hunting rifle/shotgun used as means of hunting animals. Or a professional athletic bowman or shooter owning a training specific weapon, used only for competitions and practise. All other kinds of weapons should be prohibited, except knifes, axes and the like which are used at home to cut firewood and the likes. But otherwise, weapons are a no-go, because giving everyone in the community a weapons does not make it safer, but rather the opposite.
sorry for the long thread, got a bit carried away. Troll away, those who want to do that
sorry for the long thread, got a bit carried away. Troll away, those who want to do that
I concur. The Second Amendment refers to "A Well-Regulated Militia". A Militia is a military force comprised of organized CIVILIANS.Father Time said:mb16 said:i heard that the second amendment was only for the USA's ARMY to have the right to be armed not its citizens.Smagmuck_ said:I believe that if you are competent enough and have the maturity enough, then you should be able to buy a gun.Well, states side the second amendment only exists so that the citizens could fight the government if it had gotten too powerful and began to dissolve any rights. Oh, and home defense and hunting help too.SantoUno said:
I can't take seriously the idea that the founders thought they needed to make sure the army had the right to bear arms (not to mention that it seems weird for them to go from individual rights, to army rights and then back to individual rights for the next 7 amendments).
mb16, you have been misinformed by overzealous proponents of gun control, who spend so much time thinking of the children that they can't imagine what would happen to their children if an armed robber kicked down the door to their house.
I was thinking more along the lines of a classic M1911 .45 or possibly a Springfield 10mm. I saw a Springfield that looked like it had a similar action to the Glock. If I do decide to buy a pistol for whatever reason, I have an uncle that's a licensed gun salesman, and a friend that works at a gun store, so between the two of them, I can get whatever would suite my purposes.bl4ckh4wk64 said:
My freind's dad has a S&W .44 it's a nice gun. Didn't have quite as much kick as I was expecting actually. Although I prefer the M1A over a pistol. XD
I can tell you what would have happened! The glock would have exploded in his hand because glocks are complete crap and he would have ended up shot and missing a hand.RebellionXXI said:
Lol, triplepostDuckinapond said:
People have the right to buy, own and use weapons of any type as they see fit so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of another. Banning ANY type of weapon, including assault weapons, machine guns, military-style weapons, artillery pieces, anti-tank rifles, sex bombs or poison cigars in an infringement upon the rights of all free people to dispose of their income as they see fit and own property without government interference.
No regulation, no licensing, NO GOVERNMENT IN MY BUSINESS. Period. Carry, open and closed, allowed on all public property, with carry on private property entirely dependant on that property's owner. No required training courses. Nothing. Even beyond people, the government has no right to control businesses which sell, repair or utilize firearms, or weapons in general. People come first, not the mob, the mass, the public. Freedom has been sacrificed at the altar of public safety for generations, and it cannot continue. Freedom comes first.
No regulation, no licensing, NO GOVERNMENT IN MY BUSINESS. Period. Carry, open and closed, allowed on all public property, with carry on private property entirely dependant on that property's owner. No required training courses. Nothing. Even beyond people, the government has no right to control businesses which sell, repair or utilize firearms, or weapons in general. People come first, not the mob, the mass, the public. Freedom has been sacrificed at the altar of public safety for generations, and it cannot continue. Freedom comes first.
See, in my version of a societal utopia, everyone has a gun and adequate training with it. Everyone knows that everyone else is very likely packing a gun, and so the odds of *anyone* committing most ordinary crimes go way down, because there is instant accountability. None of this idealistic, passive "let's wait 45 minutes for the cops to get here, just in time to file some paperwork proving they were there" bullshit, because that does nothing whatsoever for actually deterring crime.
The concept of people being inherently good is bullshit, but that's irrelevant to the concept of building a stable community - to me, a healthy combination of mutual fear is stronger than the current model of hoping that a limited, fallible authority figure is capable of chasing away the bad guys. So what if it's uncomfortable, Paradise to me is just a big Mexican standoff. Everyone wins.
However, I voted for the "ban certain types of guns" option, because no one needs a minigun or M60 machine gun to keep away a robber (although it would be fun to watch).
The concept of people being inherently good is bullshit, but that's irrelevant to the concept of building a stable community - to me, a healthy combination of mutual fear is stronger than the current model of hoping that a limited, fallible authority figure is capable of chasing away the bad guys. So what if it's uncomfortable, Paradise to me is just a big Mexican standoff. Everyone wins.
However, I voted for the "ban certain types of guns" option, because no one needs a minigun or M60 machine gun to keep away a robber (although it would be fun to watch).
