Question for anti-gun:
- Thread starter spartan231490
- Start date
Recommended Videos
no doubt. My point was just that kragg never excused criminal activity. Or I didn't read his posts that way anyway.Tsaba said:
A reasonable position and one I entirely agree on. Though I no longer own or use guns I have in the past. Like I said before, I think we should treat guns like we do cars. You absolutely have the right to one, but first you need to go through proper training and accreditation before you are trusted with one.crazyarms33 said:
My training course used the "21 foot" rule for knife vs. gun. Namely, if your gun is holstered (even in an easily accessed holster), you probably won't be able to get the shot off before the attacker crosses 21 feet of distance. Which is why my trainer included hand to hand defense as part of his CQB course, so that one could hold off the knife wielding looney long enough to finish your draw and shoot him at point blank range. Defensive shooting is a gestalt of multiple combat forms, concentrating just on shooting will get you killed lickety-damned-split.Aldain said:
Regarding the "guns don't kill people" aspect of the discussion, I'm kind of a believer in that. If someone wants to kill a lot of people really quickly, and they didn't have a gun, why not an explosive? Easy to make with numerous recipes available online, easy to get ingredients and hey! shrapnel in the form of a bunch of easy to get nails or screws on the outside. Or how about poison? Mix some bleach with some acid (both not hard to get) and toss that into the theater. Instant chlorine gas poisoning. That's just two ideas off right off the top of my head, I'm sure that a determined psycho could come up with a hundred more.
If it were possible to have a society where it was guaranteed that nobody had guns, and I mean nobody, not the police, not the military, nobody, I'd be willing to give up my firearms. But that isn't going to ever happen, so I think I'll keep 'em for now.
Going to answer this.....again......for the 3rd time this week.
I live in a rural area. I want guns so that if a wild animal tries to attack me, I can kill it or at least drive it off. And I want a semi-auto rifle to do that with (Specifically, an M1 Garand [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand]) because it would allow faster firing. .30-06 is also armor-piercing by nature so that in the 1:1,000,000,000,000 chance that some robber tries to attack my house with body armor, I can just blow straight through it. "But just wait for the cops." I hear you saying. I live/will always live in the country/small towns. The sheriff might take 30 minutes getting to me, and in this time, someone is stealing my shit and might try to attack me, my wife, and my family. Screw that, just let me put a bullet in the son of a ***** and be over with it.
As for handguns, I will most likely conceal-carry when I go out to get my real job. Stock trader, trucker, railroad engineer, doesnt matter. I want a gun (Specifically, an M1911 Colt .45 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol]) so that if the same "some guy trying to attack me or steal my shit" thing happens, I can just end him (if he doesnt back down anyway).
And for full-autos/machine-guns/high capacity mags...this is the only one I will listen to people on, but I dont agree personally. I live in a state where you can legally own everything I just listed if you jump through enough hoops and paperwork, and we havent had any mass killings in years. I am not saying that that is because "We have superior firepower! Screw you all!" but it shows that it isnt the machineguns that are the problem.
I live in a rural area. I want guns so that if a wild animal tries to attack me, I can kill it or at least drive it off. And I want a semi-auto rifle to do that with (Specifically, an M1 Garand [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand]) because it would allow faster firing. .30-06 is also armor-piercing by nature so that in the 1:1,000,000,000,000 chance that some robber tries to attack my house with body armor, I can just blow straight through it. "But just wait for the cops." I hear you saying. I live/will always live in the country/small towns. The sheriff might take 30 minutes getting to me, and in this time, someone is stealing my shit and might try to attack me, my wife, and my family. Screw that, just let me put a bullet in the son of a ***** and be over with it.
As for handguns, I will most likely conceal-carry when I go out to get my real job. Stock trader, trucker, railroad engineer, doesnt matter. I want a gun (Specifically, an M1911 Colt .45 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol]) so that if the same "some guy trying to attack me or steal my shit" thing happens, I can just end him (if he doesnt back down anyway).
