Poll: What is your stance on Guns?
- Thread starter genericusername64
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Another one of these threads! Yay!
It always makes me laugh when people just spout "We should do this..." when we already are doing it, or just flat out say "I don't like guns, therefore no one else deserves to own a gun."
Warning, wall of text
"Gun control is hitting your fucking target."
This is basically my stance on firearms. If you can't accurately hit a target, and maintain these firearms; you don't deserve to own a gun. Most people say that just about anyone can go out and buy a gun in America. This is true for rifles, but in most states for a handgun you have to take a course and pass a handgun safety certificate test. This is basically saying to the government that you know all about firearms maintenance and safety and that it is safe for you to own a concealable gun. I have no problem with how things are now, I just wish we were given more option. In California, we aren't allowed to have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds in our guns. I can understand why we don't (don't you dare go "Oh, that's too much already" I really don't want to go into details why it can be necessary to have more than 10 rounds in a mag.) but it's really just a nuisance. You have to either buy more magazines or spend more time loading them than you should, effectively reducing your time behind the gun and taking away from your training/fun/whatever. Right now, I'm trying to make myself more accurate with a Sig P226, so I have to continually shoot it until I know exactly where the round is going to hit. I know how to maintain it, I know how to safely use it. I see no reason why I should be banned from owning said firearm because some random guy who bought the gun illegally in the first place went out and shot up a shopping mall.
Right now, I'm just going to finish by quoting a couple of things I said in past threads.
It always makes me laugh when people just spout "We should do this..." when we already are doing it, or just flat out say "I don't like guns, therefore no one else deserves to own a gun."
Warning, wall of text
"Gun control is hitting your fucking target."
This is basically my stance on firearms. If you can't accurately hit a target, and maintain these firearms; you don't deserve to own a gun. Most people say that just about anyone can go out and buy a gun in America. This is true for rifles, but in most states for a handgun you have to take a course and pass a handgun safety certificate test. This is basically saying to the government that you know all about firearms maintenance and safety and that it is safe for you to own a concealable gun. I have no problem with how things are now, I just wish we were given more option. In California, we aren't allowed to have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds in our guns. I can understand why we don't (don't you dare go "Oh, that's too much already" I really don't want to go into details why it can be necessary to have more than 10 rounds in a mag.) but it's really just a nuisance. You have to either buy more magazines or spend more time loading them than you should, effectively reducing your time behind the gun and taking away from your training/fun/whatever. Right now, I'm trying to make myself more accurate with a Sig P226, so I have to continually shoot it until I know exactly where the round is going to hit. I know how to maintain it, I know how to safely use it. I see no reason why I should be banned from owning said firearm because some random guy who bought the gun illegally in the first place went out and shot up a shopping mall.
Right now, I'm just going to finish by quoting a couple of things I said in past threads.
My house is filled with guns, but I've never fired one. There is no reason we shouldn't have guns that can't be argued for any number of other dangerous objects that exist in a house. "You can't have an oven because they can burn down houses. You can't have showers because you could slip and fall. You can't drive a car because you could die or kill someone. You can't have alcohol because etc." Sure, guns' only purpose is to kill people, even though there's an growing dangerous deer population that skilled hunters could diminish significantly. Also, that massive civil war rifle I have in my hallway is a public menace. Or the 1912 .22 needs to be registered with the local police force. Or my grandma's fully functional hunting .22 needs to be turned in and destroyed.
I grew up with all of this stuff, plus many other handguns and never came close to hurting myself or anyone else. If a little kid got into my house and managed to dig up a pistol, open the chamber, load it, close the chamber, work the safety, and pull the trigger, that kid was probably going to kill somebody some other way eventually. But as a child I was told that there were guns in the house and told that they were instruments of instant death and destruction. A little honesty with a kid goes a long way.
I grew up with all of this stuff, plus many other handguns and never came close to hurting myself or anyone else. If a little kid got into my house and managed to dig up a pistol, open the chamber, load it, close the chamber, work the safety, and pull the trigger, that kid was probably going to kill somebody some other way eventually. But as a child I was told that there were guns in the house and told that they were instruments of instant death and destruction. A little honesty with a kid goes a long way.
