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

[bbad89]

I am only comfortable with the army, those riot police who raid terrorist suspects' houses and licensed hunters having guns; and the latter only having a simple shotgun/ bolt-action rifle. In all other cases I find it unnecessary.

I certainly believe that the public should be banned from having any handgun or automatic firearm.

I'll say what I said to the other guy, you do not want a fully armed government and a non-armed populace. At all.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

"A submachine gun! Now I can solve 600 problems a minute."

I'm taking this gun away from you, Mister. You can sit there and think about what you've done.

It's alright, I still have a gigantic alien disguised as a giant mech.

 

[metal mustache]

Most of the criminals' guns come from the licensed gun dealers selling directly to the black market or otherwise not abiding by regulations. This is something that even most die-hard pro-gun advocates will agree needs to be stopped.

-random snipping

That absolutely is the point. If cars can kill just as many people as a gun (and they do, cars account for far more deaths than guns), then by your own logic cars should be banned too.

armed citizen was an interesting site.

i was going to say something unclever about that first one but i couldnn't remember what that word is when people meet halfway.

when you say that cars account for more deaths than guns, are you talking about actually murdering people with cars? otherwise i don't think you've made too big a point there (If you did mean that though... well i'd have to see some more statistics or something, cause that would be crazy, even if the car murdering was a quarter of the gun murdering).

oh and when i was talking about the conspiracy theorists i meant people going like "WHATS NEXT, FREEDOM OF SPEECH!?"

 

[e2density]

I am an avid firearms shooter and owner, and I have a large collection of various rifles, shotguns and pistols.

My most notable firearms are my Oly Arms K16

Spoiler

(that picture except with a A2 stock assembly, Leupold VX3 scope, Hogue pistol grip, and a few pmags)

and my SW 686.

Spoiler

So I can think you know my feelings about firearms
Remember, if you take guns away, you only take them away from the legal law abiding citizens.

 

[metal mustache]

My handguns are not for self-defense. They certainly wouldn't be of any use sitting in a gun safe with trigger locks installed. They are only used when i go to a gun range for fun, to shoot targets, to blow off some steam, whatever the use always for sport. Now tell me, how is that biased and whats wrong with that? I didn't purchase my handguns with the intent of saving my life, i bought them to have fun in a safe, responsible, and legal manner.

Furthermore, i do not have a concealed carry permit and have no interest in one.

i was reffering to the question: whats wrong with a normal law biding anthem singing twinkle in his eye citizen owning a gun???? when i was talking about biased.

Of course nothings wrong with that guy owning a gun.

... sorry if i'm sounding mean, i'm trying to laugh with you here.

anyway if you understand the reasons why people want to ban guns, you should realize that you wanting shoot to targets with them isn't really a good reason against banning them. Go play frigging laser tag or something jeez!

 

[Pyode]

when you say that cars account for more deaths than guns, are you talking about actually murdering people with cars? otherwise i don't think you've made too big a point there (If you did mean that though... well i'd have to see some more statistics or something, cause that would be crazy, even if the car murdering was a quarter of the gun murdering).

Well, no, I wasn't talking about murders but, then, that's why I put that part of the sentence in parenthesis as an aside. I was simply pointing out this deadly device that is licensed out to people as young as 16 with significantly less testing and training than most concealed carry laws require.

My main point however was that, by your own admission, that lunatic in Arizona could potentially have done more damage with a car. Had he not had access to a gun he could have easily used a car or even an improvised incendiary or explosive device, all of which are actually often easier and cheaper to acquire.

oh and when i was talking about the conspiracy theorists i meant people going like "WHATS NEXT, FREEDOM OF SPEECH!?"

You mean like the example I already gave you about the tobacco companies? That was actually a clear beach of freedom of speech that has already occurred in America.

The idea of the jump between loosing the 2nd Amendment and loosing the 1st Amendment is not that ridiculous. This is largely because many people interpret the 2nd Amendment as at least partially designed to protect the 1st Amendment (as well as all the others). You loose the 2nd Amendment, you lose the protection for the others.