And for full-autos/machine-guns/high capacity mags...this is the only one I will listen to people on, but I dont agree personally. I live in a state where you can legally own everything I just listed if you jump through enough hoops and paperwork, and we havent had any mass killings in years. I am not saying that that is because "We have superior firepower! Screw you all!" but it shows that it isnt the machineguns that are the problem.
Read even one of the links in the OP. Guns are used in self defense millions of times each year in the US alone.[/quote]elvor0 said:
Well I see I've got a lot to answer in repose there. I'm not even quite sure what I'm supposed to say to that:
Okay, good, I never said they wern't. I still don't think people should be able to buy and take home automatic weapons. Civilians don't need access to that sort of hardware. I mean I like playing with them on shooting ranges sure, but people can't be trusted, so I have to accept that I can't buy them, it causes far too much harm in society for that sort of hardware to be readily available to buy.
Like I said, we don't get massacres in the UK, because people don't have access to automatic weapons to just go on a murderous killing spree, GTA style.
Unfortunetly, America is too saturated for any changes in law to make a difference, it's a stockpiling arms race out there, people get more guns, so criminals get better hardware, the people get scared and get /more/ guns, criminals get more guns, etc etc.
Having a handgun I can sort of accept, I don't like it, but it is sort of a necessity in America what with the amount of hardware that's floating about, but it shouldn't have been like that in the first place, why did the government feel it was a good idea to allow the easy sale of assault weapons and machine guns to be implemented? But then, it's no good talking about what could or should have happened, it's too far gone now. Something'll happen, a social upheaval or collapse due to the amount of guns constantly being poured into America.
And don't cite Norway, their society and justice system is completely different to the US, they somehow manage to have guns and a general amount of peace and I have no fucking idea how.
I'm going to agree with you on that one, "just phone the police" is such an obtuse point to make when you're being confronted by a guy with a gun, or a knife or a fist fight or any sort of confrontation. Are you fucking insane? "Excuse me good sir, could you stop threatening me so that I may call the old Po-lice station so that they may come and arrest you?"BOOM headshot65 said:
"You wot?
"Yes, and then we will sit here until they arrive, that sounds perfectly reasonable don't you think? They'll be at least 20 minutes, I mean I'm sure by the time they arrive you will have mugged me, stabbed me and gone, but lets wait here and see if they make it in the next 30 seconds anyway shall we?"
Tangentally, I cut this bit but had it as an afterthought: Just out of interest, why would a handgun not be perfectly acceptable to fend off wild animals with? I assume you have at least some degree of training, an animal coming straight at you wouldn't be a massively difficult shot would it? What are you fending off that's immune to a shot in the face? As far as I'm aware most pistols have around 10-17 round magazines, more than enough to get the job done against one wild animal. Even a Bear would back down after having a few rounds put in it.
That sounds quite snide actually, it's not I'm just genuinely curious.
While I'm against guns because I'm a wooly liberal and just 'feel' that way, and therefore no amount of facts or evidence is going to change my mind...
(That's saved me a lot of arguments if I just blanketly say I'm wrong to start with)
I absolutely can't see why anyone would be upset if we stopped people buying armour piercing ammo, assault rifles, machine guns and the like.
I can see above that if a wild animal attacks you, you'd want a semi auto rifle.
I'd suggest that if you can't shoot a wild animal with a pistol or shotgun, you need more training before you're allowed to own a gun. OF course, if you've got any footage recorded outside your home of you being overrun by badgers wearing kevlar body armour, I'm open to being convinced.
Pistols, handguns, rifles, shotguns, I'm sort of ok with people owning them, licenced and regulated.
I just don't feel anyone needs a roof mounted rocket launcher to visit the Dunkin' Donuts drive thru is all. Sometimes they'll run outta frosted bearclaws, and you're just gonna have accept it.
(That's saved me a lot of arguments if I just blanketly say I'm wrong to start with)
I absolutely can't see why anyone would be upset if we stopped people buying armour piercing ammo, assault rifles, machine guns and the like.
I can see above that if a wild animal attacks you, you'd want a semi auto rifle.
