Poll: Guns and you!

[annoyinglizardvoice]

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

Depending on the sword things could get *very* messy. 'specially if they're not cared for.

Nearly any form of self-defence could get messy. At least a sword can parry

 

[DanDeFool]

I imagine that situation would have been very different if that student had been carrying a .45 Glock.

I can tell you what would have happened! The glock would have exploded in his hand because glocks are complete crap and he would have ended up shot and missing a hand.

Odd. Pretty much everything I've heard about Glock has lead me to believe that they make some of the best handguns in the world. What makes you think Glock's handguns are poor quality?

 

[loc978]

I imagine that situation would have been very different if that student had been carrying a .45 Glock.

I can tell you what would have happened! The glock would have exploded in his hand because glocks are complete crap and he would have ended up shot and missing a hand.

Odd. Pretty much everything I've heard about Glock has lead me to believe that they make some of the best handguns in the world. What makes you think Glock's handguns are poor quality?

...I doubt he's ever held one.
http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90
http://www.youtube.com/user/schapman43

Yes, they are the probably most reliable handgun on Earth. Many people find them uncomfortable to hold... some others think modern composites melt or deform like a child's plastic toy. Those others are poorly educated.

Spoiler: I take mine everywhere I go...

I take mine everywhere I go...

 

[nofear220]

Don't ban anything.
Guns are awesome.

how bout a mental exam for people before they are allowed to have guns though?

But the criminals would still get them by going around the stystem.

There is nothing special about guns, they are a weapon like a sword or a butter knife. Its not like murder didn't exist until the gun was invented.

Yeah, but it would just increase the street price of a gun further

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

I imagine that situation would have been very different if that student had been carrying a .45 Glock.

I can tell you what would have happened! The glock would have exploded in his hand because glocks are complete crap and he would have ended up shot and missing a hand.

Odd. Pretty much everything I've heard about Glock has lead me to believe that they make some of the best handguns in the world. What makes you think Glock's handguns are poor quality?

The extreme finicky-ness of it. The ability to literally explode on you with reloaded rounds (yes, all guns can explode with reloads, it just happens more for glocks) The extreme light weight means more recoil. If you've ever held one, the grip weighs probably less than a pound, all the weight is in the slide. The lack of an external hammer. I hate the trigger safety, I'd much rather go with a decocker. I don't like how it feels... Pretty much the only good thing I can say about Glocks is that they run very well when they're dry. You don't have to lubricate it at all. I personally like my P226 over my Glock 17 (inherited, not bought) but I have to keep it wet. It's much like the AR, AK argument in that an AR will beat an AK, but it just has to be well cleaned and oiled.
Oh, there's also the whole "upward barrel tilt" thing. I never understood the usefulness of that.

 

[xdom125x]

I think private citizens should be allowed to own and carry guns for defense against attackers and in case their government becomes tyrannical. Although I can't think of many guns ,that are legal for private citizens to own, that would help put up much of a fight against a government controlling fighter jets, tanks, and much worse.

 

[CaptainKoala]

Don't ban anything.
Guns are awesome.

how bout a mental exam for people before they are allowed to have guns though?

But the criminals would still get them by going around the stystem.

There is nothing special about guns, they are a weapon like a sword or a butter knife. Its not like murder didn't exist until the gun was invented.

Yeah, but it would just increase the street price of a gun further

Most criminals of all types are in it for the money anyways. And generally, they have plenty of it. So getting guns wouldn't be a problem regardless.

 

[CaptainKoala]

That makes no sense. They would have firearms even with the ban. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Weed is banned yet you can still get it, as with child porn (and not just over the internet) and a whole host of other banned substances.

Way to counteract your own argument.

You can still get child porn even though it is banned, so why ban it? Just let everyone have access to it.

Making child porn harms children. Making guns does not.

The whole freaking argument over banning guns is that doing so will prevent bad people from using them.

It won't and there are legitimate uses for a gun (none with child porn or murder).