This is exactly what I was going to post. An extensive background check is required (at least in the states) and limiting it to small pistols is completely ridiculous. I own several firearms and shoot for fun frequently. I believe that the current system works and that severely restricting firearms would create more problems than it would solve.JaceArveduin said:
Second-strike potential, basically. The theory is that if you're being harassed by a guy with a knife and a cop strolls up with a gun, he'll never actually have to fire it. The kill potential of firearms is assessed under this theory to be so much greater than that of other weapons that the gun-unequipped subjects will be forced into compliance by the simple fact that there is no way they could possibly succeed in resisting police equipped with guns.Larva said:
Further, criminals will always have guns. Whether you're for or against gun control, you must realise that some criminals will always have the capacity to acquire guns. Thusly, it makes sense for at least some segment of the police force to be equipped with similar force so that the above scenario does not work in reverse.
Britain, really, should be a shining example of why guns really aren't necessary for self-defence, and actually makes situations worse most of the time.
Gun crime here is some of the lowest on the planet. Gangs don't arm themselves with guns, because cops don't. Neither side escalates the 'arms race', so to speak, because both sides are safer that way. Sure, whenever some lone nut decides to pick up an illegally-attained weapon and go crazy, it kinda sucks, but such incidences are ridiculously rare and the police here are very wary of any warnings of a gun. A single weapon even sighted generally results in MP5-armed uber police being called in before so much as a trigger is pulled.
Heck, we're even tight on knife-weilding here, which is a significantly bigger problem than guns.
Point is, while gun culture would be virtually impossible to remove from countries like the US, I do think that country would be better off if people didn't have guns. Best way to stop people killing each other is to remove the tools to kill from both sides.
Gun crime here is some of the lowest on the planet. Gangs don't arm themselves with guns, because cops don't. Neither side escalates the 'arms race', so to speak, because both sides are safer that way. Sure, whenever some lone nut decides to pick up an illegally-attained weapon and go crazy, it kinda sucks, but such incidences are ridiculously rare and the police here are very wary of any warnings of a gun. A single weapon even sighted generally results in MP5-armed uber police being called in before so much as a trigger is pulled.
Heck, we're even tight on knife-weilding here, which is a significantly bigger problem than guns.
Point is, while gun culture would be virtually impossible to remove from countries like the US, I do think that country would be better off if people didn't have guns. Best way to stop people killing each other is to remove the tools to kill from both sides.
How much, precisely, do you know about urban warfare? Mountain survival? Could you even feed yourself for a month without access to your local supermarket? Third world police-action is extremely difficult because important resources such as gasoline and food are largely unregulated and widely available. Further, the lack of infrastructure in areas of these countries makes it difficult for support vehicles upon which modern infantry rely to traverse them while simultaneously allowing informed civilian-fighters to move around with ease. How many times have you heard of civilian-fighters defeating foreign troops within industrialised cities? The answer is never, or very very rarely. It is, perhaps ironically, the lack of modernisation which makes guerrilla operations such as those staged in Afghanistan possible. The first world lacks these qualities and thus suppression therein becomes much, much easier. In fact, it becomes a simple matter of denying the rebels access to key infrastructure points without which the vast majority will have no idea how to subsist. The military wouldn't have to carpet bomb anyone and in all likelihood they wouldn't even have to fire a shot. All they have to do is park an Active Denial System in front of all gas stations and supermarkets, requiring government-issued identification for their use. It would be significantly less difficult than you think to convince soldiers to engage dissidents; this has happened before and will certainly happen again. Certainly the majority of the country would not be both willing and capable of active resistance; dissidents would be a vast minority, thus making it a simple task to propagate sentiment amongst both the military and the people painting them as enemies of the common good.Larva said:
So yeah. It would be a little different.
You actually can own a law (rocket launcher) though I'm pretty sure the ammo is limited and expensive.Jodah said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIIw8ZTPJio
Ahh, I live in New York State which has some of the worst gun and self defense laws I know of. Its illegal to have a taser, hell until a year ago it was illegal to have mace. And that "Assault rifle" ban that Clinton put in in the 90s? Yeah, it was incorporated into the New York laws. I have to spend four times the money to get a 15 round magazine for my Glock than someone who lives three miles away (in Pennsylvania) because I have to get a "pre-ban" one.JaceArveduin said:
I didn't like the poll making you chose between military grade fireamrs and just pistols. I believe that people should be allowed to own non-military grade firearms (shotguns, handguns, ritles, etc.).