I'd suggest that if you can't shoot a wild animal with a pistol or shotgun, you need more training before you're allowed to own a gun. OF course, if you've got any footage recorded outside your home of you being overrun by badgers wearing kevlar body armour, I'm open to being convinced.
Pistols, handguns, rifles, shotguns, I'm sort of ok with people owning them, licenced and regulated.
I just don't feel anyone needs a roof mounted rocket launcher to visit the Dunkin' Donuts drive thru is all. Sometimes they'll run outta frosted bearclaws, and you're just gonna have accept it.
I'm a Conservative and I'm anti-gun. I notice a lot of these studies being quoted have more violent crime in the UK than in the US. Except violent crime includes...well, violence, and is not limited to guns. The 2011 Summer Riot is the worst example to cite in terms of gun control.SenseOfTumour said:
Would the police have fared better if they possessed firearms?
That's not the right question.
Would the police have fared better if guns were legal and the rioters were in possession of legally purchased guns?
I assure you the death toll would have been insane. Guns serve only to escalate a situation. One gunshot during the riots, whether a shot fired into the air, from a policeman or at a policeman, and that'd be that. Guns turn a hostile situation into a powderkeg.
Unless you live in a farm, or someplace where animals are a danger, you don't need a gun. Your average suburb-dwelling family does not need a gun. If guns were controlled, the guys breaking into your house likely won't have guns either. I know I've never seen a civilian firearm. No I'm lying, actually, a family friend was into target shooting. However, regardless of the hobbies associated, a gun is there to kill. It has no other purpose. Sure, in the UK people get stabbed. I'd rather get stabbed than shot. Even if getting shot meant I had a chance of fighting back with my own gun.
No, it's not actually. He used a gun that was completely banned, thus it still holds up as pretty good evidence that it's not impossible to buy weapons that are completely banned and go on a killing rampage.A Distant Star said:
Well, actually, the specific gun I want only has a 7 round clip (1 in chamber+6 mag). However, it makes up for it by being .05 inches short of a .50-cal. And while I would want to have the rifle for killing coyotes, its not so much "Theres a rabid coyote on the front porch. Let me just mosy on over and grab the ol' rifle and ammo." it would be more "Theres a rabid coyote on the front porch. Quick, grab the nearest gun and ammo even if its just the Colt."elvor0 said:
Its not that I cant make due with a pistol, its that I would prefer something with more range.
My wanting the Garand is 3 fold:SenseOfTumour said:
1) I like WW2. The Garand is the US infantry rifle from then, and after the war was put on military surplus to be purchased by civilans. Thus, they are very common, making them cheap, ammo cheap (.30-06 being one of the most common hunting rounds), and parts easy to find. I actually like the M14, the assualt rifle version of the M1, more, and in my state can legally own one, but I dont feel like jumping through hoops and paying out the nose for something that is just going to sit on my wall and look pretty most of the time. Ill just get an Airsoft version if I want it that bad.
2) I already have training with guns. My grandpa taught me and my brother to shot at a young age, but I havent touched a gun since he ripped it out of my hand for handling it improperly. I still know enough about guns to know the rules and can still be trusted, and will most likely go overboard with caution...especially when I have little ones around.
3) The reason I want a Rifle and not a shotgun is because a rifle has longer range, thus allowing me to pick off that pack of rabid coyotes without having to get too close. And since I dont hunt, I dont have to worry about getting a different gun for differnt animals, and I am pretty sure .30-06 will do fine against coyotes.
While I think that now is the time to discuss gun control, it still doesn't make sense to put a thread for it in off-topic instead of Religion & Politics.spartan231490 said:
It's not religious, and it's not political. I did not want to discuss the legality, or the political practicality of gun control. I wanted to discuss it's effectiveness. Hence, off-topic. If any mod has a serious problem with it being off-topic, I apologize and welcome them to move it, but since we're up to 6 pages now, and I posted the thread 3 days ago, I don't think it's that big of a problem.Dangit2019 said:
When I said about keeping beasties off your property, I should have included rifles, when I said handguns and shotguns, I've got no problem with people owning rifles.
