Heh that's what the SEALS said to NSWC when told to give them back their MK-17'sCorum1134 said:
Poll: Guns and you!
- Thread starter CaptainKoala
- Start date
Recommended Videos
(I'm from the UK before someone from America tries to apply what I'm about to say to America.)
Keep things how they are - make sure licences are very difficult to get a hold of and only provided for people such as farmers and whatever.
The general public does not need to be armed - and the lack of circulation of arms makes them a lot less easy to get for criminals, and people who are generally unstable (*screaming* SCHOOL SHOOTINGS *end screaming*).
Keep things how they are - make sure licences are very difficult to get a hold of and only provided for people such as farmers and whatever.
The general public does not need to be armed - and the lack of circulation of arms makes them a lot less easy to get for criminals, and people who are generally unstable (*screaming* SCHOOL SHOOTINGS *end screaming*).
Ever wondered why America's murder rates are so much higher then other first world countries?
Yeah.
You can prattle on about liberty and personal protection all you like. No thanks. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Spreading them around just facilitates killing.
At the very least, ban anything small enough to be concealed. That way if someone wants to feel like a big man packing his piece cowboy-style, he'll have to sling a rifle over his shoulder where everyone can see it.
Yeah.
You can prattle on about liberty and personal protection all you like. No thanks. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Spreading them around just facilitates killing.
At the very least, ban anything small enough to be concealed. That way if someone wants to feel like a big man packing his piece cowboy-style, he'll have to sling a rifle over his shoulder where everyone can see it.
The fallacy with arguing that "bigger guns should be banned" is that the larger weapons, especially high-velocity rifles, are almost never used in crimes. For example, people love to use the Barrett M82 series as an example of "Why does anyone need this?". (for those of you who don't speak firearm, that's a .50 caliber rifle) However, there are 3 documented cases of a .50 caliber weapon being used in a criminal act. Three. It's nearly impossible to use high-power weapons in a criminal scenario, mostly because they require skill and planning to use, something the vast majority of violent criminals lack.
There are people who have justifiable need of a large rifle, though. Special Forces snipers use them constantly, and need to stay sharp while on leave. Police sharpshooter units in major cities almost always have at least one shooter trained on .50s, and hunters who go after really big game have to have stopping power at truly obscene ranges. These uses cannot simply be argued away, and represent a greater portion of the population than most people would believe.
Arguing for a full ban on weapons, or even automatic/suppressed/high-power weapons, conveniently disregards the fact that firearms bring both money and power, and there are always people willing to go a step further for those weapons than governments are willing to chase them. Take Mexico as an example. The gun runners and drug cartels own that country, stem to stern. They are in the government, in the police, in the courts, everywhere. They have bought their way to safety. Now that their turf wars are moving beyond the northern border, automatic weapons have started spilling over as well, reaching gangs and other criminal outfits in the northern states. The US has a comprehensive automatic weapons licensing system that has been mentioned several times before, the Class III designation. Yet international events have undermined that as well. The problem is not exclusive to North America, either. Europe has the ex-Soviet bloc. South America has Venezuela. Asia has Afghanistan/Pakistan. Africa has... well, almost all of Africa. That leaves Australia without highly active gun-running routes. Unless every one of those areas is completely cleansed of smugglers, the weapon trade will continue and all banning efforts will be a complete waste of time.
MOLON LABE
There are people who have justifiable need of a large rifle, though. Special Forces snipers use them constantly, and need to stay sharp while on leave. Police sharpshooter units in major cities almost always have at least one shooter trained on .50s, and hunters who go after really big game have to have stopping power at truly obscene ranges. These uses cannot simply be argued away, and represent a greater portion of the population than most people would believe.
Arguing for a full ban on weapons, or even automatic/suppressed/high-power weapons, conveniently disregards the fact that firearms bring both money and power, and there are always people willing to go a step further for those weapons than governments are willing to chase them. Take Mexico as an example. The gun runners and drug cartels own that country, stem to stern. They are in the government, in the police, in the courts, everywhere. They have bought their way to safety. Now that their turf wars are moving beyond the northern border, automatic weapons have started spilling over as well, reaching gangs and other criminal outfits in the northern states. The US has a comprehensive automatic weapons licensing system that has been mentioned several times before, the Class III designation. Yet international events have undermined that as well. The problem is not exclusive to North America, either. Europe has the ex-Soviet bloc. South America has Venezuela. Asia has Afghanistan/Pakistan. Africa has... well, almost all of Africa. That leaves Australia without highly active gun-running routes. Unless every one of those areas is completely cleansed of smugglers, the weapon trade will continue and all banning efforts will be a complete waste of time.