The argument that banning firearms will have no effect because they will just get them anyway is absolute rubbish. If you are a criminal, it would be sure as bloody hell easier to obtain a firearm and kill someone where firearms are legal than if they were illegal.

Not necessarily. Most of the guns will be sold by stores required to do background checks.

And seriously, whoever used the woman raped in an ally way, get a life.

Because women never need to fear being raped? It still happens you know.

Sure it's a sob story that gets people worked up (mostly reactionary idiots), but don't you need a special licence to carry a weapon out of your house? and that it has to be concealed? and that you can't get it in all states? I could be wrong.

Yes, but they're not impossible to get or anything.

Allowing civilians to use guns with little or no training is ridiculous. If you hand guns out to everyone there is a very high chance that a nutcase is going to have a whole bunch of them.

And that can happen regardless of the laws. The Columbine boys got their guns illegally.

There's also the 2nd amendment right to rise up against any tyrannical form of government.

Oh please... the American population as a whole is far too stupid to realise when their rights are being abused. Patriot act anyone? As long as it doesn't cost them any money they won't give a shit.

Nobody's interested in your psychic predictions you pulled out of thin air.

I'm just going to end this now:
Father Time is right.
Educatedfool is not educated at all, but is still a fool. Here's why:
There is NOTHING special about guns, they are just as much of a weapon as a baseball bat or a toaster or a sword. If citizens couldn't get guns the criminals still would, therefore the citizens can't protect themselves. And even if criminals somehow couldn't get guns, do you think that would stop them? I guess I wasn't aware of the fact that there was no such thing as murder or armed robbery until the invention of the gun.
If a bank robber cant get a gun, he'll use something else. Bottom line.
So if criminals can get them, citizens have a right to defend themselves against said criminals in a fair fight, where both sides are armed, and not just one.
And you're right, with the right to bear arms comes the possibility of wierdos having a hundred of them and killing people. But if guns weren't invented yet, that same wierdo would be collecting something else and killing people with those. We can't make laws to restrict things that criminals use because the criminals don't follow laws in the first place.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Do not ban anything. Full-auto is a wast of ammo and really would not kill more people (you can do more damage with a revolver if you know how to use it), full-auto is more for enemy suppression then killing, so I would not buy one, but they should be legal. Assault Rifles are good for home protection, that is what I keep by my computer. I am not going into handguns, I will just point to multiple Supreme Court rulings saying they are legal. I really do not care if anyone thinks I am crazy, it is my right as an American to have them, live with it.

Besides, I need that Howitzer to go duck hunting. (This last one is a joke, but dang, it would be fun to do)

 

[CaptainKoala]

That makes no sense. They would have firearms even with the ban. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Weed is banned yet you can still get it, as with child porn (and not just over the internet) and a whole host of other banned substances.

Way to counteract your own argument.

You can still get child porn even though it is banned, so why ban it? Just let everyone have access to it.

Making child porn harms children. Making guns does not.

The whole freaking argument over banning guns is that doing so will prevent bad people from using them.

It won't and there are legitimate uses for a gun (none with child porn or murder).

The argument that banning firearms will have no effect because they will just get them anyway is absolute rubbish. If you are a criminal, it would be sure as bloody hell easier to obtain a firearm and kill someone where firearms are legal than if they were illegal.

Not necessarily. Most of the guns will be sold by stores required to do background checks.

And seriously, whoever used the woman raped in an ally way, get a life.

Because women never need to fear being raped? It still happens you know.

Sure it's a sob story that gets people worked up (mostly reactionary idiots), but don't you need a special licence to carry a weapon out of your house? and that it has to be concealed? and that you can't get it in all states? I could be wrong.

Yes, but they're not impossible to get or anything.

Allowing civilians to use guns with little or no training is ridiculous. If you hand guns out to everyone there is a very high chance that a nutcase is going to have a whole bunch of them.

And that can happen regardless of the laws. The Columbine boys got their guns illegally.

There's also the 2nd amendment right to rise up against any tyrannical form of government.

