How do my fellow escapists feel about guns? (The real kind)

[Deepzound]

Guns are inanimate objects. Stop imposing moral judgment on inanimate objects. Judge the men responsible for the crime.

Guns are the tools that make murder that much easier. Their design is that of lethality, and their purpose from the standpoint of the people who create them, is to kill.

 

[bak00777]

im all for guns, my family owns quite a few. Everyonce in a while my dad, his friends, and a few of my friends get together and go to a gun range. I think that if there is better psychological screenings when guns are sold legally and if gun safety was taught more then gun ownership wouldnt get as bad of a rap.

Also, people need to remember that even if they restrict guns completely and make them illegal, and some1 rly has the desire and want to kill some1 with a gun, or go on these mass shootings, they will find a way to get one.

Think of it like this, alot of drugs are illegal in the US, but that doesnt stop people from finding ways to get their hands on them. Why would you think making guns illegal would stop people from obtaining them.

 

[TheAceTheOne]

Until they're pointed at me (possibly with intent to kill), I'm cool with them. In fact, on the off-chance they're pointed at me, I have a rifle (.22, my grandfather gave me it), a shotgun (also from my grandpa), and a .30-06 scoped (Courtesy of my grandpa).

(Just noticed that this is my first post with my new avatar... which, coincidentally, contains a bullet hole in it.)

 

[cjbos81]

Guns are inanimate objects. Stop imposing moral judgment on inanimate objects. Judge the men responsible for the crime.

Guns are the tools that make murder that much easier. Their design is that of lethality, and their purpose from the standpoint of the people who create them, is to kill.

Most modern handguns are designed for self defense. Self defense is not murder!

 

[Arkhangelsk]

I believe that guns should be able for protection if someone tries to knick all your stuff. Or in case of zombie apocalypse.

 

[demoman_chaos]

I like weapons of all varieties, but I prefer swords over guns. The greatest gunman in the world can be killed by some kid who picked up his father's pistol. Anyone can pull a gun, but it takes a real man to stab someone.

I own a few guns. I have my grandpa's .22 cal revolver, an SKS (civilian AK, stuck on semi-auto mode ), and a shotgun. I haven't gone shooting in a long while but I'd like to.

To people who say guns kill people: Kitchen knives kill people, should we get rid of those? Cars kill people, should we ban thsoe too? Pillows have been invovled in quite a few murders, should those be banned? Blaming a gun for killing is like blaming a pencil for mispelled words. Don't blame the tool being used, blame the tool that is using it.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

I propose a thought experiment;

Imagine a world where guns are not available, and nobody is able to get one. In order to kill, someone has to really want to do it and be willing to get close enough to, for instance, stab someone. (the crossbow argument does not hold, those things are not easily concealed and can't go full auto, but for the rest of the experiment, rule out all ranged firearms. The car argument does not hold either, as A) the car's purpose is not to kill, as it is not created to be a weapon, B) most cars make a lot of noise, you can usually hear a speeding car, and C) ramming someone with a car again requires you to get in close range of the target as you speed closer, plus speedy cars are hard to maneuver outside of long roads and highways.)


Now in stead imagine a world where guns are freely available to everyone. The instinct to arm yourself to match the arms of other people drives everyone to own guns, and everyone can, at varying range, kill people. Where ever you go, a gun could be nearby, and you are driven to always carry gun on you, just in case you need to match arms with someone else. It all comes down to who draws first, which is unnerving to almost anyone. Some of the most effective killing tools around, whose sole purpose and design is that of maiming and killing (target practice aside) are everywhere

Which world do you prefer living in?

gun world. At least then I don't have to worry about a knife to the back and bleeding out to death. Knives and daggers/swords are much easier to conceal and to kill people with.

Actually you still have to worry about a knife to the back in the gun world, a gun does not make knives ineffective. And you can bleed to death from a bullet wound as well.

True enough however they would have to get close enough. It's either a world of melee, or a world of range/melee - I prefer the range combat. I'm not physical type where I have tons of muscle to push people. Also I suggest re phasing your worlds then, you mislead me to believe the world of guns had no melee weapons, not that it makes much of a difference.