Ouch, that hurts, my homestate is OK, which means almost every family has at least a small collection guns, even if their just 30.30s used for hunting. My mom and stepdad have...Jodah said:
mom (inherited from grandfater)
can only describe some, can't remember names) a 12 gauge breach loader, a SKS battle rifle, some other battle rifle that I don't know the name of, a 20 guage pump action, and a 30.30 Stepdad: M4A1 semi auto assault rifle with acog and 3 option ligh/laser (light, laser, light and laser) with the button being on the foregrip, a .308 rifle, and a .45 pistol (don't know the brands, I've only seen the .308 once and the pistol is generally out of sight)
Yeah, I have quite a collection. Couple 30-06, couple SKS, couple twelve gauge shotguns, half a dozen .22s. Even have a single shot 10 gauge...that thing will open a door if I ever need itJaceArveduin said:Ouch, that hurts, my homestate is OK, which means almost every family has at least a small collection guns, even if their just 30.30s used for hunting. My mom and stepdad have...Jodah said:
mom (inherited from grandfater)
Stepdad: M4A1 semi auto assault rifle with acog and 3 option ligh/laser (light, laser, light and laser) with the button being on the foregrip, a .308 rifle, and a .45 pistol (don't know the brands, I've only seen the .308 once and the pistol is generally out of sight)
Thats just long-guns too. Handguns I have a Kahr CW9 (nice little easily concealed handgun, with a crimson trace laser sight), Glock 22 (.40 cal), Ruger .357 Revolver, and a Ruger .22 (pre-mark I).
Its just a pain for me, a 100% law abiding citizen who is studying to enforce said laws, to have to work around them while the crack dealer down the road just gets what he wants.
I do support some of the New York laws. Requiring a Pistol Permit to legally own a handgun, for example (New York is also a CC only state, they don't want your handguns visible.)
??Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.??
? Mahatma Ghandi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446
??Four out of five politicians surveyed prefer unarmed, ignorant peasants.??
? Unknown
"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
- Adolf Hitler
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
- Adolf Hitler
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
-Joseph Stalin
History it seems about time for another repeat because humans never seem to remember it.
? Mahatma Ghandi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446
??Four out of five politicians surveyed prefer unarmed, ignorant peasants.??
? Unknown
"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
- Adolf Hitler
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
- Adolf Hitler
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
-Joseph Stalin
History it seems about time for another repeat because humans never seem to remember it.
I say no guns. I don't trust the average person to know when it would be necessary, if there is such a time; and even intelligent people could make mistakes. They are much more potential trouble than they are potential solutions.
I would say law enforcement should have firearms, but if so they should be counted and checked back into a secure armory at the end of a shift; and I think this would just increase the risk of someone breaking into police stations for firearms with everyone defenseless. It's probably safer to have everyone on equal footing. Give the cops stunguns if you think they need them, whatever.
I would say law enforcement should have firearms, but if so they should be counted and checked back into a secure armory at the end of a shift; and I think this would just increase the risk of someone breaking into police stations for firearms with everyone defenseless. It's probably safer to have everyone on equal footing. Give the cops stunguns if you think they need them, whatever.
You've never been in a fight, have you? Just hit him on the head, ya, because obviously he's not going to put up any kind of a fight. *sigh* So many people believe so many myths about combat, when you try talking some sense into them, a flame war ensues.genericusername64 said:
So I will leave you with this: switzerland forces it's people to own an assault rifle and atleast 60 rounds of ammo. They haven't had a single gun crime since 2006. If you ask me, the government should give out single shot .22s to everyone but felons. When everyone has a gun, no one is a threat, because nobody, not even criminals, likes getting shot.
Also, think of the economic effect. Right now, guns are a massive market, and always will be. They are one of the few markets that american goods actually dominate in, and yet we're thinking of taking away this huge source of income in these harsh times? Do you want to end up in a post apocalyptic wasteland? Plus, what about farmers? Agriculture is also a big deal here, but it's nearly impossible without weapons. Wild animals will know they can take from you freely, and livestock will turn on you without fear. You just took out two huge american markets, now the people will suffer.
And last but not least, the reaction from the people. If the government tries to take my guns, I will do unto them what I would to any other thief: kill them. Because these guns were passed down through generations in my family, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone take them from me. I don't care if it's the government, stealing is stealing, and I will not allow it, especially not on my most prized possesions.
Let the flame wars commence.
Doesn't that, by extension, argue we should have MORE access to weapons then? I.E., something that could be used in such a manner?Deshara said:Dear people who feel they need to own guns in case they need to revolt against their government:
Notice a theme among these things? They all have something in common. YOUR FUCKING GUN ISN'T GOING TO DO SHIT. The "I need to defend myself" argument is bullshit on account of our armies being completely capable of curb-stomping you out of existance, whether or not you have your dinky little rifle, and even if you get an assault rifle, guess what? They've been fighting people with more than you'll ever be able to get your hands on for roughly the last century. The only way the "I need to defend myself" argument would be valid is if you were talking about something that stood even the slightest of chance of helping you.