Okay, I'm aware right off the bat that I'll be flamed for this, but as much as I agree with that article, some people probably should carry guns. Yes, I understand it's a risk and that that opens the door for countless more gun crimes, but since criminals will get there hands on guns anyway, it kind of makes sense that people in more violent areas should have the option to apply for a concealed weapons license. If I'm misinformed, please explain to me otherwise and my mind might be changed.
The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?
- Thread starter thebrainiac1
- Start date
Granted. I'd still much prefer a firearm. If you knicked an artery, unless there's an ambulance waiting right there, it won't matter.Monkeyman8 said:
You're missing the point here. It's not just illegal, there's also incredible danger involved. Throw a knife at his feet? How do you think he'll react after the guy he just let live throws something at him? You think he'll be more forgiving? Your whole thing earlier was to just 'let him mug you and go,' so why are you suddenly now throwing shit at him trying to get it back? It's only money right?
Don't know what C/N C/E is.
I have carried a concealed gun legally for well over 14 years and haven't been shot at or been shot. It all depends on mindset of the individual that carries the gun. I have nearly been mugged in Spokane WA a place that I don't really consider dangerous, yet when confronted with two people who aggressively attempted to take me down an alley to do whatever they were planning. The minute I drew my pistol the situation was turned around. I never fired the gun or threatened them beyond telling them to leave. Once they took off, I continued to walk to my destination and then filed my police report once I got off the street.
America is not perfect and living for years abroad (Asia) has shown me that but, with all of the gun laws on the books both through the states and federally. It seems to me if they enforced the laws already on the books instead of coming up with new outrageous laws we would be a safer society. Take Virginia's Project Exile program. This takes illegal weapons off the street and puts felons who violate the gun laws behind bars. Project Exile [http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/exile/]. It is a successful idea that has been enforced in other states and cities.
The problem isn't with guns that are purchased legally and used as a tool. The problem is how guns are obtained through illegal means and then glorified so that it no longer is something to be feared. When I was a kid my grandfather's and dad's guns were a tool to be feared and respected. Like the ax outside, don't use it except for what it was intended to be used for. Most gun owners are law abiding citizens. The guns that are used in schools seem to be taken from their parents (who out of carelessness don't lock their guns up or use gun locks) or are purchased through a third party who fail to sell the gun according to the law.
As for hunting, if you get rid of hunting then you have an over abundance of wildlife that the environment can no longer support, thinning the herd is good for all animals. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the money obtained through hunting permits is funding wildlife and nature conservation projects both locally and nationally. If you increase the amount of deer in a given location then they must move and encroach into towns and eventually cities. Then the predators who thrive with more food enter the towns and cities and then they can and often times begin to attack children and unsuspecting people.
A gun is a tool just like anything hanging in a tool shed when in the right hands it is used properly and when used thoughtlessly or without concerns for others then it can cause injury or even death. Education is the answer to the issue not an umbrella ban of things that are dangerous. If you want to solve the AIDS problem in Africa you educate Africans on prevention, you don't castrate them. The same principal can be applied to firearms. Education will prevent a lot of the issues discussed above, that and strict adherrance to the laws that are already in the book. If the government would prosecute more offenders of gun laws there would be less crime involving guns.
Of course this is just one individuals opinion but, just like ***holes, everyone has one.
America is not perfect and living for years abroad (Asia) has shown me that but, with all of the gun laws on the books both through the states and federally. It seems to me if they enforced the laws already on the books instead of coming up with new outrageous laws we would be a safer society. Take Virginia's Project Exile program. This takes illegal weapons off the street and puts felons who violate the gun laws behind bars. Project Exile [http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/exile/]. It is a successful idea that has been enforced in other states and cities.
The problem isn't with guns that are purchased legally and used as a tool. The problem is how guns are obtained through illegal means and then glorified so that it no longer is something to be feared. When I was a kid my grandfather's and dad's guns were a tool to be feared and respected. Like the ax outside, don't use it except for what it was intended to be used for. Most gun owners are law abiding citizens. The guns that are used in schools seem to be taken from their parents (who out of carelessness don't lock their guns up or use gun locks) or are purchased through a third party who fail to sell the gun according to the law.