Now I do in fact believe that was the intent of the Amendment, but it hasn't actually worked out that way. The US Military is so advanced and so powerful, the only way the general public would be able to mount an effective resistance would be if large portions of the military sided with the people, as opposed to the politicians, and took their equipment with them.

 

[veloper]

It causes more trouble than it might help prevent crime.

Handguns are used to stop/prevent about 200,000- yes, two hundred thousand- animal attacks every year. That may seem like an improbably large number, until you realize that there are over 300 million Americans living in this country, and this country is the size of Europe, which is considered an entire continent in it's own right. When Canada made it illegal for civilains to carry guns, the number of deaths by animal attacks, such as bears and wolverines and moutain lions, increased dramatically.

Sounds like what you need is skilled hunters with rifles. Not a handgun in the hand of every random city slob, who'll never see an animal outside the zoo.

The problem with this is that many Americans live in Rural areas. Carrying a rifle/shotgun everywhere is inconvenient, and we would prefer not to mass slaughter animals just because they might be dangerous. On top of which, even if we did slaughter every predator who lives in a 20 mile radius around every city, people who go hiking and fishing in the woods would still be at risk with without the ability to defend themselves. We prefer to have the freedom to go into wilderness when we feel like it, and carrying a rifle/shotgun everywhere is inconvenient.

As for "City Slobs," when Michigan passed right to carry laws in 2000, the crime rate got lower, despite the recession. This has consistently happened with pretty much every state/city that has done this.

You cannot realisticly arm everyone with firearms, the most notable group being teenagers, so that's no real solution.
Shooting animals is better. You don't shoot all dangerous animals, just enough to keep the population in check and to keep them afraid of humans. That solves all problems.

I don't buy the inconvenience argument either. Sounds like laziness. Sure a rifle is heavier than a pistol, but it's better suited for the job(hunting) and it looks out of place in the streets and that's a plus.

 

[orangeban]

Civilians and cops with guns = stupid.

Cops with guns = stupid why?

Why does a police officer need a gun? So they can kill people? I think the number of videos of American cops shooting unarmed civilians demonstrates this perfectly. If civies didn't have guns, there'd be absolutely no reason for a cop to have one. (Obviously not including specialist teams like SWAT)

Criminals have guns, and the police don't have guns = A criminal run area.

See the problem here?

The picture alone describes the amount of fail i read in that post.

Yeah,but in the UK the police don't have guns (excluding SWAT and the like) last I checked we we'ren't run by criminals

You sure? Because criminals have guns regardless of what the law says and immediately gains an advantage over police forces, especially in America?

The thing is, we still have SWAT to deal with situations where criminals have guns. As soon as the police are facing a gun man SWAT teams should be brought in as it's to dangerous a situation for a ordinary policeman.

If the police don't have guns then that just gives reason to stay out of dangerous situations and call in the people whose job it is.

 

[The Last Parade]

I'm going to get one in a couple years when I hit 21, I'll use it for shooting ranges though I plan to carry it around if I can get a permit.

I think people should be allowed to have and carry guns.

You'll notice the deadly shootings never (nearly never? I'm not entirely sure it has literally not happened once) occur at a gun range or an NRA meeting, 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.

Someone has probably called you out on this but it really wouldn't have,

lets say that there were two bystanders with a safe gun control mentality, now lets thing about it, the shooter had a semi automatic fire arm with a 31 round magazine, the bystanders would need to...

Unholster
Retrieve mag
load mag
pull chamber
aim fire

which would take about 20+ seconds under calm conditions with personal space (not happening here) and lets not forget the risk of the shooter seeing you and offing you on the spot the better tactic is to just tackle the guy and pin his arm. Guns wouldn't have made it safer, they made it possible for the thing to happen to begin with...

 

[macfluffers]

2) But, they actually have the highest gun related murder rate in the world.

Completely incorrect. Do research before making factual claims like this. /argument invalid.