It's the idea that everyone should be allowed to take the gun out of their mother's thigh holster 3 seconds after they've left the birth canal, and then at 18, they get a free chain gun like in 'Predator'.
No-one seems to feel that they should have the right to have axle blades sticking out of their car's wheels and bayonets strapped to the grille, like something out of Death Race 2000, so why can't basic guns be enough when it comes to the right to be armed?
I'd say that if you don't feel 'defended' enough, owning a rifle, a shotgun, and a couple of handguns, then I don't really want you having machine guns on top of that.
I'm fairly sure there's people who'd like the right to place landmines in their front garden, to keep cats out, but it doesn't make it a reasonable act of defending their property.
Sure, you may get a burglar who's armed and wearing body armour. Where do you draw the line however, in spending on weapons to outgun this mythical invader?
Personally I'll spend the money on insurance and just let him take the damned TV instead of risking my life.
Again, I'm not entirely against people owning rifles, shotguns, handguns etc... I just think there should be some kind of limit when it comes to machine guns, there's no 'sport' in emptying 70 rounds in 5 seconds into a squirrel. (yes I know it's a ridiculous example, but so is hunting with uzis.)
It's a similar reason to why I'm against fox hunting, by all means hunt a fox, but not 30 of you on horseback, with packs of hunting dogs, against one fox.
If you want to 'battle the cunning of the fox', you get to be on foot, with a pointy stick. Alone. It's still unfair, but then foxes aren't fair to what they prey on.
I'd also say that, just as over here in the UK, I've got no problem with people wishing to own things for collector's purposes.
In short, by all means have guns, but I don't feel that there's a place in the home for the kind of ordinance you'd normally have to unlock in a FPS. I'm not trying to take your guns away, America, just saying that if you can't do what you want to do with a handgun, rifle or shotgun, I don't trust you with a minigun or rocket launcher.
It's the idea that everyone should be allowed to take the gun out of their mother's thigh holster 3 seconds after they've left the birth canal, and then at 18, they get a free chain gun like in 'Predator'.
No-one seems to feel that they should have the right to have axle blades sticking out of their car's wheels and bayonets strapped to the grille, like something out of Death Race 2000, so why can't basic guns be enough when it comes to the right to be armed?
I'd say that if you don't feel 'defended' enough, owning a rifle, a shotgun, and a couple of handguns, then I don't really want you having machine guns on top of that.
I'm fairly sure there's people who'd like the right to place landmines in their front garden, to keep cats out, but it doesn't make it a reasonable act of defending their property.
Sure, you may get a burglar who's armed and wearing body armour. Where do you draw the line however, in spending on weapons to outgun this mythical invader?
Personally I'll spend the money on insurance and just let him take the damned TV instead of risking my life.
Again, I'm not entirely against people owning rifles, shotguns, handguns etc... I just think there should be some kind of limit when it comes to machine guns, there's no 'sport' in emptying 70 rounds in 5 seconds into a squirrel. (yes I know it's a ridiculous example, but so is hunting with uzis.)
It's a similar reason to why I'm against fox hunting, by all means hunt a fox, but not 30 of you on horseback, with packs of hunting dogs, against one fox.
If you want to 'battle the cunning of the fox', you get to be on foot, with a pointy stick. Alone. It's still unfair, but then foxes aren't fair to what they prey on.
I'd also say that, just as over here in the UK, I've got no problem with people wishing to own things for collector's purposes.
In short, by all means have guns, but I don't feel that there's a place in the home for the kind of ordinance you'd normally have to unlock in a FPS. I'm not trying to take your guns away, America, just saying that if you can't do what you want to do with a handgun, rifle or shotgun, I don't trust you with a minigun or rocket launcher.
I should also direct a reply to Boomheadshot, who I haven't been aiming my replies at directly:
Firstly, just an oversight on my part, fully understand you'd prefer a rifle and I support that entirely.
Secondly, damned pleased to hear you're in the majority of sensible, careful gun owners.
I'm with you that if you just want one for display and the price is prohibitive, why not go for a replica, or Airsoft version
Now, to all, not just to Boom...