As for hunting, if you get rid of hunting then you have an over abundance of wildlife that the environment can no longer support, thinning the herd is good for all animals. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the money obtained through hunting permits is funding wildlife and nature conservation projects both locally and nationally. If you increase the amount of deer in a given location then they must move and encroach into towns and eventually cities. Then the predators who thrive with more food enter the towns and cities and then they can and often times begin to attack children and unsuspecting people.
A gun is a tool just like anything hanging in a tool shed when in the right hands it is used properly and when used thoughtlessly or without concerns for others then it can cause injury or even death. Education is the answer to the issue not an umbrella ban of things that are dangerous. If you want to solve the AIDS problem in Africa you educate Africans on prevention, you don't castrate them. The same principal can be applied to firearms. Education will prevent a lot of the issues discussed above, that and strict adherrance to the laws that are already in the book. If the government would prosecute more offenders of gun laws there would be less crime involving guns.
Of course this is just one individuals opinion but, just like ***holes, everyone has one.
I believe gun access should be restricted, NOT banned. After all, a criminal will likely get their hands on a gun whether or not its legal, why cant the rest of us have this kind of protection? And for those of you who pull up the whole "The mugger wont shoot you if you give them your money!", firstly, they might. Secondly, even if they dont shoot you they will likely beat the living hell out of you for intimidations sake. Thirdly, if they dont have a gun and you do, then you just sucessfully avoided getting mugged! 23 EXP! 2nd Amendment Skill LVL UP!
I'm also inclined to agree. Lets all walk around with swords chopping eachother limb from limb in a bloody mess of gore and body parts in a crowded city with less than 2 feet of personal space all around. This is a much better idea than having a firearm whose bullet is only 9mm. I want my right to carry a claymore NOW! CLAYMORES CLAYMORES!
We have the right to bear arms because, when we founded this country, Anti-federalists were afraid of a strong central government and a new monarchy. So when the Bill of Rights was written, they threw that in so that people could form a militia and defend democracy should federalists decide that a monarchy should replace our newly created democracy. GOD BLESS AMERICA.thebrainiac1 said:
How exactly are we defining 'unstable' here?Rahnzan said:
I'm also not wild about the idea of allowing firearms on school campuses. I don't really like the idea of going to class alongside people carrying concealed weapons, regardless of permits or their level of training. Guns in your home? Sure, your business. Concealed carry around town? Fine. But there's no reason to bring guns onto campus. Campuses are not unsafe places, school shootings are rare, and to be frank, people who would bring a gun to class are not the sort of people I want to spend an hour around, three days a week, while they're armed.
Provoking a fight is still against the law my friend. Throwing something at him so you can hide behind a dumpster and bury the knife in his eye is still murder.Monkeyman8 said:
The hell? I'm sorry, but if some guy is robbing my house, I have a gun, and he has made it a clear point that he will not hesitate to injure me, or my family, I will shoot him.Hardcore_gamer said:
He is robbing my home, where I live, where I keep my valuables, and where I am when I am not doing anything. I will not simply shoot him on sight, but if he has made it clear that he intends to take my possessions, and injure me or anyone I care for in the house, I will shoot him.
Self defense and murder are two different things, it's the same as a fist fight only much more extreme. If someone punches you in the face for no reason at all, have you no right to punch him back? He is invading your private property. You have every right to shoot him in the leg to immobilize him until the police arrive, or if he is attempting to kill you as well, shoot him in the face. If you have no prior criminal records you will NOT be convicted of murder, as you do not DESERVE to be convicted of murder.
