Poll: Guns and you!
- Thread starter CaptainKoala
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Maybe the special arrows are more deadly in one shot compared to one bullet but with most guns you can shoot them faster than a bow. Also how does it being silent and people not needing a license for it make it any more deadly? Those two factors just mean that you wont have to worry about the law as much with a bow and that you can attack silently, but attacking silently can also be easily done with a gun if you attached a silencer onto it. Also going through the process to acquire special arrows is most likely painfully expensive and would go to waste when someone with bad aiming could still kill you with a hunting rifle.willsham45 said:
P.S. I do agree with your first statement that it does depend on the skill of the user but guns just require a lot less skill to use.
Nothing automatic or semi-automatic. Basically, if they're military grade weapons, civilians shouldn't be allowed to own them.
I support the usage of guns but only those for self-defense. Keeping a shotgun at your house, okay. Carrying a legally concealed handgun in your purse, okay. However, I don't see how you'd ever need an SMG unless you're up against something around 15 assailants.
Just for the record, I live in Texas, where people hold onto their gun rights as tightly as a baby with a bottle.
I support the usage of guns but only those for self-defense. Keeping a shotgun at your house, okay. Carrying a legally concealed handgun in your purse, okay. However, I don't see how you'd ever need an SMG unless you're up against something around 15 assailants.
Just for the record, I live in Texas, where people hold onto their gun rights as tightly as a baby with a bottle.
At the risk of having a too far to the right moment, (sounds of a shotgun cocking,) Try to ban my guns hippies I dare ya
Only ban certain types of guns.
See, it's stupid to ban guns so that criminals don't carry them anymore, because the types of guns that criminals typically carry are ALREADY banned. The only people you would be hurting are the good citizens that only want a way to defend themselves if need be.
And us citizens DO need protection. Sure, the Police help, but they don't have psychic abilities. They aren't going to know where to go until something has already happened. And if it's bad enough that you would need a gun to protect yourself, the police are going to show up way too late.
That's not to say that I believe someone should have an RPG for self-defense. It's not like you're going to need to defend yourself from a tank.
But yeah. Leave it like it is in the US.
See, it's stupid to ban guns so that criminals don't carry them anymore, because the types of guns that criminals typically carry are ALREADY banned. The only people you would be hurting are the good citizens that only want a way to defend themselves if need be.
And us citizens DO need protection. Sure, the Police help, but they don't have psychic abilities. They aren't going to know where to go until something has already happened. And if it's bad enough that you would need a gun to protect yourself, the police are going to show up way too late.
That's not to say that I believe someone should have an RPG for self-defense. It's not like you're going to need to defend yourself from a tank.
But yeah. Leave it like it is in the US.
You do realize that they already have multiple laws outlawing sale of firearms to people who have been convicted of a felony...binnsyboy said:I imagine guns also give you an intimidation factor and leverage with which to rape someone.bl4ckh4wk64 said:
Seriously, though, I don't have a problem with guns, but anyone with a violent felony should have restrictions clamped down instantly.
You can't kill several people in a crowd with a knife though. If you want to kill someone with a knife; it'll have to be somewhere noone else is around to intervene.Fidelias said:
However, if you want to go on a killing spree with a gun, you can kill dozens of people before you're stopped. There's a reason those people in the school shootings used guns instead of knives.
Just a reminder for all the gun ban haters when seconds count the cops are only minutes away (average PD response time in urban areas is something like 10 minutes, assuming you get the chance to call them)
How do they decide whether they were just for display?The Maddest March Hare said:
What's to stop you from taking it off the wall and hacking a Jehovah's Witnesses head off?
I believe that as to carry any firearm you must have a license and the licenses only include firing ranges and your house. So no-one is allowed to carry them on public streets at all.
When it comes to display purposes I believe there's some guidelines as to where it changes from being classified as "display" to "functional". In swords, that's such things as build strength (hitting someone with a display sword is equally likely to either kill them or bounce off, have the blade fly loose and smack the person behind you) and, of course, blade sharpness. Something similar goes for "replica" firearms.Rhymenoceros said:
And while I like your suggestion, it overlooks the problem that criminals, as a general rule, do not obey the laws in place. So the license wouldn't really affect them, and it's generally the criminals that commit the crimes..
That's why I suggested stemming it at the source and preventing buying guns, otherwise it can easily lead to a whole host of other problems.
"The second amendment wasn't meant to protect us from ducks and deer."
Now, I'm not a gun nut or even a republican. But this rings true for everyone.
It's not really an issue of practicality for sporting or even relevancy as some people would argue it's an antiquated addendum.
The second amendment was designed to be a last-line of defense for the other 9 inalienably rights. That is, the second amendment is meant to protect us from the government. Not criminals. Not wild dogs. But men who come in the night.
The idea of the 10 inalienably rights is a core virtue of our country and it's absolute foolishness to revise those inalienable rights at the will of vocal alarmists.
Some people would eagerly argue the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments are antiquated in these times of faceless terrorism and should be abridged for the security of all.
Very clearly then, security is always at the expense of life and liberty and most people would say abridging any of the inalienable rights is absolute madness.
Except the second amendment because it's antiquated, right? Give me a break.
I also cringe at the thought of the assault weapons ban of the 90's. The logic was that hunters don't need 40 round magazines and assault rifles while forgetting entirely that hunter merely benefit from the second amendment, they're not the subject of it.
Now, I'm not a gun nut or even a republican. But this rings true for everyone.
It's not really an issue of practicality for sporting or even relevancy as some people would argue it's an antiquated addendum.
The second amendment was designed to be a last-line of defense for the other 9 inalienably rights. That is, the second amendment is meant to protect us from the government. Not criminals. Not wild dogs. But men who come in the night.
The idea of the 10 inalienably rights is a core virtue of our country and it's absolute foolishness to revise those inalienable rights at the will of vocal alarmists.
Some people would eagerly argue the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments are antiquated in these times of faceless terrorism and should be abridged for the security of all.
Very clearly then, security is always at the expense of life and liberty and most people would say abridging any of the inalienable rights is absolute madness.
Except the second amendment because it's antiquated, right? Give me a break.
I also cringe at the thought of the assault weapons ban of the 90's. The logic was that hunters don't need 40 round magazines and assault rifles while forgetting entirely that hunter merely benefit from the second amendment, they're not the subject of it.