Poll: Guns and you!

[Piflik]

A civilian person doesn't have any need for a weapon...at all.

 

[Dana22]

Look at some statistics or do some research before posting "omg ppl shuldnt have assualt nuclear ak-47's with tigerstripes and red dot sights!".

Which statistics ? Homicide rate with use of firearms ?

 

[Chris^^]

I'm not opposed to guns, but I do believe there should be limitations on military grade hardware being available for civilian purchase..

 

[Piflik]

Honestly, when does a citizen need a firearm?

So you're telling me that the lady that got raped and left for dead in an alley didn't need some sort of protection? That's what firearms give you, they give you a sense of protection and the means to defend yourself against others who will do harm to you.

No...a firearm doesn't help you at all...Someone trying to rape you is much to close to you for you to get your gun out, flick the safety of and take aim at the assailant without him taking that weapon from you and using it against yourself. If you can't defend without a gun in this situation, you also can't with one. Not to speak of shock and the inherent restrain to severely hurt someone else. People don't normally go around the world, constantly counting on being attacked, so if it happens, the likely don't know how to react and outright forget that they carry a weapon at all. When they remember, it is to late. Also if you are robbed and take out your gun, the attacker is more likely to use deadly force on you, just because he has to protect himself now, and he has the upper hand in that situation. Always.

There are two ways to react in an assault, that will get you out alive:
1. Flee...if your assailant is not too close to you, you can flee. If you can't outrun him and he catches up, you can surprise him and attack with feet and hands. He will be surprised and too close to react properly. Then you can continue your flight. If you can't break the assault on your own, there are nonlethal means to defend yourself like electroshockers or pepperspray, both of which have a much lower inhibition threshold to use against someone than a gun or a blade.
2. Comply...obviously not the way to go, if your assailant tries to harm you physically, but as long as he just wants to rob you, YOU JUST FUCKING DO WHAT HE SAYS!

 

[Trippy Turtle]

guns should be banned. protection is not a bullet to the face if someone throws a punch at you. pepper spay or something if you need it. when was the last time someone robbed a bank with a bow and arrow? less guns less crime. i like short sentences. woo!!! bow and arrow!

 

[Piflik]

I imagine that situation would have been very different if that student had been carrying a .45 Glock.

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.

I can tell you what really would have happened...his assailant would have shot him in the head the instant he draws his gun and he would be dead now.

 

[Piflik]

Oh...and not to forget the inherent danger of accidentally hurting someone...there is a saying among gunsmiths...There are exactly two types of gun owners: Those who have had their guns discharge accidentally, and those who will have their guns discharge accidentally.

 

[Simulated Eon]

You shouldn't be able to walk down the street and have a gun with you. I could accept a handgun or shotgun at home or a small collection at a gun range, but both guns and owners would need to have a complete licensing and screening process, while individuals with a firearm inventory over a certain threshold automatically get put on a special watch list. All this, and it is illegal to carry a loaded gun with you off your property or any other licensed area.

First I must ask. Is that awesome face Stan Lee?

OT: I only think that firearms for hunting shouold be legal for anyone to own and of course they must have a license for the weapon/s.

 

[Piflik]

I believe they should be outright banned for citizens.

Honestly, when does a citizen need a firearm?

Only law enforcement and government officials who are typically required to carry them should be allowed to use them.

And before anyone tries to respond with scenarios of rising crime and black market operations to acquire firearms, well they woouldn't be able to do much without firearms, especially when the law enforcement tracking them down does.

Oh, so the people that broke into my house 2 years ago wouldn't have been able to so without firearms? I guess I was glad that I didn't have to wait for the police to find out if they were going to rape, rob and murder me and my family in the 45 minutes after we called them and they actually showed up.

How about you stop building your homes from papier-mâché and toothpicks...then those burglars wouldn't have gotten in in the first place...

 

[Kenko]

I want my AK47 already! Gaaaaawd, fricking neighbours are pissin me off!

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Non one needs weapons.period.

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

I'm happy with the way it works in the UK.

To the point, guns scare the crap out of me, and I wouldn't trust someone near me if I knew they were carrying a tool used to kill people.

 

[austin9993]

Two words:
Zombie Attack.

You make a compelling argument..

Thank you, kind sir.

 

[Jedoro]

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/200306172114.html

Yeah...

And, you know, for when the zombies get here.

 

[Orwellian37]

Threads like these make me want to be in Switzerland. Isn't there a law that requires every adult to own and be able to operate an assault rifle?

 

[Jonluw]

Depends on what you mean by banning. I think guns for hunting should be allowed if the person wishing to own the gun has proof he has been through extensive training and is sane. Handguns should be completely outlawed though.

I have sort of a mixed view on guns. I like them, and would very much like to fire some proper fully-auromatic ones; but I'm incredibly happy that I live in a country where guns aren't available for any fuckwad who wants one, like in the US.
I'm willing to sacrifice my wish to play with weapons in order to not let other people do serious business with weapons.

Edit: I like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homicide-world.png] picture very much. See how Norway and Sweden are a very light blue? Those two have rather strict gun-control. Now take a look to the east, where you see Finland. Finland has a lot less gun-control. For some reason, Finland is painted a darker blue. Almost as dark as parts of the US. Sadly, I couldn't find the "Homicide with firearms" list I was looking for; so I'll have to make do with this list that counts all homicide.

In the end, all you need to know is this: Norway and Sweden: strict gun-control, no school-shootings. Finland: loose gun-control, has school-shootings.

Edit: I also find it very scary that parts of the US has the murder-rates of South-Africa and Brazil. I'm glad I don't live there.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

Don't ban anything.
Guns are awesome.

Like fire, that's always why I have 18 boxes of matches handy.


And, don't ban em, but don't let people dick about with them either, if they damage property or persons without valid reason, 5 years, valid reason, a small fine or let off depending on damage done.

 

[bobknowsall]

Just keep it how it is in America. All guns are legal with the exception of Class III Destructive, Automatic, or Suppressed, which require a license.

EDIT: So don't totally ban anything.

Do you believe that there should be better regulation of firearms distribution, though?

 

[willsham45]

I am not even in the states nore do I own a fun...got a bow that can be just as deadly though.
If you ban guns the only people who have guns are though who have it illegally who would have then illegally anyway.

If everyone had a gun then there would be less gun crime. I heard Mexico is a good example of this.
If I owned a shop and I had a gun behind the counter and it was known that I did, would you try to rob my shop? Maybe but I am sure some people will be put off.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

I'm always a little against guns because I find them a somewhat lazy and inresponsible way for a non-soldier to fight.
I do however think that self-defence is an important right, so would be willing to accept them as a compromise if we can't go back to everyone carrying a sword

Swords are hard to make and very cumbersome, also they require a good amount of training and concentration to wield so you don't end up cutting yourself. Imagine if we only carried swords, when the mob gets involved with importing illegal weapons a sword isn't going to do shit against a machine gun, if the cops were using swords and the mob got their hands on guns they could literally take over the entire town. But then on second thought, a sword would be total bad ass and it would encourage people to go outside and train with them reducing the overweight population.