Heh that's what the SEALS said to NSWC when told to give them back their MK-17'sCorum1134 said:
(I'm from the UK before someone from America tries to apply what I'm about to say to America.)
Keep things how they are - make sure licences are very difficult to get a hold of and only provided for people such as farmers and whatever.
The general public does not need to be armed - and the lack of circulation of arms makes them a lot less easy to get for criminals, and people who are generally unstable (*screaming* SCHOOL SHOOTINGS *end screaming*).
Keep things how they are - make sure licences are very difficult to get a hold of and only provided for people such as farmers and whatever.
The general public does not need to be armed - and the lack of circulation of arms makes them a lot less easy to get for criminals, and people who are generally unstable (*screaming* SCHOOL SHOOTINGS *end screaming*).
Ever wondered why America's murder rates are so much higher then other first world countries?
Yeah.
You can prattle on about liberty and personal protection all you like. No thanks. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Spreading them around just facilitates killing.
At the very least, ban anything small enough to be concealed. That way if someone wants to feel like a big man packing his piece cowboy-style, he'll have to sling a rifle over his shoulder where everyone can see it.
Yeah.
You can prattle on about liberty and personal protection all you like. No thanks. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Spreading them around just facilitates killing.
At the very least, ban anything small enough to be concealed. That way if someone wants to feel like a big man packing his piece cowboy-style, he'll have to sling a rifle over his shoulder where everyone can see it.
The fallacy with arguing that "bigger guns should be banned" is that the larger weapons, especially high-velocity rifles, are almost never used in crimes. For example, people love to use the Barrett M82 series as an example of "Why does anyone need this?". (for those of you who don't speak firearm, that's a .50 caliber rifle) However, there are 3 documented cases of a .50 caliber weapon being used in a criminal act. Three. It's nearly impossible to use high-power weapons in a criminal scenario, mostly because they require skill and planning to use, something the vast majority of violent criminals lack.
There are people who have justifiable need of a large rifle, though. Special Forces snipers use them constantly, and need to stay sharp while on leave. Police sharpshooter units in major cities almost always have at least one shooter trained on .50s, and hunters who go after really big game have to have stopping power at truly obscene ranges. These uses cannot simply be argued away, and represent a greater portion of the population than most people would believe.
Arguing for a full ban on weapons, or even automatic/suppressed/high-power weapons, conveniently disregards the fact that firearms bring both money and power, and there are always people willing to go a step further for those weapons than governments are willing to chase them. Take Mexico as an example. The gun runners and drug cartels own that country, stem to stern. They are in the government, in the police, in the courts, everywhere. They have bought their way to safety. Now that their turf wars are moving beyond the northern border, automatic weapons have started spilling over as well, reaching gangs and other criminal outfits in the northern states. The US has a comprehensive automatic weapons licensing system that has been mentioned several times before, the Class III designation. Yet international events have undermined that as well. The problem is not exclusive to North America, either. Europe has the ex-Soviet bloc. South America has Venezuela. Asia has Afghanistan/Pakistan. Africa has... well, almost all of Africa. That leaves Australia without highly active gun-running routes. Unless every one of those areas is completely cleansed of smugglers, the weapon trade will continue and all banning efforts will be a complete waste of time.
MOLON LABE
There are people who have justifiable need of a large rifle, though. Special Forces snipers use them constantly, and need to stay sharp while on leave. Police sharpshooter units in major cities almost always have at least one shooter trained on .50s, and hunters who go after really big game have to have stopping power at truly obscene ranges. These uses cannot simply be argued away, and represent a greater portion of the population than most people would believe.
Arguing for a full ban on weapons, or even automatic/suppressed/high-power weapons, conveniently disregards the fact that firearms bring both money and power, and there are always people willing to go a step further for those weapons than governments are willing to chase them. Take Mexico as an example. The gun runners and drug cartels own that country, stem to stern. They are in the government, in the police, in the courts, everywhere. They have bought their way to safety. Now that their turf wars are moving beyond the northern border, automatic weapons have started spilling over as well, reaching gangs and other criminal outfits in the northern states. The US has a comprehensive automatic weapons licensing system that has been mentioned several times before, the Class III designation. Yet international events have undermined that as well. The problem is not exclusive to North America, either. Europe has the ex-Soviet bloc. South America has Venezuela. Asia has Afghanistan/Pakistan. Africa has... well, almost all of Africa. That leaves Australia without highly active gun-running routes. Unless every one of those areas is completely cleansed of smugglers, the weapon trade will continue and all banning efforts will be a complete waste of time.
MOLON LABE