 

[Danpascooch]

I'm going to get one in a couple years when I hit 21, I'll use it for shooting ranges though I plan to carry it around if I can get a permit.

I think people should be allowed to have and carry guns.

You'll notice the deadly shootings never (nearly never? I'm not entirely sure it has literally not happened once) occur at a gun range or an NRA meeting, 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.

Someone has probably called you out on this but it really wouldn't have,

lets say that there were two bystanders with a safe gun control mentality, now lets thing about it, the shooter had a semi automatic fire arm with a 31 round magazine, the bystanders would need to...

Unholster
Retrieve mag
load mag
pull chamber
aim fire

which would take about 20+ seconds under calm conditions with personal space (not happening here) and lets not forget the risk of the shooter seeing you and offing you on the spot the better tactic is to just tackle the guy and pin his arm. Guns wouldn't have made it safer, they made it possible for the thing to happen to begin with...

First off, that's assuming the gun isn't already loaded, which it probably would be.

Second of all, that's ALSO assuming that there is only ONE guy with a gun, AND he's the FIRST person shot by the shooter, if the shooter didn't shoot him first because he didn't see him draw the gun, which is the most likely scenario, he could take the shot and end the event.

Lastly, yes, without guns this wouldn't have happened, but "without guns" does NOT equal "with gun control" This guy would have found a way whether or not there was stricter gun control, I mean, what does he care about the law if he's already planning on going on a killing spree? Better to have the guns in the hands of responsible citizens AND criminals, then having them in the hands of ONLY criminals.

Because if you make it criminal to have a gun, only criminals will have guns.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

So you believe that guns could stop gun crimes? Now I don't follow everything that happens in the news in USA, but when was the last time someone managed to kill/ incapacitate a potential murderer with a gun before the murderer managed to physically harm anyone else?

I don't know, but it's not necessarily about stopping him before he can harm the first person, it's about stopping him before he could have harmed MORE people.

Like I said in my original post, I said "could have suffered a LOWER BODY COUNT" not "could have avoided the entire shooting"

 

[zwoodco10]

Civilians and cops with guns = stupid.

Cops with guns = stupid why?

For the same reason civilians with guns is stupid. Why make an exception for cops? You do know a cop is just as likely to commit a crime as a civilian right?

But a cop without a gun becomes essentially useless in any situation involving a gun. If a police officer comes upon an armed robbery, and the robber KNOWS the Officer is carrying a weapon that he/she has been trained (EXTENSIVELY) to use, then the crook is a lot more likely to simply give in, or attempt an escape. If the crook is aware of the fact that the officer is only carrying a single-shot or close-quarters tazer, then he has the upper hand, thereby putting the officer, the victim, the criminal, and anyone in the vicinity at risk for death/injury.

Okay, but why shouldn't civilians have guns too?

I never said they shouldn't...

 

[zwoodco10]

If your not in a war as a soldier or debatably the police you have no good reason to own something as deadly as a gun.

Except for the fact that nine times out of ten, the police won't be able to reach you before the man with the gun in your face can pull the trigger. The fact of the matter is, all weapons create a paradox: The more people own a gun, then the more people will purchase guns. If civilians were prohibited from owning/carrying guns, then they would be put at risk simply because, as I said earlier, the people that want to use firearms for the wrong reasons will still be able to get them. Hell, those that are using firearms for robberies/killings/etc don't get them legally NOW.

True,
in an ideal world noone would be able to get them is my point i guess.
But even with your point, you dont see many shooting in Britain(few guns), am I wrong in saying its not that rare in America(many guns)

...less guns = less shooting = :]

My point was that there will always be a person or persons who can get a firearm and use it illegally. Outlawing or tightening the restrictions on civilians owning weapons won't change the fact that the people that want guns for the wrong reasons will still be able to get ahold of them.