MOLON LABE
Just let it go. THe law is fine how it is, and I dont need my neighbors... well... Really my neighbors dont need me having the constitutional right to set up a fully functioning mini gun in the yard to.. um... shoot at bugs.
Besides, people will always get guns, and with hunting as big as it is now and so many people having them, it would be hard to enforce this. I live in Western Pa, so hunting is HUGE around here. SO much so if you skipped the first day of hunting season (the monday after thanksgiving), no one would even care or count it off. Hell, we get that day off as an inservice day cause most teachers cant be bothered to come in.
Besides that, I like my guns. But I'm old school. I have five working colt pistols (2 REAL 1861 navy pistols and 3 REAL Colt Army Model 1860) plus a 3 Winchester Model 1866 rifles, all with the armaments for them. And I can wield any faster then most people can wield a 9mm (have a few of those). And thats not even including my bladed weapons though thats going beyond this. Mainly, if the gov. wants to say I cant used them (which a few cops have said to me at one point or another), they can pry it from my cold dead hands.
So just keep it how it is. Legally gotten guns are fine now, the process is easy. maybe a bit to easy, but eh. if you ban them, people will just find a less legal way to do it.
Besides, people will always get guns, and with hunting as big as it is now and so many people having them, it would be hard to enforce this. I live in Western Pa, so hunting is HUGE around here. SO much so if you skipped the first day of hunting season (the monday after thanksgiving), no one would even care or count it off. Hell, we get that day off as an inservice day cause most teachers cant be bothered to come in.
Besides that, I like my guns. But I'm old school. I have five working colt pistols (2 REAL 1861 navy pistols and 3 REAL Colt Army Model 1860) plus a 3 Winchester Model 1866 rifles, all with the armaments for them. And I can wield any faster then most people can wield a 9mm (have a few of those). And thats not even including my bladed weapons though thats going beyond this. Mainly, if the gov. wants to say I cant used them (which a few cops have said to me at one point or another), they can pry it from my cold dead hands.
So just keep it how it is. Legally gotten guns are fine now, the process is easy. maybe a bit to easy, but eh. if you ban them, people will just find a less legal way to do it.
Hell ya! We can even own crap like switchblades and gravity knives (which are illegal) as long as they don't leave our homes!dalek sec said:Pretty much this is my answer as well, just have licenses and background checks to make sure the wrong people don't get them.
Dakka for everyone!
It doesn't work. People will always have guns no matter what you say they can or cannot have, just like drugs - same tactic there and holy shit that's going good after what 50 years? Good job guys, you've eradicated drugs I'm sure firearms will be easy too!SantoUno said:
The thing is an incredibly high proportion of gun crime is from non-legal guns (in the realm of 95% or something from memory), guess what banning guns does to those people and their guns? Nothing? Yup, absolutely nothing. If you're gonna shoot someone you don't use a legal gun, you use a gun not traceable, something from the black market. Of course there's the odd school shooting that gets repeated over and over again in the media but really, what lets say it's an epidemic and 1000 people are killed in school shootings ever year, that still makes guns about 10000x more safe than cars.
Should we ban religion because it can cause violence? Ban cars because people have used them for hit and runs? Ban people because stupid hurts people?
No, because it doesn't work.
All weapons should be legal, screenings etc sure, and there'll be shootings just as there are car crashes and people dying of lung cancer and people just dying BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN. You can't protect everyone, and again, guns in the grand scheme of things are not as dangerous as people make them out to be.
I support Gun Ownership and I would love to cut down lots of Gun Control Laws, but I will admit, certain guns need to stay out of the hands people and certain people don't deserve guns (especially if they are violent).
Meh, I love collecting them and shooting them for their historical and engineering significance, and the fact that they are fun. Case in point, I took my girlfriend and my mom (not at the same time mind you lmao) and they were both scared of guns, after an hour or so the were having a blast. It just takes a little familiarity because of the stigma they have, but in reality they are just tools. Increasing gun control won't do anything significant, it'll just make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get them for whatever purposes, recreational, hunting, etc. while the criminals can get them just as easily as they want.
People should be aloud to own, shoot, carry, and collect firearms. Heck, I'd say make a law that requires ownership of a government issued, single-shot .22 rifle. That would eliminate 99% of crime.
Also, to the people who are against guns, I wrote an essay for school not to long ago to enlighten you:
So I plan to talk about today about gun control, and why I am opposed to it.