Most of this is your opinion, and thus, true to you. And you're certainly entitled to that opinion. What I mean by an unstable individual should be kind of obvious. If they're hard-drug addicts or gang affiliated. Or heck, psychologically unsound. I wouldn't give a Schizophranic a gun. If motor memory and reality warping happen in the worst situation it could lead to a terrible accident.Horticulture said:
A gun doesn't bother me, a gun pointed at me bothers me. Well trained individuals know how to use a gun, and if you're uncomfortable around any sort of weapon you should have trouble sitting in the school cafeteria. Fork to the neck my friend? Not cool. Being picky and choosey about who you're nervous around sounds a little paranoid to me but I wont go out to make that claim, I dont know you.
The point to concealed carry is you cannot choose when you'll need your weapon. That includes on a campus or in a government building, or in your own home.
Do you carry your license every time you drive? Of course you do. Do you need it every time you drive? Of course not. So why do you carry it? For that one moment you will NEED it.
Probably the part where you said 'duck behind a dumpster and he'll either come after you and be within knife range or continue running away. 'Monkeyman8 said:
Why would it matter if he's in knife range if you're not going to kill him?
On another note, the main difference between Iceland and America is POPULATION. If I remember correctly, Iceland has about 300 thousand people living in the entire country.Hardcore_gamer said:
In L.A where I live, we have over 3.8 million citizens. The fact that my city is ten times larger where I live accounts for almost all the difference.
If there is one criminal for every 20 decent citizens, Iceland has 15 thousand criminals spread out across the entire nation. In L.A, we have 150 thousand criminals packed into a space a hundred times smaller than Iceland. This is not even including the influence that gangs, neighborhoods, and terrible school systems have.
The point is, when in LA it is almost required to have some sort of self defense at any point. People will pick you out to mug, rape, beat, or simply harass for no reason at all. The police can not be anywhere at any time, and even when they are they are never always effective. I ALWAYS carry a lighter and knife wherever I go. I have not needed to use the knife yet thankfully, but if I am in a position where someone is willing to kill me for the money I carry in my wallet, I am damn sure as willing to make sure he does not achieve his purpose.
If you want something done you have to do it yourself.
You know, of every place I've heard that has ban fire arms (Washington DC, Australia), All I ever hear is about the crime going up in the area. While places like Switzerland have no gun crime... and almost everyone has a gun. I really don't see how a sane person comes to the conclusion that everyone will give up their fire arms, because quite frankly, those who want to keep them will or will find a way to get them. I like the idea of world peace as much as the next person but the idea is just ridiculous, there has always been war, death, and conflict as long as there has been man.
It's a pointless argument, it will never change in the US due to all the idiots who will jump up and down about their rights blah blah blah.
Yes, there are occasions where having a gun will help you... but it is much more likely you will end up in more trouble then you were already in.
Yes, there are occasions where having a gun will help you... but it is much more likely you will end up in more trouble then you were already in.
This whole thread is mind-bogglingly idiotic. Nevermind the fact that the whole premise is massively, MASSIVELY flawed: if you're carrying a gun, you're more likely to be shot? Imagine that, shootings most often involve other persons with other guns. Perhaps we'll correlate XBox Live play with 360 ownership (hey, this is a gaming forum, is it not?).
Those of you who are anti-gun, listen [or perhaps more fittingly, "read"]: your opinion is okay. However, it's just an opinion and is not based upon any facts--rather, police officers, FBI agents, and various other professionals who have actual experience with firearms in both civilian, paramilitary, and military action consistently say the same thing: the more people that are armed, the fewer potential victims there are.
It's sad when idiotic surveys are misconstrued as "science" and "truth". I guess none of you supporting this survey's results are aware that correlation != causation.
Those of you who are anti-gun, listen [or perhaps more fittingly, "read"]: your opinion is okay. However, it's just an opinion and is not based upon any facts--rather, police officers, FBI agents, and various other professionals who have actual experience with firearms in both civilian, paramilitary, and military action consistently say the same thing: the more people that are armed, the fewer potential victims there are.
It's sad when idiotic surveys are misconstrued as "science" and "truth". I guess none of you supporting this survey's results are aware that correlation != causation.