One bit I still don't get as a non US citizen.
Why does this mean quite so much to Americans, considering how many important rights are laid down in the Constitution and its amendments? I'm sure it isn't but it feels like it's more important than slavery, freedom of speech, equality or anything else.
I'd personally find it interesting if one day it came around that they were going to fully enforce things, but put it to a national vote first.
'You guys can keep your guns, hell, we'll relax the laws and let have all the guns you like, but to do so, we're going to have to fully enforce the rules about seperation of church and state. Religion out, no more tax breaks for churches etc.'
I really don't mean to troll, but there's an evil part of me that'd enjoy watching the shitstorm rise up over the choice between guns and god.
Firstly, just an oversight on my part, fully understand you'd prefer a rifle and I support that entirely.
Secondly, damned pleased to hear you're in the majority of sensible, careful gun owners.
I'm with you that if you just want one for display and the price is prohibitive, why not go for a replica, or Airsoft version
Now, to all, not just to Boom...
One bit I still don't get as a non US citizen.
Why does this mean quite so much to Americans, considering how many important rights are laid down in the Constitution and its amendments? I'm sure it isn't but it feels like it's more important than slavery, freedom of speech, equality or anything else.
I'd personally find it interesting if one day it came around that they were going to fully enforce things, but put it to a national vote first.
'You guys can keep your guns, hell, we'll relax the laws and let have all the guns you like, but to do so, we're going to have to fully enforce the rules about seperation of church and state. Religion out, no more tax breaks for churches etc.'
I really don't mean to troll, but there's an evil part of me that'd enjoy watching the shitstorm rise up over the choice between guns and god.
Actually the 30.06 is going to be tremendous overkill on a coyote, but I understand your point. Owning a Garand myself is one of my distinct shooting pleasures. You will not go wrong with one and you can hunt just about anything with one except pronghorn because they are fast as shit and moose because they are bloody giant animals. My hunting rifle is a Savage 30.06 bolt action rifle with an 8 power scope. I freaking love the 30.06 round, it's pretty sweet. But if you just want to weed out some coyotes a 5.56 will do that in spades for you and ammo for it is pretty common as well.BOOM headshot65 said:
Funny you mention airsoft guns. You know there are tons of people pushing to make them all clear plastic. Check out California SB798 from last year, or California SB 1315 from this year. Some silly people here in the states seem to think replica firearms kill people too. As for wanting to own a weapon, I do. Since I live in California where gun laws are the strictest in all the states, I have to go through all sorts of background checks and tests to purchase a handgun. I could walk in the store and get a rifle or shotgun today, but I would have to wait a month to actually pick it up.SenseOfTumour said:I'm with you that if you just want one for display and the price is prohibitive, why not go for a replica, or Airsoft version
Why does this mean quite so much to Americans, considering how many important rights are laid down in the Constitution and its amendments? I'm sure it isn't but it feels like it's more important than slavery, freedom of speech, equality or anything else.
I see so many silly opinions in these gun control threads it really confuses me how mis/un informed people are on this topic. With regards to wild animals: we have large game, unlike a lot of other countries. Bears, bison, moose, boars, and that sort of animal won't even be phased by handgun rounds. Handgun rounds don't even penetrate their hide sometimes. low caliber(.22) rifle rounds won't do the trick either. Shotgun pellets will do even less. So there's a reason for people in those areas of the country.
Now on to the average citizen. I agree that the average citizen should not own a gun. I feel that gun safety should be taught in our schools because of how prevalent they are in the US, but alas that will never happen because of silly people who think guns are the devil and that their babies don't need to know anything about them.
We love our guns so much because it's part of our culture. It would be like banning tea in England(obviously I'm hyperbolizing to make a point). And contrary to popular belief, you can't just walk into a store in America and walk out with a pistol. And getting a concealed carry license is next to impossible for the average civilian. I couldn't get one even if I wanted to. You need to have a valid reason for one, and the agencies that hand them out are VERY strict as to who can get a concealed carry. Which means that most people who tote handguns in the crotch of their pants are doing so *gasp* illegally!. We also don't sleep with guns under our pillows.....well unless you live in a rather unfriendly part of town.