Oh please... the American population as a whole is far too stupid to realise when their rights are being abused. Patriot act anyone? As long as it doesn't cost them any money they won't give a shit.

Nobody's interested in your psychic predictions you pulled out of thin air.

I'm just going to end this now:
Father Time is right.
Educatedfool is not educated at all, but is still a fool. Here's why:
There is NOTHING special about guns, they are just as much of a weapon as a baseball bat or a toaster or a sword. If citizens couldn't get guns the criminals still would, therefore the citizens can't protect themselves. And even if criminals somehow couldn't get guns, do you think that would stop them? I guess I wasn't aware of the fact that there was no such thing as murder or armed robbery until the invention of the gun.
If a bank robber cant get a gun, he'll use something else. Bottom line.
So if criminals can get them, citizens have a right to defend themselves against said criminals in a fair fight, where both sides are armed, and not just one.
And you're right, with the right to bear arms comes the possibility of wierdos having a hundred of them and killing people. But if guns weren't invented yet, that same wierdo would be collecting something else and killing people with those. We can't make laws to restrict things that criminals use because the criminals don't follow laws in the first place.

 

[Jegsimmons]

well im a gun lover. but i think their should have been one more option for legalize all guns withing reason (such as keep automatic weapons with a special state/federal license, but but not explosives bigger than fireworks.)

and while doing research for a school term paper i found that (in the USA mind you) that compared to about 14,000 gun deaths each year, their are 2.5 million REPORTED cases of a gun preventing crime, and they predict another 2.5 million go unreported. and much to my shock, more than 90% didn't even involve a shot being fired.

and lets also take in to consideration that a huge chunk of gun crime is committed with guns that are either stolen or smuggled across the border. so just from pure logic its safe to say that guns are not a "bad" thing, its a simple tool that most of the 80 million registered gun owners use wisely (note: not all gun owners in America have to be registered.)

and i constantly find that in states (and other countries) where firearms have been heavily restricted or banned, crime has shot up to a crazy point. and thats why an average city in California (where guns are not popular) will have higher crime rate than a city in say Alabama (where even granny is packing). now that not always the case but most of the time it is.

and since this post is getting long ill stop here.

 

[lolmanxe]

i live in norway. its a rather peacefull country as long as you kee away from the SOUTH of norway then its very simmilar to jersey. i live north and we get to go hunt when its in season and we also get to hunt crows. we chopp their feet of as evidence and get a modest sum of money for killing it. so yeah i think guns are great as long as they are used for what they are supposed to... wait that would be war... never mind then

 

[nofear220]

Don't ban anything.
Guns are awesome.

how bout a mental exam for people before they are allowed to have guns though?

But the criminals would still get them by going around the stystem.

There is nothing special about guns, they are a weapon like a sword or a butter knife. Its not like murder didn't exist until the gun was invented.

Yeah, but it would just increase the street price of a gun further

Most criminals of all types are in it for the money anyways. And generally, they have plenty of it. So getting guns wouldn't be a problem regardless.

Even if it takes a gun out of one deranged mind, it's worth it.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

i just had a thought: rather than talking about whether guns should be banned or not, shouldn't we be talking about proper gun safety and etiquette, and whether people should be taught about it regardless of whether they own one, so that if they come across a gun they know what to do to make sure its safe?

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

...but attacking silently can also be easily done with a gun if you attached a silencer onto it.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html

Okay so a silencer isn't as great as I thought it was, a gun is still more useful, manageable, intimidating and (in some cases) simple than a cross bow. If you use a crossbow you might go out side and train with it which is good to reduce over weight population, but there is the thing, having to train with a crossbow for a while to be able to use it easily easily enough to defend yourself takes quite a while of training and a crossbow arrow won't do as high damage as a gun.

P.S. A Crossbow is pretty large and cumbersome for a woman to carry around in her purse, when instead she could carry a pistol and get rid of old Johnny Night-rape in a flash. Also I'm not sure about the time it takes to reload a pistol compared to reloading a cross bow I think they are quite similar but the cross bow arrows take up quite a lot of space for a Woman to carry around in her purse along with the crossbow.