The thinking behind it is quite simple: take away the weapon and you take away the violence, right? Quite the contrary, as countries without gun rights have a higher rate of crime.
I would like to point out that 95% of guns used in crimes are illegally owned. Like the old saying goes "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws can have guns" disarming the general population will make them helpless to attacks such as hijacking, mugging, and home invasion.
One commonly used method of gun control used by governments is a little trick called "softlocking" which is essentially making it so hard to get a gun legally that no one bothers. Many countries have already put this method into effect including England, Germany, France, Greece, Australia, and many others. Needless to say, softlocking is a very dirty tactic and really has not helped anyone's problems. Violent crime(with guns or otherwise) tends to skyrocket after a softlock is put in place.
Farmers need guns to protect their crops and/or livestock from animals that may eat them normally, but in some cases the farmers need to protect themselves from their livestock. Take this for example: there was a farmer in Australia who herded beefuloes(buffaloes + bulls) and carried a .30-06 rifle and a .357 revolver in case one of the animals turned on him. So eventually, a police officer comes around and finds that he has guns and asks if he has a license. Because of the softlock, he did not, so he had his weapons confiscated. The following week he was killed by one of his cattle because they knew he wasn't a threat.
I would also like to point out the economic effect gun control has on a country. Obviously, the very base of any economy is food, but by taking away weapons, you are harming that, sending repercussions throughout the entire system. Guns also have a huge potential to improve an economy, and for those who know much about guns, you'll know half the gun-related merchandise aren't even the firearms or ammo themselves, but things that go with them(holsters, slings, speedloaders, cleaning kits, reloading materials, etc.). If America were to seize the chance to become a gun producing country, we could very well kick start our economy, and with America up and running, the whole world might recover from this recession. The world won't be perfect, but it will be the best it's ever been.
One side of the issue most don't see is how much guns actually help people. Take this story for example: Argus Leader, Sioux Falls, SD 01/09/08
State: SD
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/2008
Eighty-year-old Martha Smith says there was no time for fear when her border collie confronted a mountain lion near her home. "I could see the tail twitching, and he was snarling and spitting," she recalls. Smith shot at the cat with her .22-caliber rifle, but missed, and ran inside to dial 9-1-1. Informed help was a long way off, Smith decided shed have to deal with the agitated cat herself. "I shot him in the light spot under his leg where I knew his heart would be" she explained. "You do what you have to do - you don't have time to be afraid" Smith has been versed in riflecraft since adolescence, when she herded sheep on the family ranch. "My sister and I were put on horseback with the lunch, the water canteen and a gun" she recalls. As you can tell, there would be no way an unarmed 80 year old woman could take on a mountain lion. Mountain lions also like going for weaker targets such as animals that are wounded, crippled, young, or elderly. Humans and regular animals taste the same to mountain lions.
So, as you can tell, there are a lot of benefits to allowing civilians own guns, but let's look at this from the other side(it's only fair, right?) some claims by anti-gun politicians are "Most illegally owned guns are stolen from legal citizens." My response: If you're going to own a gun, you should probably put them out of reach of those who shouldn't be using them, whether it be though a trigger lock, gun safe, hiding them, getting a guard dog(it could be all bark and no bite and still scare them off), or removing the action(which, I will remind you, costs nothing). Another argument is "What about hunters? They kill animals, right?" well, yes, they do. And the thing is that if they didn't, the animals would overpopulate, run out of food, and starve to death in far greater numbers than if they were hunted. Everything in moderation though, as too much hunting can be detrimental to the species' survival.
I hope that this has educated you a little more about the subject and will allow you to see both sides of the spectrum without having fox news lie to your face.
Also, to the people who are against guns, I wrote an essay for school not to long ago to enlighten you:
So I plan to talk about today about gun control, and why I am opposed to it.
The thinking behind it is quite simple: take away the weapon and you take away the violence, right? Quite the contrary, as countries without gun rights have a higher rate of crime.
I would like to point out that 95% of guns used in crimes are illegally owned. Like the old saying goes "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws can have guns" disarming the general population will make them helpless to attacks such as hijacking, mugging, and home invasion.
One commonly used method of gun control used by governments is a little trick called "softlocking" which is essentially making it so hard to get a gun legally that no one bothers. Many countries have already put this method into effect including England, Germany, France, Greece, Australia, and many others. Needless to say, softlocking is a very dirty tactic and really has not helped anyone's problems. Violent crime(with guns or otherwise) tends to skyrocket after a softlock is put in place.