Guns may not kill people, but guns allow you to kill ten people as opposed to the one or two you might beat or stab to death in a crowd before everyone else escapes.
The fuck would we do with fire arms in that situation? Just open fire on citizens? Sorry but the lack of potentially lethal fire arms in these cases is more so a blessing as we have seen even with Armed response units suffering media backlash from a decision made based on what was there and visible at the time.Tsaba said:
I think the way the UK is run in regards to lá policia and their access to firearms is done in the best way possible for what we are, if you start handing guns out willy bloody nilly is the damn reason why there's not a year I can remember when there hasn't been some shooting in a school in some backwards state in the US, not even weeks since the Aurora shooting.
Guns and access to guns should be highly legislated and not be so simply accessed by civilians, to define that "A person not in the armed services or the police force."
Gadzooks, ARMED read that? ARMED... when you start giving arms to the masses shit will hit the fan, don't be surprised when you throw shit in the air that it one day gets slapped by the fan and shit sprays over everything your people, your food and heck even your gold fish caught a little floater in his bowl too.
tl;dr guns are to civilians as shit is to fan.
I can understand owning a few sane guns, to fire on a firing range. Or even a hunting rifle, granted that person goes through an annual check to see if he's fit to use it correctly.
Also having proper safety containers and protocols for storing the guns.
For example, in my country, guns have to be locked up in a locked steel armory, and if the weapon is bolt action, the bolt has to be removed from the rifle.
The only semi-auto guns allowed for the common civilians are handguns, and very, very few people are allowed to purchase military grade weapons, but those are extremely strictly controlled, and those people are generally from a military background.
Why the common civilian is allowed to buy automatic weapons, and not required to store them somewhere sage is beyond me.
But the thing that boggles my mind the most is the right to have a concealed weapon.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME USA?
Who in their right mind thinks that people walking in the streets with guns is a good idea?
What if a shooting that starts up? How can the guy that's going to try to defend himself know in all the confusion who is the shooter, and who is another schmuck with a concealed weapon trying to do the same?
Or worse, what if it's just a hostage situation or mugging, and some hero decides to take action and turns it into a bloodbath by pulling out a gun? Why should MY life be in the hands of someone with no real training or qualifications other than filling out a form?
Lastly, second amendment this, third amendment that.... You guys realize that a constitution can be changed to stay in touch with current times, right?
You don't HAVE to keep amendments exactly how they were 250 years ago. The fore-fathers don't give a shit about anything, they're dead. You're free to modify all they wrote to keep up with the times. Every other place in the world has changed their rule book a few times, why can't you do the same?
Also having proper safety containers and protocols for storing the guns.
For example, in my country, guns have to be locked up in a locked steel armory, and if the weapon is bolt action, the bolt has to be removed from the rifle.
The only semi-auto guns allowed for the common civilians are handguns, and very, very few people are allowed to purchase military grade weapons, but those are extremely strictly controlled, and those people are generally from a military background.
Why the common civilian is allowed to buy automatic weapons, and not required to store them somewhere sage is beyond me.
But the thing that boggles my mind the most is the right to have a concealed weapon.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME USA?
Who in their right mind thinks that people walking in the streets with guns is a good idea?
What if a shooting that starts up? How can the guy that's going to try to defend himself know in all the confusion who is the shooter, and who is another schmuck with a concealed weapon trying to do the same?
Or worse, what if it's just a hostage situation or mugging, and some hero decides to take action and turns it into a bloodbath by pulling out a gun? Why should MY life be in the hands of someone with no real training or qualifications other than filling out a form?
Lastly, second amendment this, third amendment that.... You guys realize that a constitution can be changed to stay in touch with current times, right?
You don't HAVE to keep amendments exactly how they were 250 years ago. The fore-fathers don't give a shit about anything, they're dead. You're free to modify all they wrote to keep up with the times. Every other place in the world has changed their rule book a few times, why can't you do the same?