 

[bpm195]

The problem that I have is that, because of how abundant guns are in our society, it's trivially easy for any person to get a gun if they're willing to pay and go through illegal means. It's probably easier to get a gun illegally than it is legally. Seriously, if I wanted to get a handgun I could go to a gun shop in the morning and have it in three days, or take a quick trip to some shady contacts and probably have it in 3 hours. I'm probably more connected with the underworld than the average person, but I don't imagine it'd be particularly difficult for any person. There's also the problem of being able to legally purchase ammo and accessories for an illegally owned gun.

and while doing research for a school term paper i found that (in the USA mind you) that compared to about 14,000 gun deaths each year, their are 2.5 million REPORTED cases of a gun preventing crime, and they predict another 2.5 million go unreported. and much to my shock, more than 90% didn't even involve a shot being fired.

and lets also take in to consideration that a huge chunk of gun crime is committed with guns that are either stolen or smuggled across the border. so just from pure logic its safe to say that guns are not a "bad" thing, its a simple tool that most of the 80 million registered gun owners use wisely (note: not all gun owners in America have to be registered.)

and i constantly find that in states (and other countries) where firearms have been heavily restricted or banned, crime has shot up to a crazy point. and thats why an average city in California (where guns are not popular) will have higher crime rate than a city in say Alabama (where even granny is packing). now that not always the case but most of the time it is.

There are some serious issues with the way you're using your numbers (I neither know nor care about their accuracy). It's a completely unfair comparison to compare crimes prevented by gun to only murders prevented by gun. Gun crimes aren't always shootings and damn sure aren't fatal shootings. A criminal doesn't need to fire a shot to rob a person, rape a person, or any other crime that occurs at gunpoint. A fair comparison would be cases of crimes committed at gunpoint versus crimes prevented by guns.

Furthermore, illegal handguns (aka, the ones that urban centers in general have a problem with) aren't flowing to America from other countries, they're being circulated around America. Mexico has a bigger problem with American guns flowing into their country than Americans have with Mexicans flowing into our country. If you don't have any convictions you can just go to a store and buy a gun in America, anybody that would try to smuggle a gun that's legal to purchase at least one continental state through border control is just silly.

Finally, crime generally has a stronger correlation to population density and poverty than to anything else. If you compare any town to a city, chances are crime rates will be much lower in the town. I'm not certain, but when you compared Alabama to California I assume you compared large cities to large towns or much smaller cities, which would usually show less crime in the town. You can throw the numbers the other way by comparing a random town in California to Montgomery.

 

[DanDeFool]

I imagine that situation would have been very different if that student had been carrying a .45 Glock.

I can tell you what would have happened! The glock would have exploded in his hand because glocks are complete crap and he would have ended up shot and missing a hand.

Odd. Pretty much everything I've heard about Glock has lead me to believe that they make some of the best handguns in the world. What makes you think Glock's handguns are poor quality?

The extreme finicky-ness of it. The ability to literally explode on you with reloaded rounds (yes, all guns can explode with reloads, it just happens more for glocks) The extreme light weight means more recoil. If you've ever held one, the grip weighs probably less than a pound, all the weight is in the slide. The lack of an external hammer. I hate the trigger safety, I'd much rather go with a decocker. I don't like how it feels... Pretty much the only good thing I can say about Glocks is that they run very well when they're dry. You don't have to lubricate it at all. I personally like my P226 over my Glock 17 (inherited, not bought) but I have to keep it wet. It's much like the AR, AK argument in that an AR will beat an AK, but it just has to be well cleaned and oiled.
Oh, there's also the whole "upward barrel tilt" thing. I never understood the usefulness of that.

Okay. Interesting.

What is a 'reloaded' round? I'm not too familiar with gun lingo, myself. Any idea why they explode more frequently with Glocks?