Poll: Guns and you!

[willsham45]

I am not even in the states nore do I own a fun...got a bow that can be just as deadly though.
If you ban guns the only people who have guns are though who have it illegally who would have then illegally anyway.

If everyone had a gun then there would be less gun crime. I heard Mexico is a good example of this.
If I owned a shop and I had a gun behind the counter and it was known that I did, would you try to rob my shop? Maybe but I am sure some people will be put off.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

I'm always a little against guns because I find them a somewhat lazy and inresponsible way for a non-soldier to fight.
I do however think that self-defence is an important right, so would be willing to accept them as a compromise if we can't go back to everyone carrying a sword

Swords are hard to make and very cumbersome, also they require a good amount of training and concentration to wield so you don't end up cutting yourself. Imagine if we only carried swords, when the mob gets involved with importing illegal weapons a sword isn't going to do shit against a machine gun, if the cops were using swords and the mob got their hands on guns they could literally take over the entire town. But then on second thought, a sword would be total bad ass and it would encourage people to go outside and train with them reducing the overweight population.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

I am not even in the states nore do I own a fun...got a bow that can be just as deadly though.
If you ban guns the only people who have guns are though who have it illegally who would have then illegally anyway.

If everyone had a gun then there would be less gun crime. I heard Mexico is a good example of this.
If I owned a shop and I had a gun behind the counter and it was known that I did, would you try to rob my shop? Maybe but I am sure some people will be put off.

Serious question, how is a bow ever as deadly as a gun?

 

[llew]

I'm always a little against guns because I find them a somewhat lazy and inresponsible way for a non-soldier to fight.
I do however think that self-defence is an important right, so would be willing to accept them as a compromise if we can't go back to everyone carrying a sword

which will never happen (although it would be pretty epic if it did) especially since "the pen is mightier than the sword" got fucked over with automatic weapons

 

[Jonluw]

I'm always a little against guns because I find them a somewhat lazy and inresponsible way for a non-soldier to fight.
I do however think that self-defence is an important right, so would be willing to accept them as a compromise if we can't go back to everyone carrying a sword

http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-pussy.html

Read the paragraph on Jack Churchill

 

[Daverson]

I voted "Don't ban any guns, everything is legal", however, anyone who's been found guilty of any crime should instantly loose this right.

In addition, a system similar to vehicle licensing and insuring should be in place (ie, the owner of the firearms should have a licence, and each firearm should be insured. This would allow the government to easily keep track of all firearms, when they're stolen etc.). This would ensure that people who are unable to safely handle firearms wouldn't be able to get their hands on them.

 

[ender003]

Fuck guns. Like we really need more ways to kill each other.

 

[Okysho]

In today's day and age, I can't say that guns aren't necessary, after all, the main argument is that other people have them, and so if we want to keep up, we need to have big sticks to match the big sticks everyone else has.

Idealistically however, I would not want firearms, but this goes beyond civilians. If there weren't soldiers armed with guns, no criminals with guns, nor guns to be produced, I think there might be something to be had there. Since this hasn't happened since the middle ages (and the middle ages were shit because it was practically the freakin' stone age, I'm talking the dark ages). I can't say I know how a "no-gun world" would be.

I do know that we'd be allowed to carry swords again, which would be awesome, but just think about that for a minute. If no one had guns, so there would be no need for guns. Could be good, could totally suck. Who knows.

 

[Virus0015]

Ever wondered why America's murder rates are so much higher then other first world countries?

Yeah.

Not necessarily. Switzerland has a very high rate of firearm ownership, yet they have comparatively low gun crime. According to wikipedia, the rate of firearm related homicides is 0.56, compared to 2.97 in the USA (per 100,000 people). The overall homicide rate is 1.52 compared to 4.55 in the US.

Comparing the overall homicide rates of a first world country that largely outlaws firearms and one that doesn't:

England and Wales (couldn't get UK stats) 1.45, Switzerland 1.52.