In the world of the melee, fighters would simply practice with their melee weapons. That is the only difference. The method of killing would be simply more upfront and personal.. sort of. Assuming they didn't stab you in the back.

 

[Deepzound]

Guns are inanimate objects. Stop imposing moral judgment on inanimate objects. Judge the men responsible for the crime.

Guns are the tools that make murder that much easier. Their design is that of lethality, and their purpose from the standpoint of the people who create them, is to kill.

Most modern handguns are designed for self defense. Self defense is not murder!

I didn't say they were made for murder, I said they make murder easier. And guns are designed to kill, be it in self defense or not.

 

[Deepzound]

I propose a thought experiment;

Imagine a world where guns are not available, and nobody is able to get one. In order to kill, someone has to really want to do it and be willing to get close enough to, for instance, stab someone. (the crossbow argument does not hold, those things are not easily concealed and can't go full auto, but for the rest of the experiment, rule out all ranged firearms. The car argument does not hold either, as A) the car's purpose is not to kill, as it is not created to be a weapon, B) most cars make a lot of noise, you can usually hear a speeding car, and C) ramming someone with a car again requires you to get in close range of the target as you speed closer, plus speedy cars are hard to maneuver outside of long roads and highways.)


Now in stead imagine a world where guns are freely available to everyone. The instinct to arm yourself to match the arms of other people drives everyone to own guns, and everyone can, at varying range, kill people. Where ever you go, a gun could be nearby, and you are driven to always carry gun on you, just in case you need to match arms with someone else. It all comes down to who draws first, which is unnerving to almost anyone. Some of the most effective killing tools around, whose sole purpose and design is that of maiming and killing (target practice aside) are everywhere

Which world do you prefer living in?

gun world. At least then I don't have to worry about a knife to the back and bleeding out to death. Knives and daggers/swords are much easier to conceal and to kill people with.

Actually you still have to worry about a knife to the back in the gun world, a gun does not make knives ineffective. And you can bleed to death from a bullet wound as well.

True enough however they would have to get close enough. It's either a world of melee, or a world of range/melee - I prefer the range combat. I'm not physical type where I have tons of muscle to push people. Also I suggest re phasing your worlds then, you mislead me to believe the world of guns had no melee weapons, not that it makes much of a difference.

In the world of the melee, fighters would simply practice with their melee weapons. That is the only difference. The method of killing would be simply more upfront and personal.. sort of. Assuming they didn't stab you in the back.

I'm sorry if I was not clear on the thought experiment, but I only said that the worlds were either with guns, or without.

Point of the matter is, that it becomes a lot easier to kill in a world with guns than in a world without guns. It is also easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

 

[jamescorck]

I have a big respect for guns, in the sense that I am not afraid of them (I am afraid of those who wield them with the intention of killing somebody). Guns should be treated respectfully, not with fear. If you treat a gun with fear it will bite you in the ass with a bullet. So anytime I am arund guns I treat them with the respect and safety they deserve, and that's lots of it.

Besides, as long as guns are regulated thoroughly and carefully I have no problems with them. The country where I live has a very tight control on guns and fire arms. It sadly is the only experience I have had with guns, so I can't put it in contrast with other countries, though according to what I am seeing it seems pretty much the same case around Europe.

 

[CatmanStu]

Firstly, guns scare me. The reason they scare me is, although a person has to be trained to be efficient with a gun, anybody can use one regardless of physical prowess and most of the, let's call them, unbalanced people I've seen or met are what you would call small people with small people ego related aggression issues. I'm not saying all small people have issues (I am only 5ft 8in and weigh 10 st, and I am as big a pacifist as you'd find) but how often do you here the whole 'I don't understand, he was such a quiet boy' story. I'd wager that those 'quiet types' if given a sword or knife would be more likely to kill themselves than someone else.
As far as the 'right to bear arms' issue, I am a Brit and I say, what right does any country have to pass judgement on another countries culture. As someone pointed out, it was introduced to give them the opportunity to establish themselves as independent, so it is part of their cultural background.
I apologise to any Americans if I have come across as patronising, I just feel that unless someone could swoop in and remove at least 95% of the countries non military firearms as well as guarantee that they could stop at least 95% of black market imports, then every citizen should be able to do whatever they feel they have to to feel safe.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

