Poll: Guns and you!

[CrystalShadow]

Ban all types of weapons for anything other than display purposes (e.g. Display swords on walls) but beyond that there is just no good reason for them to be legal.

What about traditional martial arts? Many of those involve weapons...

You don't need for instance, a sword with a proper edge on it, but the requirements for one that can be used in martial arts practice are still quite different to those that are suitable for display.

Personally, I don't like guns. It's just too easy to kill someone with a gun, and too difficult to protect yourself from one.

Any melee weapon, you stand a reasonable chance of running away. And even the injuries aren't nessesarily that bad in a lot of cases.

But with a gun, that changes quite quickly.

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

 

[SilverUchiha]

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

Why not? Swords are awesome and require some real skill to use properly.

OT: 2nd Amendment man. I want personal nukes so if a neighbor pisses me off, I can show him/her who's the boss. lol.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

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

I actually own several swords, and I can tell you, they're closer to my bed than my shotgun is. It's really funny when someone tries to mess with you and you whip out 30 some-odd inches of sharpened steel. They leave you alone right quick.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

I think that only some weapons should be banned. Howitzers in the back yard, while cool, are exceedingly dangerous to both the owner and everyone within range...which would be a lot of people.

In America, where I live, the whole point of having weapons was to defend ourselves from criminals, the government if we decided that they needed a boot to the head, and whatever pesky people might decide to invade/attack us (this goes back to the frontier/border regions).

I have no problem with rifles and/or shotguns. I prefer rifles personally, but that's neither here nor there. My problem with guns mainly comes from handguns. There's no reason anyone should really feel the need (unless they're in law enforcement and all those branches, which includes judges/attorneys) to carry around a handgun. We know that most crimes that involve guns involve handguns because they're easily concealable. Even as a home defense weapon, handguns aren't all that great because unless you get lucky or practice often, you probably won't hit them.

Also, nothing scares someone quite like the distinctive noise that a shotgun makes when you cock it. If they don't bail after hearing that noise, they either have a death wish, are deaf, or are stoned/drunk off their ass. That's when you point and squeeze off a round of buckshot at them. Unless you're aiming in completely the wrong direction, you'll hit them. And even if one pellet hits them, it's enough pain to make most people leave.

Automatic weapons follow more or less that same idea as the howitzer. Unless you've had a lot of practice, all you're going to do is hurt yourself or someone you might not intend to hurt. Most people can't even keep a semi-auto weapon within a target after a series of three or four shots in rapid succession unless they've had some practice.

Then again, I'm all for one shot kills, so if someone wants to mess with me, they'll either meet a rifle, shotgun, or if I do give in and buy a pistol, either a 10mm or .45. Really and truly, it doesn't normally take more than the cocking of a gun to scare most people away. If you must shoot, make sure you're hitting them with something big enough to keep them down, or hurt them just enough to not want to mess with you anymore.

Word to the wise, don't go with .40 SW, it's a nice round but everything it does well, the .45 does better. Also, don't go with a glock. Stupid plastic pieces of shit are too finicky.

 

[DanDeFool]

The problem with banning guns is that you don't stop criminals from acquiring firearms. In America, states and cities with strict gun control laws have much higher rates of violent crime, because the criminals obtain firearms illegally, and use them with impunity because they know law-abiding citizens are forbidden from carrying equivalent weapons.

I heard a story from a friend who used to go to Georgia Tech in Atlanta. There was an incident on campus where a student was held up at gunpoint on campus (where it's forbidden to carry weapons of any kind, of course). The student didn't resist, gave up everything of value he had on his person, and the thugs shot him anyway. Fortunately, he was in good health and held on until the paramedics got to him, but I imagine that situation would have been very different if that student had been carrying a .45 Glock.

Gun control laws are inherently counterproductive, because criminals (people who intend to do harm to others) don't care if they break the law by owning and carrying illegal weapons (or owning/carrying weapons illegally, for that matter), and law-abiding citizens (people who don't intend to do harm to others) won't use firearms to hurt others unless they are themselves threatened.

Naturally, there are exceptions to this. Every so often, a gun owner is going to decide he wants to shoot his cheating spouse. Or stab them with a kitchen knife. Or strangle them. Whatever. You don't make policy decisions based upon exceptions, because at Georgia Tech, two to three muggings or shootings on campus is a SLOW week.

You know what city has the highest per-capita crime rate in the U.S.? Washington DC. You know what city has the strictest gun-control laws in the U.S.?

Washington DC. Crazy, I know.

Though I must admit, it would be awesome to have a howitzer in my backyard. Would sure shut the dogs up in my neighborhood every time I let that puppy loose.

Which brings me to my next point. Just because you're allowed to possess and carry weapons doesn't mean you can use them however you want (and yes, Heik, I know you were kidding). Just because you allow possession of firearms (or artillery cannons, for that matter), doesn't mean you're making murder legal.

Finally, the thing about the dog getting shot was pretty damn sad, but it's a case of police officers using poor judgment, not a case for gun control. The cop could also have wrestled the dog to the ground and snapped its furry neck. Or beaten it to death with his nightstick. Either way, sad, but the fact that one guy made a decision to kill a dog is no reason to outlaw firearms.

It is a reason to bust down and/or fine and/or fire a reckless cop.