The difference is marginal. The issue is not as black and white as "guns are bad". However gun ownership in Switzerland is somewhat different than that in the US. People are conscripted for a certain term of service, during which time they keep an automatic assault rifle at their home. Once their term of service finishes they have the option of keeping a semi-automatic only version. This is perhaps the reason for lower rates of gun crime, people are brought up to treat the weapons responsibly. One can only speculate, however it is important to note that a high rate of legal gun ownership alone is not necessarily a contributing fact to a high homicide rate.

 

[Virus0015]

Whoops double post.

 

[willsham45]

I am not even in the states nore do I own a fun...got a bow that can be just as deadly though.
If you ban guns the only people who have guns are though who have it illegally who would have then illegally anyway.

If everyone had a gun then there would be less gun crime. I heard Mexico is a good example of this.
If I owned a shop and I had a gun behind the counter and it was known that I did, would you try to rob my shop? Maybe but I am sure some people will be put off.

Serious question, how is a bow ever as deadly as a gun?

Of cause it all depends on the skill of the user, and yes some guns are deadlier but a decent recurve bow or compound bow can be more deadly than some hand guns.
1. You don't need a licence for it
2. Its silent
You can also kit it out with special arrows they do more damage and it can do more long term damage.

 

[Okysho]

Honestly, when does a citizen need a firearm?

So you're telling me that the lady that got raped and left for dead in an alley didn't need some sort of protection? That's what firearms give you, they give you a sense of protection and the means to defend yourself against others who will do harm to you.

No...a firearm doesn't help you at all...Someone trying to rape you is much to close to you for you to get your gun out, flick the safety of and take aim at the assailant without him taking that weapon from you and using it against yourself. If you can't defend without a gun in this situation, you also can't with one. Not to speak of shock and the inherent restrain to severely hurt someone else. People don't normally go around the world, constantly counting on being attacked, so if it happens, the likely don't know how to react and outright forget that they carry a weapon at all. When they remember, it is to late. Also if you are robbed and take out your gun, the attacker is more likely to use deadly force on you, just because he has to protect himself now, and he has the upper hand in that situation. Always.

There are two ways to react in an assault, that will get you out alive:
1. Flee...if your assailant is not too close to you, you can flee. If you can't outrun him and he catches up, you can surprise him and attack with feet and hands. He will be surprised and too close to react properly. Then you can continue your flight. If you can't break the assault on your own, there are nonlethal means to defend yourself like electroshockers or pepperspray, both of which have a much lower inhibition threshold to use against someone than a gun or a blade.
2. Comply...obviously not the way to go, if your assailant tries to harm you physically, but as long as he just wants to rob you, YOU JUST FUCKING DO WHAT HE SAYS!

This right here. There are also nightsticks and kubatons (though those need a bit of training) which are blunt weapons to defend yourself at a closer range. If you're assaulted, you need to make lots of noise and run, or else do what he says. Your money isn't worth your life after all. The closer two people are together, the less effective a gun is going to be. Though random, and it's 'possible' for a gun to be effective in a struggle, again it's pretty random and you could also get hurt yourself. Knives are much more dangerous.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

A compromise:

Non military grade weapons are fine as long as you use less then lethal ammo.

 

[mirasiel]

I'd much rather be facing a psycho with a sword than one with a gun.

I'd rather face a psycho with a gun and him with a sword rather than him with a sword and me with my swinging cock.

I mean I'll break his fucking legs but damn blocking is going to HURT.

I think everyone over the age of 18 should be required to own,maintain and train with a decent semi-automatic rifle (Im thinking m1 garand) and once they pass basic training with it (safety,maintanence,storage,aiming,effects on people and the like) they have the right to buy and train with any non-explosive ballistic weapon, probably a provision to prevent ownership of weapons that *need* to be vehicle mounted or securely emplaced IE no howitzers or TOW's or 20mm automatic grendade launchers (sad panda face) although I suppose you could build a rail/coil/gauss gun.

Advance training requirement to own explosive/armor piercing/incendiary rounds.

Same goes for melee weapons, training to own one for home defence and organised events but advance training/master qualification to carry a live weapon in public outside of a carry case.