I propose a thought experiment;

Imagine a world where guns are not available, and nobody is able to get one. In order to kill, someone has to really want to do it and be willing to get close enough to, for instance, stab someone. (the crossbow argument does not hold, those things are not easily concealed and can't go full auto, but for the rest of the experiment, rule out all ranged firearms. The car argument does not hold either, as A) the car's purpose is not to kill, as it is not created to be a weapon, B) most cars make a lot of noise, you can usually hear a speeding car, and C) ramming someone with a car again requires you to get in close range of the target as you speed closer, plus speedy cars are hard to maneuver outside of long roads and highways.)


Now in stead imagine a world where guns are freely available to everyone. The instinct to arm yourself to match the arms of other people drives everyone to own guns, and everyone can, at varying range, kill people. Where ever you go, a gun could be nearby, and you are driven to always carry gun on you, just in case you need to match arms with someone else. It all comes down to who draws first, which is unnerving to almost anyone. Some of the most effective killing tools around, whose sole purpose and design is that of maiming and killing (target practice aside) are everywhere

Which world do you prefer living in?

gun world. At least then I don't have to worry about a knife to the back and bleeding out to death. Knives and daggers/swords are much easier to conceal and to kill people with.

Actually you still have to worry about a knife to the back in the gun world, a gun does not make knives ineffective. And you can bleed to death from a bullet wound as well.

True enough however they would have to get close enough. It's either a world of melee, or a world of range/melee - I prefer the range combat. I'm not physical type where I have tons of muscle to push people. Also I suggest re phasing your worlds then, you mislead me to believe the world of guns had no melee weapons, not that it makes much of a difference.

In the world of the melee, fighters would simply practice with their melee weapons. That is the only difference. The method of killing would be simply more upfront and personal.. sort of. Assuming they didn't stab you in the back.

I'm sorry if I was not clear on the thought experiment, but I only said that the worlds were either with guns, or without.

Point of the matter is, that it becomes a lot easier to kill in a world with guns than in a world without guns. It is also easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

that is also because ranges of hand to hand combat styles have risen over the years. Before the rise of kung-fu and all that jazz - not many people had access to hand to hand training or weapon training for that matter. They were weaker without the knowledge.

Only reason why it's easier to kill someone with a range weapon like a gun. If we had no guns, we would simply see people being killed with swords and the like. Nothing would change. War is War. Desire is Desire. Also True but it's also easier to kill someone accidentally with a crossbow or bow than a knife as well. You could accidentally stab someone during a very dark night.
Plenty of casualty have happened throughout many wars due to accidentally bayoneting as well. Really, I see no difference between a sword and gun. Accidental deaths or not. A knife does not make it automatically a "win" weapon because as sure you idiot proof something - someone will make a better idiot.

Since I am small guy - I prefer range weapons, simply as that. I don't have the Muscle for claymores and the like despite me loving them. Which is why I prefer Guns. Also Guns - it doesn't matter if you the strongest guy on the block - your still going to die.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

and many of the deadly shootings such as the recent one at Arizona could probably have suffered a lower body count if someone at the scene had a gun, and used it to stop the shooter.

That comment makes me want to smash my head into a brick wall.

yes because everyone brings a gun to a political outing. It's American's past time. /sarcasm. No sorry - if anything the person would have been bravery honored, then questioned why the **** did they bring a handgun to such a place with such important people.

Firstly, guns scare me. The reason they scare me is, although a person has to be trained to be efficient with a gun, anybody can use one regardless of physical prowess and most of the, let's call them, unbalanced people I've seen or met are what you would call small people with small people ego related aggression issues. I'm not saying all small people have issues (I am only 5ft 8in and weigh 10 st, and I am as big a pacifist as you'd find) but how often do you here the whole 'I don't understand, he was such a quiet boy' story. I'd wager that those 'quiet types' if given a sword or knife would be more likely to kill themselves than someone else.