Farmers need guns to protect their crops and/or livestock from animals that may eat them normally, but in some cases the farmers need to protect themselves from their livestock. Take this for example: there was a farmer in Australia who herded beefuloes(buffaloes + bulls) and carried a .30-06 rifle and a .357 revolver in case one of the animals turned on him. So eventually, a police officer comes around and finds that he has guns and asks if he has a license. Because of the softlock, he did not, so he had his weapons confiscated. The following week he was killed by one of his cattle because they knew he wasn't a threat.
I would also like to point out the economic effect gun control has on a country. Obviously, the very base of any economy is food, but by taking away weapons, you are harming that, sending repercussions throughout the entire system. Guns also have a huge potential to improve an economy, and for those who know much about guns, you'll know half the gun-related merchandise aren't even the firearms or ammo themselves, but things that go with them(holsters, slings, speedloaders, cleaning kits, reloading materials, etc.). If America were to seize the chance to become a gun producing country, we could very well kick start our economy, and with America up and running, the whole world might recover from this recession. The world won't be perfect, but it will be the best it's ever been.
One side of the issue most don't see is how much guns actually help people. Take this story for example: Argus Leader, Sioux Falls, SD 01/09/08
State: SD
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/2008
Eighty-year-old Martha Smith says there was no time for fear when her border collie confronted a mountain lion near her home. "I could see the tail twitching, and he was snarling and spitting," she recalls. Smith shot at the cat with her .22-caliber rifle, but missed, and ran inside to dial 9-1-1. Informed help was a long way off, Smith decided shed have to deal with the agitated cat herself. "I shot him in the light spot under his leg where I knew his heart would be" she explained. "You do what you have to do - you don't have time to be afraid" Smith has been versed in riflecraft since adolescence, when she herded sheep on the family ranch. "My sister and I were put on horseback with the lunch, the water canteen and a gun" she recalls. As you can tell, there would be no way an unarmed 80 year old woman could take on a mountain lion. Mountain lions also like going for weaker targets such as animals that are wounded, crippled, young, or elderly. Humans and regular animals taste the same to mountain lions.
So, as you can tell, there are a lot of benefits to allowing civilians own guns, but let's look at this from the other side(it's only fair, right?) some claims by anti-gun politicians are "Most illegally owned guns are stolen from legal citizens." My response: If you're going to own a gun, you should probably put them out of reach of those who shouldn't be using them, whether it be though a trigger lock, gun safe, hiding them, getting a guard dog(it could be all bark and no bite and still scare them off), or removing the action(which, I will remind you, costs nothing). Another argument is "What about hunters? They kill animals, right?" well, yes, they do. And the thing is that if they didn't, the animals would overpopulate, run out of food, and starve to death in far greater numbers than if they were hunted. Everything in moderation though, as too much hunting can be detrimental to the species' survival.
I hope that this has educated you a little more about the subject and will allow you to see both sides of the spectrum without having fox news lie to your face.
I think Australia (where i am from) has a good compromise. People can get guns, but all guns are registered and require a licence, and in order to get a licence you have to demonstrate a legitimate need for having the gun (ie, farmers need rifles for controlling pests, to own a pistol you have to be a member of a legit shooting club). And yeah, no automatic weapons here everything tightened up after the Port-Arthur massacre in the 90's when a man went on a spree and killed dozens
everything tightened up after the Port-Arthur massacre in the 90's when a man went on a spree and killed dozens
You've never seen how the black market works have you?SantoUno said:
Anyway, thats not what I wanted to post one. Its this:
I'm going to assume you odnt hunt. Well, that requires a fire arm. or a bow and arrow (which in my opinion is alot more lethal depending on the situation). I'll give you an example. my friend is poor. There's no sugar coating it, he's poor. BUt he has a rifle, which he uses to hunt, which he uses everything off of (yes, he's... well, he's actually native american, but carries that belief that you should use everything on the animal). For him, its not a matter of getting food stamps and getting food, or paying for it being grocery store customers. With this, he cuts his family's monthly food budget down by something like 80%, which they use towards other things, like medical needs.SantoUno said:
Maybe its more of the exception then the rule, but I dont see the harm in letting him have a rifle to hunt. You want to tell me why the government should tell him that because some gang banger in LA wanted to be stupid he should give up what is almost a chief supply of meat in his family's diet? That he should lose that... (the average monthly food bill is something like $300 I think) $240 a month, $2880 a year? i dont think so. its how alot of poorer families in rural areas get their food.