My ideal paradise is like someone else earlier in the thread, mexican stand off with criminals probably becoming an endangered species within a year

 

[Asdalan08]

Just use a Colt Single Army, it's the best Handgun ever made.

Gun's just have to be illegal in Scotland don't they...

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

Threads like these make me want to be in Switzerland. Isn't there a law that requires every adult to own and be able to operate an assault rifle?

sort of, its part of their national service/wartime policy where all Swiss citizens of national service age are given 1 rifle and a box of ammunition, that way when the war clouds start forming they can scatter to the mountaisn and raise an army in a heartbeat (this also applies to their vehicles and airforce hence why swiss jets are designed to take off from highways)

however with that rifle and ammo come certain stipulations namely that you aren't allowed to use them (this includes opening the box of ammunition, and they do check if you have) for anything other than wartime use or cleaning the rifle.

Not necessarily. Switzerland has a very high rate of firearm ownership, yet they have comparatively low gun crime. According to wikipedia, the rate of firearm related homicides is 0.56, compared to 2.97 in the USA (per 100,000 people). The overall homicide rate is 1.52 compared to 4.55 in the US.

Comparing the overall homicide rates of a first world country that largely outlaws firearms and one that doesn't:

England and Wales (couldn't get UK stats) 1.45, Switzerland 1.52.

The difference is marginal. The issue is not as black and white as "guns are bad". However gun ownership in Switzerland is somewhat different than that in the US. People are conscripted for a certain term of service, during which time they keep an automatic assault rifle at their home. Once their term of service finishes they have the option of keeping a semi-automatic only version. This is perhaps the reason for lower rates of gun crime, people are brought up to treat the weapons responsibly. One can only speculate, however it is important to note that a high rate of legal gun ownership alone is not necessarily a contributing fact to a high homicide rate.

quoted for truth, the issue isn't guns themselves, but the attitudes people have about guns and whether or not they've been educated in gun safety

 

[Dwarfman]

I have no problem with someone owning a gun for home defence, sporting or rural purposes.

I do and will draw the line with have automatic

Goddamnit, I'm getting tired of this nonsense.

Automatic weapons have been illegal for civilian ownership and use since the fucking 20s unless said civilian has a class III firearms license, which is nigh impossible to get.

and military grade rifles,

What the hell does that even mean? Most rifles used by snipers are modified versions of hunting rifles, and pretty much all other guns are select fire(the aformentioned illegal to own guns) and you(yet again) cannot get any of the larger guns used by the military without a class III.

semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic pistols above a certain ammo capacity.

And what capacity are you talking about? 8 rounds instead of 5? Or do you mean drum mags, which I'm fairly certain are illegal for civilians unless you manage to get government approval.

Such items were never intended for a civilian population.

And that's totally why the manufacturers who made em either sell the damn things to civilians or have civilian versions readily available to steal your hard earned money.

I mean seriously folks you don't need a glock or M-16 to defend your home with!

I may not need a AR-15(an M16 is illegal to own without a class III) for home defence, but I can damn sure hunt with it. As far as the Glock goes, I'd like to see what your suggestions for home defence are as opposed to an accurate, reliable pistol.

I would ask you kindly next time not to jump down my throat.

Regardless of how the law runs in your country or any other country for that matter, this is how I believe gun laws should be run. I am not a moron. I did not think even for a second that most normal thinking 1st world countries would allow civillians access to military grade weapons. The poll asked the question about my views on gun control. I believe I gave them.

Except having re-read what I wrote I noted an omission I also meant to write severe restrictions on all semi-automatic long arms as well. Please also note that I do not believe 'civilian versions' of military grade weapons should be sold.

As for glocks in home defence. Well allow me to clarify when I say military grade I should have also said police issue as well. Such weoponry is given to the police to ensure they have the edge.

 

[Koroviev]

what is the general belief here on the Escapist about guns?

I think guns are great - but only for me. I think I should have all the guns, and other people shouldn't have any.

This is pretty funny.

 

[debramster123]

i love guns!!!!!