Hmmm intriguing. My personal thoughts when I read this was columbine. However that was school's failing to realize the situation as much as it was the parents. Any of those situations are simply people who looked at the surface and didn't thought to prod any further when they should have. Any prodding would have revealed something was afoot. Partly the reason why in conversations now - some of my friends hate it - I always go straight down into the root of the problem to see what's wrong. Also partly the quiet boy routine is simply a "I didn't see diddly squat cause I didn't pay attention to the boy." Most of those "quiet boys" are simply craving attention and they finally lash out in anger. Almost all of those incidents have buildups that take months or years.

columbine while I hate it for giving the bad vibe to video games, also started the anti-bullying movement in schools and forced schools to start cracking down and looking at the mental health of their students, not just their grades and enforcing rules.

 

[Regular Guy]

I'm shocked and horrified and what I'm reading. The only person who seems to be making a clear point is Azrael The Cat. Guns are designed to kill. Guns are incredibly effective at this job. Do you really want tools designed to kill freely available on your country's streets? I don't.

Shootings don't occur at an NRA meeting or gun club because why would somebody turn on their fellow gun-nut? If nobody has guns, it's a fuckload safer than if everybody does. All it takes is one jittery nutjob...

I thought these forums were meant to be vaguely intelligent... fuck if you guys haven't proved it otherwise. Holy shit...

Right, because if the government says nobody is allowed to have guns, criminals are TOTALLY gonna follow that rule.

Wake the fuck up. If a criminal wants a gun, he'll get it no matter what some law says. We see it here in the US all the time (in states where firearms are very strictly controlled). All this actually does is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding people, and leave them at a severe disadvantage if they ever are in a situation where someone is pointing a gun at them.

 

[Danpascooch]

and many of the deadly shootings such as the recent one at Arizona could probably have suffered a lower body count if someone at the scene had a gun, and used it to stop the shooter.

That comment makes me want to smash my head into a brick wall.

The fact that you post something insultingly condescending without stating a single reason for your hostility makes ME want to smash my head into a brick wall.

 

[Infernai]

Guns have their uses but ultimately are not to useful outside of basic defense....

 

[Danpascooch]

I'm shocked and horrified and what I'm reading. The only person who seems to be making a clear point is Azrael The Cat. Guns are designed to kill. Guns are incredibly effective at this job. Do you really want tools designed to kill freely available on your country's streets? I don't.

Shootings don't occur at an NRA meeting or gun club because why would somebody turn on their fellow gun-nut? If nobody has guns, it's a fuckload safer than if everybody does. All it takes is one jittery nutjob...

I thought these forums were meant to be vaguely intelligent... fuck if you guys haven't proved it otherwise. Holy shit...

I agree with you, if NOBODY had guns things would be a lot safer, unfortunately that's like saying if nobody wanted to kill eachother things would be safer, it is something the government CANNOT POSSIBLY ACHIEVE OR ENFORCE.

It's naive to think that if guns were declared illegal, criminals would suddenly not be able to get guns anymore, it's just wrong, there are countless number of ways to get guns illegally.

If the government makes it a crime to have a gun, then only criminals will have guns, and I don't know about you, but I'd like to be able to defend myself in a shooting.

Because in a shooting, you can shout about gun control all you like, that is, until you're gurgling blood after being shot 5 to 10 times.

 

[Danpascooch]

On a societal scale, it would be nice if nobody had guns, unfortunately there is no way to achieve that.

On a personal scale, I don't want to get fucking shot, and there is nothing I personally can do to rid the entire country of guns, so I'm going to get one to defend myself.

 

[blackdwarf]

in my country (netherlands) it is near impossible to get a gun. in my country there are also less murders or armed robbery's. and the law that says that you can own a weapon for self-defence is retared. why do you need a sniper to defend yourself? you want to headshot the burglar who is in you room 2 meters away?