What are you going to do, make cops give up their weapons? That kind of defeats the purpose of even having police to begin with.

Bottom line, gun control laws are an assertion that we can't hold people accountable for their actions, so the government has to protect everyone from themselves as much as possible. Not only is it a false premise, it just doesn't work in practice.

 

[Duckinapond]

First of all, I don't care much for the American "self defense" policy, or rather the whole idea of non military/federal persons carrying or owning guns or any other weapons for that matter. However I do on the other hand accept people owning specific types of weapons for specific task, as per example, a hunter owning a crossbow or a hunting rifle/shotgun used as means of hunting animals. Or a professional athletic bowman or shooter owning a training specific weapon, used only for competitions and practise. All other kinds of weapons should be prohibited, except knifes, axes and the like which are used at home to cut firewood and the likes. But otherwise, weapons are a no-go, because giving everyone in the community a weapons does not make it safer, but rather the opposite.
sorry for the long thread, got a bit carried away. Troll away, those who want to do that

 

[Duckinapond]

First of all, I don't care much for the American "self defense" policy, or rather the whole idea of non military/federal persons carrying or owning guns or any other weapons for that matter. However I do on the other hand accept people owning specific types of weapons for specific task, as per example, a hunter owning a crossbow or a hunting rifle/shotgun used as means of hunting animals. Or a professional athletic bowman or shooter owning a training specific weapon, used only for competitions and practise. All other kinds of weapons should be prohibited, except knifes, axes and the like which are used at home to cut firewood and the likes. But otherwise, weapons are a no-go, because giving everyone in the community a weapons does not make it safer, but rather the opposite.
sorry for the long thread, got a bit carried away. Troll away, those who want to do that

 

[Duckinapond]

aaaaaand I have no idea of why it just dobbleposted, sorry guys and girls

 

[DanDeFool]

I believe that if you are competent enough and have the maturity enough, then you should be able to buy a gun.

Honestly, when does a citizen need a firearm?

Well, states side the second amendment only exists so that the citizens could fight the government if it had gotten too powerful and began to dissolve any rights. Oh, and home defense and hunting help too.

i heard that the second amendment was only for the USA's ARMY to have the right to be armed not its citizens.

I can't take seriously the idea that the founders thought they needed to make sure the army had the right to bear arms (not to mention that it seems weird for them to go from individual rights, to army rights and then back to individual rights for the next 7 amendments).

I concur. The Second Amendment refers to "A Well-Regulated Militia". A Militia is a military force comprised of organized CIVILIANS.

mb16, you have been misinformed by overzealous proponents of gun control, who spend so much time thinking of the children that they can't imagine what would happen to their children if an armed robber kicked down the door to their house.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

Word to the wise, don't go with .40 SW, it's a nice round but everything it does well, the .45 does better. Also, don't go with a glock. Stupid plastic pieces of shit are too finicky.

I was thinking more along the lines of a classic M1911 .45 or possibly a Springfield 10mm. I saw a Springfield that looked like it had a similar action to the Glock. If I do decide to buy a pistol for whatever reason, I have an uncle that's a licensed gun salesman, and a friend that works at a gun store, so between the two of them, I can get whatever would suite my purposes.

My freind's dad has a S&W .44 it's a nice gun. Didn't have quite as much kick as I was expecting actually. Although I prefer the M1A over a pistol. XD

 

[MrSmish]

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

 

[Professor James]

I think hunters and people with licenses are the only ones who should be allowed guns.

 

[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.

aaaaaand I have no idea of why it just dobbleposted, sorry guys and girls

Lol, triplepost

 

[probunk]

People have the right to buy, own and use weapons of any type as they see fit so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of another. Banning ANY type of weapon, including assault weapons, machine guns, military-style weapons, artillery pieces, anti-tank rifles, sex bombs or poison cigars in an infringement upon the rights of all free people to dispose of their income as they see fit and own property without government interference.

No regulation, no licensing, NO GOVERNMENT IN MY BUSINESS. Period. Carry, open and closed, allowed on all public property, with carry on private property entirely dependant on that property's owner. No required training courses. Nothing. Even beyond people, the government has no right to control businesses which sell, repair or utilize firearms, or weapons in general. People come first, not the mob, the mass, the public. Freedom has been sacrificed at the altar of public safety for generations, and it cannot continue. Freedom comes first.

 

[Manicotti]

See, in my version of a societal utopia, everyone has a gun and adequate training with it. Everyone knows that everyone else is very likely packing a gun, and so the odds of *anyone* committing most ordinary crimes go way down, because there is instant accountability. None of this idealistic, passive "let's wait 45 minutes for the cops to get here, just in time to file some paperwork proving they were there" bullshit, because that does nothing whatsoever for actually deterring crime.

The concept of people being inherently good is bullshit, but that's irrelevant to the concept of building a stable community - to me, a healthy combination of mutual fear is stronger than the current model of hoping that a limited, fallible authority figure is capable of chasing away the bad guys. So what if it's uncomfortable, Paradise to me is just a big Mexican standoff. Everyone wins.

However, I voted for the "ban certain types of guns" option, because no one needs a minigun or M60 machine gun to keep away a robber (although it would be fun to watch).

 

[Kwaren]

You would have to pry my guns out of my cold dead hands to take them from me.