Your statement about Britain is true, however you'll find that most (if not all) of the shootings in places where civilians aren't allowed to carry are committed by a person or persons with illegal weapons. The thing is, many of the news stories relating to gun violence report solely on GUN-RELATED DEATHS. Read literally, that means any death that involves a firearm is immediately reported and turned into a statistic. They leave out the fact that a good number of these "gun-related deaths" are a result of self-defense or the defense of those around you.

As a note, I do think it's kind of stupid that it's easier to purchase a shotgun in America than it is to get a low-caliber handgun...

 

[mxfox408]

The argument for owning guns is a self-perpetuating one that applies to any weapon. If no one owned one, there would be no need for any of them.

The only thing you accomplish in owning a gun is ensuring that another person will also own one.

Ummm last i checked we have the right to bear arms. As long as you own a gun without using it on others its fine with me.

We have the right to piss ourselves and defecate in our pants too. How many people do you see jumping on board with that one?

As long as you do it without hurting others fine by me.

Easy to say. Last I recall guns weren't intended to... make friendly conversations with your neighbors. Their purpose has a direct effect on other people, whether they're used or not.

Just because people have the right to do something, doesn't mean they should use it.

Using your logic would it be safe to remove your right drive because of less than 1% of the population dui? Just because a small percent of the psycho or nut jobs use guns stupidly and can get them at any time legally or illegally doesnt mean everyone else should be assed out. How often do you hear of psychos going on a killing spree in states that allow you to carry guns as opposed to the states that dont? Two states for example california and texas have high populations and in california we cannot carry guns, yet the crime rate is 4 times more severe than texas(which also doesnt pamper thier criminals). Why is that can you explain in detail?

 

[Malyc]

Conflicted.

One on hand, there's the FPS geek in me that loves them and gets all excited talking to my army buddies about the effects of a 50CAL bullet on a body.

At the same time, they kill people and that doesn't sit right with me as it's something I'm not sure I could ever live with doing.

It's people like you that try to blame everything on weapons, instead of poor education/bad intentions.
Does the knife in the kitchen drawer have the ability to stab someone of it's own accord? How about the axe? Can it cut down a tree by sitting in your shed?
Objects don't, and can't have a will of their own. Plus, as a hunter I've never seen a gun kill anything. The venison in my freezer? I killed that. The gun just made the job slightly easier, and if i didn't have the gun, I'd have used my bow. If I didn't have a bow, i'd have used a spear. If I really want something dead, it's going to die regardless of what I use to kill it.
Now, LET THE RAGING COMMENTS FOR ME BEING A DEFENDER OF GUNS COMMENCE!!!

 

[Scout Tactical]

I think it's hilarious that people believe the United States could ever eliminate civilian firearms. We have a very insecure border with a very unstable warring country. I wonder where we might acquire more guns.

Really, all gun control does* is ensure that only criminals have weapons.




*I'm in favor of a degree of gun control. Licenses and training should be mandatory, and weapons such as sniper rifles and fully automatic assault rifles shouldn't be available to civilians, but eliminating guns completely is foolish. That said, even with laws such as this in place, Americans still get their hands on assault rifles and sniper rifles.

 

[Malyc]

I think it's hilarious that people believe the United States could ever eliminate civilian firearms. We have a very insecure border with a very unstable warring country. I wonder where we might acquire more guns.

Really, all gun control does* is ensure that only criminals have weapons.




*I'm in favor of a degree of gun control. Licenses and training should be mandatory, and weapons such as sniper rifles and fully automatic assault rifles shouldn't be available to civilians, but eliminating guns completely is foolish. That said, even with laws such as this in place, Americans still get their hands on assault rifles and sniper rifles.

You do realize that "sniper rifles" are basically just hunting rifles, right? In fact, 2 of the most popular military sniper platforms ARE hunting rifles, based off the Winchester model 70 and Remington 700, respectively. Assault rifles shoot a less powerful cartridge than almost any deer rifle out there, the only advantage they have is a higher mag capacity and lighter recoil. Why is it that just because something was used by the military, people feel like they must shout OMGLOL BANHAMMER!!! at the top of their lungs?

Sorry, I missed the fully auto part of the previous statement.